Why Christianity? Christian Orthodoxy.

Vrajendra Kumar Das (on Christianity)

To understand the reason for the disagreement, you need to know the subject well. We live in a country where Christianity is preached and many people perceive Krishna Consciousness as alien, saying: “We don’t need someone else’s God” - this is at best, and at worst they perceive it as something hostile. This is also true in Western countries where Christianity has deep roots. Therefore, our preachers and scientists decided to study this question - what evidence is there, historical facts, parallels, contradictions. They were studied not only by devotees, but simply by scientists.

A devotee of Prithu Prabhu, he was a scientist before Krishna consciousness and was engaged in the analysis of religions and Christianity, so his opinion is authoritative.

I will use his data in the lecture. In addition, I will use the book, "Krishna Consciousness and Christianity", which was recently published by ISKCON.

I will briefly tell you the history of Christianity - this is from the lectures of Prithu Prabhu. The first is the origin story and situation in the place where Christianity was born. It is said that at that time in Jerusalem, part of the Roman Empire, the Romans brutally imposed their power, it was a time of terror. And many prophets predicted the coming of the Messiah, the end of the world. It was a terrible time of fear and terror. People lived in constant fear, waited for the end of the world and believed that only the messenger of God, the messiah, could save them. There were many religious groups at that time, and the most prominent of them was the Ossin group. This was a very large ascetic group. Their principles were similar to those that we follow now - vegetarianism, complete abstinence from intoxication, sex. And what is surprising is that Jesus Christ appeared at a time when Ossins were numerous. And in their communes (they lived in communes) John the Baptist preached, i.e.

Christ could not have known nothing about them. But nevertheless, we do not find information about them anywhere in the scriptures. And Prithu Prabhu explains that the Catholics tried to destroy all information about them because they were persecuted and until the 4th century they lived in the mountains, either fled or were destroyed. These people, who preached a pure way of life, similar to the one we preach, were very numerous, however, not a word is mentioned about them - neither in the Bible nor in the Gospel, although Christ and John the Baptist could not have known about them . Although the Roman historian Josephus, who very meticulously recorded everything that happened then, says that this was the largest group. Those. the fact that not a word is said about it is already the work of politics. Those. the Christianity that we have now is a product of active and long-term political intervention, i.e. Christianity was used for political purposes. And what is now called Christianity is - this is what not only devotees say, but also scientists - this is not Christianity at all. This is already the teaching of Paul, who was already much later and did not personally meet Christ. Paul was in strong antagonism with the apostolic church. The first apostles followed the teachings of Christ very strictly. And this apostolic church was very small in number, since it preached asceticism, and ascetics, naturally, do not have many followers. So we see that we don’t have many followers.

Paul developed completely different ideas. So he preached that it is not necessary to act according to Christ and follow any restrictions.

It was with his blessing that vegetarianism was abolished by Emperor Constantine. The first Christians were pure vegetarians. The same applied to the area of ​​sex. And in order to make these restrictions more socially acceptable, so that there would be as many followers as possible, Paul, who had shakti, as we say, power, energy, became popular among merchants and politicians. And the concessions he gave were beneficial to them. This is a good religion, you can reach many people, and on this basis exploit them based on their faith. And he introduced a cult that had never existed - the cult of the crucifixion, the worship of the cross. Christ himself did not say anything about this. And Paul said that the main thing is to believe in Christ and believe in the cross, but it is not necessary to act according to Christ, the main thing is to believe in the cross on which he died.

But we know that faith without action is of no use. If, for example, I believe in some good, then I must take some step, then there will be meaning, there is simply no point in faith. Although Paul, of course, had several deep spiritual moments, over time all this faded away and what remained was bare faith in the crucifixion. And Srila Prabhupada commented on this in such a way that this is the same as insulting the Holy Name - i.e. believe in the Holy Name, chant it, and at the same time do whatever I want, without following the instructions that are given.

And after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, Tamala Krishna Goswami gave the following example: imagine that they will tell us that it is not at all necessary to follow Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, just worship the bed on which he left his body, and you will be liberated, this is the most important thing. It is the same. That is, the cross is the place of Christ’s suffering, where he left his body. You just need to believe in this place, and everything will be fine. And many Christians naively believe that Jesus Christ made such a covenant that I will suffer for you forever, and you can sin forever. This philosophy is very common among Christians. In fact, there are no such statements. Nevertheless, Paul's philosophy has great influence.

The most important point that we must understand is that genuine, reliable Christian scripture does not exist now. These are historical facts. This is what happened. Nothing was written down during the life of Christ. The first records appeared 40 years after his departure, written in Aramaic. Now not a single scripture in Aramaic remains; everything was burned under very interesting circumstances.

Emperor Constantine gathered a council from different religious groups and invited them to make peace. Those. Even then there were disagreements.

And they began to argue: some said that there should be vegetarianism, others that there should not be. And this “truce” ended in a huge massacre, some were even killed, and at the end of it all the Aramaic scriptures were burned. But Constantine acted simply - he issued a decree that anyone who believed in vegetarianism for religious purposes should have lead poured down their throats. And these things were put to an end very quickly - it is better, of course, to eat meat than to get lead in your throat.

And in fact, what we have now is an English translation with Latin translation from Greek, compiled from the memories of Aramaic texts that burned 1300 years ago. Now imagine what we are dealing with. And therefore, when they say: “The Gospel says...” - this no longer means anything. In fact, what we have now is distorted in an unimaginable way. So in the prophecy of Isaiah it is said that a child will appear from a virgin and his name will be Immanuel, and he will eat only honey and yogurt in order to distinguish good from evil. Those. to distinguish good from evil, they say you need to eat honey and yogurt, you don’t need to eat meat, i.e. talks about vegetarianism.

And they attribute to the same Christ that he ate fish and other things. Those. there are many such inconsistencies in modern scriptures.

The main postulate of Christianity is love God, love your neighbor, but there are no rules or mentions of how to do this. If we talk about the body, then this means taking care of the body - material charity. But if these are spiritual instructions, then they must first of all be directed to the soul. These are not material instructions because it is said in the scriptures. Therefore, love your neighbor - these are spiritual instructions and they mean - do this to him, preach to him this way, so that he loves God, and this means preaching pure spiritual knowledge. How else can you love God? Therefore, we should not buy into the cheap assertions that loving one's neighbor means performing material charitable activities. These instructions relate primarily to the soul. What Christianity is now does not belong to religion in the Vedic understanding. This can be designated by the term upa-dharma, i.e. duties and activities in a conditioned state on the material level. What we call Krishna Consciousness is sanatana-dharma, i.e. the eternal activity of the soul on the spiritual level. And these levels are not comparable. And all religious cults, including Hinduism (worship of demigods) are upa-dharma. Therefore, they cannot be compared with Krishna Consciousness - these are different levels of existence.

What is further interesting is that nowhere in Christianity is there a clear definition of the soul. Sometimes they answer that the soul is blood. Then the question arises - why do they say that animals do not have a soul, but they have blood, and blood is a soul. This is a contradiction on their own basis.

But in fact, the Bible states that the soul is present in animals: “And God said: “Behold, I have given you every herb that yields seed, and every tree that has fruit and yields seed. All this will be food for you. And to all the beasts of the earth, and to all the birds of the air, and to every thing that creeps on the earth, in which there is a living soul, I have given every green herb for food. So be it." This is the first book of Genesis. God Himself said - to everyone in whom there is a living soul. And yet, someone dares to claim that animals do not have souls, and on this basis they can be eaten. Those. this is already a contradiction within its own tradition. Those. there is no idea that the soul is different from the body, and on the basis of this misunderstanding other ideas that dominate the Christian system are built.

The next question is the question of rebirth. In Prithu Prabhu's lecture it is said that until the 5th century, thoughts of rebirth were accepted in the Gospel.

There are reliable historical documents about this. The same Ossins, among whom Christ appeared, accepted rebirth and vegetarianism. And rebirth still remains in the Gospel, but it is cunningly hidden, so that not everyone can understand these things. There is this statement about John the Baptist: Christ is asked about him and he answers: “He came, but you did not recognize him.” This is the prophet Elijah, who was executed by Herod. Those. in fact it is the idea that you can come and go and it will be the same person.

Elsewhere it speaks of flesh, spirit and soul - these three different things are spoken of in no uncertain terms. Thus it is said: “There are earthly bodies, there are heavenly bodies, another glory of the heavenly, another of the earthly. Another glory of the Sun, another of the Moon, another of the stars, and a star differs from a star in glory. So at the resurrection of the dead: what is sown in corruption is raised in incorruption, what is sown in humiliation is raised in glory; what is sown in weakness is raised in power. The body of the soul is sown and the body is raised of spiritual. But I tell you this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and corruption does not inherit. incorruptibility I tell you a mystery - we will not all die, but we will all be changed... for everything that is corruptible must put on the incorruptible, and everything mortal must put on the immortal, then it will be fulfilled according to what is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” there is a spiritual body, there is a spiritual body, there is flesh. And with all this, with such clear statements, even in the current Gospel, someone says that the soul and the flesh are one, that the soul does not exist without the body, although completely openly, in black and white. it is written about the difference between these things - the flesh cannot inherit the spiritual kingdom.

And one moment. Another surprising thing is that Christianity does not have such a clear parampara as in Vedic culture, and therefore it is highly susceptible to the influence of various outside philosophers. Imagine what an amazing thing! A philosopher can influence religion. Imagine if some philosopher came to us now and said: “You know, there’s something wrong there.” And we: "Oh, great idea, let's put it in." Those. there is no understanding that spiritual knowledge cannot be changed - nothing can be added or removed from it. And in particular it is said that Plato greatly influenced Christianity. They say about him that he was a half-realized person who recognized the existence of the soul and rebirth. And while he was all these things were in Christianity. But he was replaced by Aristotle, who completely rejected his teacher. And from that time on, all traditions of vegetarianism and rebirth began to degrade. And after him there was Thomas Aquinas, and from that time all these ideas were completely emasculated.

Now I’ll focus on vegetarianism. Firstly, I have already read from the Bible what God has given us for food. In addition, in the texts of the Gospel themselves there are statements that you should not drink wine or eat meat. But since all these statements were unfavorable for the general mass of people, and sought to popularize Christianity, they were simply omitted.

And it was at that very time that phrases began to be added that people now like to speculate on: “It doesn’t matter what goes into you, it’s important what comes out.” But if we study mechanics, we will see that in reality there is a certain connection between what goes into us and what comes out. No wonder they say in yoga - you are what you eat.

Nutrition affects us greatly. And in many places in the Gospel it is said in such an indirect form that it is not good to eat meat and drink wine.

By the way, speaking of wine, which Christians take as communion, at first it was not wine, but grape juice. But wine and grapes have the same root and there is only one step left before speculation and the juice turns into wine. But very clear instructions are given against these things. And just for the sake of popularization, all these things that were originally contained in Christianity were abolished. And these attempts to attribute to Christ that he ate meat and fish, already according to accurate historical chronicles, are late insertions, because Christ did not preach such things. He was a very ascetic person and preached a very radical philosophy. He was something of a revolutionary of his time.

