This page–Articles on the Orthodox Christian Faith–is precisely what is says, a compendium of good, some very good, articles on Orthodoxy.
Two in particular:
This page–Articles on the Orthodox Christian Faith–is precisely what is says, a compendium of good, some very good, articles on Orthodoxy.
Two in particular:
“But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, `Behold, the virgin shall conceive, ‘and say it ought to be read, `Behold, the young woman shall conceive.’ And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.”
Here Trypho remarked, “We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled.”
And I said, “I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: `And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.’ And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: `I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.’ And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: `The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.’
“And from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: `From the wood.’ For when the passage said, `Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned from the wood, ‘they have left, `Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned.’ Now no one of your people has ever been said to have reigned as God and Lord among the nations, with the exception of Him only who was crucified, of whom also the Holy Spirit affirms in the same Psalm that He was raised again, and freed from [the grave], declaring that there is none like Him among the gods of the nations: for they are idols of demons. But I shall repeat the whole Psalm to you, that you may perceive what has been said. It is thus: `Sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth. Sing unto the Lord, and bless His name; show forth His salvation from day to day. Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all people. For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised: He is to be feared above all the gods. For all the gods of the nations are demons but the Lord made the heavens. Confession and beauty are in His presence; holiness and magnificence are in His sanctuary. Bring to the Lord, O ye countries of the nations, bring to the Lord glory and honour, bring to the Lord glory in His name. Take sacrifices, and go into His courts; worship the Lord in His holy temple. Let the whole earth be moved before Him: tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned. For He hath established the world, which shall not be moved; He shall judge the nations with equity. Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad; let the sea and its fulness shake. Let the fields and all therein be joyful. Let all the trees of the wood be glad before the Lord: for He comes, for He comes to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with His truth.’”
–St. Justin the Philosopher, The Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 71-73
But if any one says that the writings of Moses and of the rest of the prophets were also written in the Greek character, let him read profane histories, and know that Ptolemy, king of Egypt, when he had built the library in Alexandria, and by gathering books from every quarter had filled it, then learnt that very ancient histories written in Hebrew happened to be carefully preserved; and wishing to know their contents, he sent for seventy wise men from Jerusalem, who were acquainted with both the Greek and Hebrew language, and appointed them to translate the books; and that in freedom from all disturbance they might the more speedily complete the translation, he ordered that there should be constructed, not in the city itself, but seven stadia off (where the Pharos was built), as many little cots as there were translators, so that each by himself might complete his own translation; and enjoined upon those officers who were appointed to this duty, to afford them all attendance, but to prevent communication with one another, in order that the accuracy of the translation might be discernible even by their agreement. And when he ascertained that the seventy men had not only given the same meaning, but had employed the same words, and had failed in agreement with one another not even to the extent of one word; but had written the same things, and concerning the same things, he was struck with amazement, and believed that the translation had been written by divine power, and perceived that the men were worthy of all honour, as beloved of God; and with many gifts ordered them to return to their own country. And having, as was natural, marvelled at the books, and concluded them to be divine, he consecrated them in that library. These things, ye men of Greece, are no fable, nor do we narrate fictions; but we ourselves having been in Alexandria, saw the remains of the little cots at the Pharos still preserved, and having heard these things from the inhabitants, who had received them as part of their country’s tradition, we now tell to you what you can also learn from others, and specially from those wise and esteemed men who have written of these things, Philo and Josephus, and many others. But if any of those who are wont to be forward in contradiction should say that these books do not belong to us, but to the Jews, and should assert that we in vain profess to have learnt our religion from them, let him know, as he may from those very things which are written in these books, that not to them, but to us, does the doctrine of them refer. That the books relating to our religion are to this day preserved among the Jews, has been a work of Divine Providence on our behalf; for lest, by producing them out of the Church, we should give occasion to those who wish to slander us to charge us with fraud, we demand that they be produced from the synagogue of the Jews, that from the very books still preserved among them it might clearly and evidently appear, that the laws which were written by holy men for instruction pertain to us.
–St. Justin the Philosopher, Address to the Greeks, Chapter 13
God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus: ] “Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,” as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. For truly this prediction was uttered before the removal of the people to Babylon; that is, anterior to the supremacy acquired by the Medes and Persians. But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord’s advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation upon these words. They indeed, had they been cognizant of our future existence, and that we should use these proofs from the Scriptures, would themselves never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures, which do declare that all other nations partake of [eternal] life, and show that they who boast themselves as being the house of Jacob and the people of Israel, am disinherited from the grace of God.
For before the Romans possessed their kingdom, while as yet the Macedonians held Asia, Ptolemy the son of Lagus, being anxious to adorn the library which he had founded in Alexandria, with a collection of the writings of all men, which were [works] of merit, made request to the people of Jerusalem, that they should have their Scriptures translated into the Greek language. And they-for at that time they were still subject to the Macedonians-sent to Ptolemy seventy of their elders, who were thoroughly skilled in the Scriptures and in both the languages, to carry out what he had desired. But he, wishing to test them individually, and fearing lest they might perchance, by taking counsel together, conceal the truth in the Scriptures, by their interpretation, separated them from each other, and commanded them all to write the same translation. He did this with respect to all the books. But when they came together in the same place before Ptolemy, and each of them compared his own interpretation with that of every other, God was indeed glorified, and the Scriptures were acknowledged as truly divine. For all of them read out the common translation [which they had prepared] in the very same words and the very same names, from beginning to end, so that even the Gentiles present perceived that the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God. And there was nothing astonishing in God having done this,-He who, when, during the captivity of the people under Nebuchadnezzar, the Scriptures had been corrupted, and when, after seventy years, the Jews had returned to their own land, then, in the times of Artaxerxes king of the Persians, inspired Esdras the priest, of the tribe of Levi, to recast all the words of the former prophets, and to re-establish with the people the Mosaic legislation.
Since, therefore, the Scriptures have been interpreted with such fidelity, and by the grace of God, and since from these God has prepared and formed again our faith towards His Son, and has preserved to us the unadulterated Scriptures in Egypt, where the house of Jacob flourished, fleeing from the famine in Canaan; where also our Lord was preserved when He fled from the persecution set on foot by Herod; and [since] this interpretation of these Scriptures was made prior to our Lord’s descent [to earth], and came into being before the Christians appeared-for our Lord was bern about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus; but Ptolemy was much earlier, under whom the Scriptures were interpreted;-[since these things are so, I say, ] truly these men are proved to be impudent and presumptuous, who would now show a desire to make different translations, when we refute them out of these Scriptures, and shut them up to a belief in the advent of the Son of God. But our faith is stedfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these Scriptures, which were interpreted in the way I have related; and the preaching of the Church is without interpolation. For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these [heretics], agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical [announce-merits], just as the interpretation of the elders contains them.
–St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Book III Chapter 20, 1-3
But if, when their mouths are stopped on this point, they should seek another, namely, what is said touching Mary’s virginity, and should object to us other translators, saying, that they used not the term “virgin,” but “young woman;” in the first place we will say this, that the Seventy were justly entitled to confidence above all the others. For these made their translation after Christ’s coming, continuing to be Jews, and may justly be suspected as having spoken rather in enmity, and as darkening the prophecies on purpose; but the Seventy, as having entered upon this work an hundred years or more before the coming of Christ, stand clear from all such suspicion, and on account of the date, and of their number, and of their agreement, would have a better right to be trusted.
