A false statement is punishable, an erroneous opinion is permissible. False statement Prayer to God

In the modern economy, business reputation is of particular importance, the proper protection of which ensures the predictability of business development and the demand for a specialist in the labor market. Consider the courts' approaches to assessing information relating to honor, dignity or business reputation.

In networks of defamatory information

In accordance with clause 5, part 1, article 33 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, arbitration courts consider cases on the protection of business reputation in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activities. The arbitration system has formed the practice of resolving relevant disputes. According to paragraphs 1, 2, 7 of article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a citizen has the right to demand in court a refutation of information that discredits his honor, dignity or business reputation, if the person who disseminated such information does not prove that they are true.

If information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen is disseminated in the media, they must be refuted in the same media. The rules of Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the protection of the business reputation of a citizen are accordingly applied to the protection of the business reputation of a legal entity.

According to the clarifications given in clause 7 of Resolution No. 3 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 24, 2005, the circumstances that are relevant to the case by virtue of Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation are the fact that the defendant disseminated information about the plaintiff, discrediting the nature of this information and inconsistency with reality. In the absence of at least one of these circumstances, the claim cannot be satisfied by the court.

The dissemination of information discrediting the business reputation of legal entities should be understood as the publication of such information in the press, broadcast on radio, television, video programs and in other media.

Information that does not correspond to reality is statements about facts or events that did not take place in reality at the time to which the disputed information relates.

Paragraph 9 of the said Decree stipulates that the obligation to prove the validity of the disseminated information lies with the defendant. The plaintiff is obliged to prove the fact of dissemination of information by the person against whom the claim is brought, as well as the discrediting nature of this information.

Discrediting, in particular, are information containing allegations of a violation by a citizen or legal entity of the current legislation, committing a dishonest act, incorrect, unethical behavior in personal, public or political life, bad faith in the implementation of production, economic and entrepreneurial activities, violation of business ethics or customs business transactions that detract from the honor and dignity of a citizen or the business reputation of a citizen or legal entity.

In accordance with Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which guarantee everyone the right to freedom of thought and speech, as well as freedom of the media, and with the position of the European Court of Human Rights when considering cases for the protection honor, dignity and business reputation, one should distinguish between statements of facts that take place, the validity of which can be verified, and value judgments, opinions, beliefs that are not the subject of judicial protection in accordance with Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, since, being an expression of a subjective opinion and the defendant's views cannot be verified for their validity.

The arbitral tribunal evaluates the evidence according to its inner conviction, based on a comprehensive, complete, objective and direct study of the evidence available in the case.

The court reflects the results in a judicial act containing the reasons for accepting or refusing to accept the evidence presented by the persons participating in the case in support of their claims and objections.

Facts or Opinions

To determine whether the information contains information about the fact or only opinions, emotional judgments, psycho-linguistic examinations are appointed by the court.

So, based on the expert’s conclusions, the Arbitration Court of the Bryansk Region recognized as an expression of assumptions, the opinions of the author of the publication of the phrase: “... perhaps this is not the only violation of the law in the financial relations of organizations”, “Therefore, they may try to “slowly” drain the problem into the sewer” .

Judicial practice proceeds from the fact that verbal constructions: “it can be assumed”, “apparently”, “probably”, semantic units (introductory words, adverbs like “hardly”) characterize the publication as an expression of a personal analysis of events by the author of the publication, his opinion attitude towards the events covered.

In one of the cases, the Arbitration Court of the Oryol Region recognized that the articles of the journalist of the newspaper "Orlovsky Vestnik" Vershinin E.I. titled “Milk or Cut” (newspaper “Orlovsky Vestnik”, No. 25 dated 06/18/2008) and “Milk yields are growing. And in stores, milk from powder” (newspaper “Orlovsky Vestnik”, No. 26 dated 06/25/2008) are based on the subjective opinions of its author and are evaluative in nature, and these phrases are not information about facts that are discrediting and do not detract from the business reputation as a dairy producer.

