Topic: A Disturbing Vision revealed to me by a Holy Elder

[deusveritasest]

But when a man is judged at death, this judgment stands. Consider Jesus's recounting of the rich man and Lazarus.

This is only significant if you assume that the judgment at death is for eternal fate, which might not be a reasonable assumption.

[deusveritasest]

The Church in the West believes in 2 natures completely seperated and with no mixture just like he taught.

That is provably false.

[Rafa999]

This is only significant if you assume that the judgment at death is for eternal fate

It is like when the police catch someone for a crime. They know they are guilty, they are just waiting for the Final sentence in jail.

The Church in the West believes in 2 natures completely seperated and with no mixture just like he taught.

That is provably false.

If it is false why is the Oriental Orthodox Church not in communion with the EO which rejects the term "one nature" for Christ as blasphemy ?

[deusveritasest]

Look the argument that somebody is the Mother of God because they bore God is wrong or else the Bishop of Antioch who bore God in his heart should have been called the Virgin Mary according to Cyril who made this false analogy.

No, actually, what was and is said is that Mary is the Mother of God because she gave birth to God.

No confusion...there is absolutely no way the Logos can be given birth to.

Yes there is, that is if He takes an instance of humanity as His own.

The Humanity it assumed seperately yes,

You are speaking nonsense. Assumption and separation are contradictory realities. Even Nestorian Christology necessitates inseparability.

it the Logos no since it is beyond birth, pain, suffering, hunger, neccesity, death, or anything else which we creatures of dust are subject to.

According to His eternal divine subsistence given to Him by the Father, yes. According to the humanity that He took from the Holy Virgin as His own, no.

The SOC broke away from the ACOE not the other way round.

This is a whole 'nother argument.

The Seleucia synod of 424 constitutes a declaration of total independence from the rest of the Church, to the point that the Catholicos could only be judged by God. This is not the ancient Collegial belief of the Church. The Church teaches that Catholicoi and Patriarchs can be judged in collective synods. Otherwise their effectively become numerous heads in the Body of Christ. The 424 synod was effectively schismatic in spirit.

Beyond that, we can argue about the nature of the faith, of which I believe you separated from the Nicene Christological faith, which taught that the Lord Jesus was eternally begotten of the Father, of one essence with Him, and became human. This is not reconcilable with Nestorian Christology which teaches that the eternal Logos did not become human.

The fables of the ACOE being a suffragan of a western SOC  and so forth are from the middle ages. The ACOE has always been independent and shall continue to be so until the return of Christ.

I never stated a belief that the East Syrian church was a ever a dependent jurisdiction of Antioch. As far as I can tell, I recognize what you say as to this not being true. However, that is very different from the matter of influence. Saying that the West Syrian church never influenced the East Syrian church just seems ridiculous.

[deusveritasest]

This is only significant if you assume that the judgment at death is for eternal fate

It is like when the police catch someone for a crime. They know they are guilty, they are just waiting for the Final sentence in jail.

The Church in the West believes in 2 natures completely seperated and with no mixture just like he taught.

That is provably false.

If it is false why is the Oriental Orthodox Church not in communion with the EO which rejects the term "one nature" for Christ as blasphemy ?

Because of our disagreement regarding the distinction of the natures.

Their inseparability we agree on. And I can easily verify that. It's in the Chalcedonian Creed.

[minasoliman]

Well, the important thing is that the Virgin fell asleep and needed a saviour. I also asked the Elder whether he changed his mind concerning "Theotokos". He said NO. He did not. The Virgin bore God in her precious womb, but this does not make her the Mother of the Immortal. If it did you would be a Theotokos since you carry the Holy Spirit.

Question....
Does the  Syrian Church of the east still  Believe,Holy Mary is the Christostokos , instead of the Theotokos , or did Mary correct the elder in this ......And Now everyone accepts Her as The Theotokos.......Though

Im still skeptical about talking  Apparitions.....

The subject of the Elder's vision was what happens after you die. There was no second chance (ie: purgatory, tollhouses, and praying people out of Hell are creations of the devil)- you died and either were stored in Sheol to await your judgement for not having been Christian or having been a bad Christian, and then at the final judgement you were sentenced to Hell. I asked the Rabi Qasha whether the word "Alam" (Assyrian word used in Aramaic New Testament) which could supposedly mean a very long time or eternity was proof his vision was wrong and that hell was only for a long time, I cited a famous patristic book. He answered me with something that chilled me: the book which I claimed that said Alam was not eternity was not canonized by the Church precisely for saying that and some other things- Alam means eternity! You spend eternity in Hell.

Okay, I have another question.  Your Elder said he accepts that the Virgin bore God in her precious womb, but she can't be called the "God-bearer"?

Theophoros and Theotokos are different.

That wasn't the point.  Yes, I understand that.  The point is that the "Seer" that Rafa is friends with (from now on I'm calling him the Assyrian Seer) says that the one that was in the Virgin's precious womb is truly God.  But he comes to this twisted and idiotic logic that she's not the Birthgiver of Our Lord and God and Savior.  Why is that an idiotic logic?  Because in her womb, He is called God, but the One that came out of her womb is not God!  Ridiculous!

[deusveritasest]

Well, the important thing is that the Virgin fell asleep and needed a saviour. I also asked the Elder whether he changed his mind concerning "Theotokos". He said NO. He did not. The Virgin bore God in her precious womb, but this does not make her the Mother of the Immortal. If it did you would be a Theotokos since you carry the Holy Spirit.

Question....
Does the  Syrian Church of the east still  Believe,Holy Mary is the Christostokos , instead of the Theotokos , or did Mary correct the elder in this ......And Now everyone accepts Her as The Theotokos.......Though

Im still skeptical about talking  Apparitions.....

The subject of the Elder's vision was what happens after you die. There was no second chance (ie: purgatory, tollhouses, and praying people out of Hell are creations of the devil)- you died and either were stored in Sheol to await your judgement for not having been Christian or having been a bad Christian, and then at the final judgement you were sentenced to Hell. I asked the Rabi Qasha whether the word "Alam" (Assyrian word used in Aramaic New Testament) which could supposedly mean a very long time or eternity was proof his vision was wrong and that hell was only for a long time, I cited a famous patristic book. He answered me with something that chilled me: the book which I claimed that said Alam was not eternity was not canonized by the Church precisely for saying that and some other things- Alam means eternity! You spend eternity in Hell.

Okay, I have another question.  Your Elder said he accepts that the Virgin bore God in her precious womb, but she can't be called the "God-bearer"?

Theophoros and Theotokos are different.

That wasn't the point.  Yes, I understand that.  The point is that the "Seer" that Rafa is friends with (from now on I'm calling him the Assyrian Seer) says that the one that was in the Virgin's precious womb is truly God.  But he comes to this twisted and idiotic logic that she's not the Birthgiver of Our Lord and God and Savior.  Why is that an idiotic logic?  Because in her womb, He is called God, but the One that came out of her womb is not God!  Ridiculous!

For sure.

[Rafa999]

Well, the important thing is that the Virgin fell asleep and needed a saviour. I also asked the Elder whether he changed his mind concerning "Theotokos". He said NO. He did not. The Virgin bore God in her precious womb, but this does not make her the Mother of the Immortal. If it did you would be a Theotokos since you carry the Holy Spirit.

Question....
Does the  Syrian Church of the east still  Believe,Holy Mary is the Christostokos , instead of the Theotokos , or did Mary correct the elder in this ......And Now everyone accepts Her as The Theotokos.......Though

Im still skeptical about talking  Apparitions.....

The subject of the Elder's vision was what happens after you die. There was no second chance (ie: purgatory, tollhouses, and praying people out of Hell are creations of the devil)- you died and either were stored in Sheol to await your judgement for not having been Christian or having been a bad Christian, and then at the final judgement you were sentenced to Hell. I asked the Rabi Qasha whether the word "Alam" (Assyrian word used in Aramaic New Testament) which could supposedly mean a very long time or eternity was proof his vision was wrong and that hell was only for a long time, I cited a famous patristic book. He answered me with something that chilled me: the book which I claimed that said Alam was not eternity was not canonized by the Church precisely for saying that and some other things- Alam means eternity! You spend eternity in Hell.

Okay, I have another question.  Your Elder said he accepts that the Virgin bore God in her precious womb, but she can't be called the "God-bearer"?

Theophoros and Theotokos are different.

That wasn't the point.  Yes, I understand that.  The point is that the "Seer" that Rafa is friends with (from now on I'm calling him the Assyrian Seer) says that the one that was in the Virgin's precious womb is truly God.  But he comes to this twisted and idiotic logic that she's not the Birthgiver of Our Lord and God and Savior.  Why is that an idiotic logic?  Because in her womb, He is called God, but the One that came out of her womb is not God!  Ridiculous!

Minas it's not idiotic it only shows how there is truly a difference between a miaphysite world view and that of a strict Diophysite. You cannot give birth to God because he is not a person, he does not have personhood, the limitations of creatures of dust are not upon him. You can talk of something such as birth (or eating, drinking, suffering,etc.) for a human being...but not God! The concept of a suffering dying God, one who hungers and suffers, a God who can be truely tempted like a fake by Satan are not Orthodox. We can certainly observe things within God's Nature, certain aspects of His Being that are understandable: God lives, God is and God is knowable. God loves. God creates. God heals. God speaks. God saves.

I do not think of God as a "person" though or as "three persons", but if I were forced to assign a label in English I would utilize a word like Being - that is the essence of the name of God YHWH in Hebrew.

So we say that it is Orthodox for Christ's humanity to be born, but not God.

[minasoliman]

Well, the important thing is that the Virgin fell asleep and needed a saviour. I also asked the Elder whether he changed his mind concerning "Theotokos". He said NO. He did not. The Virgin bore God in her precious womb, but this does not make her the Mother of the Immortal. If it did you would be a Theotokos since you carry the Holy Spirit.

Question....
Does the  Syrian Church of the east still  Believe,Holy Mary is the Christostokos , instead of the Theotokos , or did Mary correct the elder in this ......And Now everyone accepts Her as The Theotokos.......Though

Im still skeptical about talking  Apparitions.....

The subject of the Elder's vision was what happens after you die. There was no second chance (ie: purgatory, tollhouses, and praying people out of Hell are creations of the devil)- you died and either were stored in Sheol to await your judgement for not having been Christian or having been a bad Christian, and then at the final judgement you were sentenced to Hell. I asked the Rabi Qasha whether the word "Alam" (Assyrian word used in Aramaic New Testament) which could supposedly mean a very long time or eternity was proof his vision was wrong and that hell was only for a long time, I cited a famous patristic book. He answered me with something that chilled me: the book which I claimed that said Alam was not eternity was not canonized by the Church precisely for saying that and some other things- Alam means eternity! You spend eternity in Hell.

