More than 2000 years ago, in the far eastern province of the Roman Empire, a new teaching appeared, a kind of "heresy of the Jewish faith" (Jules Renard), whose creator was soon executed by the Romans on the verdict of the spiritual authorities of Jerusalem. All sorts of prophets, Judah was, in general, not surprising, heretical sects - too. But the preaching of the new teaching threatened to exacerbate the already extremely unstable situation in the country. Christ seemed dangerous not only to the secular authorities of this troubled imperial province, but also to the members of the Jewish Sanhedrin who did not want a conflict with Rome. Both were well aware that popular unrest in Judea, as a rule, takes place under the slogans of universal equality and social justice, and the sermons of Jesus, as it seemed to them, could serve as a catalyst for another rebellion. On the other hand, Jesus irritated the faithful Jews, some of whom could recognize him as a prophet, but not the Son of God. As a result, in exact accordance with the words of Jesus, the fatherland did not recognize its prophet, the success of Christianity in the historical homeland turned out to be minimal, and the death of the new messiah did not attract special attention of contemporaries, not only in distant Rome, but even in Judea and Galilee. Only Josephus Flavius in his work "Antiquities of the Jews" in between times informs about a certain Jacob that he "was the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."
Josephus Flavius, illustration 1880
In fairness, it should be said that in another passage from this work (the famous "testimony of Flavius") Jesus says exactly what is required and will be required by Christian philosophers of all times and peoples:
"At that time Jesus lived, a wise man, if you can call him a man at all. He did extraordinary things and was a teacher of people who happily perceived the truth. Many Jews followed him, as well as pagans. He was Christ. And when according to the denunciations of our most famous husbands, Pilate sentenced him to be crucified on the cross, his former adherents did not turn away from him. For on the third day he again appeared to them alive, which the prophets of God predicted, as well as many other amazing things about him."
Everything seems simply wonderful, but the quoted passage has one single drawback: it appeared in the text of "Jewish Antiquities" only in the 4th century, and even in the 3rd century, the religious philosopher Origen, who was well acquainted with the works of Joseph Flavius, did not know anything about such a brilliant proof of the coming of the Messiah …
The first Roman evidence of Christ and Christians belongs to Tacitus: in the first quarter of the 2nd century, describing the fire of Rome (according to legend, arranged by Nero in 64), this historian says that Christians were accused of arson and many were executed. Tacitus also reports that a man who bore the name of Christ was executed during the reign of the emperor Tiberius and the procurator Pontius Pilate.
Publius Corellius Tacitus
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus wrote in the second quarter of the 2nd century that the Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because they "organized turmoil under the leadership of Christ," and under Nero, many Christians were executed for spreading "new harmful customs."
However, let's go back to the East. The traditionally restless Judea was far away, but the Jews of Rome and other large cities of the Empire were close, who were the first to suffer during any anti-Roman uprising in Jerusalem. And therefore, the teaching of Christ, calling on believers not to actively fight the Romans, but to await the Last Judgment, which should destroy the power of the empire of oppressors, was very well received in the Jewish diaspora (whose history dates back to the 6th century BC). Some of the Diaspora Jews, who were not too strict with the prescriptions of Orthodox Judaism and were receptive to the religious trends of the surrounding pagan world, tried to distance themselves from their "violent" Jewish brethren. But the idea of monotheism, which remained unchanged, did not allow them to become completely loyal and safe for Rome worshipers of another religious cult, of which there were so many on the territory of the empire. But the preaching of Christianity was especially successful among proselytes (people of non-Jewish origin who converted to Judaism).
In the first Christian communities there was no single concept of faith and there was no unequivocal opinion about the rituals that should be observed. But centralized government did not yet exist, there were no doctrines, based on which it would be possible to establish which views are wrong, and therefore various Christian communities did not consider each other as heretics for a long time. The first contradictions arose when they had to look for an answer to the question that worries everyone: for whom is the kingdom of God promised by Christ accessible? Only to the Jews? Or do people of other nationalities also have hope? In many Christian communities in Judea and Jerusalem, new converts were required to be circumcised. become a Jew before becoming a Christian. Diaspora Jews were not so categorical. The final split between Christianity and Judaism occurred in 132-135, when the Jewish Christians did not support the uprising of the "Son of the Star" - Bar Kochba.
