https://m.youtube.com/@FatherGeorgeMaximov - Videos of Russian Orthodox Church priest George Maximov in English are published here.

 https://m.youtube.com/@FatherGeorgeMaximov

          -Videos of Russian Orthodox Church priest George Maximov in English are published here.

Neo-paganism and the heresies of modern Roman Catholicism

 These words spoken by Christ to Peter: "Get behind Me, satan!" (Matthew 4:10) – testify that it was not on Peter himself that Christ founded His Church, but on the rock of faith of the chosen Apostles.

compiled by V. Vasiliev, G. Alekseev

Questions and Answers

Contents

Introduction

I. The Most Important Innovations of Roman Catholicism Before Vatican II

• The Doctrine of Papal Supremacy

• On Papal Infallibility

• The Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit

• The Doctrine of Original Sin

• The Doctrine of the Supererogatory Merits of the Saints and of Indulgences

• The Dogmas of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary and Her Bodily Assumption

• Deviations in the Administration of the Holy Sacraments
  II. Statements of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church about Roman Catholicism
  III. The New Dogmatic Teaching of the Roman Catholics Adopted by the Second Vatican Council

• The Essence of the New Dogma and Its General Justification

• The "Spiritual Kinship" of Christians and Jews

• On the Spiritual Proximity of Christians and Muslims

• On the Spiritual Proximity of Christians and Pagans

• On Salvation in Non-Christianity

• The Innovations of the Second Vatican Council and Their Contradictions with Christianity

• Roman Catholicism After the Second Vatican Council
  IV. On Salvation and Spiritual Life in Roman Catholicism
  V. On the "Reunification" of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches

• Unions and Uniatism

• Ecumenism
  Conclusion
  Appendices

• Some Materials of the Second Vatican Council
  a. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church
  b. Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions
  Literature

This publication sets forth the main differences of modern Roman Catholicism that arose during the past millennium after its fall from Orthodoxy. Special attention is given to the new dogmatic teaching of Roman Catholics about God, salvation, Divine Revelation, and the Church, adopted at the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965).

Introduction

Question. What is the nature of this publication?

Answer. It is a presentation, in the form of questions and answers, of the main distinctive features of the Roman Catholic faith in the second half of the 20th century and their critique based on the Orthodox position.

Q. How significant are the existing differences between the Orthodox and Catholic faiths?

A. The differences touch the very essence of Christian doctrine and are so serious that modern Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are two different religions.

Q. Why did such deep discrepancies arise between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism?

A. Due to the different paths they follow. Orthodoxy preserves the Christian faith in the form in which it was given by the Lord Jesus Christ, preached by the apostles, expounded by the Ecumenical Councils and the holy fathers and teachers of the Church, while Catholicism follows the path of introducing additions, changes, and new teachings into its faith that contradict the apostolic Christian faith.

Q. Can Christianity be modernized and changed, adapting it to changing historical, social, religious, philosophical, and other conditions and teachings?

A. No, it cannot. Christianity is the true, divinely revealed religion, and introducing changes into it according to human understanding, contrary to Divine Revelation, "correcting" God, replaces the truth given by God with a lie invented by man, transforming a religion from true to false. Jesus Christ commanded His disciples to preserve the teaching He gave unchanged: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19–20). And the Apostle Paul says: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8).

Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) vs the heresies of protestantism.

For a Christian, there is no matter more important than the salvation of the soul. From the Word of God we know that only those who believe in Christ and are cleansed by His Blood from sin—those who live the sacramental life of the Church—can be saved. Holy Scripture also states clearly that those who remain in heresy shall not inherit the Kingdom of God (heresies – Galatians 5:20). Heresy is the distortion of truth. The doctrine concerning the Church of God is inseparable from the doctrine concerning Christ Himself, just as Christ is inseparable from His Body—which the Bible explicitly calls “the Church.”

Holy Tradition. An Apologetic Summary.

Protestants, in rejecting Holy Tradition—the ancient mode of transmitting Divine Revelation—reject Divine Revelation itself, as delivered by the Apostles from the Lord Himself. Holy Tradition is the oral transmission, by word and example, of the teaching of the faith, the Law of God, the Sacraments, and sacred rites.

