Critique of Dogmatic The o logy By Leo Tolstoy translated using ChatGPT - 3.5 - turbo TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE This edition was translated from the Academic Anniversary Edition, Volume 23, works of 1879 - 1884, spanning pages 60 - 303. ChatGPT - 3.5 was employed for the translation, with a temperature setting of 0.4 and 4096 tokens divided equally between the prompt and the completion. This work is regarded as the second part of Tolstoy's four - part theological series, which comprises the following: 1. Confession: A personal narrative of Tolstoy's life and the events that led him to study Christian teachings. 2. Critique of Dogmatic Theology: An in - depth analysis of Christian teachings (the current book). 3. The Four Gospels Translated and Harmonized: Tolstoy's translations of the Gospels, which later formed the basis for "The Gospel in Brief." 4. My Religion/What I Bel ieve: An exploration of the true meaning of Christ's teachings and the reasons behind their distortion. The quality of this translation could be significantly enhanced through the utilization of larger token sizes and a more advanced model, such as ChatGPT - 4. As we await access to these resources, this translation serves as a proof of concept and stands as the only alternative to Leo Wiener's rendition. I eagerly anticipate a future in which the most exceptional literary works in any language can be transla ted with flawless precision on demand. I have refrained from making any alterations to the document after GPT's translation, and I apologize in advance for any formatting inconsistencies or inaccuracies that may be present. - Jako b Korosec 4.30. 2023 INTRODUCTION I was inevitably led to investigate the doctrine of the Orthodox Church's faith. In unity with the Orthodox Church, I found salvation f rom despair. I firmly believed that in this doctrine there was a single truth, but many manifestations of this doctrine, contrary to the fundamental concepts that I had about God and His law, forced me to turn to the study of the doctrine itself. I did no t yet suppose that the doctrine was false; I was afraid to suppose this, because one lie in this doctrine would destroy the whole doctrine. And then I lost that main point of support that I had in the Church as the bearer of truth, as the source of knowled ge of the meaning of life that I sought in faith. And I began to study books that expounded Orthodox doctrine. In all these works, despite the difference in some details and some differences in sequence, the doctrine is the same - the same connection betwe en the parts, the same foundation. I read and studied these books, and here is the feeling that I brought out of this study. If I had not been brought by life to the inevitable recognition of the necessity of faith, if I had not seen that this faith serve s as the foundation of the life of all people, if this shaken feeling in my heart had not been strengthened again, if the basis of my faith was only trust, if I had only that faith about which it is said in theology ("taught to believe"), I would not only have become an atheist after reading these books, but would have become the bitterest enemy of any faith, because I found not only meaninglessness in this doctrine, but the conscious lies of people who chose faith as a means to achieve their own goals. Re ading these books cost me immense effort, not so much in terms of the effort I made to understand the connection between expressions, the one that the authors of these books saw in them, but rather due to the internal struggle that I had to constantly wage with myself in order to refrain from indignation while reading these books. I read all of our catechisms - Philaret's, Plato's, and others, read the message of the Eastern patriarchs, then the Orthodox confession of Peter Mogila, read the exposition of t he Orthodox faith by John of Damascus, and finally the summary of all of this - Introduction to Theology by Macarius, and then the most Dogmatic Theology of the same Macarius. I hesitated for a long time about which of these books to recognize as the main one, containing all the teachings and therefore which one to analyze. But after reading them all several times, I finally convinced myself that they all contain the same thing and that the difference is only in the completeness of the presentation. The lat er ones are more complete than the earlier ones. The content and sequence are completely the same. All of these books are only amplifications of the symbol of faith. The latest and most comprehensive and widely used of these expositions is Macarius' Theolo gy, and therefore I chose it for analysis. By studying this work, I am studying both the symbol of faith and all the catechisms and John of Damascus, because dogmatic theology includes all of this. I struggled for a very long time with this book, searchin g for the tone in which it should be analyzed. A serious, scientific tone, the one in which these books, especially the newest ones like Macarius' Theology, are written, was impossible when analyzing these books. This book could not be analyzed in the same way as scientific expositions. In every scientific exposition, there is an internal connection between the parts, but in this work, there is no such connection, and therefore it is necessary to mechanically follow it - chapter by chapter. But not only is there no connection in the parts of the exposition itself, it is very rare to grasp the external connection by which one thought is linked to another in the author's presentation. You try to grasp a thought to discuss it, but it immediately slips away pre cisely because it was intentionally expressed unclearly, and involuntarily you return to analyzing the expression of the thought. Examining the expression of the thought, you find that the expressions are intentionally imprecise and confusing; the words do not have the same meaning they usually have in language, but some special meaning that is not defined. The definition or explanation of the thought, if it exists, is always in the opposite sense: to define or explain a poorly understood word, a completely incomprehensible word or words are used. I did not allow myself to deny what I did not understand, and with all the strength of my soul and mind, I tried to understand this teaching as those who said they believed in it understood it and demanded that oth ers believe it as well. And this was all the more difficult for me, the more detailed and seemingly scientific the teaching was presented. When reading the symbol of faith in Slavic, in the literal translation from the unclear Greek text, I could still so mehow connect my ideas about faith, but when reading the letters of the Eastern Patriarchs, which expressed the same dogmas in more detail, I could no longer connect my ideas about faith and could hardly understand what was meant by the words I read. When reading the catechism, my disagreement and lack of understanding increased even more. When reading the theology of first Damascene and then Macarius, my lack of understanding and disagreement reached the highest level, but here I began to understand the ex ternal connection that united these words, and the train of thought that guided those who established these positions, and the reason why it is impossible for me to agree with them. "I worked hard on this and finally achieved the ability to learn theology like a good seminarian. I can explain the foundation of everything, the connection between individual dogmas and the significance of each in that connection, following the thought process of the compilers. Most importantly, I can explain why this particul ar connection was chosen, which may seem strange. And having achieved this, I understood the meaning of the teaching and was horrified. I realized that all this doctrine is an artificial compilation of expressions of belief from various people who are inc ompatible and contradict each other, united only by the most superficial and inaccurate signs. I understood that this union cannot be necessary for anyone, that no one could ever believe or has believed in all this doctrine, and that therefore, some extern al goal must exist for the impossible union of these different beliefs into one and preaching them as the truth. I understood this goal. I understood why this teaching, where it is taught, in seminaries, probably produces atheists. I understood the strange feeling I had while reading this book. I have read so - called blasphemous works by Voltaire and Hume, but I have never felt the undeniable conviction of a person's complete disbelief as I did with the compilers of catechisms and theology. When reading the same expressions from the apostles and so - called church fathers that make up theology in these works, you see that they are expressions of believing people, you hear the voice of the heart, despite the awkwardness, roughness, and often falsehood of the ex pression. But when you read the words of Damascene, Philaret, or Macarius, it is clear that the compiler does not care about the heartfelt meaning of the expression he cites, he does not even try to understand it; he only needs a word that happens to fit i n order to attach the apostle's thought to the expression of Moses or a new father of the church." He only needs to compile a summary in which it would seem that everything written in all so - called sacred books and by all church fathers was written only t o justify the symbol of faith. And I finally understood that all this doctrine, which then seemed to me to express the faith of the people, is not only a lie, but a centuries - old deception of unbelieving people with a certain base purpose. I present this d octrine according to the symbol of faith, the Letter of the Eastern Patriarchs, the Catechism of Philaret, and primarily according to the Dogmatic Theology of Makary, a book recognized by our Orthodox Church as the best. CHAPTER I "Dogmatic Theology. Pa rt I. Introduction." The introduction consists of an exposition of 1) the goal, 2) the subject, 3) the origin of Orthodox Christian dogmas, 4) the division of dogmas, 5) the character of the plan and method, and 6) an outline of the history of the science of dogmatic theology. Although this introduction does not discuss the subject itself, it cannot be skipped, as it defines in advance what will be presented in the entire book and how it will be presented. Here are the first paragraphs: 1. Orthodox dogmatic theology, understood as a science, must present Christian dogmas in a systematic order with possible completeness, clarity, and thoroughness, and only in the spirit of the Orthodox Church. 2. Under the name of Christian dogmas are mea nt revealed truths taught to people by the Church as indisputable and unchanging rules of saving faith (p. 7). It is then explained that revealed truths are truths found in tradition and scripture. Tradition and scripture are recognized as true because th e Church recognizes them as such. And the Church is recognized as true because it recognizes these same tradition and scripture as true. 3. From the presented concept of Christian dogmas, it becomes clear that they all have a divine origin. Therefore, no one has the right to multiply, reduce, change, or transform them in any way in number, as many as were revealed by God in the beginning, so they should remain for all time as long as Christianity exists (page 13). "What was revealed in the beginning" - i t is not specified what this means. At the beginning of the world or at the beginning of Christianity? And in both cases, when was this beginning? It is said that the dogmas did not appear one after another, but all appeared together at the beginning, but when this beginning was - it is not said here or in the whole book. Furthermore (page 13, 14): But while remaining unchanged in the revelation both in number and in essence, the dogmas of faith must nevertheless be revealed and are revealed in the Church in relation to believers. Since people began to assimilate the dogmas taught in the revelation and to lower them to the level of their own concepts, these sacred truths inevitably diversified into the concepts of various indivisible things (as happens with any truth when it becomes the property of people) - inevitably different opinions, different misunderstandings about dogmas, different distortions of dogmas or heresies, intentional and unintentional, had to appear and did appear. To protect believers fro m all of this, to show them what and how they should believe based on revelation, the Church from the very beginning offered them, according to the tradition of the Holy Apostles themselves, brief examples of faith or symbols. The dogmas are unchanging in number and essence and were revealed from the beginning, and at the same time, they must be revealed. This is unclear. And even more unclear is that it was previously simply said "in the beginning", and we assumed that this beginning, as understood by theo logy in the Old Testament, was the beginning of everything; now, however, the beginning refers to the beginning of Christianity. Moreover, these words imply the very meaning that the writer initially denied. It was said there that everything is open from the beginning, but here it is said that the dogmas are revealed in the church, and in the end it is said that the church did not offer something from the very beginning, but offered, according to the tradition of the apostles, brief examples of faith, or s ymbols, i.e. there is an internal contradiction. Obviously, the word "dogma" refers to two mutually exclusive concepts. Dogma, according to the definition of theology, is the truth taught by the church. Dogmas, according to this definition, can be revealed , as the writer says, i.e. appear, change, become more complex, as it was and is in reality. But the writer, apparently defining the dogma inaccurately, saying instead of teaching what is considered true - the teaching of truth, and even simply saying: dog ma is the truth of faith, gave the dogma another meaning, excluding the first, and was involuntarily involved in a contradiction. But this contradiction is necessary for the writer. He needs to understand the truth itself under the dogma, the absolute trut h, and the truth expressed by certain words - he needs it so that, teaching what the church considers true, it could be asserted that what it teaches is this very absolute truth. This false reasoning is important not only because it inevitably leads to a c ontradiction and excludes any possibility of a reasonable presentation, but also because it involuntarily raises doubts about the subsequent presentation. After all, the dogma, according to the definition of the church, is a revealed truth of God, taught b y the church for saving faith. I am a man of God. God, revealing the truth, revealed it to me too. I am seeking saving faith. And what I say about myself, billions of people have said and are saying. So teach me these God - revealed truths (revealed to me ju st as they are to you). How can I not believe in these truths, not accept them? This is all I am looking for. And they are divine. So teach them to me. There is nothing to fear that I will reject them. And the church seems to be afraid that I will reject what is necessary for my salvation and wants to force me to acknowledge that all these dogmas that will be taught to me are the truth. Indeed, there can be no doubt that the truth is what God has revealed to those who seek Him. Give me these truths. But in stead of these truths, a deliberately incorrect argument is made, leaning towards convincing me that everything I am told will be the truth. This argument, instead of subduing me to the truth, has the opposite effect on me. It is obvious to me that the arg ument is incorrect, and it is obvious that they want to catch me in trust in what they will say. But how do I know that what will be taught to me as truth will not be a lie? I know that in dogmatic theology, in the catechism, among the Eastern patriarchs, and even in the creed, there is a dogma about the holy, infallible church guided by the Holy Spirit, which is the guardian of dogmas. If dogmas cannot be explained by themselves, but only by relying on the dogma of the church, then we must start with the d ogma of the church. If everything is based on it, then we must say so and start with it, rather than putting the dogma of the church at the foundation of everything, mentioning it only in passing as something known, and not like in the catechism of Philare t in the third chapter, where it is said that divine revelation is preserved in the church through tradition, and tradition is preserved by the church. The church is made up of all those united by faith in tradition, and it is they, united by tradition, wh o preserve tradition. Tradition is always preserved by those who believe in it. This is always the case. But is it fair, is it