Okay, I have another question.  Your Elder said he accepts that the Virgin bore God in her precious womb, but she can't be called the "God-bearer"?

Theophoros and Theotokos are different.

That wasn't the point.  Yes, I understand that.  The point is that the "Seer" that Rafa is friends with (from now on I'm calling him the Assyrian Seer) says that the one that was in the Virgin's precious womb is truly God.  But he comes to this twisted and idiotic logic that she's not the Birthgiver of Our Lord and God and Savior.  Why is that an idiotic logic?  Because in her womb, He is called God, but the One that came out of her womb is not God!  Ridiculous!

Minas it's not idiotic it only shows how there is truly a difference between a miaphysite world view and that of a strict Diophysite. You cannot give birth to God because he is not a person, he does not have personhood, the limitations of creatures of dust are not upon him. You can talk of something such as birth (or eating, drinking, suffering,etc.) for a human being...but not God! The concept of a suffering dying God, one who hungers and suffers, a God who can be truely tempted like a fake by Satan are not Orthodox. We can certainly observe things within God's Nature, certain aspects of His Being that are understandable: God lives, God is and God is knowable. God loves. God creates. God heals. God speaks. God saves.

I do not think of God as a "person" though or as "three persons", but if I were forced to assign a label in English I would utilize a word like Being - that is the essence of the name of God YHWH in Hebrew.

A strict and consistent diophysite worldview would NOT say that what was in her womb was God.  But according to the Assyrian Seer, you can have God in a womb, but you can't give birth to God.  That's idiotic and probably a window to understanding that this vision is demonic.

[SolEX01]

Minas it's not idiotic it only shows how there is truly a difference between a miaphysite world view and that of a strict Diophysite. You cannot give birth to God because he is not a person, he does not have personhood, the limitations of creatures of dust are not upon him. You can talk of something such as birth (or eating, drinking, suffering,etc.) for a human being...but not God! The concept of a suffering dying God, one who hungers and suffers, a God who can be truely tempted like a fake by Satan are not Orthodox. We can certainly observe things within God's Nature, certain aspects of His Being that are understandable: God lives, God is and God is knowable. God loves. God creates. God heals. God speaks. God saves.

I do not think of God as a "person" though or as "three persons", but if I were forced to assign a label in English I would utilize a word like Being - that is the essence of the name of God YHWH in Hebrew.

IMO, this thread was created as a straw man and a vehicle for expressing Rafa's views of the ACOE, presuming that he knows them in the first place.   

[minasoliman]

Minas it's not idiotic it only shows how there is truly a difference between a miaphysite world view and that of a strict Diophysite. You cannot give birth to God because he is not a person, he does not have personhood, the limitations of creatures of dust are not upon him. You can talk of something such as birth (or eating, drinking, suffering,etc.) for a human being...but not God! The concept of a suffering dying God, one who hungers and suffers, a God who can be truely tempted like a fake by Satan are not Orthodox. We can certainly observe things within God's Nature, certain aspects of His Being that are understandable: God lives, God is and God is knowable. God loves. God creates. God heals. God speaks. God saves.

I do not think of God as a "person" though or as "three persons", but if I were forced to assign a label in English I would utilize a word like Being - that is the essence of the name of God YHWH in Hebrew.

IMO, this thread was created as a straw man and a vehicle for expressing Rafa's views of the ACOE, presuming that he knows them in the first place.   

I'm glad he did, because it shows exactly that the Assyrian Seer is a self-contradictory fellow who does not discern intelligence in his vision.

[Rafa999]

The Virgin gave birth to Christ's humanity. Did you even read what I placed above by Mar Narsai

Here again :

An Exposition of The Mysteries

He was laid in a manger and wrapped in swaddling clothes, as Man;
and the watchers extolled  Him with their praises, as God.
He offered sacrifices according to the Law,  as Man;
and He received worship from the Persians, as God.
Simeon bore Him  upon his arms, as Man;
and he named Him 'the Mercy' who showth mercy to all,  as God.
He kept the Law completely, as Man;
and He gave His own new Law, as God.

He was baptized in Jordan by John, as Man;
and the heaven was opened in honour of His baptism, as God.
He went in to the marriage-feast of the city of Canna, as Man;
and He changed the water that it became wine, as God.
He fasted in the wilderness forty days, as Man;
and watchers descended to minister unto  Him, as God.
He slept in the boat with His disciples, as Man;
and He rebuked the wind and calmed the sea, as God.

He set out and departed to a desert place, as  Man;
and He multiplied the bread and satisfied thousands, as God.
He ate and drank and walked and was weary, as Man;
and He put devils to flight by the word of His mouth, as God.
He prayed and watched and gave thanks and  worshipped, as Man;
and He forgave debts and pardoned sins, as God.
He asked water of the Samaritan woman, as Man;
and He revealed and declared her secrets, as God.

He sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, as Man;
and He forgave the sinful woman her  sins, as God.
He went up into the mountain of Tabor with His disciples, as Man;
and He revealed His glory in their sight, as God.
He shed tears and  wept over Lazarus, as Man;
and He called him that he came forth by His mighty power, as God.
He rode upon a colt and entered Jerusalem, as Man;
and the  boys applauded Him with their Hosannas, as God.