The Jewish religion preached the cult of the family, the cult of prosperity within the framework of religion. Christ taught exactly the opposite things. Now I will read to you - this is straight Krishna consciousness - “And whoever leaves home, or father, or mother, or brothers, or sisters, or wife, or children for the sake of my name will receive a hundredfold and gain eternal life.” These are the words of Christ - he preached to leave everything. Even we don't preach that way. That is, he spoke very firmly, ascetically. And this person is credited with the fact that he ate meat, fish and allowed everything. In fact, both in the Gospel and in the Bible, upon careful examination, you can find many places that contradict each other. This occurs as a result of subsequent insertions and rewrites.

The same applies to this statement of Christ: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” According to all historical chronicles, this is already a late insertion, since at that time Christianity had already become the state religion. Although Christ himself did not have such a desire. Christ was not going to go somewhere to preach. He told his apostles that preach here, do not even go to Samaria - this is next door to the place where Christ was born. And in fact, this word which is used as “no one comes to God except through me”, this word is used only in the present tense (according to the grammatical rules). Those. we are talking about certain place, time, certain circumstances.

And besides, this insertion was made later. And this phrase - the path is only through Jesus - can be understood to mean that we now do not need a spiritual teacher. This is a good excuse for not accepting a guru. Although we know that without a teacher, without accepting external authority, there is no spiritual development impossible.

Another controversial issue is idolatry. Many Christians come to ISKCON temples and see the Deities there, see devotees worshiping Them, and say that this is idolatry. Because in the Jewish scriptures it is very clearly stated: “You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself any image of anything that is in the sky or above, or below or on the earth, or in the water or under the earth.”

An interesting phrase is “in front of my face.” A face is a form, i.e. There is no doubt that God is a person and has a face. And he says: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Those. God himself does not refuse form. Note that this is a very subtle point. And before His face there should be no other gods. This is what we said. Krishna says: “mam ekam saranam vraja,” i.e. Surrender yourself to Me alone, do not worship other demigods. So, worshiping other gods is worshiping demigods.

At that time there was worship of the demigods Balu and Ishthara, as stated in historical documents. I don’t know who they are, there are no footnotes, but it was a popular cult in neighboring countries. And so they say: “Do not worship other gods,” the same thing that we preach, but for some reason they use it against Krishna Consciousness.

And another thing: it is said - do not make for yourself an idol, the one that is above, below and on the earth. Naturally, we do not make any such images. Krishna does not belong to this material world, He is transcendental. This is the same father who says: “Have no other gods before me.” He does not say, “Do not make my images,” He says, “Do not make other gods.” This is the same thing as we say - there is no need for other gods. But everything is cunningly interpreted that Krishna is the god of idols and in the face of the Christian ideal God there should be nothing more. Although in fact, as it turns out, the same God Yahweh whom they recognize is surprisingly similar to Vishnu. Both of them, according to the description, have helmets, they both have a mace, one burns with fire, the other with a disk - chakra, both have voices reminiscent of the rumbling of thunder, and both have surprisingly similar carriers: Vishnu has Garuda, Yahweh has a cherub with wings. That is, in fact, the descriptions agree by 90%. So, in the face of such a God, there is no point in creating other gods. And therefore, worshiping the murti - the form of the Lord - and worshiping an idol are completely different things, they cannot be confused.

The same thing happens when we offer prasadam - they say: sacrifice to an idol, you cannot eat what is offered to an idol. But what are they doing? Communion - offering bread and wine to God the Father - is actually the same thing. That is, you can offer it to God, but they say about prasadam from the same God - sacrifice to idols. They have communion - say, once a month a piece of bread and a sip of wine. With us, every day there is only prasad from the same one God. That is, in fact, we are talking about the same things, but they turn them so in a cunning way that this seems like a contradiction. This comes from ignorance and misunderstanding of the one nature of God.

The next thing is misunderstanding the position of God. IN Vedic literature it is said that there are primary and secondary aspects of God. The secondary aspects are those that Christians talk about - creator, omniscient, punishing, sustaining, merciful. Because these aspects are relevant to us in this material world. Krishna creates this world, maintains it, punishes sinners, protects the righteous. And his names are associated with these functions. Vishnu, Narayana are the container of all living beings, that is, these are forms related to this material world, secondary names - they have nothing to do with the original form of God.

And there is the original form of God, that is, what God does in his spiritual abode. Christians unfortunately know nothing about this. But in Vedic literature this knowledge is very extensive. For example, his name is Yasoda-nandana - the son of mother Yasoda, or Govinda, Gopala - this is already something that is related to his activities in the spiritual world. And therefore, the effect of chanting the names of the primary and secondary leads to different results. Bhaktivinoda Thakur speaks about this in Sri Harinama-Chintamani. For example, chanting the names of Vishnu can take one to Vishnuloka, and chanting the names of Krishna can take one to Krishnaloka, that is, these are different aspects of God, different names and different effects.

Further, the main instruction in Christianity is to love God, but it does not say how to do this. One Christian preacher said: “In the Gita the instruction is given - “Give up all forms of religion and simply surrender yourself to Me” - and this is the perfection that a Christian can achieve, that is, to give up all activities and completely surrender himself to the will of God. His opponent (in the book "Krishna Consciousness and Christianity") Satyaraj Adhikari tells him that in fact this is the highest instruction of the Bhagavad-Gita - not even the beginning of spiritual life, it is a preliminary stage. And love for God begins above this. And this is what is contained in the dialogue between Lord Caitanya and his close devotee Ramananda Roy, when they were talking and Lord Caitanya asked him to talk about higher and higher levels of love for God. And when Ramananda Roy said that you need to leave everything and surrender yourself to God, Lord Chaitanya said - “yes, but this is not so important, please continue further...” That is, what the Christian said is the peak for me, Lord Chaitanya said, "It is not so important." Because surrendering oneself to Krishna is the beginning of activity, and then love for God begins to develop. When all these impurities (mishra) - karma-mishra, jnana-mishra, yoga - mishra - begin to be emasculated, then the fulfillment of prescribed duties comes, i.e. all these admixtures of material desires begin to leave the heart. And gradually a person rises to the highest level - pure love- raga-bhakti. This is what Krishna Consciousness is about. And what is the peak for a Christian is only the beginning for devotees. That is, love for God in the Christian understanding and in the understanding of Krishna Consciousness are different levels of reality. Although it is quite obvious that in the Christian tradition there were pure individuals, religious mystics who experienced the ecstasy of love for God. So, for example, in the psalms of David there is pure bhakti. Once, for example, he danced naked in ecstasy and chanted and did not pay attention to anything, because it was a state of ecstatic love for God. Those. Through the Christian tradition it is also possible to achieve these higher stages, but note that all these individuals were the greatest ascetics. None of them ate meat, drank wine, had sex or anything else. These were ascetics from ascetics. Those. this suggests that love for God can only be achieved through asceticism.

Another the most important moment- this is that the teaching given by Christ and modern Christianity are different things. The modern teaching is the teaching given by Paul, and there is little left of the teaching of Christ there.

And Christ is a person who is presented in the Vedas and directly in the text of the Mahabhavishya Purana. They call him Isha or Issa, who preaches to the Amalekites - that is the name of the Jewish community that lived there. It also says that he will be born of a virgin, he is called the messiah, it is said that he will be crucified, and after the crucifixion he will move towards India. All these things are indicated in the future tense. All this was written down before the birth of Christ. Therefore, the very personality of Christ is historical, and he is predicted, as are all the Shaktyavesa avatars. By the way, the appearance of Muhammad was also predicted in the same Mahabhavishya Purana. It is also named and its characteristics are given. Those. These figures are historical, they do not come from somewhere unknown, and therefore we accept their authority and what they said. But what we have now - additions and political alterations - have one goal - to adapt this teaching to the people who live now and make it popular, although Christ did not have such a task.

Another point is the three aspects of Christianity and how they relate to the Vedic tradition. It talks about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. As Srila Prabhupada said - God the Father is Bhagavan - the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the source of everything, Krishna. The Holy Spirit corresponds to the Paramatma, which is all-pervading and present everywhere. As they say, “I communicate with the Holy Spirit.” And the Son is an avatara (descending) who is the representative of God and speaks for God. Like, for example, Jesus Christ is the Son of God, he says: “The Father is in me, and I am in the Father.”

The next point is that Jesus sometimes called God "Avun" - literally this means "universal father." And here is an amazing question - they often ask: “Where did Christ come from and where can he take his devotees?” And there is a widespread opinion, and Srila Prabhupada mentioned it, that Christ came from Brahmaloka - the highest planet of the material world, where siddhas, mystics, perfect living beings, and ascetics live. And they don't get there right away spiritual world, and on Brahmaloka. Those. "Awun" may refer to Brahma - the father of the universe, who created all living beings.

And therefore Srila Prabhupada said that pious Christians who strictly follow the teachings of Christ, but do not know much about the Personality of Godhead, can go to different places. Firstly, in Mahesh-dhama, the abode of Shiva is a place intermediate between the material and spiritual worlds, where one can further develop spiritually. The second is Brahmaloka, the place where Jesus Christ supposedly came from, and from there we can move on. And third, they can be born in the families of pure devotees and already begin their further development, because until anything specific about the Personality of Godhead is known, relationships with Him, love for Him are not developed, they will not get to Vaikuntha and Goloka Vrindavana almost impossible.

I want to talk about the word “monk”. It comes from the word "mono" - one. And has the same meaning as muni (sage), i.e. these are people who went into hermitage and practiced asceticism there. And Christian saints correspond approximately to the level of Vedic sages.

I would like to conclude by saying that all this is not a criticism of Christianity, but only a small attempt to show that in reality what is now called Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Christ. And from this position they try to judge others. To correctly understand your relationship with Christians, you need to understand that they do not have a direct connection with the teachings of Christ, with Christ himself, and that they themselves are victims of error. Unfortunately, the Christian tradition was strongly influenced by politicians and rulers, and therefore they accepted that , what is beneficial to politics, and removed what is not profitable. The Vedic tradition is transmitted through brahmanas - people who are not interested in political intrigue, in alterations and additions. And we must understand these things well.

And although there are many places in the Gospel that coincide with the tradition of bhakti, people with sectarian thinking prefer to see differences rather than unity. Although the similarities are much greater than the differences.

Prithu Prabhu says that we cannot say this 100% because the Vedas do not say anything about this, but there is a lot of information in Buddhist and Islamic literature that talks about a certain Issa who lived and studied in Tibet, the Himalayas and was in India, and it is even said that he entered into disputes with caste brahmanas, saying that they should preach pure dharma and not conditioned material religion. And he was there from the age of 12 to 29-30, and then returned to Syria and preached there for only 3 years. When Christians are asked what Christ did during this period, they become nervous and say that it doesn't matter because it is a taboo subject for them.

And the fact that Christ walked on water, passed through walls - these are elementary things for a yogi, and they are called ashta-siddhis (mystical perfections). For example, walking on water is laghima (lighter than the lightest). And the scriptures about Issa say that he was an advanced yogi.

Question: Christians sometimes argue and say that Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.”

Answer: There is no contradiction in this. A pure messenger of God is truly one with Him. And the same thing is said in the sastras. The same Sri Sri Gurvashtaka (prayer spiritual teacher), which we chant every morning, says that the spiritual master is actually equal to the Bgu. And in the 11th Canto of Srimad Bhagavatam, Krishna says that the acharya should be treated the same as Me, He is equal to Me. Those. guru, spiritual master we should worship just like God, because he is the road to God. But Christ was not the only one.

Question: about baptism.

Answer: This is a form of initiation. Sins can be washed away not only by fire, but also by water. But the main thing is the baptism with the holy spirit, i.e. acceptance of God in the heart, i.e. This is a rite of samskara, purification.

Question: about the devil.

Answer: The Vedic scriptures do not mention the identity of the devil like the Christian scriptures. In a broad sense, it is maya, the illusory energy of God, which leads living beings into illusion, which seems to act in opposition to God. The devil tempts, and Maya does the same. It attracts a living being and shows how great it is here in the material world. And as soon as it pecks, the trap slams shut, and illusion covers it. This is how material nature works. In fact, this is not a force opposite to God, it is his own energy, which performs a special function for those living beings who want to be in illusion.

Question: When did Krishna Consciousness arise?

Answer: Krishna Consciousness has always existed - it is the eternal activity of the living entity. And this knowledge has always existed. But in 1965, when Srila Prabhupada came to America, there was a situation where people were already fed up with all material things (kama) and were looking for moksha (liberation). And when Srila Prabhupada said, “Here is Krishna,” they accepted him. Those. knowledge is always there. For example, a person goes to school from the age of 7. And this does not mean that before the age of 7 the truth did not exist that 2*2=4. He is simply mature enough to accept this truth.

At school they tell him: “twice two is four” - wow, the world has opened up for him. Those. the point is that these things are given when the consciousness is ready to receive them.

Srila Prabhupada said that Christ's mission was to remove karmic reactions from those individuals who would follow him.

In fact, this is the same as at the moment of initiation, when the guru takes away the karmic reactions of the student and opens the path to salvation for him. And the one who accepted Christ as his spiritual teacher accepted his principles - not to sin, he was initiated. And for such people Christ is the path to salvation.

This is the purpose of his coming.

Christ spoke a lot about the love of God. But this phrase, I’ll read it again: “And whoever leaves home, or brothers and sisters, or mother and father, children and wife, for my name’s sake will receive a hundredfold and eternal life.”

Those. he preached renunciation, ascetic life and chanting of the Holy Name. By the way, this was a common practice among Christians - chanting the Jesus prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me.” This is the same meditation. Christ constantly spoke about prayer.

Original taken from liana_lll in Modern Christianity has no relation to the Teachings of Christ

As I understand from the network, quite a lot of people have reached this simple idea.

But the conclusions drawn are not entirely correct, mostly global, concerning the reliability of the entire Gospel, all of Christianity, the entire Bible, and the existence of the Lord in general.

Incl. and Leo Tolstoy, who correctly identified the essence of the problem, that Christianity did not follow the path of the teachings of Christ, but along the path of the teachings of the Apostle Paul.

Judging by the way I see all this, a similar outcome was envisaged by those who sent Christianity down the wrong path.

Tolstoy attached undue importance to the generally accepted historical dates for the writing or discovery of the Gospels, which distracted him from a full understanding of what happened.

I, fully aware of the fact that these historical dates were most likely written by the same ones who carried out this action, simply analyzed the New Testament, relying on the meaning of what was said.

Of the 12 Apostles, personally chosen by Christ during his lifetime to preach and testify to His words and deeds, the New Testament included:

There are two in the Gospel, Apostle Matthew and Apostle John.
We have only two messages from the Apostle Peter, well, here, as they say, and thank you for that.

Otherwise, as part of the New Testament we have the so-called. seventy apostles, and many, many Pauls.

Those. out of 12 (minus Judas, we will not touch upon the election of Matthias in the first part of Acts), 8 of those whom Christ Himself chose as Apostles (I will use someone else’s hint - “The word “apostle” comes from the Greek, apostolos, which in turn came from from two words aro, "with, from" and Steffi, "to send" or "to be sent". "Apostle" literally means "sent""), disappeared into an unknown direction.

Thus, the vector of the teaching gave a specific tilt towards a good religion with the deification of those in power, suitable for any system based on the exploitation of man by man, and even with the name of Christ as the justifier of all these actions. And really not much different from pagan religions, if you look at some confessions.

What this religion cannot approach is the communism preached by Christ himself.

Moreover, the very first Christians lived exactly this way, as we see from the first part of the Acts, dedicated specifically to the 12 Apostles, and where the Apostle Paul and the so-called had not yet appeared. apostles from the seventy:

44 Yet the believers were together and had everything in common.
45 And they sold estates and all kinds of property, and distributed them to everyone, depending on each person’s need.
46 And every day they remained with one accord in the temple and, breaking bread from house to house, ate their food with joy and simplicity of heart,
47 praising God and being favored by all the people. The Lord daily added those who were being saved to the Church.[Acts 2:43-47]

I understand perfectly well that the “equal to the apostles” Emperor Constantine, a former Roman pagan, understood little about these issues, and, of course, he was helped, clarified, explained, and so on.

We won’t know exactly who did this, of course, but I can assume that, in addition to personal future benefit, there could have been a deeper action here - a special compromise of the pagans in the eyes of the Lord.

Then these were the Pharisees from the Jews, who were unable to cope with the first Christians by direct methods, for they boldly went to their death, and they had to resort to rather simple principles, which politicians always resort to:

1. The best lie is a half-truth, because not everyone is able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

2. If you want to defeat a movement, then lead it.

And they decided to send into the enemy’s camp a “Cossack” like Stirlitz, or rather even a “Trojan Horse”.

• 5 comments

Count the number of the beast - six hundred and sixty-six.

(Anonymous)

Christianity came to Kievan Rus with the name Orthodox after a schism in the Christian world:
* The Western, Christian Church with its center in Rome, began to be called Catholic i.e. Ecumenical,
* Eastern, Greek-Byzantine church with its center in Constantinople (Constantinople) - Orthodox i.e. Faithful.

Immediately after the split, they declared anathema to each other and constantly sent curses. When the Vatican redirected its fourth Crusade to Palestine - Paleny Stan (there were 10 crusades, but finally Jerusalem - RUSALIM failed to recapture the Vatican from the Muslims) to Constantinople, the central office of the Orthodox Eastern Church migrated to Kyiv and Ryazan. Constantinople was destroyed and completely plundered. Only after the arrival of the Eastern Church in Rus' did the purge of Slavic culture and Vedic Orthodoxy of the ancient Rus. From that moment on, the Slavs began to forget who they were, where they came from, and what the culture and life of their ancestors were like.
The word Orthodoxy itself means:
Glorification (this is ancient word supplanted by false storytellers from colloquial use) with the kind word of the Glorious World of Rule, i.e. The World of the Light Gods and Our Ancestors.

The opinion has formed that Russian is a must Orthodox Christian. This formulation is fundamentally incorrect. Russian means Orthodox, this concept is undeniable. But a Russian is not necessarily a Christian, because not all Russians are Christians. Many never accepted the slave philosophy, and only because of the fear of being burned at the stake, they visited temples..
The faithful could not come to terms with the fact that Christianity was present in Rus', especially in Muscovy, only formally. The priests decided to absorb Vedic Orthodoxy in order to put an end to it once and for all. And the very name Orthodox was appropriated by the Christian church hierarchs cynically, brazenly, without any consent of the Russians. This is how Christian Orthodoxy appeared in Rus' (instead of Vedic). The Vedic Orthodoxy of the ancient faith burned out on the fires of cruel Christianity, along with the ancient texts and the spiritual leaders of the Vedic Orthodoxy - the Magi. In Vedic culture, there was no centralized power similar to that in religions, striving for usurpation and enrichment. Vedic Orthodoxy was not a religion, but a Faith. It did not build expensive temples, because it believed that it was of no use. The Slavs kept their gods in their hearts. Statues were placed only at crossroads and on the outskirts of settlements. They never went to atone for their sins, since they had never sinned. The Rus ethnos are peaceful, hardworking people who achieved everything only through their own labor. Consequently, they had no reason to atone for their sins, to justify their actions before the gods.

The Greeks highly valued moral culture Russians. Here is the testimony of Byzantine historians of the seventh century:
Our soldiers captured three foreigners who had citharas (harps) instead of weapons. When the emperor asked who they were, the foreigners replied: “We play the harp, and loving music, we lead a peaceful and calm life.” The emperor marveled at the quiet disposition of these people, their great stature and strength, and treated them to food while observing their manners. Amazed high culture behavior, allowed him to return to his fatherland.

Arab chronographer Al Marwazi wrote:
“When the Russians turned to Christianity, religion dulled their swords and closed the doors of knowledge to them, and they fell into poverty and a miserable existence.”

Modern scientists, historians and theologians continue to try to impose on the world that Rus', they say, became Orthodox, with the baptism and spread of Byzantine Christianity among the dark, wild, mired in ignorance, kind of Slavs. This formulation is very convenient to use to distort the history and belittle the significance of the most ancient culture, colorful folklore and rich in all kinds of traditions, of all peoples of Vedic Orthodoxy. From which Christianity, poor in its traditions and rituals, borrowed a lot of things, and subsequently ascribed them to itself without any shame. Just two centuries ago, Easter eggs, embroidered shirts, and harps were strictly prohibited by the priesthood. Christian leaders were so stupid that they said that women have no soul. What could Christian missionaries know about the culture and Faith of the Slavic peoples? As carriers of Christianity, they could understand the culture of the Northern peoples with
* a different mentality, devoid of the concepts of money-grubbing and violence;
* different worldview, the Slavs lived in harmony with environment in a creative, constructive frame of mind?!
Here is an example of a description of the life of the Slavs as presented by one of the Christian missionaries:
“The Orthodox Slovenians and Rusyns are wild people and their lives are wild and godless. Naked men and girls lock themselves together in a hot heated hut and torture their bodies, slashing each other with tree branches mercilessly to the point of exhaustion, then they run out naked and jump into an icy hole or snowdrift. And, having cooled down, they again run to the hut to torture themselves with rods.”
How else could the Greek-Byzantine missionaries understand the simple Orthodox rite- visiting a Russian bathhouse. In their narrow imagination, it really was something wild and incomprehensible. Who can, in fact, be considered savages: those who regularly visited baths, or those who never washed in their lives?!

The cunningly wise servants of Christ always rely on falsification. So in this case, it seems like the earliest written use of the word “Orthodoxy”, which on the territory of Rus' is recorded in the “Sermon on Law and Grace” (1037-1050) by Metropolitan Hilarion:
Let us praise with the laudable voices of the Roman country Peter and Paul, who believed in Jesus Christ, the Son of God; Asia and Ephesus, and Patm of John the Theologian, India of Thomas, Egypt of Mark. All countries and cities and people honor and glorify each of their teachers, who taught me the Orthodox faith...
In the quote - I believe more Orthodox - the word Orthodox simply could not have been there. Because it was only in 1054 that Christianity was divided into Catholics and Orthodox Christians (non-Orthodox).

At first, the teaching of Jesus was called the teaching of the fisherman. Later, the fish symbol was sometimes used. Just as the Gauls used the symbol of a red rooster, and the Jews - a goat.
And on official language Christian Church on the territory of Rus', the term “Orthodox” began to be used only at the end of the 14th - beginning of the 15th century. The terms “Orthodox” and “Orthodoxy” came into use most actively only in the 16th century. This is how easy it is for storytellers to lie and introduce false information into history.

Insofar as too many questions have arisen regarding the word Orthodoxy, then everyone, if desired, can independently unravel this tangle of contradictions by examining the chronology of this word.

Biblical mythology, as such, had not yet taken place by the 11th century. It was in fragmentary versions with many significant contradictions. And until the end of the 15th century (and possibly until the end of the 16th century), biblical mythology in the modern sense was completely absent. Not only in the East, but also in the West. Even in the 13th century (not to mention the 11th), the Pope said that people had already learned too much. If they also learn everything that is narrated in various texts and in various books, then this will be a source of great danger, for they will begin to ask questions to which the clergy will not have answers. And the Bible will begin to be called mythology. And finally, in 1231, Gregory IX, with his bull, forbade the laity to read the Bible. Moreover, the ban was formally lifted only by the “Second Vatican Council,” opened on the initiative of Pope John XXIII in 1962. Historical documents report that there were repeated attempts to allow access to the reading of biblical mythology to a wider audience, but each time new prohibitions emerged. All this suggests that the church was afraid of exposing biblical texts that were copied from the Aryan Avesta. Historians wrote: “The Church prohibits the distribution of books of sacred scripture among the laity and considers the translation of these books from incomprehensible Latin into popular languages ​​a serious crime.” From time to time, more and more prohibitive decrees were issued. Thus, at the Council of Beziers in 1246, we find: “As for divine books, the laity should not have them even in Latin; as for divine books in the vernacular, they should not be allowed at all among either the clergy or the laity.” The edict of Charles IV at the end of the 14th century states: “According to canonical regulations, it is not appropriate for laity of both sexes to read anything from the scriptures, even in the vernacular.” In Rus', although not in such an open form as in Catholic countries, calls were heard: “Forbid the common people from reading the Bible.” But most likely, all the prohibitions were because biblical mythology, as such, had not yet taken place. It was in fragmentary versions with many significant contradictions. And until the end of the 15th century (and possibly until the end of the 16th century), biblical mythology in the modern sense was completely absent. Not only in the East, but also in the West.
The famous church historian A.V. Kartashev wrote:
“The first handwritten Bible for the entire East (even before the advent of the printing press) was the Bible of 1490, created by Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod... Such an early interest in mastering the complete biblical text appeared in Rus' in the 15th century,” p.600.

If at the very end of the 15th century the awakening of interest in the complete Bible is regarded by experts as very early (!), then what can we say about the 14th or 13th centuries? At that time, as we see, no one in the East was even interested in Biblical mythology. But in the West they didn’t read it because it was “forbidden.” The question arises: who read it in those centuries? Yes, it simply did not exist. But the tellers of lies wandered so far in their falsification that they began to date the Bible, you will simply be surprised, to the 1st century.
The schism in Christianity, after which the Church was finally divided into Catholic and Orthodox, occurred in 1054. The division caused by the schism has not been overcome to this day, despite the fact that in 1965 the mutual anathemas and curses on each other were mutually lifted by Pope Paul VI. The first time anathemas and curses were lifted was before the first crusade (the campaign of the poor in 1096). Just as the Vatican alone, without the financial support of Byzantium, could not overcome the Muslims. They were forced to unite, facing one common enemy. Disagreements arose over issues of dogmatic and canonical, as well as liturgical and disciplinary nature, and began long before 1054, however, it was in 1054 that Pope Leo IX sent envoys to Constantinople. The immediate reason was the closure of the Latin churches in Constantinople in 1053. Moreover, Patriarch Michael Cerularia instructed his henchman to throw out the Holy Gifts, prepared according to Catholic custom from unleavened bread, from the tabernacles, and trample them underfoot, openly, in the presence of a large crowd. All this demonstrates the obviously low culture and primitive mentality of Christian officials. And we are surprised at the bloody crusades against the civilian population of the Baltic countries, and the bonfires of the Inquisition blazing throughout Europe, and the country torture huts for the disobedient...

Christianity was persecuted and many of its supporters were simply killed with impunity. The fourth century was a turning point in the history of Christianity. In the fourth century, power was seized by the largest Arab-Semitic community at that time, led by the Flavinian Semite Flavius ​​Valerius Aurelius Constantine. Under him, Christianity became a permitted religion, thanks to the Edict of Milan in 313. Under Constantine, the First Ecumenical Council took place in Nicaea, at which the Creed was formulated (a brief statement of the dogmas used in the liturgy) - the doctrine of the consubstantial Trinity. Thus, a modified trinity appeared in Christianity, from the Vedic Orthodoxy of Rus': Father-Son-Holy Spirit. The concept of the trinity (triglav) has existed since time immemorial, and in Hindustan for several millennia. This is the first symbol that was borrowed by the priests from the ancient Vedic culture. Since that time, many sects and trends in Christianity have appeared. It was as if someone had thrown them out of a bag. The most aggressive struggle was waged with a sect called Arianism. Arianism appeared in the 4th century after its creator - an Alexandrian priest named Arius. He argued that Christ was created by God, and therefore, firstly, had a beginning of his existence; secondly, he is not equal to him: in Arianism, Christ is not consubstantial with God, as Arius’s opponents, the Alexandrian bishops Alexander and then Athanasius, argued, but is only co-essential with him. What the Arians asserted was the following: God the Father, after the creation of the world, became the cause of the birth of the Son and, according to His will, embodied His essence into another, created from nothing, into a new and different God; and there was a time when the Son did not exist. that is, he introduced hierarchical relationships into the Trinity. In the same century, the formation of monasticism took place. During the reign of Julian (361-363), the persecution of Christians was again organized. For this he received the nickname "Renegade". In the 5th century the first major schism occurred in the Church. The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon was not accepted by some Churches. They were given the name - Pre-Chalcedonian. During the first millennium, a number of Ecumenical Councils took place in the Church, at which the dogmatic and canonical teaching of the Christian Church was more clearly formed.
**************************************** ************
Credibility- the “correct faith” of Christians according to the old rite before the Nikon reform. During the time of Nikon in 1666, persecution began against their own brothers in Christ who did not accept the innovations. The first who refused to accept the innovations was Archpriest Avakum. Everyone knows about the innovation of three fingers, instead of the two with which they were baptized (two fingers were adopted from the Old Believers). But that wasn't the main thing. The most important trick is the destruction of the old elite and the introduction of a new one, plus the replacement of the concepts of “Orthodoxy” with “Orthodoxy”. After all, even in the Fourth Menaion (Christian service books that existed before the advent of the Bible, which appeared in the late 18th and early 19th centuries as a book, and before that there were the Fourth Menaion) there is a phrase: “of this thou art the land of Rousse, and the orthodox Christian faith.” , i.e. not the Orthodox faith, but the Orthodox faith. Avakum said, “Let us not become like the pagans who honor the ancient Gods,” i.e. here “pagan” sounds like a representative of another faith. And for this they began to be physically destroyed and some fled to Pomorie, to the White Sea, and some to the Old Believers in Siberian Belovodye. And the Old Believers began to give shelter to the Old Believers, not because the faith was one, but because they were united by blood.

Orthodoxy- Rule the praise, i.e. glorification of the World of Rule - the World of the Gods who have acquired the body of Light. Correct glorification of the Almighty (Ramhi), and not the Jewish tribal god of Hosts-Jehovah-Yahweh, who cares only about the Jews. This term was appropriated by Christians who claim that Orthodox Christianity is more than a thousand years old and refer to the “Sermon on Law and Grace of Metropolitan Hilarion”, where the translation is distorted. Chronicles of the X-XIV centuries. convincingly testify that Christianity came to Rus' from Greece under the name “Christian faith”, “new faith”, “true faith”, “Greek faith”, and most often - “orthodox Christian faith” ". The word “Orthodoxy” appears for the first time in the “Epistle of Metropolitan Photius of Pskov” from 1410-1417, that is, 422 years after the introduction of Christianity. And the phrase “Orthodox Christianity” even later - in the Pskov First Chronicle in 1450, 462 years after the baptism of Rus'-Ukraine. Question. Why haven’t Christians themselves used the word “Orthodoxy” for half a millennium? It's simple. Christians became Orthodox in the 17th century under the reform of Patriarch Nikon, who ordered changes to be made in the chronicles. When the Church split in 1054, the western one began to be called “Roman Catholic, Ecumenical with its center in Rome, and the eastern “Greek, Orthodox (Orthodox) with its center in Constantinople (Constantinople). From Greek "orthodoxy" means "right belief". “Orthos” means “correct”, “direct”, “doxos” means “thought”, “belief”, “faith”. That is why in Western world Christians of the Eastern rite are called "Orthodox". Greco-Orthodoxy in the 16th century, after the capture of the Ruthenian lands by Poland, found itself in a tough struggle with Roman Catholicism. Therefore, looking for support for itself, the church came to the only saving solution - to partially adopt the Vedic spiritual customs of the Rusins. First of all, they turned the “orthodox Christian faith” into “holy Orthodoxy,” and thereby attributed all the feats of pre-Christian Orthodoxy to themselves. Although those who glorify the Rule have nothing to do with Christianity. This church reform under Nikon was also aimed at destroying dual faith (Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy). Later they stopped fighting Vedic Orthodox customs and accepted as their own: the cult of the Ancestors, Green Christmastide, Kupala Christmastide, Intercession, Kalita, Kolyada, Strecha (Candlemas) and others. Which is what it notes Catholic Church that their eastern neighbor had acquired pagan cults. This church reform under Patriarch Nikon caused a split into those who supported Nikon's church reform (Nikonians) and those who did not support - schismatics. The schismatics accused Nikon of the trilingual heresy and indulgence in paganism, i.e. old Orthodox Faith. On April 17, 1905, by decree of the Tsar, the schismatics began to be called Old Believers. They call themselves righteous Christians. The split weakened the state and, in order to avoid a large-scale religious war, some provisions of Nikon’s reform were canceled and the term “orthodoxy” began to be used again. For example, in the Spiritual Regulations of Peter I from 1721 it is said: “And as a Christian Sovereign, he is the guardian of orthodoxy and every kind of deanery in the Church of the Holy Ones...”. There is not a word about Orthodoxy, nor in the Spiritual Regulations of 1776 and 1856. Christians themselves say that their church is called Orthodox because... it rightly glorifies God. The Byzantine monk Belisarius in 532 (456 years before the baptism of Rus'), describing the Russian bathhouse, calls the Slavs Orthodox Slavs and Rusyns.
**************************************** *********
“The sorrows of the past cannot be counted, but the sorrows of the present are worse. In a new place you will feel them. Together. What else has God sent you? Place in God's world. Don't count the feuds as past. Surround the place in the world of God that God has sent you with close rows. Protect it day and night; not a place - a will. Reward him for his power. Her children are still alive, knowing whose they are in this world of God.

We will live again. There will be service to God. Everything will be in the past, we will forget who we are. Where you will be, there will be children, there will be fields, a wonderful life - we will forget who we are. There are children - there are ties - let's forget who we are. What to count, Lord! Rysiyuniya enchants the eyes. There is no escape from it, no cure. More than once we will hear: you, whose you will be, trotters, what honor is for you, helmets in curls; talking about you. Not yet, we will be Her in this world of God.”
Inscription on both sides of the Phaistos Disc

According to one of the last calendars of our ancestors, it is now 7524 Summer from S.M.Z.H. (before this, the stellar heritage of the ancestors totals 1.5 billion YEARS from the arrival on Midgard of the first colonists of the Great Race of the Celestial Family) ..

According to Hebrew 5777.. Feel the difference!
**************************************** **********

M.M.Bogoslovsky

(“Life and Security”, 2008, No. 1/2. – P.51-59)

“I am convinced that the teaching of the Church

there is a theoretically insidious

and harmful lies..."

