Who died on Calvary?

[ignatius]

Who or What died on Calvary?

[Demetrios G.]

Christians died and through baptism were resurrected with Christ.

[ozgeorge]

Who or What died on Calvary?

The Second Person of the Holy Trinity suffered and died in the Flesh.

[falafel333]

Christians died and through baptism were resurrected with Christ.

I don't think this would be an accurate statement. Christ died on Calvary and Christians participate in His death and resurrection through baptism.

[Demetrios G.]

I don't think this would be an accurate statement. Christ died on Calvary and Christians participate in His death and resurrection through baptism.

Christ couldn't die. He is immortal. His nature died.

[ignatius]

The Second Person of the Holy Trinity suffered and died in the Flesh.

Please help me with this. How can 'The Second Person of the Holy Trinity' suffer and die? The Godhead is the very source of life how can is be overtaken by death even for a minute?

Thanks.

[minasoliman]

Well, the Word took flesh and became man.  Therefore, if He had to die and rise from the dead, the Second Person of the Trinity had to do it through His own humanity, not through His eternally existent Divinity.

God bless.

[PeterTheAleut]

Christ couldn't die. He is immortal. His nature died.

Do you believe it proper to call Mary Mother of God (Theotokos)?

[ozgeorge]

Please help me with this. How can 'The Second Person of the Holy Trinity' suffer and die? The Godhead is the very source of life how can is be overtaken by death even for a minute?
Thanks.

God is the Holy Trinity, Three Persons sharing One Divine Nature (or "Divine Essence").
The Second Person of the Holy Trinity took flesh from the Virgin Mary and became Man, so he took on a created human body and a created human soul. Therefore, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity has Two Natures- One Divine Nature and One Human Nature. These are the two fundamental truths of Christian doctrine, Namely:
1) God is One God in Three Persons Who Are indivisible and without confusion.
2) Christ is One Person in Two Natures Which are united without confusion.

When Christ walked among us, He was both Man and God (and still Is). As God, He was able to heal the sick, raise the dead, forgive sins, walk on water etc. While Christ lived on Earth, He did not stop being God, so He was still Omnipresent, Omniscient etc in His Divine Nature, i.e. He was not absent from Heaven.
As Man, He required food, water, sleep, shelter etc. When Christ slept in the boat, His Divine Nature was not alseep, only His Human Nature was. When He was crucified, His bodily functions ceased and His Soul was seperated from His Body. But both His Body and Soul are His Human Nature, and His Divine Nature remained unchanged. When, as God, He Rose from the dead, His human Nature took on the attributes which our own Human Nature will take on when we are also resurrected, and therefore, He no longer requires food, shelter, etc, nor can He ever die again.
Christ's Human Body and Soul are God's Body and Soul, because Christ is God and is One Person. So it is still correct, in a sense to say that God died on the Cross, as long as we understand this to mean that Christ the "Theanthropos", (meaning "God-Man", that is, He Who is One Person and Who is both God and Man), died the way we all die (by having His Soul and Body seperated), yet unlike us, He also has the Divine Nature, which cannot die.

[Demetrios G.]

Do you believe it proper to call Mary Mother of God (Theotokos)?

I don't get where your going with this. Yes Mary is the mother of God in the flesh. But Christ existed before all ages.

1 John 1
The Word of Life
 1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete.

[Heorhij]

If I understand him correctly, PeterTheAleut asks you whether you are Nestorian (right, Peter)? Nestorius taught that certain human definitions - like, for example, "birth" or "death" - cannot be attributed to God; hence, it is not possible to say that God was born, or that God died, or that St. Mary is the Mother of God, etc. This teaching was eventually found heretical by the Church. --George

[Demetrios G.]

If I understand him correctly, PeterTheAleut asks you whether you are Nestorian (right, Peter)? Nestorius taught that certain human definitions - like, for example, "birth" or "death" - cannot be attributed to God; hence, it is not possible to say that God was born, or that God died, or that St. Mary is the Mother of God, etc. This teaching was eventually found heretical by the Church. --George

I am not Nestorian. Christ entered the world through Panagia. Gave birth to god in the flesh. He existed before all ages.
John 1:1
[ The Word Became Flesh ] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

God has no begining. He is being. We have a begining because we are created. Because we were created we can have an end. Creation from Null.
   Being is just that . No begining and no end. He became incarnate and took on flesh witch can die. He made flesh eternal by taking it on. Now,He is eternally god and man. Because he died sinless he overcame the law. The law that states, sin leads to death. Christ did this to save us from death. Christs flesh died and was raised. He didn't die because he is being. His body died.

[Heorhij]

Dear Demetrios, but we still do not say that "Christ's flesh entered the world through Panagia," right?

[scamandrius]

. Christs flesh died and was raised. He didn't die because he is being. His body died.

Was the divine Christ in His human flesh when the flesh died?  If Christ was not in His flesh, then that supposes that there are two persons named Christ, which is Nestorianism.  Forgive me because I know you began your last comment asserting that you are not Nestorian, but your claim seems to be making Nestorian and Docetic distinctions.

[Demetrios G.]

Was the divine Christ in His human flesh when the flesh died?  If Christ was not in His flesh, then that supposes that there are two persons named Christ, which is Nestorianism.  Forgive me because I know you began your last comment asserting that you are not Nestorian, but your claim seems to be making Nestorian and Docetic distinctions.

When Christ says I, where does He draw His consciousness of that I?  He draws it inevitably from His relationship with the Father. This is why the Persona of Christ is only one, i.e., that of the Son.  If He drew His relationship from Mary also. from the Holy Virgin, as a child from its mother, then we would have had two personae, and Nestorius’ position would have been valid : we would have had one human with two personae : one relationship from here, and another relationship from there – both of which would have given Him His identity.  But, to be given two determining relationships for your identity is something that doesn’t eventually stand to reason, because only one of the two relationships will be the determining one.

