OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 23, 2014, 08:27:57 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Filioque... in the East?  (Read 19740 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #90 on: November 28, 2008, 06:26:41 PM »


If you would like to present an argument showing syriac translations with grammatical analysis, be my guest. 

Why would I do that for the second time on the same thread?
I can't see where you did that the first time.  ...

Take the glasses.

[size=0,1]Post No:7.[/size]
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,680



« Reply #91 on: November 28, 2008, 06:27:41 PM »

Pardon my confusion, but a Nestorian council in 410AD...?

My bad.  This council formed the Sassanid Church (at the time Orthodox) and put at its head the Catholicos of Seleucia (questionable if this was a rebellion against Antioch) who adopted Nestorianism as its creed later.  Though there was what would be called Nestorianism at the council (Theodore, condemned for Nestorianism at the Fifth Ecumenical Council was around then), it wasn't the official break at 410. When that came, the Nestorians continued to accept Seleucia 410, whereas I am not aware that anyone, including the Orthodox, ever had (except the Vatican when it created the Chaldeans).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #92 on: November 28, 2008, 06:28:50 PM »

So which is it?
The Spirit Eternally Proceeds from the Father alone. All else is heresy.

Anyway, don't you believe at times He proceeds through the Son.  Grin

No, we don't.

We would have to have it revealed to Prophets, Apostoles or Evangelists. And we don't have it.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #93 on: November 28, 2008, 06:30:54 PM »

Pardon my confusion, but a Nestorian council in 410AD...?

My bad.  This council formed the Sassanid Church (at the time Orthodox) and put at its head the Catholicos of Seleucia (questionable if this was a rebellion against Antioch) who adopted Nestorianism as its creed later.  Though there was what would be called Nestorianism at the council (Theodore, condemned for Nestorianism at the Fifth Ecumenical Council was around then), it wasn't the official break at 410. When that came, the Nestorians continued to accept Seleucia 410, whereas I am not aware that anyone, including the Orthodox, ever had (except the Vatican when it created the Chaldeans).

Which has already been pointed out, although not that eloquently, by me in the post No.: 6 on this very thread.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #94 on: November 28, 2008, 06:34:01 PM »

What does proceed here mean? Afterall, I want your sentence to be coherent, as I am sure you do as well if we want understanding.
The word used in the Creed is "εκπορευομενον" (pronounced "ekporevOmenon").
The root verb of this word is "εκπορευω" (pronounced "ekporevO") meaning "I cause to go forth". Thus "εκπορευομενον" means "caused to go forth from". The Creed says that the Holy Spirit is "το εκ του Πατρος εκπορευομενον" which transliterates as "The One out of the Father caused to go forth from". To add the filioque makes it read: "The one out of both the Father and the Son caused to go forth from" which is heresy.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #95 on: November 28, 2008, 06:56:58 PM »

So which is it?
The Spirit Eternally Proceeds from the Father alone. All else is heresy.

Anyway, don't you believe at times He proceeds through the Son.  Grin

I'll throw an idea as to clarify the two words in question:

Begotten = having the Father as the first cause.

Proceeds = having the Father as the first cause yet through the Son as the secondary cause.

Interesting, as differences are outlined.

Since you do not believe that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, how do you define the differeneces between begetting an proceeding. Answer: you have no way.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 06:58:03 PM by jackjohn » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #96 on: November 28, 2008, 06:57:51 PM »

Just one more thing jackjohn.
It's just come to our attention that you are using the same ISP as the poster called "truth".
Before you type another word, I would like you to read our Forum Rules, especially the very first General Rule, and then pm me with your explanation please.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #97 on: November 28, 2008, 06:59:44 PM »

Just one more thing jackjohn.
It's just come to our attention that you are using the same ISP as the poster called "truth".
Before you type another word, I would like you to read our Forum Rules, especially the very first General Rule, and then pm me with your explanation please.


I thought I was earlychurch. It has been awhile. What I am suppose to do? Sign in under a truth?
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 07:00:00 PM by jackjohn » Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #98 on: November 28, 2008, 07:00:33 PM »


Since you do not believe that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, how do you define the differeneces between begetting an proceeding. Answer: you have no way.


Exactly.

And that's been explicitly said not only by St. John of Damascus, as quoted above in this very thread, but by St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Gregory of Nyssa, the former two being "the Doctors" of RCC.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #99 on: November 28, 2008, 07:01:25 PM »

What does proceed here mean? Afterall, I want your sentence to be coherent, as I am sure you do as well if we want understanding.
The word used in the Creed is "εκπορευομενον" (pronounced "ekporevOmenon").
The root verb of this word is "εκπορευω" (pronounced "ekporevO") meaning "I cause to go forth". Thus "εκπορευομενον" means "caused to go forth from". The Creed says that the Holy Spirit is "το εκ του Πατρος εκπορευομενον" which transliterates as "The One out of the Father caused to go forth from". To add the filioque makes it read: "The one out of both the Father and the Son caused to go forth from" which is heresy.

I'll repond after it is determined which handle I need to login as.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #100 on: November 28, 2008, 07:02:08 PM »

I thought I was earlychurch. It has been awhile. What I am suppose to do? Sign in under a truth?
So, are you telling us that jackjohn, earlychurch and truth are the same person? Have you bothered to read the forum rules?
This is quite serious.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #101 on: November 28, 2008, 07:03:45 PM »


I'll throw an idea as to clarify the two words in question:


And the reason why should we rely on your "thrown idea" more than on Prophets, Apostoles, Evangelists, Holy Fathers, Saints, Great Theologians (at least two of whom are "Doctors" of Roman Catholic Church) is...what exactly?
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #102 on: November 28, 2008, 07:06:54 PM »

I thought I was earlychurch. It has been awhile. What I am suppose to do? Sign in under a truth?
So, are you telling us that jackjohn, earlychurch and truth are the same person? Have you bothered to read the forum rules?
This is quite serious.


I read them. Which handle do you prefer?
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #103 on: November 28, 2008, 07:08:25 PM »

I read them.
I want you to copy and paste the first General Rule in this thread.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,680



« Reply #104 on: November 28, 2008, 07:53:31 PM »



   

Quote
We know that they are different, as revelation tells us so


I still have no idea what the difference is. You simply say that there is. Could you define it?

Define what the Fathers are in unison that cannot be defined?  No.

Quote
Since I am not God, and therefore do not know Him as He knows Himself, no.

Quote
This does not help the situation. Since these words are not defined, they are meaningless. I’d thought I’d point that out. You are contesting their usage without knowledge. You only gave an excuse as to why you have no idea of their meaning.

Sorry.  I am only a finite creature admitting his limits to understand the infinite Creator.


Quote
Since the Filioque has the procession begotten, the filioque conflates the two.

Quote
I do not understand how it conflates the two. There is an obvious disticnction if the Son only is begotten(derives) from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds(derives) from both (directly from the Father and indirectly from the Son.)

The Persons are not indirect.  That's the problem.  And what proceeds from the Son would have to first be begotten by the Father.

Quote
That indirect part.  Anything the Son has is begotten of the Father.  That would include a hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Son.

Quote
Again, since procession is meaningless, then it follows that hypostatic procession is meaningless. You seem to think that using old words from a different language is going to shed light on a word that you outright say is meaningless.

Who said they were meaningless?  God says "proceed (ekporeusis)." I take Him at His word.

Quote
I really want to know why all the fuss about words the two churches claim to be unknowable? And if the main complaint is because by being caused by another makes Him not equal, than why is this not also the complaint between the Father and Son, since both churches say that the Father causes the Son?

Quote
Because it reduces the Spirit to the product of the Two sources of the Trinity, and personalizes Him to the relationship between the two, with all sorts of reprecussions.

Quote
Again, this does not address the double standard being done here:
If to be caused by another means to be unequal and therefore offensive as regards to the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit, then why is not this same argument launched against the relationship between the Father and Son, since both churchs believe the Father causes the Son?

You're the one saying the Spirit is indirect, whereas the Son is direct.  Not I.

Quote
If to be caused is to be depersonalized, then why is not the Son depersonalized in the way that you claim the Latin fathers have done to the Holy Spirit via?

The filiqoue apologist claim the Spirit is the relationship between the Father and the Son (at least some have).  The Father and the Son have a relationship, but neither the Father nor the Son is a relationship, but Persons.

Quote
And telling me that you have no idea what you are talking about, but know why you don't know does not do anything for your case.

You ask Him His name.  He said "I Am."  Good enough for me.

Quote
That indirect part.  Anything the Son has is begotten of the Father.  That would include a hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Son.

Quote
To offer an analogy to answer:

It does not follow that we conflate the lake and the stream if we say that the first origin of the lake is a spring, and that since the river orignates from the spring and flows into a lake, that the lake and river are conflated. Again, the spring causes the river that causes the lake. These 3 are not conflated. In this analogy, the Father represents the spring; the Son the river; and the lake the Holy Spirit.


For HS lake to flow out of Son river, Father spring would have to beget the river to process into HS lake.  Modellism.

Quote
The lake's first direct origin is the spring, but since the water goes through the river before it empties into the lake, then the river becomes the indirect cause.
The Son in His Person receives nothing from the Person of the Father that is not begotten.  The Spirit is not begotten.

There are two questions of mine not being addressed here:

1) If to be caused is such an offense to the dignity of the Holy Spirit, then why does not the Son suffer this same offense since He is caused by the Father?

2) How is that the Son and Holy Spirit are conflated when as was shown by my above analogy, the lake and river are not conflated?

Instead I am not told that words without meaning are meaningful. Huh

Answered.

So which is it?
The Spirit Eternally Proceeds from the Father alone. All else is heresy.

Anyway, don't you believe at times He proceeds through the Son.  Grin

Through the Son is not the same as from the Son.  Ekporeusis dia is fine, in fact Orthodox.  Ekporeusis ek, applied to any but the Father, is heresy.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 08:19:32 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,680



« Reply #105 on: November 28, 2008, 07:55:31 PM »

I thought I was earlychurch. It has been awhile. What I am suppose to do? Sign in under a truth?
So, are you telling us that jackjohn, earlychurch and truth are the same person?
No wonder he doesn't have a problem with modellism.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #106 on: November 28, 2008, 08:00:12 PM »

Just so that everyone is aware, the poster "jackjohn" is actually registered under two other names which they have posted under: "truth" and "earlychurch". They have been asked to post only under their original name of "earlychurch" and the other two identities have been banned.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #107 on: November 28, 2008, 08:02:06 PM »

No wonder he doesn't have a problem with modellism.