(L.N. Tolstoy)

After the destruction of the socialist system, a revival of religion began in our country. And since the most widespread religion in our country is Christianity, interest in its doctrine has grown sharply. Naturally, the focus is on his main God - Jesus Christ. He has the largest number of fans in the world - more than one and a half billion people. Mountains of literature have been written about him and, it would seem, everything is already known about him. However, strange as it may seem, all this literature, willingly or unwillingly, does not so much reveal Christ to us as carefully hide him. The origin of this God is so complex and contradictory that even his Christian fans have a hard time imagining him. Meanwhile, with a careful and unbiased attitude to the history of Christ and the teachings about him, a lot of contradictions and even absurdities are revealed, which dramatically change the attitude of a sane person towards Christ and his Church. These absurdities convince us that the authors of the teachings about Christ not only did not get along with logic, but even had little idea of ​​what kind of teaching about their god they wanted to create.

The peculiarity of the Christian teaching about Christ is that he has two natures - created (bodily) and spiritual (mystical), which allows him to exist in two forms. According to this doctrine, in spiritual form he is an eternal god, i.e. it has always existed and will always exist. And in created form he was born, lived, preached, died on the cross, but soon after that he was resurrected. Let's see how these ideas agree with each other.

According to the New Testament, the most important work of the Jewish god Yahweh (whom Christians call God the Father) following the creation of the world was associated with the appearance of God Christ on Earth in created (bodily) form. Many years have passed since the creation of the Earth (according to Judeo-Christian chronology, more than 4 thousand years, and according to scientific chronology, about 4.5 billion years), when one day God the Father (Yahweh), for some reason unknown to anyone, decided to have a son - Jesus (he was still called Yeshua in Hebrew at that time), who was born in a completely human form, and his mother was a simple Jewish woman Mary (Luke 1:32).

It should be said that in the New Testament the appearance of Christ on earth is completely groundlessly and erroneously called birth: after all, by definition, an eternal god cannot be born ! He could only come true in human form! Surprisingly, this absurdity has gone unnoticed not only by supporters of Christianity, but also by its opponents for more than two thousand years.

When creating his biography, the founders of the new religion were faced with the problem of identifying his father. In this regard, they inevitably faced the question of how the eternal God could have a father. However, they knew very well that asking unnecessary and awkward questions believers will not. Moreover, until relatively recently, ordinary believers were forbidden to read the Bible! So that they are not confused by various absurdities, contradictions and inconsistencies that are often found on its pages. Today Orthodox Christians are allowed to read the Bible, but you are not given the right to comment on it!

Despite the fact that Jesus was born at a time in the development of civilization when a calendar already existed, to determine the exact date and neither theologians and ministers of the Church, nor scientists can determine the place of his birth. This suggests that he himself, as well as his admirers - both contemporaries and people who lived after his death for several centuries, for some reason persistently hide this and many other secrets of his appearance in human form, not only from believers, but also from the leadership of his beloved Church, including even his “vicar on earth” - the Pope. As a result, believers and “fathers of the Church” can only guess and argue how, when, where and under what circumstances this actually happened.

The Church claims that the father of Christ is God the Father, although if you believe the New Testament, his father is still God the Holy Spirit: “The angel answered and said to her: The Holy Spirit will come upon you...” (Luke 1:35). And here gossips(from among persons of Jewish nationality) at the same time they claim (there have been blasphemers at all times) that his father was not the “holy spirit” at all, but a Roman soldier named Panther, who did not want to marry the poor Jewish woman he had seduced. To avoid being stoned, the pregnant girl had to be urgently married off, so they found her an elderly groom in the form of the elderly carpenter Joseph, who, violated the moral laws of Jewish society of that time , covered her shame by taking her as his wife. As a result, Jesus had another father, this time named. And if we read the Gospel of Luke more carefully, we will also discover the third father of Christ - King David - “He (i.e. Christ - author) He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give him the throne of David, His father"(Luke 1:32).

Since the task of the creators of the new religion, who remained Jews, was to ensure that the circumstances of the appearance of the new God corresponded to the Jewish scripture (Tanakh), they performed a previously unheard of act: they declared that the Tanakh (which they called the Old Testament) contained a prophecy about the appearance of the messiah (Isaiah 53:2-10), who will come from the house of King David. And although Jews, who, of course, know their Tanakh better than Christians, vehemently deny this, Christians insist on their right to interpret Jewish scripture as they see fit. To prove that the prophecy from the Old Testament has “come true,” the evangelists create a genealogical descent from the house of David to the named father of Jesus, the carpenter Joseph (Matthew 1:1-16). It is difficult to imagine a greater absurdity - after all, Joseph is not his own father, but only a named one. That's why his origin from the house of King David has nothing to do with Christ. In such cases, Russians say: there is elderberry in the garden, and in Kyiv there is an uncle.

In order for the circumstances of the appearance of the new god to correspond to the “biographies” of the great gods of the Ancient East, the fathers Christian Church composed the story of his fabulous conception and birth, using for this well-known myths about the origin of the famous ancient gods Adonis, Attis, Dionysus, Mithra and Krishna. For example, like Krishna, Christ came into the world to save it. Both of them were born of a virgin, the birth of both was marked by miracles. In both cases, the shepherds came first to worship. The subsequent story is also repeated: persecution by the evil king, the beating of infants, salvation by an angel and the main elements of the activities of the saviors. Both gather groups of disciples, perform miracles, heal the sick and resurrect the dead, cast out demons from the possessed and die as a result of the machinations of evil priests. And in the story of his death and resurrection, the myth of a dying and resurrecting deity, widespread in the Ancient East, was used. The cult of the ancient Egyptian god Osiris played a special influence on the “biography” of Christ. It was from the cult of this great god that Christians took the famous Easter exclamation “Christ is risen!” with the statement “Truly is risen!”, which among the Egyptians sounded like “Osiris is risen!” with the corresponding triumphant answer - “Truly risen!”

According to the gospel stories, Jesus Christ was a Jewish sectarian, a reformer of Jewish teaching (Matthew 12:1-3,12; Luke 6:5-10; 11:38). He called himself “man” (John 8:40), often “Son of Man” (Matthew 16:13). As for his claims to the title of God, judging by the gospel stories, Christ during his earthly life did not decide for himself whether to consider himself God or not. In the New Testament there are both his words admitting that he is God and those denying it. Thus, objecting to being called “good,” an epithet applied only to God (Yahweh), Christ declared: “No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18). It follows that he did not consider himself God! The writers of the New Testament do not call him God either. Thus, Paul’s letter to the Colossians says that “Christ is seated at the right hand of God” (Colossians 3:1), and the letter to the Romans says, “If anyone serves Christ in this way, he is acceptable to God...” (Romans 14:18). By God was meant the Jewish Yahweh. The Apostle Paul also testifies that the apostles did not consider Christ God: “The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” At the same time, in the New Testament there are two places where Christ recognizes himself as God: “I am alpha and omega, the beginning and the end...” (Apocalypse 1:8,13,22), as well as “I and God are one” (John . 10:30).

Considering that Christ is an immortal god, the subsequent gospel story with his death on Golgotha ​​looks not just ridiculous, but even absurd - after all an eternal god cannot not only be born, but also die ! It turns out that the believers were deceived by putting on a cheap theatrical performance in front of them - only the bodily shell of God could “die”. This means that he died for fun (i.e., lost his bodily shell), and then again, as it were, resurrected (acquired it again for a short time, i.e., became human again) in order to appear to his disciples, and then left it completely ! From this reasoning follows a terrible conclusion for Christian preachers (and indeed for all Christianity). Referring to the experience of Christ, they inspire believers that the resurrection of Christ is a prototype of the resurrection of all Christians! But: 1) it was not man who “resurrected,” but God, with whom man cannot be equal. Therefore, his resurrection is not proof that people will be resurrected! and 2) in fact, Christ did not “resurrect”, but only again took on a bodily human form. It follows that Christians cannot count on resurrection! In such cases, the Romans said: What is due to Jupiter is not due to the bull!

By the way, the story of the disappearance of the body of the deceased Christ from the crypt may still have a continuation. If the Jews who deny that Christ has risen carefully check the area adjacent to the place of his execution, they will certainly find body of Christ buried with honors, whom his admirers declared to be God. Also in mid-18th century century, the German scientist G.S. Reimarus argued that Jesus' disciples actually stole his body and then started a rumor about his resurrection. It is difficult to say how the admirers of Christ justified their deception of the apostles (or perhaps one of them participated in this deception) by reburying and hiding his body. Perhaps, as always, with the best intentions. Someone really needed this...

The Fathers of the Church, who composed the earthly history of the birth of the son of God Yahweh, quickly realized that the status of Christ urgently needed to be raised. In order for him to be truly taken into account, it is necessary for Christ to be not only the son of God, but also to become a full-fledged God himself. For this purpose, they created the doctrine of the spiritual nature of Christ. The participation of different authors in the creation of this doctrine and the absence of an editor who would be responsible for the logic and consistency of its presentation led to the emergence of a number of absurdities. Judge for yourself. On the one hand, according to the New Testament, in a spiritual form, Christ, like Yahweh, has always existed: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8). This means that he (like his father God) never born and therefore, like Yahweh the Host, he also has no parents - neither father nor mother. Not only does he have no parents, but he also has no age. According to human concepts, he, like Yahweh, is an orphan.

However, according to another position of Christian doctrine, Christ is the son of Yahweh (God the Father). This statement is contained in a number of places in the Gospels (for example: “Jesus answered them: I have shown you many good deeds from My Father; for which of these do you want to stone me? The Jews answered Him: We do not want to stone you for a good deed, but for blasphemy and because you, being a man, make yourself God... Do you say to him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, “You are blaspheming,” because I said: “I am the Son of God” (John 10)? : 32-36). This position is also confirmed by the Nicene-Constantinopolitan (Constantinople) Creed, which specifies that his birth occurred before the beginning of time, i.e. before the creation of the world: “I believe ... in the One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God.” , from the Father born before all ages …».

To confirm this position, which is most important for Christianity, in another place of the same Symbol, “... born, uncreated...” is emphasized. From here two main conclusions inevitably follow: 1) that Christ did not always exist, because. there was a period when he not yet; 2) that Yahweh is his did not create, but gave birth . That. Yahweh was both his father and mother at the same time! Unfortunately, not a word is said about mother in the Tanakh-Bible. It turns out that either for some reason the ancient authors of the Judeo-Christian doctrine forgot to mention his mother (for all her importance for the Jews, who even today count kinship on the maternal side), or he did not have a mother, so Yahweh had to give birth to Jesus through a kind of male parthenogenesis. It is curious that the Christian Church is silent about the question of how Yahweh the Host gave birth to Christ - from his head (like Zeus, who thus gave birth to Athena), from his side (like Maya, who gave birth to Buddha), or, perhaps, by simple budding.

So, one doctrine about the existence of Christ in a spiritual form not only contradicts another, but also excludes it: either Christ has always been, which means no one gave birth to or created him, or he is really the son of Yahweh, which means there was a time when he did not exist. If the second position is true, then it follows that Christ is the younger God, and Yahweh is the elder. The Christian Church stubbornly ignores this contradiction. And it’s clear why. After all, recognition of this contradiction would mean the collapse of the teaching about Christ as God, and would ultimately lead to the decline of the Christian Church. Moreover, this recognition would deprive the elder God (Yahweh of hosts) of the title of God the father!