[Ebor]

The Second Person of the Holy Trinity suffered and died in the Flesh.

Exactly so.  It's in the Creed "He suffered, died and was buried".

Ebor

[ozgeorge]

But, to be given two determining relationships for your identity is something that doesn’t eventually stand to reason, because only one of the two relationships will be the determining one.

  So what you are saying is that I cannot be the son of both my father and my mother....

[Demetrios G.]

So what you are saying is that I cannot be the son of both my father and my mother....

Yes you can. But you only have one personality.

[ozgeorge]

Yes you can. But you only have one personality.

And same goes for Christ. He is One Person Who is both the Son of God and the Son of the Virgin Mary.

[Demetrios G.]

And same goes for Christ. He is One Person Who is both the Son of God and the Son of the Virgin Mary.

 Christ is the virgin Marys son and Gods son. No one is doubting this. He has 2 natures. One divine and the other human. His persona is all God. It is just divine.

[Veniamin]

Christ is the virgin Marys son and Gods son. No one is doubting this. He has 2 natures. One divine and the other human. His persona is all God. It is just divine.

So His divine nature swallowed up His human nature to make one person? 

[PeterTheAleut]

So His divine nature swallowed up His human nature to make one person? 

...which is essentially a variant of the heresy of Monophysitism taught by Appolinaris and anathematized by both the Third (Constantinople) and Fourth (Chalcedon) Ecumenical Councils.  Or is this more properly the Monotheletism opposed by St. Maximos and anathematized by the Sixth Ecumenical Council?

[jmbejdl]

...which is essentially a variant of the heresy of Monophysitism taught by Appolinaris and anathematized by both the Third (Constantinople) and Fourth (Chalcedon) Ecumenical Councils.  Or is this more properly the Monotheletism opposed by St. Maximos and anathematized by the Sixth Ecumenical Council?

It is indeed (Demetrios' apparent position) Apollinarianism and, as such, a condemned heresy.

The 'swallowing up' of the human nature by the Divine, however, would be Eutychianism, which is a slightly diferent heresy.

James

[EkhristosAnesti]

Dear Demetrios,

I recommend you familiarise yourself with the St. Cyril's Twelve Anathemas, which were ratified by Ephesus 431 (particularly the twelfth).

[Demetrios G.]

It is indeed (Demetrios' apparent position) Apollinarianism and, as such, a condemned heresy.

The 'swallowing up' of the human nature by the Divine, however, would be Eutychianism, which is a slightly diferent heresy.

James

I didn't say that! Read what I stated. He has two natures, fully human and fully divine. You guys are quick to use that heresy word. But you don't listen.

[jmbejdl]

I didn't say that! Read what I stated. He has two natures, fully human and fully divine. You guys are quick to use that heresy word. But you don't listen.

I know you didn't say that His human nature was swallowed up by the Divine: that's why I made two separate short paragraphs (it was how another poster interpreted your view). Your position does not appear to be Eutychian. It does, however, appear to be Apollinarian. If you think there is some difference between what you are suggesting and the views of Apollinaris, then do you think you could try to explain your view more clearly? At the moment I'd be very hard pushed to find any diference apart from what appears a very minor issue of semantics.

James

[Demetrios G.]

I know you didn't say that His human nature was swallowed up by the Divine: that's why I made two separate short paragraphs (it was how another poster interpreted your view). Your position does not appear to be Eutychian. It does, however, appear to be Apollinarian. If you think there is some difference between what you are suggesting and the views of Apollinaris, then do you think you could try to explain your view more clearly? At the moment I'd be very hard pushed to find any diference apart from what appears a very minor issue of semantics.

James

Before you accuse me of being a heretic know your theology.
 

Apollinarianism
A Christological theory, according to which Christ had a human body and a human sensitive soul, but no human rational mind, the Divine 1Logos taking the place of this last.

I never stated that Christ has a human soul.

[ozgeorge]

I never stated that Christ has a human soul.

And why didn't you state this? Does Christ not have a human soul?

[Demetrios G.]

And why didn't you state this? Does Christ not have a human soul?

Christ human soul was willfully given over to the divine. They both acted as one.

[Veniamin]

Christ human soul was willfully given over to the divine. They both acted as one.

"Given over?"  That sounds more like the divine controlled the human than that they acted in concert.

[ozgeorge]

Christ human soul was willfully given over to the divine. They both acted as one.

So did it cease to be a human soul?

[Demetrios G.]

"Given over?"  That sounds more like the divine controlled the human than that they acted in concert.

What does the word willfully mean?

[Demetrios G.]

So did it cease to be a human soul?

I didn't say that. Your saying that. What I stated is that his persona is one. He is fully human and fully divine in nature.

[jmbejdl]

Before you accuse me of being a heretic know your theology.
 

I accused you of nothing. I said your position appeared to be Apollinarian and asked you to explain. Other than semantics, I still see no difference in your idea of a fully divine 'persona' and Christ being almost human but ruled solely by the Divine. Perhaps you're just not explaining what you mean clearly? And I understand my theology perfectly well, thanks, it's yours I'm having difficulty with.

I never stated that Christ has a human soul.

Well, you did and you didn't. In so many words, you did not, but you did say you beleived He had a complete human nature (though you appeared to contradict this by stating His 'persona' was only Divine). If He has a complete human nature then that includes a human soul, surely?

James

[ozgeorge]

What I stated is that his persona is one.

If Christ is One Person, why then do you say that Christ cannot die?