According to Article 47 of the Federal Law “On the Mass Media”, a journalist has the right to express his personal opinions and assessments in messages or materials intended for distribution under his signature. An interested person has the right to demand a refutation of information containing information about facts, but not a refutation of the author's opinion about the entrepreneurial or other economic activities of this person.

At the same time, a person who believes that the value judgment expressed or the opinion circulated in the media affects his rights and legitimate interests may use paragraph 3 of Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Article 46 of the Federal Law "On the means mass media” the right to reply, comment, replica in the same media in order to substantiate the inconsistency of common judgments, offering them a different assessment.

Thus, the Arbitration Court of the Belgorod Region approved a settlement agreement, according to which the defendant undertook to publish in the newspaper Golos Belogorya a message stating that his statements in an interview published in the same newspaper about the internal corporate conflict situation that has developed in CJSC Autoparking Tsentralny, reflect his personal opinion and do not aim to discredit the business reputation of one of the participants in the conflict.

Many publications simultaneously contain both information about facts and value judgments.

In these cases, the courts take into account its general semantic orientation, based, among other things, on the title, introductory sentences, afterword.

An illustrative example of a compromising statement, the Moscow Arbitration Court recognized the statement of the Deputy Head of Rosprirodnadzor O. Mitvol, posted on the official website of the department, with the following content: “Inspector of the Office of Rosprirodnadzor for the Sakhalin Region V.V. Borisov was actually kidnapped by Sakhtransbunker LLC during control measures.

Forum (English www-conference, synonyms: conference, web conference) is a tool for communication on the site, that is, it is a form of communication in the form of messages from specific individuals who express their own opinions and assessments regarding the topic set by these same individuals. The veracity of value judgments cannot be proven based on the nature of their origin.

Igor Smolensky,
Judge of the Arbitration Court
Belgorod region

There is such a funny story: One philosopher, having learned from Bertrand Russell that any statement follows from a false statement, asked:
- Do you seriously think that from the statement "two plus two - five" it follows that you are the pope?
Russell answered in the affirmative.
- And you can prove it? - continued to doubt the philosopher.
- Of course! - Followed by a confident answer, and Russell immediately offered such a proof.
1) Assume that 2+2=5.
2) Subtract two from both parts: 2=3.
3) Subtract from both parts by one: 1=2.
The Pope and I are two of us. Since 2=1, then the Pope and I are the same person. Therefore, I am the Pope.

It became interesting to find an article on the logic of statements.

Propositional logic is the theory of those logical connections of propositions that do not depend on the internal structure (structure) of simple propositions.
Propositional logic is based on the following two assumptions:
1. any statement is either true or false (principle of ambiguity);
2. The truth value of a compound statement depends only on the truth values ​​of the simple statements included in it and the nature of their connection.
Based on these assumptions, strict definitions of logical connectives "and", "or", "if, then", etc. were previously given. These definitions were formulated in the form of truth tables and were called tabular definitions of connectives. Accordingly, the construction of propositional logic itself, based on these definitions, is called its tabular construction.
According to the accepted definitions:

• a conjunction is true when both statements in it are true;
• a disjunction is true when at least one of its statements is true;
• a strict disjunction is true when one of its statements is true and the other is false;
• the implication is true in three cases: its reason and consequence are true; the reason is false, and the consequence is true; both reason and consequence are false;
• an equivalence is true when the two statements equated in it are both true or both false;
• the negative proposition is true when the negated proposition is false, and vice versa.

All the same, an interesting thing is logic. In this regard, 2 more anecdotes were remembered ...

There lived three brothers, and they had a cow on the farm. One morning, the elder brother wakes up, and lo and behold, there is no cow. He wakes up the others.

Older: There are no cows in the yard; It means someone stole it at night.
Average: Once they stole it, it means someone from Lopukhinki - all the thieves are there.
Jr: Since someone from Lopukhinki stole a cow from us at night, it means that it was Vaska-kosoy; who else?!

They went to the neighboring village, took Vaska into their hands, and dragged him to the justice of the peace. They told how it all happened. The judge shook his head. “Brrrrr. I don’t understand your logic at all. They just brought me a box; can you determine with your deduction what is in it?”