Sectarians, for instance, disbelieving the biblical testimony that Christ governs the Church and the Holy Spirit teaches Christians, likewise disbelieve that apostolic Tradition has been faithfully preserved by the Church. By rejecting Holy Tradition, sectarians reject the Bible itself—the Word of God—precisely *because* it is recognized as Scripture according to that very Tradition.

Holy Tradition not included in the New Testament canon may be divided into written (conciliar decrees, liturgical texts, writings of the Holy Fathers, etc.) and oral (ecclesiastical practice).

The Principle of Holy Tradition:

St. Vincent of Lérins (+ before 450):  

“…we shall follow universality (EVERYWHERE), antiquity (ALWAYS), and consent (BY ALL). We follow universality when we acknowledge as true only that faith which the Church throughout the whole world confesses; antiquity, when we in no way depart from those views undoubtedly approved by our holy forefathers and Fathers; and consent, when in antiquity we follow the definitions and thoughts of all—or at least the majority—of bishops and teachers.”  

(Commonitory, Ch. 2)

Holy Tradition in the Old Testament

Before Moses, there were no sacred books. Knowledge of God, creation, and the lives of Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Joseph was transmitted orally. Even after Scripture appeared, Tradition remained primary:  

“We have heard with our ears, O God; our fathers have told us what You did in their days, in days of old” (Ps. 43:2);  

“He established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel, which He commanded our fathers to teach to their children, that the next generation might know them… and arise and tell them to their children” (Ps. 77:5–6).

The New Testament on Holy Tradition

The Gospels themselves are part of Holy Tradition:  

“Many have undertaken to compile narratives about the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word” (Luke 1:1–2).  

Thus, the Gospels themselves were composed based on the living Tradition of eyewitnesses.

Where has the Apostles’ teaching gone?  

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…” (Matt. 28:19).  

The Lord commands “make disciples”—not merely “write letters.” The fourteen epistles of Paul, three of Peter, two of John—are these the sum total of the Apostles’ teaching? To “teach” is not synonymous with “to write”; teaching is primarily oral.

Did the Apostles preach only what Christ taught them directly?  

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth…” (John 16:12–13).  

Sectarians claim the Apostles transmitted only what Christ taught them personally. But when did Christ instruct them not to circumcise Gentiles or forbid eating strangled meat and idol sacrifices? (Acts 15). Here we see the Holy Spirit guiding the Apostles into truth beyond Christ’s earthly ministry.

The Apostles themselves received Christ’s words through Tradition: 

“I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’” (Acts 20:35).  

Where in the Gospels do we find these words of Christ? Nowhere. This shows the Apostles relied on oral transmission—especially St. Paul, who was not Christ’s disciple during His earthly life.

From where did Jude learn about Michael the Archangel disputing with the devil over Moses’ body?  

“Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil… dared not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” (Jude 1:9).  

This comes from oral Tradition.

Is all of Christ’s teaching recorded in Scripture?  

“To whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering… speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3).  

What Christ taught the Apostles about the Kingdom—and especially about administering the Sacraments—is known only through oral Tradition.

Is all apostolic teaching contained in the New Testament?  

“Therefore watch, remembering that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears” (Acts 20:31).  

If everything were written, where are St. Paul’s three years of preaching to the Ephesians?

Preserving Tradition is a direct apostolic command: 

“O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust…” (1 Tim. 6:20);  

“And the things that you have heard from me… commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).  

Protestants claim these commands applied only to the original recipients. Yet why do they apply “by grace you have been saved” (Eph. 2:5) to themselves if not to the original audience?

Apostolic letters and oral instructions carry equal authority:  

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15).

St. John Chrysostom (+407) comments: “It is clear the Apostles did not deliver everything through letters, but much through oral teaching; both deserve equal trust. Therefore, we must accept ecclesiastical Tradition as reliable. If Tradition exists, nothing more is needed.” (Homily 4 on 2 Thessalonians)

The Apostles taught orally; letters served as reminders: 

“Let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to perfection… not laying again the foundation of repentance… instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment” (Heb. 6:1–2).  

No written exposition by Paul on baptism or laying on of hands survives—but this does not mean the communities “lost” these teachings.

The Apostle appeals to church custom: 

“But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God” (1 Cor. 11:16).  

When instructing women to pray with covered heads, Paul cites not Scripture but church custom—part of Holy Tradition.

Oral preaching suffices for faith:

“How shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Rom. 10:14).  

Faith comes through hearing—not solely through reading.

Apostolic Epistles Are Not Dogmatic Textbooks

Protestants assume the New Testament contains everything needed for apostolic faith. Yet the Apostles never intended their letters as comprehensive doctrinal manuals. They addressed specific issues in specific communities:

1. Absence prevented personal visits: 

   “I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to do so with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face…” (2 John 12; cf. 3 John 13–14).

2. False teachings arose:

   “We ask you… not to be soon shaken in mind… as though the day of Christ had come” (2 Thess. 2:1–2).

3. Denial of resurrection emerged:  

 “How can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor. 15:12).

4. A different gospel appeared:  

   “I marvel that you are turning away so soon… to a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6).

5. Factions developed:  

 “I have been informed… that there are contentions among you” (1 Cor. 1:11).

Moreover, some letters were private (to Titus, Timothy, Philemon, Theophilus). Why would Paul write about fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays if this was universally practiced and uncontested?

Early Church Fathers on Tradition

Some Protestants, disbelieving Scripture, claim oral apostolic Tradition was lost. This is refuted by the universal teachers of the Church. If Tradition were lost by the 5th century, councils would not command its preservation.

– Clement of Alexandria (+ c. 215):  

  “Whoever interprets Scripture without Holy Tradition tears truth into fragments.” (*Stromata*, VII)

– St. Cyprian of Carthage (+258):  

  “Pious and simple souls easily avoid error by turning to the source of Divine Tradition.”

– St. Basil the Great (+379):  

 “If we reject unwritten customs as insignificant, we unintentionally harm the Gospel itself. We keep customs as laws, delivered to us by holy men.”

– St. Gregory of Nyssa (+ after 394):  

  “We have received from the Fathers a Tradition as an inheritance, passed down from the Apostles through successive saints.” (Against Eunomius, IV.5)

– St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (+403):  

  “We must hold to Tradition, for not all is found in Scripture. The Apostles delivered some things in writing, others orally.”

– St. John Chrysostom (+407):  

  “The Apostles delivered much orally; both forms deserve equal trust. Thus, we must accept ecclesiastical Tradition as reliable.”

– St. Augustine (+430):

  “Whatever the Holy Church holds—without conciliar decree—we rightly consider apostolic Tradition.”

– St. Vincent of Lérins (+ before 450): 

  “To distinguish truth from falsehood, one must interpret Scripture according to the universal, ancient, and consensual Tradition of the Church.”

Church Councils on Tradition

– Council of Gangra (c. 340), Canon 21:

  Condemning innovators, it decrees: “We desire that all things accepted from divine Scriptures and apostolic Traditions be maintained in the Church.”

– Council of Carthage (397), Canon 33: 

  Defines the biblical canon and states: “WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE FATHERS that these books are to be read in Church.”  

  → The biblical canon itself was formed through Holy Tradition.

– Seventh Ecumenical Council (787):

  “All that opposes ecclesiastical Tradition, teaching, and the pattern of the holy Fathers—past, present, or future—is ANATHEMA.”

Examples of Holy Tradition

Written Tradition (customs recorded in writing):  

1. Fasting:  

   – St. Ignatius the God-bearer (+107), disciple of St. John: “One must fast throughout Lent; whoever does so remains in communion with the Lord.”  

   – Apostolic Canons, 69: Mandates fasting on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Lent for clergy and laity alike.  

   – Didache (late 1st–early 2nd c.): “Your fasts shall not be with the hypocrites… but fast on the fourth and sixth days [Wednesday and Friday].” Widely accepted in the early Church; some Fathers considered it Scripture.

Oral Tradition (attested in historical accounts):

1. Prayers for the departed:

   St. Dionysius the Areopagite (+c. 96): “We recount the Tradition received from our divinely enlightened leaders concerning the prayer the hierarch offers over the departed.”

2. The Sign of the Cross:  

   St. Hippolytus of Rome (+c. 235): “Always humbly make the sign of the Cross on your forehead… a seal against the devil.”  

   St. Hippolytus was a disciple of St. Irenaeus (+202), who was a disciple of St. Polycarp (+156), disciple of St. John the Evangelist.

3. Infant Baptism and Godparents:

   St. Dionysius the Areopagite: Describes the ancient practice of godparents guiding baptized infants—a custom received “from ancient Tradition.”

4. Transmission of Oral Teaching:  

   St. Papias of Hierapolis (c. 155–165): “I preferred the living voice in the soul over books… I inquired what Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, or Matthew said, or what Aristion and the presbyter John—disciples of the Lord—taught.” (Eusebius, Church History, III)

Why Some Traditions Were Kept Secret

St. Dionysius the Areopagite:  

“It is unlawful to explain the mystical meanings of sacramental rites in writing… One learns them through secret instruction within our sacred Tradition.” (On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, VII)

Who Compiled Holy Scripture?

Scripture is only a part of Holy Tradition. To interpret it apart from Tradition is, as Clement of Alexandria said, to “tear truth into fragments.”

Protestants insist Scripture interprets itself—but Scripture nowhere claims this. Instead, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 places Tradition and Scripture on equal footing.

The Protestant Dilemma:

Protestants claim sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”) and reject anything not in the Bible. Yet we ask: On what authority do you accept 27 New Testament books as inspired? Where does Scripture list its own canon?

– The New Testament canon was largely settled by the mid-2nd century (evidenced by citations in St. Irenaeus).

– The full canon of both Testaments was formally ratified at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).

– The Old Testament canon was confirmed at Laodicea (364) and Carthage (397).

Thus, Protestants unknowingly rely on the Council of Carthage (397), which declared: “WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE FATHERS that these books are to be read in Church.”

This forces Protestants into a dilemma:  

1. If the council was correct, then Scripture was received through Tradition.  

2. If the council erred, then Protestants have no basis to accept the 27-book New Testament.

Moreover, that same council anathematized those who deny infant baptism (Canon 124) and attests to the veneration of martyrs (Canon 71)—practices Protestants reject.

To claim the Holy Spirit guided the council in defining Scripture but erred on other decrees is to accuse the Spirit of contradiction — a blasphemy Christ warned “shall not be forgiven” (Matt. 12:32).

Who May Interpret Scripture?

Since Scripture was compiled by the Church, it must be interpreted according to the Church’s understanding.

Sixth Ecumenical Council (680–681), Canon 19: 

“When Scripture is examined, it must be explained only as the luminaries and teachers of the Church have expounded it in their writings… lest, through ignorance, one stray from the truth.”

Protestant Confusion

Protestants demand: “Show us your oral apostolic Tradition!”  

We reply: “Fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays.”  

They ask: “Where is this written?”  

We cite the Didache and Apostolic Canons.  

They retort: “If it’s written, how is it oral Tradition?”  

Thus, they contradict themselves: demanding oral Tradition be proven in writing, yet denying its oral character once documented. When told of unwritten customs, they again demand written proof. This circular skepticism reveals not honest inquiry, but a rejection of the Church’s living voice—the very means by which Christ promised to preserve His Truth.

Published March 13, 2017 

Antoniy Dulevich, Missionary Department of the Kyzyl Diocese

The Word of Prophet David to Muslims.

 Part 1: Introduction and Old Testament Authenticity

On the Uncorrupted Nature and Authenticity of the Holy Scripture of the Bible.

Between 1947 and 1956, archaeological excavations were conducted in the caves of Qumran, the caves of Wadi Murabba’at (south of Qumran), Khirbet Mird (southwest of Qumran), as well as in several other caves in the Judean Desert and at Masada. During these excavations, manuscripts from the time of the Old Testament were found (the so-called Qumran manuscripts, or Dead Sea Scrolls). Further research established that the content of these manuscripts corresponds to the content of the Pentateuch of Moses that has come down to us. Therefore, we can speak with full confidence about the authenticity of these books. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls were found the Book of Genesis (24 finds), the Psalter (39 finds), the Book of Deuteronomy (33 finds), the Book of Exodus (18 finds), the Book of Leviticus (17 finds), the Book of Numbers (11 finds), and the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (22 finds), which contains prophecies about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see: Is. 53:1–12), His virgin birth (see: Is. 7:14), and His Divinity (see: Is. 9:6–7), as well as all other books of the Old Testament except Esther and Nehemiah.

