Questions about Dr. George H. Bebawi's Teachings

[Severian]

You guys had a thread about a controversial topic within the Coptic Church without me!

IS OUTRAGE!!!

[Gorazd]

You guys had a thread about a controversial topic within the Coptic Church without me!

IS OUTRAGE!!!

Please join the conversation and contribute to it.

Btw, isn't "Is outrage!" an EO expression? It seems to be a rather literal translation of "Это безобразие!"

[minasoliman]

Just want to let you know...we're still only on one lecture, which is week 4...do people still want to continue discussion on this, or move on to other weeks?

PS I already prepared what to write on other weeks, which pretty much comprises of week 5 and week 7, and that's it for these series of lectures

[Gorazd]

minasoliman,

Could you give me the links please?

[minasoliman]

I gave the links the very beginning of this thread:

Week 4 in Christian Tradition:

http://www.georgebebawi.com/2006/12/the-christian-tradition-i/

"Monotheism is one of the biggest blasphemies to God."

In this lecture, Dr. Bebawi talks about the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity, and how we cannot call Christianity "Monotheistic".  Neither can it be called polytheistic.  He wishes to maintain Christianity simply as the revelation of God through Jesus Christ. He gives reasons why Christianity cannot be strictly considered as "Monotheistic", which can be read here:

http://www.georgebebawi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/churchhistses4.doc

Of course, in his defense, he has said that the OT prophets used Monotheism as a way to combat the sinful polytheism.  Nevertheless, he is quoted as saying that Monotheism is "blasphemous".  I would like to hear what other EOs and OOs would like to think.

[Gorazd]

Sorry, I didnt notice the other weeks also were there.

[minasoliman]

Okay, moving on…

Week 5:

Week 5 was a good lecture, but something caught my attention, and he even admits some Orthodox might not like it.  He talks about how in our relationship, we should turn all images into words, or cure our hearts from images.  All this starts at about an hour and a half.

The word "Abba Father", if you continue to keep those words in your heart without forming an image, you will reside in the heart of God.  Keep the word of God in your heart, and God will keep you in His heart, as Abba Philemon once said.  To form an image of the word is like an idol in the soul.  It's fine to start with a picture but end with a word.  Some simple-minded folks need images, but it won't lead to a deep relationship with God.

He proceeds to talk about the "3 levels of Orthodoxy" in regards to iconology, in which the first two he believes are "blasphemy."

First level is when people practice going to kiss the icon as if it was a real presence of Christ or the saints, and calls it "holy paganism."  He also says the same about statues and the Catholic Church, but then says "maybe it's me and my Semitic mind."

Second level is a little bit better.  He has been begging the Orthodox for more than 35 years, and not many people listen to him.  Icons are nothing more than an arrangement of a holy banquet of the Kingdom with the iconostasis in its head.  If you enter the Church knowing that these images point to the Holy Banquet, you will be fine.  But if you enter the Church to venerate these icons separately, to satisfy your desire to touch, kiss, and light candles, the icons no longer become a useful tool.

He relates a story from Abba Philemon about him lighting a candle in front of an icon.  "Why do you do this" he asks.  Dr. George answers, "because it's a custom."  "Does the Virgin Mary live in darkness needing your miserable light?…A child of God should not worship according to custom; it's a form of paganism. …I don't light candles, the saints don't need candles. … What you are doing is you're making a fool of God and yourself.  The King invites you to His banquet, and you play with these icons, but you do not even look into the face of the King. … If you think this is THE banquet, then you are fooling yourself."

However, Dr. George does love icons, and he has a huge collection of them in his home.  He also has a pictures of a bishop who was martyred he loved and Abba Philemon.  But he doesn't kiss those icons or pictures.  Every time he sees these icons, they become "words."  For the picture of Abba Philemon, the words are what he talked about, his wisdom, his countless rebukes against Dr. George, his spirituality.  His picture is not the center of veneration, but what he said is the center of veneration.

Another Abba Philemon story regarding vestments worn, which are very expensive (according to Dr. George, 5 grand a piece), "They made a fool of you.  Put on these vestments, and you walk like a peacock, and you feel great.  The fabrics give you a sense of greatness, isn't it?  But if you discover the beauty the Holy Spirit gives to your soul, you won't need the fabrics."  That radical understanding is a level of a mature person.  For him, the image became a word.

Most of the time, images more so than words provoke anger, arguments, lusts, etc.

The third level of Orthodoxy, when you see an icon, you know these things are not everlasting, but it's a transient picture that should remind you of eternity, which is more beautiful than any icon painted by an artist.

When Dr. George was married in the Russian Orthodox Church, the choir didn't show up.  Archbishop Anthony Bloom (who was his spiritual guide for 25 years in England) said to him that he was ashamed and sorry that he has to celebrate his wedding without a choir.  So, after the wedding, as a wedding gift, he gave Dr. George an icon of the Theotokos made of Bronze with writings of Church slavonic.  Apparently, it was a 17th Century icon that is very antique and lead others to offer him huge sums of money for it.  Dr. George feeling bad that this might be the wrong icon went to give it back to the Archbishop, and the Archbishop replied,

"Are you a Christian man George?"
"I hope so."
"This icon belongs to my great grandmother, and I had many possessions of my mother's and this icon is the last possession of my mother that I had, and I gave it to you because I love you and I love your wife.  And you know George, when you love someone, you give them the best and not the cheap.  Take it back.  If you don't take it back, don't come to Church anymore.  Because if you don't take it back, you have no real dynamic love in your life."
"I learned a very hard lesson today.  Thank you."
"I gave you this icon because I know how much it can give you in the market.  If you feel you need to sell it one day because you need the money, go ahead.  But when you are finished with it one day, give it to somebody you love."
This icon was given to Dr. George in 1968, and he is not finished with it yet.
Before his death, Archbishop Anthony Bloom gave Dr. George a bottle of perfume that belonged to his mother.  "It probably lost its fragrance," he said, "but take it and share it with your wife.  I know you're a man of vainglory and you like to smell nice.  But as for me, I'm heading towards eternity, to have with me the fragrance of the Holy Spirit."
"Does this mean you reached the 3rd level of Orthodoxy?"
"Yes!"

Therefore, what is eternal should be more important than what is transient.

Now my commentary:

Could this be a form of semi-iconoclasm, where people who kiss icons or light candles are committing paganism?  Are churches without icons considered better than churches with icons according to Dr. George?  When looking at the overall message, it is very worth listening to this message and to learn and benefit from it.  But this radical thought against the customs of kissing icons seems to go against a very important tradition in the Church. 

The rebuke against Dr. George by Abba Philemon is a good rebuke.  If you do not understand the custom that you are doing, and you are just doing this for custom's sake, then indeed, it's paganism.  But to make a sweeping argument and not turn this custom into understanding the symbols behind the custom and what it means for me to kiss an icon or to light a candle, then I think that goes against Orthodox iconology.  And would Dr. George agree that icons are "windows to heaven", where the real presence might be there so long as you receive from their presence a certain blessing?  What about the consecration of icons in the Church by the holy oil?  Is Dr. George insinuating that getting a blessing from icons or consecrating them might be a form of blasphemy as well?

These are issues that need to be clarified or at least his wording needs to be less provocative.  Hence another reason probably why he has become quite controversial in the Church.  Despite all of this, this lecture was quite good and gave good lessons, which is why I needed to listen and quote it in its context here.  Any comments are appreciated.

PS Around an hour and 53 minutes in, he does recommend one to read and to have patience to finish reading St. Augustine's work on the Trinity.

Week 6:

Week 6 was unfortunately cut off, but there was no controversy here.  The general theme is expanding upon the idea of personhood vs individuality, as well as defining the Trinity in terms of self-sacrificial love, as Lover, Beloved, and Love, three-in-one, and that we are called to participate fully in this love, that the Church should be an icon of this love, an icon of the Trinity.  In order to fully know the Trinity, it's not enough to just have ideas about the Trinity, but to immerse in a dialogue of love in the Trinity, to fully know the Trinity.


Week 7:

At around 27th minute:  Can God in his divinity choose not to know?  He admits giving a shock here and say "Yes," God may choose even in His divinity not to know.  "In good Christian theology, God does not know anything about us until we tell him". (John of Damascus).  God can know everything, and has the ability to know everything, but He can choose not to know.  Abba Philemon, "Your biggest mistake George is you think God treats you according to His knowledge.  God treats according to His love, but on the day of Judgment, He will treat you according to His knowledge."

Some people think how can this be, since choosing to not know means God isn't perfect in omniscience?  However, this is a false dichotomy, for God is still perfect even if He chooses not to know.

What do you all think?  Dr. George claims he gets this from St. John of Damascus, which I'd like to know the exact source.  I don't think he said anything wrong, but still, would love to see your input.

Week 8:

Nothing controversial.  But a very interesting lecture, and well worth the listen if you have time.  Here, he gives an introduction to deification and how it differs from New Agism.  He also talks about the dangers and pitfalls of Buddhism and Sufism, and how Christianity avoids those pitfalls.

[ReturnOrthodoxy]

Hey mina,

I’d like to answer your comment regarding week 5:

I would have to say that I respectfully disagree with your analysis. It seems that Dr. Bebawi is right on the money about something which is becoming increasingly clear to me. I don’t think he is by any mens an iconoclast, but, being trained by the legends of Orthodox spirituality, he is speaking about hesychastic prayer in which all images must be removed from the mind. The person of god cannot be limited to a picture in your head, and so, the hesychast attempts to remove all images. For those of us who cannot attain to hesychastic prayer, the icons become a tool for us. The highest form of prayer is hesychastic prayer, and it is imagless. This is perfectly in line with patristic teaching. St. John Climacus says, “A poor man is pure during prayer, but an acquisitive man prays to material images.” (17.4) St. Nilui of Sinai also says, “When you pray, do not imagine God in any form and do not allow your mind to form any image…” As is evident, it is hard for the mind not to form an image when the eye is gazing directly at one. The question is can both mental and pure prayer be brought to perfection? I think yes, and I think that This video answers this question well (start listening at 19:08, though it is an excellent documentary so I recommend the whole shebang!) Dr. George may disagree, but this is hardly a matter of being incorrect, just a matter of opinions. It still does not touch iconoclasm.

What Dr. George speaks about when he mentions “Holy Paganism” is so uterally true that I cannot begin to fathom it. I, a huge fan of icons, have icons covering my room, so I guarantee that I am no iconoclast (and I’m not saying that you are implying that I am). But I walked into church once, and saw a woman kneeling on the floor, kissing a picture over and over and over and over. I looked at the picture, a painting of Christ resurrecting (he had a nice 6 pack, some hardcore pecs, blonde hair, and blue eyes.) I am not judging but I hope that she did not, in her head, assume that Jesus is anything like that. The beauty of Christ is internal, not external. Icons, by means of external methods, are supposed to help us into something internal, not leave us inspecting beautifully laid paint. The problem is with these statues, sometimes they become external shows. They show the Logos as a mere man, and a good looking one at that. Those who know how to use icons understand that the man they see in the picture is a symbolic representation of the incarnate word of God, and that the icon is not meant to be a picture but a spiritual revelation of mystery. Many don’t have this anymore, but delight in placing candles before a picture of Jesus because somehow, this icon is a magic font of healing. That is why, personally, when I began praying with icons, I read heavily about icons, knowing the danger in being lead away by them. When the iconoclasm question happened, the church decided it would elevate the icons so that people would not be able to touch them for a short time. They decided that icons are important but people do not understand, so we must do something. The way I see it, Dr. George is doing that exact thing. He is trying to give a warning to the misuse of imagery.

I think that, in terms of being less provocative, Dr. George is not speaking to children, but to people who, like yourself, can do away with the misunderstandings, and can understand what he truly means. He is not saying that it is blasphemy to consecrate icons. He is an EO. They had a whole ecumenical council for that! Lol

As for Augustine on the trinity, what do you make of that? I would like to hear your thoughts.

Pray for me, a terrible fool

ReturnOrthodoxy

[minasoliman]

Let me requote the controversial part of Dr. George's talk:

He proceeds to talk about the "3 levels of Orthodoxy" in regards to iconology, in which the first two he believes are "blasphemy."

First level is when people practice going to kiss the icon as if it was a real presence of Christ or the saints, and calls it "holy paganism."  He also says the same about statues and the Catholic Church, but then says "maybe it's me and my Semitic mind."

Let's be honest here.  Isn't the Orthodox Church encouraging a real presence of the saints in these icons, especially if miracles come from these icons?  What about the myrrh-bearing icons both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox share?  Are these holy paganism if this shows some sort of real presence, and allows miracles to be worked when people touch, kiss, or light candles around them?

I accept that there are people with extremely simple minds that might have a borderline paganistic concept of icons.  Nevertheless, isn't there a school of thought were in liturgy, all our senses are enlightened.  Our sense of sight, where we see holy images to point us to eternity, the smell of incense, the music, the readings for our intellect, the taste of the Eucharist, all of which are sense-enlightening.  In this sense, we can say that indeed, these are all necessary tools so that we may learn how to turn, not just images, but also smell, touch, hearing, thoughts towards eternity, towards "a word" as he puts it.  But to call this first level blasphemy, wouldn't it discredit the use of icons in the Church to begin with, the idea that we light candles, and are encouraged to kiss the icons to receive their blessings?

I'm not knocking the forest of his message.  I think it's a great contemplation, but my point is even with adults, you still need to be careful with your usage of words here.  And yes, I'm still not condemning Dr. George.  Absolutely, I don't want to end up misunderstanding him.  But this is just another example where maybe he lead those in the Coptic Church with childish minds to snap right back at him.  And I think there needs to be some wisdom in the way one speaks so that you can allow those with childish minds to grow up gradually to a mature level of thinking that can be ready for more provocative words.

At the same time, it can be misconstrued to think that perhaps it's better to have a Church without icons, so that we may concentrate more on eternity in our minds than on images.

[LizaSymonenko]

I would have to disagree about his understanding of what icons are.

Icons are called "Windows to Heaven" for a reason.

They are more than mere paint on wood.  They resonate with the essence of the saint being depicted on them.

If they meant "nothing" and were not "special" than there would be no issue in tossing them out in the trash.  We don't do that, however.  If we no longer need them, we give them away, or as a last resort destroy them via burning and burying the ashes where nobody walks.

Christ left us His icon - the Icon Made without Hands....and through that icon He worked a miracle of healing King Abgar's body and soul.

We venerate the icons as they are a "window" to that saint.  I truly believe that the individual here's our petitions made before their icons.  We don't love the icon for the wood and paint, but, for the saint that reaches out to us through them.

The faithful realize an icon is a 2-D item, and therefore, realize that the miracles experienced are not from the fibrous material, but, from the holy emanating through that fibrous material.

Apparently this man doesn't realize the true value of icons.  I am amazed he is an EO priest.  How can that be?

[minasoliman]

He's an EO communicant, but not a priest.

[LizaSymonenko]

Oh...thank God! 

So, he's EO, but, doesn't "believe" what the Church teaches about icons...

I'm curious what his priest/bishop think of his theology.

[minasoliman]

As for Augustine on the trinity, what do you make of that? I would like to hear your thoughts.

Sorry ReturnOrthodoxy, I forgot to answer your question about this.  I honestly don't know.  But considering the fact that many turn to Dr. George as a way of proving Copts are Monophysite heretics, I do like to point this out to show that sometimes Dr. George might in fact disagree with certain "conservative" views of "traditionalist" Orthodox, such as the borderline "heresies" they claim in that book by St. Augustine.  Personally, I think there might be some misunderstandings, but of course, this is my whole point in this thread.  People like Mina Mounir in Egypt and Fr. Athanasius in Greece who like to mention Dr. George as a source of Orthodoxy against the Coptic Church need to know that even Dr. George, as laudable a man he is and respectful in his knowledge and wisdom, is not perfect, and may lead others to think somehow it's solely the Coptic Church's fault for issues like theosis.  The question I am raising, is it JUST theosis that lead Dr. George to leave the Coptic Church?

This is the question I want people to think.  This is just the beginning here.  There are other stories that he shared that makes me wonder, "well, duh!!! it's against canon law...even EOs won't like that".  That's why I feel as much as anything, sometimes, when it comes to higher ups in the issues of our many local Orthodox churches, we have to rule out, maybe there's a clash of egos and provocations.  I'm not saying the Coptic Church doesn't have its problems, but neither doesn't Dr. George.

[minasoliman]

Oh...thank God! 

So, he's EO, but, doesn't "believe" what the Church teaches about icons...

I'm curious what his priest/bishop think of his theology.

Just a bit of a background, besides my original post in this thread, here's another thread concerning his conversion story and the controversies surrounding him:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38938.0.html

[minasoliman]

I want to take a bit of a break from the lectures shared, since I know many people here might still have more comments to make on the lectures posted.  But I want to share a letter Dr. George made public online here:

http://www.coptology.com/?p=2416

The letter was dated May 14, 2012, and it was sent to His Eminence Metropolitan Bakhomios.  I am very deficient in Arabic, nevertheless, my father was able to translate for me the message of the letter.  I invite anyone here who is excellent in Arabic to translate the letter for us.

Dr. George writes with great humility about his situation, how Dr. George was framed and defrauded into excommunication by the Holy Synod in 1997.  His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy had taken audio recordings of Dr. George, and edited them, burning out the contexts of these audio tapes and making Dr. George sound like a heretic, all of those charges which he denies.  He asked His Holiness Pope Shenouda for 25 years if an investigation be made on these tapes to clear his name, but to no avail, since his letters seemed to have not reached His Holiness to begin with.  He is therefore forced to make this letter public online in case this particular letter does not reach His Eminence Metropolitan Bakhomious.

Dr. George said that these are serious charges that can be brought against His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy in a court of law, but as a Christian, he cannot find himself to get the Egyptian government involved to arrest any cleric, no less a bishop!  He asked rather that the issue remain internal, with a Coptic judge.  And Metropolitan Bishoy did not do this only to him, but to His Grace Bishop Mettias that lead to his suspension and to countless other Copts wronged by this man.

Nevertheless, the main purpose of this letter is about his candidacy for the Papacy.  It would be enough for Dr. George if with all his power, His Eminence Metropolitan Bakhomious, to remove Metropolitan Bishoy from the list of candidates for the Papacy.  It would also be enough if he apologizes to Dr. George, nothing more, nothing less.  But at the very least, for the sake of the future of the Coptic Church, he should NOT be a candidate for the Papacy.

What does this letter mean?  It shows Dr. George actually loves the Coptic Church.  Despite whatever other people may say, issues about Chalcedon specifically, here Dr. George is complaining of ONE MAN in the Coptic Church, no one else, a man who he considers lacks theological education, and is leading many astray.  But I'd be hard-pressed to find anything by Dr. George against the post-Chalcedonian Church.  If anything, this letter also implies a certain plea that his name may be cleared and that he may return to the Coptic Church.  Many people today have called for the Coptic Church to clear Dr. George and to have him return, with apologies from the ridiculous judgments made by His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy.

It is also with much surprise and pleasure to many members of the Coptic Church that Dr. George's prayers and requests were answered.

الحبر الجيل نيافة الأنبا باخوميوس

المسيح قام، حقاً قام

هذا هو رجاء كل مسيحي في هذه الحياة الحاضرة والآتية أيضاً؛ لأن لنا رجاء واحد في الرب الواحد.

أعتذر قبل أي شيء آخر عما سوف تقرأه في هذه السطور، ولكن هكذا كانت تسير الأمور، وهكذا أيضاً يجب أن نقف صفاً واحداً مع الحق، ومع شهادة يسوع المسيح “الإله الحق” كما نعترف به في قانون الإيمان.


كنت قد طلبت في خطاب لنيافة الأنبا بيشوي مطران دمياط وكفر الشيخ أن لا يتقدم للترشح لشغل مكان الراحل الكريم الأنبا شنودة الثالث، وذكرت في خطابي الأسباب التي دعتني لمطالبته بعدم الترشح، وها أنا هنا أضع هذه الأسباب تحت بصر نيافتكم وأعضاء المجمع المقدس، طالباً من نيافتكم أن تبذلوا جهدكم لسحب أوراق ترشحه لهذا المنصب:

أولاً:

قام الأنبا بيشوي بعمل مونتاج لشرائط بعض محاضرات الكلية الاكليريكية التي كنت ألقيها بطنطا، وحرَّف ما قلته فيها، وأخرج نصوصاً جديدةً لم ترد على لساني في سياقها الطبيعي، الأمر الذي اعتقد معه البعض أن ما ورد بهذه الشرائط صحيح، وهو أبعد ما يكون عن الصحة. وهو بذلك يكون قد ارتكب تزويراً فاضحاً يكفي لتقديمه لمحكمة الجنايات. وغنيٌ عن البيان أن من يرتكب هذا الفعل لا يجب أن يجلس في مكان الأسقف، فما بال نيافتكم بكرسي الإسكندرية؟ علماً بأن الأمر لم يقتصر على شخصي، بل قام بذات الفعل (التزوير) مع نيافة الأنبا متياس أسقف المحلة الكبرى. ورغم أنني طالبت أكثر من مرة طوال 25 سنة بالتحقيق في هذا الموضوع، وعرض الشرائط على خبير في التسجيلات الصوتية بإشراف قاضِ قبطي إلاَّ أن الطلب لم يجد آذاناً صاغية، وأعتقد أن نيافتكم لا يغيب عنه سبب ذلك.

ثانياً:

إنني التمس منكم – وأنا أعرف عنكم الغيرة والإيمان – أن تقنع الأنبا بيشوي بسحب طلب الترشح والتنازل عن دخول الانتخابات للأسباب التي أوردتها. أمَّا إذا أصر على موقفه، خصوصاً وهو لم يعتذر عما فعله طوال سنوات طويلة، ظَلَمَ فيها الكثيرين من أصحاب الحق … فإنني مضطر لتقديم شكوى للنائب العام.

أنا مسيحي، ولا أقبل أن أجد حقي لدى القضاء المصري، ولكن عندما تتعذر حتى الشكوى، فإنني مضطر كما سبق واضطررت للجوء إلى منصة القضاء المصري طعناً على قرار المجمع المقدس بعزلي من الكنيسة القبطية، أقول إنني مضطر للجوء إلى ذات المنصة التي أنصفتني وانصفت الكثيرين، عندما عزَّ الحصول على الحق في دارٍ من المفترض فيها أنها تعرف الحق المتجسد ربنا يسوع، وأن تعطيه لأصحابه دون أن يضطر أحدهم للجوء إلى تلمُّس هذا الحق خارج الكنيسة. لذلك، فأنا لا زلت أرجو أن يكون في الكنيسة الشاهدة للحق، مَن يعطي كل ذي حق حقه.

لذلك أكتب لكم هذا الخطاب المفتوح – وأنا اعتذر عن ذلك – فقد قيل لي أكثر من مرة إن بعض الخطابات لم تصل الى الأنبا شنودة الثالث؛ ولذلك، وحرصاً على أن لا أضطر للجوء إلى تقديم بلاغ إلى النائب العام ضد هذا الإنسان، لأنني – كمسيحي لا أقبل أن يمسه سوء أو شر رغم ما فعله وهو يعرفه حق المعرفة – فها أنا ألجأ إليكم وأشهدكم عليه.

فإذا نجحت نيافتكم ومعكم الشرفاء من اساقفتنا في إبعاد الأنبا بيشوي، الذي لم يحترم لائحة المجمع المقدس وظل يشغل سكرتارية المجمع المقدس طوال 25 عاماً، فسوف يعم الخير وسوف يذكر التاريخ لكم هذه المأثرة، لأن هذا النوع من البشر لا يجوز له أن يتقدم لينال مسئولية أكبر.

إنني اثق في محبتكم للحق وفي الشهادة الحسنة، ولأنني أعرف ذلك عنكم كتبت هذه السطور بكل ألم؛ لأنني أعرف أنني أضعك في موقف لا أرضاه لنفسي، ولكن الضرورة وشدة وقع ترشح الأنبا بيشوي للانتخابات عليَّ وعلى غيري من الذين مسهم ظلم صارخ منه وبسببه، هذه الضرورة تفرض عليَّ الانتباه والتنبيه إلى مصلحة الكنيسة.

فإذا ما حُذِفَ اسم الأنبا بيشوي من قائمة المرشحين، فسوف اعتبر أن هذا هو ختام هذه الواقعة السمجة الشريرة معاً.

وأنا أرجو أن تعتبر هذا الخطاب – بما ورد فيه من أسباب – طعناً مني على ترشح الأنبا بيشوي لمنصب بطريرك الكنيسة القبطية.

تقبل محبتي واحترامي لشخصكم الكريم، مع طلب بركة صلواتكم.

ابنكم

د. جورج حبيب بباوي

[Severian]

^Thanks for this, Mina.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Faith Issues (Moderator: Michał Kalina) > Topic: Questions about Dr. George H. Bebawi's Teachings