Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Questions and Answers 108 - 112

Contradictions in the Gospels

Question 108: In the Gospels we have eye-witness accounts, yet there are contradictions in the accounts, such as in the accounts of the Resurrection of Christ. How do you explain this and does not this prove the Gospel accounts are untrustworthy?

Answer: In 1912 the Titanic sank. According to eye-witness accounts of the time, some said the Titanic sank in one piece, while others said the ship broke in half before it sank. We know now that the Titanic broke in half, then sank. Does this contradiction from the eye-witnesses mean that the Titanic never existed? Or that the Titanic never sank? Or that the eye-witnesses were lying and were untrustworthy? To all these questions, the answer is no, of course not. The reason this is so is because the eye-witnesses saw the sinking of the Titanic from different perspectives and vantage points. If you saw the Titanic sink from the front or back, or perhaps from a far distance, then you probably saw the Titanic sink as one piece from your perspective and vantage point, but if you saw it sink from the side, then you saw it break in half. Similarly in the Gospels, you have different eye-witness accounts written from different perspectives and vantage points, with apparent contradictions. For example, in one Gospel it says the Myrrhbearing women encountered two angels at the empty tomb of Christ, while another Gospel says there was one angel. This is an apparent contradiction, but it is in fact not a contradiction but a difference. In one Gospel account it says there are two angels, but only one angel is recorded to speak, but in the other Gospel account it only records the one angel speaking. The account which speaks of the one angel never says that there was only one angel, but it just stresses the fact that one angel spoke, and there could very well have been two angels, but it was not necessary to record there were two angels, whereas the other account wanted to be clear that there were in fact two angels. Yet we must also remember, none of the Myrrhbearers wrote a Gospel, so the Gospel writers were not recording something they saw or witnessed, but they are interpreting the oral account they heard, and so one emphasized one thing while the other emphasized something else about the same thing. Similar things can be explained with all the other apparent contradictions in the Gospels. What I would be more worried about is if all the accounts were in total agreement from perspective and vantage point, cause then they would be accused of conspiring and colluding.

Friday, September 20, 2019

Questions and Answers 103 - 107

The Difference between the Old and New Atheists

Question 103: How would you describe the difference between the old atheists and the new atheists?

Answer: The fundamental difference between the two, in a very simplistic way, is that the New Atheists believe religion and faith are in the way of human progress, especially the progress offered through science, and they attack religion of all sorts with the anger of a fundamentalist. The Old Atheists on the other hand wanted something more than what the religions of the world offered. Let us take Nietzsche for example. He believed that religion had moved beyond the concept of a God. He felt that the concept of a God inevitably undermined his religious insight, so he rejected all gods. Of course, he fully admits that gods might come in handy in the future. Essentially his main issue was with what he referred to as 'Christian monotono theism': the understanding of God which has become so prevalent that it makes spirituality stagnant rather than allowing us to fully embrace the ever-changing nature of existence.

Thursday, August 22, 2019

Questions and Answers 98 - 102

The Miracle of the Snakes of Kefallonia

Question 98: Do you know why there is a decline in the number of snakes that are appearing in Kefallonia during the Dormition Fast?

Answer: I've been asked this a lot. Just so it is clear, snakes appear in two churches in Kefallonia during the Dormition Fast, both dedicated to the Dormition of the Theotokos. Nonetheless, there is indeed a decline in the number of snakes that appear. There are probably a few reasons for this. When I was there in 1991, I was told by locals how some snakes were found dead over the years, and even talked to someone who knew a guy that ran over one with a wagon, and they buried it with honors. This is at least one explanation - they are just dying off. Also, it has become very popular to attend these events, so the increase of people may play a factor too. I have also noticed there has been development and construction around the churches to accommodate the increase of people, which may be another reason the snakes do not appear as much. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next decade or two. When I heard the stories in 1991, I thought the miracle would come to an end in the matter of years, but here we are almost thirty years later and the snakes keep appearing.

Tuesday, July 9, 2019

Questions and Answers 93 - 97

Three Favorite Poetic Quotes

Question 93: I was asked in a school assignment what my three favorite poetic quotes are, and I can't think of any. Can you tell me what yours are?