–St. John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on Matthew, par. 4
From this discrepancy between the Hebrew books and our own arises the well-known question as to the age of Methuselah; for it is computed that he lived for fourteen years after the deluge, though Scripture relates that of all who were then upon the earth only the eight souls in the ark escaped destruction by the flood, and of these Methuselah was not one. For, according to our books, Methuselah, before he begat the son whom he called Lamech, lived 167 years; then Lamech himself, before his son Noah was born, lived 188 years, which together make 355 years. Add to these the age of Noah at the date of the deluge, 600 years, and this gives a total of 955 from the birth of Methuselah to the year of the flood. Now all the years of the life of Methuselah are computed to be 969; for when he had lived 167 years, and had begotten his son Lamech, he then lived after this 802 years, which makes a total, as we said, of 969 years. From this, if we deduct 955 years from the birth of Methuselah to the flood, there remains fourteen years, which he is supposed to have lived after the flood. And therefore some suppose that, though he was not on earth (in which it is agreed that every living thing which could not naturally live in water perished), he was for a time with his father, who had been translated, and that he lived there till the flood had passed away. This hypothesis they adopt, that they may not cast a slight on the trustworthiness of versions which the Church has received into a position of high authority, and because they believe that the Jewish mss. rather than our own are in error. For they do not admit that this is a mistake of the translators, but maintain that there is a falsified statement in the original, from which, through the Greek, the Scripture has been translated into our own tongue. They say that it is not credible that the seventy translators, who simultaneously and unanimously produced one rendering, could have erred, or, in a case in which no interest of theirs was involved, could have falsified their translation; but that the Jews, envying us our translation of their Law and Prophets, have made alterations in their texts so as to undermine the authority of ours. This opinion or suspicion let each man adopt according to his own judgment.
–St. Augustine, City of God Book 15, Chapter 11
For while there were other interpreters who translated these sacred oracles out of the Hebrew tongue into Greek, as Aquila, Symmathus, and Theodotion, and also that translation which, as the name of the author is unknown, is quoted as the fifth edition, yet the Church has received this Septuagint translation just as if it were the only one; and it has been used by the Greek Christian people, most of whom are not aware that there is any other. From this translation there has also been made a translation in the Latin tongue, which the Latin churches use. Our times, however, have enjoyed the advantage of the presbyter Jerome, a man most learned, and skilled in all three languages, who translated these same Scriptures into the Latin speech, not from the Greek, but from the Hebrew. But although the Jews acknowledge this very learned labor of his to be faithful, while they contend that the Septuagint translators have erred in many places, still the churches of Christ judge that no one should be preferred to the authority of so many men, chosen for this very great work by Eleazar, who was then high priest; for even if there had not appeared in them one spirit, without doubt divine, and the seventy learned men had, after the manner of men, compared together the words of their translation, that what pleased them all might stand, no single translator ought to be preferred to them; but since so great a sign of divinity has appeared in them, certainly, if any other translator, of their Scriptures from the Hebrew into any other tongue is faithful, in that case he agrees with these seventy translators, and if he is not found to agree with them, then we ought to believe that the prophetic gift is with them. For the same Spirit who was in the prophets when they spoke these things was also in the seventy men when they translated them, so that assuredly they could also say something else, just as if the prophet himself had said both, because it would be the same Spirit who said both; and could say the same thing differently, so that, although the words were not the same, yet the same meaning should shine forth to those of good understanding; and could omit or add something, so that even by this it might be shown that there was in that work not human bondage, which the translator owed to the words, but rather divine power, which filled and ruled the mind of the translator. Some, however, have thought that the Greek copies of the Septuagint version should be emended from the Hebrew copies; yet they did not dare to take away what the Hebrew lacked and the Septuagint had, but only added what was found in the Hebrew copies and was lacking in the Septuagint, and noted them by placing at the beginning of the verses certain marks in the form of stars which they call asterisks. And those things which the Hebrew copies have not, but the Septuagint have, they have in like manner marked at the beginning of the verses by horizontal spit-shaped marks like those by which we denote ounces; and many copies having these marks are circulated even in Latin. But we cannot, without inspecting both kinds of copies, find out those things which are neither omitted nor added, but expressed differently, whether they yield another meaning not in itself unsuitable, or can be shown to explain the same meaning in another way. If, then, as it behoves us, we behold nothing else in these Scriptures than what the Spirit of God has spoken through men, if anything is in the Hebrew copies and is not in the version of the Seventy, the Spirit of God did not choose to say it through them, but only through the prophets. But whatever is in the Septuagint and not in the Hebrew copies, the same Spirit chose rather to say through the latter, thus showing that both were prophets. For in that manner He spoke as He chose, some things through Isaiah, some through Jeremiah, some through several prophets, or else the same thing through this prophet and through that. Further, whatever is found in both editions, that one and the same Spirit willed to say through both, but so as that the former preceded in prophesying, and the latter followed: in prophetically interpreting them; because, as the one Spirit of peace was in the former when they spoke true and concordant words, so the selfsame one Spirit hath appeared in the latter, when, without mutual conference they yet interpreted all things as if with one mouth.
–St. Augustine, City of God, Book 18, Chapter 43
[Note: The Laws have been expanded. I've provided the updates below.]
Former Anglican priest, now Roman Catholic, and always (small-c) catholic, Al Kimel has helpfully listed the Pontificator’s Laws. They are as follows:
There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from Sarras kenoi, or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel: ‘Sara hath sent me away destitute.’ [Cf. Gen. 16.8. Sozomen also says that they were descended from Agar, but called themselves descendants of Sara to hide their servile origin (Ecclesiastical History 6.38, PG 67.1412AB).] These used to be idolaters and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom in their own language they called Khabár, which means great. [The Arabic kabirun means ‘great,’ whether in size or in dignity. Herodotus mentions the Arabian cult of the ‘Heavenly Aphrodite’ but says that the Arabs called her Alilat (Herodotus 1.131)] And so down to the time of Heraclius they were very great idolaters. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, [This may be the Nestorian monk Bahira (George or Sergius) who met the boy Mohammed at Bostra in Syria and claimed to recognize in him the sign of a prophet.] devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration. . . .
They furthermore accuse us of being idolaters, because we venerate the cross, which they abominate. And we answer them: ‘How is it, then, that you rub yourselves against a stone in your Ka’ba [The Ka’ba, called ‘The House of God,’ is supposed to have been built by Abraham with the help of Ismael. It occupies the most sacred spot in the Mosque of Mecca. Incorporated in its wall is the stone here referred to, the famous Black Stone, which is obviously a relic of the idolatry of the pre-Islam Arabs.] and kiss and embrace it?’ Then some of them say that Abraham had relations with Agar upon it, but others say that he tied the camel to it, when he was going to sacrifice Isaac. And we answer them: ‘Since Scripture says that the mountain was wooded and had trees from which Abraham cut wood for the holocaust and laid it upon Isaac, [Gen. 22.6.] and then he left the asses behind with the two young men, why talk nonsense? For in that place neither is it thick with trees nor is there passage for asses.’ And they are embarrassed, but they still assert that the stone is Abraham’s. Then we say: ‘Let it be Abraham’s, as you so foolishly say. Then, just because Abraham had relations with a woman on it or tied a camel to it, you are not ashamed to kiss it, yet you blame us for venerating the cross of Christ by which the power of the demons and the deceit of the Devil was destroyed.’ This stone that they talk about is a head of that Aphrodite whom they used to worship and whom they called Khabár. Even to the present day, traces of the carving are visible on it to careful observers.
Read it all at the link above.
Aggressive Islam is on the march. 9/11; violent protests over cartoons; many pushes to establish Islamic courts in Europe and Canada; demands to silence free speech, to criminalize criticism of the messenger of Allah; the President of Islam threatening to wipe Israel off the map, and writing a long and confused rant, inviting the President of the US to accept Islam; the election of Hamas—these actions are easy to detect and decipher. Islam wants its way, and no one should resist. It is the best religion, after all.
But there is something more subtle, gradual and dangerous going on than this in-your-face aggression. In the name of peace and tolerance—which we all want—some lines are being blurred. Islam says that Jesus was a mere prophet, only a human messenger even within Islam—never mind that he lived six hundred years before Muhammad. He and Muhammad are virtually the same. Both preached peace, but called for the sword, when necessary. But in the final analysis Muhammad is the last and best prophet. He has the better revelation. If only we could see this! So goes the subtle and dangerous strategy.
However, this list of fifteen differences between Jesus and Muhammad disagrees with this insidious message. The differences between the two are profound.
It is better to be clear than confused, and the typical message of Islam washes away clarity about Christianity and whitewashes its own message. In fact, many well-meaning western scholars also muddy the waters. Some aspects and policies of the two religious leaders cannot be reconciled, and it is high time we acknowledge this. If the readers are disappointed about these irreconcilable differences, then at least they will not be confused at the end of this list.
Before we begin the list, we must answer a strategy of Muslim propagandists and missionaries. Sometimes they attempt to refute lists like this. But attempting to do this is like reviewing a long, long book only from the last chapter. The reviewer has skipped over the hard work of reading all of the chapters. In the same way, Muslim polemicists must not skip over the hard work found in the back-up articles. This list is only a summary of many articles. It comes from a lot of strenuous labor from myself and many other researchers. So Muslim missionaries must refute these articles before they earn the right to reply to a mere summary.
A precis of the list of differences is:
1. Personal sin
2. Confronting Satan
3. Small-scale violence
4. Religious freedom
5. Large-scale violence
10. Dealing with sexual sin
11. Bible prophecy
12. The Spirit
13. Their roles and natures
14. Their deaths
15. Occupied tomb, empty tomb
Domesticating Male Faith
In classical psychology, one of the differentiating male psychological characteristics was the predominance, as compared to the female, of thumos in the soul. All humans, men and women, had souls with appetitive (or desiderative), rational and thumic aspects, but in men the thumos was stronger. Indeed, on such authorities as Plato and Aristotle, it was the thumos that was both responsible for war and for the building of civilization. The thumos, of course, is that aspect of the soul that is the “spirited aspect,” much like a spirited horse. In older English, it often gets translated as “irascible.” True the thumos is often expressed in anger and angression, but if driven and directed by reason, such energy is focused and productive. It can even be turned inward, against either the appetitive aspect of the soul (and thus be used to energetically propel the soul toward virtue and justice) or the rational aspect of the soul (and thus be used as a force for unreasoning aggression and the competitive pursuit of appetite).
In Christian understanding, this thumos can be directed toward what may be seen as heroic feats such as extreme asceticism or martyrdom. It is the striving aspect of the soul, and its energies can be directed by women to the same “manly” feats of courage that men express. And Christian hagiography and martyrologies are filled with such talk. Not by any means to disparage women and their unique gifts, but rather to elevate them even above the cultures of the time to the same priesthood of all believers that men enjoyed as well.
This same dynamic was seen in the Christian home as well. The Christian view of male headship was meant, it seems to me, to precisely counter the prevalent paterfamilias of the Roman culture. In the latter, the male head of the household could even leave his own children exposed to die. But in the Christian home, fathers were not to provoke their children to anger, nor discourage them, but to be respsonsible for their training and instruction in the Lord. In the Roman world, while women could also divorce their husbands, nonetheless, the husband had far greater power and authority, and could demand his spousal rights. But in the Christian home, the husband was to sacrifice his life for his wife, just as Christ did for the Church, for her own spiritual health and well-being.
None of this equalizing dynamic, of course, was meant to eliminate the real and essential differences between men and women. Men have their unique gifts, not the least among them are a greater proportion of thumos, as do women theirs. The difference, however, was the domestication of faith. If in the pagan world the men went to the temple prostitute, while the women invoked the goddesses of the hearth, in the Christian home, the male thumos was directed and focused on a specific end: the sustenance of the life of the Church among all the members of his household, both kin and servant.
In the Christian home, the male’s soulish energy was turned toward the hearth and the cradle. It was uniquely the responsibility of the head of the Christian home to direct his energies toward making his castle heaven on earth and to sustain the ecclesiola, the little Church.
As my own understanding of this has increased, so, too, has my own faith and its practice changed. Whereas all of my life faith was a private and individual thing, I have more and more come to see, since my turn toward the Orthodox Church, that a male’s faith is meant to be familial, domestic. His faith is not soley an individual thing, but is meant for his home as well. When he prays, he prays as the head of a home. His prayers are instructive for his children, his struggles against the passions as teaching for his sons and daugthers.
More and more the way I live my faith is familial. I’ve shared this before, but the Lord’s Prayer for me is not about me praying the Pater Noster, but is always and essentially wrapped up in praying the Our Father with and over my daughters. When I sit down alone to a meal, I do not pray “Lord Jesus Christ bless the food and drink of thy servants . . .” as a single individual, but do so as father and husband. When I sign the cross over my bed at night I do not sanctify my own presently lone pallet, but that of my wife and daugthers, with whom I am present in spirit. When I worship, it is my own family I serve and not my own needs.
Let me be clear: I have not disappeared into an amorphous entity called the Healy household. I very much remain the unique individual I am. Nor do I mean to speak of some sort of bizarre relinquishing of my own personal obligations as a unique human being responsbile to my Lord and Savior, whatever the faith and practice of my wife and daughters. But that is to say, as head of my home, my own personal obligations and needs are wrapped up and intertwined with that of my wife and daughters. I serve my own needs and sustain my own obligations when I serve them and intercede for them. This does not render me some sort of heroic or demigod status, for I am of the flesh as are they, and I need their prayers as much as they need mine. We do indeed serve one another.
But it is to say that the life of my household is meant to reflect the life of the Church and, in deed, the life of heaven. My own unique male contribution to that is to direct the soulish energies of my thumos to that end. I am to ensure that my unique faith is domesticated.
Whereas it is true that sadaqah in Islam implies a free gift, the major thrust of Muhammad’s life, the Quran, and sound hadith shows him going well beyond voluntary alms and into compulsion and bloody wars. In contrast, the overarching policy of Jesus and theme in the New Testament is to give freely without oppression, injustice, and bloodshed.
So says James Arlandson in his article, “Jesus and Muhammad on wealth.” Read the rest of the article.
From the Answering Islam website.
Ever have one of those phrases in your head that you are dead certain are part of Scripture? Well, I have, too. In fact, given my five-year theology degree with major in Greek and New Testament, and my two master’s degrees in theology, you would think that I would know that the phrase “See how they love one another!” is not part of Scripture. I thought it just had to be in Acts somewhere. Nope. It’s part of Tertullian’s Apology, Chapter XXXIX. It is a beautiful passage (emphasis added):
I shall at once go on, then, to exhibit the peculiarities of the Christian society, that, as I have refuted the evil charged against it, I may point out its positive good. We are a body knit together as such by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by the bond of a common hope. We meet together as an assembly and congregation, that, offering up prayer to God as with united force, we may wrestle with Him in our supplications. This violence God delights in. We pray, too, for the emperors, for their ministers and for all in authority, for the welfare of the world, for the prevalence of peace, for the delay of the final consummation. We assemble to read our sacred writings, if any peculiarity of the times makes either forewarning or reminiscence needful. However it be in that respect, with the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our hope, we make our confidence more stedfast; and no less by inculcations of God’s precepts we confirm good habits. In the same place also exhortations are made, rebukes and sacred censures are administered. For with a great gravity is the work of judging carried on among us, as befits those who feel assured that they are in the sight of God; and you have the most notable example of judgment to come when any one has sinned so grievously as to require his severance from us in prayer, in the congregation and in all sacred intercourse. The tried men of our elders preside over us, obtaining that honour not by purchase, but by established character. There is no buying and selling of any sort in the things of God. Though we have our treasure-chest, it is not made up of purchase-money, as of a religion that has its price. On the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he be able: for there is no compulsion; all is voluntary. These gifts are, as it were, piety’s deposit fund. For they are not taken thence and spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts, and eating-houses, but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines, or banished to the islands, or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God’s Church, they become the nurslings of their confession. But it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. See, they say, how they love one another, for themselves are animated by mutual hatred; how they are ready even to die for one another, for they themselves will sooner put to death. And they are wroth with us, too, because we call each other brethren; for no other reason, as I think, than because among themselves names of consanguinity are assumed in mere pretence of affection. But we are your brethren as well, by the law of I our common mother nature, though you are hardly men, because brothers so unkind. At the same time, how much more fittingly they are called and counted brothers who have been led to the knowledge of God as their common Father, who have drunk in one spirit of holiness, who from the same womb of a common ignorance have agonized into the same light of truth! But on this very account, perhaps, we are regarded as having less claim to be held true brothers, that no tragedy makes a noise about our brotherhood, or that the family possessions, which generally destroy brotherhood among you, create fraternal bonds among us. One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives. We give up our community where