Older: Since the box is square, it means that there is something round in it.
Average: Once round, it means orange; it doesn't happen otherwise.
Jr: If there is something round and orange in a square box, it is, of course, an orange; what else?!

The judge opens the box, and there really is an orange. He thought, thought: "Yes-ah-ah ... Well, Vaska, give the cow to the brothers!"

The woman sued the neighbor, claiming that she borrowed the jug and returned it broken.
The neighbor at the trial justified herself by the fact that, firstly, she did not take the jug, secondly, she returned it whole and, thirdly, it was broken.

"The weekly Sabbath acquires a 'religious significance' only in connection with the annual feasts." Therefore, it owes its religious or spiritual content to its connection with the annual Sabbaths, which are clearly ceremonial. And how can the object of blessing (that is, what in this case has received "religious significance") be higher than the source of blessing? All this proves that the weekly Sabbath was but one of the ceremonial Sabbaths.

We have already found out that the weekly Sabbath was characterized by the holiness that God endowed it with in Eden. Apparently, only after 2500 years did the annual holidays appear, with which it could be "associated". When the manna first began to fall, Moses called the seventh day "the holy Sabbath," although at that time there were no annual feasts to which it could be "associated." Nehemiah wrote that when God proclaimed the Sabbath as part of the Decalogue, it could be called "the holy Sabbath." However, the Decalogue preceded the promulgation of laws that approved the celebration of annual holidays. In the context of passages from the books of Genesis, Exodus and the prophet Nehemiah, as well as the Book of the prophet Isaiah, which speak of God's holy Sabbath, we cannot find any "connection" with any annual holiday, which supposedly gave her holiness.

Considering all this, we, strictly speaking, can not waste time discussing these annual holidays, however, having considered them, we will once again be convinced that they are fundamentally different in nature from the weekly Sabbath. From the Book of Leviticus (Lev. 23) it is known that there were seven annual Sabbaths.

1. The 15th day of the first month of the Jewish calendar is the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, also known as Easter Saturday.

2. The 21st day of the first month, the last day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

3. The 50th day after the 15th day of the first month, later known as Pentecost.

4. The first day of the seventh month, known as the Feast of Trumpets.

5. The tenth day of the seventh month, known as the Day of Atonement.

6. The 15th day of the seventh month, the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles.

7. The 22nd day of the seventh month, the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles.

These annual gatherings were commonly referred to as "Sabbaths" because the Hebrew word "Sabbath", which is translated "Sabbath" in the Old Testament, simply means "rest." During such yearly Sabbaths people rested from their labors, but it would be unjustifiable, based on the simple fact that the annual holy days mentioned were called "Sabbaths", to equate them with the Sabbath, the seventh day. Of course, both are days of rest, but this does not mean that they are similar in character or position. Based on the Hebrew language, we would not sin against the truth if we called the modern day of rest "Sabbath", that is, a day of rest; in addition, we could also call the Christian religious holiday "Sabbath", but it would be completely foolish to consider that weekends and church holidays are identical to each other and together retain their meaning or lose it only because (if we start from the Hebrew language) all they are days of rest, or "Sabbaths." Despite the fact that they converge in one thing, namely, they represent days of rest and rest, there are also many discrepancies between them. The same is true of the annual Sabbaths and the seventh day Sabbath. There are also many significant differences between them. Let's note them.

Of course, everything that is established by God is holy to one degree or another, and in this case, the annual Sabbaths are somewhat similar to the Sabbath - the seventh day, but the differences between them are so real and great that they, no doubt, cannot be confused. between themselves.

Instructing Moses regarding the annual feasts known as "sacred assemblies" and revolving around the seven annual sabbaths, the Lord concluded by saying, "These are the feasts of the Lord on which holy assemblies are to be held... besides the Sabbaths of the Lord" (Lev. 23:37, 38).

So God Himself instructs us that the annual Sabbaths are separate from, and complementary to, "the Sabbaths of the Lord." This is well stated in the biblical commentary by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown: "In the Book of Leviticus (Lev. 2:16).

Objection 27

The fourth commandment of the Decalogue is ceremonial, while the other nine are moral, and "this is clearly proved by the fact that Jesus, according to the thought of His contemporaries, who observed the Sabbath in the strictest way, violated the fourth commandment, for which they reproached Him. Moreover, Jesus clearly says that "the priests in the temple violate the Sabbath, but they are innocent" (Mt. 12:5). Would He say this if the fourth commandment was a moral law? Would the priests remain innocent if they were in the same temple for example, have you broken the seventh or any other of the Ten Commandments except the fourth?"

Let's answer two questions.

1. If Christ actually broke the fourth commandment, then why did He say, "I have kept my Father's commandments" (John 15:10)?

2. The opponent of the Sabbath says that the "law" (while denoting by this word all moral and ceremonial laws) was in force before the crucifixion. If Christ broke the fourth commandment, did He not become a sinner? There can only be one answer, but we know that Christ did not commit any sin, and therefore there is something wrong with the logic of the objection we have raised. How is it known that Jesus "violated the fourth commandment"? From the inspired lines of Holy Scripture?

No, only from the accusations of those who "observed the Sabbath most strictly."

One Sabbath day, while our Lord was in the synagogue, a man with a sore hand approached Him. Guessing that Christ was going to heal the crippled, some of the “strict subbotniks” turned to the Teacher with the following question: “Is it possible to heal on Saturdays? will he take it and not pull it out? How much better is a man than a sheep! Therefore, it is possible to do good on the Sabbath" (Matt. 12:10-12). After that, He immediately healed the crippled. "The Pharisees went out and took counsel against Him, how they might destroy Him" ​​(Matthew 12:14).

Another example of Christ healing on the Sabbath is found in the Gospel of John (see John 5:2-18). In verse 18 we read that, according to the Jews, Christ "broke the Sabbath."

Here, indeed, the accusation of "the strictest subbotniks" is contained in the biblical text, and our critic, apparently, considers this quite sufficient to declare that Christ "violated the fourth commandment." Incredible!

We believe that in fact the healing of the withered hand proves the exact opposite of what some people think it supposedly meant (and the following questions testify to this).

1. If Christ really believed that the fourth commandment was merely a ceremonial institution, why did He not seize this excellent opportunity to explain to the people the difference between ceremonial and moral commandments? Today's opponents of the Sabbath would certainly do so, since that is what they are talking about, arguing that there is nothing reprehensible in breaking the fourth commandment, since it is ceremonial in nature, while breaking any other would mean sin, because they are all by nature. moral. Yet Christ did not reason in this way. 2. "Is it possible to heal on the Sabbath?" - asked the Pharisees of Christ. When, standing at the well, the Samaritan woman asked Christ about where to worship God (a question that actually mattered for many years), Christ briefly answered that the time was coming when this question would lose its meaning. If He was going to abolish the law on the Sabbath on the cross, then why didn't He say the same thing to the "strictest Sabbath workers" who turned to Him? Instead, without giving any hint of a possible abolition, Christ replied that "it is possible to do good on the Sabbath." There is no reason to believe that Christ perceived Himself as violating the Sabbath - on the contrary, He revealed its true meaning. There is nothing in His interpretation, nor in the miraculous operation that followed, to suggest that the Sabbath is based on a ceremonial law. When it comes to moral laws, "doing good" is always possible.

However, our critics argue that the Sabbath is ceremonial in nature, since Christ said that "the priests in the temple violate the Sabbath, but are innocent." The mention of priests was only an illustration of the words that "it is possible to do good on the Sabbath." Opponents of Christ argued that by working on the Sabbath, Jesus and His disciples were violating it. He reminds them that the priests also work on the Sabbath, but they are innocent. Even the "strictest subbotniks" would agree that what the priests do on the Sabbath does not violate the law, even if these priests have to work every Saturday making sacrifices.