not a lie? And the effort with which, without saying anything about the dogmas themselves, they want to catch my agreement on any dogma, makes me wary. I am not saying that I do not believe in the holiness and infallibility of the church. Even at the time when I began this investigation, I fully believed in it, in one of its forms (or so I thought I did). But it must be understood that to understand the church, and in any case, if basing all doctrine on the church's dogma, then one should start with it, as Khomyakov did. But if not starting with the church's dogma, but with the dogma of God, as is in the Creed, in the Letter of the Eastern Patriarchs, in the Catechism, and in all dogmatic theology, then it is necessary to present the most essential dogmas - the truths revealed by God to people. I am a human being; God had me in mind. I seek salvation, so how can I not accept that whi ch I am seeking with all the strength of my soul? I cannot help but accept them, and if my unity with the church confirms them, all the better. Tell me the truths as you know them, tell them even as they are expressed in that Creed that we all memorized; i f you are afraid that, due to the darkness and weakness of my mind, the corruption of my heart, I will not understand them, help me (you know these truths of God, you, the church, teach us), help my weak mind; but do not forget that no matter what you say, you will still be speaking to reason. You will be speaking the truths of God expressed in words, and words must be understood only by the mind. Explain these truths to my mind, show me the futility of my objections, soften my hardened heart with irresisti ble sympathy and a striving for good and truth, which I will find in you, but do not catch me with words, intentional deception, violating the sanctity of the subject you speak of. The prayer of the three hermits, about whom the folk legend speaks, touches me. They prayed to God: "three of you, three of us, have mercy on us." I know that their concept of God is incorrect, but I am drawn to them, I want to imitate them, as I want to laugh when I see someone laughing, or yawn when I see someone yawning, becau se I feel with all my heart that they are seeking God and do not see the falsehood of their expression. But sophistry, intentional deception to trap careless and unstable - minded people, repels me. In truth, the presentation of the truths revealed about God , about man, about salvation lies ahead. People know this, and instead of stating what they know, they make a series of false arguments in an attempt to convince me that everything they say about God, man, and salvation is expressed in such a way that it cannot be expressed otherwise, and that I must believe everything they tell me. Perhaps you will present to me the divine truth, but the methods with which you approach its presentation are the same as those used to present a known lie. But let's look at the actual truths, what they consist of, and how they are expressed. CHAPTER II In the symbol of faith, in the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs, in the Catechism of Philaret, in the works of Damascene, and in Dogmatic Theology, the first dogma is the do gma of God. The title of the first part is "On God in Himself and His General Relationship to the World and Man" (simple theology). This is the title of the first part. The second part will be "On God the Savior and His Special Relationship to the Human Ra ce" - (theology of household management). If I know anything about God, if I have any concept, then these two titles of the two parts destroy all my knowledge of God. I cannot connect my concept of God with the concept of God for whom there are two differ ent relationships to man: one - general and the other - special. The special concept applied to God destroys my concept of God. If God is the God that I understood and understand, then He cannot have any special relationship to man. But perhaps I do not un derstand the words correctly, or my concepts are wrong. I continue reading about God. "Part One. On God in Himself." So, I am waiting for the expression of the truth about God that is revealed by God to humanity for their salvation, which is known to the Church. But before the presentation of this revealed truth, I encounter paragraph 9, wh ich speaks of the degree of our knowledge of God according to the teachings of the Church. This paragraph, like the introduction, does not discuss the subject matter directly, but prepares me for understanding what will be presented: The Orthodox Church begins its teaching on God with the symbol of faith: "I believe..." and the first dogma it wants to impress upon us is as follows: "God is incomprehensible to the human mind: people can only know him partially - as much as he himself deigns to reveal himse lf to their faith and piety." This is an indisputable truth (p. 66). For those who are not accustomed to this type of presentation, I must explain (since I myself did not understand this for a long time) that by an indisputable truth one should understand not that God is incomprehensible, but that he is incomprehensible, but partially comprehensible. The truth is indisputable in that God is incomprehensible and at the same time comprehensible, but only partially. This is the truth. This truth, it is furthe r stated (p. 66 and 67), is clearly set forth in the Holy Scriptures and fully disclosed in the writings of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, based even on sound reason. The sacred books proclaim, on the one hand: a) that God "dwells in unappro achable light, whom no one has seen or can see" (1 Tim. 6:16); b) that not only for people, but also for all created beings, his essence is unknown, "his judgments are unsearchable and his ways are past finding out" (Rom. 11:33 - 34; cf. John 1:18; 1 John 4: 12; Sirach 18:3 - 4), and c) that only one God fully knows God: "For who knows a person's thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 2:11), and "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son" (Matt. 11:27). But, on the other hand, the sacred books proclaim to us that the invisible and incomprehensible God himself deigned to reveal himself to people. Here are these texts: a) In creation: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made" (Rom. 1:20; cf. Ps. 19:1 - 4; Wisd. 13:1 - 9). The text discusses the various ways in whic h God is revealed to humans - through nature, through scripture, and through supernatural revelation. However, the writer intentionally confuses two concepts: the comprehensibility of God's existence and the comprehensibility of God himself. While it may b e possible to understand the existence of God, it is impossible to fully comprehend God himself. The writer argues that the use of imprecise language in certain biblical passages, such as John's statement that no one has seen God, is not evidence of God's incomprehensibility. Rather, it is an attempt to prove something that is already self - evident: that the beginning of all things, God, cannot be fully understood by humans. This is a strange topic, and strange arguments arise from the fact that the word "c omprehensibility" is used here and elsewhere in a dual sense: in the present sense - achievability, and in the sense of knowledge accepted on faith. If the writer understood comprehensibility as comprehensibility, he would not argue that we partly comprehe nd God, but he would directly acknowledge that we cannot comprehend Him; but under the word "comprehensibility" he implies here knowledge accepted on faith, intentionally mixing this concept with the concept of acknowledging the existence of God, and there fore he concludes that we can partly comprehend God. When he quotes the text that we comprehend God from His creations, he means acknowledging the existence of God, but when he quotes the text that "God spoke to the fathers through the prophets" and then " in the Son", he means knowledge accepted on faith, as will be seen later. Similarly, the text of Paul about "walking by faith" is cited as evidence of achievability, which implies knowledge accepted on faith. The writer understands comprehensibility as eit her more or less firm belief in the existence of God, or more or less information about God, even if it is completely incomprehensible, accepted on faith. This will become clear later. Further it is said: The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church have e laborated on this truth in detail, especially in connection with the emerging heretical views regarding it (p. 68). According to the writer, heretical views consist in the belief that God is fully comprehensible or completely incomprehensible. The truth, according to the writer, is that God is incomprehensible and at the same time partly comprehensible. Although the word "partly" is not used in reference to what the writer is talking about and does not even have external authority; although even this word, in the sense in which it is used here, has never been used in Holy Scripture, the writer insists that God is partly comprehensible, meaning by this: partly known - as something comprehensible can be fully or partly known. Two opinions are presented as if they were extreme heresies: some who said that God is fully understandable, and others who said that God is completely incomprehensible. Both of these opinions are refuted and arguments are presented in favor of both incomprehensibility and comprehensibil ity. In essence, it is clear that neither opinion, whether about the complete incomprehensibility or complete comprehensibility of God, was or could be expressed. All of these supposed arguments for and against express only one thing: that by being named , thought about, and spoken of, God is acknowledged to exist. But since the concept of God cannot be anything other than the concept of the beginning of everything that reason can know, it is evident that God, as the beginning of everything, cannot be comp rehended by reason. Only by following the path of rational thinking can one find God at the extreme limit of reason, but having arrived at this concept, reason ceases to comprehend. And this is expressed in all the places cited as arguments for and against the comprehensibility of God from the holy scriptures and the holy fathers. From the deep and sincere speeches of the apostles and fathers of the church, proving the incomprehensibility of God, the verbal task of theology is most outwardly derived - to prove that God cannot be comprehended in full, but only in part. But not only is the reasoning intentionally distorted, in these pages I encountered for the first time a direct distortion not only of the meaning, but also of the words of the sacred scriptu re. The actual text of John 1:18: "No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known," is transmitted in its own words. One verse is taken from the famous 13th chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, which speaks only of love, and is quoted in a distorted form as evidence for the thesis. Further, there are excerpts from the holy fathers (p. 69). "Deity will necessarily be limited if it is comprehended by thought: for even the concept is a form of limitation," says one of those whom theology counts among the defenders of incomprehensibility . "I call that incomprehensible, not that God exists, but that he is such... "Do not turn our sincerity into a reason for godlessness," says Gregory the Theologian, who is counted among the defenders of comprehensibility (p. 73). Ireneus says: "We do not fully comprehend the essence of beings and limited objects that are always before our eyes, we do not comprehend our soul and the connection of the soul with the body, so how can we understand God?" From all of this, the writer concludes that we can parti ally comprehend God, meaning by the word "comprehend" - to accept information about Him on faith, and proceeds to present the dogmas that will be a revelation of how to partially comprehend God. Both the introduction and this 9th paragraph do not yet dis cuss the subject matter, but prepare for the subsequent presentation. The purpose of this paragraph is obviously to prepare the reader so that he, having renounced his concept of God as God, as the incomprehensible essence of everything, would not dare to deny the information about God that will be transmitted to him as truths based on tradition. This paragraph concludes with a quote from John of Damascus expressing the thought of the whole: Deity is ineffable and incomprehensible. For "no one knows the Father except the Son, and no one knows the Son except the Father" (Matthew 11:27). Similarly, the Holy Spirit knows God, just as the human spirit knows what is in man (1 Corinthians 2:11). Apart from the first and blessed being, no one has ever known God, unless God Himself revealed it to them - no one, not only among humans, but even among the heavenly powers, the cherubim and seraphim. However, God did not leave us in complete ignorance of Him. For knowledge of the divine essence, God Himself implanted i n every nature. And the creation itself, its preservation and governance, proclaim the greatness of the deity. Moreover, first through the law and the prophets, and then through His only begotten Son, our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, God has given us knowledge of Himself, as much as we can contain (p. 73). In this conclusion, expressing the thought of the whole, an internal contradiction is sharply noticeable. In the first part, it is said that no one can comprehend God, no one knows His ways or His goals. However, in the second part of the conclusion, it is stated that "God did not leave us in ignorance, but through prophets, His son, and apostles," He gave us not only an idea but also knowledge about Himself "as much as we can comprehend." We sa id that we cannot comprehend God, but here it is suddenly claimed that we even know His goals - we know that He did not want to leave us in ignorance, we know the means He used to achieve His goals, and we know exactly those true prophets, the true son, an d the true apostles whom He sent to teach us. It turns out that after we recognized His incomprehensibility, we suddenly learned the details of His goals and means. We judge Him as a master who wanted to inform his workers about something. Either He is inc omprehensible, and then we cannot know His plans and actions, or He is already fully comprehensible if we know His prophets and know that these prophets are not false but true. Therefore, everything that has been handed down to us by the law, prophets, ap ostles, and evangelists, we accept, acknowledge, and respect, and we do not seek anything more. So, God, who is all - knowing and always seeks our benefit, has revealed everything that is useful for us to know and has remained silent about what we cannot com prehend. Let us be content with this and hold onto it, not exceeding the eternal boundaries and not violating the divine tradition (Proverbs 22:28) (pages 73 and 74). But if that is the case, one cannot help but ask oneself: why were these prophets and ap ostles true, and not others who are considered false? It turns out that God is incomprehensible, and no one can know Him, but He gave knowledge about Himself to people, not to everyone, but to the prophets and apostles, and this knowledge is preserved in t he holy tradition, and we must believe in it alone because it is the only true one - the holy church, i.e. those who believe in the tradition and observe it. The same was said at the introduction. After lengthy discussions about what a dogma is, it all ca me down to the fact that a dogma is the truth because it is taught by the church, and the church is made up of people united by faith in these dogmas. The same is true here. God can be partially understood, to some extent. One church knows how to understan d Him to some extent, and everything it says will be holy truth. In the question of dogma, there was a double definition of dogma as an absolute truth and as teaching, and therefore there was a contradiction in that one dogma was an unchanging, revealed truth from the beginning, and the other was the teaching of the church, gradually developing. Here, in the question of comprehensibility, the word "comprehensibility" is also given a double meaning - the meaning of comprehensibility and the knowledge accep ted on faith. Neither John of Damascus, nor Philaret, nor Makary can fail to see that greater clarity is necessary for greater comprehensibility, and the assertion that what is being told to me is being said through people called the church prophets cannot add comprehensibility to the mind. Therefore, only what is comprehensible can be partially understood, and they substitute the concept of knowledge for the concept of comprehensibility and then say that this knowledge is transmitted by the prophets, and t he question of comprehensibility is completely eliminated. So, if the knowledge transmitted by the prophets makes God more incomprehensible than He was for me before, this knowledge is still true. But in addition to this double definition, there is also a contradiction in the expressions of the church tradition itself. Texts are cited: some denying the comprehensibility of God, others acknowledging it. One must either reject the first or the second, or agree with both. Theology does neither, but directly states that everything that will be said further about the properties, division of God according to essence and persons, is true because the infallible church, i.e. tradition, teaches it. So, as in the first case, when considering the introduction, all th e arguments turned out to be unnecessary, and everything came down to the fact that what will be presented is the truth because the church teaches it, and now all the arguments are unnecessary because the foundation of everything is the teaching of the inf allible church. However, in addition to this recurring technique, the actual teaching of the church appears here for the first time - the summary of this teaching, and it turns out that there is a lack of unity in it, it contradicts itself. In the introduc tion, the church was considered the foundation of everything, i.e. the tradition of people who are united by tradition, but there I did not yet know how this tradition is expressed. Here the tradition itself appears, i.e. excerpts from the holy scriptures. And these excerpts contradict each other and are not connected in any way except by words. As I initially believed, I believed that the church is the bearer of truth, but after going through these 74 pages of introduction and exposition of how the church teaches about dogmas and the incomprehensibility of God, I unfortunately became convinced that the presentation of the subject is inaccurate and that incorrect reasoning is introduced unintentionally or intentionally. The reasoning is incorrect in 1) that the dogma is absolute truth and at the same time the teaching of what the church considers to be the truth, and 2) the reasoning is incorrect that the announcement through prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ that there is a God is the same as the comprehe nsion of God. In both arguments, there is not only ambiguity but also dishonesty. No matter what subject I present, no matter how convinced I am of the certainty of my knowledge of the complete truth, when presenting the subject, I cannot do otherwise than to say: "I will present such and such, and this is what I consider to be the truth, and here's why," and not say in advance that everything I say is unquestionable truth. No matter what subject I present, I can only say: "The subject I will present is not entirely comprehensible. My entire presentation will consist of making it more comprehensible." "And the greater comprehensibility of the subject will be a sign of the truthfulness of my presentation. But if I were to say, 'the subject I will be presenti ng is only partially comprehensible, and my understanding of it is based on certain traditions, and everything that these traditions say, even if they make the subject even more incomprehensible, is the only truth,' then obviously no one would believe me. Perhaps my introduction was incorrect, but the presentation of open truths will still be correct. Let us pay attention to this revelation. Chapter III Section 10. The essence of everything that God has deigned to reveal to us about Himself, without reference to other beings, is expressed briefly by the Orthodox Church in the following words of the Athanasian Creed: 'This is the Catholic faith: we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance' (p. 74). The fundamental truth that God has deigned to reveal to the Church through prophets and apostles, and which the Church reveals to us, is that God is one and three, three and one. The expression of this truth is such that not only can I not understand it, but I undoubtedly understand that it cannot be understood. Man understands with his mind. In the mind of man there are no more precise laws tha n those that relate to numbers. And so the first thing that God has deigned to reveal about Himself to man, He expresses in numbers: I = 3, and 3 = 1, and 1 = 3. But it cannot be that God would answer people in such a way, the people whom He created, whom He gave only reason in order to understand Him. A decent person, speaking with another, will not use foreign, incomprehensible words to the interlocutor. Where is that weak - minded person who would not be able to answer a child's question in such a way tha t the child would understand him? How then could God, in revealing Himself to me, speak in a way that I would not understand Him? After all, I, without faith, have given myself an explanation of life, and every unbeliever has such an explanation." No matt er how bad this explanation may be, any explanation is still an explanation. But this is not an explanation, it is only a combination of words that give no understanding. I searched for the meaning of my life in rational knowledge and found that life has no meaning. Then it seemed to me that faith gives this meaning, and I turned to the guardian of faith - the church. And from the very beginning, the church asserts that there is no meaning in the concept of God. But maybe it just seems to me that this is meaningless because I don't understand the full meaning of it. After all, this is not the invention of one person; this is what billions believed and still believe in. One and three? What does that mean? I keep readi