So, Christianity separated from the synagogue, but still retained numerous elements of Judaism, primarily the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). At the same time, the Catholic and Orthodox churches recognize the Alexandrian canon, which contains 72 books, as "true", and the Protestant churches returned to the earlier canon - the Palestinian one, which contains only 66 books. The so-called Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, which are not in the Palestinian canon, are classified by Protestants as apocryphal (another version of their name is pseudo-epigraphs).
The Jewish roots of the new faith explain the rejection of icons, characteristic of Christians in the first centuries of the new era (the law of Moses forbade the image of the Divine). Back in the 6th century, Gregory the Great wrote to Bishop Massilin: "For the fact that you forbade the worship of icons, we generally praise you; for the same thing that you broke them, we blame … It is one thing to worship a picture, it is another to find out with the help of content what you have to worship."
Francisco Goya, "Pope Gregory the Great at Work"
In the popular veneration of icons, elements of pagan magic were indeed present (and, let us be frank, are still present today). So, there were cases of scraping paint from icons and adding it to the Eucharistic bowl, “participation” of the icon as a recipient at baptism. Attaching to icons was also considered a pagan custom, therefore it was recommended to hang them in churches higher - to make it difficult to access them. This point of view was shared by the supporters of Islam. After the final victory of the icon-worshipers (in the 8th century), Jews and Muslims even called Christians idolaters. The adherent of veneration of icons John Damascene, trying to get around the Old Testament prohibition on idolatry, said that in ancient times God was incorporeal, but after he appeared in the flesh and lived among people, it became possible to depict the visible God.
Saint Reverend John Damascene. Fresco of the Church of the Virgin in Studenica monastery, Serbia. 1208-1209 years
In the course of the spread of Christianity outside Judea, its ideas were subjected to critical analysis by pagan philosophers (from Stoics to Pythagoreans), including the Hellenized Jews of the Diaspora. The writings of Philo of Alexandria (20 BC - 40 AD) had a significant impact on the author of the Gospel of John and the Apostle Paul. Philo's innovative contribution was the idea of an absolute God (while the Hebrew Bible also spoke of the God of the chosen people) and the doctrine of the Trinity: the Absolute God, the Logos (the high priest and the firstborn son of God) and the World Spirit (Holy Spirit). The modern researcher G. Geche, characterizing the teaching of Philo, calls it "Christianity without Christ."
Philo of Alexandria
Various Gnostic teachings also had a great influence on Christianity. Gnosticism is a religious and philosophical concept designed for educated people brought up in Hellenistic traditions. The Gnostic teachings placed the responsibility for all the injustices and misfortunes of the world on the Demiurge ("artisan"), a not very large demon who created the World and created the first people as his toys. However, the wise Serpent enlightened them and helped to achieve freedom - for this Demiurge tortures the descendants of Adam and Eve. People who worshiped the Serpent, and God, who wanted to leave people in ignorance, was considered an evil demon, were called Ophites. The Gnostics are characterized by the desire to reconcile various pre-Christian views with the Christian idea of the salvation of the soul. According to their ideas, Evil was related to the material world, society and the state. Salvation for the Gnostics meant liberation from sinful matter, which was also expressed in the denial of the existing order. This often made members of the Gnostic sects opponents of the authorities.
The founder of one of the Gnostic schools, Marcion (who was excommunicated by his own father) and his followers denied the continuity of the Old and New Testaments, and Judaism was considered the worship of Satan. Apelles, a disciple of Marcion, believed that the One Origin, the Unborn God, created the two main angels. The first of them created the world, the second - "fiery" - is hostile to God and the first angel. Brilliantly educated and famous for his erudition, Valery Bryusov (whom M. Gorky called "the most cultured writer in Russia") knew about this. And that is why Andrei Bely, Bryusov's rival in the love triangle, in the famous mystical novel is not just the angel Madiel - no, he is precisely "The Fiery Angel". And this is not a compliment at all, on the contrary: Bryusov directly tells everyone who is able to understand that his alter ego in the novel, the knight Ruprecht, is fighting Satan - it is not surprising that he is defeated in this unequal duel.
Illustration for the novel "The Fiery Angel": A. Bely - the Fiery Angel Madiel, N. Petrovskaya - Renata, V. Bryusov - the unfortunate knight Ruprecht
But back to the teachings of Apelles, who believed that the world, as a creation of a good angel, is benevolent, but subject to the blows of an evil angel, whom Marcion identified with Yahweh of the Old Testament. Back in the II century. n. NS. More than 10 differences between the god of the Old Testament and the gospel god were formulated by Marcion:
God of the Old Testament:
Encourages sex mixing and reproduction to the limits of the Ecumene
Promises land as a reward.
Prescribes circumcision and killing of prisoners
Curses the earth
Regrets that he created man
Prescribes revenge
Allows usury
Appears in the form of a dark cloud and a fiery tornado
Forbidden to touch or even approach the Ark of the Covenant
(i.e., the principles of religion are a mystery to believers)
Curse "hanging on a tree", that is, the executed
God of the New Testament:
Forbids even sinful gazing at a woman
Heaven promises as a reward
Prohibits both
Bless the earth
Doesn't change his sympathy for the person
Prescribes the forgiveness of the penitent
Prohibits misappropriation of unearned money
Appears as an unapproachable Light
Calls everyone to him
Death on the Cross of God Himself
Thus, Yahweh, the God of Moses, from the point of view of the Gnostics, is by no means Elohim, to whom the crucified Christ called. Christ, they pointed out, referring to the Jews, who called themselves "God's chosen people" and "children of the Lord," said bluntly:
"If God were your father, then you would love me, because I came from God and came … Your father is the devil; and you want to fulfill the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth, for there is no When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father of lies "(John 8, 42-44).
Another evidence against the identity of Yahweh and Elohim is the fact that in the Old Testament Satan in the book of Job is actually a trusted collaborator of God: fulfilling the will of God, he subjects the faith of unfortunate Job to a cruel test. According to the Apocrypha, Lucifer became Satan (the Troubled), who, before indignation against God, carried out his instructions: by order of Savoaph, he possessed King Saul and made him "rave in his house," another time God sent him to "carry away with lies" the Israeli king Ahab to force him into battle. Lucifer (Satan) is named here among the "sons of God". But Christ in the Gospel refuses to communicate with Satan.
By the way, at present it is considered a proven fact that Pyatnik has four authors, one of whom is called Yahvist (his text was recorded in Southern Judea in the 9th century BC), the other - Elohist (his text was written later, in Northern Judea). According to the Old Testament, both good and evil, to the same extent, come from Yahweh: "He who creates light and creates darkness, who makes peace and who does evil is I, Yahweh, who does this." (Book of Isaiah; 45.7; 44.6-7).
But the Christian teaching about Satan is still based on sources that are not canonical. The most important of these turned out to be the apocryphal "Revelation of Enoch" (dated about 165 BC). Small quote:
“When people multiplied and daughters who were prominent and beautiful in face began to be born to them, the angels, the sons of heaven, seeing them, burned with love for them and said:“Let's go, we will choose wives from the daughters of men and make children with them …”.
They took wives for themselves, each according to their choice they went to them and lived with them and taught them magic, spells and the use of roots and herbs … In addition, Azazel taught people to make swords, knives, shields and shells; he also taught them to make mirrors, bracelets and jewelry, as well as the use of blush, eyebrow tinting, the use of precious stones of graceful appearance and color … Amatsarak taught all magic and the use of roots. Armers taught how to break a spell; Barkayal taught to observe the heavenly bodies; Akibiel taught signs and signs; Tamiel for astronomy and Asaradel for the movement of the moon."
Irenaeus of Lyons (II century AD) introduced the devil into church dogma. The devil, according to Irenaeus, was created by God as a bright angel possessing free will, but rebelling against the Creator because of his pride. His assistants, demons of lower rank, according to Irenaeus, originated from the cohabitation of fallen angels with mortal women. The first of the mothers of demons was Lilith: they were born from the cohabitation of Adam and Lilith, when, after the fall, he was separated from Eve for 130 years.
John Collier, Lilith, 1889
By the way, do you know why the Orthodox tradition requires women to cover their heads when entering a church? The Apostle Paul (in 1 Corinthians) says:
"To every husband the head is Christ, to the wife the head is the husband … every wife who prays … with an open head shames her head, for this is the same as if she were shaved (ie a prostitute) … not a husband from a wife, but the wife is from her husband … therefore, the wife must have on her head the sign of power over her, for the angel."
That is, cover your head with a handkerchief, woman, and do not tempt the angels in the church who look at you from heaven.
Tatian, a 2nd century theologian, wrote that "the body of the devil and demons is made of air or fire. Being almost corporeal, the devil and his helpers need food."
Origen argued that demons "greedily swallow" the sacrificial smoke. Based on the location and movement of the stars, they foresee the future, possess secret knowledge that they willingly reveal … Well, of course, to women, who else. According to Origen, demons are not subject to the sin of homosexuality.
But why did Christian theologians need the doctrine of the Devil? Without his presence, it is difficult to explain the existence of evil on earth. However, recognizing the existence of Satan, theologians faced yet another, perhaps, the main contradiction of Christianity: if God who created the world is good, where did evil come from? If Satan was created by a pure angel, but rebelled against God, then God is not omniscient? If God is omnipresent - is he also present in the Devil, and, therefore, is responsible for the activities of Satan? If God is omnipotent, why does he allow Satan's evil activities? In general, it turned out that the Christian theory of good and evil has many paradoxes and contradictions that can drive any philosopher and theologian crazy. One of the teachers of the church, "angelic doctor" Thomas Aquinas, decided that man, due to his original sinfulness, cannot do good worthy of eternal life, but can receive the gift of grace that dwells in him, if he is inclined to accept this gift from God. But at the end of his life, he admitted that all his works are straw, and any illiterate grandmother knows more, because she believes that the soul is immortal.
Angelic Doctor Thomas Aquinas
Pelagius, a British monk who lived in the 5th century, preached that the sinfulness of a person is the result of his evil deeds, and therefore a good pagan is better than an evil Christian. But Blessed Augustine (the founder of Christian philosophy, 354-430) put forward the concept of original sin, thus declaring all pagans inferior and justifying religious intolerance.
Sandro Botticelli, "Blessed Augustine", circa 1480, Florence
He also put forward the concept of predestination, according to which people are doomed to salvation or death, regardless of their actions, and according to the foresight of God - by virtue of his omniscience. (Later this theory was recalled by the Geneva Protestants, led by Calvin). The medieval theologian Gottschalk did not stop there: having creatively developed the teaching of Augustine, he declared that the source of evil is divine providence. Johann Scott Erigena finally confused everyone, proclaiming that there is no evil in the world at all, proposing to accept even the most obvious evil for good.
The Christian theory of good and evil finally came to a standstill, and the Catholic Church returned to the teaching of Pelagius about the salvation of the soul by doing good deeds.
The doctrine of Satan, as it was said, was borrowed by Christian theologians from a non-canonical source - the apocrypha, but the thesis of the virgin Mary's immaculate conception was borrowed by them altogether from the Koran, and relatively recently: back in the 12th century, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux condemned the doctrine of the immaculate conception, considering it an unreasonable innovation.
El Greco, "Saint Bernard of Clairvaux"
Alexander Gaelsky and the "seraphic doctor" Bonaventura (general of the monastic Order of the Franciscans) also condemned this dogma.
Vittorio Crivelli, Saint Bonaventure
The disputes continued for many centuries, only in 1617 Pope Paul V forbade to publicly refute the thesis of the Immaculate Conception. And only in 1854 Pope Pius IX with the bull Ineffabius Deus finally approved this dogma.
George Healy, Pius IX, portrait
By the way, the dogma of the Ascension of the Virgin to heaven was officially recognized by the Catholic Church only in 1950.
The Gnostic trend in Judaism was Kabbalah ("Teaching Received from Legend"), which arose in the 2nd-3rd centuries. AD According to Kabbalah, the purpose of people created by God is to improve to his level. God does not help his creatures, for "help is a shameful bread" (handout): people must achieve perfection on their own.
In contrast to the Gnostics, who tried to understand and logically resolve the rapidly accumulating contradictions, the Christian writer and theologian Tertullian (about 160 - after 222) asserted the idea of the powerlessness of reason before faith. It is he who owns the famous phrase: "I believe, because it is absurd." At the end of his life he became close to the Montanists.
Tertullian
Followers of Montana (who created his teachings in the 1st century AD) led an ascetic lifestyle and preached martyrdom, wanting to "help" bring the end of the world closer - and, therefore, the kingdom of the Messiah. They have traditionally been in opposition to the secular authorities and the official church. Military service was declared by them to be incompatible with Christian doctrine.
There were also followers of Mani (born at the beginning of the 3rd century), whose teachings represented a synthesis of Christianity with Buddhism and the cult of Zarathustra.
The inscription reads: Mani, Messenger of Light
The Manicheans recognized all religions, and believed that the Forces of Light through them periodically sent their apostles to Earth, including Zarathustra, Christ and Buddha. However, only Mani, the last in the line of the apostles, was able to bring real faith to people. Such "tolerance" to other religious teachings allowed the Manichaeans to disguise themselves as believers of any confession, gradually taking away the flock from representatives of traditional religions - this is what caused such hatred of Manichaeism among Christians, Muslims, and even "correct" Buddhists. In addition, a clear and open rejection of the material world introduced cognitive dissonance in the minds of ordinary sane citizens. People, as a rule, were not against moderate asceticism and reasonable limitations of sensuality, but not to the same extent to strive to destroy this whole World, which in Manichaeism was considered, not just as an area of struggle between Light and Darkness, but was considered Darkness, captivating particles Light (human souls). Elements of Manichaeism persisted for a long time in Europe in such heretical teachings as Paulicianism, Bogomilism, and the Cathar movement (the Albigensian heresy).
People tend to bring all religions to a common denominator. As a result, after several generations, Christians began to bless killings in war, and fans of the cruel and merciless Apollo appointed him the patron saint of virtue and fine arts. His faithful servants, of course, do not ask permission to "trade in heaven" and sell "tickets to paradise" from their God. And they are not interested in whether their patron needs saints whom they impose on him according to their will and understanding. And the ministers of all religions without exception treat earthly rulers and state power with extraordinary piety and undisguised servility. And in Christianity, it was precisely the tendencies that were inclined to adapt religion to the goals of the ruling classes that gradually became stronger. This is how the church appeared in the modern sense of the word, and instead of democratic communities in a number of countries, an authoritarian church organization appeared. In the IV century, Arius tried to oppose the rationalism of his teaching to the mysticism of church dogmas ("The madmen who are fighting against me, undertake to interpret the nonsense") - began to assert that Christ was created by God the Father, and, therefore, is not equal to him. But times have already changed, and the dispute ended not with the adoption of a resolution condemning the apostate, but with the poisoning of the heresiarch in the palace of the emperor Constantine and cruel persecution of his supporters.
Arius, heresiarch
The emergence of a single church made it possible to combine the teachings of different communities. It was based on the direction led by the Apostle Paul, which was characterized by a complete break with Judaism and a desire to compromise with the government. In the process of the formation of the Christian church, the so-called canonical scriptures were created, which were included in the New Testament. The canonization process began at the end of the 2nd century AD. and ended around the 4th century. At the Council of Nicaea (325), more than 80 Gospels were considered for inclusion in the New Testament. 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), the Acts of the Holy Apostles, 14 Epistles of the Apostle Paul, 7 Council Epistles and the Revelation of John the Theologian were declared the holy books of Christianity. A number of books did not fall into the canon, among them the so-called Gospels of James, St. Thomas, Philip, Mary Magdalene, etc. But Protestants in the 16th century. denied the right to be considered "sacred" even to some of the canonical books.
It should be said right away that even the Gospels recognized as canonical could not have been written by Christ's contemporaries (and, moreover, by his apostles), since contain many factual errors that are recognized by Catholic and Protestant historians and theologians. Thus, the Evangelist Mark points out that a herd of pigs grazed in the land of Gadara on the shore of Lake Genesaret - however, Gadara is far from Lake Genesaret. The meeting of the Sanhedrin could hardly take place in Caiaffe's house, especially in the courtyard: there was a special room in the temple complex. Moreover, the Sanhedrin could not carry out the judgment either on Easter Eve, or on a holiday, or during the next week: to condemn a person and crucify him at that time meant the whole world would commit a mortal sin. An outstanding Protestant biblical scholar, professor at the University of Göttingent, E. Lohse, discovered in the Gospels 27 violations of the judicial procedure of the Sanhedrin.
By the way, in the New Testament there are books written before the Gospels - these are the early epistles of the Apostle Paul.
The recognized canonical Gospels were written in Koine, a variant of the Greek language common in the Hellenistic states of the heirs of Alexander the Great (diadochi). Only in relation to the Gospel of Matthew, some researchers make assumptions (not supported by the bulk of historians) that it could have been written in Aramaic.
The canonical Gospels were not only written at different times, but were also intended to be read in different audiences. The earliest of these (written between AD 70-80) is the Gospel of Mark. Modern research has proven that this was the source for the Gospels of Matthew (80-100 AD) and of Luke (about 80 AD). These three Gospels are commonly referred to as "synoptic".
Mark's Gospel is clearly written for non-Jewish Christians, with the author constantly explaining Jewish customs to readers and translating specific expressions. For example: “who ate bread with unclean hands, that is, with unwashed hands”; "Effafa said to him, that is, open up." The author does not identify himself, the name "Mark" appears only in the texts of the 3rd century.
The Gospel of Luke (the author of which, by the way, admits that he was not a witness of the events described - 1: 1) is addressed to people brought up in the traditions of Hellenistic culture. After analyzing the text of this Gospel, the researchers came to the conclusion that Luke was neither a Palestinian nor a Jew. In addition, according to language and style, Luke is the most educated of the evangelists, and may have been a doctor or had something to do with medicine. Since the 6th century, he is considered to be the artist who created the portrait of the Virgin Mary. The Gospel of Luke is usually called social, since it retains the negative attitude towards wealth characteristic of early Christian communities. It is believed that the author of this Gospel used a document that has not survived to our time containing the sermons of Jesus.
But the Gospel of Matthew is addressed to the Jews and was created either in Syria or in Palestine. The name of the author of this Gospel is known from the message of Pappius, a disciple of the Evangelist John.
The Gospel of John deserves special attention, because in form and content it is very different from the synoptic ones. The author of this book (his name is called Irenaeus in the work "Against Heresies" - 180-185, he also reports that the Gospel was written in Ephesus) is not interested in facts, and he devoted his work exclusively to the development of the foundations of the Christian doctrine. Using the concepts of the teachings of the Gnostics, he constantly enters into polemics with them. It is believed that this Gospel was addressed to the rich and educated Romans and Hellenes, who were not sympathetic to the image of a poor Jew preaching sermons to fishermen, beggars and lepers. Much closer to them was the doctrine of the Logos - a mysterious power emanating from an incomprehensible God. The time of writing the Gospel of John dates back to about 100 (no later than the second half of the 2nd century).
In a cruel and merciless world, the preaching of mercy and self-denial in the name of higher goals sounded more revolutionary than the calls of the most radical rebels, and the emergence of Christianity was one of the most important turning points in world history. But even sincere followers of Christ were just people, and the attempts of high-ranking leaders of the Church to arrogate to themselves a monopoly on the ultimate truth cost humanity dearly. Having achieved recognition from the authorities, the hierarchs of the most peaceful and humane religion eventually surpassed their former persecutors in cruelty. Church workers forgot the words of John Chrysostom that the flock should not be shepherded with a fiery sword, but with paternal patience and fraternal affection, and Christians should not be persecutors, but persecuted, since Christ was crucified, but did not crucify, was beaten, but not beat.
Andrey Rublev, John Chrysostom
The true Middle Ages did not come with the fall of Rome or Byzantium, but with the introduction of a ban on freedom of opinion and freedom of interpretation of the foundations of Christ's teachings addressed to everyone. Meanwhile, many religious disputes may seem groundless and ridiculous to a person living in the 21st century. It is hard to believe, but only in 325, by voting at the Council of Nicaea, Christ was recognized by God, and - with a slight majority of votes (at this Council, the unbaptized emperor Constantine was granted the rank of deacon - so that he could attend the meetings).
Vasily Surikov, "The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea", painting 1876
Is it possible at a Church Council to decide from whom the Holy Spirit emanates - only from God the Father (Catholic point of view) or also from God the Son (Orthodox dogma)? Has God the Son existed forever (i.e., is he equal to God the Father?) Or, being created by God the Father, is Christ a being of a lower order? (Arianism). Is God the Son "Consubstantial" with God the Father, or is he only "Consubstantial" to him? In the Greek language, these words are distinguished by only one letter - "iota", because of which the Arians argued with Christians, and which entered the sayings of all countries and peoples ("do not step back one iota" - in Russian transcription these words sound like " homousia "and" homousia "). Does Christ have two natures (divine and human - orthodox Christianity), or only one (divine - Monophysites)? The powers that be tried to solve some questions of faith by their sole decision. The Byzantine emperor Heraclius, who dreamed of reuniting Monophysitism with Orthodoxy, proposed a compromise - the doctrine of Monothelism, according to which the embodied Word has two bodies (divine and human) and one will - divine. The system of "deadly sins" was developed by the learned monk Evagrius of Pontic, but the next "classifier" - John Cassian, excluded "envy" from this list.
Evagrius of Pontic, icon
John Cassian Roman
But Pope Gregory the Great (who called these, especially highlighted, sins "mortal"), this did not suit. He replaced "prodigal sin" with "lust," combined the sins of "laziness" and "despondency," added the sin of "vanity" to the list, and again included "envy."
And that's not counting other, less significant questions faced by Christian theologians. It was in the process of comprehension and attempts to find a logically consistent solution to all these problems in the Christian environment that numerous heretical movements began to appear. The official church was unable to find answers to the tricky questions of the heresiarchs, but with the help of the authorities, it managed (in the name of preserving the unity of believers) to brutally suppress those who disagree and approve canons and dogmas, a simple discussion of which soon became considered a terrible crime both in the West and in the East. Even the reading of the Gospels was forbidden for the laity in both the West and the East. This is how things were in Russia. The first attempt to translate the New Testament into modern Russian, undertaken by the interpreter of the Polish order Abraham Firsov in 1683, failed: by order of Patriarch Joachim, almost the entire edition was destroyed and only a few copies were preserved with the note: "Do not read to anyone." Under Alexander I, the 4 Gospels (1818) and the New Testament (in 1821) were finally translated into Russian - much later than the Koran (1716, translated from French by Peter Postnikov). But an attempt to translate and print the Old Testament (they managed to translate 8 books) ended with the burning of the entire circulation in 1825.
Yet the church was unable to maintain unity. Catholicism, headed by the Pope, proclaimed the priority of spiritual power over secular, while the Orthodox hierarchs placed their authority at the service of the Byzantine emperors. The schism between Western and Eastern Christians already in 1204 was so great that the crusaders who seized Constantinople declared the Orthodox to be such heretics that "God himself is sick." And in Sweden in 1620 a certain Botvid carried out quite a serious study on the topic "Are the Russians Christians?" The Catholic West dominated for centuries, with the blessing of the Pope, the young aggressive states of Western Europe pursued an active expansionist policy, organizing crusades either against the Islamic world, then against the Orthodox "schismatics", then against the pagans of northern Europe. But the contradictions tore apart and the Catholic world. In the 13th century, crusaders from northern and central France and Germany destroyed the heretic Cathars, the spiritual heirs of the Manichaeans. In the 15th century, Czech heretic Hussites (who demanded by and large only the equality of laymen and priests) repulsed five crusades, but divided into parties that clashed among themselves: the Taborites and "orphans" were destroyed by the Utraquists, ready to agree with the Pope. In the 16th century, the Reformation movement split the Catholic world into two irreconcilable parts, which immediately entered into long and fierce religious wars, which resulted in the emergence of Protestant church organizations independent of Rome in a number of European countries. The hatred between Catholics and Protestants was such that one day the Dominicans, who paid one of the Algerian beys 3,000 piastres for the release of three Frenchmen, refused to take the fourth free of charge, whom, in a fit of generosity, wanted to give them a bey - because he was a Protestant.
The Church (both Catholic, and Orthodox, and various Protestant movements) was by no means limited to control over the consciousness of people. Intervention of the highest hierarchs in big politics and in the internal affairs of independent states, numerous abuses, contributed to discrediting the lofty ideas of Christianity. The payment for them was the fall of the authority of the Church and its leaders, who now give up one position after another, cowardly refuse the provisions and prescriptions of their sacred Books and do not dare to defend the principled clergy, who in the modern Western world are persecuted for "politically incorrect and intolerant" quotations of biblical texts …
