Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
Non-Religious Topics / Re: I Got THE JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Last post by peacenprayer on Today at 07:49:23 PM »
That's great! Good for you! Lord guide you in your work and studies!

Glory to God for all things! :D
2
Faith Issues / Re: Avoiding Nestorianism in Explaining the Incarnation
« Last post by rakovsky on Today at 07:47:46 PM »
You might want to check with a lot more OOs though before talking further about the "human nature" of Christ after the incarnation.
...
Nor am I correcting Mina, with whom I am sure many OOs will agree with what he just said.
+1
3
Oriental Orthodox Discussion / Re: Oriental Orthodox Music
« Last post by minasoliman on Today at 07:46:55 PM »
Memra up son!
4
Quote
Also, what is the correct explanation of "Eloi, eloi, lama sabacthani?"

Some musings from the fathers,

From St Gregory the Theologian,

"And thus He Who subjects presents to God that which he has subjected, making our condition His own.  Of the same kind, it appears to me, is the expression, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”3618  It was not He who was forsaken either by the Father, or by His own Godhead, as some have thought, as if It were afraid of the Passion, and therefore withdrew Itself from Him in His Sufferings (for who compelled Him either to be born on earth at all, or to be lifted up on the Cross?)  But as I said, He was in His own Person representing us.  For we were the forsaken and despised before, but now by the Sufferings of Him Who could not suffer, we were taken up and saved." St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 30 which is the 4th Theological Oration, this text is from tract 5. The full thing is here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xvi.html

From St. Athanasius,

"Therefore as, when the flesh advanced, He is said to have advanced, because the body was His own, so also what is said at the season of His death, that He was troubled, that He wept, must be taken in the same sense. For they, going up and down, as if thereby recommending their heresy anew, allege; “Behold, ‘He wept,’ and said, ‘Now is My soul troubled,’ and He besought that the cup might pass away; how then, if He so spoke, is He God, and Word of the Father?” Yea, it is written that He wept, O God’s enemies, and that He said, ‘I am troubled,’ and on the Cross He said, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,’ that is, ‘My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ and He besought that the cup might pass away.... If the speaker is mere man, let him weep and fear death, as being man; but if He is the Word in flesh (for one must not be reluctant to repeat), whom had He to fear being God? or wherefore should He fear death, who was Himself Life, and was rescuing others from death? or how, whereas He said, ‘Fear not him that kills the body,’ should He Himself fear? ... Further, He who succours others against fear (for ‘the Lord,’ says Scripture, ‘is on my side, I will not fear what man shall do unto me’), did He fear governors, mortal men? did He who Himself was come against death, feel terror of death? Is it not both unseemly and irreligious to say that He was terrified at death or hades, whom the keepers of the gates of hades saw and shuddered?...

But these affections were not proper to the nature of the Word, as far as He was Word; but in the flesh which was thus affected was the Word, O Christ’s enemies and unthankful Jews! For He said not all this prior to the flesh; but when the ‘Word became flesh,’ and has become man, then is it written that He said this, that is, humanly... If then they make His human attributes a ground for low thoughts concerning the Son of God, nay consider Him altogether man from the earth, and not from heaven, wherefore not from His divine works recognise the Word who is in the Father, and henceforward renounce their self-willed irreligion? For they are given to see, how He who did the works is the same as He who shewed that His body was passible by His permitting it to weep and hunger, and to shew other properties of a body. For while by means of such He made it known that, though God impassible, He had taken a passible flesh; yet from the works He shewed Himself the Word of God, who had afterwards become man, saying, Though ye believe not Me, beholding Me clad in a human body, yet believe the works, that ye may know that “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” ‘And Christ’s enemies seem to me to shew plain shamelessness and blasphemy;’ for, when they hear ‘I and the Father are one,’ they violently distort the sense, and separate the unity of the Father and the Son; but reading of His tears or sweat or sufferings, they do not advert to His body, but on account of these rank in the creation Him by whom the creation was made. What then is left for them to differ from the Jews in? for as the Jews blasphemously ascribed God’s works to Beelzebub, so also will these, ranking with the creatures the Lord who wrought those works, undergo the same condemnation as theirs without mercy." St. Athanasius, 3rd Discourse Against The Arians, Chapter 29, Tracts 54, 55. at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iv.vii.html

Both these texts are beautiful and if able to, you should read them in their entirety :).

Prayers

5
You might want to check with a lot more OOs though before talking further about the "human nature" of Christ after the incarnation.

...

Nor am I correcting Mina, with whom I am sure many OOs will agree with what he just said.
7
Faith Issues / Re: Avoiding Nestorianism in Explaining the Incarnation
« Last post by rakovsky on Today at 07:36:22 PM »
When seeking to explain the Trinity to someone who is non-Trinitarian (Soccinian, Arian, et al), when they raise an objection like "God cannot die," is it correct to respond that the incarnate Word of God, our Lord, the second prosopon of the Holy Trinity, experienced death and other things according to His assumed humanity?  Can one say "these changes are proper to the human nature?"

Yes, you can say that. 
You might want to check with a lot more OOs though before talking further about the "human nature" of Christ after the incarnation.
I am perfectly happy with your expressions myself, as well as the ways that Mina has put things:
Quote
God cannot experience human experiences if He is not human.  So He became human, fully, and ascribed these experiences to His own person.  So God was crucified in His humanity.
I just have read some OO writings, and know that some OOs have at times objected intensely to parts of the Tome that talk about Christ's human nature or form in particular being ascribed certain experiences, even if you and I might find it easy to use this way of speech. Anyway, that's just my own input, and I know we are not in EO-OO section and I can't speak for OOs. Nor am I correcting Mina, with whom I am sure many OOs will agree with what he just said.

I just know this kind of thing gets sticky.
8
Oriental Orthodox Discussion / Re: Oriental Orthodox Music
« Last post by Mor Ephrem on Today at 07:25:50 PM »
For something a little different...

Ninjos de Dios - Shubkono 2009

Syriac Hip Hop
9
Reviews / Re: Library donation
« Last post by NicholasMyra on Today at 07:21:43 PM »
Lossky is a safe bet. Schmemman for the pop audience.
10
Religious Topics / Re: Is it true about Talmud?
« Last post by Minnesotan on Today at 06:57:40 PM »
Shabbath 41a. The law regulating the rule for how to urinate in a holy way is given.

Well, to be fair, Islam also has strict regulations for how to go to the bathroom. There's even a specific prayer you have to say after doing your business, IIRC.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10