[moderator hat off]    ROFL Cheesy (It's actually "Modalism")   [moderator hat on]
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 08:09:27 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,680



« Reply #108 on: November 28, 2008, 08:06:17 PM »

Quote
Quote
Since the Filioque has the procession begotten, the filioque conflates the two.

I do not understand how it conflates the two. There is an obvious disticnction if the Son only is begotten(derives) from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds(derives) from both (directly from the Father and indirectly from the Son.)

You can only draw this conclusion if assume εκπορευεται to be synomymous with procedit, otherwise, I think it remains unchallenged that the Catholics do not actually believe this.

And they defend it with such vigor why?  And yes, some do.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,680



« Reply #109 on: November 28, 2008, 08:07:51 PM »

Again, this does not address the double standard being done here:
If to be caused by another means to be unequal and therefore offensive as regards to the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit, then why is not this same argument launched against the relationship between the Father and Son, since both churchs believe the Father causes the Son?
If to be caused is to be depersonalized, then why is not the Son depersonalized in the way that you claim the Latin fathers have done to the Holy Spirit via? And telling me that you have no idea what you are talking about, but know why you don't know does not do anything for your case.

Firstly, jackjohn, calm down. Your tone is coming across as quite acerbic.
Secondly, the original text of the Creed as agreed at Nicea-Constantinople has the Father as the Source of Both the Son and the Spirit- thus the Holy Trinity in monarchical. The filioque makes both the Father and the Son the multiple "sources" of the Spirit, thus the Holy Trinity is no longer monarchical.

OKay, I'll try to tone it down.

That the Father is the first principle and the Son the second, is Roman Catholic teaching, point blank. And this is found in the early writings of Augustine as well as the current ccc.

So if your case is that it is not RC teaching that the Father is the first source and the Son the second, then we have added straw man to the list. The RC position is misrepresented in order to attack it.
No, making the Son a second principle is heresy enough.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #110 on: November 28, 2008, 08:18:33 PM »

Quote
Quote
Since the Filioque has the procession begotten, the filioque conflates the two.

I do not understand how it conflates the two. There is an obvious disticnction if the Son only is begotten(derives) from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds(derives) from both (directly from the Father and indirectly from the Son.)

You can only draw this conclusion if assume εκπορευεται to be synomymous with procedit, otherwise, I think it remains unchallenged that the Catholics do not actually believe this.

And they defend it with such vigor why?  And yes, some do.
Not only this, but the claim that εκπορευεται and procedit are not synonymous means that the Roman Catholics not only added to the Creed with the filioque, they also changed the meaning of the original wording- hardly a defence!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #111 on: November 28, 2008, 09:35:41 PM »

Quote
Quote
Since the Filioque has the procession begotten, the filioque conflates the two.

I do not understand how it conflates the two. There is an obvious disticnction if the Son only is begotten(derives) from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds(derives) from both (directly from the Father and indirectly from the Son.)

You can only draw this conclusion if assume εκπορευεται to be synomymous with procedit, otherwise, I think it remains unchallenged that the Catholics do not actually believe this.

And they defend it with such vigor why?  And yes, some do.
Not only this, but the claim that εκπορευεται and procedit are not synonymous means that the Roman Catholics not only added to the Creed with the filioque, they also changed the meaning of the original wording- hardly a defence!

Got my old password! I can respond now. I probably will after dinner.  Grin
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #112 on: November 28, 2008, 10:24:13 PM »

Quote
Define what the Fathers are in unison that cannot be defined?  No.

Okay, words not defined are meaningless. Case closed. Remember, Fathers also maintained the filioque.

Quote
Since I am not God, and therefore do not know Him as He knows Himself, no.

Right. So how can you argue then against a position you claim you don't to understand?

This does not help the situation. Since these words are not defined, they are meaningless. I’d thought I’d point that out. You are contesting their usage without knowledge. You only gave an excuse as to why you have no idea of their meaning.

Quote
Sorry.  I am only a finite creature admitting his limits to understand the infinite Creator.

If you were admitting your limits then how can you continue to argue? Why say that you know nothing of the words because you are human and then turn around and argue as if you knew? This is not consistent.

Quote
Since the Filioque has the procession begotten, the filioque conflates the two.

Since you have no idea of these differences, how can you know of the represussions?

I do not understand how it conflates the two. There is an obvious disticnction if the Son only is begotten(derives) from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds(derives) from both (directly from the Father and indirectly from the Son.)

Quote
The Persons are not indirect. 


What does this mean? We were writing about the cause, not the person.

Quote
And what proceeds from the Son would have to first be begotten by the Father.

Right. Father is first principle. Where is the confusion?

Again, since procession is meaningless, then it follows that hypostatic procession is meaningless. You seem to think that using old words from a different language is going to shed light on a word that you outright say is meaningless.

Quote
Who said they were meaningless?  God says "proceed (ekporeusis)." I take Him at His word.

If you cannot understand his word, how can you proceed to speak as if you did? This is self refuting. If I hear a foreigner speak and repeat what he said but have no clue of the meaning, how could I argue a case of meaning?...how can you say that your meaning is more correct than mine when you already admit that you have no meaning in the first place? Huh


I really want to know why all the fuss about words the two churches claim to be unknowable? And if the main complaint is because by being caused by another makes Him not equal, than why is this not also the complaint between the Father and Son, since both churches say that the Father causes the Son?

