Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
31
I'm saying that because that's what is believed, not merely because a protoevangelium writes it.  This isn't my own personal beliefs, but it is supported by patristic and hymnographic evidence.  And common sense really entails the fact that being an ever-Virgin also included a real anatomical correlation.  Unless, you don't believe in the ever-virginity?

I was talking about the hynography. Think of it as an icon of St. Polycarp with a dove.
32
Religious Topics / Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Last post by rakovsky on Yesterday at 08:11:35 PM »
Mor,

Regardless of my own notes on Gal 5 below, is your overall answer to me to imply that there is not a moral issue with approving of someone getting brutally killed, and with being involved in the death?

I will not answer this question because you want to apply my answer to St Dioscoros and you haven't demonstrated your claim against him.   
IOW, you don't want to admit there is a moral issue with brutality when an EO sees an OO saint as approving of it?

Quote

The Acts of Ephesus II read at Chalcedon:

    "The holy council [Ephesus II] said: "Destroy and burn Eusebius. Let him be burnt alive. Let him be cut in two. As he has divided, let him be divided."
    Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: "Do you allow this language speaking of two natures after the incarnation?"
    The holy council said: "Anathema to whoever says this!"
    Disocorus bishop of Alexandria said: "Since I need both your voices and a show of hands, let anyone who is unable to cry out raise his hand."
    Page 221

Participants of Ephesus II at Chalcedon:
    all the Egyptians and the monks accompanying Barsaumas and the whole crowd rose up and began saying, "He who says two natures should be cut in two.

    Footnote 71,  from vol I:

    Barsaumas was a leading Syrian archimandrite who took part as a  full  member  of  Ephesus  II  (78.131),  where  he  incited  the  monks  against  Flavian  of Constantinople and his sympathizers (176, 851; IV. 77–8); having a monk as a full member of an ecumenical council was an innovation. ...  After refusing to accept the decrees of the council, he returned to Syria
    where  he  campaigned  against  them  until  his  death  in  458.  He  is  venerated  as  a  saint  in  the Oriental Orthodox churches.
    http://ixoyc.net/data/fathers/624.pdf
Barsaumas is an OO saint.
33
I'm saying that because that's what is believed, not merely because a protoevangelium writes it.  This isn't my own personal beliefs, but it is supported by patristic and hymnographic evidence.  And common sense really entails the fact that being an ever-Virgin also included a real anatomical correlation.  Unless, you don't believe in the ever-virginity?
34
Religious Topics / Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Last post by Mor Ephrem on Yesterday at 07:19:24 PM »
Mor,

Regardless of my own notes on Gal 5 below, is your overall answer to me to imply that there is not a moral issue with approving of someone getting brutally killed, and with being involved in the death?

I will not answer this question because you want to apply my answer to St Dioscoros and you haven't demonstrated your claim against him.  Lying is also a moral issue. 


Quote
Galatians 5:12 - As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

Here Paul did not have political power to emasculate the agitators, he wasn't involved in it being performed, he didn't demand it would be done in the injunctive, he was not talking about killing them, he was expressing his own unpleasant wish about self-mutilators mutilating themselves more.

Flavian was not teaching heretical physical mutilation, but rather non-mutilating orthodox Christology. Dioscorus comes across to me in a very different, troubling way.

You have quite a knack for missing the point. 

In Galatians, St Paul was arguing against those who would require circumcision of the Gentiles and underscoring the correct theological belief.  To that end, he used a rhetorical flourish in 5.12.  He was not seriously suggesting people circumcise or castrate themselves, nor was he going to use his considerable experience in persecuting religious minorities to go after the circumcision party with sharpened knives.  He used a rhetorical device. 

To suggest that St Dioscoros was not doing anything like this, but rather was some sort of Daeshesque arch-terrorist intent on sawing his theological opponents in half, is AFAIK wrong, unjustified, and needlessly polemical.  That you came up with such an idea and wish to promote it is par for the course. 
35
Religious Topics / Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Last post by Antonious Nikolas on Yesterday at 07:05:25 PM »
What specifically were the heresies of St. Dioscoros that were repudiated by the Council of Chalcedon? 
His rejection that Christ is in two natures after the union.

No.  St. Dioscoros was not officially condemned for any theological reasons at Chalcedon, merely for administrative reasons, specifically failing to answer the summons of the council three times.  He was never declared a heretic.
36

An icon and what it represents is not analogous to the acts done upon the Virgin and its soteriological significance.

You say that because you believe that whole story is true, though. Right?

Whereas with St. Polycarp and the dove, it's not part of the oldest texts extant; which places it in doubt, from my view.
37
Religious Topics / Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Last post by rakovsky on Yesterday at 06:20:46 PM »
Hello, Mor.

It was at Ephesus II, since Mina said that OOs and EOs share the same records of it which narrate this:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,70750.msg1441090.html#msg1441090

Do you understand my personal difficulty with perceiving someone who supports brutality as saintly?

Galatians 5.12

Mor,

Regardless of my own notes on Gal 5 below, is your overall answer to me to imply that there is not a moral issue with approving of someone getting brutally killed, and with being involved in the death?


========================================
Galatians 5:12 - As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

Here Paul did not have political power to emasculate the agitators, he wasn't involved in it being performed, he didn't demand it would be done in the injunctive, he was not talking about killing them, he was expressing his own unpleasant wish about self-mutilators mutilating themselves more.

Flavian was not teaching heretical physical mutilation, but rather non-mutilating orthodox Christology. Dioscorus comes across to me in a very different, troubling way.
38
Religious Topics / Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Last post by Mor Ephrem on Yesterday at 05:49:26 PM »
When did St Dioscoros "directly approve of statements that EOs should be killed in brutal ways"?
Hello, Mor.

It was at Ephesus II, since Mina said that OOs and EOs share the same records of it which narrate this:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,70750.msg1441090.html#msg1441090

Do you understand my personal difficulty with perceiving someone who supports brutality as saintly?

Galatians 5.12

39
Religious Topics / Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Last post by rakovsky on Yesterday at 05:43:23 PM »
When did St Dioscoros "directly approve of statements that EOs should be killed in brutal ways"?
Hello, Mor.

It was at Ephesus II, since Mina said that OOs and EOs share the same records of it which narrate this:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,70750.msg1441090.html#msg1441090

Do you understand my personal difficulty with perceiving someone who supports brutality as saintly?
40
Religious Topics / Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Last post by rakovsky on Yesterday at 05:33:42 PM »
Rakosvsky, because we went through this same conversation in the private forum.
::)
Our Church has not accepted Eutyches' declarations as orthodox for the last 1500+ years, so why roll your eyes at me if I didn't in the private forum?

The biggest step forward has been respectful dialogue even where there is disagreement. Do you agree with that step?

i'm sure if Eutyches added "in thought" all this would've been avoided.
1. Cyril said the elements existed in thought. In what sense do you believe He as non-human and pre-incarnate had both elements or natures before the incarnation even in thought?

2. Even if Eutyches had added "in thought" at Ephesus II, we still have the problem that EOs and OOs agree he was already a monophysite before then, so why do you believe Flavian was wrong to depose him before Ephesus II?
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »