OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 17, 2014, 06:00:11 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Christological issues  (Read 3694 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
GammaRay
The Awful Preacher
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 574


Alexandros Papadiamantis


« on: January 25, 2010, 12:13:45 PM »

Jesus Christ had a human body; could He choose to give into the temptation?

He also had a human soul. Therefore, if both the body and the soul were of human nature, where exactly was the Divine Essence in our Lord?

Thanks in advance and good luck with the Great Lent! Smiley
Logged

Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2010, 01:09:43 PM »

Jesus Christ had a human body; could He choose to give into the temptation?

He also had a human soul. Therefore, if both the body and the soul were of human nature, where exactly was the Divine Essence in our Lord?

Thanks in advance and good luck with the Great Lent! Smiley

What He had by nature, we gain through adoption. Jesus' humanity was united with the Divine Nature... a Nature not simply shared with Him as it is shared with us but wholly His own.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
BoredMeeting
Loving the Life of a Council Member
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox/OCA
Posts: 720



« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2010, 02:54:13 PM »

Jesus Christ had a human body; could He choose to give into the temptation?
It certainly appears that Satan believed He could.
Logged
AWR
Greetings from the Southern Jersey Shore.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 240


Expelled from Paradise


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2010, 03:16:15 PM »

Jesus Christ had a human body; could He choose to give into the temptation?


The Church teaches that "As a man Jesus experienced all normal and natural human experiences such as growth and development, ignorance and learning, hunger, thirst, fatigue, sorrow, pain, and disappointment. He also knew human temptation, suffering, and death. He took these things upon himself for us men and for our salvation."

Christ has entered the world becoming like all men in all things except sin. He was tempted, but he did not sin. You ask, could He choose to give into the temptation? He was fully human, but why would he? Are you asking could God sin if he wanted? One should know the definition of sin to know the answer. This must be one of those logic questions.

Logged
GammaRay
The Awful Preacher
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 574


Alexandros Papadiamantis


« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2010, 04:14:56 PM »

Hmm, right. He could not actually sin, since no action could take Him away from God, being God Himself. But I believe that His human will along with His human body could make Him murder someone (for no good reason), PROVIDED His Divine nature would allow this.

Thank you for those replies. Anyone to answer my other question?
Cheers!
Logged

Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2010, 04:27:11 PM »

Hmm, right. He could not actually sin, since no action could take Him away from God, being God Himself. But I believe that His human will along with His human body could make Him murder someone (for no good reason), PROVIDED His Divine nature would allow this.

Thank you for those replies. Anyone to answer my other question?
Cheers!

Do you think that there was simply no possibility of falling into error with Jesus? If so how are we to recognize them as true temptations?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2010, 04:35:34 PM »


Jesus Christ had a human body; could He choose to give into the temptation?

It would have defied the hypostatic union if He had. Men can sin. God cannot. If somehow (hypothetically) Jesus had sinned it would have resulted in the Logos being, to some degree, separated from the humanity, breaking the hypostatic union apart. That would, in actuality, have been an impossibility. Jesus could not have sinned because He is the Logos.


He also had a human soul. Therefore, if both the body and the soul were of human nature, where exactly was the Divine Essence in our Lord?

Indwelling and perfectly subsisting in both. The Divine Essence is not naturally circumscribed. It is at once (paradoxically) nowhere and everywhere. As such, to answer the question of "where" it was with respect to the hypostatic union, the answer must be that the Divine Essence was everywhere His human essence was, they were perfectly united. In every "fiber" of Christ's humanity was also His divinity.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2010, 04:36:54 PM »

Jesus Christ had a human body; could He choose to give into the temptation?
It certainly appears that Satan believed He could.

Satan also appeared to have believed that death could hold Him (if we are to believe the ransom theory of atonement). His fallibility seems pretty apparent.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2010, 04:38:09 PM »


But I believe that His human will along with His human body could make Him murder someone (for no good reason), PROVIDED His Divine nature would allow this.

You're sounding a little Nestorian now.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,406


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #9 on: January 26, 2010, 02:10:41 AM »


But I believe that His human will along with His human body could make Him murder someone (for no good reason), PROVIDED His Divine nature would allow this.

You're sounding a little Nestorian now.
Or else he's trying to reconcile his thought with the witness of St. Maximos the Confessor and of the 5th through 7th Ecumenical Councils of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which declared that Christ has two wills, one human and one divine, and that His human will works in perfect synergy with His divine will such that they can be thought of as perfectly one and the same.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 02:11:29 AM by PeterTheAleut » 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 #10 on: January 26, 2010, 02:19:22 AM »

His human will works in perfect synergy with His divine will such that they can be thought of as perfectly one and the same.
I think we need to be careful here. If the the Two Wills can be thought of as "perfectly one and the same", then there would have been no Agony in the Garden of Gesthemane, but there was (Luke 22:44)
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 02:19:33 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 26, 2010, 02:57:48 AM »


But I believe that His human will along with His human body could make Him murder someone (for no good reason), PROVIDED His Divine nature would allow this.

You're sounding a little Nestorian now.
Or else he's trying to reconcile his thought with the witness of St. Maximos the Confessor and of the 5th through 7th Ecumenical Councils of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which declared that Christ has two wills, one human and one divine, and that His human will works in perfect synergy with His divine will such that they can be thought of as perfectly one and the same.

Perhaps you don't understand what I am saying. He is speaking of the human nature and the divine nature as if they are distinct subjects. To say "the human body could make Him murder someone provided His divine nature would allow this" is speaking as if there are two consciences that need to work in cooperation with each other, having naturally different desires but accomplishing the same thing because of an agreement. We cannot view the Incarnate Logos in this way. Even if Jesus perhaps had a murderous temptation and a divine repulsion to this it would have to be an internal struggle with Himself, rather than two natures struggling with each other.

The idea is flawed in ways other than just that, because is against the good nature of God to commit sin. Even if Jesus was tempted to commit murder we must believe that He would never ultimately submit to such a temptation, because His power as God would always overcome such a temptation.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 26, 2010, 02:59:19 AM »


His human will works in perfect synergy with His divine will such that they can be thought of as perfectly one and the same.
I think we need to be careful here. If the the Two Wills can be thought of as "perfectly one and the same", then there would have been no Agony in the Garden of Gesthemane, but there was (Luke 22:44)

A theandric will would have resulted in the Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
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 #13 on: January 26, 2010, 03:04:47 AM »


His human will works in perfect synergy with His divine will such that they can be thought of as perfectly one and the same.
I think we need to be careful here. If the the Two Wills can be thought of as "perfectly one and the same", then there would have been no Agony in the Garden of Gesthemane, but there was (Luke 22:44)

A theandric will would have resulted in the Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Thats because the Theanthropos has Two distinct Wills. If there was only one, there would be no difference between the Wills, and hence no Agony.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 03:05:00 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,406


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #14 on: January 26, 2010, 03:42:06 AM »


But I believe that His human will along with His human body could make Him murder someone (for no good reason), PROVIDED His Divine nature would allow this.

You're sounding a little Nestorian now.
Or else he's trying to reconcile his thought with the witness of St. Maximos the Confessor and of the 5th through 7th Ecumenical Councils of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which declared that Christ has two wills, one human and one divine, and that His human will works in perfect synergy with His divine will such that they can be thought of as perfectly one and the same.

Perhaps you don't understand what I am saying. He is speaking of the human nature and the divine nature as if they are distinct subjects. To say "the human body could make Him murder someone provided His divine nature would allow this" is speaking as if there are two consciences that need to work in cooperation with each other, having naturally different desires but accomplishing the same thing because of an agreement. We cannot view the Incarnate Logos in this way. Even if Jesus perhaps had a murderous temptation and a divine repulsion to this it would have to be an internal struggle with Himself, rather than two natures struggling with each other.

The idea is flawed in ways other than just that, because is against the good nature of God to commit sin. Even if Jesus was tempted to commit murder we must believe that He would never ultimately submit to such a temptation, because His power as God would always overcome such a temptation.
Now that you put it that way, I can see and agree with your point of view that what GammaRay said sounds a bit Nestorian. Wink  But I still hold to my belief that he may be trying to reconcile his conception of Christ with Church teaching, but that's more a question of what he's thinking, which I don't have the telepathy to really know beyond what he has revealed here.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 03:44:51 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2010, 03:45:21 AM »


His human will works in perfect synergy with His divine will such that they can be thought of as perfectly one and the same.
I think we need to be careful here. If the the Two Wills can be thought of as "perfectly one and the same", then there would have been no Agony in the Garden of Gesthemane, but there was (Luke 22:44)

A theandric will would have resulted in the Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Thats because the Theanthropos has Two distinct Wills. If there was only one, there would be no difference between the Wills, and hence no Agony.

I don't think there necessarily needs to be a difference between the wills. I don't see how the one theandric will according to hypostasis taught by Severus of Antioch fails to qualify the Agony? (note that I am saying this having before expressed on these forums an attraction to the idea two wills existing in and exercised by one hypostasis)
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
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 #16 on: January 26, 2010, 04:12:03 AM »


His human will works in perfect synergy with His divine will such that they can be thought of as perfectly one and the same.
I think we need to be careful here. If the the Two Wills can be thought of as "perfectly one and the same", then there would have been no Agony in the Garden of Gesthemane, but there was (Luke 22:44)

A theandric will would have resulted in the Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Thats because the Theanthropos has Two distinct Wills. If there was only one, there would be no difference between the Wills, and hence no Agony.

I don't think there necessarily needs to be a difference between the wills. I don't see how the one theandric will according to hypostasis taught by Severus of Antioch fails to qualify the Agony? (note that I am saying this having before expressed on these forums an attraction to the idea two wills existing in and exercised by one hypostasis)
The problem is this: If only one will were operating in Christ, then the Divine and Human Wills were commingled to create a "new will" which did not exist before. It would not be the same Will whereby Christ humbled Himself to become man, because the instant it was commingled with the Human Will, it became a different Will, and the former ceased to exist. Also, if we take the position that the Incarnate Christ has only one will, then we must conclude that that one will is something different to the Divine Will of God; and we must also conclude that Two of the Hypostases of the Trinity have Wills which are not in accord because in the Agony in Gethsemane, He prays: “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.” (Matthew 26:39)
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2010, 04:25:43 AM »


His human will works in perfect synergy with His divine will such that they can be thought of as perfectly one and the same.
I think we need to be careful here. If the the Two Wills can be thought of as "perfectly one and the same", then there would have been no Agony in the Garden of Gesthemane, but there was (Luke 22:44)

A theandric will would have resulted in the Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Thats because the Theanthropos has Two distinct Wills. If there was only one, there would be no difference between the Wills, and hence no Agony.

I don't think there necessarily needs to be a difference between the wills. I don't see how the one theandric will according to hypostasis taught by Severus of Antioch fails to qualify the Agony? (note that I am saying this having before expressed on these forums an attraction to the idea two wills existing in and exercised by one hypostasis)
The problem is this: If only one will were operating in Christ, then the Divine and Human Wills were commingled to create a "new will" which did not exist before. It would not be the same Will whereby Christ humbled Himself to become man, because the instant it was commingled with the Human Will, it became a different Will, and the former ceased to exist. Also, if we take the position that the Incarnate Christ has only one will, then we must conclude that that one will is something different to the Divine Will of God; and we must also conclude that Two of the Hypostases of the Trinity have Wills which are not in accord because in the Agony in Gethsemane, He prays: “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.” (Matthew 26:39)

If the theanthropic hypostasis of the Word is not a different hypostasis than the the one of the Logos before the Incarnation then why do you assume that the idea of Him having one theandric will must result in it being a different will than the one the Word had before the Incarnation?
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 04:25:55 AM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
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 #18 on: January 26, 2010, 04:58:34 AM »


His human will works in perfect synergy with His divine will such that they can be thought of as perfectly one and the same.
I think we need to be careful here. If the the Two Wills can be thought of as "perfectly one and the same", then there would have been no Agony in the Garden of Gesthemane, but there was (Luke 22:44)

A theandric will would have resulted in the Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Thats because the Theanthropos has Two distinct Wills. If there was only one, there would be no difference between the Wills, and hence no Agony.

I don't think there necessarily needs to be a difference between the wills. I don't see how the one theandric will according to hypostasis taught by Severus of Antioch fails to qualify the Agony? (note that I am saying this having before expressed on these forums an attraction to the idea two wills existing in and exercised by one hypostasis)
The problem is this: If only one will were operating in Christ, then the Divine and Human Wills were commingled to create a "new will" which did not exist before. It would not be the same Will whereby Christ humbled Himself to become man, because the instant it was commingled with the Human Will, it became a different Will, and the former ceased to exist. Also, if we take the position that the Incarnate Christ has only one will, then we must conclude that that one will is something different to the Divine Will of God; and we must also conclude that Two of the Hypostases of the Trinity have Wills which are not in accord because in the Agony in Gethsemane, He prays: “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.” (Matthew 26:39)

If the theanthropic hypostasis of the Word is not a different hypostasis than the the one of the Logos before the Incarnation then why do you assume that the idea of Him having one theandric will must result in it being a different will than the one the Word had before the Incarnation?
For the reason I explained above. I'm sorry if I was unclear (I'm notorious for that). Let me try again, this time with a table:


                                                        PRE-INCARNATE CHRIST               INCARNATE CHRIST




"ONE WILL"  
                               One Divine Will                   Divine Will mixes with Human Will
                                                                                           to make a new "Theanthropic will",
                                                                                           the Divine Will has changed,
                                                                                           hence in the Agony in the Garden,
                                                                                           Christ's one Will is different to the Father's
                                                                                           and is also different to ours,
                                                                                           and resembles neither our Will nor the Divine Will of God.

                                                                                          

"TWO WILLS"  
                            One Divine Will                   Divine Will and Human Will coexist
                                                                                            in one hypostasis.
                                                                                            The Divine Will has not changed
                                                                                            hence in the Agony in the Garden
                                                                                            Christ's Human Will remains human
                                                                                            and seeks to align with the Divine Will.
                                                                                            Christ is teaching us that its OK and human
                                                                                            not to want to suffer and die.
                                                                                            The Divine Will is like the Father's
                                                                                            The Human Will is like ours.
                                                                                            The alignment of the Human Will with the Divine Will
                                                                                            is what we should also seek.


« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 04:59:30 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 26, 2010, 05:16:38 AM »


For the reason I explained above.

That statement cannot be taken literally in any way, shape, or form. I know it is popular in EO apologetics. But it doesn't hold water because of the fact that the Incarnate Logos is always also with a divine will. Thus, it does not make literal sense to say "not as I will", because at the very least one of His wills is perfectly the same as the Father's at all time.


Divine Will mixes with Human Will

The hypostatic union makes it very clear that union does not necessitate mixture.


the Divine Will has changed,

No more than the divine nature "changed" as a result of the hypostatic union.


Christ's one Will is different to the Father's
and is also different to ours,
and resembles neither our Will nor the Divine Will of God.

Or it is consubstantial to the Father's and ours just as His hypostasis is consubstantial with the Father's and with ours.


Christ's Human Will remains human
and seeks to align with the Divine Will.

"Christ's human will" seeks nothing. It is non-subjective.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
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 #20 on: January 26, 2010, 05:35:13 AM »


For the reason I explained above.

That statement cannot be taken literally in any way, shape, or form. I know it is popular in EO apologetics. But it doesn't hold water because of the fact that the Incarnate Logos is always also with a divine will. Thus, it does not make literal sense to say "not as I will", because at the very least one of His wills is perfectly the same as the Father's at all time.
Look again at the table I did for you above. A "thandric will" is neither a Divine Will nor a Human Will, but is a completely unique "will", neither like ours nor like God's. Christ therefore differs from us not only in being sinless, but also in having a different will to ours. And since only what He assumed can be saved, He cannot heal our Human wills.


Divine Will mixes with Human Will

The hypostatic union makes it very clear that union does not necessitate mixture.
That is because the Hypostatic Union is a union of Two Natures which remain Two Natures in one Hypostasis. Hypostatic Union does not require "Miaphysis", nor is it equivalent to that term. A circle divided by a line through it's diameter can either be thought of as two semicircles or one circle, but they look exactly the same. Hypostatic Union says its two semicircles, "Miaphysitism" says it is one circle divided by a diameter.


the Divine Will has changed,

No more than the divine nature "changed" as a result of the hypostatic union.
The Divine Nature didn't change at all as a result of the Hypostatic Union. It remained the Divine Nature and was joined to a Human Nature. Miaphysitism requires Monothelitism, the Hypostatic Union does not require Monothelitism.


Christ's one Will is different to the Father's
and is also different to ours,
and resembles neither our Will nor the Divine Will of God.

Or it is consubstantial to the Father's and ours just as His hypostasis is consubstantial with the Father's and with ours.
A Will cannot be "consubstantial" with anything since it has neither Substance nor Ousia nor Physis. It either is a Human Will or it is a Divine Will. It cannot be both.


Christ's Human Will remains human
and seeks to align with the Divine Will.

"Christ's human will" seeks nothing. It is non-subjective.
[/quote]
You'll have to explain what you mean here.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2010, 06:16:33 AM »


A "thandric will" is neither a Divine Will nor a Human Will,

You can say this. But what makes it true? I have had it explained to me otherwise. If a theanthropic hypostasis is a hypostasis that is both human and divine then why can't a theandric will likewise be both human and divine?


That is because the Hypostatic Union is a union of Two Natures which remain Two Natures in one Hypostasis.

That talk is largely non-sensical. "Union" means making one. If two natures are united the logical conclusion is that the result is one nature.


Hypostatic Union does not require "Miaphysis", nor is it equivalent to that term.

No, it doesn't. But speaking of the hypostatic union being of two natures which are united requires some form of Miaphysitism.


A circle divided by a line through it's diameter can either be thought of as two semicircles or one circle, but they look exactly the same. Hypostatic Union says its two semicircles, "Miaphysitism" says it is one circle divided by a diameter.

I can't wrap my mind around this metaphor.


The Divine Nature didn't change at all as a result of the Hypostatic Union.

Well, I certainly don't think so. But I was trying to make the logical connection that if you think the Logos' will being united to that of the humanity He assumed requires a "change" in His original will, then it would appear that logically the Logos' nature being united to that of the humanity He assumed likewise requires a change of His original nature.


Miaphysitism requires Monothelitism,

I don't think so. Not if the human will and divine will are understood as properties within the one nature. Properties remain distinct in the natural union.


A Will cannot be "consubstantial" with anything since it has neither Substance nor Ousia nor Physis.

A substance is what something is made up of. The substance of a will is the various desires that come together to make it what it typologically is.


It either is a Human Will or it is a Divine Will. It cannot be both.

You keep saying that but have yet to show evidence of it. I could make the same arbitrary claim about hypostases (as the Nestorians do) and you would just have to sit there and do I don't know what with it.


You'll have to explain what you mean here.

A will does not act. It does not seek. It does not strive. It does not hunger. It does not do anything. Only to the hypostasis that possesses the will can be attributed such an action as "seek".
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 06:16:52 AM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
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 #22 on: January 26, 2010, 06:54:33 AM »

Quote
That is because the Hypostatic Union is a union of Two Natures which remain Two Natures in one Hypostasis.
That talk is largely non-sensical.
OK. Lets examine it.

"Union" means making one.
Does it? And does "making one" mean that something new is "made" which is different to either of the first two?

If two natures are united the logical conclusion is that the result is one nature.
If a man and a woman are united in marriage, do they "logically" become a hermaphrodite?
You talk about "union without commingling", and yet you cannot conceive of a union without commingling.

Only to the hypostasis that possesses the will can be attributed such an action as "seek".
A missile "seeks" its target. Your autonomic nervous system "seeks" to oxygenate your blood. You breath while you sleep, not by an act of will of your hypostasis, but as an act of your brain stem "seeking" to keep you alive. A will can "seek", and it doesn't even have to be a conscious decision of a human hypostasis.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 07:27:45 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GammaRay
The Awful Preacher
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 574


Alexandros Papadiamantis


« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2010, 12:54:31 PM »

This topic is getting much interesting...!

For the record, I didn't want to speak as a Nestorian (if I did). I believe that He, as God, was able to allow His human nature to sin (though it didn't happen). Then again, it would have been because of the Divine that the human was allowed to act.

And, by the way, by representing each Nature in Jesus Christ as a semi-circle, makes Him a demi-god. There were two circles: a fully human and a fully Divine.
Logged

Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.
AWR
Greetings from the Southern Jersey Shore.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 240


Expelled from Paradise


WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 27, 2010, 02:53:39 PM »

Is this not what makes Christianity wonderfull?
Quote
... though He was in the form of God, [Jesus] did not count equality with God a thing to be clung to, but emptied Himself, taking on the form of a servant, being found in the likeness of men. And being found in human form He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross (Phil 2:6-8; See also Heb 1-2, Jn 1).

"For salvation itself requires the perfect union of Divinity and Humanity in the one Person of Jesus Christ; a union where God is God and Man is Man, and yet where the two become one in perfect unity: without fusion or change, and without division or separation." From Fr Hopko. (http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=19)


The incarnation is not easy to think about logicaly, but it is comforting.
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 11,903


St. Hripsimeh pray for us!


« Reply #25 on: January 27, 2010, 03:36:31 PM »

If two natures are united the logical conclusion is that the result is one nature.
If a man and a woman are united in marriage, do they "logically" become a hermaphrodite?
You talk about "union without commingling", and yet you cannot conceive of a union without commingling.



George,

No offense intended toward you or Rafa, but you're sounding a little like Rafa:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg391683.html#msg391683

You know commingling is not what we believe.
Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
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 #26 on: January 28, 2010, 08:31:35 AM »

If two natures are united the logical conclusion is that the result is one nature.
If a man and a woman are united in marriage, do they "logically" become a hermaphrodite?
You talk about "union without commingling", and yet you cannot conceive of a union without commingling.



George,

No offense intended toward you or Rafa, but you're sounding a little like Rafa:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg391683.html#msg391683

You know commingling is not what we believe.
Hang on a minute Salpy- who is "we"? You mean the Non-Chalcedonians? What has that to do with anything? I am talking with deusveritasest about what he or she thinks. Does deusveritasest speak on behalf of all Non-Chalcedonians? I have no idea what any poster called "Rafa" has been saying, and frankly I'm not interested in finding out. I do find it telling though that you immediately went on the defensive and started talking about "we the non-Chalcedonians" as soon as I mentioned Monothelitism.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 08:31:58 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 11,903


St. Hripsimeh pray for us!


« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2010, 10:47:56 PM »

Read again what I was responding to.  I was responding to a specific characterization you made about the statement "If two natures are united the logical conclusion is that the result is one nature."  Nowhere in the quote I responded to was Monothelitism specifically mentioned, although it was discussed above.  You have on at least one previous occasion I can remember, alleged that the OO's believe in a confused or different nature: 

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19081.msg282636.html#msg282636

I felt that you were again making that allegation.  Forgive me if I misread you.
Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
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 #28 on: January 29, 2010, 04:14:58 AM »

Read again what I was responding to. 
Read again what I was responding to Salpy.
Let me reiterate for you:
1) deusveritasest insisted that the Hypostatic Union requires that Christ have only one Will because he has only one Nature (in the "miaphysite" posiition).
2) Using the example of marriage, I pointed out that the Hypostatic Union does not require only one Nature, (and therefore does not require only one will).
3) The conclusion is that if Christ has only one will, it is something completely new, neither fully human nor fully divine, and we are stuck with the problem of the Agony in Gesthemane.
My point, Salpy, is that the Hypostatic Union does not require one nature and one will as deusveritasest is claiming.

I can see why this is a touchy subject, because while Miaphysitism solves a lot of Christological differences between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians, it doesn't solve the issue of the Two Wills as defined by St. Maximos the Confessor and ratified for the Chalcedonians in their Ecumenical Councils.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 11,903


St. Hripsimeh pray for us!


« Reply #29 on: January 30, 2010, 03:40:31 AM »

Read again what I was responding to. 
Read again what I was responding to Salpy.
Let me reiterate for you:
1) deusveritasest insisted that the Hypostatic Union requires that Christ have only one Will because he has only one Nature (in the "miaphysite" posiition).
2) Using the example of marriage, I pointed out that the Hypostatic Union does not require only one Nature, (and therefore does not require only one will).

Are you comparing the union of divinity and humanity in Christ to the union of a man and woman in marriage?  Isn't that two persons?


Quote
3) The conclusion is that if Christ has only one will, it is something completely new, neither fully human nor fully divine, and we are stuck with the problem of the Agony in Gesthemane.
My point, Salpy, is that the Hypostatic Union does not require one nature and one will as deusveritasest is claiming.

I can see why this is a touchy subject, because while Miaphysitism solves a lot of Christological differences between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians, it doesn't solve the issue of the Two Wills as defined by St. Maximos the Confessor and ratified for the Chalcedonians in their Ecumenical Councils.


The question of Christ's will has always confused me, but it is currently being explained in a thread in the OO section:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25645.msg404350.html#top

Others there are explaining it better than I ever could.
Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #30 on: January 30, 2010, 03:56:02 AM »

There is no such thing as a "Nestorian".
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
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 #31 on: January 30, 2010, 04:16:35 AM »

Are you comparing the union of divinity and humanity in Christ to the union of a man and woman in marriage?
No. I was actually making the point that the Hypostatic Union (singular hypostasis) does not require "Miaphysitism" (singular Natiure ) any more than a marriage (singular) requires a man and a woman to become a hermaphrodite (singular).

Isn't that two persons?
Oh I see. You meant to suggest like most non-Chalcedonians that the Eastern Orthodox are Nestorians. Sorry to mess up your attempted insult to Eastern Orthodoxy.

The question of Christ's will has always confused me,
I'm not surprised. If you think that One Hypostasis requires one nature, you're bound to get confused.

but it is currently being explained in a thread in the OO section:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25645.msg404350.html#top
You mean the thread where you have strictly forbidden anyone to speak who accepts the teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils- that thread? Well, I'd like to respond to some of the errors I see in it, but you have forbidden it remember?:
Note:  I want the explanation to come from a knowledgeable OO.  I do not want a non-OO to give an explanation of what OO's believe from his own Church's perspective, and I especially don't want anyone to come here and make accusations, mischaracterizations, or arguments.  Any such posts will be kicked into the private forum.  Anyone who wants to debate the issue can join an ongoing discussion in another section:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25603.msg403291/topicseen.html#top

I will let non-OO's ask questions in this thread about our beliefs, but not in a polemical manner.  I just want an explanation and a light discussion.  Not the usual mess that these things end up in.

Thank you everyone for your anticipated cooperation.   Smiley
« Last Edit: January 30, 2010, 04:42:45 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 11,903


St. Hripsimeh pray for us!


« Reply #32 on: January 30, 2010, 05:33:19 AM »

Isn't that two persons?
Oh I see. You meant to suggest like most non-Chalcedonians that the Eastern Orthodox are Nestorians. Sorry to mess up your attempted insult to Eastern Orthodoxy.

I said no such thing and I meant no such thing.  I was asking for clarification.  No need to get a bee in your bonnet.   Smiley



Quote
You mean that thread where you have strictly forbidden anyone to speak who accepts the teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils- that thread? Well, I'd like to respond to some of the errors I see in it, but you have forbidden it remember?:
Note:  I want the explanation to come from a knowledgeable OO.  I do not want a non-OO to give an explanation of what OO's believe from his own Church's perspective, and I especially don't want anyone to come here and make accusations, mischaracterizations, or arguments.  Any such posts will be kicked into the private forum.  Anyone who wants to debate the issue can join an ongoing discussion in another section:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25603.msg403291/topicseen.html#top

I will let non-OO's ask questions in this thread about our beliefs, but not in a polemical manner.  I just want an explanation and a light discussion.  Not the usual mess that these things end up in.