When Christ speaks of "violation", this word must be understood in the context of the dispute. Apparently, the course of His reasoning is as follows: if He and His disciples really violated the Sabbath, then the actions of the priests would also be a violation. To say that Christ actually believed that the priests (whose Sabbath sacrifices were not contrary to the law) defiled the Sabbath is to draw a completely unfounded conclusion. It turns out that at first Christ says that God gave the Holy Law to keep the Sabbath holy, and then he says that Moses was given another law, which leads to its weekly desecration. Anyone who wants to can adhere to such a conclusion, but we will not follow it.

Like other commandments in the Decalogue, the commandment to keep the Sabbath is relatively short. It says that on the seventh day a person must refrain from all his labors, but God, who gave the law, at the same time showed (for example, through other laws given to Moses, and also thanks to what Christ said), exactly how to understand the commandment of the Sabbath and how it relates to other aspects of life. However, this does not lead to the conclusion that the command to keep the Sabbath was ceremonial. Sometimes the commandments, the moral nature of which our critic recognizes, need to be interpreted in order for a person to understand how, in certain unusual circumstances, to realize their true purpose. The fifth commandment, for example, categorically states that children should honor their parents - in Eastern countries this commandment could be understood in the broadest sense. But what if Christianity is preached to the Roman world, where parents may well be pagans? Citing the opening words of the commandment, Paul precedes them with his own interpretation: "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this requires justice" (Eph. 6:1), which makes it possible to disobey parental commands if they contradict the norms of Christian life.

The eighth commandment says: "Thou shalt not steal." Is there a more moral command! And yet, is it possible that what man considers a violation of this commandment, God does not consider as such? Apparently, such a situation is possible, because Moses, for example, was ordered to say that if a person walks through a field belonging to someone else, he can satisfy his hunger by picking everything that grows on it, but should not take anything from it. yourself (see Deut. 23:24, 25). Can we say that if a hungry man ate a certain amount of grapes from his neighbor's field, then he thereby neglected the law against theft or violated it? No we can not. Why? Because God, who gave this law, announced that, despite the supporters of "the strictest honesty", such an act would not contradict the law. The same is true of the Sabbath commandment. Neither Christ nor the priests violated or defiled it, because the God who gave it said that the work of the priests and the work of Christ that was done on this day was not illegal.

Our critic can decide for himself what to do: either to assert that the fourth commandment is ceremonial, and therefore agree that so is the eighth commandment, or to admit that the eighth commandment has a moral character, and therefore so is the fourth. True, he has already stated that all the commandments of the Decalogue, except for the fourth, are of a moral nature, but to be consistent, he must add it to the others.

Objection 28

Although the Decalogue was abolished on the cross, nine of the Ten Commandments have regained force in the New Testament and are binding on Christians, while the fourth commandment is not, and therefore we do not need to keep it.

There are two flaws in this argument. People often assume that the Old Testament has already lost its validity, while at the same time the New Testament is perceived as relevant. Many tend, almost unconsciously, to downplay the Old Testament and regard it as irrelevant and completely superseded by the New. If the point of view is connected with this, according to which the Decalogue refers to the Old Testament, then the ground is thus prepared for the arguments that are set forth in our objection. However, we have already shown (see Objection 5) that the Ten Commandments do not belong to the Old Testament and that the New Testament does not in any way replace the Old (see Objection 1). If we strictly adhere to the idea that both the Old and New Testaments are our inspired guides, the above objection will lose almost all its force.

It is claimed that the Decalogue was abolished on the cross, but we have already noted (Objections 24 and 25) that the proponents of this view recognize that nine of the Ten Commandments affirm eternal moral principles, or laws. Thus, they find themselves in a curious situation, declaring that it is possible to abolish the eternal. At least that is the logic of their arguments. Perhaps they do not dare to admit it? Then let us ask this question: how can the Law of God be abolished without abolishing the Ten Commandments of which it consists? There can be only one answer, and apparently the critic himself understands this very well, since he speaks of the re-affirmation of nine commandments out of ten. He is faced with a difficult choice: in order to deal with the Sabbath commandment, he must abolish the Decalogue, but this leads to moral chaos, and therefore he immediately needs to reaffirm nine of the Ten Commandments. However, such logic leads to a completely implausible conclusion: the eternal moral principles, or laws, were first abolished, and then (which is also completely unbelievable) reaffirmed.