He drew nigh to the fig-tree and shewed  that He was hungered, as Man;
and His mighty power caused it to wither on a  sudden, as God.
He washed the feet of His twelve, as Man;
and He called  Himself Lord and Master, as God.
He ate the legal passover, as Man;
and He exposed the treachery of Iscariot, as God.
He prayed and sweated at the time  of His passion, as Man;
and He scared and terrified them that took Him, as God.

the  attendants seized Him and bound His hands, as Man;
and He healed the ear that Simon cut off, as God.
He stood in the place of judgement and bore insult, as Man;
and He declared that He is about to come in glory, as God.
He bore  His Cross upon His shoulder, as Man;
and He revealed and announced the  destruction of Zion, as God.
He was hanged upon the wood and endured the  passion, as Man;
and He shook the earth and darkened the sun, as God.

Nails were driven into His body, as Man;
and He opened the graves and quickened the dead, as  God.
He cried out upon the Cross 'My God, My God,' as Man;
and promised Paradise to the thief, as God.
His side was pierced with a spear, as  Man;
and His nod rent the temple veil, as God.
They embalmed His body and He was buried in the earth, as Man;
and He raised up His temple by His mighty  power, as God.

He remained in the tomb three days, as Man;
and the watchers glorified Him with  their praises, as God.
He said that He had received all authority, as Man;
and He promised to be with us for ever, as God.
He commanded Thomas  to feel His side, as Man;
and He gave them the Spirit for an earnest, as God.
He ate and drank after His resurrection, as Man;
and He ascended to the height and sent the Spirit, as God.

[Rafa999]

I think  it's important to remind everybody that the vision was primarily about what happens to the deceased. Rabi Qasha DID say that he did not change his mind on the "Theotokos" issue, and that the Humanity of Christ was made by the Holy Spirit which resided in her precious womb, and that bearing God does not make one the "mother of God" or else we would all be Theotokos. And this is of course True.

[Deacon Lance]

The Virgin gave birth to Christ's humanity.  

Christ received his human nature from the Virgin, but natures are not born persons are.  The Virgin gave birth to the person Jesus, who was God and Man, thus Mary is the Birthgiver of God the Son.  This does not mean or imply he received His divine nature from her.

[SolEX01]

Minas it's not idiotic it only shows how there is truly a difference between a miaphysite world view and that of a strict Diophysite. You cannot give birth to God because he is not a person, he does not have personhood, the limitations of creatures of dust are not upon him. You can talk of something such as birth (or eating, drinking, suffering,etc.) for a human being...but not God! The concept of a suffering dying God, one who hungers and suffers, a God who can be truely tempted like a fake by Satan are not Orthodox. We can certainly observe things within God's Nature, certain aspects of His Being that are understandable: God lives, God is and God is knowable. God loves. God creates. God heals. God speaks. God saves.

I do not think of God as a "person" though or as "three persons", but if I were forced to assign a label in English I would utilize a word like Being - that is the essence of the name of God YHWH in Hebrew.

IMO, this thread was created as a straw man and a vehicle for expressing Rafa's views of the ACOE, presuming that he knows them in the first place.   

I'm glad he did, because it shows exactly that the Assyrian Seer is a self-contradictory fellow who does not discern intelligence in his vision.

Illustrating the error of following those who teach and preach falsehood via "visions."  That was my point but thank you for clarifying it and I hope I didn't offend anyone in the process.     

[Rafa999]

The Virgin gave birth to Christ's humanity.  

Christ received his human nature from the Virgin, but natures are not born persons are.  The Virgin gave birth to the person Jesus, who was God and Man, thus Mary is the Birthgiver of God the Son.  This does not mean or imply he received His divine nature from her.

The question is whether Divinity receives "birth". It is akin to saying it can suffer, be tempted, it can die, it can eat...in short it is not what somebody of a monotheistic Hebrew culture would say.

[minasoliman]

I think  it's important to remind everybody that the vision was primarily about what happens to the deceased. Rabi Qasha DID say that he did not change his mind on the "Theotokos" issue, and that the Humanity of Christ was made by the Holy Spirit which resided in her precious womb, and that bearing God does not make one the "mother of God" or else we would all be Theotokos. And this is of course True.

Rabi Qasha said God was in her womb.  Enough said.

[Rafa999]

I think  it's important to remind everybody that the vision was primarily about what happens to the deceased. Rabi Qasha DID say that he did not change his mind on the "Theotokos" issue, and that the Humanity of Christ was made by the Holy Spirit which resided in her precious womb, and that bearing God does not make one the "mother of God" or else we would all be Theotokos. And this is of course True.

Rabi Qasha said God was in her womb.  Enough said.

This is never denied by anybody in the ACOE...

[minasoliman]

I think  it's important to remind everybody that the vision was primarily about what happens to the deceased. Rabi Qasha DID say that he did not change his mind on the "Theotokos" issue, and that the Humanity of Christ was made by the Holy Spirit which resided in her precious womb, and that bearing God does not make one the "mother of God" or else we would all be Theotokos. And this is of course True.

Rabi Qasha said God was in her womb.  Enough said.

This is never denied by anybody in the ACOE...

So God can be in a womb, but cannot go through a birth canal?

[Salpy]

The Virgin gave birth to Christ's humanity. Did you even read what I placed above by Mar Narsai

Here again :

An Exposition of The Mysteries

He was laid in a manger and wrapped in swaddling clothes, as Man;
and the watchers extolled  Him with their praises, as God.
He offered sacrifices according to the Law,  as Man;
and He received worship from the Persians, as God.
Simeon bore Him  upon his arms, as Man;
and he named Him 'the Mercy' who showth mercy to all,  as God.
He kept the Law completely, as Man;
and He gave His own new Law, as God.

He was baptized in Jordan by John, as Man;
and the heaven was opened in honour of His baptism, as God.
He went in to the marriage-feast of the city of Canna, as Man;
and He changed the water that it became wine, as God.
He fasted in the wilderness forty days, as Man;
and watchers descended to minister unto  Him, as God.
He slept in the boat with His disciples, as Man;
and He rebuked the wind and calmed the sea, as God.

He set out and departed to a desert place, as  Man;
and He multiplied the bread and satisfied thousands, as God.
He ate and drank and walked and was weary, as Man;
and He put devils to flight by the word of His mouth, as God.
He prayed and watched and gave thanks and  worshipped, as Man;
and He forgave debts and pardoned sins, as God.
He asked water of the Samaritan woman, as Man;
and He revealed and declared her secrets, as God.

He sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, as Man;
and He forgave the sinful woman her  sins, as God.
He went up into the mountain of Tabor with His disciples, as Man;
and He revealed His glory in their sight, as God.
He shed tears and  wept over Lazarus, as Man;
and He called him that he came forth by His mighty power, as God.
He rode upon a colt and entered Jerusalem, as Man;
and the  boys applauded Him with their Hosannas, as God.

He drew nigh to the fig-tree and shewed  that He was hungered, as Man;
and His mighty power caused it to wither on a  sudden, as God.
He washed the feet of His twelve, as Man;
and He called  Himself Lord and Master, as God.
He ate the legal passover, as Man;
and He exposed the treachery of Iscariot, as God.
He prayed and sweated at the time  of His passion, as Man;
and He scared and terrified them that took Him, as God.

the  attendants seized Him and bound His hands, as Man;
and He healed the ear that Simon cut off, as God.
He stood in the place of judgement and bore insult, as Man;
and He declared that He is about to come in glory, as God.
He bore  His Cross upon His shoulder, as Man;
and He revealed and announced the  destruction of Zion, as God.
He was hanged upon the wood and endured the  passion, as Man;
and He shook the earth and darkened the sun, as God.

Nails were driven into His body, as Man;
and He opened the graves and quickened the dead, as  God.
He cried out upon the Cross 'My God, My God,' as Man;
and promised Paradise to the thief, as God.
His side was pierced with a spear, as  Man;
and His nod rent the temple veil, as God.
They embalmed His body and He was buried in the earth, as Man;
and He raised up His temple by His mighty  power, as God.

He remained in the tomb three days, as Man;
and the watchers glorified Him with  their praises, as God.
He said that He had received all authority, as Man;
and He promised to be with us for ever, as God.
He commanded Thomas  to feel His side, as Man;
and He gave them the Spirit for an earnest, as God.
He ate and drank after His resurrection, as Man;
and He ascended to the height and sent the Spirit, as God.

The EO's have a hymn with the same sort of language, which they use for the feast of the Raising of Lazarus:

As mortal man You asked where Lazarus was buried; as Maker, You raised him from the dead by Your royal command. Hell was afraid of him when he cried out to You: “Praise the Lord and exalt Him above all for ever.”

As a mortal, You search for Lazarus; as God, You raise him by Your word, though he was four days dead. Therefore we sing Your praises forever.

As man You pray to the Father, as God You raise Lazarus. Therefore, O Christ, we sing Your praises forever.

You walk and weep and speak, my Saviour, showing the action of Your human nature; and, revealing Your divine nature, You raise Lazarus.

In ways beyond words, my Master and Saviour, You have brought about my salvation by the free will exercised in each of Your two natures.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28594.msg451026.html#msg451026

And yet the EO's are able to say that St. Mary is the Mother of God, and that she gave birth to God Incarnate, not just a human nature (as observed by Deacon Lance above, a woman doesn't give birth to a nature, but to a person.)

The EO's also are able to say that One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh.  

You need to be able to say that in order to really believe in the Incarnation.  Perhaps you need to discuss this more with your fellow Dyophysites, the EO's, and sort this out with them.  Maybe they can explain this better than I can.  Maybe they can explain to you how you can believe that a woman gave birth to God the Word without it meaning that the entire Trinity was born, or whatever you are afraid this will mean.  

I think I and the other OO's here are talking past you.  Maybe the EO's can try to explain this better since their language and yours is so similar.  Regardless, you just have to realize that you can believe that God was born, without it meaning that the entire Trinity was born.

[PeterTheAleut]

I think  it's important to remind everybody that the vision was primarily about what happens to the deceased. Rabi Qasha DID say that he did not change his mind on the "Theotokos" issue, and that the Humanity of Christ was made by the Holy Spirit which resided in her precious womb, and that bearing God does not make one the "mother of God" or else we would all be Theotokos. And this is of course True.

I guess my question to you, then, is quite simple. Why should I trust your friend when I'm not convinced I should even trust you, the only point of contact I have with this friend of yours?

[Rafa999]

you just have to realize that you can believe that God was born, without it meaning that the entire Trinity was born.

Erm...nope. God IS the Holy Trinity. You cannot seperate the Logos from the Father or the Holy Spirit in that way you describe which slices off the Logos completely from the Trinity. God did not change into literal Flesh since he cannot change (Malachi 3:6), he dwelt amongst us by the humanity he partook from the Virgin. I suggest you read this section of the book of Marganitha by Metropolitan of N’siwin and Armenia Mar Odisho to understand the differences between ACOE and other denominations on this and several other issues:

CHAPTER IV

On the Different Sects

 When the light of the manifestation of Christ shone forth it scattered the darkness of error from the face of the world by the intermediary of these true preachers; idols became naught, pictures and molten images passed away, and the earth was cleansed from the abomination of sacrifices and unclean rites, and the inhabitants of the world learned goodness, holiness, humility, and gentleness, and the earth was full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. This filled Satan with envy and rage, and he forthwith proceeded to act towards us as he had acted towards Adam; so that after the beatified Apostles, and their disciples and their immediate successors, had slept he provoked Christians rose up against each other, and divisions and controversies sprung up among them, and heresies without number increased in the Church of CHRIST, until they went so far as to compass each other’s destruction, and regarded each other as blasphemers deserving of death. How many false doctrines were rife, and how many impieties and abuses were perpetrated in those days, we learn from the histories of Mar Eusebius. On account of these things, the Ecumenical Council of the 318 was convened, by order of the good and CHRIST-loving and holy Emperor Constantine, .in the year of Alexander 636, and by the power of the SPIRIT, and by proofs adduced from the Holy Scriptures, they decreed, interpreted, enlightened, disclosed, manifested, and confirmed, the orthodox faith; and by strong argument and with words of sound doctrine, they condemned all the heresiarchs, excommunicated and cut them off from the body of CHRIST, as being diseased members not susceptible of cure. And thus the Catholic Church was purified from every stain of vain worship and false doctrine, and all the world, from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, was of one mind and of one Church. About one hundred years after this a dispute arose between Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria, and Mar Nestorius Patriarch of Byzantium, on the subject of incarnation. In the confession of the Trinity all Christians agree, for all accept the Nicene Creed, which creed confesses that the Trinity is co-equal in essence, Lordship, power and will; and all confess of CHRIST that He is perfect GOD and perfect Man, being fully persuaded thereof by the declarations of the Gospels, of Saint Paul, and of the 318 Fathers. The dispute which now arose respected the manner of the Union, and the words used to express it. Cyril maintained that we ought to call the Virgin “Mother of God “, and wrote twelve treatise excommunicating all who should, in any way, draw a distinction between the divinity and the humanity of CHRIST after the union. Nestorius replied to these Sentences, and showed that they were erroneous, and with respect to the appellation “MOTHER OF GOD “, he argued that it did not exist either in the writings of the Prophets or the Apostles. The Prophets prophesied of CHRIST[39] to come, and the Apostles preached of that same CHRIST,[40] predicted by the Prophets as coming into the world, that this was He Who was born of Mary and they showed that He is both God and man. Now, were we to use the expression “Mother of Man” only, we should be like Paul of Samosata, and Phontinus of Galatia, who said of our Lord that He was but a mere man like one of the prophets and on this account they were excom­municated; so if we use the bare expression “Mother of God” we become like’ Simon and Menander, who say that God did not take a body from Mary; but that His dispensation (life and actions) were hallucinatory and not real, and on that account they also were excommunicated. But we call the Virgin “Mother of CHRIST “, the name used by Prophets and Apostles, and which denotes the union generally. Cyril, in the treatise which he drew up, and in which he excommunicated all who shall distinguish between the divinity and humanity of CHRIST, virtually excommunicated the Holy Scriptures, since the Apostles and Prophets do distinguish between the natures of the Person respecting Whom the dispute is, and from these the holy Fathers learnt to confess of CHRIST, that He is perfect GOD and perfect Man, the Likeness of GOD and the likeness of a servant,[41] the Son of David and the Son of the Highest,[42]flesh and Word.[43]

 From this time commenced the division of the Church; some followed Nestorius, whilst others went astray after Cyril, both parties mutually anathematizing each other; thereby causing divisions, slaughter, exile, imprisonment, and persecution of the Fathers, more than ever before, as is fully recorded in the histories of Irenaeus, Bishop of Tyre. After this, tumult and discord went on increasing until the zealous and CHRIST-loving Marcian undertook to convene the great Council of the six hundred and thirty two in the town of Chalcedon, and commanded that both parties should be examined and judged, and that whosoever did not follow the truth and faith as declared by Ecumenical Councils should be expelled from the Church, in order that the Church might be in one accord in all matters of faith. This Council confirmed the confession, that there are two natures in CHRIST each distinct in its attributes, and also two wills, and anathematized all who should speak of mixture, which destroys the two natures. But because in Greek there is no distinction between Qnuma (hypostasis) and person, they confessed but one Qnuma in CHRIST. And when the party of Cyril was not satisfied with the expression “two Natures “, and the party of Nestorius with the expression “one Qnuma” an imperial edict was issued declaring all who did not consent to this doctrine degraded from their orders. Some were made to submit through compulsion; but the remainder maintained their own opinions.

Christianity thus became divided into three confessions; the first confessing One Nature and One Qnuma in CHRIST, which is held by the Copts, Egyptians, and Abyssinians, after the tradition of Cyril their Patriarch; and this is called the Jacobite sect, from a certain Suryaya doctor called Jacob who laboured zealously to spread the doctrines of Cyril among the Suryaye and the Armenians.

 The Second sect are those who confess the doctrine of two Natures and one Qnuma in CHRIST, and these are called “Malkaye” (Royalists) because it was imposed forcibly by the king. This is the doctrine which is received by the Romans called Franks, and by the Constantinopolitans who are Greeks and by all the northern peoples such as the Russians, Alani, Circassians, Assai, Georgians and their neighbours. But the Franks differ from the rest of these in maintaining that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and in their use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist. These two sects also accepted the appelation “Mother of God”; but the Jacobites have added to the canon; “Holy God”, etc., “who was crucified for us.”

 The Third confession which professes in Christ two Natures, two Qnume, one will one sonship, one authority; is called Nestorian. As to the Easterners, however, because they would not change their true faith, but kept it as they received it from the Apostles, they were unjustly styled “Nestorians”, since Nestorius was not their Patriarch, neither did they understand his language; but when they heard that he taught the doctrine of the two Natures and two Qnume, one will, one Son of God, one CHRIST, and that he confessed the orthodox faith, they bore witness to him, because they themselves held the same faith. Nestorius, then, followed them, and not they him, and that more especially in the matter of the appel­ation “Mother of CHRIST”. Therefore when called upon to excommunicate him, they refused, maintain­ing that their excommunication of Nestorius would be equivalent to their excommunication of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Apostles, from which they received what they professed, and for which we are censured together with Nestorius, as shall appear in the following chapters.

 

Note:      Qnuma in Greek is called hypostasis, namely, that which underlies the essence, by which the nature is known. And Parsoopa: the Greeks call prosopon: We Easterns, there­fore, profess that M’shikha (Messiah) Our Lord is in two Natures in one person. But the question of the Godhead and humanity is brought into discussion in order so as to distin­guish the natural properties of each Nature, then of necessity we are led to the discussion of Qnuma (the essence or under­lying substance) by which the Nature is distinguished. These facts, therefore, lead us to the indisputable evidence of the existence of two Qnume which are the underlying properties of these (two) Natures, in one person of the Son of God.

 

 For a detailed definition of the “Qnuma”, see the Chapter “On The Distinction Of Nature From Qnuma, Etc.”, by Rabban Yokhanan Bar-Zubi.

http://nestorian.org/book_of_marganitha_part_iii.html#part3chap4

Why should I trust your friend when I'm not convinced I should even trust you, the only point of contact I have with this friend of yours?

Good question. Pray on it is my best advice.

[minasoliman]

I think  it's important to remind everybody that the vision was primarily about what happens to the deceased. Rabi Qasha DID say that he did not change his mind on the "Theotokos" issue, and that the Humanity of Christ was made by the Holy Spirit which resided in her precious womb, and that bearing God does not make one the "mother of God" or else we would all be Theotokos. And this is of course True.

Rabi Qasha said God was in her womb.  Enough said.

This is never denied by anybody in the ACOE...

So God can be in a womb, but cannot go through a birth canal?

[Rafa999]

I think  it's important to remind everybody that the vision was primarily about what happens to the deceased. Rabi Qasha DID say that he did not change his mind on the "Theotokos" issue, and that the Humanity of Christ was made by the Holy Spirit which resided in her precious womb, and that bearing God does not make one the "mother of God" or else we would all be Theotokos. And this is of course True.

Rabi Qasha said God was in her womb.  Enough said.

This is never denied by anybody in the ACOE...

So God can be in a womb, but cannot go through a birth canal?

Minas, contemplate a little what you just said to see why it is wrong...

[minasoliman]

I think  it's important to remind everybody that the vision was primarily about what happens to the deceased. Rabi Qasha DID say that he did not change his mind on the "Theotokos" issue, and that the Humanity of Christ was made by the Holy Spirit which resided in her precious womb, and that bearing God does not make one the "mother of God" or else we would all be Theotokos. And this is of course True.

Rabi Qasha said God was in her womb.  Enough said.

This is never denied by anybody in the ACOE...

So God can be in a womb, but cannot go through a birth canal?

Minas, contemplate a little what you just said to see why it is wrong...

Which part?

[Rafa999]

I think  it's important to remind everybody that the vision was primarily about what happens to the deceased. Rabi Qasha DID say that he did not change his mind on the "Theotokos" issue, and that the Humanity of Christ was made by the Holy Spirit which resided in her precious womb, and that bearing God does not make one the "mother of God" or else we would all be Theotokos. And this is of course True.

Rabi Qasha said God was in her womb.  Enough said.

This is never denied by anybody in the ACOE...

So God can be in a womb, but cannot go through a birth canal?

Minas, contemplate a little what you just said to see why it is wrong...

Which part?

The part that the Logos (thus the Holy Trinity) must pass through a birth canal like a human (or eat, drink, die, suffer,etc.) just because God crafted a human temple for his Divinity from the Virgin's humanity. Think about what you are saying with your statement.

The humanity did this (pass through a birth canal) and die on the Cross, not the Divinity.

[minasoliman]

I think  it's important to remind everybody that the vision was primarily about what happens to the deceased. Rabi Qasha DID say that he did not change his mind on the "Theotokos" issue, and that the Humanity of Christ was made by the Holy Spirit which resided in her precious womb, and that bearing God does not make one the "mother of God" or else we would all be Theotokos. And this is of course True.

Rabi Qasha said God was in her womb.  Enough said.

This is never denied by anybody in the ACOE...

So God can be in a womb, but cannot go through a birth canal?

Minas, contemplate a little what you just said to see why it is wrong...

Which part?

The part that the Logos (thus the Holy Trinity) must pass through a birth canal like a human (or eat, drink, die, suffer,etc.) just because God crafted a human temple for his Divinity from the Virgin's humanity. Think about what you are saying with your statement.

The humanity did this (pass through a birth canal) and die on the Cross, not the Divinity.

Kinda like God can't be in a womb like a human?

[Rafa999]

I think  it's important to remind everybody that the vision was primarily about what happens to the deceased. Rabi Qasha DID say that he did not change his mind on the "Theotokos" issue, and that the Humanity of Christ was made by the Holy Spirit which resided in her precious womb, and that bearing God does not make one the "mother of God" or else we would all be Theotokos. And this is of course True.

Rabi Qasha said God was in her womb.  Enough said.

This is never denied by anybody in the ACOE...

So God can be in a womb, but cannot go through a birth canal?

Minas, contemplate a little what you just said to see why it is wrong...

Which part?

The part that the Logos (thus the Holy Trinity) must pass through a birth canal like a human (or eat, drink, die, suffer,etc.) just because God crafted a human temple for his Divinity from the Virgin's humanity. Think about what you are saying with your statement.

The humanity did this (pass through a birth canal) and die on the Cross, not the Divinity.

Kinda like God can't be in a womb like a human?

God is omnipresent. A human not.

The moment God decides to change into a "person" and pass through a birth canal or die on the Cross is the moment the universe stops.

[minasoliman]

I think  it's important to remind everybody that the vision was primarily about what happens to the deceased. Rabi Qasha DID say that he did not change his mind on the "Theotokos" issue, and that the Humanity of Christ was made by the Holy Spirit which resided in her precious womb, and that bearing God does not make one the "mother of God" or else we would all be Theotokos. And this is of course True.

Rabi Qasha said God was in her womb.  Enough said.

This is never denied by anybody in the ACOE...

So God can be in a womb, but cannot go through a birth canal?

Minas, contemplate a little what you just said to see why it is wrong...

Which part?

The part that the Logos (thus the Holy Trinity) must pass through a birth canal like a human (or eat, drink, die, suffer,etc.) just because God crafted a human temple for his Divinity from the Virgin's humanity. Think about what you are saying with your statement.

The humanity did this (pass through a birth canal) and die on the Cross, not the Divinity.

Kinda like God can't be in a womb like a human?

God is omnipresent. A human not.

The moment God decides to change into a "person" and pass through a birth canal or die on the Cross is the moment the universe stops.

Pointless to discuss anything with you when you're simply playing games with me.

[Rafa999]

Update from my friend!

First he thought it was "insane" that people find it a worthy motive to question him on this because of the "Theotokos" (Khasli) issue but give evolution a dangerous heresy a pass.

Second, he said the colours of the Virgin were selected in his opinion the way he knows her in order so he wouldn't be mislead. No symbolism probably.

Third, he was exceedingly happy that the ACOE did not canonize books like 2 maccabbees and was dissapointed that false doctrines such as praying people out of hell and purgatory evolved to such heights based on these books. There's a good reason the Assyrian Church of the East does not use these books he reiterated...

Fourth, I am asking some of your questions Minas

[Rafa999]

Minas, your Church agreed with my Elder and the ACOE...it just removed the prayers for people in Hell saying they were unscriptural and unorthodox (ie: falsehoods) !!!

See the post above by Father Ambrose.

[Rafa999]

The Elder has said the Lord Jesus is reaching out to those with misplaced zeal in other religions just like he did to Saint Paul, so they won't be condemned.

[Hermogenes]

The Elder I am friends with since a long time has wished to confirm what the Assyrian Church of the East teaches concerning the afterlife. He received an answer. The Elder met the Holy Virgin dressed in White and Blue,

In my humble opinion this was not Mary the Mother of God but it was the woman who pops up all over the world appearing to the Roman Catholics.  There are, I have read, 300 reported apparitions of this women in the last century!!   She always wears BLUE and WHITE.

You will note at once that this is not how the Most Blessed Mother of our Saviour is shown in Orthodox icons.   The blue and white woman is well known in Roman Catholicism.  The colours are cold and and used to emphasize her virginity and not her motherhood.

Flee the woman in blue and white.

In the early days after the apparitions at Lourdes, St. Bernadette always insisted that she'd never said it was the Holy Virgin. She only took to using that terminology later out of sheer exhaustion at having to make innumerable explanations and corrections. But according to her official testimony (which is reflected in the inscription on the statue at the grotto), the apparition said of herself (in Pyrenean dialect) that she was the Immaculate Conception.

[Rafa999]

I am not sure if I can post in this section, if not so please forgive me.

TWO more miracles have occured with my friend! I will not say anything else because during prayers for me my friend delivered the message "Physician heal thyself" and so I don't want lengthy debates when I need prayer and fasting myself.