www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Apocryphal errors

Someone else asked me to continue with Eros� so I will.

When one receives a letter from a loved one - one reads the letter and gets to the intent meant by the letter. When one hears the testimony of a witness in court - one is trying to determine by the experience that the witness relates - what the reality was. The testimony of the witness is not the reality itself - it points to - what the reality was. And so the letter from the loved one - or - the witness of the testimony - is always secondary and less than the reality they reflect. Each (the letter / testimony) only makes full senses when the reality they point to - is known.

Imagine for a minute that I received a letter from my dear friend Photius - and at the moment I received the letter and opened it - the phone rings and it is Photius calling to speak with me! Imagine that I take the phone and say �Photius - it is good to hear from you - but I can not speak with you right now because I was about to read your letter and I must not be disturbed and having you explain your letter to me - live - would only make it more difficult for me to understand this piece of paper and ink. I will talk to you later - after I have already determined by my own powers - what it is that you are calling me for.�

We should not substitute the limits of the letter and written testimony - for the real thing which is its origin and ultimate meaning. The letter and testimony only point to the real thing and we should prefer the real thing when it comes to us. The letter and testament will help us to recognize the real thing when it is present.

Now let us turn again to eros�.

Now that I have established the original meaning of eros within the cosmogonies of Greece (by those who coined the word) � let me tell you why I used it for this line of Paul.

Paul is making a direct reference to the first commandment (�If I have not love� etc.. etc..). and if we were Jews of the time we would know that right away.

Which first commandment is this�

According to Exodus�
�I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.�

According to Deuteronomy�
�I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.�

It is implicitly and explicitly implied �I am your father - love me.�

The rest of the commandments are all �thou shall not� commandments. Only the first is a �thou shall� � commandment � �you are to do this �� commandment. The rest are all �you shall not do�� commandments.

The first commandment addresses our proper relationship with God - while all the rest are pertaining to a proper relationship between - men who live in community.

Jesus gave his own interpretation of the first commandment. We should pay attention here.

(Matthew) �Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.�

(Mark) �Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.�

And that description of love that is eros - a very strong attraction of heart and mind and soul.

And in Luke - Jesus gives us not only his own interpretation of the first - but a summation of his interpretation of all the rest also�

(Luke) �Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind.� (that was the first commandment) and �Love your neighbor as yourself.� (this is a summation of the rest).

We must assume that Jesus knows how to interpret the first commandment - because he himself (IAM Yahwah) gave it to Moses. And we must also assume that he knew how to sum up the rest and for what purpose they were for.

Now let us look at Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 �

In 1 Corinthians 12 - Paul is addressing the fact that division was happening among the Christians� many were considering themselves to be more knowledgeable than others and so they were judging others to be less in authority than they. What I mean is that a catechist was thinking he knew better than a bishop - and a healer was setting himself up to be greater than an apostle, heariacy had broken down and cults and division into separation was taking place.. etc�

Paul was countering that - by stressing the hierarchical unity (of the body of the church) in its variety and diversification. Those today who keep the church divided (be they of whatever rite) continue as the Corinthians had been doing - continue even today to act against Paul�s guidance and desire. But that is none of our concern because none here have the authority and responsibility that comes with authority - to right the situation. No one here on this board is to blame and no one here can fix it - except in a very personal way. We all lament that those who do have the authority and responsibility - do not act in concert with Paul. Wee lament what is not our making nor our problem.

Back to Paul�

When the English translation says �tongues� we should think �language� but we should not think of language in the sense of ethnic county (Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Persian etc..) because that is not what Paul means. After all - angels have no human like language (are we to think that spirits all speak French?? Swahili??) because angels having no physical body and do not have mouths and throats and have no need to make sounds to communicate. Sound waves do not carry their �voice�. They have not mouths nor ears. I will not explain how things like �The angle said to Mary�� happen - but you will have to read reliable sources to know how this can be a human experience - but it is not as if an angel took a material body and stood in her room and spoke with his mouth to her ears. No. It was done in another way - which you will have to research for yourself.

Back to Paul�

When we hear Paul say tongues (language) we should rather think of how a medical doctor�s �language� - differs from our way of speaking� because he will use the terms appropriate to his knowledge of medicine. Or how a computer geek speaks with another computer geek in computer-esse. A carpenter, a plumber, a policeman - they all speak in terms appropriate to their special knowledge - what they do so because of what they know (knowledge a doctor has that no one else has). Only someone who is ego inflated would think that, having no medical knowledge, he could sit and listen in on a lecture by a heart surgeon on heart transplants - and think to himself that he could match that knowledge - just because he too speaks English.

So tongues and language - here - should be thought of as a - type of knowledge. That particular knowledge which is specific to each (to the apostle, to the prophet, to the catechists, to the one who does miracles, to the one who performs healings� etc�)

Paul makes the connection between knowledge given by God - as being given through intermediaries (angels). Paul would have had in mind the Hebrew word (for Paul was a Hebrew) for which the Greek transliteration is �angel� and that word is the Hebrew word �elohim�. This word (elohim) has wide meaning - it is �gods� in a wide sense.

It also means someone with religious authority. For in Hebrew an angel is elohim, a civil judge is elohim, a rabbi is elohim, and God is elohim. Even the Golden Calf of exodus is called elohim (but in a different way).

John uses it in Revelation to indicate stars as bishops or church elders - and Jesus used it to indicate the religious authority of the Pharisees (Jesus reminded them of their responsibilities - �You are elohim - you are gods�) in other words �YOU have the authority - now LIVE up to that responsibility God that gave you to represent himself to his people!�

And so we can see yet more of a play on words by Paul to display that the proper flow of authority and knowledge within the church - is from the hierarchy on down. In the structure of the church the knowledge of the apostles was greater than the prophet, the knowledge of the prophet greater than the catechist, etc.. God gives his public knowledge - through a hierarchy of intermediaries. So why were these Corinthians arguing over which had the greater knowledge?? All are needed - all have their place in the body which is a hierarchy.

When scriptures says �The angel of the Lord appeared �.� we are to understand that the presence of God - came to the experience of the person involved - through intermediary. And so if you read any words in scriptures in length spoken by an angel - you will find that the speaker (angel) shifts back and forth from being an angel to being God himself - and all within the same breath too. Now� he is speaking as an angel (�God has sent me � God wants you to know..� ) and now within the next breath it is God himself speaking (�I have seen� I will do this��).
Note this the next time you read such a passage.

Back to Paul�

Only in 12:30 does Paul refer to a Pentecostal like speaking in another human language. And He does so to show that it has no importance in itself. Then he quickly turned that into a play on words by turning it to what I just told you about. We can sum up the meaning of line 13:1-2 like this �

�If I have all the knowledge of all the mysteries of the world� (why - I would be the most intelligent genius in the world!!) � �but I had not the eros toward God which is the fulfillment of the first commandment - all my knowledge and speaking about such intellectual things - sound waves in the air�.

Keep in mind - if the first commandment id filled (love that has God as its goal) - all other commandments are already fulfilled by the first.

If the first commandment is fulfilled (�You shall love your God�) than all the rest of the commandments are - automatically fulfilled. The reverse is not true - we can not automatically fulfill the first commandment - by our efforts to fulfill 2 through 10.

That is why it is said that no one has ever been sanctified by fulfilling the law. That is the mistake of the Pharisees - and the mistake of anyone who argues the �laws� and the arguments of �correct� filoquia and such semantic details of the law. Theology and religious observance - do not produce God. It reflects him - it does not produce him. So let us leave these arguments over the details of the law - to those who eros to argue and appear smart to themselves and others. Let us restore the fullness of the heiarchy (in our own hearts at least) and not be bothered with what God has already provided. Most of the Orthodox and Catholic split has been repaired - only Moscow holds out for reasons of its compliancy with Communism. Not the rank and file priests (many of who went to gulag) but the sins of its bishops - who imagined they were saving the church.


Back to why I chose eros�

For two reasons - I was speaking of philosophy and religion as it once was united - to Alex - and so the play on the word was appropriate. And secondly because the love of God is not something we can do by ourselves - God must - infuse - the attraction - and if we try too hard to produce it ourselves (Calvin and Luther) what we produce is an aberration.. Fundamentalism. We have all done this - I know I have. We all at times try to hard - we run before the Spirit and do not follow after it.

Calvin and Luther are dead. Protestants today are a new thing. Enemies are now brothers. No one alive today is to blame. We can not go back into the past and figure it all out - no more than we can go back into the past and our own childhood. It is as impossible as trying to find and fix the past causes of Orthodox and Latin split. Can be done. Not a means to re-union.

When we first love God - we love God not for himself (he has not yet revealed himself to us by way of enlightenment to out knowledge) - we love God at first - for what we thing our needs are and what God can do to fill - our needs. We all begin as �fundamentalists� � a literal way of thinking of God. As we progress - we come to think of God is more spiritual ways - which ways are more appropriate to God as a spirit.

When we are young we eat food fit for children - when we are adults we eat food fit for adults.

Bear with me�

We speak of free will� but we must understand how it is free.
Our will is not free to chose anything other than - the good. This is built into us. What IS free is our choice of how we go about obtaining the good we perceive.

Let me give example. My children are starving - and so I steal bread for them to eat.

I desire the good - but instead of working for wages to purchase food - I select stealing.

The good I seek remains good - but my choice of how I will obtain the good - is lacking and a damage to myself and others.

The homosexual seeks good - but for reasons that he may (willing) or may not know about fully (�I do that which I do not want to do.� � the choice of how to obtain that good is what is lacking in some way.

Name our sin! There are many for each of us!

Each of us has no choice but to seek - the good - the perceived - good. It is a drive embedded within us without which drive we would not seek God.

The Communist, the radical Muslim, the thief, the liar, the cheat, the Nazi, the artist, the musician, the murderer - we all seek what we perceive as good - the choice is in the method and way of obtaining the good we perceive.

This is why wars of aggression are a tragedy and sin - and lack of self defense is a also a tragedy and sin..

And so I used eros (a strong attraction with intent of union) as that means and love by which God gives us to come to him.

�Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.�

Object = God
Means = eros supplied by God.

-ray

my my... I do ramble on.

Dear Ray, Christ is Risen!
Thanks for your patient and verbose reply.

Quote

Photius? Did you take this name after Photius of Contantinople??

Photius is my baptismal name ... I didn't "take" it. And, yes, the Photius the Great, Patriarch of Constantinople is my patron saint (6 February).

Quote

I am not real sure but I think that the name Pho-ti-us is a phonetic of py-th-a-us and may have a meaning of - oracles. One who speaks God. If you know what it means please tell me.

Cheers
-ray

No. "Photius" is Greek for "Enlightened One", from "phos", "light".

Thank you.

The name fits you.

I can see I now have someone I can trust when I need the Greek explained.

-ray