Outside the Church There Is No Salvation

 An Orthodox Theological Treatise

 

I. The Sole Path of Salvation: Christ and His Church

 

> “Christian faith… is the one and only path, revealed by God to mankind, leading to true blessedness. As the Savior declares, ‘I am the door to the Father; I am the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6), and the holy Apostle Paul proclaims that ‘at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow… in heaven and on earth and under the earth’ (Phil. 2:10) — there is no salvation outside the crucified Jesus Christ. Without faith in His name as the true God incarnate, no one can be cleansed from sin, enlightened, or enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”  

> — St. Macarius (Glukharev)

 

This sacred truth — that salvation is found only in the Lord Jesus Christ, and only within His Orthodox Church — is affirmed throughout Scripture:

 

- “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)  

- “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)  

- “There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

 

Refutation of the miaphysite heresy: An Orthodox Response to the Christological Errors of the Oriental Churches.

 The question of how Divinity and humanity are united in Christ is the cornerstone of Christian salvation. The holy fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical (Chalcedonian) Council (451 AD) dogmatically defined that the Lord Jesus Christ is perfect God and perfect Man, known in two natures (divine and human), unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, and inseparably united in one Hypostasis.

However, beginning in the 5th century, teachings arose that rejected this dogma. Among them is Miaphysitism, confessed today by the Armenian Apostolic, Coptic, Syrian, and other Oriental Churches. Although modern representatives of these churches prefer the term "Miaphysitism," avoiding the extremes of Eutyches, the essence of their Christology remains unacceptable to the Holy Conciliar Apostolic Church.

1. Historical Context and Terminological Deception

Modern apologists for the non-Chalcedonians often claim that the division occurred due to a misunderstanding of terminology, and that their faith is identical to the Orthodox faith. However, as Protopresbyter Theodore Zisis notes, this "not only does not correspond to reality, but arose entirely from a conscious desire to distort it."

The Oriental Churches accept only the first three Ecumenical Councils, rejecting Chalcedon. If this were a terminological dispute, why did the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, for centuries anathematize the leaders of the anti-Chalcedonians – Dioscorus, Severus of Antioch, and others? "Were so many generations of Saints and teachers of the Church, condemning the Monophysites, Jacobites, Acephali, Severians, and the like, mistaken?" asks the Orthodox theologian.

2. The Bible Bears Witness to Two Natures

Scripture leaves no room for the teaching of one nature (μία φύσις) in Christ after the union. The Apostle Paul speaks of Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself" (Phil. 2:6-7).

Here a clear distinction is made:

1. "The form of God" – the Divine nature.
2. "The form of a servant" – the human nature.

If there were one nature, the Apostle could not speak of distinguishing these states. Christ says of Himself: "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30), which indicates the unity of the Godhead, and at the same time: "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28), which indicates His human state (kenosis). If there were one nature in Christ, the words that the Father is "greater" than He would mean a diminution of the Godhead, which is blasphemy.

 

The Bible on the Sacrament of the Priesthood

Introduction: The Centrality of Priesthood in the Church

 

Today we will discuss the Mystery of Priesthood. This topic is central to our mission, especially when dialoguing with Protestants.

 

What is priesthood? Why does this sacrament exist? It is, in fact, one of the most crucial mysteries in the Orthodox Church. Without ordination, there is no Church. As St. Ignatius the God-bearer, Bishop of Antioch (+107 AD), stated: “Where there is no bishop, there is no Church.”

 

> Note on St. Ignatius: He was a direct disciple of the Apostles, personally taught by St. John the Evangelist, and witnessed the life of the early Church. His seven epistles are a priceless window into Apostolic Christianity. Martyred in Rome under Emperor Trajan, he famously wrote: “I am the wheat of God; let me be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may become the pure bread of Christ.”

Why the Bible, and not the Quran, is the True Word of God.

Father Daniil Sysoev:

I have a question for Mr. Vyacheslav. I still haven't understood what arguments he puts forward in favor of the Quran being a revelation from God. He said that the Quran claims to be that. And we don't dispute that. He said that it is a law from God. We know that it presents itself as such. But what proof is there of this? I repeat, I think that Mr. Vyacheslav does not recognize the divine inspiration of Vissarion or Comrade Grabovoy, although they claim to be a new revelation from the Creator.

Vyacheslav Polosin:

Well, firstly, the proof, as I think you know well, both in relation to the Bible and in relation to the Quran, cannot be logical, since the Almighty gives this to us through our faith.

(commentary from the video: As we see, Mr. Polosin cannot prove that the Quran is the word of God, and persistently asserts that we also cannot provide evidential criteria that the Bible is the Revelation of the Eternal God the Creator. Is this really so?)

Father Daniil Sysoev:

We can present the following signs, which the Church usually presents in defense of the fact that the Bible is the true word of God.

These principles apply generally to any religious text claiming to be the Word of God.

The first sign, as our Catechism says, is the sublimity of the teaching. That is, the principle of non-triviality. That is, something that man himself could not invent, something that is not derivable from the data of human experience. It is known that we, as humans, can create something, but within certain limits.

We cannot create a fourth primary color; we are incapable of imagining some kind of extra-spatial reality. There are many such limitations. We assert that it is the Bible that possesses this non-triviality. Because it contains a number of doctrines that one can argue with or not argue with, but which are not derivable from experiential data. For example, the dogma of the "Triunity," the dogma of "creation out of nothing," the teaching on the Incarnation, on redemption by the Blood of Christ, the teaching on the transformation in the power of the universe.

All these doctrines are not derivable from experiential data. Where would we get, for example, data on a universal change, a universal transformation? And at the same time, these data are not derivable from the other religious life of humanity, no matter how much they try to prove it. For example, they say that the "Trimurti" is connected with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity; well, this is a somewhat dubious claim, if only because the Jews were not acquainted with Hinduism. This is a contrived thing.

One may consider Biblical dogmas to be an incorrect doctrine, one may consider them a correct doctrine, but they are non-trivial. This indicates that the author of the Bible is some NON-human source. We are not specifying yet what kind, but NON-human. And from this sign we cannot deduce that it is Divinity. We can only say that it is NOT-human. It is someone other than a human who gave the Bible.

The second sign is the purity of the teaching, that is, the highest moral standard that must belong to the text given by God.

God is good, and naturally, He cannot give laws that are not good. God is righteous, He cannot give unrighteous laws. God is merciful, He cannot give cruel laws. And therefore we must demand that the revelation of God be distinguished by the highest moral standard, measure.

Otherwise, it will not be the Word of God. And one of the main attributes of God, recognized by both Christianity and Islam, is impartiality. God must have one measure for all. The Bible, in this sense, fully meets this criterion. The moral norms of the Holy Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, gradually rose, increased, as humanity developed, and reach the summit of the Gospel, above which no one has yet risen.

And this indicates that the author of the Bible is a certain spirit, of course, again we are not specifying what kind, but a good and absolutely just one.

The Bible is inconvenient for everyone. It is inconvenient for kings who think they can cover their atrocities with God. Even David, who sinned, was rebuked by God for his lawlessness, although he was a prophet. The Bible is inconvenient for the poor, because God says: "neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause." (Exodus: 23; 3) (ed.: John Chrysostom interprets these words thus: "It is said: 'Thou shalt not countenance a poor man in his cause.' What does this mean? It means: be firm and unbending, even if a poor man sins. If one must not countenance a poor man, then much more so the rich. I say this not only to judges, but to all people, that they should nowhere violate justice, but everywhere piously observe it.") The Bible is inconvenient for the rich, inconvenient for priests, inconvenient for prophets. It is convenient only for those who act according to the will of God. This inconvenience shows that the Bible has completely non-human sources. Well, imagine if a person writes a text that he himself must fulfill – and the prophets wrote precisely such texts – he would hardly make life difficult for himself. In this sense, the Quran does not stand any comparison with Holy Scripture. For example, for us Orthodox Christians, the Quran's demand that a woman, if she has left her husband and wishes to return to him, must first marry another, is outrageous.

For us, this statement is an insult to women. For us, the enormous number of calls to violence contained in the Quran is astonishing. We are surprised how such a thing could be. And the main thing that astonishes us is the partiality of the Quran. Why does the prophet have privileges, in the moral sense, that other people do not have? In Christianity, the requirements for the transmitter of revelation are, on the contrary, maximally high – a person communicating with God must be maximally pure, because only into the purest soul can the spirit of wisdom enter. As it is said in the book of the Wisdom of Solomon: *"For into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter; nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin. For the holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without understanding, and will not abide when unrighteousness cometh in." (Wisdom of Solomon: 1; 4-5)*

And that is precisely why we cannot accept the Quran as a revelation from God for moral reasons.

The moral standard of the Quran is much lower than the Biblical norms that preceded it and that were known to the author of the Quran. Muhammad interacted with Christians, interacted with Jews, but he lowered the bar below what it was before. For us, the people of God's Covenant, for those people who have lived in union with God for 7,500 years, the position of that spirit which claims to be the Creator, yet at the same time lowers the moral standard, is incomprehensible.

The next property, which for us is a sign of God's revelation, is the presence of prophecies, i.e., the author of the Bible is above time; he predicts what will happen later, in the future. And God offers to test Him by this, therefore, for example, it is said: "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." (Isaiah: 44; 6) – says God through the prophet Isaiah.

*"And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them show unto them. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." (Isaiah: 44; 7-8)*

And therefore, the fact that there are many fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, starting from the 333 prophecies that were fulfilled in Christ, and ending with prophecies connected even with the present, the 20th-21st centuries (connected with the return, the violent return of Israel to the Holy Land, and with the constant bloodshed that occurs there, as Moses predicted in Deuteronomy chapters XXVIII, XXIX, XXX. These glories of God are being fulfilled exactly before our eyes.) This indicates that the Author of the Bible is the Lord of history, existing above time. He is an eternal being.

But in the Quran, there are no fulfilled prophecies. The only prophecy contained in the Quran says that the Romans were defeated, but in a few years they will win.

This prophecy, as Emperor Manuel said, is comparable to me saying that after the storm ends, calm will set in. The history of that time knew many centuries of struggle between the Persians and the Romans, where every few years there was either defeat or victory. This is not a prediction. For us, this is, of course, a sign that this is not a divine text.

The next argument in defense of (the test of) whether the Bible is the true Word of God or not, is for us, of course, the question of the action of the Word of God on a person.

If this is the Word of God, it will act; it will transform human life. We know that the Word of God, truly the true Word of God, has indeed transformed and remade the lives of many people. The most famous such historical example is the mass spread of Christianity during the time of persecution and the survival of Christianity now. The Bible still continues to have Divine power. We know of many cases where people were healed and recovered through the simple laying on of the text of Holy Scripture. And by this we see that a certain Divine power is inherent in the Biblical text.

And finally, for us the fact that the authors of the Bible worked miracles is very important. That is, they had testimony that Divine life was active in them. Moses performed signs, the Lord Jesus Christ performed signs, the Apostles performed signs. All of them worked many miracles, showing that the power of God was active in them. We know that the author of the Quran performed only one miracle, described in the Quran – the splitting of the moon, which was not seen by those who were not his adherents. We know that even his opponents always demanded a miracle from him, and he refused to give one. But the Lord said in the Gospel:

*"If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." (Gospel of John: 10; 37-38)*

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." (Gospel of John: 14; 12)

That is why I am convinced that the most attentive and unbiased look shows that it is the Bible that is the uncorrupted Word of God, which has been preserved, for God Almighty Himself preserves it. And the very thought that the Bible could be distorted is contrary to the notion of the omnipotence of God. And, on the other hand, we believe that Muhammad is a false prophet, and his scripture is false. Because a person who speaks in the name of God, but does not conform to the Biblical norms of what was entrusted, cannot be a true prophet of God. That is what I wanted to say.