OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 10:01:25 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Personhood of Christ in relation to the Theotokos  (Read 8599 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« on: January 03, 2011, 10:35:23 PM »

Can someone answer me a question : how is it orthodox to say the Divinity of Christ is a person which is given "birth" to when in fact God is not a "person"? How can we speak of a Spirit as something which is given birth to when it is not subject to the physical world, when it is immortal and in the case of God without beginning ? Would it not be much more orthodox to say that the Virgin gave birth to the humanity of Christ which was subject to the things implied by birth ?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 11:50:22 AM by Schultz » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2011, 10:39:09 PM »

how is it orthodox to say the Divinity of Christ is a person which is given "birth" to when in fact God is not a "person"? How can we speak of a Spirit as something which is given birth to when it is not subject to the physical world, when it is immortal and in the case of God without beginning ? Would it not be much more orthodox to say that the Virgin gave birth to the humanity of Christ which was subject to the things implied by birth ?

*sigh*

This sort of thing is precisely what leads me to suspect that the Semiticizing of the Cappadocian doctrine of the Trinity was in fact not sufficient in preserving orthodoxy.
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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2011, 10:42:17 PM »

The Deusveritas, Severus of unorthodoxy and Cyril solution is simple I suppose :

Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2011, 10:43:38 PM »

The Deusveritas, Severus of unorthodoxy and Cyril solution is simple I suppose :



You are continually proving that you understand neither the doctrine of the Trinity nor that of the hypostatic union.

Also, interesting when you follow the image to its link that it is not associated with Saint Severus or Saint Cyril, but rather the heretic Eutyches.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 10:44:37 PM 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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2011, 10:45:40 PM »

Quote
the Theotokos is not the "Bride of God"

Amen. The Church is the mystical bride of Christ. What's next on the list for your Theotokos..."co-redeemer"? Fishing people out of Hell with ladders? Thankfully I respect the Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ and say she was a Holy woman who bore him in her womb, but not a godess ahem.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 10:46:29 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2011, 10:46:30 PM »

Quote
Would it not be much more orthodox to say that the Virgin gave birth to the humanity of Christ which was subject to the things implied by birth ?

No. It would not. Talk about an epic theology fail.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2011, 10:48:39 PM »

Quote
Would it not be much more orthodox to say that the Virgin gave birth to the humanity of Christ which was subject to the things implied by birth ?

No. It would not. Talk about an epic theology fail.

Ok, then you prefer to say that Immortal God was given birth, when only fleshly living things, creatures of dust are given birth to ? Are you thus suggesting that the second Qnume of the one True God (the True God of the TRINITY with the Seraphim crying Holy Holy Holy incessantly) suffered, sweated, defecated, was given birth to, and bled as opposed to his humanity?
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 10:52:56 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 03, 2011, 10:53:39 PM »

Quote
Would it not be much more orthodox to say that the Virgin gave birth to the humanity of Christ which was subject to the things implied by birth ?

No. It would not. Talk about an epic theology fail.

Ok, then you prefer to say that Immortal God was given birth, when only fleshly living things, creatures of dust are given birth to ? Are you thus suggesting that the one True God (the TRINITY with the Seraphim crying Holy Holy Holy incessantly) suffered, sweated, defecated, was given birth to, and bled as opposed to his humanity?

Like I said, the fact that you refuse to refer to one particular hypostasis of the Trinity as God but rather only the Trinity as a whole, and that you imply that you cannot conceive of a union whereby the Logos takes an instance of humanity as His own not involving the Godhead itself taking humanity simply shows that you understand neither the hypostatic union nor the Trinity itself. Your East Syrian theology is highly deficient, even more so than I had once expected.
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
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2011, 10:59:17 PM »

Quote
Would it not be much more orthodox to say that the Virgin gave birth to the humanity of Christ which was subject to the things implied by birth ?

No. It would not. Talk about an epic theology fail.

Ok, then you prefer to say that Immortal God was given birth, when only fleshly living things, creatures of dust are given birth to ? Are you thus suggesting that the one True God (the TRINITY with the Seraphim crying Holy Holy Holy incessantly) suffered, sweated, defecated, was given birth to, and bled as opposed to his humanity?

I am suggesting that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, of one essence with the Father, was truly incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man; He, namely God, was born, suffered, sweated, defecated, bled, and died.

Quote
Today is hung upon the cross, He who suspended the Earth amid the
waters. A crown of thorns crowns Him, who is the King of Angels. He,
who wrapped the heavens in clouds is clothed with the purple of
mockery. He, who freed Adam in the Jordan, received buffetings. He was
transfixed with nails, who is the Bridegroom of the Church. He was
pierced with a lance who is the Son of a virgin. We worship your passion,
O Christ. Show us also your glorious resurrection.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 11:02:31 PM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2011, 10:59:36 PM »

Quote
Would it not be much more orthodox to say that the Virgin gave birth to the humanity of Christ which was subject to the things implied by birth ?

No. It would not. Talk about an epic theology fail.

Ok, then you prefer to say that Immortal God was given birth, when only fleshly living things, creatures of dust are given birth to ? Are you thus suggesting that the one True God (the TRINITY with the Seraphim crying Holy Holy Holy incessantly) suffered, sweated, defecated, was given birth to, and bled as opposed to his humanity?

Like I said, the fact that you refuse to refer to one particular hypostasis of the Trinity as God but rather only the Trinity as a whole, and that you imply that you cannot conceive of a union whereby the Logos takes an instance of humanity as His own not involving the Godhead itself taking humanity simply shows that you understand neither the hypostatic union nor the Trinity itself. Your East Syrian theology is highly deficient, even more so than I had once expected.

I corrected that. I added the Second Qnume of the Holy Trinity.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2011, 11:00:19 PM »

Quote
Would it not be much more orthodox to say that the Virgin gave birth to the humanity of Christ which was subject to the things implied by birth ?

No. It would not. Talk about an epic theology fail.

Ok, then you prefer to say that Immortal God was given birth, when only fleshly living things, creatures of dust are given birth to ? Are you thus suggesting that the second Qnume of the one True God (the True God of the TRINITY with the Seraphim crying Holy Holy Holy incessantly) suffered, sweated, defecated, was given birth to, and bled as opposed to his humanity?

Isn't this what is implied by "Emmanuel"?
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2011, 11:02:06 PM »

Quote
Would it not be much more orthodox to say that the Virgin gave birth to the humanity of Christ which was subject to the things implied by birth ?

No. It would not. Talk about an epic theology fail.

Ok, then you prefer to say that Immortal God was given birth, when only fleshly living things, creatures of dust are given birth to ? Are you thus suggesting that the one True God (the TRINITY with the Seraphim crying Holy Holy Holy incessantly) suffered, sweated, defecated, was given birth to, and bled as opposed to his humanity?

I am suggesting that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, of one essence with the Father, was truly incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man; He, namely God, was born, suffered, sweated, defecated, bled, and died.

Quote
Today is hung upon the cross, He who suspended the Earth amid the
waters. A crown of thorns crowns Him, who is the King of Angels. He,
who wrapped the heavens in clouds is clothed with the purpose of
mockery. He, who freed Adam in the Jordan, received buffetings. He was
transfixed with nails, who is the Bridegroom of the Church. He was
pierced with a lance who is the Son of a virgin. We worship your passion,
O Christ. Show us also your glorious resurrection. 2


I did not know the situation was this bad and that people in the west now believe God suffered, was given birth,bled, died and defecated. Sounds strangely familiar...
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2011, 11:05:04 PM »

Quote
Would it not be much more orthodox to say that the Virgin gave birth to the humanity of Christ which was subject to the things implied by birth ?

No. It would not. Talk about an epic theology fail.

Ok, then you prefer to say that Immortal God was given birth, when only fleshly living things, creatures of dust are given birth to ? Are you thus suggesting that the one True God (the TRINITY with the Seraphim crying Holy Holy Holy incessantly) suffered, sweated, defecated, was given birth to, and bled as opposed to his humanity?

I am suggesting that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, of one essence with the Father, was truly incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man; He, namely God, was born, suffered, sweated, defecated, bled, and died.

Quote
Today is hung upon the cross, He who suspended the Earth amid the
waters. A crown of thorns crowns Him, who is the King of Angels. He,
who wrapped the heavens in clouds is clothed with the purpose of
mockery. He, who freed Adam in the Jordan, received buffetings. He was
transfixed with nails, who is the Bridegroom of the Church. He was
pierced with a lance who is the Son of a virgin. We worship your passion,
O Christ. Show us also your glorious resurrection. 2


I did not know the situation was this bad and that people in the west now believe God suffered, was given birth,bled, died and defecated. Sounds strangely familiar...


You are confusing personhood and essence. No one here is suggesting Jesus is a "blend" of God and man; rather, we believe that Jesus is only one subject or hypostasis. If not God the Word, who suffered on the cross? If only a man or a "humanity", there is no salvation.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 11:13:26 PM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2011, 11:05:08 PM »

Quote
the Theotokos is not the "Bride of God"
Amen. The Church is the mystical bride of Christ. What's next on the list for your Theotokos..."co-redeemer"? Fishing people out of Hell with ladders? Thankfully I respect the Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ and say she was a Holy woman who bore him in her womb, but not a godess ahem.

You like to play "team apostolic" in creating an "us versus them" with the Protestants, but I have to say that you've never sounded more Protestant. Keep hanging out with us and you're going to get covered in Mary cooties. Or you can go hang out with the Protestants where Mary makes a guest appearance every Christmas.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2011, 11:05:53 PM »

Are you thus suggesting that the second Qnume of the one True God (the True God of the TRINITY with the Seraphim crying Holy Holy Holy incessantly) suffered, sweated, defecated, was given birth to, and bled as opposed to his humanity?

No. The Orthodox doctrine is that the Logos suffered because of His humanity.
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
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2011, 11:07:08 PM »

Quote
Would it not be much more orthodox to say that the Virgin gave birth to the humanity of Christ which was subject to the things implied by birth ?

No. It would not. Talk about an epic theology fail.

Ok, then you prefer to say that Immortal God was given birth, when only fleshly living things, creatures of dust are given birth to ? Are you thus suggesting that the one True God (the TRINITY with the Seraphim crying Holy Holy Holy incessantly) suffered, sweated, defecated, was given birth to, and bled as opposed to his humanity?

I am suggesting that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, of one essence with the Father, was truly incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man; He, namely God, was born, suffered, sweated, defecated, bled, and died.

Quote
Today is hung upon the cross, He who suspended the Earth amid the
waters. A crown of thorns crowns Him, who is the King of Angels. He,
who wrapped the heavens in clouds is clothed with the purpose of
mockery. He, who freed Adam in the Jordan, received buffetings. He was
transfixed with nails, who is the Bridegroom of the Church. He was
pierced with a lance who is the Son of a virgin. We worship your passion,
O Christ. Show us also your glorious resurrection. 2


I did not know the situation was this bad and that people in the west now believe God suffered, was given birth,bled, died and defecated. Sounds strangely familiar...


Ah, Nestorianism rears it's ugly head... Roll Eyes
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2011, 11:08:15 PM »

Quote
Would it not be much more orthodox to say that the Virgin gave birth to the humanity of Christ which was subject to the things implied by birth ?

No. It would not. Talk about an epic theology fail.

Ok, then you prefer to say that Immortal God was given birth, when only fleshly living things, creatures of dust are given birth to ? Are you thus suggesting that the one True God (the TRINITY with the Seraphim crying Holy Holy Holy incessantly) suffered, sweated, defecated, was given birth to, and bled as opposed to his humanity?

I am suggesting that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, of one essence with the Father, was truly incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man; He, namely God, was born, suffered, sweated, defecated, bled, and died.

Quote
Today is hung upon the cross, He who suspended the Earth amid the
waters. A crown of thorns crowns Him, who is the King of Angels. He,
who wrapped the heavens in clouds is clothed with the purpose of
mockery. He, who freed Adam in the Jordan, received buffetings. He was
transfixed with nails, who is the Bridegroom of the Church. He was
pierced with a lance who is the Son of a virgin. We worship your passion,
O Christ. Show us also your glorious resurrection. 2


I did not know the situation was this bad and that people in the west now believe God suffered, was given birth,bled, died and defecated. Sounds strangely familiar...


The Orthodox Church has always taught that the Logos suffered as a consequence of His union with His humanity. This is nothing new.
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 #17 on: January 03, 2011, 11:08:55 PM »

Ah, Nestorianism rears it's ugly head... Roll Eyes

This is what makes me really sick of ecumenists attempting to acquit the East Syrian church of heresy.
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
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #18 on: January 03, 2011, 11:09:21 PM »

Or you can go hang out with the Protestants where Mary makes a guest appearance every Christmas.

If she's lucky... Roll Eyes
Logged
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,071



« Reply #19 on: January 03, 2011, 11:12:27 PM »

Ah, Nestorianism rears it's ugly head... Roll Eyes

This is what makes me really sick of ecumenists attempting to acquit the East Syrian church of heresy.

Per the Roman Catholic Church:

"The controversies of the past led to anathemas, bearing on persons and on formulas. The Lord's Spirit permits us to understand better today that the divisions brought about in this way were due in large part to misunderstandings.

"Whatever our Christological divergences have been, we experience ourselves united today in the confession of the same faith in the Son of God who became man so that we might become children of God by his grace."
Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2011, 11:14:20 PM »

Ah, Nestorianism rears it's ugly head... Roll Eyes

This is what makes me really sick of ecumenists attempting to acquit the East Syrian church of heresy.

Per the Roman Catholic Church:

"The controversies of the past led to anathemas, bearing on persons and on formulas. The Lord's Spirit permits us to understand better today that the divisions brought about in this way were due in large part to misunderstandings.

"Whatever our Christological divergences have been, we experience ourselves united today in the confession of the same faith in the Son of God who became man so that we might become children of God by his grace."


What is your point?
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
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,071



« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2011, 11:23:58 PM »

Sorry.  I just realized that my post only made sense in my head. Smiley

Those quotes were statements from Rome regarding ACOE.  I was responding to your post that you are sick of ecumenists who are trying to acquit the ACOE of heresy. 
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 11:24:20 PM by Ionnis » Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2011, 11:28:13 PM »

Sorry.  I just realized that my post only made sense in my head. Smiley

Those quotes were statements from Rome regarding ACOE.  I was responding to your post that you are sick of ecumenists who are trying to acquit the ACOE of heresy. 

So you are showing an example of what I was talking about, or you are trying to show that the East Syrian church actually ought to be acquitted of heresy on the basis of what you posted?
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
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,071



« Reply #23 on: January 03, 2011, 11:37:55 PM »

I'm offended.  You should know me better than that. ;-)

An example of what you are talking about.  This wave of ecumenism disturbs me.  It exists in RCC, EOC, OC, ACOE, and of course, Protestantism. Of course the leader in this movement is the RCC.  I wonder why the RCC has such pull.  Perhaps the sheer size?  I don't know.
Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #24 on: January 03, 2011, 11:40:44 PM »

Quote
You like to play "team apostolic" in creating an "us versus them" with the Protestants, but I have to say that you've never sounded more Protestant. Keep hanging out with us and you're going to get covered in Mary cooties. Or you can go hang out with the Protestants where Mary makes a guest appearance every Christmas.

I know what you mean Alveus. There's a connection though. All this sort of thing of the "Theotokos" putting ladders for people in Hell so they could come and serve her as the Bride of Christ and co-redeemer, cosmic "Mother of the Trinity" etc. is one reason protestantism happened. Purgatory is another good reason. If the RCC did not peddle such "unorthodoxies" and the Orthodox churches hadn't caved in to what an egyptian said 15 centuries ago, they would now have a sound theology on who the Virgin Mary really is.

Quote
If not God the Word, who suffered on the cross? If only a man or a "humanity", there is no salvation.

His humanity suffered on the Cross. What, your not saying to me the Divine Logos suffered are you???!

Quote
The Orthodox Church has always taught that the Logos suffered as a consequence of His union with His humanity. This is nothing new.

As for me and my house, we shall serve the true Orthodox ACOE which never said God suffered like a pagan would. If somebody wants to refer to the Trinity in the same way Alexander the Great referred to whatever he worshipped or what Eutyches or Cyril's ancestors worshiped that's their problem.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 11:49:38 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 03, 2011, 11:43:52 PM »

His humanity suffered on the Cross. What, your not saying to me the Divine Logos suffered are you???!

Yes, we are. And you are rendering redemption null.
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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #26 on: January 03, 2011, 11:46:45 PM »

His humanity suffered on the Cross. What, your not saying to me the Divine Logos suffered are you???!

Yes, we are. And you are rendering redemption null.

Actually that's what you are doing by saying Christ did not give his Father a Qurbana (ie: a  sacrifice/offering of the highest order to God) of his humanity but instead a thing which is not human but a frankenstein thing made of Divinity and humanity which could never redeem us. Here is a wonderful work by the Harp of the Holy Spirit Mar Narsai :

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.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 11:47:51 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 03, 2011, 11:50:57 PM »

I'm offended.  You should know me better than that. ;-)

Sorry.  Sad

An example of what you are talking about.  This wave of ecumenism disturbs me.  It exists in RCC, EOC, OC, ACOE, and of course, Protestantism. Of course the leader in this movement is the RCC.  I wonder why the RCC has such pull.  Perhaps the sheer size?  I don't know.

I have a Coptic friend who tells me that the Vatican is the driving force behind this ecumenism and is even the "magician behind the curtain" of the WCC. I'm not sure that he is wrong about this.

They have this pull for a few reasons. The power and influence they have. Their size as the predominant Christian community in the world. How jurisdictionally organized they are in comparison to us. I'm sure that how conciliatory they makes themselves sound in dialogue is a contributing factor as well.

The disturbing part of this all is that in most cases, even with conservative reservations, most of these communities actually turn out more heretical than one is led to expect once one digs deeper. This has certainly turned out to be the case with the East Syrians.
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
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 03, 2011, 11:51:59 PM »

Does Eastern Orthodoxy teach that the Divine Nature suffered on the cross?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #29 on: January 03, 2011, 11:52:59 PM »

Actually that's what you are doing by saying Christ did not give his Father a Qurbana (ie: a  sacrifice/offering of the highest order to God) of his humanity but instead a thing which is not human but a frankenstein thing made of Divinity and humanity which could never redeem us.

No, I am saying that the Logos offered up His humanity to the Father. You are consistently distorting what we are claiming.
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 #30 on: January 03, 2011, 11:54:03 PM »

Does Eastern Orthodoxy teach that the Divine Nature suffered on the cross?

No one teaches that the Godhead suffered on the Cross (no matter how much Rafa would like you to believe otherwise). Both the EO & OO teach that the Logos suffered on the Cross.
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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2011, 12:03:01 AM »

Does Eastern Orthodoxy teach that the Divine Nature suffered on the cross?

No one teaches that the Godhead suffered on the Cross (no matter how much Rafa would like you to believe otherwise). Both the EO & OO teach that the Logos suffered on the Cross.

Really?

Then BEHOLD :

"We believe that our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Incarnate-Logos is perfect in His Divinity and perfect in His Humanity. He made His Humanity One with His Divinity without Mixture, nor Mingling, nor Confusion. His Divinity was not separated from His humanity even for a moment or twinkling of an eye.
-Common Christological agreement between RCC and Coptic Church (1988)

If the humanity and Divinity were not seperate even for the "twinkling of an eye" what you believe is just plain old rehashed paganism. Of course the Eastern Orthodox Church does not believe this nonsense- it believes like the ACOE that Christ had two natures, fully 100% seperate with no mixture whatsoever at any point in time...not even for the twinkling of an eye!  There's a world of difference between the two statements. The Eastern Orthodox church recognized the error of the theology expressed above, and set up the council of Chalcedon to correct the problem thankfully and return to Orthodoxy.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 12:05:38 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #32 on: January 04, 2011, 12:08:17 AM »

As for me and my house, we shall serve the true Orthodox ACOE which never said God suffered like a pagan would.

Ok, I didn't realize you were ACOE until just now. Please note that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the person of Jesus Christ is both human and divine, and that Mary gave birth to both his human and divine nature (in one person), which is why she is given the title "Birthgiver of God" or Theotokos, not merely Christotokos.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 04, 2011, 12:49:16 AM »

As for me and my house, we shall serve the true Orthodox ACOE which never said God suffered like a pagan would.

Ok, I didn't realize you were ACOE until just now. Please note that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the person of Jesus Christ is both human and divine, and that Mary gave birth to both his human and divine nature (in one person), which is why she is given the title "Birthgiver of God" or Theotokos, not merely Christotokos.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense to say that the Theotokos gave birth to the Logos' divine nature in the context of the way you guys use the term nature. I think it would only make sense to say that Mary is Theotokos because she gave birth to a theanthropic 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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 04, 2011, 12:53:45 AM »

Really?

Then BEHOLD :

"We believe that our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Incarnate-Logos is perfect in His Divinity and perfect in His Humanity. He made His Humanity One with His Divinity without Mixture, nor Mingling, nor Confusion. His Divinity was not separated from His humanity even for a moment or twinkling of an eye.
-Common Christological agreement between RCC and Coptic Church (1988)

How does that indicate that we believe that the Godhead suffered on the Cross?

If the humanity and Divinity were not seperate even for the "twinkling of an eye" what you believe is just plain old rehashed paganism.

You don't understand what separation means. Separation means being apart. Separation and distinction are two very different things. Two things can be inseparable while still being distinct. Even your Christology would technically qualify the Logos being inseparable from the human He assumed.

Of course the Eastern Orthodox Church does not believe this nonsense- it believes like the ACOE that Christ had two natures, fully 100% seperate with no mixture whatsoever at any point in time...not even for the twinkling of an eye!

Inseparability does not necessitate mixture. Once again you are quite mistaken. Try reading the Chalcedonian Creed. It quite explicitly declares that the two natures of Christ are inseparable.
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
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #35 on: January 04, 2011, 01:18:27 AM »

As for me and my house, we shall serve the true Orthodox ACOE which never said God suffered like a pagan would.

Ok, I didn't realize you were ACOE until just now. Please note that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the person of Jesus Christ is both human and divine, and that Mary gave birth to both his human and divine nature (in one person), which is why she is given the title "Birthgiver of God" or Theotokos, not merely Christotokos.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense to say that the Theotokos gave birth to the Logos' divine nature in the context of the way you guys use the term nature. I think it would only make sense to say that Mary is Theotokos because she gave birth to a theanthropic hypostasis.

Perhaps you are right. I am only a catechumen, after all...  angel
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,127


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 04, 2011, 01:19:06 AM »

Does Eastern Orthodoxy teach that the Divine Nature suffered on the cross?

No one teaches that the Godhead suffered on the Cross (no matter how much Rafa would like you to believe otherwise). Both the EO & OO teach that the Logos suffered on the Cross.

Really?

Then BEHOLD :

"We believe that our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Incarnate-Logos is perfect in His Divinity and perfect in His Humanity. He made His Humanity One with His Divinity without Mixture, nor Mingling, nor Confusion. His Divinity was not separated from His humanity even for a moment or twinkling of an eye.
-Common Christological agreement between RCC and Coptic Church (1988)

If the humanity and Divinity were not seperate even for the "twinkling of an eye" what you believe is just plain old rehashed paganism. Of course the Eastern Orthodox Church does not believe this nonsense- it believes like the ACOE that Christ had two natures, fully 100% seperate with no mixture whatsoever at any point in time...not even for the twinkling of an eye!  There's a world of difference between the two statements. The Eastern Orthodox church recognized the error of the theology expressed above, and set up the council of Chalcedon to correct the problem thankfully and return to Orthodoxy.

Rafa, your argument is completely idiotic and in fact the stupidity in it has reached new levels, probably the stupidest argument I've ever seen...did you not read this part that we confess:

"Without mixture, nor mingling, nor confusion."  For you to equate "separation" with "without mingling" is stupidity.  We say that the humanity and divinity united, and there was no time when there was no unity between them.  Your Church claims that the humanity and divinity stayed united too.  So don't make these stupid arguments.

Second of all, the unity of the divine and the human is a mystery.  Elizabeth called the Virgin, "the Mother of my Lord", i.e. Adonai, which Hebrew people have always used synonymously with God.  There is only one "Adonai," as it is written, "Thou shalt worship the Lord your God.  Thou shalt have no other gods...Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain."  St. Athanasius, St. Gregory Thavmaturgous, St. Gregory Nazienzen, and I'm not sure, but I believe St. John Chrysostom all used the phrase "Theotokos" for the Virgin.  So the union is a mystery, comprising of no confusion or separation.  The Virgin's flesh was used for the Word to "become man and dwell among us."  The Word dwelt with other humans among them like a human, because the Word "became man."
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 04, 2011, 01:23:08 AM »

Your Church claims that the humanity and divinity stayed united too.  So don't make these stupid arguments.

I would like to clarify that union and separation are two different categories. Division is the opposite of union. Indwelling or conjunction are the opposites of separation.
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
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,127


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 04, 2011, 01:33:34 AM »

Your Church claims that the humanity and divinity stayed united too.  So don't make these stupid arguments.

I would like to clarify that union and separation are two different categories. Division is the opposite of union. Indwelling or conjunction are the opposites of separation.

I've come to believe that Nestorianism might be semi-heresy, semi only because the logic is complete and stubborn idiocy.  They try so hard to confess a unified entity and yet their language speaks two separate side-by-side entities that work together, no different than you or me with the Holy Spirit.  As I read more and more of their theology, I am convinced St. Cyril was right!
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 01:34:20 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #39 on: January 04, 2011, 01:38:52 AM »

Quote
.  Elizabeth called the Virgin, "the Mother of my Lord", i.e. Adonai, which Hebrew people have always used synonymously with God.

Good luck Minas, this is why the ACOE read everything in Assyrian where it's all crystal clear and there's no need for Greek translations. "Adonai" is a generic word for "Lord". It could mean LORD as you wish it did, but in this context it most probably means "Lord"...her Lord the Messiah.

Quote
St. Athanasius, St. Gregory Thavmaturgous, St. Gregory Nazienzen, and I'm not sure, but I believe St. John Chrysostom all used the phrase "Theotokos" for the Virgin.

Nice try, but the Holiest Saints in existence all made mistakes. St.Gregory Nazianzen taught purgatorial cleansing fires for instance. St.Athanasius thought Esther should be thrown out of the canon and Baruch included, and so forth. I dare you to find a single "Mother of God" in the Patristics of the East. Find me such a thing in Mar Ephrem's writings. You might find something of the sort in Mar Isaac's writings due to Western influences (he was in Egypt) but I doubt it. Find this expression in the works of Aphrahat which contain the oldest teachings in existence on a variety of subjects such as what is repentance. You will not find it. Many of these sages drank from the pure fountain of the Hebrew followers of Christ who taught them or they were descended from and did not lean on their own understanding like many in the West.

Quote
The Word dwelt with other humans among them like a human, because the Word "became man."

Again nice try, but as you know the ACOE uses the actual Aramaic and not Greek translations, and in the Aramaic Peshitta you find the words:

 "Word-the Flesh-the he-was and-he-abided/rested in/by-us"

This is very difficult to interpret and requires Wisdom.  The True interpretation of these Sacred words:

“The word became flesh and dwelt among us.” A devout and pious man laboured for many years in prayer to God, that He would disclose to him the meaning of this declaration: A voice from heaven was at length vouchsafed to him, saying:

“Ascribe to the flesh the word” “became” and to the “Word” ascribe “dwelt “; and the meaning was thus preserved
.


-Mar Odisho, The Book of Marganitha Part 3 :on the Christian Dispensation, Chapter1 On the advent of Christ, and his union


Quote
Your Church claims that the humanity and divinity stayed united too.  So don't make these stupid arguments.

Mar Babai's hymn expressed the ACOE Christology:

One is Christ the Son of God,
Worshiped by all in two natures;
In His Godhead begotten of the Father,
Without beginning before all time;
In His humanity born of Mary,
In the fullness of time, in a body united;
Neither His Godhead is of the nature of the mother,
Nor His humanity of the nature of the Father;
The natures are preserved in their Qnumas*,
In one person of one Sonship.
And as the Godhead is three substances in one nature,
Likewise the Sonship of the Son is in two natures, one person.
So the Holy Church has taught.

   
   

* Qnuma, is an Aramaic word. The nearest equivalent is the Greek “hypostasis”, in Latin “substantia” and in English “substance”.



If this is your faith I apologize.


By the way, I'm wishing that Egypt get's better. I would comfort myself thinking that to be persecuted for the name of Christ is to be blessed (Matthew 5:11). The Copts are thus truly blessed people.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 01:50:15 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #40 on: January 04, 2011, 01:49:33 AM »

Very well, we now know what the ACOE teaches with regards to the natures of Christ. However, I don't think you're going to convince anyone here that yours is the correct position and theirs is the incorrect one. Besides, this discussion really has nothing to do with the OP.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,127


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #41 on: January 04, 2011, 01:50:58 AM »

If the Son of God was "in His humanity born of Mary," then Mary is the Mother of the Son of God, Who is God.  That's why we say she is the Mother of God, while condemning anyone who says that the Godhead originated from her.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 01:52:52 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #42 on: January 04, 2011, 01:42:03 PM »

I'm offended.  You should know me better than that. ;-)

An example of what you are talking about.  This wave of ecumenism disturbs me.  It exists in RCC, EOC, OC, ACOE, and of course, Protestantism. Of course the leader in this movement is the RCC.  I wonder why the RCC has such pull.  Perhaps the sheer size?  I don't know.

I believe the Roman Catholic Church has such pull, John, because she is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.  I believe she holds the truth and the full authority to teach the truth.  She pulls individual members and the cautious, albeit, qualified respect of the world, secular and religious.

I say this because I believe there is a truth in it that must not be ignored.  It would diminish all of Christianity to cheapen what is real and true about the Catholic Church.  We may decry individual members and their sins, but the Church has stood, rock-solid in time, and I believe her walls reach out of time as well.

M.
Logged

JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #43 on: January 04, 2011, 02:24:09 PM »

As for me and my house, we shall serve the true Orthodox ACOE which never said God suffered like a pagan would.

Ok, I didn't realize you were ACOE until just now. Please note that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the person of Jesus Christ is both human and divine, and that Mary gave birth to both his human and divine nature (in one person), which is why she is given the title "Birthgiver of God" or Theotokos, not merely Christotokos.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense to say that the Theotokos gave birth to the Logos' divine nature in the context of the way you guys use the term nature. I think it would only make sense to say that Mary is Theotokos because she gave birth to a theanthropic hypostasis.
Seems right to me.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #44 on: January 04, 2011, 03:50:37 PM »

As for me and my house, we shall serve the true Orthodox ACOE which never said God suffered like a pagan would.

Ok, I didn't realize you were ACOE until just now. Please note that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the person of Jesus Christ is both human and divine, and that Mary gave birth to both his human and divine nature (in one person), which is why she is given the title "Birthgiver of God" or Theotokos, not merely Christotokos.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense to say that the Theotokos gave birth to the Logos' divine nature in the context of the way you guys use the term nature. I think it would only make sense to say that Mary is Theotokos because she gave birth to a theanthropic hypostasis.
Seems right to me.
Does a Divine Hypostasis undergo change?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #45 on: January 04, 2011, 05:51:05 PM »

As for me and my house, we shall serve the true Orthodox ACOE which never said God suffered like a pagan would.

Ok, I didn't realize you were ACOE until just now. Please note that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the person of Jesus Christ is both human and divine, and that Mary gave birth to both his human and divine nature (in one person), which is why she is given the title "Birthgiver of God" or Theotokos, not merely Christotokos.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense to say that the Theotokos gave birth to the Logos' divine nature in the context of the way you guys use the term nature. I think it would only make sense to say that Mary is Theotokos because she gave birth to a theanthropic hypostasis.
Seems right to me.
Does a Divine Hypostasis undergo change?

Before you guys go much further you really ought to give some thought to how you are defining:

1) Nature:  human and divine

2) Personhood: human and divine

Till you go back to the Fathers and begin to sort all of that out, you are not going to get very far in any amount of logical detail to make your case.
Logged

Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #46 on: January 04, 2011, 07:53:14 PM »

Christ is in principle of course a higher authority than Mary, and so all Christians serve only one master: Christ. If Christ and Mary contradicted, we would serve Christ and not Mary.

However the will of Christ and the will of Mary are in eternal and perfect union, so that to serve Mary is always identical with serving Christ.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #47 on: January 04, 2011, 07:54:18 PM »

Does Eastern Orthodoxy teach that the Divine Nature suffered on the cross?

No one teaches that the Godhead suffered on the Cross
(no matter how much Rafa would like you to believe otherwise). Both the EO & OO teach that the Logos suffered on the Cross.


AHEM (for you and Minas) :

Quote
Later Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (deemed heterodox by those who recognise the Council of Chalcedon), wrote to prove the correct ascription of the hymn to the Son of God, and made the use of the emended version standard in his diocese. It is this form Holy God, Holy and Strong, Holy and Immortal, crucified for us, have mercy on us that is in use in the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisagion#Modifications_in_history


Quote
However the will of Christ and the will of Mary are in eternal and perfect union, so that to serve Mary is always identical with serving Christ.

That's a horrible thing to say, you are basically saying that Mary never sinned (by supposedly always being of one accord with Christ, not true- she lost Christ in Egypt as the Gospels say meaning her focus was not on Christ when this happened, this is not his will, and no he did not lose himself) and thus she did not need a saviour which of course is not true.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 08:01:34 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #48 on: January 04, 2011, 08:07:35 PM »

Quote
That's a horrible thing to say, you are basically saying that Mary never sinned (by supposedly always being of one accord with Christ, not true- she lost Christ in Egypt as the Gospels say meaning her focus was not on Christ when this happened, this is not his will, and no he did not lose himself) and thus she did not need a saviour which of course is not true.

It is true that Mary never sinned, though it is not true that she did not need a savior. Sin requires an agency of the will, so losing Christ was not a sin. She was preserved immaculate by the agency of God from before her existence. Either way it wouldn't matter now, because now Mary is in Heaven. The souls of the saved in heaven are always in perfect union with God, ergo to serve Mary would always be to serve Christ, as it would be for anyone who is in heaven.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 08:09:53 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #49 on: January 04, 2011, 08:10:59 PM »

Quote
That's a horrible thing to say, you are basically saying that Mary never sinned (by supposedly always being of one accord with Christ, not true- she lost Christ in Egypt as the Gospels say meaning her focus was not on Christ when this happened, this is not his will, and no he did not lose himself) and thus she did not need a saviour which of course is not true.

It is true that Mary never sinned, though it is not true that she did not need a savior.

She lost focus of Christ in that marketplace. That is not his will. We cannot say he lost himself either. We know she fell asleep, the only ones saying she never fell asleep are the RCC . Nothing in Eastern tradition (where her relatives served in the Church) suggesting her ascending to heaven. Also, If she fell asleep she sinned  since death is a consequence of sin.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #50 on: January 04, 2011, 08:30:02 PM »

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 08:31:10 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #51 on: January 04, 2011, 08:31:45 PM »

The Catholic Church does not teach that she did not need a savior. Both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church teach that she lived her life free from sin.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #52 on: January 04, 2011, 08:36:26 PM »

The Catholic Church does not teach that she did not need a savior. Both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church teach that she lived her life free from sin.

If sin is to willfully resist, disobey or not cooperate with the will of God, why was her will at odds with that of her Son in the marketplace when she lost focus on him ? Christ is truly sinless- he did his Father's will until the end. I'm sorry if I question too much, just that I finished reading a summary of John of the Ladder's method of prayer and it seems to me that the Virgin Mary sinned by losing focus of Christ when that is something God never discourages.

I invite you to prove me wrong though...
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 08:38:05 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #53 on: January 04, 2011, 08:37:53 PM »

I don't think that not knowing what Christ's physical location is at a given moment is the same thing as losing spiritual focus on God. If that were the case, she'd have to literally physically follow Him around wherever He went while on Earth, always be in the same room as Him, etc.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 08:38:22 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #54 on: January 04, 2011, 08:40:27 PM »

I don't think that not knowing what Christ's physical location is at a given moment is the same thing as losing spiritual focus on God. If that were the case, she'd have to literally physically follow Him around wherever He went while on Earth.

She lost him as scripture says. She went to the market, lost focus on him and placed it on the worldly (the market), but regained the focus by entering the Father's House where he was.  The New Testament lesson is obvious- focus on God.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 08:46:32 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #55 on: January 04, 2011, 08:43:32 PM »

If Christ reprimanded her for anything, it was coming to take him from the Temple. The focus of the story is to present Christ as confounding the Jewish teachers on The Law and so attest to his holiness. The Church, east nor west, has never presented it as a sin on the part of Mary that she lost him. There's nothing wrong with taking that lesson from the story, it's a good lesson, but there's no need to impute sin to Mary.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #56 on: January 04, 2011, 08:48:35 PM »

If Christ reprimanded her for anything, it was coming to take him from the Temple. The focus of the story is to present Christ as confounding the Jewish teachers on The Law and so attest to his holiness. The Church, east nor west, has never presented it as a sin on the part of Mary that she lost him. There's nothing wrong with taking that lesson from the story, it's a good lesson, but there's no need to impute sin to Mary.

Can you be of one will with Christ if you need a reprimand ?

By the way, I'm more interested in the lesson on the need to focus on Christ than on whether the Virgin Mary commited a sin or not. It is taught in the East that this narrative is in large part about this.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 09:00:56 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #57 on: January 04, 2011, 10:00:12 PM »

If Christ reprimanded her for anything, it was coming to take him from the Temple. The focus of the story is to present Christ as confounding the Jewish teachers on The Law and so attest to his holiness. The Church, east nor west, has never presented it as a sin on the part of Mary that she lost him. There's nothing wrong with taking that lesson from the story, it's a good lesson, but there's no need to impute sin to Mary.

Can you be of one will with Christ if you need a reprimand ?

By the way, I'm more interested in the lesson on the need to focus on Christ than on whether the Virgin Mary commited a sin or not. It is taught in the East that this narrative is in large part about this.


Focusing on Christ to clarify.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #58 on: January 04, 2011, 10:50:39 PM »

Ah, Nestorianism rears it's ugly head... Roll Eyes

This is what makes me really sick of ecumenists attempting to acquit the East Syrian church of heresy.
Do you mean the ecumenists in the anti-Chalcedonian churches?
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #59 on: January 04, 2011, 11:59:55 PM »

As for me and my house, we shall serve the true Orthodox ACOE which never said God suffered like a pagan would.

Ok, I didn't realize you were ACOE until just now. Please note that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the person of Jesus Christ is both human and divine, and that Mary gave birth to both his human and divine nature (in one person), which is why she is given the title "Birthgiver of God" or Theotokos, not merely Christotokos.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense to say that the Theotokos gave birth to the Logos' divine nature in the context of the way you guys use the term nature. I think it would only make sense to say that Mary is Theotokos because she gave birth to a theanthropic hypostasis.
Seems right to me.

This is really quite an unusual engagement where I, an Anti-Chalcedonian, am clarifying Anti-Synousiast theology to a Chalcedonian.  Undecided
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 #60 on: January 05, 2011, 12:04:36 AM »

As for me and my house, we shall serve the true Orthodox ACOE which never said God suffered like a pagan would.

Ok, I didn't realize you were ACOE until just now. Please note that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the person of Jesus Christ is both human and divine, and that Mary gave birth to both his human and divine nature (in one person), which is why she is given the title "Birthgiver of God" or Theotokos, not merely Christotokos.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense to say that the Theotokos gave birth to the Logos' divine nature in the context of the way you guys use the term nature. I think it would only make sense to say that Mary is Theotokos because she gave birth to a theanthropic hypostasis.
Seems right to me.
Does a Divine Hypostasis undergo change?

Not exactly, because, as Saint Severus of Antioch clarified, there are two senses of term hypostasis, one addressing objective realities and one addressing self-subsistence. The Godhead and humanity of the Logos remain distinct on the former level, while on the latter the self-subsistence of the Logos took on humanity and united it to Himself. So, on the former level, the divinity hypostasis of the Logos remains distinct and unchanged by the union with His humanity.
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 #61 on: January 05, 2011, 12:07:14 AM »

As for me and my house, we shall serve the true Orthodox ACOE which never said God suffered like a pagan would.

Ok, I didn't realize you were ACOE until just now. Please note that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the person of Jesus Christ is both human and divine, and that Mary gave birth to both his human and divine nature (in one person), which is why she is given the title "Birthgiver of God" or Theotokos, not merely Christotokos.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense to say that the Theotokos gave birth to the Logos' divine nature in the context of the way you guys use the term nature. I think it would only make sense to say that Mary is Theotokos because she gave birth to a theanthropic hypostasis.
Seems right to me.
Does a Divine Hypostasis undergo change?

Before you guys go much further you really ought to give some thought to how you are defining:

1) Nature:  human and divine

2) Personhood: human and divine

Till you go back to the Fathers and begin to sort all of that out, you are not going to get very far in any amount of logical detail to make your case.

If we are to go back to the Fathers, we can be using much more accurate terminologies than "nature" and "person". Simply translating "hypostasis" as "person" is rather unfortunate because person is a much more complicated terminology, which, in another of its senses, can be used instead for "prosopon".
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 #62 on: January 05, 2011, 12:14:32 AM »

Does Eastern Orthodoxy teach that the Divine Nature suffered on the cross?

No one teaches that the Godhead suffered on the Cross
(no matter how much Rafa would like you to believe otherwise). Both the EO & OO teach that the Logos suffered on the Cross.


AHEM (for you and Minas) :

Quote
Later Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (deemed heterodox by those who recognise the Council of Chalcedon), wrote to prove the correct ascription of the hymn to the Son of God, and made the use of the emended version standard in his diocese. It is this form Holy God, Holy and Strong, Holy and Immortal, crucified for us, have mercy on us that is in use in the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisagion#Modifications_in_history

*yawn*

The very quotation you provided answers your objection.

The hymn was traditionally interpreted as Christological rather than Triadological both in Alexandria and Antioch.
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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #63 on: January 05, 2011, 12:16:13 AM »

As for me and my house, we shall serve the true Orthodox ACOE which never said God suffered like a pagan would.

Ok, I didn't realize you were ACOE until just now. Please note that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the person of Jesus Christ is both human and divine, and that Mary gave birth to both his human and divine nature (in one person), which is why she is given the title "Birthgiver of God" or Theotokos, not merely Christotokos.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense to say that the Theotokos gave birth to the Logos' divine nature in the context of the way you guys use the term nature. I think it would only make sense to say that Mary is Theotokos because she gave birth to a theanthropic hypostasis.
Seems right to me.
Does a Divine Hypostasis undergo change?

Not exactly, because, as Saint Severus of Antioch clarified, there are two senses of term hypostasis, one addressing objective realities and one addressing self-subsistence. The Godhead and humanity of the Logos remain distinct on the former level, while on the latter the self-subsistence of the Logos took on humanity and united it to Himself. So, on the former level, the divinity hypostasis of the Logos remains distinct and unchanged by the union with His humanity.


pssst:

Quote
Later Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (deemed heterodox by those who recognise the Council of Chalcedon), wrote to prove the correct ascription of the hymn to the Son of God, and made the use of the emended version standard in his diocese. It is this form Holy God, Holy and Strong, Holy and Immortal, crucified for us, have mercy on us that is in use in the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

As for the Church of Persia, as it was under the domination of the Magians, it was had nothing else to oppose.  Although some scandals arose, these scandals, however, were not allowed to grow, because from the first the Lord repressed them.  So while these things were going thus from apostolic times to the reign of the last Khosro 5, our Saviour, to whom everything is clear even before it happens, saw how much we had lost during this long peace and to what evils we were led by the interference of Christian kings who wanted us to say that this nature above to all suffering suffered  -- something even the demons have not dared to put forward...




...The accursed heretics who received such assistance for the present time, instead of evangelizing and baptizing the heathen, as required by the ecclesiastical law, undertook a contrary evangelization, perverting to their sacrilegious (faith) almost all the churches of Rome, and revived and rebuilt what had already been abolished.  As a result, most Westerners have always used (the addition to the Trisagion): “… immortal, who was crucified for us.”  All the churches of (these countries) became like a wasteland.

-Mar John bar Penkaye, Summary of World History (Rish melle)
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 12:27:03 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #64 on: January 05, 2011, 12:16:40 AM »

Also, If she fell asleep she sinned  since death is a consequence of sin.

Oh great. I sense a Julianism debate coming on:

Christ Himself died. Death is a consequence of sin that can be transmitted to descendants without sin itself being transmitted.
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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #65 on: January 05, 2011, 12:19:32 AM »

Also, If she fell asleep she sinned  since death is a consequence of sin.

Oh great. I sense a Julianism debate coming on:

Christ Himself died. Death is a consequence of sin that can be transmitted to descendants without sin itself being transmitted.

I plead guilty to not being sure about whether sin and death follow each other like I mentioned above. Apologies. Still she fell asleep and did not ascend to Heaven since nobody in the East ever heard of such a thing as an "Ascension of Mary".
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 12:21:50 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #66 on: January 05, 2011, 12:20:20 AM »

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm


If the one born from the Mary was also truly eternally born/begotten from the Father, as this Timothy fellow indicates, then logically that necessitates the one being born from Mary being God, and thus ascribing the title of Theotokos to her being accurate.
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 #67 on: January 05, 2011, 12:21:34 AM »

Also, If she fell asleep she sinned  since death is a consequence of sin.

Oh great. I sense a Julianism debate coming on:

Christ Himself died. Death is a consequence of sin that can be transmitted to descendants without sin itself being transmitted.

I plead guilty to not being sure about whether sin and death follow each other like I mentioned above. Apologies. Still she fell asleep and did not ascend to Heaven since nobody in the East ever heard of such a thing as an "Ascesion of Mary".

The standard teaching within "Eastern Christianity" is that the Theotokos died, was resurrected three days later, and was assumed with her resurrected body into Heaven by the power of Christ and the angels.
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 #68 on: January 05, 2011, 12:22:46 AM »

The Catholic Church does not teach that she did not need a savior. Both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church teach that she lived her life free from sin.

Actually, very few of us would deny that the Theotokos inherited the condition called ancestral sin.
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 #69 on: January 05, 2011, 12:25:36 AM »

Ah, Nestorianism rears it's ugly head... Roll Eyes

This is what makes me really sick of ecumenists attempting to acquit the East Syrian church of heresy.
Do you mean the ecumenists in the anti-Chalcedonian churches?

Not exactly. If anything the modern phenomenon of acquitting the East Syrians of heresy is really only highly popular among Western Christians. However, with regard to its indications of the situation of ecumenism overall, I was speaking in a very general sense, and indeed the situation is very bad in the OO churches.
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
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #70 on: January 05, 2011, 12:29:57 AM »

Hopefully you'll set things straight when you join them.
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #71 on: January 05, 2011, 12:33:17 AM »

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm


If the one born from the Mary was also truly eternally born/begotten from the Father, as this Timothy fellow indicates, then logically that necessitates the one being born from Mary being God, and thus ascribing the title of Theotokos to her being accurate.

The one born was the humanity of Christ, not the Divinity. God is not a person obviously, In the ACOE there is no mention of "Divine persons"- EVER. Only Qnume. This also proves the allegations of "nestorianism" wrong since nobody ever taught "two persons in Christ". Mar Nestorius was persecuted for the Truth.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #72 on: January 05, 2011, 12:35:40 AM »

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm


If the one born from the Mary was also truly eternally born/begotten from the Father, as this Timothy fellow indicates, then logically that necessitates the one being born from Mary being God, and thus ascribing the title of Theotokos to her being accurate.

The one born was the humanity of Christ, not the Divinity. God is not a person obviously, In the ACOE there is no mention of "Divine persons"- EVER. Only Qnume. This also proves the allegations of "nestorianism" wrong since nobody ever taught "two persons in Christ". Mar Nestorius was persecuted for the Truth.

What you are saying is not compatible with the fact that at the end of your quote, he speaks of the same subject both being eternally born of the Father and then being temporally born of Mary.
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 #73 on: January 05, 2011, 12:36:50 AM »

Hopefully you'll set things straight when you join them.

If that ever even happens.
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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #74 on: January 05, 2011, 12:42:16 AM »

Hopefully you'll set things straight when you join them.

If that ever even happens.

Maybe it is the will of God that you stay in the Eastern Orthodox Church (a good Church) ?

Quote
What you are saying is not compatible with the fact that at the end of your quote, he speaks of the same subject both being eternally born of the Father and then being temporally born of Mary.

He's saying the Logos is begotten of the Father (ie: the Son is uncreated) and the humanity is born of the Virgin.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 12:45:18 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #75 on: January 05, 2011, 12:50:08 AM »

Speaking of ecumenism:
http://news.assyrianchurch.com/syria’s-acoe-and-melkite-churches-congregate-for-holy-eucharist/984
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #76 on: January 05, 2011, 12:55:07 AM »

Maybe it is the will of God that you stay in the Eastern Orthodox Church (a good Church)?

I could see how that would make sense to you as a Branch Theorist, but for someone who holds to the traditional Cyprianite ecclesiology ratified by numerous Eastern Christian Fathers, it makes no sense.

He's saying the Logos is begotten of the Father (ie: the Son is uncreated) and the humanity is born of the Virgin.

That is technically impossible given the language. Read the pronouns:

"as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."

The repetition of only the same pronoun as the subject indicates referring to the same subject.
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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #77 on: January 05, 2011, 12:56:00 AM »


Nice. A deacon I know tell's me that there are many joint services in his Church, including with the miaphysite churches. Everybody is invited to the Qurbana (Eucharist) in the ACOE provided they are baptized validly (in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 01:02:05 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #78 on: January 05, 2011, 12:56:41 AM »


Ick.  Sad
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
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #79 on: January 05, 2011, 01:09:08 AM »

He's saying the Logos is begotten of the Father (ie: the Son is uncreated) and the humanity is born of the Virgin.

That is technically impossible given the language. Read the pronouns:

"as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."

The repetition of only the same pronoun as the subject indicates referring to the same subject.
Yes, it is the fact that the incarnate Logos is a single divine subject (i.e., one divine hypostasis) that makes it possible for us to refer to the Virgin Mary by the conciliar title "Theotokos."
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #80 on: January 05, 2011, 01:14:22 AM »

He's saying the Logos is begotten of the Father (ie: the Son is uncreated) and the humanity is born of the Virgin.

That is technically impossible given the language. Read the pronouns:

"as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."

The repetition of only the same pronoun as the subject indicates referring to the same subject.
Yes, it is the fact that the incarnate Logos is a single divine subject (i.e., one divine hypostasis) that makes it possible for us to refer to the Virgin Mary by the conciliar title "Theotokos."


Read this, it will clear up some things :

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

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #81 on: January 05, 2011, 01:20:40 AM »

He's saying the Logos is begotten of the Father (ie: the Son is uncreated) and the humanity is born of the Virgin.

That is technically impossible given the language. Read the pronouns:

"as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."

The repetition of only the same pronoun as the subject indicates referring to the same subject.
Yes, it is the fact that the incarnate Logos is a single divine subject (i.e., one divine hypostasis) that makes it possible for us to refer to the Virgin Mary by the conciliar title "Theotokos."


Read this, it will clear up some things :

http://nestorian.org/book_of_marganitha_part_iii.html#part3chap4
I have no problem with a person making a mental distinction (tei theoria monei) between the divine and human natures in Christ; instead, the difficulty arises when a person denies that Mary is Theotokos because they have failed to accept that she is the mother of the eternal and uncreated hypostasis of the Logos made man.  Christ, as Chalcedon taught, is one hypostasis and one prosopon in two natures.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 01:30:41 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #82 on: January 05, 2011, 01:40:04 AM »

Everybody is invited to the Qurbana (Eucharist) in the ACOE provided they are baptized validly (in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

That's a very Augustinian Sacramentology for someone who expresses such virulent hatred for the man.
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 #83 on: January 05, 2011, 01:41:18 AM »

He's saying the Logos is begotten of the Father (ie: the Son is uncreated) and the humanity is born of the Virgin.

That is technically impossible given the language. Read the pronouns:

"as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."

The repetition of only the same pronoun as the subject indicates referring to the same subject.
Yes, it is the fact that the incarnate Logos is a single divine subject (i.e., one divine hypostasis) that makes it possible for us to refer to the Virgin Mary by the conciliar title "Theotokos."

*nods*  Smiley

Though the subject becomes divine and human as a consequence of the Incarnation, no?
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
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #84 on: January 05, 2011, 01:46:26 AM »

If the Second Person of the Trinity was "born" (not "created" or "generated") of the Virgin Mary, then would that not mean that the Second Person of the Trinity could be limited in terms of space?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 01:47:10 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #85 on: January 05, 2011, 01:54:01 AM »

If the Second Person of the Trinity was "born" (not "created" or "generated") of the Virgin Mary, then would that not mean that the Second Person of the Trinity could be limited in terms of space?

Yes, it is generally agreed upon by those who uphold the doctrine of the hypostatic union that with respect to His humanity the Logos became circumscribed. Some have even seemed to suggest that the kenosis (self-emptying) involved a willful circumscribing of His divinity. But that doesn't seem orthodox to me. So I say that He was simultaneously circumscribed with regard to His humanity, with the Godhead dwelling in it in a unique manner, but also still uncircumscribed with regard to 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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #86 on: January 05, 2011, 02:02:04 AM »

He's saying the Logos is begotten of the Father (ie: the Son is uncreated) and the humanity is born of the Virgin.

That is technically impossible given the language. Read the pronouns:

"as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."

The repetition of only the same pronoun as the subject indicates referring to the same subject.
Yes, it is the fact that the incarnate Logos is a single divine subject (i.e., one divine hypostasis) that makes it possible for us to refer to the Virgin Mary by the conciliar title "Theotokos."


Read this, it will clear up some things :

http://nestorian.org/book_of_marganitha_part_iii.html#part3chap4
I have no problem with a person making a mental distinction (tei theoria monei) between the divine and human natures in Christ; instead, the difficulty arises when a person denies that Mary is Theotokos because they have failed to accept that she is the mother of the eternal and uncreated hypostasis of the Logos made man.  Christ, as Chalcedon taught, is one hypostasis and one prosopon in two natures.

read the link I gave :

Quote

...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.[/u]

 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.

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


Your use of the term hypostasis  is not accepted in the East .
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 02:03:30 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #87 on: January 05, 2011, 02:06:29 AM »

He's saying the Logos is begotten of the Father (ie: the Son is uncreated) and the humanity is born of the Virgin.

That is technically impossible given the language. Read the pronouns:

"as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."

The repetition of only the same pronoun as the subject indicates referring to the same subject.
Yes, it is the fact that the incarnate Logos is a single divine subject (i.e., one divine hypostasis) that makes it possible for us to refer to the Virgin Mary by the conciliar title "Theotokos."


Read this, it will clear up some things :

http://nestorian.org/book_of_marganitha_part_iii.html#part3chap4
I have no problem with a person making a mental distinction (tei theoria monei) between the divine and human natures in Christ; instead, the difficulty arises when a person denies that Mary is Theotokos because they have failed to accept that she is the mother of the eternal and uncreated hypostasis of the Logos made man.  Christ, as Chalcedon taught, is one hypostasis and one prosopon in two natures.

read the link I gave
I read the link, but I disagree with it.  I reject Nestorius' views as heretical.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #88 on: January 05, 2011, 02:07:12 AM »

Quote
That's a horrible thing to say, you are basically saying that Mary never sinned (by supposedly always being of one accord with Christ, not true- she lost Christ in Egypt as the Gospels say meaning her focus was not on Christ when this happened, this is not his will, and no he did not lose himself) and thus she did not need a saviour which of course is not true.

It is true that Mary never sinned, though it is not true that she did not need a savior.

She lost focus of Christ in that marketplace. That is not his will. We cannot say he lost himself either. We know she fell asleep, the only ones saying she never fell asleep are the RCC . Nothing in Eastern tradition (where her relatives served in the Church) suggesting her ascending to heaven. Also, If she fell asleep she sinned  since death is a consequence of sin.

You are absolutely wrong about the first point.  The Catholic Church does teach that she ended her life-span in the normal way, which is death.  A large portion of the dogmatic constitution for the Assumption is taken up with recounting the long tradition of the Catholic Church with respect to the falling asleep of the Mother of God.  So you and others who say that is not true really don't know what the dickens you are talking about.  I'll chalk it up to ignorance.

As for the second point which draws into question any tradition in Orthodoxy concerning whether or not the Mother of God is taken up bodily into heaven...That is not my problem and I don't really care what you believe at this point.  I never get the same answer twice so I quit askin'.

As to your third point, you are absolutely correct.  If death is the ONLY wage for sin then, by God, there is not sinless Mother of God.  That is the box that modern Orthodox believers have constructed for themselves and you are all more than welcome to it...but it is the ONLY logical conclusion to the idea that the only stain of original sin is death.
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #89 on: January 05, 2011, 02:08:58 AM »

Your use of the term hypostasis  is not accepted in the East .
I follow the Cappadocians in holding that hypostasis means subsistence.  That said, the incarnate Christ is one person (prosopon) and one subsistence (hypostasis), and Mary gave birth to the divine person and subsistence of the eternal Logos, who assumed human nature from her.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 02:10:01 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #90 on: January 05, 2011, 02:11:55 AM »

He's saying the Logos is begotten of the Father (ie: the Son is uncreated) and the humanity is born of the Virgin.

That is technically impossible given the language. Read the pronouns:

"as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."

The repetition of only the same pronoun as the subject indicates referring to the same subject.
Yes, it is the fact that the incarnate Logos is a single divine subject (i.e., one divine hypostasis) that makes it possible for us to refer to the Virgin Mary by the conciliar title "Theotokos."


Read this, it will clear up some things :

http://nestorian.org/book_of_marganitha_part_iii.html#part3chap4
I have no problem with a person making a mental distinction (tei theoria monei) between the divine and human natures in Christ; instead, the difficulty arises when a person denies that Mary is Theotokos because they have failed to accept that she is the mother of the eternal and uncreated hypostasis of the Logos made man.  Christ, as Chalcedon taught, is one hypostasis and one prosopon in two natures.

read the link I gave
I read the link, but I disagree with it.  I reject Nestorius' views as heretical.


Did you read the last part that the ACOE had nothing to do with Nestorius and that people started knocking on it's door to accept some things the Apostles never taught ?


Quote
I follow the Cappadocians in holding that hypostasis means subsistence.  That said, the incarnate Christ is one person (prosopon) and one subsistence (hypostasis), and Mary gave birth to the divine person and subsistence of the eternal Logos, who assumed human nature from her.

If you follow the Cappadocian Fathers, you might benefit in knowing that the Western Father the ACOE gave the title of "Interpreter" to (Mar Theodore of Mopsuestia) was taught by Diodorus of Tarsus and thus is of the school of the Cappadocian Fathers. There is no Greek word seperating person from Qnuma as Mar Odisho said.


An example of a TRUE heresy is that of papism which changes what a Bishop is by usurping the role of the Head of the Church (Christ). This heresy actually endangers sacraments since somebody changed the role of what a Bishop is, an essential office of the church. So please stop worrying about fictitious heresies like what Mar Nestorius who suffered for the Truth supposedly said and worry about something actually dangerous.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 02:43:04 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #91 on: January 05, 2011, 02:32:09 AM »

I read the link, but I disagree with it.  I reject Nestorius' views as heretical.
Did you read the last part that the ACOE had nothing to do with Nestorius and that people started knocking on it's door to accept some things the Apostles never taught ?
Whether it has a direct connection to Nestorius or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the modern ACOE seems to reject that doctrine of the incarnation by refusing to admit that Mary is the Theotokos.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #92 on: January 05, 2011, 12:37:09 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Can someone answer me a question : how is it orthodox to say the Divinity of Christ is a person which is given "birth" to when in fact God is not a "person"? How can we speak of a Spirit as something which is given birth to when it is not subject to the physical world, when it is immortal and in the case of God without beginning ? Would it not be much more orthodox to say that the Virgin gave birth to the humanity of Christ which was subject to the things implied by birth ?

Perhaps you should dive a bit deeper into the Patristic writings and sprinkle this with some Hindu theological texts which can perhaps animate and give a more detailed language to help understand and describe that which can not be described.  As Jesus Christ told us, "If I tell you physical things and you can not understand, how will you be understanding when I tell you spiritual things?"

It is fundamental that we understand the doctrine of the Incarnation in the Orthodox concept, that Jesus Christ is mutually and eternally a human being and God.  He is not a God who became a man, He is not a man who became a God.  He was always a God, and always a Man, perfect God and perfect Man, Two Natures FROM One Person, and that unified person of Jesus Christ is both God and Man, in perfect hypostasis. This is not necessarily easy to understand, but here is a Patristic analogy.  In purely scientific terms, Adam is the first sequence of purely homo sapien DNA, and Eve is that mother of us all who we share the exact same mitochondrial DNA.  Jesus Christ's humanity always followed this same pattern of Adam's DNA, and this is the mathematical concept of His humanity, that He shares our own DNA and subsequent physicality.Some of the Hindu mystics have wonderful dialogue explaining in poetry and symbolism the idea of humanity itself being a condensate of the Divine Source.   In Hinduism, ALL human beings are like Jesus Christ, a composite mix perfectly of the Divine and the Human forms.  While that is not specifically the Orthodox doctrine, the language and manner in which the Hindus explain this can serve usefully to explain our own Orthodox concept of the Incarnation.


The Father is the Sun (ie, the origin/source), the Son is the Light (ie, the material manifestation of the Essence of the Origin) and the Holy Spirit is the Heat (ie, the reaction to the Origin)

Jesus Christ's Divinity is the fire, and His Humanity is the heat (ie, the manifestation of this fire), but its in unison, just as you can not take away the heat from the fire in nature.  In Ethiopian Orthodox we call this Tewahedo (literally, "Made into one, composite form") which is both a concept and a word derived from the Hebrew "ahkhad" ("made-one from many") which is exactly the term used by Jesus Christ and Moses when they said and quoted, "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is ONE (ie, made into one) God."

(from the Strong's Concordance/Lexicon)

In the Virgin Mary, the humanness of Jesus Christ condensed in Her own purely human flesh and became God-Man, as His Divinity was always from the Father, before the beginning, and His humanity also always existed, in fact He is the origin of all humanity.  When God created Man, He created ALL mankind in the proto-type of Adam, and we are also of this same origin. This is also part of the concept of the Body of Christ which is taught in the Epistles and the Patristic writings, but a bit more obscurely and mystically explained.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 12:39:36 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #93 on: January 05, 2011, 03:46:22 PM »

I read the link, but I disagree with it.  I reject Nestorius' views as heretical.
Did you read the last part that the ACOE had nothing to do with Nestorius and that people started knocking on it's door to accept some things the Apostles never taught ?
Whether it has a direct connection to Nestorius or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the modern ACOE seems to reject that doctrine of the incarnation by refusing to admit that Mary is the Theotokos.
Do you really believe that?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #94 on: January 05, 2011, 03:48:53 PM »

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm


If the one born from the Mary was also truly eternally born/begotten from the Father, as this Timothy fellow indicates, then logically that necessitates the one being born from Mary being God, and thus ascribing the title of Theotokos to her being accurate.

The one born was the humanity of Christ, not the Divinity. God is not a person obviously, In the ACOE there is no mention of "Divine persons"- EVER. Only Qnume. This also proves the allegations of "nestorianism" wrong since nobody ever taught "two persons in Christ". Mar Nestorius was persecuted for the Truth.
ummm. A person is born, not a nature. The Divine Logos was born by means of his human nature, not his Divine Nature.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #95 on: January 05, 2011, 04:30:20 PM »

Whether it has a direct connection to Nestorius or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the modern ACOE seems to reject that doctrine of the incarnation by refusing to admit that Mary is the Theotokos.
Do you really believe that?
Yes, I believe what I wrote, and I am basing what I said upon Rafa's posts and on the links he has provided.

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm


If the one born from the Mary was also truly eternally born/begotten from the Father, as this Timothy fellow indicates, then logically that necessitates the one being born from Mary being God, and thus ascribing the title of Theotokos to her being accurate.

The one born was the humanity of Christ, not the Divinity. God is not a person obviously, In the ACOE there is no mention of "Divine persons"- EVER. Only Qnume. This also proves the allegations of "nestorianism" wrong since nobody ever taught "two persons in Christ". Mar Nestorius was persecuted for the Truth.
ummm. A person is born, not a nature. The Divine Logos was born by means of his human nature, not his Divine Nature.
You have expressed the key point in the dispute.  No mother gives birth to a nature; instead, a mother always gives birth to a person, and in the incarnation Mary gave birth to the divine person / subsistence of the Logos when He took human nature from her through the power of the Holy Spirit.  The ACOE seems to be confusing person (understood as prosopon and hypostasis) with nature, which is - to be honest - a form of the Nestorian error.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #96 on: January 05, 2011, 05:30:47 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

You have expressed the key point in the dispute.  No mother gives birth to a nature; instead, a mother always gives birth to a person, and in the incarnation Mary gave birth to the divine person / subsistence of the Logos when He took human nature from her through the power of the Holy Spirit.  The ACOE seems to be confusing person (understood as prosopon and hypostasis) with nature, which is - to be honest - a form of the Nestorian error.

I am sorry but that is not entirely accurate, even from a purely scientific standpoint.  Our specific combinations of DNA and physical features are what make us uniquely human from something both physically and genetically similar in structure as say a Chimpanzee.  So yes, we not only receive our physical bodies, but our human nature from our mothers, for if we were not born human beings in the recombined DNA of our parents and literally using their flesh and blood in the form of the inseminated egg cell and the genetic material from the sperm gamete, this is what defines us as specifically human beings.  So yes, Jesus Christ, through the Incarnation, did take on an aspect of His human nature from the Virgin birth, and it is in fact precisely why He was born of a human birth through the typical human mechanisms of egg and DNA.  Otherwise, Jesus Christ could have simply appeared, rather than having been physically made and born in the womb of the Virgin.  But perhaps you are referring to the more metaphorical aspect of nature and humanity, which we loosely classify as the "soul" or the "spirit" which is also human.  I think in terms of the eternity and inseparability of Jesus Christ's human nature and divine nature is in this context, as aside from it we would have to get heretical and claim that Jesus Christ became human nature only after the Incarnation of the egg cell in Virgin Mary's womb.  But we know this is a continuous process, just as melting ice becomes water, or vaporizing water becomes steam, but in each manifestation the fundamental nature (ie, H2O or water) remains the same, even as it takes on different physical forms.  Jesus Christ was and is always human and divine, and in fact He was indeed fully human BEFORE the Incarnation in the womb of the Virgin, but it is precisely this process of Incarnation which completed the process to finality, to consummation, to our Salvation.  

stay blessed,
habte selassie



Fixed quote tags and nothing more... -PtA
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 02:52:31 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #97 on: January 05, 2011, 05:33:05 PM »

Look Apoth, I was kind enough to provide a link on how the Greek "hypostasis" became identified with person and that this was never accepted in the East. I also don't care AT ALL what so forth so forth Western individual in so forth council the ACOE did not attend said about this issue centuries later after the teaching was set in the ACOE, especially since Salvation proceeded from the East--->Westwards, not the other way round, and if this understanding of yours was demonstrably never taught in the East that's all that matters. It was never taught in the East. A Qnume is not a person. You insist in anthropomorphising the Divinity of Christ (especially for the incarnation), there's a name for this idea in the semitic mind : it's called paganism.

Man-god = pagan

Man / God = Orthodox


Quote
The Father is the Sun (ie, the origin/source), the Son is the Light (ie, the material manifestation of the Essence of the Origin) and the Holy Spirit is the Heat (ie, the reaction to the Origin)

The analogy of the Father being the Sun, the Son the Light, and the Warmth the Holy Spirit is interestingly taught in the Assyrian Church of the East.

Quote
He was indeed fully human BEFORE the Incarnation in the womb of the Virgin

Habte, that is not orthodox.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 05:58:22 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #98 on: January 05, 2011, 05:56:22 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Look, I was kind enough to provide a link on how the Greek "hypostasis" became identified with person and that this was never accepted in the East. I also don't care AT ALL what so forth so forth Western individual in so forth council the ACOE did not attend said about this issue centuries later after the teaching was set in the ACOE, especially since Salvation proceeded from the East--->Westwards, not the other way round, and if this understanding of yours was demonstrably never taught in the East that's all that matters. It was never taught in the East. A Qnume is not a person. You insist in anthropomorphising the Divinity of Christ (especially for the incarnation), there's a name for this idea in the semitic mind : it's called paganism.

Man-god = pagan

Man / God = Orthodox


Quote
The Father is the Sun (ie, the origin/source), the Son is the Light (ie, the material manifestation of the Essence of the Origin) and the Holy Spirit is the Heat (ie, the reaction to the Origin)

The analogy of the Father being the Sun, the Son the Light, and the Warmth the Holy Spirit is interestingly taught in the Assyrian Church of the East.




Well, that is a difference of doctrinal opinion, but it is not a Western versus Eastern issue, because most of the Eastern and also Oriental Orthodox jurisdictions fully embrace the First Three Ecumenical Councils which fully define and elaborate on both the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ.  So you are on you own if your parish or jurisdiction does not follow the humanizing of Our Savior, but for the rest of us Orthodox folks it is  fundamental article of faith to accept mutually the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ, it is not anthropomorphizing.  That would only be applicable if Jesus Christ NEVER took any human or physical form in the first place. So if we are merely anthropomorphizing, explain then the human manifestation of Jesus Christ in the 1st century? Was He merely a spiritual apparition, a vision, a metaphoric representation in physical terms of a purely spiritual being?  Please explain Smiley

stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 06:02:42 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #99 on: January 05, 2011, 06:09:32 PM »

It is a Western versus Eastern issue since the ACOE is the only Church which was not under the Byzantine-Roman ecclesiastical structure. It is also the earliest Eastern Church to receive the teaching of the Apostles. East to West, that is the path of the teachings, not the reverse.

Quote
So if we are merely anthropomorphizing, explain then the human manifestation of Jesus Christ in the 1st century? Was He merely a spiritual apparition, a vision, a metaphoric representation in physical terms of a purely spiritual being?

No, he assumed the humanity created from the Virgin's womb by the Holy Spirit. His humanity did not pre-exist.

Quote
Eastern and also Oriental Orthodox jurisdictions fully embrace the First Three Ecumenical Councils which fully define and elaborate on both the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ.

The third council (ephesus) was not ecumenical. This comes as a shock to many people, but they forget that the definition of ecumenical is if the entire Church of the Apostles agreed to the council. The Assyrian Church of the East did not even attend this council, and it never accepted it's conclusions when people suddenly appeared knocking on it's door a long time after it happened.


Quote
you are on you own if your parish or jurisdiction does not follow the humanizing of Our Savior

If that were true then so be it. Let anybody who present another Gospel than the one delivered be accursed. It is a narrow road indeed. Fortunately this is not the case since the Western Church believes that the humanity and Divinity of Christ are 100% seperate and with no mixture. Unfortunately in the West they use language not accepted in the East to explain this seperateness of the Two natures of Christ.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 06:11:50 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #100 on: January 05, 2011, 06:21:56 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

It is a Western versus Eastern issue since the ACOE is the only Church which was not under the Byzantine-Roman ecclesiastical structure. It is also the earliest Eastern Church to recieve the teaching of the Apostles. East to West, that is the path of the teachings, not the reverse.

Then please explain the Alexandrian Coptic Church, the Syrian Church and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church who were never under any kind of historical Byzantine/Roman supremacy or large influence, in fact quite the contrary, during the first four centuries of Christianity the Apostolic Tradition and Orthodoxy were formed and canonized in Egypt, Jerusalem and Ethiopia.  The first monarchy to fully and exclusively embrace Orthodox or any Christianity was in Ethiopia, and the Egyptians are the longest continuous stream of Christian thought available.  All the "lost" texts of Christianity are in Egypt and Ethiopia, not necessarily the ACOE, and further, Egypt and Ethiopia fully embrace the first three Councils and their respective Canons as articles of Apostolic Faith.  Again, it is hardly then an East vs West issue..

Quote
So if we are merely anthropomorphizing, explain then the human manifestation of Jesus Christ in the 1st century? Was He merely a spiritual apparition, a vision, a metaphoric representation in physical terms of a purely spiritual being?

No, he assumed the humanity created from the Virgin's womb by the Holy Spirit. His humanity did not pre-exist.

And what is this "assumed" you are speaking of specifically, if it is not anthropomorphism by your own limited definition? Whether or not His humanity pre-existed is irrelevant to your wrongful claims of anthropomorphism in the Incarnation doctrines.

Quote
Eastern and also Oriental Orthodox jurisdictions fully embrace the First Three Ecumenical Councils which fully define and elaborate on both the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ

The third council (ephesus) was not ecumenical. This comes as a shock to many people, but they forget that the definition of ecumenical is if the entire Church of the Apostles agreed to the council. The Assyrian Church of the East did not even attend this council, and it never accepted it's conclusions when people suddenly appeared knocking on it's door a long time after it happened.


you are on you own if your parish or jurisdiction does not follow the humanizing of Our Savior

Again, you can split hairs all you like, but we in the Oriental Orthodox embrace the First Three, and that is all I can say on the matter.  We can easily agree to disagree, but then again if your jurisdiction rejects the Third Council which the rest of Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy accepts fully, how can you say that your perspective is strictly Eastern, when many of the Eastern churches blatantly disagree with you on the matter? You are free to accept any Councils you like, but you can not speak for other jurisdictions so forcefully when what you are saying is hardly representative of the whole region/traditions.
Quote
If that were true then so be it. Let anybody who present another Gospel thsan the one delivered be accursed. It is a narrow road indeed. Fortunately this is not the case since the Western Church believes that the humanity and Divinity of Christ are 100% seperate and with no mixture. Unfortunately in the West they use language not accepted in the East to explain this seperateness of the Two natures of Christ.

You are creating a straw man fallacy about Western Christianity, talk with some Catholics sometime, you might be surprised that when we elucidate our respective beliefs clearly, with open communication and a listening, conciliatory heart, then you might find that many of us are saying the same things in different ways.    The Roman Church today does not in fact teach of any separation, in fact they specifically say that there is "no distinction or separation" just as we do.  The difference in doctrine is not a matter of separation, it is  manner of mechanics/logistics.  The issue the divides is to say that Jesus Christ is Two Natures FROM One Person (Orthodox) or Two Natures IN One Person (Roman Catholic) but the Roman Church does go out of its way extensively to combat this misconception of a doctrine of separation, which quite honestly does not exist and further please show me where the Roman Church specifically teaches the doctrine of separation, I am unfamiliar with this teaching.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 06:25:11 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #101 on: January 05, 2011, 06:25:03 PM »


....in fact He was indeed fully human BEFORE the Incarnation in the womb of the Virgin....
This would solve some problems, but it raises many new ones. Shocked
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #102 on: January 05, 2011, 07:43:29 PM »

Whether it has a direct connection to Nestorius or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the modern ACOE seems to reject that doctrine of the incarnation by refusing to admit that Mary is the Theotokos.
Do you really believe that?
Yes, I believe what I wrote, and I am basing what I said upon Rafa's posts and on the links he has provided.

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm


If the one born from the Mary was also truly eternally born/begotten from the Father, as this Timothy fellow indicates, then logically that necessitates the one being born from Mary being God, and thus ascribing the title of Theotokos to her being accurate.

The one born was the humanity of Christ, not the Divinity. God is not a person obviously, In the ACOE there is no mention of "Divine persons"- EVER. Only Qnume. This also proves the allegations of "nestorianism" wrong since nobody ever taught "two persons in Christ". Mar Nestorius was persecuted for the Truth.
ummm. A person is born, not a nature. The Divine Logos was born by means of his human nature, not his Divine Nature.
You have expressed the key point in the dispute.  No mother gives birth to a nature; instead, a mother always gives birth to a person, and in the incarnation Mary gave birth to the divine person / subsistence of the Logos when He took human nature from her through the power of the Holy Spirit.  The ACOE seems to be confusing person (understood as prosopon and hypostasis) with nature, which is - to be honest - a form of the Nestorian error.
I agree with you that ACE theology is confused, but I would not go so far as to claim that they deny the Incarnation.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #103 on: January 05, 2011, 07:57:24 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

It is a Western versus Eastern issue since the ACOE is the only Church which was not under the Byzantine-Roman ecclesiastical structure. It is also the earliest Eastern Church to recieve the teaching of the Apostles. East to West, that is the path of the teachings, not the reverse.

Then please explain the Alexandrian Coptic Church, the Syrian Church and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church who were never under any kind of historical Byzantine/Roman supremacy or large influence, in fact quite the contrary, during the first four centuries of Christianity the Apostolic Tradition and Orthodoxy were formed and canonized in Egypt, Jerusalem and Ethiopia.  The first monarchy to fully and exclusively embrace Orthodox or any Christianity was in Ethiopia, and the Egyptians are the longest continuous stream of Christian thought available.  All the "lost" texts of Christianity are in Egypt and Ethiopia, not necessarily the ACOE, and further, Egypt and Ethiopia fully embrace the first three Councils and their respective Canons as articles of Apostolic Faith.  Again, it is hardly then an East vs West issue..

Quote
So if we are merely anthropomorphizing, explain then the human manifestation of Jesus Christ in the 1st century? Was He merely a spiritual apparition, a vision, a metaphoric representation in physical terms of a purely spiritual being?

No, he assumed the humanity created from the Virgin's womb by the Holy Spirit. His humanity did not pre-exist.

And what is this "assumed" you are speaking of specifically, if it is not anthropomorphism by your own limited definition? Whether or not His humanity pre-existed is irrelevant to your wrongful claims of anthropomorphism in the Incarnation doctrines.

Quote
Eastern and also Oriental Orthodox jurisdictions fully embrace the First Three Ecumenical Councils which fully define and elaborate on both the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ

The third council (ephesus) was not ecumenical. This comes as a shock to many people, but they forget that the definition of ecumenical is if the entire Church of the Apostles agreed to the council. The Assyrian Church of the East did not even attend this council, and it never accepted it's conclusions when people suddenly appeared knocking on it's door a long time after it happened.


you are on you own if your parish or jurisdiction does not follow the humanizing of Our Savior

Again, you can split hairs all you like, but we in the Oriental Orthodox embrace the First Three, and that is all I can say on the matter.  We can easily agree to disagree, but then again if your jurisdiction rejects the Third Council which the rest of Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy accepts fully, how can you say that your perspective is strictly Eastern, when many of the Eastern churches blatantly disagree with you on the matter? You are free to accept any Councils you like, but you can not speak for other jurisdictions so forcefully when what you are saying is hardly representative of the whole region/traditions.
Quote
If that were true then so be it. Let anybody who present another Gospel thsan the one delivered be accursed. It is a narrow road indeed. Fortunately this is not the case since the Western Church believes that the humanity and Divinity of Christ are 100% seperate and with no mixture. Unfortunately in the West they use language not accepted in the East to explain this seperateness of the Two natures of Christ.

You are creating a straw man fallacy about Western Christianity, talk with some Catholics sometime, you might be surprised that when we elucidate our respective beliefs clearly, with open communication and a listening, conciliatory heart, then you might find that many of us are saying the same things in different ways.    The Roman Church today does not in fact teach of any separation, in fact they specifically say that there is "no distinction or separation" just as we do.  The difference in doctrine is not a matter of separation, it is  manner of mechanics/logistics.  The issue the divides is to say that Jesus Christ is Two Natures FROM One Person (Orthodox) or Two Natures IN One Person (Roman Catholic) but the Roman Church does go out of its way extensively to combat this misconception of a doctrine of separation, which quite honestly does not exist and further please show me where the Roman Church specifically teaches the doctrine of separation, I am unfamiliar with this teaching.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Shlama Habte !

Quote
Then please explain the Alexandrian Coptic Church, the Syrian Church and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church who were never under any kind of historical Byzantine/Roman supremacy or large influence

That is a joke right? Egypt which originated the miaphysite worldview (Cyril's doctrine) was part of the Roman empire just for starters.

Quote
The first monarchy to fully and exclusively embrace Orthodox or any Christianity was in Ethiopia

No, the first Kingdom to embrace Christianity was Edessa under King Abgar Ukama.

Quote
.  All the "lost" texts of Christianity are in Egypt and Ethiopia

Many apocryphal texts full of unreliable and dangerous fables in Egypt yes.

Quote
And what is this "assumed" you are speaking of specifically, if it is not anthropomorphism by your own limited definition?

Assumed man is actually what I meant to say. Word and assumed flesh sounds too dangerous, Word and assumed man like Saint Theodore wrote is much better.

Quote
We can easily agree to disagree, but then again if your jurisdiction rejects the Third Council which the rest of Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy accepts fully, how can you say that your perspective is strictly Eastern, when many of the Eastern churches blatantly disagree with you on the matter?

First Roman Catholics have 21 "ecumenical councils" you have five or so, and the EO has 7. I think the Assyrian Church of the East is right therefore in saying only two councils were universally agreed upon and that a third (Chalcedon) is pious but not infallible or ecumenical.

Second, the Greeks (Eastern orthodox)  were never considered "Eastern"- they are Westerners if such a thing as a Western ever existed. So that's a straw man. Also everything from Syria to the British isles was Roman, the only Church outside this domain and the ecclesiastical structure set up under Roman influece was the Assyrian Church of the East. Everybody else had the interference of Christian Kings for good or for worse. Therefore the ACOE perspective is strictly Eastern. It was under the Magians, not Western Roman emperors intervening in the Church continuosly. The only history it can compare itself to is it's own, the same cannot be said of say the Coptic Church or the GOC, or the RCC. The ACOE is thus a representative of Eastern tradition.


The RCC signed a common Christology with the ACOE. Therefore it says at least on paper that Christ's humanity and Divinity were seperate (ie: no mixture).
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #104 on: January 05, 2011, 08:02:08 PM »



The RCC signed a common Christology with the ACOE. Therefore it says at least on paper that Christ's humanity and Divinity were seperate (ie: no mixture).

We also signed a common Christology with the OOs stating that Christ is only one person and the two natures, while distinct, are not separate, but united in the one person of Christ. In fact, even our agreement with the ACE points out that there is only one Christ, and not two.

Do you understand that RCs, EOs, and OOs all profess that there is no confusion between the humanity and Divinity of Christ?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #105 on: January 05, 2011, 08:10:37 PM »



The RCC signed a common Christology with the ACOE. Therefore it says at least on paper that Christ's humanity and Divinity were seperate (ie: no mixture).

We also signed a common Christology with the OOs stating that Christ is only one person and the two natures, while distinct, are not separate, but united in the one person of Christ. In fact, even our agreement with the ACE points out that there is only one Christ, and not two.

Do you understand that RCs, EOs, and OOs all profess that there is no confusion between the humanity and Divinity of Christ?

they are saying His humanity and Divinity was never seperated "even for the twinkling of an eye", that is not orthodox, also read their Trisagion hymn :

Holy God, Holy and Strong, Holy and Immortal, crucified for us, have mercy on us

 Shocked

They are repeating this thing in Church, this blasphemy that Christ never died on the Cross for us. The Assyrian Fathers were shocked with this hymn a very bad person wrote for them. It is mocking...
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 08:12:54 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #106 on: January 05, 2011, 08:17:49 PM »



The RCC signed a common Christology with the ACOE. Therefore it says at least on paper that Christ's humanity and Divinity were seperate (ie: no mixture).

We also signed a common Christology with the OOs stating that Christ is only one person and the two natures, while distinct, are not separate, but united in the one person of Christ. In fact, even our agreement with the ACE points out that there is only one Christ, and not two.

Do you understand that RCs, EOs, and OOs all profess that there is no confusion between the humanity and Divinity of Christ?

they are saying His humanity and Divinity was never seperated "even for the twinkling of an eye", that is not orthodox, also read their Trisagion hymn :

Holy God, Holy and Strong, Holy and Immortal, crucified for us, have mercy on us

 Shocked

They are repeating this thing in Church, this blasphemy that Christ never died on the Cross for us. The Assyrian Fathers were shocked with this hymn a very bad person wrote for them. It is mocking...
It's not blasphemy. It's the truth. Christ is the Holy and Immortal God, and he died on the cross for us. This is not to say that Christ suffered through his Divine nature or that his Divinity was changed in anyway.
Do you deny that the person who died on the cross for us is God?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 08:18:08 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #107 on: January 05, 2011, 08:22:54 PM »



The RCC signed a common Christology with the ACOE. Therefore it says at least on paper that Christ's humanity and Divinity were seperate (ie: no mixture).