Christ couldn't die. He is immortal. His nature died.

[Demetrios G.]

Well, you did and you didn't. In so many words, you did not, but you did say you beleived He had a complete human nature (though you appeared to contradict this by stating His 'persona' was only Divine). If He has a complete human nature then that includes a human soul, surely?

His nature does include his soul. What your not understanding is his persona. I'll give you an example.

 Hypothetically speaking. If a human breeds with a dog. There offspring will be both dog and man, fully. They will have a dog and a human soul. But there personallity will be half dog and half man as well. In Christs case his personallity is just that of God. This is the Orthodox position. Is that clear enough for you?

[Demetrios G.]

If Christ is One Person, why then do you say that Christ cannot die?

He is one person. He is fully human and fully divine. Can God die? And if he can as you say. What part of him died?

[ozgeorge]

Can God die?

Yes. And He did die 1,974 years ago on a hill outside Jerusalem.

[EkhristosAnesti]

Dear Demetrios,

Did you happen to get a chance to read those Twelve Anathemas I referred you to earlier?

Here's a link to them in case you haven't:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.ix.html

Here's the Twelfth Anathema that I particularly wanted to draw your attention to:

Whosoever shall not recognize that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh he [i.e. the Word of God] tasted death and that he is become the first-begotten of the dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he that giveth life:  let him be anathema.[emphasis mine]

[Demetrios G.]

Yes. And He did die 1,974 years ago on a hill outside Jerusalem.

So your saying that there was a time that god ceased to exist?

[EkhristosAnesti]

So your saying that there was a time that god ceased to exist?

I believe he is saying that there was a time when God's human soul separated from God's human body.

[ozgeorge]

What part of him died?

What do you mean by "part"? God has no "parts" like an automobile or a vacuum cleaner has "parts".
Christ is God. God's Soul seperated from His Body. His Body was buried in a tomb, His Soul descended into Hades, yet as God, he was also in Paradise with the theif.

Don't forget. Christ is not only consubstantial with the Father, He is also consubstantial with us.

[Demetrios G.]

I believe he is saying that there was a time when God's human soul separated from God's human body.

He would be holding the Nestorius position than. Do you see what I mean?

[ozgeorge]

He's all yours EA.

[Demetrios G.]

What do you mean by "part"? God has no "parts" like an automobile or a vacuum cleaner has "parts".
Christ is God. God's Soul seperated from His Body. His Body was buried in a tomb, His Soul descended into Hades, yet as God, he was also in Paradise with the theif.

Don't forget. Christ is not only consubstantial with the Father, He is also consubstantial with us.

Your making me correct. I agree with this statement fully. Than God didn't die. Because God is divine. His flesh died.

Whosoever shall not recognize that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh he [i.e. the Word of God] tasted death and that he is become the first-begotten of the dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he that giveth life:  let him be anathema.[emphasis mine]

[Veniamin]

His nature does include his soul. What your not understanding is his persona. I'll give you an example.

 Hypothetically speaking. If a human breeds with a dog. There offspring will be both dog and man, fully. They will have a dog and a human soul. But there personallity will be half dog and half man as well.

Eh, no, he'd be half-man, half-dog, and have a mixed soul (assuming for the sake of argument that dogs even have souls).

In Christs case his personallity is just that of God. This is the Orthodox position. Is that clear enough for you?

So if Christ's personality was solely divine, all His temptations didn't mean anything, because His humanity wasn't tempted.  That sounds more like God simply taking on a human appearance than God actually becoming human.

[ozgeorge]

Your making me correct. I agree with this statement fully. Than God didn't die. Because God is divine. His flesh died.

Demetrios, this is Nestorianism.
If you say that God didn't die on the Cross, you are saying that Christ is two Persons, one human person who died on the Cross, and one Divine person who did not die on the Cross.
Christ is One Person Who is God. This One Person Who is God died on the Cross in His Humanity.

[EkhristosAnesti]

He would be holding the Nestorius position than. Do you see what I mean?

No my friend, for whilst God's human soul was separated from God's human body, God Himself was separated neither from His body nor His soul. The words of St. Gregory Palamas are quite succinct and clear on this point:

The Son of God, who in His compassion became man, died insofar as His body was concerned, when His soul was separated from His body; but this body did not separate from His divinity, and thus He raised up His body once more and took it with Him to heaven in glory.

I'm still waiting for you to engage with the Twelve Anathemas that i've referred you to twice now. I'm sure you'd agree with me that an authentic theology is not the mere product of theoretical speculation and rationalisation, but rather primarily the product of revelation, as it is articulated and expressed in all its forms, including the dogmatic formulations of the Church.

[Demetrios G.]

Demetrios, this is Nestorianism.
If you say that God didn't die on the Cross, you are saying that Christ is two Persons, one human person who died on the Cross, and one Divine person who did not die on the Cross.
Christ is One Person Who is God. This One Person Who is God died on the Cross in His Humanity.

I didn't say that he didn't die on the cross. your saying that I say this. Where did I say this?

I said that Christ Died in the flesh. But at no time did he cease to exist.

[Demetrios G.]

The Son of God, who in His compassion became man, died insofar as His body was concerned, when His soul was separated from His body; but this body did not separate from His divinity, and thus He raised up His body once more and took it with Him to heaven in glory.

This mean that he didn't die into non-existance than, doesn't it?

[ozgeorge]

I didn't say that he didn't die on the cross. your saying that I say this. Where did I say this?

Well, I guess I inferred this when you said:

Christ couldn't die. He is immortal.

and

He didn't die because he is being.

and

Than God didn't die. Because God is divine.

[Demetrios G.]

No my friend, for whilst God's human soul was separated from God's human body, God Himself was separated neither from His body nor His soul. The words of St. Gregory Palamas are quite succinct and clear on this point:

HUH? Are you holding the Nestorius position?

[Demetrios G.]

Well, I guess I inferred this when you said:
andand

Read carefully. Christ existed before he became man. If death defeted him than he is not immortal.

[Heorhij]

Dear friends,

I am new to Orthodoxy and I am no theologian, so forgive me if I sound naive (which I will)  or heretical (which I might, even though don't want to). I believe that Christ really died on the Cross, just like we die. But it does not mean that He ceased to exist - again, just like we do not cease to exist when we die. He was resurrected ("stood up," "anastasi"), came back from the dead, again, just like we will be resurrected, "stood up," "anastasi," come back from the dead. Death does not mean annihilation, it is merely a temporary condition when our temporary imperfect "mortal" body (or "person") disintegrates, but we will be "alive" again as same persons in different (or, better, changed, transigured) bodies - "heavenly," "incorrupt," un-perishable, "glorified." I understand that this is exactly what Christ showed those who believe in Him by His death and resurrection, and this is exactly what St. Paul talks about in 1 Cor. 15. So, in view of all this, I don't think it's wrong to say that Christ died on the Calvary, and there is simply no need for "dualistic" exegeses that use the terms "body and soul," or "flesh and spirit," etc. Christianity is essentially "monistic" (i.e. humans exist - not "flesh" separately or "spirit" or "soul" separately). Where am I wrong?

Also, I think that it is much more important to understand WHY did Christ die I understand that this is where "Eastern" and "Western" theologies disagree.

Pray for me, a sinner,

George

[ozgeorge]

Read carefully. Christ existed before he became man. If death defeted him than he is not immortal.

Demetrios, your soul is also immortal.
But you will die one day.

[Demetrios G.]

Demetrios, your soul is also immortal.
But you will die one day.

All will die, but some will stay there.

I have to go now.

[ozgeorge]

All will die, but some will stay there.

Κολοκύθια με τη ρίγανη, λέω εγώ.

ADDIT: (For those who don't read Greek, this literally translates as: "'Zucchinis with oregano' I say!" It's kind of the Greek equivalent of "Milarkey!" or "Codswhollop!" or "Baulderdash!". And for those of you who are British or New Zealanders, a zucchini is a courgette.)

[Heorhij]

Κολοκύθια με τη ρίγανη, λέω εγώ.

ADDIT: (For those who don't read Greek, this literally translates as: "'Zucchinis with oregano' I say!" It's kind of the Greek equivalent of "Milarkey!" or "Codswhollop!" or "Baulderdash!". And for those of you who are British or New Zealanders, a zucchini is a courgette.)

Wow, thanks for the translation... knowing only a few words in Greek and having read "pigane," I asociated it with terms like "stearopigia," etc. Good that I was mistaken.

[minasoliman]

Here are my two piasters (very cheep ) worth:

When men die, no one will stay dead.  This was argued before.  The problem with you Demetrios is that you define death as "non-existence," especially to those who are "eternally damned" I guess.  It seems therefore understandable why you would consider that all would "rise from the dead" that all those righteous are those who will rise from the dead.

That's the problem.  And like EA said, you rationalize things, but you don't accept things as revelation, because these are all mysteries.  But if you are stuck in "rationalizations," then you lose the spirit of humility.  Let me share with you a quote from St. Athanasius that disproves your idea of "non-existence" of our immortal souls:

It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption.

Let's face it.  God will not let us go into non-existence, especially if we share with God His Image and Likeness.  You will have to re-rationalize your thoughts here and accept the revelations of the Holy Fathers guided by the Holy Spirit.

Think of the imagery of Judgment Day.  How do you think that imagery is possible if not even the wicked are risen from the dead?  Then you can't really call that "Judgment" Day, since "judgment" is only an allusion, and what you is defined as "judgment day" to you is simply Resurrection of the righteous.

No, my friend, death is not non-existence, and God didn't allow it then, I'm sure He won't allow it now as well.

God bless.

[Demetrios G.]

Here are my two piasters (very cheep ) worth:

When men die, no one will stay dead.  This was argued before.  The problem with you Demetrios is that you define death as "non-existence," especially to those who are "eternally damned" I guess.  It seems therefore understandable why you would consider that all would "rise from the dead" that all those righteous are those who will rise from the dead.

That's the problem.  And like EA said, you rationalize things, but you don't accept things as revelation, because these are all mysteries.  But if you are stuck in "rationalizations," then you lose the spirit of humility.  Let me share with you a quote from St. Athanasius that disproves your idea of "non-existence" of our immortal souls:

Let's face it.  God will not let us go into non-existence, especially if we share with God His Image and Likeness.  You will have to re-rationalize your thoughts here and accept the revelations of the Holy Fathers guided by the Holy Spirit.

Think of the imagery of Judgment Day.  How do you think that imagery is possible if not even the wicked are risen from the dead?  Then you can't really call that "Judgment" Day, since "judgment" is only an allusion, and what you is defined as "judgment day" to you is simply Resurrection of the righteous.

No, my friend, death is not non-existence, and God didn't allow it then, I'm sure He won't allow it now as well.

God bless.