It’s strange, but for some reason the “God-inspired” authors of the Tanakh did not know about the existence of the god Christ along with Yahweh, and therefore about bitheism (the Church says that the authors of the Tanakh (Old Testament) wrote it down guided by the instructions of God himself, who told in it only about one God - Yahweh). Not only ordinary Jews, but also rabbis, Jewish prophets and even high priests did not know about Christ. The Tanakh also says nothing about Jesus Christ and, moreover, about three versions of his existence - two already discussed versions of his existence as an “eternal” God and one as ... an angel (according to the teachings of the Church of Jehovah's Witnesses, Christ is not God at all, but an angel , although the highest of them is called Mikhail!). The devout Jews themselves treat Christ with contempt. So the Talmud says that Jesus Christ is a charlatan, a magician, a seducer, a deceiver. It is also said that the account of Christ's crucifixion is a lie, that he was strangled... Elsewhere it is said that the Jewish priests raised Balaam (Jesus) from the dead and punished (put him to death) (57a Gittin).

It is amazing how detailed and colorful the New Testament is about the created appearance of Christ, and at the same time nothing is said about his biography (fate and deeds) when he was in a spiritual state. For an indefinite period of time—perhaps many billions of years—he coexisted serenely with Yahweh. What these gods were doing all this time, where they were, what they ate and drank (and the Torah, and after it the Old Testament, say that Yahweh loved to eat very much), how they had fun is unknown to anyone - not to the heads of the Christian Churches (including the Vicar of Christ on earth, the Pope Roman), neither theologians nor saints. In any case, the New Testament says nothing about this, and the Christian Church is stubbornly silent about this.

The Old Testament says that one day (and again for no reason) God began to create the world. It is interesting that although it clearly states in accordance with the Torah that only one God (Yahweh of hosts) created this world (Genesis 1: 1-31), Christians claim that not only Yahweh, but also Christ worked to create the world and even God the holy spirit. Thus, the author of “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology”, Archbishop Macarius, writes: “Confessing that God created the world, the Orthodox Church attributes this great deed to more than one person. Holy Trinity, but all together” (p. 362). But in his pride Macarius did not notice that he had fallen into the great sin of contradicting the most holy scripture, namely the New Testament, which says: “For they ( those. Christ - MB) all things were created, both in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible” (Colossians 1:16). And the Russian Orthodox Church did not correct Macarius, and this mistake of his is being replicated by Orthodox preachers!

And since the Old Testament says nothing about the fact that Yahweh did not create our world alone (see Genesis 1: 1-31), Christian theologians, to prove their rightness (!), refer... to their New Testament.

If you follow their version of the creation of the Earth, it turns out that the creation of the first people - Adam and Eve was also the collective creativity of all members of the Trinity. Which, although deliberately tongue-tied, is confirmed by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow in his “Orthodox Catechism”: “God in the Holy Trinity said: Let us create man in our image and likeness.” The absurdity of this statement is simply monstrous: firstly, because God has three faces (Sic!), then we should all have three faces too! But for some reason we have only one... And secondly, God created in your own image and likeness not only a man, but also a woman (“And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1: 27). From here it follows immutably that God, it turns out, is a bisexual being - hermaphrodite (!). In this regard, it is interesting to know whether the entire Trinity is hermaphrodite, and if not (i.e. one or even two members of the Trinity are hermaphrodite, then which of them represents the female gender? Is God the father? That is what Christian feminists will rejoice !

Another difficulty for the fathers of the Christian Church and its theologians was that representatives of the people they call “holy” - the Jews - categorically disagree with their interpretation of the one God-creator. But it was on the basis of Judaism that Christianity was not only built, but still exists today. The umbilical cord with Judaism was not cut, and cannot be cut, because... otherwise all Christianity will fall apart. Meanwhile, the Jews believe that their Creator God did not need helpers or advisers when creating the world and people, that the Torah speaks of only one single God - Yahweh, that Judaism does not recognize any other gods in any capacity (Epstein I., 1976). To claim that he created our world together with some other gods is blasphemy from their point of view. And they can be understood. Why did Yahweh need an assistant, not just one, but two? Why didn’t the omnipotent and omniscient Creator God create the world on his own, thereby abandoning the sole glory of the Creator, becoming just co-creator peace? And if we remember the above quote from the Epistle to the Colossians (1:16) about how it was Christ who created everything that is in heaven and that is on earth, visible and invisible, then what did God the Father create? Meanwhile, from the words of Yahweh the Host and his actions described in the Old Testament, it is known that he was very vain. It is enough to remember his formidable warning to his Jews: “Do not make for yourself an idol or any image ... do not worship them and do not serve them, for I am the Lord your God, a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of their fathers until the third and fourth generation"(Exodus 20:4-5). And also an example of his punishment for betraying him: Jehovah commanded the military leader Jehu to punish Ahab, who worshiped the god Baal: “You will destroy the house of Ahab your master, so that I can avenge the blood of the servants of my prophets and for the blood of all the servants of the Lord who fell by the hand of Jezebel; and all the house of Ahab will perish... Jezebel will be devoured by dogs in the field of Jezreel, and no one will bury her” (2 Kings 9:7-10). It is clear that such a vain God could not allow anyone into his affairs, much less create our world with someone!

Another absurdity is that if this world was really created by Christ (in collaboration with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit), then why did only God the Father begin to rest from the labors of the righteous (“And God finished the work on the seventh day Their, which He did, and rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done,” Genesis 2:2), which is why the other persons of the glorious Trinity, His helpers in creating the world, were deprived of the right to rest.

The other side of the teaching about the spiritual nature of Christ also looks absurd: Yahweh sent his son to die... for the sins of people. After all, if Christ exists as long as Yahweh, then they are equal in status - after all, both are “pantocrators”, both are the creators of the world. On what basis does one of them send the other to death? How can Yahweh sacrifice (to himself?) the eternal God Christ by sending him to death! After all, the eternal God cannot die! And if he died, that means he is not eternal at all! It turns out that Christ (along with his dad) played a cheap show in front of his followers!

And, finally, the act of God the Father is completely illogical and absurd, who, knowing in advance everything that would happen in the Garden of Eden (after all, he is an all-knowing God!), first kicked out with a curse for a trifling sin (moreover, arranged and provoked by himself!) Adam and Eve, then drowned all their descendants, except Noah and his relatives, in a worldwide flood (flood), and then suddenly without any reason, he was so inflamed with love for people(who were no better than those previously drowned by him), that he sent his son to death (!) for their sake (John 3:16).

And now about the other side of the teaching about Christ. The creation of the doctrine that in addition to the eternally existing (according to the Tanakh) Yahweh-Sabaoth, there was always another God - Jesus Christ, put the Judeo-Christians in a terribly uncomfortable position. All this smacked not just of heresy, but of an outright perversion of Judaism. The fathers of the newly created sectarian Judeo-Christian Church were faced with a very difficult task - to somehow link the eternally existing Yahweh of Hosts with Christ, who claimed an equally eternal existence. And yet, this problem was solved!

The founders of the new religion and the new Church were Jews, albeit sectarian Jews. They could not refuse Yahweh, who then satisfied all Jews. The reason why they began to support Jesus and his claims to be considered the son of Yahweh himself was not religious, but completely everyday - they dreamed of fame and a high social position. Meanwhile, they themselves were from the lower classes, and therefore they could not become high priests or even simple priests of the rich Jerusalem temple. So they took a chance and joined one of the many preachers who appeared from time to time in Palestine - Yeshua (later called by the Greek name Jesus to hide his nationality), supporting his claim to be God's messenger, his son, and calling him a god. And they were right!

The Fathers of the Church had to create the idea that Jesus Christ has two natures not only because according to the Gospels he was a God-man, but also due to the fact that they had to somehow reconcile his death and immortality: he died, but at the same time, it’s as if not, because according to their ideas, its existence was not interrupted. And they had to continue its existence because they needed a living God, and not a dead one, with whom you cannot enter into communication, to whom you cannot turn for help. But, most importantly, he had to appear on earth again and create a paradise on it for all his faithful followers. Otherwise, a new god would not be needed, and the leadership of the Church would have nothing to lure people to themselves. Having created the idea of ​​​​the two natures of Christ, the founders of this religion, although they got out of a difficult situation, did not notice that they had created new problems for themselves. And they consisted in the fact that these two types of Christ turned out to be, as it were, independent of each other, which is clearly seen from the gospels themselves.

In addition to the problem of the two natures of Christ, the Fathers of the Church have another, no less important problem - to decide who to consider him: simply the son of God or God the Son. Behind the apparent simplicity of this problem lay something more important - the question of the omnipotence of Jesus Christ: if he is just the son of God, but not God himself, then what can he promise his believers, what can he give them? At best, he can do something for himself and ask his almighty father for something for the people. It is clear that crowds of believers will not follow such a god. It's another matter if he is God the Son, i.e. not only the son, but God himself. Then there is already something to talk about. Moreover, if you try to equalize his rights with his God the Father, which was subsequently done with success.

The greatest difficulty in solving this problem was that Christ himself, apparently, did not care at all about it. That's why he didn't say anything about it. Neither before his “death”, nor after, when, according to the teachings of the Christian Church, he ascended to heaven. This led Christians to argue furiously about what their God was. As you know, they could not agree, so one part of the believers began to consider him the son of God and God, another - only the son of God, and still others, as noted above, just an angel. With this unanswerable question, Christians entered the third millennium.

Another difficulty for the founders of the new religion was that although it created its own god, this god was a secondary god, not the main one, and therefore dependent on Yahweh-Saboaf, whom Christ called his father. And this, naturally, did not suit them. It was necessary to come up with something so that their god would be, if not the main one, then at least equal to his named father. The solution to this problem was extremely important because without it, Christianity could forever remain a sect, a subsidiary religion of Judaism. And this could not be allowed. We had to look for a way out. And he was found - Jesus Christ was declared not only the son of God, but even equal to “God the Father,” i.e. to Yahweh the Host himself!

In order to do this, Christians attracted the ancient idea of ​​​​the pagans about the trinity of the main gods (for example, among the Sumerians Anu, Enlil and Ea, among the Egyptians - Osiris, Isis, and Horus, among the Hindus - Shiva, Parvati and Ganesha, etc.), supplementing it with the idea of ​​equality of the members of this trinity to each other. In addition, the Eastern idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe hypostases of God was used, when one god was presented in one form (or the form of one deity), then in another (in the form of another deity). But to complete this construction of the trinity they lacked a third god.

They had to turn again to their native Judaism and look there for someone who could fit this role. As a result, the problem was solved in an unexpected way: the “holy spirit” was taken as this third member of the trinity, which was equally unexpectedly and paradoxically equated with God. Why him? Yes, because Christians had no choice: the mother of Jesus Christ did not fit here, because... it would take a lot to elevate her to the status of a deity. After all, in Judaism there could not be a female deity; this was not in its traditions. Moreover, Judaism at a certain stage of its development got rid of the last goddess - Asherah and Yahweh became a single god, the sole God. In addition, the mother of Christ was a simple woman and it would be very difficult to make her, besides her son, a god. To do this, it would be necessary to justify its belonging to Yahweh the Host, but the founding fathers of Christianity did not dare to take such a step.

However, to solve the problem of transforming God from the holy spirit, one problem had to be overcome - the holy spirit, which in Judaism was represented in the form of a dove, was feminine. After lengthy disputes (reflected, in particular, in the non-canonical Gospel of Philip, which says: “... when did it happen that a woman conceived from a woman?) the Fathers of the Church had to close their eyes to this and go to an obvious perversion of the ancient teaching: the Holy Spirit, Having become a god, he performed two functions simultaneously - he impregnated the mother of Christ and became a member of the Holy Trinity, each of which could replace (become a hypostasis) of the other.

In addition, the Holy Spirit, as a result, became the father of Jesus Christ (!) and thereby solved the painful question for the creators of this religion of how Christ could become the son of God, without directly involving the elder God, Yahweh, in this matter. After all, the Jewish Yahweh did not (and could not have) children, so directly attributing a child to him would be very imprudent. With the help of the Holy Spirit, this extremely delicate task was solved: on the one hand, Christ was born of God (the Holy Spirit) and thereby received the status of God. And this Spirit was sent by God the Father Yahweh himself. With the help of this crafty device, Jesus Christ, conceived according to the Gospel stories by the Holy Spirit, began to be considered as the son of Yahweh. Then the next step could have followed - Christ gave birth to Yahweh, and at the same time himself. But it was no longer considered, because it was completely unnecessary, and besides, it looked completely ridiculous and funny. Naturally, from the point of view of Judaism, all this represented sacrilege and blasphemy. However, there was no punishment for this, because Judeo-Christianity spread in the diaspora, and not on the territory of the Jewish state, which was also going through far from the best times. The Jewish priests simply did not have the strength and capabilities to fight the new heresy.

This is how the problem of Jesus Christ was solved, who received God Yahweh of Hosts as his father, himself became God, and even a god who, being the hypostasis of God the Father, received his prerogatives and all the titles: creator god, pantocrator (almighty), and at the same time a savior. And although theoretically each of the members of this trinity can call himself God the Creator and Savior, Christians stubbornly assign this title to only Christ alone. And it’s clear why - It was for his sake that this whole divine structure was created!

The difficulties of developing the doctrine of Jesus Christ as God and a full member of the Trinity were not limited only to its dogmatic aspect. Since there is no creed without cult, all the problems mentioned above naturally affected cult practice. And, above all, in two main church holidays- Christmas and Easter. A special feature of the celebration of the Nativity of Christ in our country is that Orthodox Christians celebrate it twice - in the new and old style.

Unfortunately facilities mass media mislead Russian citizens by informing them that Catholics celebrate Christmas on December 25, and Orthodox Christians celebrate Christmas on January 7. In fact, both of them celebrate this holiday on December 25th. The only difference is that the overwhelming majority of Christians - Catholics (comprising about one billion believers), Protestants (approximately three hundred million believers) and most of the Orthodox (13 Churches out of 15!) celebrate this holiday according to the new style , and a small part of the Orthodox, which includes the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), celebrates it old style , i.e. the seventh of January, which corresponds to December 25 according to the old time. In the first two centuries of the existence of their Church, Christians did not celebrate the birthday of their God (his “Christmas”), but on January 6 they celebrated the feast of baptism-epiphany.

In the third century, contrary to the teachings of the Christian Church that Christ always existed, her fathers on the same day, January 6, began to celebrate and birthday Christ. This was necessary in order to more successfully fight with other gods, who then competed with Christ and had their own birthday celebrations. But even this seemed not enough to the fathers of the Christian Church - they were greatly annoyed by the Persian god Mithras, whose birthday was widely celebrated in the Roman Empire on December 25. Therefore, in 354, they moved the celebration of the birth of Christ from January 6 to December 25 (which Christ himself did not object to). The Orthodox encyclopedic dictionary “Christianity” (Moscow, 1993) very frankly states that this transfer was undertaken for the sake of repression pagan holiday Birthday of the Invincible Sun, - as they called it in ancient Rome Mithras, god of light and truth. That is why, fully understanding the difference between the concepts of birth and incarnation, the fathers of the Christian Church nevertheless stubbornly call its appearance on earth birth, which is completely wrong.

The list of absurdities of Christian teachings about Jesus Christ will be incomplete without dwelling on the date and place of his execution.

According to Christian legend, Jesus Christ was crucified on the eve of the Jewish (Jewish) Passover (“Passover”) on Friday 15 Nisan in 783 from the founding of Rome. And then he came to life, i.e. resurrected, which happened on the day now called Sunday. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the main events of his biography. Naturally, the Christian Church treats this event with reverence, because... It is precisely the example of the resurrection of her God that allows us to promise a similar resurrection to all his adherents. “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is also in vain,” says the New Testament (1 Cor. 15:14). It follows that the resurrection of Christ is the cornerstone of all Christianity.

However, upon careful reading of the Gospels, a discrepancy is revealed in this story, which, for some reason, none of the theologians noticed and does not notice. Most likely, they notice this, but deliberately do not discuss it, because... its discussion will lead to an undesirable, even scandalous consequence.

The fact is that according to the Gospel of Luke, Christ promised to rise “on the third day” (Luke 18: 33); the Gospel of Matthew says that he promised to rise “after three days”(Matt. 27:63). But in fact, he was resurrected on the night from Saturday to Sunday: the “wives and Peter” who came “on the first day of the week, very early” to the tomb no longer found him in the tomb (Luke 24: 1-3). Let us note that Friday is separated from Sunday not by three, but by only one day - Saturday. It turns out to be some kind of nonsense - the authors of the gospels try to suggest that Christ rose three days after death, although in fact he rose one day after his execution . What's the matter?

Based on generally accepted ancient tradition, according to which the starting point of an event (in this case, the crucifixion) is the day of the event itself, then the event of the resurrection “on the third day” really means that the resurrection occurred on the day later called Sunday. This corresponds, in particular, to the description of the timing of the death and resurrection of the ancient Egyptian god Osiris: the day of his death was called the 17th atira, and the day of his resurrection was called the 19th atira.

To be a Christian means to give up oneself in favor of one's neighbor. This has nothing to do with a particular denomination, but depends only on the personal choice of a person and therefore is unlikely to become a mass phenomenon

– Natalia Leonidovna, against the background of the spiritual crisis experienced by humanity, many are waiting for the revival of Christianity. Moreover, it is believed that everything will begin in Russia, since it is Russian Orthodoxy that contains the fullness of Christianity throughout the world. What do you think about it?

– It seems to me that talking about the coincidence of Russianness and Orthodoxy is a humiliation of the Divine and Eternal. And if we begin to argue that Russian Christianity is the most important thing in the world, then we have - big problems, which question us as Christians. As for revivals... They never happened in history. There were some relatively large appeals. Once a certain number of people thought that nothing good was coming out of the world, and followed Anthony the Great to escape into the desert, although Christ, we note, spent only forty days in the desert... In the 12th century, when the mendicant monks came, many suddenly They felt that their life was somehow at odds with the Gospel, and they began to set up separate islands, monasteries, so that it would be in accordance with the Gospel. Then they think again: something is wrong. And they decide to try not in the desert, not in a monastery, but in the world to live close to the Gospel, but fenced off from the world with vows. However, this does not greatly affect society.

– In the 70s in the Soviet Union, a lot of people went to church, not to mention the 90s. What is this if not an attempt at revival?

– In the 70s, the intelligentsia, so to speak, came to the church. And when she “converted,” one could notice that not only did she not show Christian qualities, but, as it turned out, she also stopped showing intellectual qualities.

- What do you mean - intellectuals?

– Which remotely reproduce something Christian: to be delicate, tolerant, not to grab yourself, not to tear off another’s head, and so on... What is a worldly way of life? This is “I want”, “desire”, what in the Gospel is called “lust”, “concupiscence”. And a worldly person simply lives as he wants. So here it is. In the early 70s, a number of people who had read Berdyaev or Averintsev began to go to church. But what do you think? They behave as before, as they want: pushing the crowd apart, pushing everyone aside. They almost tear Averintsev to pieces at his first lecture, although in this lecture he talks about simple gospel things: meekness and patience. And they, pushing each other away: “Me! I want a piece of Averintsev!” Of course, you can realize all this and repent. But how many people have you seen who came to repent not only for drinking or committing adultery? To repent of adultery is welcome, this is the only sin that they remember and realized, which, however, does not prevent them from leaving their wife later... And that a much greater sin is to be proud, important, intolerant and dry with people, to scare away, to be rude...

– It seems that the Gospel also speaks very strictly about adultery of spouses?

- It's been said. But not the entire Gospel is devoted to this. There is one amazing conversation when the apostles cannot accept the words of Christ that two should become one flesh. They ask: how is this possible? Is this impossible for humans? And the Savior reveals this secret to them, says that real marriage is an absolute union, and adds very graciously: “Whoever can accommodate, let him accommodate.” That is, whoever can understand will understand. So they turned everything upside down and even made a law in Catholic countries that you cannot get divorced. But try to make a law that you can’t yell. But Christ speaks about this much earlier: “He who is angry with his brother in vain is subject to judgment.”

- What if it’s not in vain, but to the point?

– I’m not a good biblical scholar, but I’m sure that the word “in vain” here is an interpolation. Christ did not pronounce it. It generally removes the whole problem, because anyone who gets angry and yells is sure that they are not doing it in vain. But it is said that if “your brother sins against you...convict him between you and him alone.” Alone. Politely and carefully, as you would like to be exposed. And if the person did not hear, did not want to hear, “... then take one or two brothers” and talk to him again. And finally, if he did not listen to them, then he will be like a “pagan and a publican” to you.

– That is, as an enemy?

- No. This means: let him be like a person who does not understand this type of conversation. And then you step aside and give space to God. This phrase – “make room for God” – is repeated in Scripture with enviable frequency. But how many people have you seen who heard these words? How many people have we seen who came to church and realized: “I am empty, I have nothing but stupidity, boasting, desires and the desire to assert myself... Lord, how do you tolerate this? Help me improve!” After all, the essence of Christianity is that it turns the whole person upside down. There is a word that comes from Greek “metanoia” - a change of thinking. When everything that is considered important in the world - luck, talent, wealth, one's good qualities - ceases to be valuable. Any psychologist will tell you: believe in yourself. And in the church you are nobody. Nobody, but very loved. There's a man like prodigal son, turns to his father - to God. He comes to him to receive forgiveness and some kind of presence, at least in his father’s yard. His father, poor in spirit, bows down to him, cries and lets him go forward.

– So what is the meaning of the expression “poor in spirit”?

- Well, yes. Everyone thinks: how could this be? But no matter how you interpret it, it all comes down to the fact that they have nothing. A worldly person always has something: my talent, my kindness, my courage. But these have nothing: they depend on God for everything. They become like children. But not because children are beautiful, pure creatures, as some psychologists claim, but because the child is completely helpless. He does not exist without his father, he will not be able to eat, he will not learn to speak. And the poor in spirit are like that. Coming to Christianity means that a certain number of people will live a life that is impossible from a worldly point of view. Of course, it will also happen that a person will continue to do what is typical for us, pathetic, unhappy and funny. He can get drunk like a gray horse. You may fall in love at the wrong time. In general, everything human in him will remain. But he will have to count his actions and thoughts from Christ. And if a person accepted it, opened not only his heart, but also his mind, then conversion to Christianity occurred.

Partisanship instead of love

– Most Christians know about the existence of different faiths, some are interested in canonical differences. This matters for Everyday life Christian?