Quote
Because it reduces the Spirit to the product of the Two sources of the Trinity, and personalizes Him to the relationship between the two, with all sorts of reprecussions.

Again, this does not address the double standard being done here:
If to be caused by another means to be unequal and therefore offensive as regards to the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit, then why is not this same argument launched against the relationship between the Father and Son, since both churchs believe the Father causes the Son?

Quote
You're the one saying the Spirit is indirect, whereas the Son is direct.  Not I.

In regard to the origin of the Spirit. I am not saying that the Spirit is an indirect person.

If to be caused is to be depersonalized, then why is not the Son depersonalized in the way that you claim the Latin fathers have done to the Holy Spirit via?

Quote
The filiqoue apologist claim the Spirit is the relationship between the Father and the Son (at least some have).  The Father and the Son have a relationship, but neither the Father nor the Son is a relationship, but Persons.

I have already mentioned what the filioque means: That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The Father as the first source, and the Son and the second. I even produced an analogy.

And telling me that you have no idea what you are talking about, but know why you don't know does not do anything for your case.

Quote
You ask Him His name.  He said "I Am."  Good enough for me.

I am clueless here as to where you are going. You are simply introducing another word that youhave no meaning.

Quote
That indirect part.  Anything the Son has is begotten of the Father.  That would include a hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Son.

Since you have offered no clue as to meaning, this has no meaning. How can I reply?


To offer an analogy to answer:

It does not follow that we conflate the lake and the stream if we say that the first origin of the lake is a spring, and that since the river orignates from the spring and flows into a lake, that the lake and river are conflated. Again, the spring causes the river that causes the lake. These 3 are not conflated. In this analogy, the Father represents the spring; the Son the river; and the lake the Holy Spirit.


Quote
For HS lake to flow out of Son river, Father spring would have to beget the river to process into HS lake.  Modellism.

Saying modellism doesn’t answer anything. Again, how am I suppose to reply?

The lake's first direct origin is the spring, but since the water goes through the river before it empties into the lake, then the river becomes the indirect cause.

Quote
The Son in His Person receives nothing from the Person of the Father that is not begotten.  The Spirit is not begotten.

There you go using words that you claim to not to know. In order to make positive claims, you need to know what the words you are using mean, which, you don’t. You have no light here as to the differences between the words begotten and proceeding. The RC does.

There are two questions of mine not being addressed here:

1) If to be caused is such an offense to the dignity of the Holy Spirit, then why does not the Son suffer this same offense since He is caused by the Father?

2) How is that the Son and Holy Spirit are conflated when as was shown by my above analogy, the lake and river are not conflated?

Instead I am told that words without meaning are meaningful. 

Quote
Answered.

Not answered. Ignored.

Quote
The Spirit Eternally Proceeds from the Father alone. All else is heresy.

Anyway, don't you believe at times He proceeds through the Son.   

Quote
Through the Son is not the same as from the Son.  Ekporeusis dia is fine, in fact Orthodox.  Ekporeusis ek, applied to any but the Father, is heresy.

Straw man, since the RC defines the filiqoue as from the Father through the Son.

Here is the problem: you are claiming to know what the writers gave the meaning to their latin words. Since back then, the east and west spoke different languages, confusion was more or less to be expected. Now however, you can look up Augustine’s usage and philosophy regarding these words as well as look up the current ccc. On both counts, from the early Latin church to the present day, the RC DOES not believe that the Son and father are both the first principle. The beauty of the internet is to eliminate these misunderstandings, not to pretend to know what the opposing view’s side mean by their words and setting up a straw man case, BUT listening and researching what they meant by their chosen words and then coming to conclusions.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 10:43:57 PM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #113 on: November 28, 2008, 10:34:40 PM »

Quote
Quote
Since the Filioque has the procession begotten, the filioque conflates the two.

I do not understand how it conflates the two. There is an obvious disticnction if the Son only is begotten(derives) from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds(derives) from both (directly from the Father and indirectly from the Son.)

You can only draw this conclusion if assume εκπορευεται to be synomymous with procedit, otherwise, I think it remains unchallenged that the Catholics do not actually believe this.

And they defend it with such vigor why?  And yes, some do.
Not only this, but the claim that εκπορευεται and procedit are not synonymous means that the Roman Catholics not only added to the Creed with the filioque, they also changed the meaning of the original wording- hardly a defence!

You don't know the difference between these words, so how can you argue? And that words can have more than one meaning is known by everyone. 
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 10:40:08 PM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #114 on: November 28, 2008, 10:48:38 PM »

You don't know the difference between these words, so how can you argue? And that words can have more than one meaning is known by everyone. 
Oh please! I waited for you to finish dinner for that?! Cheesy
So are you agreeing with Marc Hanna that εκπορευεται and procedit mean different things, and therefore the Roman Catholics subscribe to a different Creed than the Fathers of the Nicean-Constantinoplian Councils? You're doing my work for me!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #115 on: November 28, 2008, 11:03:52 PM »

You don't know the difference between these words, so how can you argue? And that words can have more than one meaning is known by everyone. 
Oh please! I waited for you to finish dinner for that?! Cheesy
So are you agreeing with Marc Hanna that εκπορευεται and procedit mean different things, and therefore the Roman Catholics subscribe to a different Creed than the Fathers of the Nicean-Constantinoplian Councils? You're doing my work for me!


Two words that are spelled differently can mean the same thing. Two words that are spelled the same can have different meanings. The only way to find out what the church means by using proceeding is to ask the church; NOT to dream up what you would like them to have meant a la straw man. You set a position that the RC does not hold in order to attack it. Straw man.

I have already insisted that anyone concerned can look in the ccc or read Augustine ideas concerning the Latin's usage of the filioque. But knowing the truth of the Latin church's position is far from what is being sought here. You just want to set up a division at any cost, even to the point of misrepresenting RC position.

I am rusty here, but I even think that the RC does not mind if the eastern churches exclude the filioque because they are sensitive to the possible language misunderstangs that have happened in the past. The charity from the east on this misunderstanding is not returned, but used as a strawn man in order to attack and seperate.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 11:06:49 PM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,680



« Reply #116 on: November 28, 2008, 11:17:27 PM »

Quote
Define what the Fathers are in unison that cannot be defined?  No.

Okay, words not defined are meaningless. Case closed.

There's a reason why St. Paul spoke of the "Unknown God."  Evidently, just a foreign God to you.

Quote
Remember, Fathers also maintained the filioque.


Just the heretics.  Not our Fathers.

Quote
Since I am not God, and therefore do not know Him as He knows Himself, no.

Quote
Right. So how can you argue then against a position you claim you don't to understand?

Not to be redundant, but to repeat what I've already said (several times): He says so, I take His Word on it.

I don't understand a thing my mechanic tells me about the car.  I just take his word on it, since I have learned to trust him.  God is much more complicated (because of His simplicity), and more trustworthy.

Quote
This does not help the situation. Since these words are not defined, they are meaningless. I’d thought I’d point that out. You are contesting their usage without knowledge. You only gave an excuse as to why you have no idea of their meaning.

I know that they are not the same thing.  He Who knows has taught us thus.  If that doesn't fit under your microscope, too bad.

Quote
Sorry.  I am only a finite creature admitting his limits to understand the infinite Creator.

Quote
If you were admitting your limits then how can you continue to argue? Why say that you know nothing of the words because you are human and then turn around and argue as if you knew? This is not consistent.

I know that you are in no position to correct God.

Quote
Since the Filioque has the procession begotten, the filioque conflates the two.

Quote
Since you have no idea of these differences, how can you know of the represussions?

Just take a look.  Since the Son has everything the Father has, so His Words of Institution "confects" the Eucharist.  No need for an epiclesis.  The Fathers thought, knew, otherwise.

Quote
I do not understand how it conflates the two. There is an obvious disticnction if the Son only is begotten(derives) from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds(derives) from both (directly from the Father and indirectly from the Son.)

Not matter how much you repeat this, it isn't going to get around the problem that if you say the Person of the Spirit comes in any way from the Person of the Son, then He must be partly begotten, as the Son receives from the Father by being begotten.

Quote
The Persons are not indirect. 


Quote
What does this mean? We were writing about the cause, not the person.

That's your mistake, seperating the two.

Quote
And what proceeds from the Son would have to first be begotten by the Father.

Quote
Right. Father is first principle. Where is the confusion?

Father>beget>Son>Spirit.

Quote
Again, since procession is meaningless, then it follows that hypostatic procession is meaningless. You seem to think that using old words from a different language is going to shed light on a word that you outright say is meaningless.

Meaningless only if you like going in circles.

Quote
Who said they were meaningless?  God says "proceed (ekporeusis)." I take Him at His word.

Quote
If you cannot understand his word, how can you proceed to speak as if you did? This is self refuting. If I hear a foreigner speak and repeat what he said but have no clue of the meaning, how could I argue a case of meaning?...how can you say that your meaning is more correct than mine when you already admit that you have no meaning in the first place? Huh

My dolt of a ex father in law could repeat phrases like a parrot, and had enough brains to use the right phrase for the right occasion.  Even he would know that saying "My condolences" at a wedding would raise eyebrows at the least, but he still couldn't define the words if his life depended on it.

Speaking of parrots....


Quote
I really want to know why all the fuss about words the two churches claim to be unknowable? And if the main complaint is because by being caused by another makes Him not equal, than why is this not also the complaint between the Father and Son, since both churches say that the Father causes the Son?

Quote
Because it reduces the Spirit to the product of the Two sources of the Trinity, and personalizes Him to the relationship between the two, with all sorts of reprecussions.

Quote
Again, this does not address the double standard being done here:
If to be caused by another means to be unequal and therefore offensive as regards to the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit, then why is not this same argument launched against the relationship between the Father and Son, since both churchs believe the Father causes the Son?
Quote
You're the one saying the Spirit is indirect, whereas the Son is direct.  Not I.

Quote
In regard to the origin of the Spirit. I am not saying that the Spirit is an indirect person.

If to be caused is to be depersonalized, then why is not the Son depersonalized in the way that you claim the Latin fathers have done to the Holy Spirit via?

No one, except you, has claimed that to be caused is to be depersonalized.  But to use your words, you believe the Spirit is caused by someone also caused.

Quote
The filiqoue apologist claim the Spirit is the relationship between the Father and the Son (at least some have).  The Father and the Son have a relationship, but neither the Father nor the Son is a relationship, but Persons.

Quote
I have already mentioned what the filioque means: That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The Father as the first source, and the Son and the second. I even produced an analogy.

And outsourced the Spirit.

Quote
And telling me that you have no idea what you are talking about, but know why you don't know does not do anything for your case.

My case was closed in 381.  Not my problem that you dare to think you can improve on the Fathers, and Christ Himself.

Quote
You ask Him His name.  He said "I Am."  Good enough for me.

Quote
I am clueless
Roll Eyes
Quote
That indirect part.  Anything the Son has is begotten of the Father.  That would include a hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Son.

Quote
Since you have offered no clue as to meaning, this has no meaning. How can I reply?

Let all mortal flesh keep silent, and with fear and trembling stand.


Quote
To offer an analogy to answer:

It does not follow that we conflate the lake and the stream if we say that the first origin of the lake is a spring, and that since the river orignates from the spring and flows into a lake, that the lake and river are conflated. Again, the spring causes the river that causes the lake. These 3 are not conflated. In this analogy, the Father represents the spring; the Son the river; and the lake the Holy Spirit.



Quote
For HS lake to flow out of Son river, Father spring would have to beget the river to process into HS lake.  Modellism.

Quote
Saying modellism doesn’t answer anything. Again, how am I suppose to reply?

τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον

Quote
The lake's first direct origin is the spring, but since the water goes through the river before it empties into the lake, then the river becomes the indirect cause.

Quote
The Son in His Person receives nothing from the Person of the Father that is not begotten.  The Spirit is not begotten.

Quote
There you go using words that you claim to not to know. In order to make positive claims, you need to know what the words you are using mean, which, you don’t. You have no light here as to the differences between the words begotten and proceeding. The RC does.

Making it up doesn't make it true.

Quote
There are two questions of mine not being addressed here:

1) If to be caused is such an offense to the dignity of the Holy Spirit, then why does not the Son suffer this same offense since He is caused by the Father?


Again, you are the only one, with the Muslims, claiming to be caused is an offense.

Quote
2) How is that the Son and Holy Spirit are conflated when as was shown by my above analogy, the lake and river are not conflated?

If I throw some aresenic in the river, will you drink from the lake?

Quote
Instead I am told that words without meaning are meaningful.  


No, you are told that their Referent cannot be contained in them.  As an infinite being, evidently, you should know that.

Quote
Answered.

Quote
Not answered. Ignored.

I thought the Vatican was getting away from the claims of having explained everything.

Quote
The Spirit Eternally Proceeds from the Father alone. All else is heresy.

Quote
Anyway, don't you believe at times He proceeds through the Son.  
 

Yes, but that has nothing to do with His Personhood, hypostasis nor filioque.

Quote
Through the Son is not the same as from the Son.  Ekporeusis dia is fine, in fact Orthodox.  Ekporeusis ek, applied to any but the Father, is heresy.

Quote
Straw man, since the RC defines the filiqoue as from the Father through the Son.

What's the Latin for strawman.  You all at the Vatican are fond of that word.

And no, it doesn't.  Check the Latin of the CCC on this matter.

Quote
Here is the problem: you are claiming to know what the writers gave the meaning to their latin words. Since back then, the east and west spoke different languages, confusion was more or less to be expected. Now however, you can look up Augustine’s usage and philosophy regarding these words as well as look up the current ccc. On both counts, from the early Latin church to the present day, the RC DOES not believe that the Son and father are both the first principle. The beauty of the internet is to eliminate these misunderstandings, not to pretend to know what the opposing view’s side mean by their words and setting up a straw man case, BUT listening and researching what they meant by their chosen words and then coming to conclusions.


As has been posted, believing that the Son is a second principle is heresy enough.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 11:20:47 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #117 on: November 28, 2008, 11:23:48 PM »

Quote
Not matter how much you repeat this, it isn't going to get around the problem that if you say the Person of the Spirit comes in any way from the Person of the Son, then He must be partly begotten, as the Son receives from the Father by being begotten.

This does not follow. The difference from being through the Son does not mean that the Holy Spirit is partly begotten, unless you can come up with some idea of what begotten means in the first place. That the Spirit comes through the Son elimnates the sameness of the relationship that He has with the Father as the Son has. Partly the same is not the same as fully the same.

I'll respond to the rest soon, probably.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 11:24:33 PM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #118 on: November 28, 2008, 11:29:14 PM »

If you cannot understand his word, how can you proceed to speak as if you did? This is self refuting. If I hear a foreigner speak and repeat what he said but have no clue of the meaning, how could I argue a case of meaning?...how can you say that your meaning is more correct than mine when you already admit that you have no meaning in the first place?

Quote
My dolt of a ex father in law could repeat phrases like a parrot, and had enough brains to use the right phrase for the right occasion.  Even he would know that saying "My condolences" at a wedding would raise eyebrows at the least, but he still couldn't define the words if his life depended on it.

Speaking of parrots....

This is a sad attempt to defelect the obvious problem with your case as stated in my above. This is almost a sign of giving up, at least the point you tried to address.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,680



« Reply #119 on: November 28, 2008, 11:29:21 PM »

You don't know the difference between these words, so how can you argue? And that words can have more than one meaning is known by everyone. 
Oh please! I waited for you to finish dinner for that?! Cheesy
So are you agreeing with Marc Hanna that εκπορευεται and procedit mean different things, and therefore the Roman Catholics subscribe to a different Creed than the Fathers of the Nicean-Constantinoplian Councils? You're doing my work for me!


Two words that are spelled differently can mean the same thing. Two words that are spelled the same can have different meanings. The only way to find out what the church means by using proceeding is to ask the church; NOT to dream up what you would like them to have meant a la straw man. You set a position that the RC does not hold in order to attack it. Straw man.

I have already insisted that anyone concerned can look in the ccc or read Augustine ideas concerning the Latin's usage of the filioque. But knowing the truth of the Latin church's position is far from what is being sought here. You just want to set up a division at any cost, even to the point of misrepresenting RC position.

I am rusty here, but I even think that the RC does not mind if the eastern churches exclude the filioque because they are sensitive to the possible language misunderstangs that have happened in the past. The charity from the east on this misunderstanding is not returned, but used as a strawn man in order to attack and seperate.

Yeah, we got this hangup in the East of saying what we mean and meaning what we say.  Believing one thing and saying another doesn't sit well with us.

Btw, through the Son is a Patre per Filium procedere, NOT (according to the CCC wording) ex Patre Filióque procédit.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #120 on: November 28, 2008, 11:31:59 PM »

Quote
No one, except you, has claimed that to be caused is to be depersonalized.  But to use your words, you believe the Spirit is caused by someone also caused.

To use my words would be to say that the Holy Spirit has His first source from the Father and then through the Son.

You object the filioque because you think that it places the Holy Spirit beneath the Son right?
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 11:53:19 PM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #121 on: November 28, 2008, 11:33:12 PM »

Quote
And outsourced the Spirit.

What in the world are you talking about?
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #122 on: November 28, 2008, 11:35:38 PM »

Quote
Let all mortal flesh keep silent, and with fear and trembling stand.

Really, I thought it more to misrepresent a churches position in order to attack it a la straw man?

There is no doubt that you are keeping silent on the meaning of your words you use whereas the RC shed light.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,680



« Reply #123 on: November 28, 2008, 11:37:01 PM »

If you cannot understand his word, how can you proceed to speak as if you did? This is self refuting. If I hear a foreigner speak and repeat what he said but have no clue of the meaning, how could I argue a case of meaning?

Ever hear of a phrase book?

Of course, you trust that the person writing it speaks both languages and gets it right (I've seen phrase books that don't).

God the Word, incarnated, with the communication of the idioms tells us in human speech that the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.  As He is our only informant, and we are in no position, not consubstantial with divinity, to correct Him, we take his word on it.

Quote
..how can you say that your meaning is more correct than mine when you already admit that you have no meaning in the first place?


You are the one trying to empty it of meaning, not us.

Quote
My dolt of a ex father in law could repeat phrases like a parrot, and had enough brains to use the right phrase for the right occasion.  Even he would know that saying "My condolences" at a wedding would raise eyebrows at the least, but he still couldn't define the words if his life depended on it.

Speaking of parrots....

Quote
This is a sad attempt to defelect the obvious problem with your case as stated in my above. This is almost a sign of giving up, at least the point you tried to address.
Whatever helps you digest dinner...
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #124 on: November 28, 2008, 11:38:39 PM »

2) How is that the Son and Holy Spirit are conflated when as was shown by my above analogy, the lake and river are not conflated?

Quote
If I throw some aresenic in the river, will you drink from the lake?

I suspect that you have been just joking for I have no idea where you have been going with your replies. They appear to be a sad attempt to avoid the obvious. I will only answer questions that you seem to be asking or statements that you are serious on or have a serious point.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #125 on: November 28, 2008, 11:40:02 PM »

Quote
The Spirit Eternally Proceeds from the Father alone. All else is heresy.



Anyway, don't you believe at times He proceeds through the Son. 
 

Quote
Yes...


 Huh Huh Huh Huh Huh Huh
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,680



« Reply #126 on: November 28, 2008, 11:40:35 PM »

Quote
Let all mortal flesh keep silent, and with fear and trembling stand.

Really, I thought it more to misrepresent a churches position in order to attack it a la straw man?

There is no doubt that you are keeping silent on the meaning of your words you use whereas the RC shed light.

I've never seen arson refered to as "shedding light."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,680



« Reply #127 on: November 28, 2008, 11:43:35 PM »

2) How is that the Son and Holy Spirit are conflated when as was shown by my above analogy, the lake and river are not conflated?

Quote
If I throw some aresenic in the river, will you drink from the lake?

I suspect that you have been just joking for I have no idea where you have been going with your replies. They appear to be a sad attempt to avoid the obvious. I will only answer questions that you seem to be asking or statements that you are serious on or have a serious point.

God chose what is foolish to confound the wise.  That's what tripped up the Grand Inquistor, and the Pharisees before him.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #128 on: November 28, 2008, 11:51:21 PM »

Quote
As has been posted, believing that the Son is a second principle is heresy enough

It's a question of authority. Your believe one way, the RC the other. Who is the final court of appeal? For the first 1000 years, it was the RC.

Why exactly is having the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son hereitcal? The reasons you have provided here are incoherent to me. You think otherwise. I believe I have shown not only that your words were meaningless, and you grant this, but how the RC actually shows the way for a distinction. You claim your darkness is because God has not shed light; whereas I claim that He has shed light via the RC.

You claim that the river and lake are conflated since they both have the spring as their first source. NO one thinks that lakes and rivers are the same. You are alone here, but have to maintain that in order to secure the seperatism.

Again: lakes are not rivers.

I think that my case has been made, and what's the point in continuing?
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #129 on: November 28, 2008, 11:52:35 PM »

Two words that are spelled differently can mean the same thing. Two words that are spelled the same can have different meanings.
That's nice.

The only way to find out what the church means by using proceeding is to ask the church; NOT to dream up what you would like them to have meant a la straw man.
Let me repeat:
The word used in the Creed is "εκπορευομενον" (pronounced "ekporevOmenon").
The root verb of this word is "εκπορευω" (pronounced "ekporevO") meaning "I cause to go forth". Thus "εκπορευομενον" means "caused to go forth from". The Creed says that the Holy Spirit is "το εκ του Πατρος εκπορευομενον" which transliterates as "The One out of the Father caused to go forth from". To add the filioque makes it read: "The one out of both the Father and the Son caused to go forth from" which is heresy.

You set a position that the RC does not hold in order to attack it. Straw man.
Excuse me, but I'm actually not the one who claimed that the phrases "τον εκ του Πατρος εκπορευομενον" and "qui ex Patre procedit" mean different things. I'm actually saying that they mean the same thing, i.e. That the Holy Spirit goes forth from the Father; which makes the filioque clearly heresy. What I am saying is that to try and claim that these phrases mean different things in order to defend the filioque means that the original meaning of the Creed has changed in Latin hands (which it hasn't, apart from the heretical adding of the filioque). Face it, you guys say that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, contrary to the Church Fathers of the Nicean-Constantinoplian Synods. That's fine, believe whatever you want- but just don't keep trying to justify it to we who hold the Orthodox Faith of the Church.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 11:54:43 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #130 on: November 28, 2008, 11:56:41 PM »

Quote
Ever hear of a phrase book?

Of course, you trust that the person writing it speaks both languages and gets it right (I've seen phrase books that don't).

God the Word, incarnated, with the communication of the idioms tells us in human speech that the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.  As He is our only informant, and we are in no position, not consubstantial with divinity, to correct Him, we take his word on it.

You would have a case if the Bible said: The Holy Spirit in no way has come from the Father through the Son. But it does not. So you try to deduce these major truths from inference while you claim to be darkness about.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #131 on: November 29, 2008, 12:02:03 AM »

Quote
Face it, you guys say that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, contrary to the Church Fathers of the Nicean-Constantinoplian Synods. That's fine, believe whatever you want- but just don't keep trying to justify it to we who hold the Orthodox Faith of the Church.

If you read what the church fathers were saying about the filioque (Augustine) you'd see the current ccc agrees. You are trying to alter what they meant by what you would have them say. The misunderstanding then is noted by many OC scholars today. The meanings were confused due to the west speaking Latin and the east Greek. What excuse do you have now that you can't research Augustine etc and find their context?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 12:04:45 AM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #132 on: November 29, 2008, 12:06:21 AM »

You would have a case if the Bible said: The Holy Spirit in no way has come from the Father through the Son. But it does not. So you try to deduce these major truths from inference while you claim to be darkness about.
Are you listening to yourself? The Fathers of the Nicean-Constantinoplian Synods actually did have access to the Gospel and Epistles (believe it or not). The Undivided Church in an Ecumenical Council laid out the Creed and it and subsequent Councils decreed that it was never to be altered. Now you are telling us that you have the right to alter it based on your interpretation of the Bible. Sorry, but I think I'll take the opinion of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church over yours.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #133 on: November 29, 2008, 12:16:44 AM »

Quote
Now you are telling us that you have the right to alter it based on your interpretation of the Bible

This brings up an interesting point. My interpretation. You say you believe the way you do because God told you. I can say the same thing, which would cancel your case.

Yet this is precisely what has been told to me here as a defense of not knowing meanings of words and beliefs. Do you guys listen to yourselves?

The creed was not changed, but clarified. The filioque was already in the western church father's mouth centuries before it was added to the creed. Back then, Rome was the center and first. First among equals as you would say. But I guess they were always wrong eh?  Wink
 Earlychurch, you have had plenty of time to respond to the request made of you in July, in this post: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,17374.msg273145.html#msg273145

After you do so, you may continue in your ineffectual defense of your claims made in this thread, which you resurrected yourself while impersonating a 'new poster' interested in this topic.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 12:25:34 AM by FrChris » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #134 on: November 29, 2008, 12:37:36 AM »

This brings up an interesting point. My interpretation. You say you believe the way you do because God told you. I can say the same thing, which would cancel your case.
No you can't claim the same thing. I claim the unified decrees of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, your claim is based on a schismatic group calling itself "the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", but is, in effect, the first Protestants.

The creed was not changed, but clarified.

Stop! You're killing me!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tags: filioque Seleucia 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.174 seconds with 72 queries.