Clean and unclean

[Theopesta]

I have a search in the clean and unclean in the two testaments and after work for months, I reach to find that, origin cause a confustion on understanding the text in mark7:19, so the modern translation add in between practs (This he said, making all meats clean) but this paraphrase not present in the original greek text nor in the english translation to pesitta nor in the kj. and I find about the 2nd advent Is66: 17; rev18: 2; and rom8: 19- 21; I try to study all the text of st.paul, peter, act10, 11

and I try to study
1- the epistle of bernabachap.10,
2-Ireneos contra herses book5, chap8,no.2,
3-instructor book3, chap.4,7
instructor book2, chap,1

then I feel god not change in his thougts, the incarnated yahwah is the same yahwa but the problem in the mishna gemara talmud the human instructions were the thing which god in the incarnation refuse them and so on paul and peter, the jewish scholars saying: st. chrisostom follow origin in judging against the jews and their culture, I try to study the comment of st. chrisostom on e.g. col2: 16-19 and in rom 14, I find he is fair and neutral in his words I try to rich to the perfect truth, I will wait your opinon all of you on base of truth, thanks

[Irene]

Dear Sister Theopesta Dem,

An interesting topic, I look forward to someone knowledgeable replying to you.

I have been thinking, as a non-monastic lay person, that I should not be eating meat at all.**

Thank God for Lent.

In Christ
Irene

**Warning The following might upset some people because it mentions animal cruelty and is just some thoughts going through my mind based on things I have read and heard in our countries media etc.

1: In this modern world the animals are not treated humanely - (at the abattoirs)

2: The workers in abattoirs/meatworks either quit the job quickly because they can not stand it or become immune to the suffering of the animals.

3: Some unspeakably cruel criminals have been found to have held jobs at abattoirs.

4: Some of the happiest times I and my children have ever had were at monasteries either in fasting or non-fasting times and we didn't miss meat products at all.

5: If I refuse to buy eggs unless I know they are from hens that have been treated kindly then how can I buy meat when I have heard/read that they are treated cruelly at the end of their lives.

6: If you read literature from vegan/vegetarian societies they say that "growing" animals takes up a lot more natural resources than if you stuck to crops.

[Theopesta]

if you please I hope to know if this reaserch is orthodox authorative or not

http://www.orthopraxis.org/about/purity-of-women.html#byline

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Theopesta,

Unfortunately I'm not qualified to offer a critique of the article you posted. It might be of interest that in my local parish here in Cyprus, women are discouraged from participating in Holy Communion during menstruation and some time (40 days I think, no difference between male or female children) after giving birth. Our priest is quite "liberal", but I don't think his advice is untypical of the rest of the Church here, and of course the personalised counsel of a spiritual father often probably "bends" the rules a little according to the individual case.

Incidentally why is the woman with the issue of blood assumed to be in some way menstruating? Could she not have been losing blood from elsewhere?

In Christ
Byron

[Antonios]

Byron,

I also have wondered what exactly this issue of blood was. The gospel doesn't say exactly. The way that I've guessed it to be (and of course, this is a wild guess) is that the lady was post-menopausal and suffered from endometrial cancer, which would cause chronic vaginal bleeding and often pain. This is one of the most common causes of cancer in females and is the most common cause of post-menopausal bleeding. The fact the she felt better right away may be due to the fact the bleeding and pain ceased the moment the Lord healed her. Is this what happened? Only God knows. Whatever the case, it was her faith that made her well.

Antonios

[Theopesta]

thanks for your response
I know that the eastern and oriental orthodox have the same canons in this matter

1- the blood is symbol of life

2- the hebrew name of Adam mean "RED" this name derived from a root mean "to show blood"

3- after God bearth the life in the dust Adam became a living soul i.e the blood circuate in his body
so, the blood = life from god and to god only

4- as consequences of the trensgression god punish the women and the man both.
this punishment not ended in the redeemtion the punishment ended in the eternal life where the complete salvation.

but the male and the female take the baptism and take the remission from the original sin but not take infallibility.

so the man still work with hands to eat from his sweat

the women still complete all the steps of conception and birth with suffering and sorrow before there rejoice

so, the blood issue still a reminder of the role which the women made for interence the sin to world and reminder with the death which christ carry it.

the men in their struggle to live remember the life in paradise.

this may thoughts I think all the orthodox churches not allow for women to take communion in this stage on the basis of apostolic canons to take chance to retreat to correct the woman nature inside herself

but I feel this seaarch {http://www.orthopraxis.org/about/purity-of-women.html#byline} not compatible with the orthodox learnings

[Marie-Duquette]

Byron and Antonios,

Concerning the issue of blood of the hemorraging woman. It is not only post-menopausal women who suffer hemorraging. It can be caused by other reasons, like fibroid tumors, etc. To me that would be more the reason the woman was seeking healing. Imagine being seen as "unclean" for all those years; and besides that, "loosing the source of life" ... a bleeding woman usually doesn't conceive, ie, not be able to bring forth life and this caused by a loss of the life blood.

This I have not found in any of the Fathers, but just use common sense in the Gospel scene mentioned above. And, Jesus Christ surely had a lot of "common sense" in dealing with the many issues presented in the Gospel. His compassion and mercy, after all were/are Divine, being showered upon our sickly human nature.

Hope there will be more responses on this "CLEAN/UNCLEAN" issue of women.

respectfully, marie_duquette

p.s. Theopesta Dem, I do admire your en-depth study of this clean/unclean issue that is uppermost in the lives of women in general. May God continue to bless your study.

[Theopesta]

thank for your support and idea marie-duquette

I think the women not ceremonial unclean in the new testament but she should respect the tradation of the church.

all men and women and childern try to be in the most suitable state bodily and spiritually as possible when entering to the church speciall in the Sacraments.

st. Jn chrisostome gave a comment on the women with the flow of blood {HOMILY XXXI on MT 9: 18- 22}

I think that the church deal individually by special ways with special cases as in "fibroid tumors".

[Leandros]

Dear forum members,

(I think that,) Mrs Kapsalis in her article (http://www.orthopraxis.org/about/purity-of-women.html) makes a very important mistake, that drive her in wrong paths.

She is trying to figure out, why the Old testaments orders, regarding canons that put women in a “special” status according to their womanhood natural functionality, were “infiltrated” in the Christian Church.

She wonders, that “It is shocking and perplexing to read that partaking of the divine Mysteries, while experiencing this natural God given function could be equated with physical immorality, which according to Eph. 5:5 and 1 Cor. 6:9-10 deprives one of ever seeing the Kingdom of God.”

She associates the “exclusions” in question (due to the canons) with the statue of the individual person that practices them. She takes as a fact that the person that follows the canons is “punished” for his/hers way of being. So, in this context, it should be unfair to imply such “sanctions” against women, as long they are innocent of the unsubstantial “accusations” of being women!

The main theme in her analysis can be found in the following quotations: “Thus, according to this Old Testament Law of Moses, women who bring forth children are considered sinful, until after they have been cleansed from their blood flow”… “The priest will offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering, as a woman having an issue of blood greater than her regular cycle is considered to be ill and thus sinful, in need of atonement. Thus, we note, in the Old Testament, there is a strong connection between physical uncleanness, sickness and sin”….”If their spiritual children have cleansed themselves on the inside, repenting and confessing their sins, and if they truly thirst for Christ, then Spiritual Fathers should show mercy and compassion by allowing them "with faith, love and the fear of God, to draw near" to our Saviour's divine mystery.”

The main problem with the analysis and the conclusions of Mrs Kapsalis is that her article does not inquire the specific cases of real women that have experienced the canons of Church (both of Old Testament and of the Church), but she first defines canons as “sanctions” against guilty/sinful people and then she proclaims that women are innocent of the accusation “of being women in their nature”, so they do not deserve to be punished by canons/sanctions.

Mrs Kapsalis says in her article: “There is obvious misunderstanding on the part of the canon writers on the nature of women's menses, its God given purpose, and the way it affects the spiritual and psychological state of women. This is the time when women need God most of all, as this is the time when they experience pre-menstrual syndrome, physical pain, panic attacks, crying spells, and other hormonal anomalies. This is the time when the soul needs to be doctored by the healing powers of Christ. To punish a woman in need of spiritual healing and nourishment at the time when she needs it most for daring to approach or to touch Christ by banishing her from him for an additional forty days, is not only an act devoid of any Christian compassion, but goes contrary to the very teachings of Christ, Himself”.

This is sounds like a logical argument against the specific canons, but things are quit different from what they look like in our first view.

(Luke 2:21-24)
“When the child was eight days old, it was time to circumcise him. They named him Jesus. That was the name the angel gave him before the baby began to grow inside Mary.
The time came when Mary was no longer unclean by the Law of Moses. Joseph and Mary took Jesus to Jerusalem to bring him to the Lord.
This is what is written in the law of the Lord: `Every boy who is the first child of his mother will be holy for the Lord.'
They also came to make a sacrifice as an offering to God. The law of the Lord said, `A pair of doves or two young pigeons.'“

Now, Mrs Kapsalis while having scholastically studied the canon of Old Testament, “First, there is a preference to male offspring as a mother is unclean with a male child for the first seven days, and then for thirty-three days following his circumcision, rendering her unclean for a total of forty days… On the eighth day after her affliction she is required to take two turtle doves or two young pigeons, and bring them to the priest (like a woman after delivery) to the door of the tent of meeting”, she failed to realize that Christ’s Most Holy Mother had actually practiced this very Canon.

According to Mrs Kapsalis’ line of thought the Most Holy Virgin must have been considered “sinful”, or else there was no need for her to follow this canon; there was no need to accept such a “punishment”.

She failed to realise that according to the St Luke’s Gospel there was a time, the first seven days after the birth of Christ, that the Mother of God was ‘unclean’ and on the eighth day, when “the time came when Mary was no longer ‘unclean’ by the law of Moses” she performed the proper customs of the Jewish Law.

When we take in account that the Most Holy Virgin practiced the law of “prohibition” for seven days, we realise that the canons are not ways of punishments, but they are ways of sanctification. Because the Virgin is literally the Most Holy and the phrase “Mary was no longer unclean” has a very significant and different meaning of that of Mrs Kapsalis.

There is a roman-catholic/protestant idea that sanctification is only performed by energetic consumption of “holy things”. The Christian person is believed to be justified as long he/she is consuming “prayers”, asceticism, sacraments, practice of piety, and generally as long as he/she performing “Christianity”. If a person is not in a position to be a consumer of “Christianity”, then he/she is believed to “starve” to spiritual death.

Well, this energetic “consumption” of Christianity is a false realization of faith.

Many Christians, just like Mrs Kapsalis, in their honest quest for the truth are forgetting that to “be Christian” is a relation. It is not an accomplishment. This relation is a personal relation through Christ, in Spirit, with the Father.