Answer: You probably shouldn't use my favorite poetic quotes as being your own, nor would you probably not want to, but I'll answer your question:

1. "I was in the death struggle with self:
God and Satan fought for my soul those three long hours.
God conquered —
now I have only one doubt left —
which of the twain was God?" - Aleister Crowley

2. "And so being young and dipped in folly, I fell in love with melancholy." - Edgar Allan Poe

3. "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka

Saturday, June 22, 2019

Questions and Answers 92

Question 92: When do you think the issue over the granting of autocephaly in Ukraine will be resolved, so that either all the Churches accept autocephaly or it is resolved synodically?

Answer: I surprisingly get this question a lot, but I have absolutely no answer to provide, being a simple layman far from any inside information on the subject. Answers can only be found within the Patriarchal Synod of Moscow and/or the Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople, but I don't think they know either. One thing that must be stressed however is that this is nothing new in the Orthodox world, and I do believe it will be resolved in time just like it always has. Because it has happened before, it will likely happen again and again unless there is a synodal decision of all the Churches on the exact rules of granting autocephaly, but seeing that this has been an issue for many centuries it is unlikely a synodal decision will happen any time soon. It has always been very complicated however. Here are five of many examples just from the past few hundred years to prove my point:

Church of Greece: Under Ottoman rule, the Muslims had no control over the Church. With the establishment of the Greek kingdom, however, the government decided to take control of the Church, breaking away from the Patriarch in Constantinople. The government declared the Church to be autocephalous in 1833 in a political decision of the Bavarian Regents acting for King Otto, who was a minor. The decision roiled Greek politics for decades as royal authorities took increasing control. The new status was finally recognized as such by the Patriarchate in 1850, under compromise conditions with the issue of a special "Tomos" decree which brought it back to a normal status. It thus took 17 years for its autocephaly to be recognized by Constantinople.

Church of Romania: Prince Alexandru Ioan Cuza, who had in 1863 carried out a mass confiscation of monastic estates in the face of stiff opposition from the Greek hierarchy in Constantinople, in 1865 pushed through a legislation that proclaimed complete independence of the Church in the Principalities from the Patriarchate. The Ecumenical Patriarchate recognized its status in 1885 only after long negotiations. It thus took 20 years for its autocephaly to be recognized by Constantinople.

Church of Poland: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople granted the Church of Poland its autocephaly in the Tomos of 13 November 1924. Given that most of the parishioners were Ukrainians and Belarusians living in the Eastern areas of the newly independent Polish Second Republic, the Patriarch of Constantinople had a canonical basis to grant the Tomos to the Polish Church as a successor of the Kyiv Metropolia, the former territory of Kyivan Rus' which Constantinople continued to see as its canonical territory (despite having agreed to allow Moscow to be its caretaker in 1686). The Russian Orthodox Church at the time did not recognize the Polish autocephaly, as it did not recognize the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. In 1948, after the Soviet Union established political control over Poland, the Russian Orthodox Church recognized the autocephalous status of the Polish Orthodox Church. It thus took 24 years for its autocephaly to be recognized by Moscow.

Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia: On December 9, 1951, the Patriarch of Moscow granted autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Czechoslovakia, though this action was not recognized by Constantinople, which regarded the Czechoslovak Church as being autonomous under its authority. The Patriarch of Constantinople later issued a Tomos, or official proclamation, of autocephaly in 1998. It thus took 47 years for its autocephaly to be recognized by Constantinople.

Orthodox Church of America: The OCA was granted autocephaly in 1970 by the Patriarchate of Moscow, but this was rejected by the Ecumenical Patriarchate since it considers America to be under its canonical jurisdiction. This continues to be its status today and has not been resolved.

And let's not forget the autocephalous Churches which did not obtain ecumenical validation and assurance — like the Church of Carthage, the Church of Mediolana (Milan), the Church of Lyons, the Church of First Justiniana, the Church of Ochrid, the Church of Trnovo, the Church of Ipek, and the Church of Iberia, as well as some others in this category — which lost their autocephaly with the passage of time.

What we see in all these examples is that the granting of autocephaly is done under various conditions in various complicated ways, and even when autocephaly is granted by one Patriarchate it may take many decades for other Patriarchates to accept, though it could over time lose its autocephaly altogether. With the Ukraine issue however, the Russian Church seems to have taken the matter very personal, hence its extreme reaction by not recognizing for the time being the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Such hostility may need to follow these hierarchs involved with the issue to the grave in order for a resolution to take place, but let's hope it does not come to this.

Contact Form


Email *

Message *