You may read but you don't understand. There is no spirit without the body. Period

For God had made man thus (that is, as an embodied spirit), and had willed that he should remain in incorruption. But men, having turned from the contemplation of God to evil of their own devising, had come inevitably under the law of death. Instead of remaining in the state in which God had created them, they were in process of becoming corrupted entirely, and death had them completely under its dominion. For the transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature; and as they had at the beginning come into being out of non-existence, so were they now on the way to returning, through corruption, to non-existence again. The presence and love of the Word had called them into being; inevitably, therefore when they lost the knowledge of God, they lost existence with it; for it is God alone Who exists, evil is non-being, the negation and antithesis of good. By nature, of course, man is mortal, since he was made from nothing; but he bears also the Likeness of Him Who is, and if he preserves that Likeness through constant contemplation, then his nature is deprived of its power and he remains incorrupt. So is it affirmed in Wisdom: "The keeping of His laws is the assurance of incorruption."And being incorrupt, he would be henceforth as God, as Holy Scripture says, "I have said, Ye are gods and sons of the Highest all of you: but ye die as men and fall as one of the princes."

[ozgeorge]

For God had made man thus (that is, as an embodied spirit), and had willed that he should remain in incorruption. But men, having turned from the contemplation of God to evil of their own devising, had come inevitably under the law of death. Instead of remaining in the state in which God had created them, they were in process of becoming corrupted entirely, and death had them completely under its dominion. For the transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature; and as they had at the beginning come into being out of non-existence, so were they now on the way to returning, through corruption, to non-existence again. The presence and love of the Word had called them into being; inevitably, therefore when they lost the knowledge of God, they lost existence with it; for it is God alone Who exists, evil is non-being, the negation and antithesis of good. By nature, of course, man is mortal, since he was made from nothing; but he bears also the Likeness of Him Who is, and if he preserves that Likeness through constant contemplation, then his nature is deprived of its power and he remains incorrupt. So is it affirmed in Wisdom: "The keeping of His laws is the assurance of incorruption."And being incorrupt, he would be henceforth as God, as Holy Scripture says, "I have said, Ye are gods and sons of the Highest all of you: but ye die as men and fall as one of the princes."

And St. Athanasios continues:
"We saw in the last chapter that, because death and corruption were gaining ever firmer hold on them, the human race was in process of destruction. Man, who was created in God's image and in his possession of reason reflected the very Word Himself, was disappearing, and the work of God was being undone. The law of death, which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape. The thing that was happening was in truth both monstrous and unfitting. It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die ; but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption. It was unworthy of the goodness of God that creatures made by Him should be brought to nothing through the deceit wrought upon man by the devil; and it was supremely unfitting that the work of God in mankind should disappear, either through their own negligence or through the deceit of evil spirits. As, then, the creatures whom He had created reasonable, like the Word, were in fact perishing, and such noble works were on the road to ruin, what then was God, being Good, to do? Was He to let corruption and death have their way with them? In that case, what was the use of having made them in the beginning? Surely it would have been better never to have been created at all than, having been created, to be neglected and perish ; and, besides that, such indifference to the ruin of His own work before His very eyes would argue not goodness in God but limitation, and that far more than if He had never created men at all. It was impossible, therefore, that God should leave man to be carried off by corruption, because it would be unfitting and unworthy of Himself."

[PeterTheAleut]

Demetrios,

Methinks you waste way too much of your energy reasoning through these academic theological issues and would most probably do well to not think so hard about these things.  How does all this borderline-heretical rationalization benefit your salvation, may I ask?

[Heorhij]

I hope I am not playing the devil's advocate here, but the Greek original of the Nicene Creed does not, indeed, contain the word "died" - it just says, "suffered and was buried" ("pathonta kei tafenta"). Same thing its Latin translation, "passus et sepultus." http://www.thenazareneway.com/nicene_niceno_constantinopolitan_creed.htm

[PeterTheAleut]

I hope I am not playing the devil's advocate here, but the Greek original of the Nicene Creed does not, indeed, contain the word "died" - it just says, "suffered and was buried" ("pathonta kei tafenta"). Same thing its Latin translation, "passus et sepultus." http://www.thenazareneway.com/nicene_niceno_constantinopolitan_creed.htm

However, in the word "buried" we see the assumption that Jesus must have died in accordance with the witness of the Gospel.  People normally don't bury someone who isn't yet dead.

[Heorhij]

Peter, I agree... Do you guys know, when was the word "died" added, and by whom? (In my church here in MS, where all services are in English, we say, "suffered, died, and was buried," although in my Ukrainian prayer book the creed reads, "i strazhdav, i buv pokhovanyj," i.e., "and suffered, and was buried," exatly like in the Greek original). Thanks in advance for the info!

[minasoliman]

Ozgeorge pretty much repeated what I quoted for you with its context.  Now, it's up to you if you think I read, but I have no understanding.  Pretty much, there were times when I was "Julianist" in my Christology, but face it, my mind and rationalization can lead me to be wrong, and I have to look back to the Holy fathers for guidance.  Otherwise, you will always deceive yourself.

God bless.

[Demetrios G.]

Demetrios,

Methinks you waste way too much of your energy reasoning through these academic theological issues and would most probably do well to not think so hard about these things.  How does all this borderline-heretical rationalization benefit your salvation, may I ask?

Do you know what the major theological differents is between the Orthodox and the Catholics? It's this exact issue. The Orthodox believe in a ontialogical salvation. Meaning salvation from death. The Catholics believe in salvation from a tormenting hell. So yea, it is a big deal when Orthodox start to believe in the Catholic belief. Wouldn't you thing?

[ozgeorge]

Do you know what the major theological differents is between the Orthodox and the Catholics? It's this exact issue. The Orthodox believe in a ontialogical salvation. Meaning salvation from death. The Catholics believe in salvation from a tormenting hell. So yea, it is a big deal when Orthodox start to believe in the Catholic belief. Wouldn't you thing?

