have decided to write this paper for the late Professor Ioannis Kornarakis mainly for two reasons: (1) Professor Kornarakis was the first to attempt an interdisciplinary preoccupation between the branch of Patristics and Modern Psychology; (2) Because he worked on this interdisciplinary perspective with innovation and creativity. For Professor Kornarakis’s work what is worth to be mentioned, above all, is that it was a struggle and an effort towards an unusual project: that of seeing the writings of the Church Fathers and of Scriptures in ways which could be relevant to modern human problematism so that a fruitful understanding to be attained, as to what we can do with them on a personal, interpersonal and social level. Though Professor Kornarakis did not use the empirical method in his scientific research - observation-hypothesis-experiment-support, or refutation, of ideas tested-replication of the study conducted, etc. - he came across very important insights as to the human condition, that even today can elicit discussions as to the salience of his endeavours for modern pastoral psychologists.In this theoretical paper, what I am doing is to refer to Professor Kornarakis’s work historically and systematically. Historically, in terms of the development of it, since its inception, in the theological literature; systematically, in terms of the presentation of it in relation to the main ideas this was based upon. The historical preoccupation with Kornarakis’s work is being exhausted in the realm of an interview I conducted of him, when I was collecting information relevant to what he wrote, discussed and envisaged as to the association between Patristics and Psychology. The systematic preoccupation with Kornarakis’s work refers to the content and context his works were conceptualized and composed.Through both these perspectives -the historical and the systematic- Kornarakis’s work is actually put in the framework it belongs to, which is that of the theoretical foundations needed for the construction of a mode of thought in the pastoral understanding of the writings of the Fathers, and those of the Bible, in relation to what modern psychology studies in detail. Kornarakis’s work can be exhausted in terms of its chronological framework; however, it can also appear inexhaustible as to the kind of contingencies one can find in it, which are both situation-driven and hermeneutically-specific. Situationdriven, for they refer to events the modern man is bothered by; hermeneutically-specific, for they refer to issues, the exegesis of which can help the modern man’s condition to be improved.

In the present study, we are discussing the actually quite important matter for the theology of the Eastern Christianity on the real existence of the divine energies and their relation to the divine essence. Following Gregory Palamas’ treatise entitled Περί θείας ἑνώσεως και διακρίσεως we attempt to approach his theory on unions and distinctions, which proves just the two ways in which God exists. In the gnoseological level, we are discussing how affirmative, apophatic and superlative theologies are combined, in order to become clear that God is totally unknown as to his essence, but, up to a certain point, knowable as to the projections of his energies. Our main goal is to show that Gregory Palamas is absolutely consistent with the previous Christian tradition.

A Psalter consists of a number of royal and messianic psalms which should not be separated from each other. Their poetic structure is very similar, but their content is different. Except for the structure which is characteristic of the songs with the royal theme, Psalm 143 mentions the golden age of peace and plenty and simultaneously directs readers’ attention towards the coming of the new David-Messiah. The narrator takes on the role of the prayer representing his people, praying for the victory on the eve of a decisive battle.

In this study, focusing our attention on Gregory Palamas’ treatise under the title Περί θείας ενώσεως και διακρίσεως, we attempt to investigate, first of all, the volitional nature and the polymorphism of the divine energies and their relation to the divine essence. We also attempt to approach the divine distinction as a good “procession” and to prove, relying exclusively on the Christian thinker’s text, the inconsistencies according to his view that arise from the positions supported by Barlaam and Akindynos regarding the fact that the (divine) distinction is a creature. Regarding the matter on distinction, we conclude that it is a concept with a clearly different meaning when it comes to divine matters from the meaning that it gets when it concerns the created reality. From the gnoseological point of view, we focus our attention on the fact that the created beings are a source of knowledge for the revealed divine power-energy.

At a time when certain scholars insist that the self does not exist and is not worth discussing, a return to the work of Kierkegaard proves valuable insofar as he considers this topic without appeal to abstractions and instead by way of lived experiences. My paper argues that we gain crucial insights into what constitutes Kierkegaard’s lived self by considering the trajectory of a debate between two of his most prominent predecessors, Hume and Kant. From Hume we gain an account of the problem of thinking the self abstractly (i.e., the paradox of the bundle of perceptions having to be itself a perception) and how this problem vaguely connects to the passions. From Kant we gain an account of the psychological morality framing the self and the radical evil at its heart. I suggest that Kierkegaard builds on these accounts by synthesizing their abstract components in an embodied, dynamic context, showing (not telling) how the self can be presented in everyday experiences.

Building on the Christian and far-eastern understanding of evil, the author points out that evil that affects us can have a positive meaning. Troubles and suffering that we experience serve as a means of our purification from sin or are trials through which we gain the winning crown. God’s punishment, which primarily has an educational role, is nuanced. The guilt of an individual for violations of the divine moral order depends on the level of their consciousness, life circumstances and their social position. Since God is love, His mercy prevails over justice. God does not allow evil if good does not flow from it. Awareness that the meaning of evil that strikes us is to tear us away from a superficial, hedonistic lifestyle and turn us to God, contributes to an attitude deprived of hatred towards the enemy and those who harm us. If we understand that the enemy is merely a tool used for our moral improvement and spiritual transformation, we will focus primarily on fighting against the evil within ourselves.