Throughout his apostolic ministry Paul had to explain the meaning of the crucifixion of the Messiah. Another problem for him was the circumcision of the Gentiles. Paul was not only against forcing gentiles to be circumcised, he was also against the voluntary circumcision of Gentiles. The belief in the existence of a rigid barrier between the people was probably behind this. The article explores the possible Jewish roots of Paul’s argument. It is shown that in Jewish tradition there was a connection between the blood of circumcision and the blood of sacrifice. Building on this, Paul describes the crucifixion of the Messiah as the collective circumcision of Gentile converts. Paul views the community of Jesus’ followers as the Jerusalem temple where the actualization of the crucifixion and the eating of Christ as the Passover lamb takes place. The attempted Gentile circumcision is seen by him as a denial that Gentiles are already circumcised in the Messiah on the cross. The article is written in the light of the new paradigm «Paul within Judaism». Within this paradigm, Paul’s messages are seen as addressed predominantly to non-Jews and are not universalized. Paul’s message is a form of «Judaism for Gentiles» and is not a departure from the Torah. The crucified Messiah-Mohel is a Jewish hero for the Gentiles, joining them to the family of Abraham. The result of the cross is the opportunity to draw near to the God of Israel and receive eschatological salvation. The temple cult in Jerusalem, on the other hand, is God’s gift to the Jewish people and the way of salvation for Israel. For Paul, the crucifixion of Christ does not cancel or replace it.

The article considers an overview of the main directions of religious and philosophical thought of the Samaritans, which took shape under the influence of Arab philosophy in the 11^th – 18^th centuries. Analyzing the handwritten monuments of the Samaritans (in particular, ʾAbū al-Ḥasan al-Ṣūrī, Munaǧǧā ibn Ṣadaqah, Ṣadaqah al-Ḥakīm, Ibrāhīm al-Qabāṣī, al-Ġazzāl al-Ġazzī and Ibrāhīm al-ʿAyyah), the author comes concludes that Samaritan thought is constructed by four dependent theological schools – Samaritan Kalam, Peripatetism, Sufism and Ishraqism. Within the framework of the general doctrine, implying the belief in Mount Gerizim Temple exclusivity, the sanctity of Samaritan Pentateuch, general eschatological teachings and the doctrine of the divine attributes, al-Ṣūrī and al-ʻAyyah developed their own version of the Mu’tazili and Maturidi kalam, Munaǧǧā and Ṣadaqah – the Peripatetic-Ismaili doctrine of Anima Mundi, al-Qabāṣī – the Sufi concept of spiritual hierarchy, and al-Ġazzī – the theory of the photic nature of movement, proposed by illuminationists. The study is preceded by an introduction covering the history of the theology of the Samaritans in the 4^th – 11^th centuries, as well as its connection with Jewish discourse.

Practices of religious tolerance began to take shape in Europe in the 16^th – 17^th centuries under the influence of the Reformation. These European trends penetrated into Russia during the reign of Peter the Great. For two centuries Russia had a model of state-church relations which combined the predominance of Orthodoxy with tolerance of other religious traditions. However, in the second half of the reign of Alexander I, there was a departure from this system: instead of Orthodoxy, a mystical pan-Christian religiosity was put at the center. This model had exhausted itself by 1824, when a return to the previous system was made.

The article is devoted to the narratives of outdoor services (especially at holy wells) in Tambov region during the post-war years. These services were of particular importance for the Tambov region: as a result of Stalin’s repressions almost all churches have lost their clergy and church buildings were closed. Therefore, believers had to look for other places for worship services.
Furthermore, due to the fact that in this region there were many “true Orthodox Christians” who had never prayed in the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate – the custom of performing alternative services at holy wells arose in among them. Narratives of such services currently exist in non-clerical Orthodox communities in Tambov region.

The article examines the changes in the relations between the state, church and society that took place in the Byelorussian SSR in 1985– 1991. These changes had their own specifics, development logic, driving forces and consequences in such a multi-confessional region as Belarus. Analyzing the evolution of the position of the Belarusian leadership regarding religion and church, the author notes that as the policy of the union center changed, the position of the republican authorities on the religious issue changed. With the increasing distance between Moscow and Minsk and the growth of national self-awareness of Belarusians, the process of “nationalization” of confessions began. The religious “renaissance” in the Byelorussian SSR is considered with the involvement of a wide range of documentary primary sources stored in the National Archives of the Republic of Belarus, as well as materials from periodicals of the period under consideration. This source base made it possible to analyze the features of the transformation of the mass consciousness of the population of the BSSR, the change in the paradigm of state-confessional relations, and the increase in the role of religion in society. The article shows the contradictions that have emerged locally in the context of the rejection of the state policy of militant atheism and the revival of interest in religious values ​ and culture.

The article analyzes the interpretation of the euhemeristic theory in the works by V. Rozhitsyn in the 1920s – 1930s. The Soviet author wrote works that were in line with the anti-religious propaganda of that time. Criticizing the cult of saints in accordance with social and political demands, the author studied a number of important theoretical and methodological problems that now are relevant for modern religious studies. In his works, V. Rozhitsyn distinguished between scientific and naive euhemerism. According to the author, “scientific euhemerism” was a critical tool used by scholars of different epochs, including V. Rozhitsyn himself. This method made it possible to find prototypes of mythological plots in historical events of the past, and to see a person who once lived behind the divine founder of a particular religion. “Naive euhemerism”, from the author’s point of view, was a perceptual mechanism of religious consciousness. The peak of naive euhemerism, according to V. Rozhitsyn, was in the 2^d – 3^rd centuries AD. Despite the fact that the author solved his own problems with the help of such a division, nowadays his interpretation of euhemerism helps us to take a new look at modern methodological and terminological difficulties.

The article is devoted to the form of new religious movements (also “fictional religions”) as “cult of Aliyah” (the author also uses the terms “Lovecraftian magic” and “Lovecraftian”). The study revealed the spontaneous nature of the formation of this cult (through dreaming), and described some elements of the “Holy Scriptures/Legends” of the “cult of Alyakh”. This review study leads to the following results:
1. The religionization of H. F. Lovecraft’s literary heritage began around the 1960s and continues to this day (both abroad and in Russia).
2. G.F. Lovecraft himself was as far as possible from the literal perception of the otherworldly realities described in his works.
3. The heart of Lovecraft is artificially created fictional books from the works of Lovecraft and his followers, often written anonymously.
4. The main method of forming Tradition in Lovecraft magic is the oneiric method – the appeal to dreams, which explains the obscure the vague nature of this teaching.
5. The teaching itself is a hodgepodge of ideas borrowed from Thelema, various forms of Satanism, mainstream occultism, and neo-paganism.
6. Lovecraft’s influence is also noticeable in major narratives of modern philosophy: speculative realism, object-oriented ontology, and cyberfeminism.