Demetrios,
You're making it far to easy for me. There's no challenge. It's like how Goths and Emo's make themselves such easy targets for other teenagers to pick on them. "If you want to be a non-conformist you need to dress like us and listen to the same music we do." they make is so easy that rebutting their ideas has become as hackneyed as they are.........And you know who else has had it too easy? Computational Linguists like my Sister-In-Law: "Oh look at me! My field is so ill-defined and I can subscribe to any dozens of contradictory models and still be taken seriously, get a gob-smacking salary and drive a SAAB convertable." (j/k I actually love her dearly!)

[PeterTheAleut]

Do you know what the major theological differents is between the Orthodox and the Catholics? It's this exact issue. The Orthodox believe in a ontialogical salvation. Meaning salvation from death. The Catholics believe in salvation from a tormenting hell. So yea, it is a big deal when Orthodox start to believe in the Catholic belief. Wouldn't you thing?

I'm not talking about an abstract concept of salvation, whether that be Catholic or Orthodox or Smagastyrian.  I'm talking about YOUR salvation.

[Demetrios G.]

Demetrios,
You're making it far to easy for me. There's no challenge. It's like how Goths and Emo's make themselves such easy targets for other teenagers to pick on them. "If you want to be a non-conformist you need to dress like us and listen to the same music we do." they make is so easy that rebutting their ideas has become as hackneyed as they are.........And you know who else has had it too easy? Computational Linguists like my Sister-In-Law: "Oh look at me! My field is so ill-defined and I can subscribe to any dozens of contradictory models and still be taken seriously, get a gob-smacking salary and drive a SAAB convertable." (j/k I actually love her dearly!)

I don't know why my belief has come into question on this thread. I did give the original poster an Orthodox reply. Now that I'm a non-conformist, heretic and in nead for salvation.  Please pray for me.

[Heorhij]

Dear Demetrios,

While I absolutely agree that rationalizations are not exactly the "tool" of human salvation, I do not think it is entirely wrong to ponder on such fundamental realities as the death and resurrection of our Lord.

As I wrote before, I believe - and I hope I understand it correctly that this is what our Church believes - that our Lord really died on Calvary (not "His flesh died," but "He died").

What seems to be extremely important to me is to grasp, WHY, "what for." As I understand, the entire Western theology (both Roman Catholic and Protestant) believes, beginning with treatises of St. Anselm (early 11th century), that Christ brought His life to His Father as a "ransom" or "pay" for our sins.

Until very recently, I thought I believed this, too. Yet, now I am beginning to realize that this is NOT what the Eastern theology holds and this is NOT what the Holy Orthodoxy believes.

Since I am very new to Orthodoxy, I hereby would not dare to word my beginner's understanding of the belief of our Church about why did our Savior die on the cross, but I would like others, those who are more mature in faith and knowledgeable, write about this.

Thank you all,

George

[falafel333]

As long as there is a single reference point, a single subject and a single consciousness I really can't see how there could be a claim for Nestorianism.

I think the potential duality that Nestorianism introduces into Christ is in reality the essence of the heresy.

And while in reality this was not completely resolved in Nestorius' condemnation, albeit ambiguously and hence the controversy of Chalcedon, later developments saw the resolution in the single hypostasis formulation.

[ozgeorge]

I don't know why my belief has come into question on this thread. I did give the original poster an Orthodox reply. Now that I'm a non-conformist, heretic and in nead for salvation.  Please pray for me.

Demetrios,

It is the following belief of yours which is in question:

All will die, but some will stay there.

For nearly 2000 years we have believed that Our Lord Jesus Christ said:

"the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (John 5:28-29)

Now you are trying to present a different teaching to the one we have received from the Apostles. You are telling us that Our Lord Jesus Christ was wrong because only those who have done good will rise from the dead, and those who have done evil will remain dead and not rise.

Somehow, I think Christ our God knows a little bit more than you about how things will unfold on the Day of Judgement.

How can you contradict a basic Christian teaching given by none other than Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, call it "Orthodox doctrine" and expect to be taken seriously?

George

[Demetrios G.]

Dear Demetrios,

While I absolutely agree that rationalizations are not exactly the "tool" of human salvation, I do not think it is entirely wrong to ponder on such fundamental realities as the death and resurrection of our Lord.

As I wrote before, I believe - and I hope I understand it correctly that this is what our Church believes - that our Lord really died on Calvary (not "His flesh died," but "He died").

What seems to be extremely important to me is to grasp, WHY, "what for." As I understand, the entire Western theology (both Roman Catholic and Protestant) believes, beginning with treatises of St. Anselm (early 11th century), that Christ brought His life to His Father as a "ransom" or "pay" for our sins.

Until very recently, I thought I believed this, too. Yet, now I am beginning to realize that this is NOT what the Eastern theology holds and this is NOT what the Holy Orthodoxy believes.

Since I am very new to Orthodoxy, I hereby would not dare to word my beginner's understanding of the belief of our Church about why did our Savior die on the cross, but I would like others, those who are more mature in faith and knowledgeable, write about this.

Thank you all,

George

You bring up a very good point. The why?  The only logical answer is to believe as I do.

[PeterTheAleut]

You bring up a very good point. The why?  The only logical answer is to believe as I do.

Please tell me I'm reading this wrong, but are you, with the above statement, setting yourself up to be THE authoritative teacher of what is Orthodox and what is not?    (Sadly, this is actually quite consistent with the very dogmatic manner by which you have presented yourself thus far on this forum.)

[Demetrios G.]

Please tell me I'm reading this wrong, but are you, with the above statement, setting yourself up to be THE authoritative teacher of what is Orthodox and what is not?    (Sadly, this is actually quite consistent with the very dogmatic manner by which you have presented yourself thus far on this forum.)

Since your not willing to step up. Us, sheep herders have to pitch in.

[minasoliman]

Since your not willing to step up. Us, sheep herders have to pitch in.

Demetrios,

Don't get me wrong, but I do feel the saying "You are your own worst enemy" pertains very much to your situation.  Until you humble yourself and re-think or re-rationalize (perhaps that might help) and try to find out why a major part of the Church disagrees with you, you will deceive yourself.  You may call yourself a "sheep-herder," but many of the greatest and most spiritual Holy fathers called themselves "unworthy" and "sinful."

God bless.

[scamandrius]

Us, sheep herders have to pitch in.

So, you're a bishop, then?

[Demetrios G.]

Demetrios,

Don't get me wrong, but I do feel the saying "You are your own worst enemy" pertains very much to your situation.  Until you humble yourself and re-think or re-rationalize (perhaps that might help) and try to find out why a major part of the Church disagrees with you, you will deceive yourself.  You may call yourself a "sheep-herder," but many of the greatest and most spiritual Holy fathers called themselves "unworthy" and "sinful."

God bless.

I ment that literally! I am a decendent from a long line of Greek sheep and goat herders. Don't laugh, you can learn a thing or two from making feta cheese.  

[ignatius]

I've read every post and I'm thankful that it's been a popular topic but could someone or everyone help me clarify the Orthodox position... God, the immutable source of life, 'can' die. Is this correct?

Thanks.

[Heorhij]

I've read every post and I'm thankful that it's been a popular topic but could someone or everyone help me clarify the Orthodox position... God, the immutable source of life, 'can' die. Is this correct?

Thanks.

Dear Ignatius,

Again, I am no theologian by any stretch, but my naive answer would be "yes." God cannot cease to exist (and we, too, cannot), but God, incarnate as the Son of Man, can "suffer death," voluntarily experience suffering in its ultimate depth, up to the point of real, "100%" death. Probably that's why some English translations of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed give "pathonta" (literally "suffered") as "suffered death."

I am, too, very much looking forward to reading more learned answers from our members.

George

[ignatius]

Dear Ignatius,

Again, I am no theologian by any stretch, but my naive answer would be "yes." God cannot cease to exist (and we, too, cannot), but God, incarnate as the Son of Man, can "suffer death," voluntarily experience suffering in its ultimate depth, up to the point of real, "100%" death. Probably that's why some English translations of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed give "pathonta" (literally "suffered") as "suffered death."

I am, too, very much looking forward to reading more learned answers from our members.

George

Thanks George!

So then we would have to concede that our God is 'not' immutable and that He suffered 'change'? Doesn't this challenge the whole 'Perfection' of God as Changeless?

Thanks again everyone who offers help!

[Fr. Anastasios]

Thanks George!

So then we would have to concede that our God is 'not' immutable and that He suffered 'change'? Doesn't this challenge the whole 'Perfection' of God as Changeless?

Thanks again everyone who offers help!

No, he did not suffer change in his divinity, but we also believe in the principle of communicatio idiomatum (exchange of properties) such that we say "God laughed" while also affirming that Jesus raised the dead by using his body.

Anastasios

[ignatius]

No, he did not suffer change in his divinity, but we also believe in the principle of communicatio idiomatum (exchange of properties) such that we say "God laughed" while also affirming that Jesus raised the dead by using his body.

Anastasios

So, in his divinity, are you saying that he did not 'die'? Can we define 'Death'?

Thanks.

[Demetrios G.]

So, in his divinity, are you saying that he did not 'die'? Can we define 'Death'?

Thanks.

He died in the flesh. The reason death couldn't hold him is because he died sinless. He bypassed the law that we were under. Witch states, sin leads to death. Non-existance couldn't contain him. So it offered him back alive. His divinity never died. It could have if he sinned. But we know the outcome of that.

[ozgeorge]

So, in his divinity, are you saying that he did not 'die'? Can we define 'Death'?

Thanks.

In death, the bodily functions cease and the soul is seperated from the body. When Christ became Incarnate, He not only took on a human Body, He also took on a Human Soul, therefore, the process of His death in the flesh is the same as ours- seperation of Soul and Body and the end of bodily functions.
When He died, Christ's Body was in the tomb, and His Soul was in Hades like all the dead. However, unlike the rest of the dead, Christ is God, so He was not only in the Tomb and in Hades, He was also sitting on the Throne in Heaven and remained "everywhere present and filling all things".

[macedonia74]

In death, the bodily functions cease and the soul is seperated from the body. When Christ became Incarnate, He not only took on a human Body, He also took on a Human Soul, therefore, the process of His death in the flesh is the same as ours- seperation of Soul and Body and the end of bodily functions.
When He died, Christ's Body was in the tomb, and His Soul was in Hades like all the dead. However, unlike the rest of the dead, Christ is God, so He was not only in the Tomb and in Hades, He was also sitting on the Throne in Heaven and remained "everywhere present and filling all things".

AMEN!

[Carpatho Russian]

In death, the bodily functions cease and the soul is seperated from the body. When Christ became Incarnate, He not only took on a human Body, He also took on a Human Soul, therefore, the process of His death in the flesh is the same as ours- seperation of Soul and Body and the end of bodily functions.
When He died, Christ's Body was in the tomb, and His Soul was in Hades like all the dead. However, unlike the rest of the dead, Christ is God, so He was not only in the Tomb and in Hades, He was also sitting on the Throne in Heaven and remained "everywhere present and filling all things".

As we sing at the office of the Hours on Pascha and all during Bright Week...
"In the grave bodily, in hell with the soul as God, in Paradise with the thief, and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit were You Who fill all things, O Christ the Infinite."

[PeterTheAleut]

In death, the bodily functions cease and the soul is seperated from the body.

The Church also proclaims that the human soul is immortal, not possessing life by its very nature, but solely by the will of God.  God will not allow that which bears His image, the image of the One Who Is, to return to non-being even temporarily.

[Heorhij]

The Church also proclaims that the human soul is immortal, not possessing life by its very nature, but solely by the will of God.  God will not allow that which bears His image, the image of the One Who Is, to return to non-being even temporarily.

Amen!

[Demetrios G.]

The Church also proclaims that the human soul is immortal, not possessing life by its very nature, but solely by the will of God.  God will not allow that which bears His image, the image of the One Who Is, to return to non-being even temporarily.

I am aware of how Christs soul and body became immortal. How is everybody included in that?
 If you say he defeated death by death. I will say your right. He did, but how are all included? If you say he sanctified his flesh because he took on that flesh. I will say your right. How are all included in that?
Can you be a little more specific?

[PeterTheAleut]

I am aware of how Christs soul and body became immortal. How is everybody included in that?
 If you say he defeated death by death. I will say your right. He did, but how are all included? If you say he sanctified his flesh because he took on that flesh. I will say your right. How are all included in that?
Can you be a little more specific?

As long as you keep trying to make the Orthodox doctrine of redemption fit the framework of your convoluted logic, you will never understand.

[Demetrios G.]

As long as you keep trying to make the Orthodox doctrine of redemption fit the framework of your convoluted logic, you will never understand.

If you said it's a mystery that I can't explain. I can except that. But to attack my intelligents isn't very become of a Christian. I'll take that as "I don't know"

[PeterTheAleut]

If you said it's a mystery that I can't explain. I can except that. But to attack my intelligents isn't very become of a Christian. I'll take that as "I don't know"

Please forgive me for implicitly attacking your intelligence, for that's not the message I meant to convey.  Your posts consistently show the work of a very clear, brilliant mind, and for this I must truly commend you.  However, my assertion is that you actually think too much about these theological issues and that you try to fit everything into your particular logical framework, thus keeping yourself from understanding what others have to say in rebuttal.  (I know.  I struggle with the same temptations in my efforts to submit my extremely rational mind to the wisdom of others.)

[Didymus]

ignatius & all, Christ (being God) tasted death in the flesh. Christ has alway been everywhere and even when His body lay in the tomb He still reigned as God on the throne in heaven. In short (hopefully I have the wording right here), Christ's soul separated from His body but His Divinity never separated from either and so Christ was always and still is One even as He is God. Christ died physically in the flesh. Christ did not die morally nor spiritually nor eternally nor could He ever. This is why God became man so that He could die. Unless Christ had a body, how else could He die?

(Somebody please say if any of the above is incorrect as this is my limited understanding of The Faith which was once delivered to the saints.)

I wrote an email a few weeks back somewhat related to this so here is a section from it that may be of interest:
~~~
If you run a search on the phrase "gave up the ghost" in the AV and then look at the Greek wording used, you will find that a different wording is used in reference to the Lord.

[I haven't check the LXX as I haven't the means to do so here but in Hebrew the phrase appears in Gen 25:8, Gen 25:17, Gen 35:29 & Lam 1:19 and always means to breath out in expiration, that is, to die or perish.]
 
Acts 5:5; 12:23 use (Strong's#) G1634 which comes from G1537 & G5594. This refers to the passive gentle breath going out (or expiring) which of course has the double meaning of the ghost/spirit departing from a man.

St. Mark 15:37,39 & St. Luke 23:46 use G1606 from G1537 & G4154. This refers to actively breathing out hard or blowing out. That is to say, this act is done willfully, voluntarily and purposefully unlike the former.

St. John uses an even plainer phrase in Greek to make this even more obvious and clear. The phrase translated "gave up the ghost" in his Gospel uses G3860 G3588 G4151. (Sorry to type it like that but Eudora wouldn't recognise the Greek characters.) Now to explain this:
G3588 = the (and many other words not important to this topic)
G4151 = ghost/spirit (from G4154 meaning breathing hard or blowing, that is to say it is conscious, active and willful).
G3860 comes from G3844 (which can mean a variety of things derived from nearness or proximity) and G1325 (which basically means give but can be used just as widely as we use the word 'give' in both positive and negative ways). Hence G3860 means "to give to one that is near" which can mean betray or surrender but in this case more aptly means to intrust, commit, deliver, yield up or transmit.

How perfectly this matches with Christ's words in St. Luke 23:46!

Conclusion: My point from all this is: the Greek wording explicitly tells us that unlike other men whose passive breath simply expired and so their ghosts departed, the Lord Christ actively and willfully gave up the ghost commending (or committing in trust) it into the hands of His Father; And so just as Christ said so the Gospel writers confirm!
~~~

ozgeorge, the Oriental Orthodox position is that the word "united" means "to make one" and as such, Christ has One Nature which is both Divine and Human with mingling or confussion.

[Demetrios G.]

Please forgive me for implicitly attacking your intelligence, for that's not the message I meant to convey.  Your posts consistently show the work of a very clear, brilliant mind, and for this I must truly commend you.  However, my assertion is that you actually think too much about these theological issues and that you try to fit everything into your particular logical framework, thus keeping yourself from understanding what others have to say in rebuttal.  (I know.  I struggle with the same temptations in my efforts to submit my extremely rational mind to the wisdom of others.)

I once held your position on this matter. I no longer do. I have given referances to others that believe the same as I do. I suggest you read some of his work. http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/perieh.htm The Metropolitan John I. Zizioulas is truly the brilliant mind. I'm just a layman.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Faith Issues (Moderator: PeterTheAleut) > Topic: Who died on Calvary?