Thank you everyone for your anticipated cooperation.   Smiley


If you read the green warning you just quoted, I did not "strictly forbid anyone to speak who accepts the teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils."  I in fact explicitly said that the Seven Council People could post there, as long as they didn't start saying the usual nasty, polemical, lying types of things that often get posted in these threads.  We have enough examples of that in the private forum, and that is why the private forum exists.  Polite discourse can take place in the OO section, but direct attacks which mischaracterize what we believe goes into private, pursuant to rules established by others than myself.  

As it is, I've been pretty liberal in allowing a certain amount of rude attacks against the OO's to remain in the public OO section.  A recent example from just this month is the thread where we OO's wanted to discuss an apparition which happened at a Coptic church in Egypt.  I allowed some EO's to enter the thread and tell us that the apparition must have been satanic, false, evil, etc., since God would never allow a real apparition to happen to OO's, etc.  

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24926.45.html

I eventually told the Seven Council People to knock it off, but only after allowing more than I probably should have.  One wonders how long OO's would be similarly tolerated if a number of us entered a thread in the Faith section about a miracle among the EO's, and started saying it must be satanic because God would never allow miracles to happen to EO's.  Of course I can only speculate about how long we would be tolerated if we did such a thing, because so far we haven't done that here.

Usually, however, I have to kick these things into the private forum.  Those are the rules and you know it.  A recent example of my having to do that is another post from just this month that was made by an EO in the OO saints thread, saying our saints are not really saints:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25425.0.html

Perhaps I was being too strict?  Again, I wonder how well a similar post made by an OO in a thread about EO saints would be tolerated.  Again, I can only speculate about that since OO's haven't done that here.

Want yet another example from just this month?  How about this thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25181.msg392199.html#msg392199

It was a thread about why our two Churches aren't in communion, and within 48 hours of the original post, we were already being called "monophysites" by an EO.  I had to split part of it off and put it here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25269.0.html


The fact is, we OO's have a very hard time discussing our issues on this forum without getting attacked and lied about.  That is why the private forum was set up.  It was just getting too nasty.  That is why I started the "One will" thread with a green warning in the very first post.  I know for a fact that if I didn't put that in there, there would already be a bunch of posts mischaracterizing our faith, attacking us as heretics, and derailing the thread.  That's just the history of how things go here.  I didn't want that to happen to the "One will" thread, as it is a subject I am truly curious about and I want people from my Church to be able to address it without having to fend off the usual attacks, lies and mischaracterizations that get thrown at us.

As I said in my green warning, people who disagree with us and want to debate it, can do so in this present thread.  If people want to do the usual name calling and lying about the OO's, they can do it in the private forum.  The private forum is a real fun place.  In the private forum people can mischaracterize our beliefs all they want.  They can call us nasty names.  They can lie about our patriarchs and say they have them on video spouting Appollonarian heresy and then say they can't produce the video because it is in the hands of a secret society whose address is not available:  

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9982.msg311160.html#msg311160

In the private forum, people can allege that the OO's are secret Jewish spies who rejected Chalcedon because we hate Arab culture:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,8212.msg360607.html#msg360607

(For those who don't have access to the private forum, I'm not making this up.  Really.  Honest.  I wish I were.)


I would like to go on and list all the other lies told about us here, but I don't want to waste the hours and days it would take.  Let's just say I wish I had a dollar for every lie and insult that has been made against the OO's here at OCnet.  


Getting back to your comment about the other thread, if you have a problem with how I started it off with a warning, you should bring it up with a global moderator.  Since the warning was in green, I was doing it in my official capacity as OO den mother and as such you are not supposed to be calling me out in public about it.  I really should not have to publicly defend it, as I have done just now, but I thought I would be gracious and give you an explanation.  Any further complaints can go to those above me.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2010, 06:30:21 AM by Salpy » Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
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 #33 on: January 30, 2010, 05:38:46 AM »

If you read the green warning you just quoted, I did not "strictly forbid anyone to speak who accepts the teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils." 
Nah, of course not. They just can't disagree with Miaphysitism nor call the teaching of Christ having only one will "Monothelitism". "We aren't monothelites, but Christ only has one will"......whatever.

I in fact explicitly said that the Seven Council People could post there, as long as they didn't start saying the usual nasty, polemical, lying types of things that often get posted in these threads. 
Translation, "Anyone who points out errors in non-Chalcedonian Christology is 'lying'".

Enjoy your thread. You have tailor made it to suit you. Smiley
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 11,903


St. Hripsimeh pray for us!