Now, as for the main objection of Mrs Kapsalis that the canons of exclusion “becomes an obstacle to spiritual growth, causing disdain for church practices which to the present day educated woman do not make sense”, let us see what has to say about the unintentional abstention from the Holy Eucharist the most educated St Nicolas Kavasilas in his essay “explanation of the Holy Liturgy”:

“So, what is the cause for the Sanctification? Is it to be someone in a human body and to approach towards the altar and to take the “Holy” in his heads and to put It in his mouth and then to eat It and to drink It? Not, at all. Because, many have done exactly that and they had approached to the sacraments and indeed they had taken no benefit from that, on the contrary they went away full of countless sins.

But, then what is the cause for the sanctification of the saints? And what is it that Christ is asking from us? Purification of the soul, love for God, faith, desire for the Sacrament, eagerness for receiving Holy Communion, zeal of spirit, to be “thirsty” for Communion. All these are needed to attract sanctification and all who partake to Christ are supplied with these and without them it is impossible to join in this participation.

But, all these are not physical/natural things; they are depending only on the soul. Well, someone might ask: ‘If a person has all these in his soul, but he does not turn out to the sacrament will he take just as much sanctification like those who actually physically take the Eucharist?’

The answer is: ‘Yes, but only for those who are not possible to approach for natural causes, like the souls of the dead. Also, the sanctification is the same for those who “wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground” (Hebrews 11:38) as it is not possible for them to find an altar and a priest. These persons are sanctified from Christ Himself by an invisible way with the same sanctification.

If however, a person does not approach the altar to receive the Eucharist, while he has no natural/physical obstacle in doing so, then it is absolutely impossible to receive sanctification. Not, just because he had not approached, but because he had not approached although he was capable to do so. His declination reveals that his soul is naked from the pleasure for the sacrament.”

Mrs Kapsalis, in her article, has also many references to St Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, particularly from his great work “the Rudder of the Orthodox Church”. But, again, she fails to present saint Nicodemus’ complete work and she can not figure out the Orthodox Canons as they are presented in his book. St Nicodemus in the second part of his book “The Invisible War”, in the fourth chapter that it is titled “About mentally and spiritual Eucharist, that is, how Christ is communed in a mentally and spiritual fashion”, he refers to St Kavasilas’ essay by noting:

“But also, those that are not capable to take the Sacrament of Communion, in many occasions and when they please to partake Christ, as He is the Communion, either because they are in places of wilderness where there is no priest, or altar, or church, or because they are in the world but they are prohibited by their spiritual fathers, not by reason of their fault, but for the predominant wicked and perverted tradition (St Nicodemus here condemns the tradition of seldom communion that was practiced by the majority of the Church in his time), let them partake in Holy Eucharist and let them receive Christ in a mentally and spiritual way by themselves, as the inviolable Nicolas Kavasilas says in ‘the explanation of the Holy Liturgy’ – because they suffer from powers beyond their capability.”

So, it clear that the Canons of the Church are not punishments for our sins, but they are ways of sanctification both by demanding our participation in specific activities, or by demanding our abstention from specific activities. In either cases the relation through Christ, in Spirit, with the Father is neither aborted, nor postponed.

What constitute the relation are the persons, not their actions.

In the same way that the Most Holy Virgin was “unclean” and for that she was subject of the Jewish Law of abstention from the Temple, while at the same time she was THE LIVING TEMPLE of the GOD, likewise, the Christian women are subjects of this same Canon of abstention from the Eucharist, while at the same time they actually are being sanctified and being blessed and being visited in spirit by God.

The complaints of Mrs Kapsalis are “legitimate” complaints based on scholasticism of the roman-catholic theological methodology that can find Church Life only in the experience of the literal “presence” of God. But the genuine orthodox theological methodology finds Church Life also in the personal experience of the “absence” of God. This is part of the Orthodox ascetic life.

Actually, the Orthodox Canons are to be put into practice from a qualified spiritual father who takes in account the individual peculiar circumstances of each person. They are not to be realized as ways of being in justice, but as ways of being in relation.

Mrs Kapsalis, also takes the trouble to compare the canons for the women in comparison with the canons for the men. I think this is a side-issue and it is an issue for another thread. I think that the major issue on the comparative subject is the "priesthood" and not the “Ritual Uncleanness”. Of course, once you "figure out" one of the two you can understand the other one too.

May God bless us, all.


(Message edited by lpap on 15 July, 2005)

[Theopesta]

thanks brother Leandros

for your analysis it is helpful for me

[nurse-aid]

i offten meditates on HIS words at the Last Supper...when HE said do THIS in my rememberance....meaning is do IT...so do not FORGET ME...

and then those like St.Mary of Egypt and ohters...who simply breath and live HIM...they was no need to have it as a rememberance...THEY NEVER FORGET...

something like that...but in case of the Theotokos...yes she was sancstified by HIM when gave birth...others not...so abstanning from Communioun for them is NOT the same as for HER not being in the temple...

[Theopesta]

can I find something about:

1- "orthodox theological methodology"
2- Nicolas Kavasilas ‘the explanation of the Holy Liturgy’

[Leandros]

Dear theopesta dem,

you can find the book from the amazon site: "A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy", by Nicolaus Cabasilas (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0913836370/qid=1121695695/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-3566894-3271330?v=glance&s=books&n=507846).

you can find a review in the DIAKONIA magazine (http://academic.uofs.edu/organization/ecsc/DIAKONIA.HTML) publication, page 215.

Unfortunately the book is not available on line.