it is practised alone by others, who not only take possession of the wives of their friends, but most tolerantly also accommodate their friends with theirs, following the example, I believe, of those wise men of ancient times, the Greek Socrates and the Roman Cato, who shared with their friends the wives whom they had married, it seems for the sake of progeny both to themselves and to others; whether in this acting against their partners’ wishes, I am not able to say. Why should they have any care over their chastity, when their husbands so readily bestowed it away? O noble example of Attic wisdom, of Roman gravity-the philosopher and the censor playing pimps! What wonder if that great love of Christians towards one another is desecrated by you! For you abuse also our humble feasts, on the ground that they are extravagant as well as infamously wicked. To us, it seems, applies the saying of Diogenes: “The people of Megara feast as though they were going to die on the morrow; they build as though they were never to die!” But one sees more readily the mote in another’s eye than the beam in his own. Why, the very air is soured with the eructations of so many tribes, and curiµ, and decuriµ. The Salii cannot have their feast without going into debt; you must get the accountants to tell you what the tenths of Hercules and the sacrificial banquets cost; the choicest cook is appointed for the Apaturia, the Dionysia, the Attic mysteries; the smoke from the banquet of Serapis will call out the firemen. Yet about the modest supper-room of the Christians alone a great ado is made. Our feast explains itself by its name The Greeks call it agape, i.e., affection. Whatever it costs, our outlay in the name of piety is gain, since with the good things of the feast we benefit the needy; not as it is with you, do parasites aspire to the glory of satisfying their licentious propensities, selling themselves for a belly-feast to all disgraceful treatment,-but as it is with God himself, a peculiar respect is shown to the lowly. If the object of our feast be good, in the light of that consider its further regulations. As it is an act of religious service, it permits no vileness or immodesty. The participants, before reclining, taste first of prayer to God. As much is eaten as satisfies the cravings of hunger; as much is drunk as befits the chaste. They say it is enough, as those who remember that even during the night they have to worship God; they talk as those who know that the Lord is one of their auditors. After manual ablution, and the bringing in of lights, each is asked to stand forth and sing, as he can, a hymn to God, either one from the holy Scriptures or one of his own composing,-a proof of the measure of our drinking. As the feast commenced with prayer, so with prayer it is closed. We go from it, not like troops of mischief-doers, nor bands of vagabonds, nor to break out into licentious acts, but to have as much care of our modesty and chastity as if we had been at a school of virtue rather than a banquet. Give the congregation of the Christians its due, and hold it unlawful, if it is like assemblies of the illicit sort: by all means let it be condemned, if any complaint can be validly laid against it, such as lies against secret factions. But who has ever suffered harm from our assemblies? We are in our congregations just what we are when separated from each other; we are as a community what we are individuals; we injure nobody, we trouble nobody. When the upright, when the virtuous meet together, when the pious, when the pure assemble in congregation, you ought not to call that a faction, but a curia-[i.e., the court of God.]
Would that our enemies would say the same of us, the present generation of Christians!
When a family is homeless one of the first things to go, or to maintain in any case, is routine, order, regularity.
One of the things I miss most during these last six weeks or so of geographical separation from my women is the quiet praying of the Our Father in the darkness of the girls’ bedroom with Delaina in her crib and Sofie in my lap.
Sofie wants, even needs, to be rocked before we lay her down in her “big girl bed” to go to sleep. I rock her for a few minutes, her head on my shoulder, her arms around my neck. Her feet and toes still wiggle a bit, but her breathing becomes slower, her grip becomes a little looser.
“Let’s say our prayers,” I whisper. And then, very quietly, I whisper the Our Father in her ear as we pray.
The Our Father is a communal prayer, and it knits me together with my daughters in a way that is presently sorely missed. I pray the Our Father on my own now, of course. But I’m so used to having my arms wrapped around my oldest while doing so that something seems missing.
After we finish praying the Our Father, I rock Sofie for several more minutes. She shifts from laying her head on my shoulder to laying across my lap, her head cradled in the crook of one arm. That’s my signal that she’s ready to lay down in her bed. So I lay her down and tuck her in, telling her “Good night” and that I love her.
I sign the cross over her and turn and sign the cross over Delaina sleeping in peace in her crib. Their angels will now continue their watchcare over my girls, as will the rest of the Lord’s messengers over our home.
Someday soon, this routine will be restored. And I will give thanks to our Father.