« Reply #34 on: January 30, 2010, 05:53:31 AM »

If you have a problem with "one will" and you can discuss it politely, you can do it here.  I can't speak for PeterTheAleut, but I think he wouldn't have a problem with it.  If you can't do it politely, take it to the private forum.  Those are the rules, and I was not the one who wrote the rules. 
Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
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 #35 on: January 30, 2010, 06:02:11 AM »

If you have a problem with "one will" and you can discuss it politely, you can do it here. 
I did politely discuss the problem of one will AKA monothelitism in this thread Salpy, and look what happened. You came in and derailed the thread with accusations, accused me of misrepresenting non-Chalcedonians,  of being a "Rafa" (whatever that is). So excuse me if I doubt your good intentions.
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 #36 on: January 30, 2010, 06:07:44 AM »

Are we still allowed to say that Christ has Two Natures and Two Wills here in the Faith Issues section?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 11,903


St. Hripsimeh pray for us!


« Reply #37 on: January 30, 2010, 06:10:53 AM »

If you have a problem with "one will" and you can discuss it politely, you can do it here.
I did politely discuss the problem of one will AKA monothelitism in this thread Salpy, and look what happened. You came in and derailed the thread with accusations, accused me of misrepresenting non-Chalcedonians,  of being a "Rafa" (whatever that is). So excuse me if I doubt your good intentions.

I am not the one who derailed the thread.  I merely corrected what I thought was a misrepresentation of our beliefs, something I have always welcomed EO's to do in the OO forum.  See this post for an EO clarifying his Church's position and distinguishing it from a heresy, in the very "One will" thread you have a problem with:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25645.msg404099.html#msg404099

I don't have a problem with such input by EO's.


By the way, after addressing what you had said earlier in this thread, I also asked your forgiveness in case I misunderstood you.  


With regard to the comment about Rafa, I gave a direct link to what I was talking about.  Rafa had earlier in another thread accused us of commingling and it seemed you were making the same accusation.  I thought that was clear.  I never accused you of "being a Rafa," I stated that your words sounded like what he had said.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2010, 06:20:07 AM by Salpy » Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 11,903


St. Hripsimeh pray for us!


« Reply #38 on: January 30, 2010, 06:12:15 AM »

Are we still allowed to say that Christ has Two Natures and Two Wills here in the Faith Issues section?

Ask PtA.  As far as I know, you are free to say that anywhere on the forum, even in the OO section.
Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,406


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #39 on: January 30, 2010, 06:21:26 AM »

Are we still allowed to say that Christ has Two Natures and Two Wills here in the Faith Issues section?
Yes, you are.
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 #40 on: January 30, 2010, 06:24:57 AM »

Are we still allowed to say that Christ has Two Natures and Two Wills here in the Faith Issues section?
Yes, you are.
Thanks. Its hard to know these things any more (and I'm being serious).
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 #41 on: January 30, 2010, 06:30:04 AM »

I am not the one who derailed the thread.
Excuse me, but Salpy you were the one who derailed this thread- and quite successfully.

I merely corrected what I thought was a misrepresentation of our beliefs
And you persisted in it even when I corrected you, and then you added a sly accusation of Nestorianism by attempting to misrepresenting the second explanation given you to correct your misinterpretation by turning my metaphor/simile into a literal interpretation. If that's not derailing a thread, then what the hell is?  
« Last Edit: January 30, 2010, 06:32:38 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,406


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #42 on: January 30, 2010, 06:34:34 AM »

Are we still allowed to say that Christ has Two Natures and Two Wills here in the Faith Issues section?
Yes, you are.
Thanks. Its hard to know these things any more (and I'm being serious).
But I will say that I think both you and Salpy appear to have misunderstood each other and are being a bit more contentious with each other than is probably wise.  Therefore, I suggest that you would both do well to cool off a bit before continuing any kind of discussion with each other.
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 11,903


St. Hripsimeh pray for us!


« Reply #43 on: January 30, 2010, 06:37:09 AM »

Thank you, Peter.  As it is, the thread can speak for itself.
Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
GammaRay
The Awful Preacher
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 574


Alexandros Papadiamantis


« Reply #44 on: January 30, 2010, 10:44:43 AM »

Okay.
Monothelitists in this thread, how do you explain the "not my will, but Yours, be done" (Luke 22:42) then? For it you are saying this "my" represents Christ's will, it means that the Son has a will different from the Father. But, if you are saying that this is the human will speaking, then Christ indeed has two wills.

I guess that you will not choose any of the above, so go on and explain, please.
Logged

Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.
Tags: Christology one will gnomic will will Christ and sin monothelitism Axe to grind 
Pages: 1 2 »  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 0.201 seconds with 72 queries.