We also signed a common Christology with the OOs stating that Christ is only one person and the two natures, while distinct, are not separate, but united in the one person of Christ. In fact, even our agreement with the ACE points out that there is only one Christ, and not two.

Do you understand that RCs, EOs, and OOs all profess that there is no confusion between the humanity and Divinity of Christ?

they are saying His humanity and Divinity was never seperated "even for the twinkling of an eye", that is not orthodox, also read their Trisagion hymn :

Holy God, Holy and Strong, Holy and Immortal, crucified for us, have mercy on us

 Shocked

They are repeating this thing in Church, this blasphemy that Christ never died on the Cross for us. The Assyrian Fathers were shocked with this hymn a very bad person wrote for them. It is mocking...
It's not blasphemy. It's the truth. Christ is the Holy and Immortal God, and he died on the cross for us. This is not to say that Christ suffered through his Divine nature or that his Divinity was changed in anyway.


They said Immortal God died on the Cross, that is blasphemy. The humanity of Christ was crucified for us. God is not subject to suffering or death. The hymn was purposely changed in the OO by a certain person in Antioch to suggest the false doctrine that God can die. To say God can die is in semitic tradition unthinkable, Jewish scribes would actually sign their work with "As surely as YHWH lives" ("as surely as God lives"). If God dies the universe stops.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 08:23:58 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #108 on: January 05, 2011, 08:26:19 PM »



The RCC signed a common Christology with the ACOE. Therefore it says at least on paper that Christ's humanity and Divinity were seperate (ie: no mixture).

We also signed a common Christology with the OOs stating that Christ is only one person and the two natures, while distinct, are not separate, but united in the one person of Christ. In fact, even our agreement with the ACE points out that there is only one Christ, and not two.

Do you understand that RCs, EOs, and OOs all profess that there is no confusion between the humanity and Divinity of Christ?

they are saying His humanity and Divinity was never seperated "even for the twinkling of an eye", that is not orthodox, also read their Trisagion hymn :

Holy God, Holy and Strong, Holy and Immortal, crucified for us, have mercy on us

 Shocked

They are repeating this thing in Church, this blasphemy that Christ never died on the Cross for us. The Assyrian Fathers were shocked with this hymn a very bad person wrote for them. It is mocking...
It's not blasphemy. It's the truth. Christ is the Holy and Immortal God, and he died on the cross for us. This is not to say that Christ suffered through his Divine nature or that his Divinity was changed in anyway.


They said Immortal God died on the Cross, that is blasphemy. The humanity of Christ was crucified for us. God is not subject to suffering or death. The hymn was purposely changed in the OO by a certain person in Antioch to suggest the false doctrine that God can die. To say God can die is in semitic tradition one of the ultimate blasphemies, Jewish scribes would actually sign their work with "As surely as YHWH lives". If God dies the universe stops.
Yes, they did say that, because "humanity" cannot die, because "humanity" is not a subject of action. Only a Person can die. The person who died on the Cross who died was God. Yes, it is a great mystery, but know that he died by means of his human nature and not his Divine Nature. Ask any OO if they believe that Christ's Divinity was changed or experienced death. The answer will be a resounding "no" for the reasons that you enumerated above.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #109 on: January 05, 2011, 08:27:55 PM »

You are anthropomorphising the Divinity of Christ. Divinity cannot do these things you say, only the man Christ can. If the Divinity had a part in any of these things our salvation would be void. Therefore it is ALWAYS wrong to say "God died".
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 08:29:20 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #110 on: January 05, 2011, 08:29:19 PM »

You are anthropomorphising the Divinity of Christ. Divinity cannot do these things you say, only the man Christ can. If the Divinity had a part in any of these things our salvation would be void.
I never said the Divinity could die. Find one place where I have said this.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,127


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #111 on: January 05, 2011, 08:57:42 PM »


....in fact He was indeed fully human BEFORE the Incarnation in the womb of the Virgin....
This would solve some problems, but it raises many new ones. Shocked

I must agree, that sounds like a borderline Origenistic Christology, the idea that Christ's soul was eternal as all souls, and that later took flesh from the Virgin.

I believe the Church fathers said that the Logos did not become incarnate until the conception in the womb of the Virgin Theotokos.

Dear Habte,

The issue that divides OO's from the EO's/RC is that OO's believe Christ is "of two natures" or "one nature" while the EO's/RC's believe Christ is "in two natures."
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 08:59:38 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #112 on: January 05, 2011, 09:17:13 PM »

Whether it has a direct connection to Nestorius or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the modern ACOE seems to reject that doctrine of the incarnation by refusing to admit that Mary is the Theotokos.
Do you really believe that?
Yes, I believe what I wrote, and I am basing what I said upon Rafa's posts and on the links he has provided.

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm


If the one born from the Mary was also truly eternally born/begotten from the Father, as this Timothy fellow indicates, then logically that necessitates the one being born from Mary being God, and thus ascribing the title of Theotokos to her being accurate.

The one born was the humanity of Christ, not the Divinity. God is not a person obviously, In the ACOE there is no mention of "Divine persons"- EVER. Only Qnume. This also proves the allegations of "nestorianism" wrong since nobody ever taught "two persons in Christ". Mar Nestorius was persecuted for the Truth.
ummm. A person is born, not a nature. The Divine Logos was born by means of his human nature, not his Divine Nature.
You have expressed the key point in the dispute.  No mother gives birth to a nature; instead, a mother always gives birth to a person, and in the incarnation Mary gave birth to the divine person / subsistence of the Logos when He took human nature from her through the power of the Holy Spirit.  The ACOE seems to be confusing person (understood as prosopon and hypostasis) with nature, which is - to be honest - a form of the Nestorian error.
I agree with you that ACE theology is confused, but I would not go so far as to claim that they deny the Incarnation.
Well if they do hold a basically Nestorian Christology, which remains an open question, that would entail a denial on their part of the full reality of the incarnation.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 09:18:26 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #113 on: January 05, 2011, 09:23:40 PM »

I must agree, that sounds like a borderline Origenistic Christology, the idea that Christ's soul was eternal as all souls, and that later took flesh from the Virgin.

I believe the Church fathers said that the Logos did not become incarnate until the conception in the womb of the Virgin Theotokos.

Dear Habte,

The issue that divides OO's from the EO's/RC is that OO's believe Christ is "of two natures" or "one nature" while the EO's/RC's believe Christ is "in two natures."
The oneness of the subject (i.e., the person and subsistence) of the Logos must remain the focus of an Orthodox Christology.  It is the eternal and uncreated hypostasis of the Logos who assumed human nature from the Virgin Theotokos and became man.  In other words, the human nature assumed by the second person of the Holy Trinity has no independent existence of its own, but has its proper existence through its assumption by the hypostasis of the Logos.  Anything theological theory that predicates an existence for the human nature of Christ that is separate from the hypostasis of the eternal Logos is Nestorian, and as such it must be rejected as heterodox.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 09:25:54 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #114 on: January 05, 2011, 09:26:44 PM »

Whether it has a direct connection to Nestorius or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the modern ACOE seems to reject that doctrine of the incarnation by refusing to admit that Mary is the Theotokos.
Do you really believe that?
Yes, I believe what I wrote, and I am basing what I said upon Rafa's posts and on the links he has provided.

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm


If the one born from the Mary was also truly eternally born/begotten from the Father, as this Timothy fellow indicates, then logically that necessitates the one being born from Mary being God, and thus ascribing the title of Theotokos to her being accurate.

The one born was the humanity of Christ, not the Divinity. God is not a person obviously, In the ACOE there is no mention of "Divine persons"- EVER. Only Qnume. This also proves the allegations of "nestorianism" wrong since nobody ever taught "two persons in Christ". Mar Nestorius was persecuted for the Truth.
ummm. A person is born, not a nature. The Divine Logos was born by means of his human nature, not his Divine Nature.
You have expressed the key point in the dispute.  No mother gives birth to a nature; instead, a mother always gives birth to a person, and in the incarnation Mary gave birth to the divine person / subsistence of the Logos when He took human nature from her through the power of the Holy Spirit.  The ACOE seems to be confusing person (understood as prosopon and hypostasis) with nature, which is - to be honest - a form of the Nestorian error.
I agree with you that ACE theology is confused, but I would not go so far as to claim that they deny the Incarnation.
Well if they do hold a basically Nestorian Christology, which remains an open question, that would entail a denial on their part of the full reality of the incarnation.
Agreed. But are you willing to go so far as to assert that they do in fact hold a truely Nestorian Christology?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #115 on: January 05, 2011, 09:32:48 PM »

The issue that divides OO's from the EO's/RC is that OO's believe Christ is "of two natures" or "one nature" while the EO's/RC's believe Christ is "in two natures."
N.B., The canons of Constantinople II make it clear that the decree of Chalcedon must be read in a Cyrillian manner; so the difference of the two natures can only be taken in a "theoretical manner" (see Canon 7 of Constantinople II).
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #116 on: January 05, 2011, 09:37:28 PM »

Whether it has a direct connection to Nestorius or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the modern ACOE seems to reject that doctrine of the incarnation by refusing to admit that Mary is the Theotokos.
Do you really believe that?
Yes, I believe what I wrote, and I am basing what I said upon Rafa's posts and on the links he has provided.

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm


If the one born from the Mary was also truly eternally born/begotten from the Father, as this Timothy fellow indicates, then logically that necessitates the one being born from Mary being God, and thus ascribing the title of Theotokos to her being accurate.

The one born was the humanity of Christ, not the Divinity. God is not a person obviously, In the ACOE there is no mention of "Divine persons"- EVER. Only Qnume. This also proves the allegations of "nestorianism" wrong since nobody ever taught "two persons in Christ". Mar Nestorius was persecuted for the Truth.
ummm. A person is born, not a nature. The Divine Logos was born by means of his human nature, not his Divine Nature.
You have expressed the key point in the dispute.  No mother gives birth to a nature; instead, a mother always gives birth to a person, and in the incarnation Mary gave birth to the divine person / subsistence of the Logos when He took human nature from her through the power of the Holy Spirit.  The ACOE seems to be confusing person (understood as prosopon and hypostasis) with nature, which is - to be honest - a form of the Nestorian error.
I agree with you that ACE theology is confused, but I would not go so far as to claim that they deny the Incarnation.
Well if they do hold a basically Nestorian Christology, which remains an open question, that would entail a denial on their part of the full reality of the incarnation.
Agreed. But are you willing to go so far as to assert that they do in fact hold a truely Nestorian Christology?
So far I can only say that Rafa's comments, and the text at the link he provided, seem to support a Nestorian Christology, but are his comments and the linked text the official position of the ACOE?  That remains open to debate.  If a person really believes that Mary only gave birth to the human nature of Christ, and not to the divine person of the Logos made man, that person would be advocating a Nestorian division in Christ, which would be unacceptable to both Chalcedonians and Miaphysites alike.

(n.b., when I use the term "divine person" I mean both prosopon and hypostasis, and not merely prosopon, since I reject a mere prosopic union, as opposed to a hypostatic union, as Orthodox.)
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 09:40:51 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #117 on: January 05, 2011, 09:38:23 PM »

The issue that divides OO's from the EO's/RC is that OO's believe Christ is "of two natures" or "one nature" while the EO's/RC's believe Christ is "in two natures."
N.B., The canons of Constantinople II make it clear that the decree of Chalcedon must be read in a Cyrillian manner; so the difference of the two natures can only be taken in a "theoretical manner" (see Canon 7 of Constantinople II).
So, the differences of the two natures are only theoretical, not "actual"?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #118 on: January 05, 2011, 09:41:05 PM »

The issue that divides OO's from the EO's/RC is that OO's believe Christ is "of two natures" or "one nature" while the EO's/RC's believe Christ is "in two natures."
N.B., The canons of Constantinople II make it clear that the decree of Chalcedon must be read in a Cyrillian manner; so the difference of the two natures can only be taken in a "theoretical manner" (see Canon 7 of Constantinople II).
You don't think that Christ's two natures were really two natures?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #119 on: January 05, 2011, 09:46:09 PM »

Constantinople II was an appeasement council for miaphysites.

By the way some in the West vehemently disagreed with this "council"...

Quote
When Pope Silverius refused Theodora's demand that he remove the anathema of Pope Agapetus I from Anthimus, she sent Belisarius instructions to find a pretext to remove Silverius. When this was accomplished, Virgilius was appointed in his stead.

...

Quote
Justinian's chief interest, however, was in the matter of the Three Chapters, and as Vigilius was not ready to make concessions of this point and wavered frequently in his measures, he had much to suffer.

Taken from wikipedia
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 09:52:28 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #120 on: January 05, 2011, 09:49:09 PM »

The issue that divides OO's from the EO's/RC is that OO's believe Christ is "of two natures" or "one nature" while the EO's/RC's believe Christ is "in two natures."
N.B., The canons of Constantinople II make it clear that the decree of Chalcedon must be read in a Cyrillian manner; so the difference of the two natures can only be taken in a "theoretical manner" (see Canon 7 of Constantinople II).
You don't think that Christ's two natures were really two natures?
Yes, they are two distinct natures, but they can only be thought of distinctly after the union "in the onlooker's mind," and that is what Canon 7 means when it uses the phrase "tei theoria monei."
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #121 on: January 05, 2011, 09:52:07 PM »

Constantinople II was an appeasement council intended to bring the OO back in.
Constantinople II merely insures that Chalcedon is read in a Cyrillian fashion.  I don't see that council's decrees as appeasement, but as a further reiteration and protection of orthodox Christology.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #122 on: January 05, 2011, 09:54:35 PM »

Constantinople II was an appeasement council intended to bring the OO back in.
Constantinople II merely insures that Chalcedon is read in a Cyrillian fashion.  I don't see that council's decrees as appeasement, but as a further reiteration and protection of orthodox Christology.

Yes, I'm sure it's not an appeasement council when the Bishop of Rome had to be deposed for not wanting to sign a series of pro-miaphysite documents, and then later his succesor had to be bullied to do so. Who was in Byzantium at the time...oh wait I forgot! It was a person known for hiding miaphysites in her palace!
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 09:56:43 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #123 on: January 05, 2011, 09:57:26 PM »

Constantinople II was an appeasement council intended to bring the OO back in.
Constantinople II merely insures that Chalcedon is read in a Cyrillian fashion.  I don't see that council's decrees as appeasement, but as a further reiteration and protection of orthodox Christology.

Yes, I'm sure it's not an appeasement council when the Bishop of Rome had to be deposed for not wanting to sign a series of pro-miaphysite documents, and then later his succesor had to be bullied to do so. Who was in Byzantium at the time...oh wait I forgot! It was a person known for hiding miaphysites!
By that reckoning Chalcedon would be an appeasement council because Dioscorus was deposed, but of course I don't agree with that proposition either.

Chalcedon condemns Nestorianism, and Constantinople II merely reaffirms that condemnation and gives further clarification in connection with the decree of Chalcedon in order to insure that the decree is read in a Cyrillian fashion.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #124 on: January 05, 2011, 10:03:14 PM »

Constantinople II was an appeasement council intended to bring the OO back in.
Constantinople II merely insures that Chalcedon is read in a Cyrillian fashion.  I don't see that council's decrees as appeasement, but as a further reiteration and protection of orthodox Christology.

Yes, I'm sure it's not an appeasement council when the Bishop of Rome had to be deposed for not wanting to sign a series of pro-miaphysite documents, and then later his succesor had to be bullied to do so. Who was in Byzantium at the time...oh wait I forgot! It was a person known for hiding miaphysites!
By that reckoning Chalcedon would be an appeasement council because Dioscorus was deposed, but of course I don't agree with that proposition either.

Chalcedon condemns Nestorianism, and Constantinople II merely reaffirms that condemnation and gives further clarification in connection with the decree of Chalcedon in order to insure that the decree is read in a Cyrillian fashion.


Difference is Dioscorus was deposed by the Bishops of the Western Church not the arbitrary decision of one person sending some thugs in to depose him and reinstate some new person so he would agree with a fake council.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 10:04:31 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #125 on: January 05, 2011, 10:06:49 PM »

Constantinople II was an appeasement council intended to bring the OO back in.
Constantinople II merely insures that Chalcedon is read in a Cyrillian fashion.  I don't see that council's decrees as appeasement, but as a further reiteration and protection of orthodox Christology.

Yes, I'm sure it's not an appeasement council when the Bishop of Rome had to be deposed for not wanting to sign a series of pro-miaphysite documents, and then later his succesor had to be bullied to do so. Who was in Byzantium at the time...oh wait I forgot! It was a person known for hiding miaphysites!
By that reckoning Chalcedon would be an appeasement council because Dioscorus was deposed, but of course I don't agree with that proposition either.

Chalcedon condemns Nestorianism, and Constantinople II merely reaffirms that condemnation and gives further clarification in connection with the decree of Chalcedon in order to insure that the decree is read in a Cyrillian fashion.


Difference is Dioscorus was deposed by the Bishops of the Western Church not the arbitrary decision of one person sending some thugs in to depose him and reinstate some new person so he would agree with a fake council.
There weren't very many Western bishops at Chalcedon, so Dioscorus was deposed by Eastern and a few Western bishops.  I still see no reason to hold that Constantinople II was anything else but a sacred council that taught the truth about Christ's incarnation.  Nestorianism is a heresy which I will never profess.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #126 on: January 05, 2011, 10:15:00 PM »

We make our destinies. This theology you are giving me was never taught in the East. That is indisputable.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,127


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #127 on: January 05, 2011, 10:51:46 PM »

The issue that divides OO's from the EO's/RC is that OO's believe Christ is "of two natures" or "one nature" while the EO's/RC's believe Christ is "in two natures."
N.B., The canons of Constantinople II make it clear that the decree of Chalcedon must be read in a Cyrillian manner; so the difference of the two natures can only be taken in a "theoretical manner" (see Canon 7 of Constantinople II).

I don't mean to argue our differences (or different aspects of the truth depending on how you see it), I'm just correcting something Habte wrote in a previous post.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 10:56:16 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,268



« Reply #128 on: January 06, 2011, 07:16:34 PM »

You are anthropomorphising the Divinity of Christ. Divinity cannot do these things you say, only the man Christ can. If the Divinity had a part in any of these things our salvation would be void.
I never said the Divinity could die. Find one place where I have said this.
Right, St. Athanasios says in his On the Incarnation that because Divinity could not die, the Logos took on human flesh to redeem our kind.

Quote
Chapter 4: the Death of ChristHe Who suffered thereon in the body was not man only, but Son of God and Savior of all. The sun veiled his face, the earth quaked, the mountains were rent asunder, all men were stricken with awe. These things showed that Christ on the cross was God, and that all creation was His slave and was bearing witness by its fear to the presence of its Master.

Our friend, Rafa, might want to check out St. Athanasios's words in this chapter of his book especially to get a sense of what the Orthodox (pun!) teaching is and reassess his views accordingly. Smiley

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #129 on: January 06, 2011, 08:06:17 PM »

I read the link, but I disagree with it.  I reject Nestorius' views as heretical.
Did you read the last part that the ACOE had nothing to do with Nestorius and that people started knocking on it's door to accept some things the Apostles never taught ?
Whether it has a direct connection to Nestorius or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the modern ACOE seems to reject that doctrine of the incarnation by refusing to admit that Mary is the Theotokos.
Do you really believe that?

I do.
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 #130 on: January 06, 2011, 08:13:22 PM »

Look Apoth, I was kind enough to provide a link on how the Greek "hypostasis" became identified with person and that this was never accepted in the East.

Yet you claim to adhere to the First Council of Constantinople of 381. The shift in meaning of hypostasis occurred between Nicaea I and Constantinople I. The use began with the Cappadocians, the "New Nicenes", who began to use hypostasis to mean subsistence, or individuation. It was divergent from the "Old Nicenes" represented by Saint Athanasios, who had used hypostasis as a synonymn of ousia. They were reconciled at a 362 council in Alexandria, and the use of the Cappadocians was recognized as acceptable. Finally, it was ratified at the 381 council in the formula: "three hypostases, one ousia". So if you really accept Constantinople I, there is no reason you should not accept the Cappadocian shift in the meaning of 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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #131 on: January 06, 2011, 08:16:59 PM »

especially since Salvation proceeded from the East--->Westwards

If you are attempting to use this to suggest that the faith originated from "the East" in the sense that it is used in "the Church of the East", i.e. east of the Euphrates, then that is utter nonsense. The faith originated in Jerusalem, from there proceeded north to Antioch, and then from there spread out in all directions. The faith came to your "East" from your "West".
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 #132 on: January 06, 2011, 08:36:21 PM »

Quote
He was indeed fully human BEFORE the Incarnation in the womb of the Virgin

Habte, that is not orthodox.

I will register my agreement with you here Rafa. It is not orthodox to say that the Logos was human before the conception of Christ.

A number of things Habte has said throughout these forums I have found wanting, and I have challenged him on it before, but so far he has unfortunately not heeded my advice.
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 #133 on: January 06, 2011, 08:46:49 PM »

It is also the earliest Eastern Church to receive the teaching of the Apostles. East to West, that is the path of the teachings, not the reverse.

Ah, no. The earliest Eastern church to receive the teaching of the Apostles was Jerusalem.
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 #134 on: January 06, 2011, 08:53:08 PM »

The third council (ephesus) was not ecumenical. This comes as a shock to many people, but they forget that the definition of ecumenical is if the entire Church of the Apostles agreed to the council.

No, that is not the definition of an Ecumenical Council. The most common definition of the "Oicumene" at the time was "the inhabited world", and the most common identification of what encompassed "the inhabited world" was the Roman Empire. An Ecumenical Council, thus, was understood at the time to mean a council called by the Empire, to define the faith of the Empire, and being ratified by the Empire. Ephesus I thus qualifies as an Ecumenical Council, as did Ephesus II at one point, though it shortly lost its Imperial ratification.
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 #135 on: January 06, 2011, 09:03:54 PM »

Fortunately this is not the case since the Western Church believes that the humanity and Divinity of Christ are 100% seperate

Stop this nonsense. I told you I can prove this to not be true through the very Chalcedonian Creed. And since you keep saying this in spite of my warnings, I will now post the proof:

"This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union..."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xiii.html

And at that, this is from the most Nestorian leaning period of the Chalcedonian history.

If you read, you can see that they affirmed the distinction of the two natures, but they denied their separateness.
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 #136 on: January 06, 2011, 09:06:35 PM »

I agree with you that ACE theology is confused, but I would not go so far as to claim that they deny the Incarnation.

How can you think anything else of a group which repeatedly denies that the Logos became human?
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
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #137 on: January 07, 2011, 06:06:22 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

It is appropriate to open up this discussion towards two points, the Incarnation and Nature(s) of the Person of Jesus Christ, and also the Orthodox doctrines on the concept of the Pre-Existence of the Human Soul before physical birth, and also a point I made regarding the pre-existence of the Human Nature of Jesus Christ before the Incarnation.

Here is a bit from the Ethiopian Orthodox Catechism (as explained by Abba Melketsedek, Metropolitan Bishop of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church)

Quote
In a paper submitted to the 'Consultation between the Theologians of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches' held at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, in August 1964, the Very Rev. Like Siltanat Habte Mariam Workineh, Dean of Holy Trinity Cathedral, fully explained the teaching of the Church on Incarnation.

Incarnation is a divine mystery. The two natures of Godhead and Manhood are perfectly united and Christ is thus one Person and one Nature from two Natures.

Christ is one Incarnate nature of God the Word. After the union it is impossible to speak of Christ as being in two natures. By the union of the nature in the Incarnation the two natures became one nature, the natures being united without separation, without confusion, and without change. Neither of the two natures was assimilated by the other, the properties of the Divine Word were attributed to the flesh and those of the flesh to the Divine Word. The Logos revealed Himself in our flesh and became man like us. He did all things that man does with the exception of sin (John 8:46). And at the same time was truly God. He is God-Man. He is co-equal and consubstantial with the Father in his Godhead. He is perfectly united with us the union being from two modes of life into one. The union of the Word with the flesh took place in the womb of the Virgin Mary. St. John says: "The Word was made flesh...". In the same way we can say that also the flesh was made divine. The attributes of the flesh can be given to the Divine Word and vice versa. However, the properties of each nature are preserved without change after the union. Therefore, we believe that Christ is one Person and one Nature, and thus is both divine and human. We speak of one because of the union. We hold "mia physis", composite nature, one united nature. Again the Lord Jesus Christ is perfect man and perfect God. The word "perfect" closes the door to all quibble and prevarication. We accept both unity and duality in Christ who in acting performed as one. Christ, in whom humanitv and divinity were united in one Person and one Nature, was crucified on the cross. The Divine Word without being united with the flesh cannot be crucified, because as God He is beyond suffering. But through the union with the flesh He was crucified and subjected to death. If, on the other hand, only the human body was crucified, He could not save the world.

The purpose of the Incarnation was the salvation of man. God sent His only Son into the world to bring unto Him the lost sheep and He did this by reason of His unspeakable love towards mankind.

5. The Issue between Monophysitism and Dyophysitism
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church considers itself to belong to the One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church founded bv Jesus Christ. It is holy because its founder, Jesus Christ, is holy; it is catholic because the whole world is its province and because it is universal in time and place; it is apostolic because it was established on earth by the apostles of Christ.

The Ethiopian Church belongs to the group of Orthodox Churches wrongly termed "Monophysite" but which prefer the epithet "Non-Chalcedonian". The other members of this family are the Coptic, Armenian, Syrian and Indian Churches. Together with the Roman Catholic Church and the Byzantine Orthodox Church they comprised the One Church for four centuries until the division arose on account of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 which insisted that Christ had the two natures of humanity and divinity.

Dyophysites teach that, after the union, Christ retained the natures of divinity and humanity in His one Person in such a way that He ate food, slept, laughed, suffered, walked as man in the human nature, but healed the sick and resuscitated Lazarus as God in the divine nature. Thus He is one Person in two natures of humanity and divinity. The wrongly called Monophysites reject the allegation that they teach one Nature and one Person in Christ. The teaching of the Ethiopian Church may thus be summarized:

   1. The Ethiopian Church rejects Eutyches, who is believed to have taught that in Christ the human Nature was absorbed by the divine Nature. Nestorius also is excluded.

   2. Dioscorus, whom the Council of Chalcedon deposed, is accepted. But it should be remembered that the Council of 451 did not believe that Dioscorus was a heretic. Dioscorus did not deny the continuance of Godhead and manhood in the One Christ after their union and he agreed with the Council that the teaching which Eutyches was understood to hold was heretical.

   3. The teaching of the Ethiopian Church is the faith of the Fathers expounded by the great theologians of the Alexandrine tradition, especially by St. Cyril and his illustrious theological followers. Accordingly the Ethiopian Church maintains that Christ is perfect God and perfect man, at once Unsubstantial with the Father and with us; the divinity and the humanity continuing in Him without mixture or separation, confusion or change. He is one and the same person both in his eternal preexistence and also in the economy, in which he performs the redeeming work of God on behalf of man, from the indivisible state of union of Godhead and manhood.

   4. The Church abides by the formula "The one Incarnate Nature of God the Word", on which St. Cyril of Alexandria increasingly insisted, a formula which was accepted as correct by the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. and which, after the Council of Chalcedon, the Chalcedonian side in the East itself admitted.

   5. It is unfair for the Church to be nicknamed "monophysite" by the faithful who accept the Chalcedonian formula of "two Natures in the one Person of Jesus Christ", because the expression used by the non-Chalcedonian side was always muiphysis, and never monophysis (mia standing for a composite unity unlike mone standing for an elemental unity). Therefore these churches are best referred to as the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches.

   6. "Tewahedo" is the Ethiopian term (meaning "made one") which is the best expression conveying the faith of the Church, since it emphasizes the inseparable unity of the Godhead and manhood in the Person of Christ. The Church's official title is "The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Bete Christian"..

   7. After the Union, Christ was no longer in two natures. The two natures became united into one nature without separation, without confusion and without change. Thus He was at the same tithe perfect God and perfect man. This is the union of the natures in the Incarnation. After the union Christ is not two persons or two natures. but one Person, one incarnate Nature of God the Son, with one will, bu t being at once divine and human. If you separate the natures after the union and say that Christ is in two natures, you will be confronted with serious problems. You will have to admit, for instance, that Christ was crucified merely as a man and that therefore he did not redeem the world, for God alone is able to accomplish the world's redemption. In brief, it is held that Christ, in acting, acted as a united being, not separately as man or separately as God.

   8. Proof that we believe in the continuance of divinity and humanity in the One Christ may be illustrated:

         1. In the Communion we receive the very body and blood of Jesus Christ. These belong to man, humanity, and we know that Jesus Christ is God, divinity.

         2. The present Liturgy can be used as a criterion of the Church. There it is openly expressed that there is divinity and humanity in Christ.

         3. The Chalcedonian formula was rejected because it was thought to destroy the one person of Christ and there was no clear disffncffon between "nature" and "person", person meant nature.

         4. We believe the Nicaean Creed in which the divinity and humanity of Christ are set forth, and in the Creed of the liturgy we declare our belief in the co-equality of Jesus Christ with God the Father, and belief in his having grown like men, yet without sin or evil, and in his having taken flesh from Mary.

         5. The confession of Faith by the Emperor Claudius declares that Jesus Christ was perfect man and perfect God.

      Monophysitism is rejected. It is a question of error in vocabulary, the concepts of Nature and Person not being clear and there being obscurity in philosophical terms such as physis, hypostasis, ausia, prosopon, atreptos, mia, mono etc. As to the two natures of Christ the Dyophysites and non-Chalcedonians are one, it is a matter of interpretation after the union of the two natures. Happily the Dyophysites are currently realizing the position.
from Teachings of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church by Abba Melketsedek

I have been corrected for explaining about the Pre-Existence of the Humanity of Jesus Christ. In Tewahedo theology, the nature of ordinary human beings is explained very similarly to the Nature of Jesus Christ and the Incarnation.

Quote

"The Unity of the soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the form of the body, that is, it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body.  The spiritual and the material in man are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.  As for the origin of the soul, there are different opinions..
Lastly, some say that only at the time of original Creation did God create the human soul. This view is acceptable, and is the Orthodox teaching
Abba Melketsedek continued..

Since in our Tewahedo Christology there is only One Unified Nature of Jesus Christ, the perfect Tewahedo union of Divine and Human from the One Person ( the from implying the very unity of these aspects of the Person of Jesus Christ,similarly to how the composite Oneness of the Holy Trinity is expounded ) it is implied that the Humanity of Jesus Christ always existed, and that it existed BEFORE the Incarnation, and the Incarnation seals this Unity into a physical form of matter, of flesh and blood.  Since the Tewahedo Church, according to my understanding, teaches in the pre-existence of the Human Soul/Form (especially since we have no relationship with the 5th Ecumenical Council which Canonically rejected this doctrine) we can also rightfully infer that the Humanity of Jesus Christ also pre-existed His Incarnation.  It is a bit tricky and tongue twisting in theological terms, but it seems the logical inference from several combined perspectives.

After all, even if the Ethiopians accept traducianism which is the Tewahedo teaching, the way in which the Ethiopian Tradition interprets this process is that true, the soul and body are originated from the the parents BUT, since these are all part of the continuous process of Original Creation of Adam and Eve, and that since the Human Soul/Form was in fact created at Original Creation in the Beginning, and not each individual time, then we must also logically concluded that this Human Soul pre-exists the individual incarnation and birth of human beings.  God does not create each soul at each individual incarnation.  The human parents do not "create" the human soul, it is a work of God.

We in Tewahedo teach there is truly No distinction or separation, not for a moment, in instant.  So we embrace the eternal existence of the Person of Jesus Christ.  We do not teach in the Persons of Jesus Christ, and in true and specific terms, in Ge'ez/Amharic the Tewahedo Church does not even teach in two natures of Christ, rather the "One Incarnate Nature of God the Word" as expounded by Saint Cyril of Alexandria.  We can not speak of Jesus Christ becoming a human being, only taking on or assuming physicality and flesh and blood.  But our humanity is not limited to our physical existence, we are not strictly physical beings, we are a composite of spiritual and physical.

Let me reiterate my stance

Is the Orthodox (non-Ethiopian) interpretation strictly saying that Jesus Christ AFTER the Incarnation in the Virgin Mary is One Person FROM Two Natures.  If so, then please explain the humanity of Jesus Christ in this interpretation.  Was He then a Divine God who became a Man, and was therefore logically not a human being before this? Was He not a human being before having flesh and blood?  Or was He a also a pre-existing Human Being as the Word, the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity, who is Divine and yet Human, without distinction or separation?

If the Orthodox is indeed to say AFTER the Incarnation I can accept that as valid, but I disagree personally with it, though I would not teach this as doctrine to anyone if it is not Universal or even widely-accepted.  In Tewahedo this is our own logical inference from our own Traditions, Fathers, theologians, history etc etc.  I will not teach this as Universally Orthodox if it is not so, but please properly explain this concept then, because aside from the Tewahedo interpretation, I can not make sense of the lack of distinction and separation of the Nature(s) of the Person of Jesus Christ.

After all, if Jesus Christ can only be said to be the unified One Person of Jesus Christ AFTER the Incarnation, how can we say there was never a distinction or separation, but 1st grade deductive reasoning implies that there was indeed a distinction and separation before the Incarnation.  We in Tewahedo can not teach a separation or distinction at ANY time, therefore we must logically infer otherwise regarding the Humanity of Jesus Christ.

It seems to come down to three options:

a) Jesus Christ ALWAYS was a man, and ALWAYS was a God, with no distinction or separation, and also took the flesh and blood from the Virgin Mary at the Incarnation.

b) Jesus Christ always was a God, and AFTER the Incarnation of the Virgin there is no separation or distinction to His Humanity (but how does this explain His Humanity?)

c) Jesus Christ was a God, who was not always a Man, and thus was separated and distinct and became a Man.

A) is the God/Man doctrine of Cyril, B) seems to be the more widely accepted Orthodox but I can't see how it explains the humanity of Jesus Christ and C) fits a lot of widely condemned heresies in our history

So please help me out on this one, I am utterly confused as to where y'all are coming from, and I don't want to misrepresent what y'all believe and profess.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #138 on: January 07, 2011, 07:37:21 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Another point on this same idea:

If the Divinity of Jesus Christ did not die on the Cross and did not enter into Hades to raise up Adam from his sins, then how can we profess to say that even AFTER the Incarnation that there was never a separation or distinction, not even for a moment, of the Humanity and Divinity of the One Person of Jesus Christ? If His Divine and Human Nature were solitary, in indistinct and inseparable Perfect Unity, how can it bit possibly be said that His Divinity did not experience the very same death and Hell that His body experienced? This is a fundamental contradiction which must be addressed succinctly.

This is why as I quoted above, the EOTC teaches that the Divinity and Humanity mutually undertook the suffering of Death and Hell..

Quote
We accept both unity and duality in Christ who in acting performed as one. Christ, in whom humanitv and divinity were united in one Person and one Nature, was crucified on the cross.

The Divine Word without being united with the flesh cannot be crucified, because as God He is beyond suffering. But through the union with the flesh He was crucified and subjected to death. If, on the other hand, only the human body was crucified, He could not save the world. The purpose of the Incarnation was the salvation of man. God sent His only Son into the world to bring unto Him the lost sheep and He did this by reason of His unspeakable love towards mankind.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,127


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #139 on: January 08, 2011, 01:51:40 AM »

Dear Habte,

There are quotes from St. Cyril that can condemn many of what you are saying.  St. Cyril did not believe that the divinity experienced death.  St. Cyril believed that the humanity of Christ is a deified humanity that experienced death, and thus, it was no mere death, but a death that destroys death.  We say that the divinity did not separate from His humanity for a single moment nor a blink of an eye.  But just like a heated iron, when the iron is struck, the fire is untouched, but the iron is bent, and so the heat bends with the iron, not because it's been struck, but it is united with the flesh.

Likewise, we can NEVER say Christ's humanity preexisted.  Before the Incarnation, the Word had NO HUMANITY.  The Word was just divinity.  At the moment of the Incarnation, the Word took flesh and became man.  If the Word was man before, He can never have become man later, and the Virgin can never be called Theotokos, and at the same time, His humanity wouldn't have been like us in all things (except sin), and therefore, He can never really be consubstantial to us, and thus the whole reason of our salvation fails.

You misunderstand the analogy, Habte.  The analogy is ONLY MEANT to describe the unity of the divinity and humanity of Christ.  NOTHING ELSE.  No analogy is perfect, and no analogy is meant to be taken to a further course of understanding that could potentially lead us astray from the true faith.  Nothing in the Ethiopian catechism you cite teaches what you are writing here.  If you are learning this from a priest, then he must be condemned for heresy, because this is not what the OO Church teaches, and certainly not what St. Cyril, St. Dioscorus, or St. Severus teaches.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,659


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #140 on: January 08, 2011, 03:37:13 PM »

It is a Western versus Eastern issue since the ACOE is the only Church which was not under the Byzantine-Roman ecclesiastical structure. It is also the earliest Eastern Church to receive the teaching of the Apostles.
That doesn't really mean anything IF the earliest Eastern Church to receive the teaching of the Apostles received that teaching from the West.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 03:37:25 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,659


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #141 on: January 08, 2011, 03:38:26 PM »

You are anthropomorphising the Divinity of Christ.
Actually, no, it is Jesus Christ who anthropomorphized the Divinity of Christ.

Divinity cannot do these things you say,
Yes, the Divine nature cannot, since a nature can do nothing of itself, but...

only the man Christ can.
a Divine person can.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,659


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #142 on: January 08, 2011, 03:38:52 PM »

It is also the earliest Eastern Church to receive the teaching of the Apostles. East to West, that is the path of the teachings, not the reverse.

Ah, no. The earliest Eastern church to receive the teaching of the Apostles was Jerusalem.
Actually, the earliest church, East or West, to receive the teaching of the Apostles was Jerusalem.

And the most quoted of the Apostles, the Apostle from whom we have the most extant writings (over half the New Testament), spent most of his Christian life preaching to Greeks in Asia Minor and Greece.
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #143 on: January 08, 2011, 10:48:35 PM »

It is a Western versus Eastern issue since the ACOE is the only Church which was not under the Byzantine-Roman ecclesiastical structure. It is also the earliest Eastern Church to receive the teaching of the Apostles.
That doesn't really mean anything IF the earliest Eastern Church to receive the teaching of the Apostles received that teaching from the West.

It did not. King Abga Ukama recieved the teachings fromn the disciple Addai before anybody else. That is a fact demonstrated by the ancient liturgy of the Church written in part by Mar Addai. The aCOE was never subject to any Church it grew under the Sassanid empire, the graveyard of the Romans.

Quote
Actually, the earliest church, East or West, to receive the teaching of the Apostles was Jerusalem.

Yes, and where do you think all the Jews who were outside Jerusalem (which became unlivable due to the Sanhedrin's persecutions) lived ? They lived in Babylon (Seleukia-Ctsephon). Hundreds of thousands of Jews lived there as recorded by the Chief Historian of the time Josephus :

"Wherefore there are but two tribes in Europe and Asia subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers."
-Antiquities of the Jews, Flavius Josephus, book xi, chpt. v, par. 2

These Jews and Arameans were ruled by the Assyrian-Jewish Queen Helena of Adiabene who's tomb is in Jerusalem. There was a Jewish Kingdom in Mesopotamia. This is also recorded in scripture:


Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven.

 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language.

 They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans?

 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?

 "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,

 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,

 Cretans and Arabs--we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God."


-Acts 2:5-11


So history and the Scriptures show that the teaching was recieved in the East from the East...not the west. Salvation never goes from the West to the East, but like lightning goes from the East and is seen shining in the west so is salvation.


Quote
And the most quoted of the Apostles, the Apostle from whom we have the most extant writings (over half the New Testament), spent most of his Christian life preaching to Greeks in Asia Minor and Greece.

It is true that Saint Paul spent his ministry teaching the Greek speaking peoples. BUT Saint Thomas who interacted with the people of India left scriptures written in...Aramaic. Mar Addai (Saint Thaddeus) gave a 22 book Aramaic canon in person to the Edessene Christians. The world was not confined to Greek speaking peoples, this is part of the "original church" model which some people are desperately trying to preserve but which is unhistorical and uncriptural. There were more Christians East of the Ephrates at one point than West.

Here is a nice introduction from the ACOE catechism for you to be more familiar about the Church:

Quote
We had laid before us a work which would involve many long hours and serious thought.  It is the teaching (dogma) embraced within The Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East.  These are the Orthodox, Sacred Traditions and teachings.   We have presented in this volume, a beginning work, presented in love to the faithful, and the inquirer, of our beliefs and practices..

 

A primary question which is often presented to us is:  “who are we?” or, “where do we come from?” or, is there a line of heritage or history which can be reviewed for an outsider to consider?

 

Let us begin by stating the references we have to our historic existence.  We can and do refer to the history books and learning of the Ancient World, where we are prominently featured.  The first library of the known world, was established, built and maintained by Hammurabi, where the literature of the known world was collected.  All the science texts of that time were collected; all religious texts were there, too

 

We have references to us as a people in the Sacred Writings of The Church.  References are made to the Eastern world in the whole of the Holy Bible. (Please see: Genesis 2:14, 10:10-11; Isaiah 10:5; 19:23,24; Matthew 12:41)  Whether it is the references to the People of God being held captive by Nebuchadnezzar, or the Silk and Spice Route into Asia for domestic products, to the evangelization of the “people outback.”  Our great historical roots are found there!

 

At the time of the birth of The Holy Church on the Day of Pentecost; in Jerusalem, we were there, too!  In the Acts of the Apostles it is recorded: “. . . Parthians, Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia . .”  The People of God had gathered together from great distances to keep this ancient festival of Judaism.  It was from among them that the Gospel of Jesus was proclaimed/heard; among that crowd of faithful pilgrims were folk from the Eastern Empire, and they carried back to their homeland the Good News of the redemptive message of Jesus Christ.   

 

The Biblical historical records of the Western World and Church are quite extensive, whereas, that of the Eastern World and the Church of the East is left to extra-Biblical research!  The Church in the Eastern World flourished, for by the end of the first century of our present era, there were churches established from the limits of the Romo-Byzantine Empire to the Caspian Sea.  St Thomas the Apostle carried the Gospel and Teachings of Jesus Christ from Jerusalem to the regions of Mesopotamia and down into the southern tip of India.  St Bartholomew of the Twelve also followed the same route, establishing churches as he went upon his way.

 

St Thaddeus the Apostle together with his companion, St Mari of the Seventy, preached the life and teachings of Jesus Christ to the Aramaic speaking Kingdom of Edessa (modern day Urhai, Turkey),  which was a buffer city-state located between the Roman and Parthian Empires.  It was there, a strong Church was established and it flourished;  and, other communities which were established ‘round about.  The reason for the ready acceptance of the Good News of Jesus Christ, was because of their familiarity with the customs, culture, and the language of that ancient people.

Thus the beginning of the non-Jewish Semitic Church in The East.  The first and oldest Christian Church is near Ormiah, Iran, Mart Maryam (St Mary)

Quote
Actually, no, it is Jesus Christ who anthropomorphized the Divinity of Christ.

God is most certainly not a person. In his infinite ultimately incomprehensible nature there are a few things we might recognize...he exists, he loves, he saves...

Once again, the person of Meshikha is God/Man ..... not God-man. Neither the Divinity was from His mother, nor the humanity from His Father. Each was preserved perfectly in its own Qnuma, in the One Person of Meshikha. Qnuma is an Aramaic word with no english equivalent. "Member of a taxonomic class" is  one the closest definition a Shamasha (deacon) I know said (no equivalent exists though).

Yes, He took flesh from the Virgin and made it His own. However His flesh, taken from our Humanity, died and was buried. You and I both know that it is not possible to be immortal, yet mortal, at the same time. If God died for 1 second, let alone 3 days, then that is not God but a fake. I cannot imagine a universe which continues to function for one millisecond if its Creator ceased to exist for any length of time.

It is not possible for Satan to tempt God in the wilderness. What kind of temptation was that, a mockery? A set up? Doomed to fail from the get-go? That is utter blasphemy. It is the humanity of Meshikha that was tempted. What was Satan offering God in the wilderness that He did not already own? What are you thinking? Was Satan really asking God to bow down and worship him? What kind of triumph of will was that? A mockery you have turned the temptation into, that's what. If God, and not our Humanity, triumphed over temptation then it means nothing. Big deal. Woo-hoo. God wasn't interested in all the kingdoms, riches and debauchery that Satan had to offer. Woo-hoo. Great triumph.

Likewise, it is not possible that God bleeds or urinates or defecates or dies or lays in a grave. That is paganism.

The concept of god-men is pagan, the reality of God/Man is scriptural and Orthodox.

You may consider the view of the CoE "narrow", however you and I both know that it is scriptural. You are as dyophysite as I am, we really have no difference of opinion here.

However, if I am wrong and you really do believe in a dying and bleeding God, a God who can be tempted by Satan in the wilderness (a true temptation, not a fake one that Satan had no hope of succeeding)....then, oh well perhaps you are more monophysite in leaning.


« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 11:22:08 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,659


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #144 on: January 08, 2011, 11:56:08 PM »

Quote
Actually, no, it is Jesus Christ who anthropomorphized the Divinity of Christ.

God is most certainly not a person. In his infinite ultimately incomprehensible nature there are a few things we might recognize...he exists, he loves, he saves...

Once again, the person of Meshikha is God/Man ..... not God-man. Neither the Divinity was from His mother, nor the humanity from His Father. Each was preserved perfectly in its own Qnuma, in the One Person of Meshikha. Qnuma is an Aramaic word with no english equivalent. "Member of a taxonomic class" is  one the closest definition a Shamasha (deacon) I know said (no equivalent exists though).

Yes, He took flesh from the Virgin and made it His own. However His flesh, taken from our Humanity, died and was buried. You and I both know that it is not possible to be immortal, yet mortal, at the same time. If God died for 1 second, let alone 3 days, then that is not God but a fake. I cannot imagine a universe which continues to function for one millisecond if its Creator ceased to exist for any length of time.
Your logical mind has a real problem with paradox, doesn't it? With God all things are possible. If this is so, as we believe, then how could He not become a human person and die as God incarnate? You also misunderstand death, calling it the cessation of existence. Where do you get this misconception from?

It is not possible for Satan to tempt God in the wilderness. What kind of temptation was that, a mockery? A set up? Doomed to fail from the get-go? That is utter blasphemy. It is the humanity of Meshikha that was tempted. What was Satan offering God in the wilderness that He did not already own? What are you thinking? Was Satan really asking God to bow down and worship him? What kind of triumph of will was that? A mockery you have turned the temptation into, that's what. If God, and not our Humanity, triumphed over temptation then it means nothing. Big deal. Woo-hoo. God wasn't interested in all the kingdoms, riches and debauchery that Satan had to offer. Woo-hoo. Great triumph.

Likewise, it is not possible that God bleeds or urinates or defecates or dies or lays in a grave. That is paganism.
This is not the first time I've heard my faith called pagan, and it certainly won't be the last. The thing you need to prove is that we should couch the faith only in Semitic concepts, that it's always bad to incorporate elements of paganism into our understanding of the Gospel. I would have to reject the Apostle Paul to do that, which I simply refuse to do.

The concept of god-men is pagan, the reality of God/Man is scriptural and Orthodox.
Scriptural? How so?

Orthodox? Yeah, I know how you like to appropriate that title for yourself and deny it to us. I'm not confused by your sophistry.

You may consider the view of the CoE "narrow", however you and I both know that it is scriptural.
You're entitled to speak for yourself here, but don't claim that I know what you "know".

You are as dyophysite as I am, we really have no difference of opinion here.

However, if I am wrong and you really do believe in a dying and bleeding God, a God who can be tempted by Satan in the wilderness (a true temptation, not a fake one that Satan had no hope of succeeding)....then, oh well perhaps you are more monophysite in leaning.
If, by your standards, I am to be considered a monophysite, then so be it. I will hold to the faith I have learned from my forefathers. I couldn't care less what you think of me.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 12:05:12 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #145 on: January 11, 2011, 05:44:40 PM »

However, if I am wrong and you really do believe in a dying and bleeding God, a God who can be tempted by Satan in the wilderness (a true temptation, not a fake one that Satan had no hope of succeeding)....then, oh well perhaps you are more monophysite in leaning.


The impossibility of Satan succeeding does not a fake temptation make.

Read Maximus the Confessor.

Do you believe that God is less than all-powerful?
« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 05:45:46 PM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #146 on: September 27, 2011, 03:14:03 PM »

I wish to recant (take back, spit out, completely confess to be wrong) everything I said concering our Blssed mother the Virgin Mary in this thread. I don't know if our Blessed Mother ever sinned or not but I know she was the most perfect woman in existence- above the Cherubim and Seraphim, and to have an idea how pure she was think about the pain she went through by acceptin Jesus's incarnation- how she risked her life and ridicule in Jewish society and St. Joseph had to hide her! I truly wish to recant this topic. She is all these Blessed names:

Quote
34)   What names, other than the Perpetual Virgin Mother, are the possession of St Mary?

We have named her with these titles:   The Mother of Christ, The Mother of our Lord, The Second Heaven, The Mother of The Church, The Daughter of Zion, The Burning Bush, The Mother of Immanuel, The New Ark of the Covenant, The Second Ark, The Second Eve, etc. In the Prophets it is written: “ . . . therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign, behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and they shall call His Name Emmanuel . .”  (Isaiah 7:14) “ . . . and she shall bring forth a Son, and Thou shall call His Name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sin. . .”  (Matthew 1:21) Then, again, Elizabeth states: “ . . . whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord shall come to me?”  (Luke 1:43) In the Church of the East we recognize her as bearing and bringing forth Him who is God with us; however, we prefer to say: “Mother of Christ, perfect God and perfect man.. .”

http://www.acoeyouth.org/Learn/catechism/cat.html

chapter 10 question 34 of the linked Catechism. The Blessed Virgin should NEVER be discussed with the tone I took here in this thread and I hope I apologize sufficiently with this post.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,725


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #147 on: November 24, 2011, 06:57:42 PM »

Rafa contacted me and asked me to post the following for him:

"The ACOE is completely indifferent to my opinions and I use their catechisms without their guidance and Wisdom on the particular issue. I donot know their stance on the Virgin Mary being sinless or not particularly."
Logged

Assyrian Lector
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of the East
Jurisdiction: Assyrian
Posts: 31


« Reply #148 on: November 26, 2011, 04:32:26 AM »

I know Rafa and yes he is not a part of the ACOE and nor should he be discussing our theology, although he means well, he may end up causing much confusion.
Logged
Tags: Assyrian Church of the East 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.554 seconds with 175 queries.