- I think no. Otherwise, it turns out that when we came to church, we simply came to a new institution. Yes, it is beautiful, yes, there is wonderful singing there. But it’s very dangerous when they say: they say, I love such and such a church, because they sing well there... It would be better if they kept quiet, honestly, because Christ did not sing anywhere. When people come to church, they find themselves in an institution where everything is the other way around.

- This is ideal. And in fact?

– In fact, this is very common today: ours-yours. Who is cooler - Catholics or Orthodox? Or maybe schismatics. Followers of Father Alexander Men or Father Georgy Kochetkov. Everything is divided into tiny batches. For some, Russia is an icon of Christ, for others, on the contrary, it is not an icon. Isn’t it common among many of us? I took communion, went out into the street, and I despise everyone who hasn’t joined the church. But we went out to those to whom the Savior sent us. He called us not slaves, but friends. And if, for the sake of ideas, convictions and interest, we begin to spread rot on those who do not live according to our “law,” then we are not Christians, really. Or there is an article by Semyon Frank, where he talks about the beauty of Orthodox churches: yes, we saw a world of wondrous beauty and loved it very much, and realized that this is the most important thing in the world, but there are people around us who do not understand this. And there is a danger that we will begin to fight them. And we, unfortunately, are moving in this direction. For example, the story of the miracle of the Holy Fire. To think that we, Orthodox Christians, are the best, because only for us, on our Easter, the Holy Fire appears, and for everyone else - fuck, this is amazing! It turns out that people born, say, in France, where there is Catholicism, are rejected from God. From God, who says that a Christian must, like the sun to man, shine on the right and the wrong! What does all this have to do with the Good News? And what is this if not party games?

– Essentially, this is hypocrisy?

- Yes. But if Christ did not forgive anyone, then only the “self-righteous,” that is, the Pharisees. You cannot build a life according to the Gospel using the law: it doesn’t fit, this is not Euclidean geometry. And we also have delight in the power of God. But why? There are plenty of such religions. Any pagan religion admires the power of God, magic. Alexander Schmemann writes, yes, maybe they wrote before, that Christianity is not a religion, but a personal connection with Christ. But what's going on? Here are young guys, smiling, talking, going to communion... And behind them are old women with chopsticks, after surgery. And it wouldn’t even occur to the guys to miss the grandmothers. And this is right after the liturgy, where once again everything was said! I didn’t go to take communion several times out of anger at it all. And then on radio “Radonezh”, which is usually on Sunday, she told listeners: “Guys, today I didn’t take communion because of you.” Because you look, and already in your soul something is happening that, not only to take communion, but also to be ashamed to look at church. Communion is not a magical act. This Last Supper, and if you came to celebrate with Him the now eternally celebrated evening before His death, then try to hear at least one thing that Christ added to the Old Testament and which turned everything upside down: “...love one another, as I have loved you...”

– Usually quoted as “Don’t do what you don’t want to do.”

– Yes, love for every good person means this golden rule. Quite reasonable: don’t do this and you will be saved. The Old Testament matrix, which was later taken over by Islam. And Christian love is a heartbreaking pity. You may not like the person at all. He may be absolutely disgusting to you. But you understand that, besides God, he, like you, has no protection. How often do we see such pity even in our church environment? Unfortunately, even this environment in our country is still most often unpleasant. Even the word “love” itself is already compromised in it. Threatening the girls with hellfire for having abortions, the priest says: “And the main thing is love...” When you hear this, even with complete non-resistance, there is a desire to take a good club and...

– Isn’t abortion evil?

- Evil. But they are deeply private things. And if the main Christian activity is the fight against abortion, then there is some charm in this - in the original understanding of the word. Suppose some girl wanted love, like any normal person, and found herself in a situation in which it was difficult to give birth. And the priest tells her that if she dies during the abortion, she will immediately go to hell. And she stamps her feet and shouts: “I won’t go to any of your churches!” And he’s doing the right thing by stomping. Well, come on, Christian, go ban abortion and scare the hell out of the girls who have heard that there is nothing higher than falling in love and that you can’t refuse anyone because it’s old-fashioned, or un-Christian, or whatever. It’s terrible, but Catholics have such habits...

– What about the Orthodox?

– We have more on the other side: they ask whether it is possible to keep dogs in a house where icons hang, and one of the main topics is fasting. Some strange pagan things. I remember when I was just starting to broadcast on a small church radio channel, they asked me a question: “Please tell me, is it a big sin if I eat before the star on Christmas Eve?” I almost burst into tears then on the air and talked for two hours about what we are talking about now.

Deny yourself

- And how can we be here?

“But there’s nothing so terrible about it.” When we didn’t have the concept of sin for so long, and then we began to accept anything as sin except self-love, “the ability to live,” self-will, confidence in our righteousness and perseverance, we need to start all over again. Many had to start over. And whoever has ears to hear, let him hear. Here, for example, is Blessed Augustine, a great saint. He was smart, he was famous, he had a wonderful career, if we measure it in our terms. But life became difficult for him, which is very typical.

– What does it mean: it became difficult for Augustine to live?

– This is when you begin to realize that something is wrong. Nowadays people relieve this feeling by going to a beautiful church and listening to beautiful singing. True, then they most often begin to hate it all or become hypocrites, never having heard what Christ said. But this was not the case with Augustine. A friend came to him and said: “Look, Augustine, even though we are scientists, we live like two fools. We are looking for wisdom, and everything is not there.” Augustine became very excited and ran out into the garden. And I heard from somewhere: “Take it and read it!” It seems that this boy was shouting to someone on the street. And Augustine heard that it was for him. He ran into the room and opened the Gospel. And I came across the message of Paul, on the words: “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ and do not turn the cares of the flesh into lusts.” Simple phrases: deny yourself and take up the cross, and don’t turn concerns about yourself into your idiotic desires, and understand that the most important worldly law in the world - to do what my head or, I don’t know what else, wants - is not for a Christian doesn't matter. These words completely changed Augustine.

– It seems that everything is simple. But why does a person so rarely manage to deny himself?

– Christianity is actually very inconvenient. Well, let’s say they let someone be the boss, and he must think that it is very difficult to behave like a Christian in such a situation. How much wisdom he needs! How much kindness is needed! He must think of everyone as of himself, and ideally, as Christ does of people. He must put himself in the place of everyone who walks under him and take care of him. Or, I remember, they asked why, when I had such an opportunity, I did not emigrate. I answered: “Because it would kill my parents. They would not dare to leave and would remain here, old, sick and lonely.” And we have a similar choice at every step. For example, someone from above flooded your apartment, and he doesn’t have the money to compensate you for the repairs... You can sue him or start arguing with him and thereby poison his life. Or you can leave everything as is, and then, if the opportunity arises, do the repairs yourself. You can also give up your turn... Be quiet, not important... Don't be offended... Very simple things. And the miracle of rebirth will happen gradually. God honored man with freedom, and only we ourselves, of our own free will, can break. And then Christ will do everything. We just need, as Lewis wrote, not to be afraid to open the armor in which we are shackled and let Him into our hearts. This attempt alone completely changes life and gives it value, meaning and joy. And when the Apostle Paul said “Rejoice always!”, he meant just such joy - at the highest heights of the spirit.

– He also said “weep with those who weep”...

“The thing is that only those who know how to cry can rejoice.” Shares their sorrows and sorrows with those who cry and does not run away from suffering. Christ says that those who mourn are blessed. Blessed means happy and have the fullness of life. And His promises are by no means heavenly, but earthly. Yes, the suffering is terrible. However, when people suffer, Christ offers: “Come to Me, all you who suffer and are heavy laden, I will give you rest.” But with one condition: take My yoke upon you and you will find rest for your souls. And the person really finds peace. Moreover, there is deep peace, and it’s not at all like he will walk around like he’s frozen: he just begins to live not in vanity, not in disarray. And then the state of the Kingdom of God comes here and now. And maybe, having learned it, we can help others too. And here is a very important thing. Christianity is not a means of salvation. A Christian is not the one being saved, but the one saving.

– So he should preach, help his neighbor?

- Not only. Most importantly, he introduces a tiny element of a different type of life into the world. My godmother, my nanny, introduced such an element. And I will never be able to forget that I saw such a person and knew him. She was very close to the Gospel. A penniless servant, she lived as a perfect Christian. I never did harm to anyone, I never said anything offensive word. I remember only once... I was still little, my parents went somewhere, and I wrote letters to them every day, as we agreed. And one woman who was visiting us looks at this and says: “Well, how to deal with a child’s sense of duty? Never, baby, do anything you don’t want to do. And you will be a happy person." And then my nanny turned pale and said: “Please forgive us. You have your own home, we have ours.” So once in my entire life I heard a harsh word from her.

– Were your family, your parents, different?

– My grandmother, Marya Petrovna, also never raised her voice. She left the school where she worked as a teacher because there she had to say anti-religious things. While grandfather was alive, she walked around him like a real lady: in a hat and a formal coat. And then she moved in with us. And it was not easy for her, a very tough person, apparently by type, with us, careless people. Here is my mother, her daughter, here is her unmarried husband, a film director and a bohemian in general... My grandmother never said that he was a Jew, because a normal Christian cannot be an anti-Semite. And how much she suffered with me! I, a seventeen-year-old cretin who didn’t go to school, went to university and there I almost went crazy with delight, success, falling in love... And if you remember all the stupid things I did! Fell in love and stole my grandfather's wedding ring, believing that the great feelings that I experienced gave me the right to stuff this ring with cotton wool, put it on my finger and walk with it. The nanny would probably have said more softly, but the grandmother would have said harshly: “Don’t do this. Nonsense."

- And this is tough?

– For her – very much. And my mother, in order for me to dress more fashionably than I thought possible after my grandmother’s and nanny’s upbringing, could bang my head against the wall to prove something to me. But she, tormented by the bohemian life, also alien to her due to her upbringing, which she, however, was forced to lead, cannot be judged. And she always believed that she had to dissuade me from faith, since I was ruining myself. Even Messinga invited me to bring me to my senses. No, she didn’t fight Christianity, she just understood that it would be hard for her daughter. And not because we lived in the Soviet Union, where they declared that there was no God. In any century, parents try to dissuade their children from Christianity.

– Even in Christian families?

– Well, for example, Anthony the Great, St. Theodosius, Catherine of Siena, Francis of Assisi... All four stories have Christian parents. And all about the fact that all children are people like people, and my child is a cretin. Theodosius does not want to dress as smartly as he should in his class, and devotes a lot of effort and time to good deeds. Catherine takes care of the sick and poor every day, sleeping for an hour a day, instead of going out with her friends and taking care of the house. Francis refuses a cheerful life and his father's inheritance... Such things have always been considered abnormal. Well, now, when the concepts of “success”, “career”, “luck” have practically become a measure of happiness, even more so. The pull of the world is very strong. This almost never happens: “stand on your head,” according to Chesterton, and live like that.

– What is the point in all this if only a few become Christians?

– But nothing massive was envisaged. It was not by chance that Christ spoke such words: “leaven”, “salt”. Such tiny measurements. But they change everything, they change your whole life. Keep the peace. They hold any family, even one where they have reached absolute disgrace: somewhere, someone, with some kind of prayers, with some kind of feat. There, a whole world of this strange at first glance opens up: when it’s easy, do it, when it’s difficult, talk, when it’s impossible, pray. And it works.

And also humility, with the help of which only one can overcome the evil that triumphs around.