I believe the main argument is " I did not see that" in the above posts. Individual interpretations for what is a clear text can never be corrected for they remain personal views that are not related to the original text by Matta the heretic. The text is clear, the quotes are beyond any doubt heretical, and the understanding of these views and trying to justify them leads to more trouble.
To avoid further confusion, the writings of matta the blasphemer have to be studied to understand his christology/theology (if the crap he wrote qualifies for such term) altogether to convey a real understanding of what Matta the heretic believed in. This is not to say that the articles brought forth are not clear enough in their protrayal of Christ as a sinner who is paying for his sins, but it will just make the heresies of Matta more amplified and the defense of some weaker.
The topics I explained the heretical nature of Matta the blasphemer should be enough for that, although they do not include all his heresies.
The accusations were "true" not in the sense that He was a criminal, but that in the way the sentence was reached was a correct process:
This is your own interpretation, but the text is clear that the verdict concerning Christ according to matta was the correct verdict proclaimed by the high priest. He does not mention the process at all, this is your own individual interpretation of a text that does not exist. In that, Matta is actually referring to his co-redemption theory of humans being incorporated in Christ's body and as such having paid the dues themselves (together with Christ) on the cross. This theory can be found in this article and in other books that does not view the humanity of Christ as consubstatial with our humanity but as having taken literally all the bodies of all the world and crucified with it on the cross.
Matta's idea about Christ is a man who was elevated to sonship of the Father as he explains many times in his book about the Pentecost and in his book "Salvation and atonement". His weird view about the body of Christ is also his introduction to Universalism.
About the process and the trial itself, anybody who has the minimum idea of jewish rites and law must know that there couldn't be any more unfairness done to a defendent like the tiral of Christ. At night, with many of the synagoge not attending, with no matching testimonies, and with no justified verdict.
So Matta cannot get off the hook based on technicalities in the trial and try to twist his quote to convey something like that.
Fr. Matta continued to say that the sentence the High Priest brought against Christ was actually a sentence brought against himself, but regardless, Christ proceeded with joy to fulfill the Father's will. Indeed, "How cruel was the tyranny of this Attorney General!"
But that does not explain that Christ acknowledged, not accepted, the verdict, and that He is not a blasphemer or a sinner as Matta portrays him to be. According to Matta, Christ was whipped according to a CORRECT verdict to atone for his minor sins and the major sins needed the Cross.
That is not true. That is simply twisting the words of Fr. Matta.
It is you who is unable to understand Matta.
I can bring forth many references from Matta's heretical writings that convey the same meaning, and have done so before. You cannot challenge them in your hopeless defense based on "how you see Matta" or try to explain his thoughts when he has put them clearly on paper. If I let go of this one, what say you about the rest? How could you keep denying the same idea in many other instances ?
If a man writes the same idea in all his books, forumlates his theology on the same ground, on what basis do you defend him ?
Fr. Matta says no more than what St. Paul said, that Christ bore the sins of humanity to destroy such sins, while being sinless Himself.
No. Matta says that Christ acknowledges that it is a correct verdict and as such, he is a blasphemer and a sinner who deserves punishment. Big difference.
The judgment, being how the Law was applied, was correct, not on the Truth of the judgment. Under law, for example, one can find DNA and use this as enough for someone's guilt. But supposedly, that person wasn't guilty. Therefore, a correct application of the Law is different from the Truth being worthy judgment. "Correct" is different from "Worthy." Therefore, the Saviour does not acknowledge guilt, but accepts guilt, and acknowledges the correct "due process" so to speak.
Matta does not talk about the process at all. Where did you get this from ?
I have addressed this above, but this is again another mistake in trying to defend matta. Christ came to atone the actual guilt, and not the process of the law. If his verdict is correct because of the correct process, which it was not, then Christ was crucified for the sake of a process and not an actual death sentence that had to be waived with his atoning blood.
This has nothing to do with universalism.
It has everything to do with it and it is one of Matta's main ideas.
We indeed confessed that He bore all humanind.
We confess that he took our humanity but not that he had all sinners being part of his body and being crucified with him as paying the dues for their mistakes. Big difference again.
If the world's mankind accepts, gets baptized, chrismated, and partakes of the Eucharist, then the world's mankind has accepted the gift Christ gave.
Does not lead to universal salvation. The message is given to everybody, and those who accept it get saved.
Here, on this quote alone, He did not say Christ committed those sins, but proceeded to the cursed Cross on account of bearing those sins.
I believe the quote is clear enough that Christ was cruficied for breaking the Sabbath and being a blasphemer (and Christ broke it indeed as the Lord who has no Sabbath until salvation is offered) and therefore he deserved the punishment. The text is clear.
Here, Fr. Matta wishes to include that all sins were dealt with, whether by the lashes, the humiliation, or the Cross.
he wishes ?
Perhaps, the only mistake Fr. Matta did was to write in contemplative language. Perhaps, if he were to write a more dry epistle, he may be less misunderstood.
Contemplative language does not excuse him from heresy, for apparently he used it before in denying Christ's divinity, proclaiming Universalism, His heresies regarding the Eucharist, denying the power of sacraments, and many other errors.
Matta is consistent in denying certain divine characteristics from Christ. he sums all this up in one sentence in one of his blasphemies in which he proclaims: " Christ gained
divine attributes" ....
many people look to Fr. Matta's huge book on St. Athanasius as quite authorative;
As a historical book it might have a value, although he does not save St. Alexander from his usual rhetorics against popes, but it is not authoritive as to make us understand Matta views that are very about Christ's divinity that are very clear in his other writings.
He elaborated on this central belief of Orthodoxy, that Christ bore the sins of mankind, the sins of the world, that Christ "became sin," and that Christ died
He did not. MATTA, beyond doubt or confusion of terms, reiterated what he has many times taught and has just said that Christ acknowledged his sins and therefore deserves the verdict. nothing more, nothing less of that.
From the original topic, this quote is extracted in reply to Matthew 777 original question:
To tell you the truth, this is probably going to grow into a debate in the OO Church as well.
What is the growing debate ? Such matters are not subject to debate, and it shows the heretical approach to the faith that subjects it to innovation such as the ones of Matta and as if the atonement was ever challenged by anyone except Matta in our Church, and he is a despised heretic. The articles of matta were brought forth to support a heretical view that is summarized in :"Yet, I do think there was an atonement not for God, but for the fulfilling of the Law, for man's sake. " To bring forth a liturgical verse cut out of context and totally unrelated to the topic just shows how ridiculus it can become.
While Matta's topics surfaced again, there is a load of heresies waiting for Matta's lovers to pick in various topics that are still unaddressed by them.