[Kosmas Damianides]

Dear Leandros

I never thought of it that way before. In fact I was quite puzzled for a long time by something an Athonite Monk once told us here in Australia when he visited us at the Greek Orthodox Theological College of St Andrew.

He said someone who is not having Communion (and did not make any distinction between male or female), may in their humble, contrite and repentant state be invisibly Communing without their knowledge.

Since Holy Communion means becoming one flesh with Christ, it is now clear to me that what is more important. Humility, Repentance, Love and Honesty. And to live in constant prayer.

God's Grace Bless us All

~ Kosmas

[Kosmas Damianides]

PS. ~ I think that the woman with the flow of blood, who only wished to touch Jesus' garment and not Him as such in order to be healed holds a deep Theological message which we can all benefit from.

[Theopesta]

st.jhon chrisostom homily xxxi on mat 9: 22
{He calls her "daughter;" for her faith had made her a daughter
She detained Him not, she took no hold of Him, but touched Him only with the end of her fingers}


{(for "she came," it is said, "trembling"(1)); and He caused her to be of good courage, and together with health of body, He gave her also other provisions for her journey, in that He said, "Go in peace."}

[Theopesta]

http://www.monachos.net/mb/icons/attachment_icon.gifwisdom6: 18
Doc1.doc (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4225/Doc1-20309.unk) (20.0 k)

[Leandros]

can I find something about: 1- "orthodox theological methodology"

Sister Theopest dem,

You can find a lecture of His Grace John Zizioulas, Metropolitan of Pergamon, Professor of the University of Thessaloniki and of King's College, University of London about: "the Dogmas of the Faith" (http://www.trinitylight.net/theology/ziz_all.htm).

A small passage follows:"...A fourth element after transcendence, freedom and a personal character of God, is that which we could call the historical character of God’s revelation. This analyzed, means first of all that God reveals Himself and is recognized by His involvement during the course of history; this does not – I repeat – mean the observation of the nature or the aesthetics of the cosmos. Hence, the place in which God can be referred to and where one could say that He can be found, is in History and not in nature. We will of course notice that, although the Hellenes had embraced Christianity during the Patristic years, it was nevertheless difficult to expel the importance of observing the cosmos, hence the Fathers – and predominantly at the height of that era with Saint Maximus the Confessor – would frequently introduce this element of observing the cosmos, but it was mainly in reference to God; it was their approach to God. In referring to the biblical roots of the Christian idea of God, we must seriously stress the following: that the observation of the cosmos does not lead us towards God, except only in one way, as is expressed in the Psalm “… the heavens tell us of the glory of God, while the creation of His hands is made known by the firmament….”. In other words, God is not to be somehow found within the cosmos; instead, the cosmos itself testifies that Someone Else - this God – exists, but beyond the cosmos, and consequently this transcendence of God with respect to the world once again, plays a definitive role and thus the observation of the cosmos in relation to God – if we observe this Psalm’s expressions – is more like a historical kind of observation, and not cosmology. “…The creation of His hands is made known by the firmament….” : to the Hebrews, the world is a creation, a project; someone made it. It is not a nature, which has certain principles, certain laws – the laws of harmony, the laws of goodness, of justice, and all those things that the ancient Hellenes had. Consequently, the world is again treated as history, and not as nature or as a world...

...One such necessity that historical needs imposed with regard to Gnosiology was, during the Patristic years, the distinction between the essence and the activity in God. This distinction, which appears somewhat hazily in Saint Athanasios and more clearly in the Cappadocian Fathers, is extensively developed by Saint Gregorios of Palamas, as we know. In this way, the Patristic principle of the “incomprehensibility” of God’s essence is preserved, and the energy or the energies of God are offered as a basis of gnosiology...."

[Theopesta]

many thanks for your help brother leandros and for graceful support and feelings of all members of forum

[Theopesta]

please are the word "Gnosiology " is a greek word that mean the knowlgement {gnwsiv}

[Leandros]

Sister Theopesta,

Gnosiology is a Greek word composed from two words: gnwsis + logos.

gnwsis means "knowledge" and logos means "discourse". So, gnosiology is the expression of knowledge. In this context, gnosiology can only present the "knowledge" of “beings” and can not present "knowledge" of “not beings”.

“Virtual reality” has nothing to do with the Gnosiology. For example, if I fantasize a "being" then, the expression of my experience about this non-real being is known as fantasiology (fantasy + logos); it is not Gnosiology.

Gnosiology is the study of knowledge, its origin, processes, and validity. Gnosiology is the expression of knowledge of reality. Gnosiology is the ontology of knowledge.

The philosophical meaning of Gnosiology is that of “theory of cognition”, which is a theory about subjective/dialectic realization of knowledge of reality. The “Gnosiology”, as it is used by Orthodox theologians, is profoundly different from its philosophical usage. The “gnosiology”, as it is used by Orthodox theologians, is a theory about relational realization of knowledge of ontological reality.

You can find an article about Faith And Science In Orthodox Gnosiology and Methodology (http://www.romanity.org/mir/me01en.htm) by Father George Metallinos, Professor at the University of Athens.

As gnosiology is both "knowledge" and "discourse", it forces the Greek philosophy to find the "language" for the "discourse", because the aim of the philosophers was to “know” the “Cosmos”. In this context, the main issue for the philosophy is to express the “knowledge” using the method of “concept”, “judgement”, and “syllogism” with reference to the ideas of word, sentence and argument, of spoken and written language. In this effort philosophy is using a “systematic” method to organize knowledge and an “inventive” method to increase it. Classical Greek philosophy –and a big part of modern philosophy- is realizing gnosiology as a methodology for communicative expression of knowledge: “to experience a specific ‘reality’ of Cosmos and then to express this experience to others with the use of a common language”.

In Orthodox "gnosiology" the issue is to experience the "knowledge" through relation and then to "discourse" this experience also through relation. The Orthodox gnosiology is a two-folded realization: “to experience a specific relation and then to relate the experience with others in the same relation”.

So in this context, the orthodox “gnosiology” is a relational issue and the communication, as a common logical structured language/logic is not necessary. Orthodox “gnosiology” is not an issue of cognition, because cognition needs a structured data of “images”. Relation on the other hand is a stack of unstructured data which is consciously realized as knowledge of the otherness, with which we are related.

We are deceived to believe that a relation consists of a communication with a common language between the related parts, which defines it. In the experience of increment of our “knowledge” through a specific relation we are carried to believe that, in the course of this specific relation there is a transmission/communication of data between the related parts. We are used to believe that, this communicated data relates the individuality of each related part with the other part, which lacks the knowledge of “the unknown other”. The transmission of data within a relation needs a language (even a non verbal language can be used for this communication, signs and symbols can also serve this cause) that will provide to us the related information, coming from the related other. We think that, individuality is revealed through the relation as information, as knowledge which then it is possible to be transmitted by us to others. In this context, relations are thought to be personal “atomic” realities that are consumed subjectively as cognitional knowledge. This illusive realization of relation is refuted by Orthodox “gnosiology”.

The knowledge of Orthodox gnosiology is relational information that is so personal and exclusive that it could never be transmitted to others. Within the relation no communication of data are exchanged between the related parts. Each related part remains unable to “speak” about itself with the other part. “Self” is a reality and not an object. “Self” can exist only within the relation so there is nothing that is unknown to the related other. The other that seems to be unknown is already well known within the relation, or else the relation would have been a “virtual reality”, but the relation is an ontological reality simultaneously for the self and for the other.

For example, I am the husband of my wife and in our relation there is nothing that my wife is by herself, without me. If she would have tried to talk to me about herself, as “wife”, she would have nothing to tell me that I would have not already known. So in our relation there is no exchange of information, there is no communication. But, as neither could I as “husband” have known the reality of being the specific “husband” by me alone, nor my “wife” could have known the reality of being the specific “wife” by herself alone, we both know the other related person as “new information” beyond “self” as new knowledge that is provided neither from self awareness nor from communication with the other person.

In this context, I am in no condition to express the knowledge of my wife as the specific experience of the reality of our specific relation. There is no language to express the “information” of my wife, because when I am talking about her I must talk, at the same time, about me and vice-versa. The use of the language requires discoursing about one entity at a time, or else it will confuse the meaning of the words. For example I can not talk about a specific “wife” and to introduce a specific “husband”, because then I am talking about the “couple”. The gnosiology of my wife is expressed by two persons and can not be expressed by her alone, so she is as a specific “wife” a paradox of knowledge, because she is, actually, the specific “wife” in the most exclusive way that I have no knowledge at all of what this specific way of being “wife” is, as her husband. The presentation of our relation as it is realised by both of us is an abstract presentation of a couple, because it fails to present either me or her as the way of being the specific husband and as the way of being the specific wife.

Now, this is a significant problem because if I talk about my wife and at the same time I present her husband, the structured logic of language/communication fails. The third party fails to understand how my wife is a self-standing person, as the specific wife and at the same time she can not self-stand on her own. Through my presentation, the third party might know the abstract “knowledge” of being “wife” and being “husband” as structured images of cognition and logic. This is the knowledge of virtual reality of being “wife”. This is not the knowledge of being the specific wife that my wife is.

The language of communication consists of Pragmatics, Semantics, and Form that draw an “image” of reality. This image can be “described” to others as knowledge through contact/language. The image is a self-standing image, because it is presented as an already “seen” object.

The language of relation consists of verbal silence that draws an experience that can be related to others only through the same specific relation. Communication is absolutely useless in a relation. The moment that I discourse about the relation, I am already taken out of it and I am trying to “draw its image”. This makes the image to collapse, because it I can not draw the ontological image of the relation by drawing my part, because the image of the relation is two-folded. A specific relation is ontologically one, but it is realized in two distinct experiential experiences. We always experience only the one of the two experiences, because the related part’s experience is always absolutely non-experience-able, or else the relation is a self-illusion.

St Paul says: “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father”. (Galatians 4:6) This is the model of Orthodox “gnosiology”: We are children of God, as long as our relation with God-Father is discoursed by the realization of the same Father of the Son, by the Spirit. Without the experience of the relation of the Father, the Son and the Spirit, in our heart, the reality of our relation with God is meaningless and absurd. The Orthodox gnosiology of God is the experiential knowledge of Holy Trinity Relation through the experience of the Son, in Spirit, before the Father. In this context, the “gnosiology” of our relation with God is a "silent cry". It is a silent relation because we can not call Him Father by our authority, and actually we do not. But at the same time the Spirit of the Genuine Son is crying “abba, Father” and He does this in our heart. So, the presence of the Spirit of the Only Son in our heart relates us to participate in His relation with the Father. The uncreated relation of the Son with his Father is related to us in the experience of our relation with Christ in His Spirit that He has sent to stay inside our hearts. The difference is made by the virtue of our freedom to accept in our hearts, or to close out, the Spirit of the Son.

According to Antony Bloom, an Orthodox Russian Bishop in UK, in the Church we live Christ’s Life: His Life is our life.

In Acts 2:32-33, St Peter on the day of Pentehost has addressed the people of Jerusalem by saying: “…This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.….” This verse of the Gospel is the definition of the Orthodox gnosiology.

May God bless us, all.


(Message edited by lpap on 20 July, 2005)

[nurse-aid]

A sacrifice to God is a broken spirit….
Broken and contrite heart God will not despise….

But I’m grand daughter of the traders…
My heart is full of mood to trade and get…
To sell and tricks, to want and dreaming…
To have what ever comes to mind and no regret…
Do not regret of jealous being, myself, my heart,
My hungry hands…
My heart which is polluted, by worldly dreaming,
by I want…and what I have to have…
My spirit is not broken; my heart is not contrite…
My sacrifice is not accepted….and what was that…
What was my sacrifice?
But Father I’m trying…to let it go my I want…
To let it go all my knowledge, my trading heart
and only then I may be broke…
And then I will become a beggar,
or simply one, alone in desert of existing me…
So empty and so boring, but then…at list without
those desires of to have, which used to burned me…
And then I’m being burn by Fire, by Sun, by Love, by only Him…
Me who is so empty and so hungry…without money and without
knowledge of the traders, who use to be a me…
And maybe then, when I’m so naked, and maybe this
WAS real me…and maybe only now I admitted…
that in the order of become myself and live…
I have to die in YOU…be broken,
but wonder is by this I’m so rich in YOU!

[Theopesta]

in case of leprosy the leper will be clean when his case is totally leper all over his body (lev 12: 12, 13)

but in case of partial leper he will be "unclean" I read that:
the total case is not contagious, while the partial case is contagious.

the spritual comment on that is:

{he is clean." That is, the leprosy, instead of striking inwards, had worked itself out, typical of a man truly confessing his sin; then the effect only of the defilement remains. }

{Leprosy was "the outward and visible sign of the innermost spiritual corruption; a meet emblem in its small beginnings, its gradual spread, its internal disfigurement, its dissolution little by little of the whole body, of that which corrupts, degrades, and defiles man's inner nature, and renders him unmeet to enter the presence of a pure and holy God"}

{If the man was white all over, it was only the effect, as sin entirely confessed but no longer active; he was clean.}

the refrences:
1- Anthology of commentaries Electric Notes on Lev xiii: 2, 12, 13

2- Easton's Revised Bible Dictionary: leprosy.

3- concise Bible dictionary, leprosy

are any one has any more??????

[Theopesta]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzaraas

Tzaraath (tzaraat, tsaraas, tsaraat; Hebrew öøòú) was an affliction mentioned in the Tanach and other Jewish sources, starting in Leviticus chapters 13–14.

Although the term is commonly mistranslated leprosy, tzaraath was not leprosy. It affected primarily the afflicted person's skin, but sometimes his clothes and/or house. It is traditionally believed to have come not through natural means but as a punishment for sin, and to have been cured not through natural means but through repentance and forgiveness

can I find any mind about that, many thanks

[Theopesta]

Tzaraat or Leprosy? by: Rav Lynn Boleware
Congregation Beit Lechem

what Encyclopedia Encarta had to say about leprosy: "Leprosy is an ancient disease and is even mentioned in the "old" Testament. However, these Biblical descriptions do not resemble leprosy, as we know it today. It is likely that the term tzaraat referred to a number of different skin ailments that were considered to be punishment from G-d for sin and that marked the sufferer as unclean". I was surprised at this because this description of leprosy is almost exactly the same as the one given by our Sages and rabbis.

V’yikra 13 deals with the mitzvot [laws] of tzaraat [tza-ra’at]. For hundreds of years the Hebrew word tzaraat, x [ : r : c " , has been translated as leprosy and we were taught a person suspected of tzaraat had to be quarantined to prevent the spread of the disease. Once a kohen confirmed someone had tzaraat, he or she was known as metzora, [ r c M , and they were forced to live outside the city or camp. This certainly sounds like leprosy, but a closer examination of the Torah and some of the rabbinic commentaries reveal that the tzaraat of the Tanakh is quite a different disease from what we know as leprosy.

The Talmud teaches that if the symptoms of tzaraat appear on a newlywed or on someone during a festival season, the Kohen wasn’t examine the affliction or declare someone tamei [contaminated] so it wouldn’t interfere with the celebration. But, again, if the purpose of the mitzvot was to prevent the spread of leprosy, then on a honeymoon or during a feast when the streets were packed with thousands of pilgrims would be times when a quarantine was most needed.

So what is this strange disease that we traditionally call leprosy? Because of the way it’s treated and controlled in the Torah, the Sages teach that tzaraat is not a bodily disease like leprosy. Instead, they teach it is a physical manifestation of a spiritual condition; a punishment designed to call a person’s attention to sin in their life and draw them to teshuvah/repentance.

the quotation end

in christ

[Theopesta]

Tzaraat or Leprosy? by: Rav Lynn Boleware
Congregation Beit Lechem http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/triangle_down.gif

a person afflicted with tzaraat is known as a metzora and the word metzora is a contraction of two Hebrew words, [ r a Y c A m , which mean "one who spreads slander".
From this the Sages teach that the primary cause of tzaraat was the sin of slander – gossiping and making derogatory remarks about other people.

But what makes slander so unique that it warrants its own punishment and warnings?

When someone slanders, or gossips, or makes derogatory remarks against someone else, they are actually trying to affirm their own greatness or self-righteousness. It’s their pride in their own selves talking. By pointing out the faults of others, they edify themselves. And this arrogance leads to slander and slander opens the door for all kinds of sins: bloodshed, murder, sexual immorality, pride, robbery and selfishness.

Adonai’s remedy for such sin was tzaraat. According to the Sages, tzaraat began as simple warning, calling a person to repentance, but if this failed, it worsened until the guilty party was driven from the camp and forced into isolation from society. There, alone with his thoughts, hopefully he would teshuvah – repent and turn back to Adonai.

[Theopesta]

Tzaraat or Leprosy? by: Rav Lynn Boleware
Congregation Beit Lechem http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/triangle_down.gif

From arrogance to humility Being forced to live outside the camp served both a physical and a spiritual purpose.

Physically if prevented the spread of the disease to others, but spiritually, it gave the metzora time to reflect on his sins.

The haughtiness and arrogance that led him to slander and gossip about others had now brought him to a place were he was rejected and isolated by the very people he had slandered. Hopefully this would lead to repentance and the person could eventually regain his place among his people. If repentance did come and Adonai removed the disease, the metzora approached the priest and began a three-stage purification process before he could return to his place in society.

First:

he had to complete a ritual involving two healthy, kosher birds. One bird was sacrificed while the other was dipped in the first bird’s blood and turned loose over an open field.
Since you couldn’t catch the "bloodied" bird once it was released, it reminded the metzora he couldn’t undo the damage he had done by slandering someone else.

Secondly, the Kohen shaved all the hair from the outside of the metzora’s body. The Torah mentions three specific places to be shaved: the head, beard and eyebrows:

1- The head was shaved because it represented the haughtiness that led the metzora to consider himself better than the person he had slandered or gossiped about.

2- The beard was shaved because it framed the mouth that spoke the gossip and slander.

3- The eyebrows were shaved because they represent the trait of jealousy, literally called the "narrowness of the eye", which motivated him to destroy the reputation of others. [Remember in Hebrew, an "evil eye" meant someone that was stingy.]

Finally,after a one-week waiting period, he could bring the final offerings that would make him clean again and restore his place among the people.

[Theopesta]

http://www.orthodox.net/questions/luke-17-12-19-10-lepers.html#a2 http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/triangle_down.gif

Leprosy is a metaphor for our sins. These lepers were "afar off", not only because they had to stay away from the Jews, because of their uncleanness, but because we cannot approach God, being full of sins. A man who has sins is certainly afar off from God

[Theopesta]

HAVE YOU EVER HUNGERED FOR WHOLENESS?
SERIES: JESUS, SAVIOR OF THE LOST
By Ron Ritchie http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/triangle_down.gif

In the Old Testament, leprosy was viewed not so much as a symbol of sin as it was the judgement of God for sin and its consequences; sin which produces uncleanness, separation, decay and, for most, a painful and untimely death.

Thus, leprosy was an outward sign of the death that sin produces in people's lives. When a person was cured it was seen as a symbol of the resurrection of that person from the dead and his reinstatement into the land of the living.

[Theopesta]

http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/triangle_down.gif A study of the scriptures reveals many occasions where it was God's will that one of his children become sick and remain sick, to his honor and glory. Sickness, as well as healings, are used to carry out God's greater purposes on this earth within his plan of redemption.

(2CO xii: 9) "(AKJV) And he said to me, My grace is sufficient for you: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest on me."

[Theopesta]

can I take the blessings of your enlightment comments about LEV xiii: 12, 13

some comments and Rabbic writting said it is the advanced case it is not contagious physically and spritually the leper become very humble this make him CLEAN in sight of GOD it is enough to him his crying about himself "unclean unclean"

some comment that it is anthor case when it is cover all the flesh

can I know your opinons

many thanks

[Theopesta]

I find inthe catholic encylopedia about leprosy that:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09182a.htm

White formations covering the whole body are no sign of leprosy unless "live flesh" (ulceration) accompany them}

I try to study the pathology of the leprosy or hansen's disease and I find that it is differ from the "Tzaraat" which is mistranslated to leprosy.

no greek word to translate the hebrew they use the word lepra the english word leprosy refer to elephantiasis to greeks

may be I am mistaken

[Vasilis Kirikos]

>

Re:"I try to study the pathology of the leprosy or hansen's disease and I find that it is differ from the "Tzaraat" which is mistranslated to leprosy."

Leprosy in modern terms is caused by the bacteria _Mycobacterium_ _leprae_; it is in the same genus of bacteria as _Mycobacterium_ _tuberculosis_ that causes "TB". Perhaps your search concerning this organism would be more productive if you used the modern genus and species name, _Mycobacterium_ _leprae_. Vasilis

> ]

[Theopesta]

many thanks our REV.FATHER
I find this name in the researchs on the net

[Theopesta]

Rabbi Edward Feinstein Divre Torah Archives
http://www.vbs.org/rabbi/rabfeins/divre/tazriah.htm

As leprosy disfigures the human form, there are plagues that disfigure a culture's soul by stealing the depth and resonance of its words

[Theopesta]

Dr. Meir Gruzman/Department of Talmud/ The Faculty of Jewish Studies/Bar-Ilan University
The Opinions of Our Sages on Leprosy as a Punishment - Extents and Sources

What is different about the leper that the Torah said that he should bring two birds (as a sacrifice) so that he may become pure? The Holy One Blessed be He said: He acted as a babbler, therefore let him offer a babbler, birds that babble, as a sacrifice (ibid.).

Why must he bring "cedar wood" (etz erez) as part of his purification sacrifice? Because he made himself haughty, like a cedar tree (by his talk), he was afflicted with leprosy.

And why "hyssop" (ezov)? Because among all the trees none is more lowly than the hyssop, and since he (the slanderer) has made himself lowly he will be cured by the use of the hyssop " (Tanchuma, Metzora 3)

[Marie-Duquette]

Theopesta,

Thank you for the reference to Rabbi Edward Feinstein's Archives. His sermon/article called the "Masterpiece" is well worth reading! It does exemplify the quote that you posted above:

"As leprosy disfigures the human form, there are plagues that disfigure a culture's soul by stealing the depth and resonance of its words."

Did you take this quote from Rabbi Feinstein? If not where from?

marie_duquette

[Theopesta]

marie_duquette
I took this quotation from Rabbi Feinstein in his search in this site

http://www.vbs.org/rabbi/rabfeins/divre/tazriah.htm

[Theopesta]

REV xxii: 2

KJV) In the middle of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bore twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month

and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations"

[Theopesta]

in the death uncleanness (Num 19) He that touches the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days He shall purify himself with water of seperation on the third day then the seventh day he shall not be clean.

to show that sanctification is progressive and incomplete till the arrival of the eternal Sabbath.

reference:
Jamieson & Fausset & Brown: A Commentary on number 19: 12

On the third day, to typify Christ's resurrection on that day, by which we are cleansed or sanctified.

reference:
Poole-Mathew: Pool's Commentary of the Bible on num 19: 12

what is the water of seperation or water of purification?

it is the water contain:
1- ashes of red heifer burn without the camp
2- cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and cast it into the middle of the burning of the heifer

this water used in the cermonial purification from death uncleanness
in CHRIST

[Theopesta]

http://users.aol.com/bible3/lawmos28.htmhttp://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/triangle_down.gif

Why should death merely as death be apparently treated with such abhorrence, and be made the subject of such stringent measures of purification?

This touches a subject high, deep, and wide. It calls attention to the origin of death in relation to man, and to the nature of life in relation to God. Both these subjects are liable to be skimmed over in this merely naturalistic age. Men find death a universal law of the animal world, so far as they have experience of that world upon earth and they are apt to regard it as the inseparable corollary of life--the necessary and other half of the phenomenon of vitality. They see animals, great and small, born, grow, decay, and die' and they see man do the same. Therefore they write it down as a "law of nature", for which they do not require to seek a special origin, and to which, therefore, it is impossible they can attach the odious character suggested by these provisions of the Mosaic law regarding it.

death is the result of sin, and not the necessary quality of the nature with which he was endowed in the first instance. This truth enables us to understand the peculiar detestation of death expressed by the ordinances we are considering. The presence of death--the touch of death--means the presence of sin, and sin is the awful thing that fools make a mock at: the crime of insubordination against the wish, will, or law of the Eternal Author and Possessor of Creation.

in ONE CHRIST}

[Theopesta]

http://users.aol.com/bible3/lawmos28.htm

If the ceremonial repudiation of death in the law of Moses have this pungent meaning, it naturally brings the question of life into view, and opens celestial realms. What is life?

what is life?

can we find life in rest in sleeping in being fonded from others?

can we find life in rest or in struggling in tears and sweeting?

what is life and where is the true deep life?

[Theopesta]

http://users.aol.com/bible3/lawmos28.htmhttp://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/triangle_down.gif

The Law of Moses/DEATH:

The power of death was there that it might be destroyed. If it was not there, it could not be destroyed. This is the mischief of what may be truly called the Papal view. By denying that Jesus came in the very dying flesh of Adam, it changes the character of the death of Christ into a martyrdom or a punishing of the innocent for the guilty: instead of being what it is revealed to have been--a declaration of the righteousness of God that He might be just, while the justifier of those who have faith in it for the forgiveness of their sins (Rom. 3:24-26).

A man who comes to Him with the idea that he has a right to be heard and to be saved, because his sins have been compounded for substitutionally in the death of Christ, as one man may satisfy the debts of another, is not in the frame of mind that is acceptable to Him. We must recognize that "grace reigns through righteousness" (Rom. 5:21), and that we are forgiven, not because another has been punished for our sins, but because:
we recognize this righteousness in the operation that put the Lord to death for the declaration of that righteousness and in the condemnation of sin in the flesh (Rom. 3:25; 8:3).

in ONE CHRIST

[Theopesta]

http://users.aol.com/bible3/lawmos28.htm
The Law of Moses/DEATH:

God is ready to pardon, but not to put aside the ways of His righteousness

He aims at His own exaltation as well as our benefit, in the conferring of salvation: and therefore He adopts a method that humbles us in the dust while affording scope for His favour towards us without departure from justice and wisdom. It is a method that while inviting us to take of the water of life freely, puts us under everlasting obligation to Christ, through whom alone we can have access to Him or entrance to everlasting life. They are no empty words that the saints employ when they sing, "Thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood ....

Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and wisdom and riches and honour and glory and blessing."

in ONE CHRIST
theopesta</font>

[Theopesta]

onlinebible.nethttp://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/triangle_down.gif

the Pilgrim'progress:

the cross "He hath given me rest by his sorrow, And life by his death."

Formalist and Hypocrisy: when the christian began to ascend the hill of difficulties he said: "This hill, though high, I covet to ascend;
The difficulty will not me offend,
For I perceive the way to life lies here:
Come, pluck up, heart, let's neither faint nor fear!
Better, though difficult, the right way to go,
Than wrong, though easy, where the end is woe.

in ONE CHRIST