With regard to the eternal moral laws underlying the nine commandments, two points must be remembered:

1. In essence, they cover all moral behavior as a whole;

2. Since they are eternal moral principles, they express the essence of God (as Christian theologians have always maintained), and they guide the behavior of all beings in the universe that have a moral sense.

In the light of these indisputable facts, the claim that the Law of God was abolished on the cross becomes monstrous and even blasphemous. Did the moral nature of God change when Christ died on the cross? Such a question seems blasphemous, but as long as the essence of God remains unchanged, the moral principles that originate in it also remain unchanged.

As long as God abhors lies, theft, murder, adultery, greed, the worship of false gods, etc., the universe, even in its remotest corners, will be governed by moral laws directed against these atrocities. However, we are told that the Decalogue was abolished on the cross, which means (if these words really mean anything) that the prohibitions contained in the holy legislation have also disappeared. So, one of two things: either the commandments were abolished, or they retained all their power. There is no third. It is necessary, for example, to unequivocally decide whether the sixth commandment, which prohibits murder, has been abolished. And so it is with everyone else.

In an effort to avoid this terrible conclusion, which inevitably follows from the very logic of reasoning, the critic hastily draws attention to the theory of the subsequent introduction into force of the abolished commandments. From the outside, it may seem that nothing terrible has happened, because if the commandments regain their strength, then the moral law continues to reign in the Universe as before. However, not all so simple.

The fact is that the apostles, whose words are quoted, in order to prove the renewal of nine commandments out of ten, wrote their inspired manuscripts 20, 30, 40 or more years after the crucifixion. This simple historical fact leads to the absolutely fantastic conclusion that the whole world, and perhaps the whole universe, during this period was free from the observance of the great moral laws. If, for example, we ask an opponent whether he believes that (since, from his point of view, the Decalogue is abolished) it is possible to kill, steal, lie, etc., he will of course answer that he does not think so, and say that the New Testament re-established laws against these atrocities. Then he will probably refer to the passage in Romans (Rom. 13:9) where all these crimes are expressly forbidden. But the whole point is that, according to the generally accepted point of view, the apostle Paul wrote this epistle about the year 58 of the new era. What happened between this date and the year of the crucifixion?

However, supporters of the theory of the renewal of the commandments face another difficulty. They struggle to find in the New Testament an exact repetition of all nine commandments, and therefore they usually turn to the words of Christ recorded in the four Gospels. But Christ uttered these words before His crucifixion! It is impossible to talk about re-approval of the law before it was abolished. In the same way, it is impossible to maintain the consistency of the argument if, on the one hand, we assert that the cross separated the old from the new (with everything that becomes new at the moment of the resurrection), and, on the other hand, we refer to the words of Christ spoken before the crucifixion as evidence of the new. , the newly approved law.

However, that's not all. In fact, supporters of this theory cannot find a clear and sufficiently detailed repetition of the second commandment in the New Testament. If we, Protestants, want to condemn Rome with all persuasiveness for the images that are used in Catholic churches, we will have to turn to the Decalogue. It is strange that the newly approved law should be fully consistent with any situation that has developed in the Christian era. Will our critic be so bold as to say that God went into unnecessary detail in expounding the second commandment, or that, in inspiring the New Testament writers, He did not call them to the specificity that was needed? Both conclusions are blasphemous, and neither of them we accept.

In speaking of the equal authority of the Old and New Testaments (see Objection 1), we emphasized that the New Testament authors do not even hint that they establish any new legislation or give us new revelation, abolishing the old revelation in all areas of spiritual life. In an effort to visually illustrate their arguments, they cite many passages from the Old Testament and sometimes from the Decalogue. Sometimes these are rather short quotations, sometimes they are more detailed. This approach just explains why the commandments are not given verbatim and do not have the form in which they are clothed in the Old Testament. Was there any need for verbatim quoting? The New Testament authors simply referred their readers to Scripture, which at that time was the Old Testament, where one could find a more detailed and precise exposition of the commandment mentioned by the apostles.

In the light of the facts presented, there is no point in asserting that the fourth commandment was not renewed in the New Testament.

However, wishing to show that this objection is devoid of any plausibility, in conclusion we note that the New Testament does not bypass this commandment either. Moreover, he refers to it as often as to the others. Let's pay attention to the following points.

1. "The Sabbath is for man," our Lord proclaimed (Mark 2:27). Mark wrote these words many years after the crucifixion, but he did not feel any need to make a reservation and say that the Sabbath was intended for a person only up to the cross. Since Mark did not say anything of the kind, what conclusion could his readers draw from this statement of Christ? They probably decided that the words of our Lord still have power and the Sabbath retains its meaning. Yes, sometimes the New Testament writers did not say anything about the Sabbath, but this was not the silence that our critic has in mind.

2. Matthew in his Gospel leaves the words of Christ that certain things can be done on the Sabbath (see Matt. 12:12). But if the Sabbath was abolished on the cross, then Matthew would certainly have to immediately explain to the Christians of the first centuries, who could turn to his writings in the farthest corners of the world, that the whole dispute about the things allowed on the Sabbath and the things forbidden on this day, is only a small digression into history, since shortly after this statement of Christ, the Sabbath was abolished. But since Matthew did not say anything of the sort, his readers might naturally come to the conclusion that they should be careful to follow the words of Jesus in the matter of the Sabbath.

3. Describing to His disciples the coming destruction of Jerusalem, and warning them that they would have to flee when the Roman army approached, Christ adds, "Pray that your flight may not be in the winter or on the Sabbath" (Matt. 24:20). Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, and thus for almost 40 years the disciples had to pray that their flight would not happen on the Sabbath. But if the Sabbath was actually abolished on the cross, then what is the point of all this? The issue is very acute, and, trying to somehow neutralize it, some say that on Saturdays the Jerusalem gates were closed. However, Christ, for whom there were no secrets in the future, knew that in the year 70 of the new era the Jews would go out to battle with the Romans (see Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, book 2, ch.19). Moreover, the command to flee is addressed to "those who are in Judea" (Matt. 24:16), and Judea, as you know, was not surrounded by walls and gates. Nevertheless, the people of Judah needed to pray that their flight would not take place on the Sabbath day. Can there be clearer evidence that Christ distinguished the Sabbath from all others? Reading the call of Christ to pray that the flight would not take place on the Sabbath, correlating it with the words that certain activities on the Sabbath are still permissible, and, finally, not forgetting that Matthew wrote down both sayings a few years after the beginning of the Christian era , we cannot but conclude that the Sabbath law remains binding on Christians. Matthew says nothing to prevent us from drawing this conclusion.

It is rather difficult to calmly talk about this fantastic conjecture that says that the Decalogue was abolished on the cross, and then its nine commandments regained their power. Perhaps some reader, for whom the folly of such a view is undoubtedly, will ask in bewilderment: were there really many Protestant leaders who for years believed in and taught this incredible doctrine? No not like this. We have already noted that, according to the traditional position of Protestantism, the Decalogue is always a binding rule for all people at any age, and only ceremonial laws were abolished. Supporters of the abolition of the Decalogue and its re-approval for a moment forget about the historical position of the Protestants on this issue.

(For one New Testament reference to the Sabbath that allegedly supports the idea of ​​its abolition on the cross, see Objection 29.)

Objection 29

Life exists where Consciousness exists. Consciousness should not be turned off. If you turn it off, then you are dead. You don't live. You cannot create in this state. You cannot love in that state. You cannot be happy in this state.

It's time for timelessness. Time stops within you. Your flesh and your Inner World are not renewed. You are destroyed. You become a source of darkness and gloom. You don't see anything. You don't hear anything. You don't understand anything. The world becomes black and white for you. You are deprived of the opportunity to communicate with God.

Life turns into a banal existence. The inner Light disappears. Death goes in circles. The flesh is actively being destroyed. The person begins to get sick and think that her days are numbered. But even in such a dejected state, a person is able to turn to God for help. Pray that God will bring you back to life. Pray for your Consciousness to turn on.

Prayer to God

Imagine that you are in a stream of bright yellow Light. Let this stream saturate your flesh, and your Inner World, and your Mind. The words will sound within you and go to God through the communication channel. He will help you.

“My God, I am praying to you. I know that you can help. I know that you hear me even dead. I beg you, help me.
Help turn on Consciousness. Let the stars shine inside of me. May the opportunity to love and create return to me. I don't want to be dead. I want to be constantly alive.

My God, revive me. I want to listen and hear you. I want to communicate with you. I want to love you and my other half. May you have the strength to live and be. May you have the strength to complete the task of the current incarnation. My God, help me to be alive always. Because I want to know where and why I'm going. For I want to know what the future holds for me. I want to follow the path you have laid out. I gratefully accept your help. My God, please help me."

True love is good

Love cannot destroy. True love makes us truly alive and joyful. It is given to you by God. Without love you cannot live. Without love, life becomes empty. It does not and cannot have content. She loses her meaning. Without love, you cannot create the future together with God and your half, being in the moment of the present.

Love makes a person strong. Love makes a person bold. Love does not tolerate falsehood and lies. Don't confuse love with play. Love saves, for it opens up the possibility of communicating with God without intermediaries. True love is good. You need to change. You have to become yourself so that love can make you a radiant person.

10 tips from Essan and Salt.

Know yourself.
Take care of yourself.
Protect yourself.
Protect your love.
Don't be afraid of the past.
Work out Karma.
Don't be afraid of the future.
Go your own way.
God does not punish. He gives advice and leaves the choice up to you.
Believe in the power of true love and just love.

Gratitude

“Essan and Solya, today I made a rediscovery, which I knew about, but in the hustle and bustle of life I forgot about it.

Once, in this life, it was very difficult for me. I so wanted to be loved. Loved with unconditional love. And when I no longer had the strength to live, I had a vision in a dream. I told you about him. Me and the man, we sit by a calm river. Green grass. The sun shines brightly. The surroundings are clean and bright. We are in clothes. Beautiful face, blonde hair.

We didn't say anything to each other. We understood each other without words. This feeling cannot be described in words. I knew he loved me and I love him. When I woke up, I realized that I was not alone, that I was loved. This feeling helped me to move on. I was constantly in a state of love. I kept it carefully.

Then life more or less improved, and I gradually forgot about him, only sometimes this feeling vaguely popped up in my memory as a memory. Then I knew nothing about your system of knowledge. And today, at the webinar “Transform Yourself and Life with Love”, when you said that you need to be constantly in a state of Love, I remembered my vision.

Today I understand that only thanks to this state, the state of love, I was able to live on when I had no strength. I thank you for the nightly webinars, for the trainings, for individual sessions with me. I thank God and you for helping to resurrect Faith and Love in me. I thank you for the knowledge that you give us and for the constant support that I feel wherever I am. Thank you"!

Learn all about love

I was looking for love and I found it. I searched for it within myself. I was looking for it in the environment. And I found her. And now I can be in a state of love every day. My love protects and protects me. She protects and protects my half. To my great joy, my half is next to me today. We love each other.

Some of you watched live broadcasts. Someone watched the recorded webinar marathon. Someone could not watch it for one reason or another. While doing the project, we made the prices affordable. Today one webinar costs 395 rubles. The entire webinar-marathon costs 17,775 rubles.

Do not miss the opportunity to purchase a webinar marathon at the lowest price. Learn all about love. Transform yourself and your life. You deserve it.

Trust us. Believe in yourself. Believe in your future. It will be different when you say a solid "yes" to love in all its manifestations. Down with fears! Watch webinars and change yourself. Watch webinars and change your life. What it will be now depends on you.

To purchase any class or the entire webinar-marathon, go to