The Personhood of Christ in relation to the Theotokos

[deusveritasest]

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.

[deusveritasest]

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?

[HabteSelassie]

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)

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.

"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

[HabteSelassie]

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..

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

[minasoliman]

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.

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

[Rafa999]

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.

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.

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:

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)

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.

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

[JLatimer]

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?

[Rafa999]

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:

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.

[Salpy]

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."

[Assyrian Lector]

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.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Topic: The Personhood of Christ in relation to the Theotokos