Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
31
Reviews / Re: What TV shows are you watching?
« Last post by Eruvande on Today at 06:57:42 AM »
I keep not watching firefly. I've seen Serenity, and I have Firefly on DVD, but I've only ever seen the first episode. I don't watch the reruns because I keep telling myself I've got it on DVD, and never get round to watching. This puts me out. Still, I know enough to get the Firefly references on Castle.
32
Faith Issues / Re: Stations of the Cross
« Last post by Iconodule on Today at 06:50:44 AM »
This thread is about Western Christian practice and patrimony, with the assumption that the Christian West was orthodox and is orthodox in its WRO expression. You say that Veronica is not connected to the mandylion in Orthodox tradition. I point out that you are confusing Orthodox with Byzantine, since the western tradition does have this legend. You then try to argue with me by citing Byzantine liturgical texts and hagiography. Hence you prove my point.
33
Faith Issues / Re: Stations of the Cross
« Last post by LBK on Today at 06:31:58 AM »
What is your point, Iconodule? And how did my post prove it?
34
Other Topics / Re: Post your favorite quotes!
« Last post by Arachne on Today at 06:30:18 AM »
35
Faith Issues / Re: Stations of the Cross
« Last post by Iconodule on Today at 06:13:53 AM »
St Veronica in Orthodox tradition is the woman with the issue of blood who was healed by touching the hem of Christ's garment, not the woman whose veil was given to Christ to wipe His face with. The Orthodox tradition of the origin of the Mandylion is quite different. Let's not muddy our traditions.

You are confusing "Orthodox" with "Byzantine."


Here's the service text for the feast of the Translation of the Mandylion from Edessa to Constantinople. Not a single mention of Veronica, or, indeed, of any woman giving Christ her veil to wipe His face:

http://www.anastasis.org.uk/16august.htm

The Synaxarion reading describes in detail how, and under what circumstances, the Mandylion was created.

Thanks for proving my point!
36
Faith Issues / Re: Stations of the Cross
« Last post by LBK on Today at 06:11:35 AM »
St Veronica in Orthodox tradition is the woman with the issue of blood who was healed by touching the hem of Christ's garment, not the woman whose veil was given to Christ to wipe His face with. The Orthodox tradition of the origin of the Mandylion is quite different. Let's not muddy our traditions.

You are confusing "Orthodox" with "Byzantine."


Here's the service text for the feast of the Translation of the Mandylion from Edessa to Constantinople. Not a single mention of Veronica, or, indeed, of any woman giving Christ her veil to wipe His face:

http://www.anastasis.org.uk/16august.htm

The Synaxarion reading describes in detail how, and under what circumstances, the Mandylion was created.

37
Faith Issues / Re: Stations of the Cross
« Last post by Iconodule on Today at 05:52:07 AM »
St Veronica in Orthodox tradition is the woman with the issue of blood who was healed by touching the hem of Christ's garment, not the woman whose veil was given to Christ to wipe His face with. The Orthodox tradition of the origin of the Mandylion is quite different. Let's not muddy our traditions.

You are confusing "Orthodox" with "Byzantine."
38
Natures don't perform actions, people do. Christ can do everything proper to both God and to Man because He is one Being (Subject) who is both.
Thus, Christ can perform actions that are proper to God or to man, even when those actions (like dying) are NOT proper to both. When an action proper to only one or the other is performed, then we EOs say that the action was performed in one nature or the other, as Cyril stated: "Christ suffered according to the nature of humanity".

As a result, in common speech, we can also say as a manner of speaking that the human nature or the humanity suffered, without actually making a "nature" a "person".

Thus the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia writes:
Quote
Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus because He loved him and also because He saw the corruption of human nature after sin and penetration of death. Man was not created to die, but sin introduced mortality. Christ is not only God by nature, but also man. Therefore His human nature suffered.

....
An example in human nature, is the relationship between our mind, its ideas and the expression of these ideas in words.

Christ is one person, yet has two natures. His Divine nature is united with his human nature - without change, confusion or division. ... "Without division", means that the two natures never separated, so when Christ did what was Divine, His human nature followed, and when the human acted, His Divine nature co-operated. Each nature acted "in communication with the other".
When it uses the expression underlined above, the author does not think that the human nature is a separate "person". You are right that it is Christ who performs the actions , but the natures cooperate and as a manner of speech we can say that they perform actions too.

There are many examples of this in common speech, like saying "a crime against humanity" or "You have insulted my humanity", or:
Quote
It is a process, covering the preservation and conservation, economically and beneficially, of everything, edible or potable, that human nature eats and drinks
Pure Products - Volume 14 - Page 471
https://books.google.com/books?id=m2DOAAAAMAAJ
copyright 1918

In none of these cases do the speakers think that the natures or the "humanity" refer to separated persons.

This goes back to the issue of flexibility of language and whether we want to understand expressions used in different normal ways as a manner of speech or aim to find problems in order to infer that the other side has mistaken christology.
39
Natures don't perform actions, people do. Christ can do everything proper to both God and to Man because He is one Being (Subject) who is both.
40
Everything that God is, Jesus is. Everything that a man is, Jesus is. Seems pretty simple to me.
I understand. The complication arises however, because theologians are left with paradoxes such as:
Numbers 23:19 KJV: God is not a man,

This leads to one of the arguments that the rabbis and non-Trinitarians have made against Christianity. They ask: If God by definition is immortal and cannot die, how is it even conceivable that Christ could die on the cross?

As the OO WGW noted earlier from his debates with the nonTrinitarians, the way that EOs commonly deal with this is by explaining that Christ has two natures - a nature belonging to God and another to mankind, and that since Christ is both God and man, he can perform actions that are ascribed to one nature or to the other.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »