OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 24, 2014, 01:43:47 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Nestorian-Arian Dilemma  (Read 2404 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
OtherguyLB
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic, but lover of Theology and Church History.
Jurisdiction: Under Myself
Posts: 87


« on: March 10, 2011, 07:11:16 PM »

So, I am interested in this dilemma.

The Saints of fourth century used Nestorian arguments to counteract Arian arguments about Christ's humble sayings... St. Athanasius and St. Gregory the Theologian applied these sayings to the human nature, which was considered Nestorian later...


This is about IV anathema of St. Cyril, about people applying some verses to Jesus' humanity and some to his divinity.

St. Athanasius:

"but why, though He knew, He said, 'no, not the Son knows,' this I think none of the faithful is ignorant, viz. that He made this as those other declarations as man by reason of the flesh. For this as before is not the Word's deficiency , but of that human nature whose property it is to be ignorant." - Third Discourse Against Arians, 43. [http://newadvent.org/fathers/28163.htm]

And St. Gregory the Theologian:

"we are to understand the ignorance in the most reverent sense, by attributing it to the Manhood, and not to the Godhead." - Orations N30, XV [http://newadvent.org/fathers/310230.htm]



That's why Theodoret writes against anathemas of St. Cyril that: "Let then this exact professor of theology tells us how he would confute the blasphemy of the heretics, while applying to God the Word what is uttered humbly and appropriately by the form of the servant. Does Divine Son say the words: My God, my God why have you forsaken me; or Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me; or Father save me from this hour; or That hour no man knows, not even the Son of Man; Who then is He who was perfected by toils of virtue and who was not perfect by nature? Who is He who learned obedience by experience, and before his experience was ignorant of it?(cites Hebrews 5:7)..."


So what can you say about this? What do you think?
Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2011, 07:30:38 PM »

I cannot see any Nestorian elements in the Church Fathers' arguments against Arianism. Admitting that Jesus was truly human and that He had true human nature is not Nestorianism. If the Nestorian dogma concerning Jesus' humanity were true, Jesus would have said: "The Son knows the hour, but not Jesus the Nazareth". However, He said "The Son does not know the hour". One subject (The Son) in His human nature...
« Last Edit: March 10, 2011, 07:34:32 PM by Theophilos78 » Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #2 on: March 10, 2011, 07:42:04 PM »

There's nothing Nestorian about it, especially since it is confirmed that it is one person with "human nature" and "manhood."  This actually stands in opposition to the Nestorian belief that the person of the Word could not have a human nature, and thus needing to invent a second human person Jesus to coexist with the first person the Word.  It also stands in affirmation of Chalcedon.   
Logged
OtherguyLB
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic, but lover of Theology and Church History.
Jurisdiction: Under Myself
Posts: 87


« Reply #3 on: March 10, 2011, 07:47:27 PM »

But look at the anathema:

If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions (φωνάς) which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema.

Nestorius: If any one assigns the expressions of the Gospels and Apostolic letters, which refer to the two natures of Christ, to one only of those natures, and even ascribes suffering to the divine Word, both in the flesh and in the Godhead; let him be anathema.

This means sometimes Christ would say something that was wrong - "Father is greater than I" and sometimes he would "remember" who he really was and "Father and I are one"... If we divide these sayings between natures, we should assume he believed what he was saying was true, thus forgetting his other nature while speaking...
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: 12,677


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


« Reply #4 on: March 10, 2011, 08:39:36 PM »

My emphasis:

Quote
If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions (φωνάς) which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema.

In other words, Nestorius' language was not merely describing the humanity of Christ, but to separate the human nature into a separate person, making Christ's humanity no different than a God-inspired prophet or saint.

St. Athanasius and St. Gregory had no problem saying that the Word of God HIMSELF professed ignorance through His human nature.  Nestorius could not find himself saying that it was the Word of God through His human nature, but the man Jesus Christ separate from the Word of God was alone ignorant, completely separate from the Word of God.
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.
OtherguyLB
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic, but lover of Theology and Church History.
Jurisdiction: Under Myself
Posts: 87


« Reply #5 on: March 10, 2011, 08:55:54 PM »

My emphasis:

Quote
If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions (φωνάς) which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema.

In other words, Nestorius' language was not merely describing the humanity of Christ, but to separate the human nature into a separate person, making Christ's humanity no different than a God-inspired prophet or saint.

St. Athanasius and St. Gregory had no problem saying that the Word of God HIMSELF professed ignorance through His human nature.  Nestorius could not find himself saying that it was the Word of God through His human nature, but the man Jesus Christ separate from the Word of God was alone ignorant, completely separate from the Word of God.

Very interesting answer, although Nestorius(and others) always denied two persons in Christ.

If you read letter of Theodoret against anathemas of St. Cyril you will never see him talking about two Christs, ever... He talks about two natures which are separate, although the person is one.

When Christ says - "My Father is greater than I" - what's the reason of saying this with human nature? Everybody knows man is less than God... He says: "If you had faith, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father and Father is greater than I" - why would this mean he is talking from human perspective here?

Major Nestorian question was - Could Christ have sinned? He was tempted by Satan, so was his sinlessness something he achieved? Was that his achievement as a human? Out of free will? Hebrews 2:18 talks about him being similar to mankind, and he was tempted, won over it and can help others who are tempted too... Does this divide two natures drastically?

p.s. And what about Agnoitism? Belief that was anathemized, which said - Christ was ignorant of time of his second coming as a human.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2011, 08:58:43 PM by OtherguyLB » 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: 12,677


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


« Reply #6 on: March 10, 2011, 09:18:08 PM »

Very interesting answer, although Nestorius(and others) always denied two persons in Christ.

Well, yes and no.  There are instances where he did talk about prosopa of Christ, and other instances where he talks about the prosopon of union.

Let us assume he was consistent and did believe in one prosopon.  The language used however was inconsistent.  If one was to ask Nestorius, "Do you Nestorius believe that God the Word was crucified, tempted, hungered in His humanity?"  His answer would be, "NEVER!  This would make the divinity properties of suffering, temptation, and hunger!  Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, was crucified, tempted, and hungered.  God the Word was the one who worked miracles, who raised Jesus from the dead, who destroyed the power of Satan.  Two separate natures, two hypostases, one person of union."

Theodoret falls in this same error, accusing St. Cyril of some form of Monophysitism, as if St. Cyril blasphemed against the properties of divinity.  Theodoret was a pseudo-Nestorian, and these writings were later condemned for its confused comprehension of theology.

St. Cyril asks a very important question against Nestorius.  What makes your words about Christ make him different from a God-inspired saint or prophet?  St. Cyril argues that Nestorius, even if he may not intend it, dangerously puts Christ into a two-personist Christology.  It's like saying, "I don't believe in docetism.  By the way, Christ never became man."  Nestorius and Theodoret were very confused men, and could not put themselves in a consistent manner with the Cappadocian fathers and St. Athanasius who did not have a problem using the phrase "God the Word" as a subject of the united hypostasis of Christ, not as a separate nature from Christ.

So anything Christ said, it was the Word of God who said it.  The Word of God said, "the Father is greater than I," and He is talking about His humanity.  Christ by His human tongue also vocally confessed, "Before Abraham was, I am" and "I and the Father are one" and "He who has seen me has seen the Father."  Nestorians find it convenient taking one verse ignoring all others that pertain to Christ's divinity.  The same vocal cords that spoke about His own humanity also spoke about His own divinity.

Christ's sinlessness is both natural and out of human free will.  However, one has to understand what really is "free" will.  All of humanity, save Christ, has no true free will.  Christ was born truly free, and like a warrior fought the ugliest temptations and the most humiliating death.  He empowered humanity.  That is the most important issue.  If Christ was not God, the temptation and the crucifixion are nothing but a legend of bravery, not a means of salvation.  God became man, so that man might become God.  So we have to understand the position of Christ is a unique position.  All that He is doing is not merely a subject of "follow my example" but "I am doing this for your salvation" and "so that your humanity may be in communion with my humanity, that you may partake of my divinity."  Nestorianism has a shady history of theosis, and may have even rejected it due to their over-reliance on a human person doing great things.

Orthodoxy does not deny the proper qualities of humanity, and that the Word of God ascribed those qualities to Himself, not separate from Himself to a man named Jesus that He inspired.
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.
OtherguyLB
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic, but lover of Theology and Church History.
Jurisdiction: Under Myself
Posts: 87


« Reply #7 on: March 10, 2011, 10:34:51 PM »

minasoliman

First of all - Thank you for a long answer!

Well, if that's what Nestorius said, that just sounds crazy... That means we have 2 Sons... I was investigating Arian beliefs for a year nearly and have moved to Nestorianism just few(1-2) months ago... I am not sympathetic to Nestorius, but I have read some writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret...

According to Theodore, Christ should have achieved sinlessness without God, although God was in him(in temple)... That means he should have achieved sinlessness as a normal man and not by help of God...

I have found on Georgian Orthodox web site, that: "Christ never had any temptations and never wanted to commit sin, thus Theodore was condemned because he taught he had inner 'fights'" - which obviously denies the free will of Christ and his choice to live sinless...

What I think is that, Christ didn't have a human persona, only divine, although he had all attributes the human has. Thus it means he only had divine persona, but both natures, which actually sounds Apollinarianist. If we say he had human persona, this makes him 2 Christs... (Or else he was only human, which isn't supported by scriptures... Or one more idea is by Marcellus, sabellianist...)

My question here would be - Where did Jesus go after his death? Did God the word actually die? Only the temple right? So, how then he says to the criminal at the cross: "You will be with me in heaven today" - If he actually was in Hell(HADES - whatever it means) for three days... If you say that only his human soul was in Hades, then we are dividing him into two, right? That's why I reject the word "today" and think Christ didn't promise the paradise that very day, although he did promise him the salvation...

I am kind of semi-Arian myself, and although I agree he had divine nature as God the Father has, so I can talk about his divine nature without problem... But the saying "Father is greater than me" - doesn't have to be from his human nature, but from his divine, thus removing all kind of Nestorian implications from the text. He actually says everything from God the Word perspective. I believe Christ never said things that are contradictory. "I and Father are one" - means they are one in will, one in thoughts, as apostles are - "they may be as one as we are one". Apostles were already humans and equal in terms of that, here Christ talks about will and thoughts... And it is true that Christ existed before Abraham, so I never see any words uttered by Jesus that could be ascribed to human nature - especially in the gospel of John... But "no one is good but God" from gospel of mark - sounds humanly...

Although, hebrews chapter 5 kind of speaks of himself as "learning obedience through suffering" - which kind of underlines his humanity...

p.s. And what is explanation of Satan tempting Jesus? Satan promises him the whole earth - isn't that odd to tempt Son of God(who also owns it) with earth? Shouldn't Christ have said: "It's already mine, grow up..." This would mean he is talking to human Christ? What explanation does this have?


« Last Edit: March 10, 2011, 10:47:22 PM by OtherguyLB » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #8 on: March 10, 2011, 10:54:43 PM »

I think part of your question has to do with Trinitarian theology. The Son is eternally begotten from the Father. Christ says that all that Father has, He gives the Son. So the Eternal Word is equal to the Father because they share the same divine nature and the Father gives all that He has to the Son, but at the same time, the Father is greater because He is the one that the Son is begotten from and is the One giving the Son all that He has.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #9 on: March 10, 2011, 11:02:01 PM »

My question here would be - Where did Jesus go after his death? Did God the word actually die? Only the temple right? So, how then he says to the criminal at the cross: "You will be with me in heaven today" - If he actually was in Hell(HADES - whatever it means) for three days... If you say that only his human soul was in Hades, then we are dividing him into two, right? That's why I reject the word "today" and think Christ didn't promise the paradise that very day, although he did promise him the salvation...
No, His soul was parted from His body (the definition of death) but His divinity was not parted from either.  As I pointed out on another thread
Okay...  So what?  How does this relate to anything truly important on this thread?

For instance:
1.  The Orthodox understanding of Tradition as the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church
2.  My refutation of your claim that the laying on of hands as invocation of the Holy Spirit upon those who had not received Him is a legalistic rule with no foundation in the apostolic traditions

1)Your tradition contradicts the Word of God. Contrary to what the Orthodox say, Jesus promised the thief he would be with Him in paradise (Luke 23:43), third heaven (2 Cor 12:2, 4) that very day, before His descent into hell.
No, the very day of His descent.
We've already dealt with that:
Religionists have boxes they put God in, but He is infinite, much greater than your box.
No, God put Himself in this box:
and this one:

http://saintjameskids.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.html
"In the tomb with the Body
 In Hell with the Soul
 In Paradise with the Thief
 Sitting on the Throne with the Father and Spirit
 Were You, O Christ!
 Yourself alone uncircumscribed."

I am kind of semi-Arian myself, and although I agree he had divine nature as God the Father has, so I can talk about his divine nature without problem... But the saying "Father is greater than me" - doesn't have to be from his human nature, but from his divine, thus removing all kind of Nestorian implications from the text. He actually says everything from God the Word perspective. I believe Christ never said things that are contradictory. "I and Father are one" - means they are one in will, one in thoughts, as apostles are - "they may be as one as we are one". Apostles were already humans and equal in terms of that, here Christ talks about will and thoughts... And it is true that Christ existed before Abraham, so I never see any words uttered by Jesus that could be ascribed to human nature - especially in the gospel of John... But "no one is good but God" - sounds humanly...

Although, hebrews chapter 5 kind of speaks of himself as "learning obedience through suffering" - which kind of underlines his humanity...
He who has seen Me has seen the Father. John 14:9

p.s. And what is explanation of Satan tempting Jesus? Satan promises him the whole earth - isn't that odd to tempt Son of God(who also owns it) with earth? Shouldn't Christ have said: "It's already mine, grow up..." This would mean he is talking to human Christ? What explanation does this have?
No one is saying that Satan is particularly bright in trying to tempt God. Rather than pulling rank, Christ shows us our proper response  (we, after all can't pull rank, but we can affirm to Whom worship is due).
« Last Edit: March 10, 2011, 11:02:41 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Agnostic, but lover of Theology and Church History.
Jurisdiction: Under Myself
Posts: 87


« Reply #10 on: March 10, 2011, 11:14:03 PM »

ialmisry
Quote
In the tomb with the Body
 In Hell with the Soul
 In Paradise with the Thief

This would mean his soul was separated from his being, which divides him into two Christs? So, the human Christ went into hell and divine into paradise? And do we have proof that gates of heaven were opened before his ressurection? I am not arguing, I am just interested...

Quote
He who has seen Me has seen the Father. John 14:9

True, because he is the perfect image of the Father, only being who was born from the very nature of Father. All creatures were made from "Father through Son"(john 1:3)... Son was born from the nature of the Father, without any "through"...
 
Quote
No one is saying that Satan is particularly bright in trying to tempt God. Rather than pulling rank, Christ shows us our proper response

This sounds true, but all other temptations which he could have endured in lifetime? Was he really tempted as other humans are tempted? Was his free will to stay sinless or all the time Divine Nature intervened and removed the possibility? That's what I am asking...

Melodist

Let's not talk about trinity please. As we all affirm Christ's full divine nature, there is no need for polemics about that in this topic. Although I personally deny his equality with the Father Allmighty. As Corinthians Chapter 15 says, from verse 24, finishing with 28 - "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."

Lets not talk about this here, this topic was made for discussing how divine and human natures existed in Him.


Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #11 on: March 10, 2011, 11:33:37 PM »

Melodist

Let's not talk about trinity please. As we all affirm Christ's full divine nature, there is no need for polemics about that in this topic. Although I personally deny his equality with the Father Allmighty. As Corinthians Chapter 15 says, from verse 24, finishing with 28 - "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."

Lets not talk about this here, this topic was made for discussing how divine and human natures existed in Him.

Please forgive me if my answer was not what you were looking for.

I was only attempting to make an observation on how the Father can be greater than the Son, and at the same time Christ can claim to be one with the Father.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2011, 11:36:16 PM »

Quote
In the tomb with the Body
 In Hell with the Soul
 In Paradise with the Thief
 Sitting on the Throne with the Father and Spirit
 Were You, O Christ!
 Yourself alone uncircumscribed.

This would mean his soul was separated from his being, which divides him into two Christs? So, the human Christ went into hell and divine into paradise? And do we have proof that gates of heaven were opened before his ressurection? I am not arguing, I am just interested...

Actually, from the full quote, you're asking if there are 4 Christs: Body, Soul, Divinity, and Son.  

What does not separate God does not separate Christ: He is "everywhere present and filling all things," no?  The Son of God was always present with the Father and the Spirit even when Incarnate.  I like the version of the prayer printed in my Proskomide book, the service of preparing the gifts before Liturgy: "Being God you were present in the grave with the body, and in hades with the soul, in paradise with the thief, and on the throne with the Father and the Holy Spirit, filling all things and yet inscribed by none."
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
OtherguyLB
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic, but lover of Theology and Church History.
Jurisdiction: Under Myself
Posts: 87


« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2011, 11:48:32 PM »


Actually, from the full quote, you're asking if there are 4 Christs: Body, Soul, Divinity, and Son.  

What does not separate God does not separate Christ: He is "everywhere present and filling all things," no?  The Son of God was always present with the Father and the Spirit even when Incarnate.  I like the version of the prayer printed in my Proskomide book, the service of preparing the gifts before Liturgy: "Being God you were present in the grave with the body, and in hades with the soul, in paradise with the thief, and on the throne with the Father and the Holy Spirit, filling all things and yet inscribed by none."

Not quite. Christ says: "Destroy this temple and I will raise it." He doesn't say: "Destroy me and I will raise myself..." Which means temple(humanity) is outside of his being...

Thus body isn't counted as Christ. What counts as Christ is his "psyche", or soul, or reason... If he has 2 souls, that means there are two Christs. One soul is obviously Divine, and "God is Spirit", thus soul can be Divine...

That's why I said - he has 1 'persona'(divine) and 2 natures. He told Pharisees to destroy his human nature. Although his 'persona' engulfs both of these natures. When he died, his human nature died, and he only was left with 1 'persona', which includes 1 divine nature which was left.

And if we say he was everywhere while being in hell, what this passage says then: "he wasn't left in hell, his Father ressurected him" - Doesn't this mean he was fully in hell? What about Christ when he says: "As Jonah was 3 days inside whale, Son of Man will also be in the depth of earth for 3 days" - Did he talk about his body only? I doubt it... Or else we have 2 Christs...
« Last Edit: March 10, 2011, 11:55:00 PM by OtherguyLB » Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #14 on: March 11, 2011, 03:45:50 AM »


Not quite. Christ says: "Destroy this temple and I will raise it." He doesn't say: "Destroy me and I will raise myself..." Which means temple(humanity) is outside of his being...

This is a misinterpretation of Jesus' statement. When Jesus said "Destroy this temple", He did not refer to His human nature, but to His body:

Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.” Then the Jewish leaders said to him, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and are you going to raise it up in three days?” But Jesus was speaking about the temple of his body. (John 2:19-21)
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
OtherguyLB
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic, but lover of Theology and Church History.
Jurisdiction: Under Myself
Posts: 87


« Reply #15 on: March 11, 2011, 11:06:14 AM »


Not quite. Christ says: "Destroy this temple and I will raise it." He doesn't say: "Destroy me and I will raise myself..." Which means temple(humanity) is outside of his being...

This is a misinterpretation of Jesus' statement. When Jesus said "Destroy this temple", He did not refer to His human nature, but to His body:

Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.” Then the Jewish leaders said to him, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and are you going to raise it up in three days?” But Jesus was speaking about the temple of his body. (John 2:19-21)

Doesn't his body mean his human nature? The human nature of every person dies upon death, why would Christ's have survived it? Upon death only soul("mind"/'persona') survives, which doesn't have human nature...

Actually, is there a big difference between Apollinarianism and Miaphysitism? Apollinarius rejected human 'persona' of Christ, saying he only had human nature which included his body and lower soul(human emotions)... If he had human 'persona', wouldn't that actually make 2 Christs?

The Chalcedonian term "Fully Man" - would obviously make 2 Christs if we include person of Human Christ in it, thus why was Apollinarius wrong?

Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #16 on: March 11, 2011, 11:54:15 AM »


Doesn't his body mean his human nature?

No. Human nature cannot be reduced to one's body.

The human nature of every person dies upon death, why would Christ's have survived it? Upon death only soul("mind"/'persona') survives, which doesn't have human nature...

What do you mean when you say one's soul does not have human nature? Isn't human soul a part of the human nature?  Huh

Actually, is there a big difference between Apollinarianism and Miaphysitism? Apollinarius rejected human 'persona' of Christ, saying he only had human nature which included his body and lower soul(human emotions)... If he had human 'persona', wouldn't that actually make 2 Christs?

Apollinarius contended that Jesus had no human intellect/mind. Miaphysitism does not teach that. 

The Chalcedonian term "Fully Man" - would obviously make 2 Christs if we include person of Human Christ in it, thus why was Apollinarius wrong?

The person of human Christ was also divine. One subject (divine) with two natures.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #17 on: March 11, 2011, 01:51:16 PM »

ialmisry
Quote
In the tomb with the Body
 In Hell with the Soul
 In Paradise with the Thief
This would mean his soul was separated from his being, which divides him into two Christs? So, the human Christ went into hell and divine into paradise? And do we have proof that gates of heaven were opened before his ressurection? I am not arguing, I am just interested...


I hope this helps explain a bit.  To me, it indicates that no division or separation is necessary.  From St. Athanasius' On The Incarnation Book/Chapter 17:
Quote
The Word was not hedged in by His body, nor did His presence in the body prevent His being present elsewhere as well.  When He moved His body He did not cease also to direct the universe by His Mind and might. No.  The marvelous truth is, that being the Word, so far from being Himself contained by anything, He actually contained all things Himself.  In creation He is present everywhere, yet is distinct in being from it; ordering, directing, giving life to all, containing all, yet is He Himself the Uncontained, existing solely in His Father.  As with the whole, so also is it with the part.  Existing in a human body, to which He Himself gives life, He is still the source of life to all the universe, present in every part of it, yet outside the whole; and He is revealed both through the works of His body and through His activity in the world.  It is, indeed, the function of soul to behold things that are outside the body, but it cannot energize or move them.  A man cannot transport things from one place to another, for instance, merely by thinking about them; nor can you or I move the sun and the stars just by sitting at home and looking at them.  With the Word of God in His human nature, however, it was otherwise.  His body was for Him not a limitation, but an instrument, so that He was both in it and in all things, and outside all things, resting in the Father alone.  At one and the same time--this is the wonder--as Man He was living a human life, and as Word He was sustaining the life of the universe, and as Son He was in constant union with the Father.  Not even His birth from a virgin, therefore, changed Him in any way, nor was He defiled by being in the body.  Rather, He sanctified the body by being in it.  For His being in everything does not mean that He shares the nature of everything, only that He gives all things their being and sustains them in it.  Just as the sun is not defiled by the contact of its rays with earthly object, but rather enlightens and purifies them, so He Who made the sun is not defiled by being made known in a body, but rather the body is cleansed and quickened by His indwelling, "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth." (1 Peter 2:22)

I know you don't want to focus on it in this thread, but when I began investigating Christianity from a theological perspective, I had many of the same questions, leanings, understandings, and concerns as you do.  I don't mean to imply that I'm now wiser than you, or that I sorted all of my issues and know all orthodox doctrine to be true, but I thought I would mention that.  One thing that helped distance me from my Arian sympathies was contemplating what the implications would be if Arius' teachings were correct.   
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
OtherguyLB
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic, but lover of Theology and Church History.
Jurisdiction: Under Myself
Posts: 87


« Reply #18 on: March 12, 2011, 07:00:03 PM »

As an answer to all, this is my view, which I posted in different topic too, but will post it here:

So, as we say Christ was divine and God, and that he assumed flesh, I have this kind of idea:

1. Christ assumed flesh fully, with all urges that person has.

2. Christ has 1 "persona"(only divine) and 2 natures. But I think his divine nature never engulfed his human nature, because the natures itself are different, they can't fuse... And divine is immutable, it can't fuse...

3. Christ only had 1 mind, 1 soul - Divine. If he had human mind and human soul, then we say we have 2 Christs, where Divine Word of God took possesion of human person/mind and then - what happened to it? Was Christ's human soul destroyed? Or we have 2 Christs then... Thus there is no mind or soul of human Christ, only the nature - human emotions and urges which flesh gives person.

4. Human person(mind/soul) doesn't have human nature... That's why our soul/"mind" often is against our fleshly desires... It's different... This is why I say that Christ didn't have human soul/psyche, but had human nature as far as human flesh is concerned...

If I am wrong in anything, please tell me... I believe in what Apollinarius of Laodecaea said:

"Best known, however, as a noted opponent of Arianism, Apollinaris' eagerness to emphasize the deity of Jesus and the unity of his person led him so far as to deny the existence of a rational human soul (νους, nous) in Christ's human nature, this being replaced in him by the logos, so that his body was a glorified and spiritualized form of humanity. "

"Jesus could not have had a human mind; rather, that Jesus Christ had a human body and lower soul (the seat of the emotions) but a divine mind."


p.s. For me, this is only explanation for God's incarnation, or else I would say he was just a man, who was helped by God, and then adopted him... Which is Adoptionism...
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: 12,677


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


« Reply #19 on: March 12, 2011, 07:37:06 PM »

OtherguyLB,

Look at the animals around you.  They have brains, they have choices, they have instincts.  Now look at humanity, they have brains, choices, instincts, and spirituality.  Now look look at Christ.  He has a brain, choices, instincts, spirit, and divinity.

You compare the mind of man to the mind of God.  But that is utter Apollinarian foolishness.  The incarnation is a mystery.  Christ's being although fully substantial with us, is also way above us, above what we can understand.  No animal today can understand what our minds go through.  But we understand what animals minds go through, and we direct our bodies in a sacred manner, not in a manner to fight against.  Our bodies are not our enemies, but it is a part of who we are, and our spirits can elevate that part.

Christ took the whole man, body, soul, and spirit, to save all its parts.  Just because Christ had a human soul and spirit does not mean He had a separate human persona.  Christ, the Word of God, decided to immerse fully into experiencing the full human experience while sanctifying it, magnifying it, glorifying it, and transcending it to an eternal realm.  If Christ did not assume a human mind, then Christ only brought salvation to animals, not to humanity.  This is not adoptionism.  Christ knew very well He is the Word of God.  He elevated humanity, all of humanity, with nothing missing in it, while being fully human, with nothing missing in it.

If animals can never understand humanity, then we also must accept our level of humility and understand that divinity is a mystery, and therefore Incarnation of the Word of God is a mystery.  We know Christ is the Word of God, and we know Word of God became fully man, body, soul, and spirit.  We know that Apollinarianism, Arianism, and Adoptionism produces no real soteriology.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2011, 07:41:51 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.
OtherguyLB
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic, but lover of Theology and Church History.
Jurisdiction: Under Myself
Posts: 87


« Reply #20 on: March 12, 2011, 08:20:00 PM »

Quote
Look at the animals around you.  They have brains, they have choices, they have instincts.  Now look at humanity, they have brains, choices, instincts, and spirituality.  Now look look at Christ.  He has a brain, choices, instincts, spirit, and divinity.

This is true, but we have different brains. Our level of memory and intellect is beyond that of animals. Our genes and memory make us unique and different personality. Jesus couldn't have this, because then he was fully man as Nestorius suggested. He couldn't have human memory, mind and person. Or else there are 2 Christ at the start and then Divine Christ "destroyes" the human one. They just can't fuse.

Quote
Christ took the whole man, body, soul, and spirit, to save all its parts.  Just because Christ had a human soul and spirit does not mean He had a separate human persona.
 

Our body isn't persona, our emotions in general aren't persona, but our soul is a persona. Our memory is a persona, our intelect is a persona. If we say Christ was fully human, we say he had full human soul right? How can human soul fuse with divine soul? It's impossible... In that case human soul didn't fuse and we get 2 Christs, or we get human soul destroyed in some way.

Quote
If Christ did not assume a human mind, then Christ only brought salvation to animals, not to humanity.  This is not adoptionism.  Christ knew very well He is the Word of God.  He elevated humanity, all of humanity, with nothing missing in it, while being fully human, with nothing missing in it.

This logic is fine, but animals don't have any reason to control their urges, we do. Christ showed us with flesh, that these urges can be controlled in way God wants it, fully. Anyway, his real showing wasn't possible, because he was God. I ask you question - could Jesus have sinned? If no, then it already nullifies him as our real image to follow, because we can sin in theory, and he was impotent to sin. So why bother affirming his full human soul? It's saying his human nature was just his clothes, which he carried during his incarnation, because he was still unable to sin anyway. The phrase "he was tempted" is very symbolic...

Quote
We know Christ is the Word of God, and we know Word of God became fully man, body, soul, and spirit.  We know that Apollinarianism, Arianism, and Adoptionism produces no real soteriology.

Yes, but if he was fully man, that he was really man, and if he was really man - every man has persona, which already means there were two Christs... The word man(with soul) - already implies persona...
« Last Edit: March 12, 2011, 08:21:45 PM by OtherguyLB » 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: 12,677


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


« Reply #21 on: March 12, 2011, 09:45:47 PM »

Quote
Look at the animals around you.  They have brains, they have choices, they have instincts.  Now look at humanity, they have brains, choices, instincts, and spirituality.  Now look look at Christ.  He has a brain, choices, instincts, spirit, and divinity.

This is true, but we have different brains. Our level of memory and intellect is beyond that of animals. Our genes and memory make us unique and different personality. Jesus couldn't have this, because then he was fully man as Nestorius suggested. He couldn't have human memory, mind and person. Or else there are 2 Christ at the start and then Divine Christ "destroyes" the human one. They just can't fuse.

Well, then it looks like you're equating a human mind with the divine "mind," if that's even possible to say.  That would be blasphemy.  How is that our spirit fuses with an animal mind and yet we're not double-personed?  Second of all, how can you even continue this discussion without asking yourself, "why am I equating a human person with a divine person?"  They're not the same thing.  Some Church fathers didn't like even calling the Trinity "persons" so as not to sound tri-theist.  Hypostasis seemed "safer" of a word.  They're "existences" so to speak, and that might the best way to describe them, but that might not even be accurate enough.


Quote
Our body isn't persona, our emotions in general aren't persona, but our soul is a persona. Our memory is a persona, our intelect is a persona. If we say Christ was fully human, we say he had full human soul right? How can human soul fuse with divine soul? It's impossible... In that case human soul didn't fuse and we get 2 Christs, or we get human soul destroyed in some way.

Again, you are equating the divine "mind" to the human mind.  What makes you know so much about how Christ thinks and acts?  You know nothing of what you speak.  No one knows.  It's a mystery.

And only people who limit the divinity say "it's impossible."  To Christ our God, all things are possible.


Quote
This logic is fine, but animals don't have any reason to control their urges, we do. Christ showed us with flesh, that these urges can be controlled in way God wants it, fully. Anyway, his real showing wasn't possible, because he was God. I ask you question - could Jesus have sinned? If no, then it already nullifies him as our real image to follow, because we can sin in theory, and he was impotent to sin. So why bother affirming his full human soul? It's saying his human nature was just his clothes, which he carried during his incarnation, because he was still unable to sin anyway. The phrase "he was tempted" is very symbolic...

The question, "Could Jesus have sinned" is a logical fallacy.  That's like saying could God be not God?

Christ is a certain point of perfection that we strive to be like, not a member of society that He strove to be part of.  Christ is the head of the Church, not the hand, not the heart, not the feet.  We must accept our position in terms of Who He is.

If Christ did not assume all of humanity, then there is no salvation for us, and there is no point of reference to say, "This is the fullness of human perfection."  If Christ didn't have a human soul, then there is no human perfection, just a animal creation.

Christ's temptation was real.  You need to differentiate between temptation and a mindful acting upon temptation, i.e. sinning in the heart.  Christ is powerful.  He allowed Satan to give Him the worst temptations, and Christ rose victorious.  It's not a matter of mere human experience, but the fact is that when we commune with Christ, He promises us to be that powerful as well.  So, yes, Christ was tempted, but Christ was not conflicted or struggling to choose against sin.  He chose against sin like a warrior who chooses to slay His enemy.  His mission was precisely to slay sin, and to slay death.  Death is what we can say Christ struggled with, but these are blameless human passions that Christ allowed to surface and partake of.

Quote
Yes, but if he was fully man, that he was really man, and if he was really man - every man has persona, which already means there were two Christs... The word man(with soul) - already implies persona...

Man is fully animal, fully spiritual.  There is no conflict within man's angelic or fleshly natures.  He is still one person.

Christ is full man, full God.  There is no conflict with either nature.  He is still one person.  This is not two Christs.  This is one Christ, one Lord, one Word enfleshed, or "enmanned" as St. Cyril puts it.

Think everything you know in terms of what it means for salvation.  If Christ did not have a human soul, then He only gave salvation to part of us.  If Christ was not equal to God, then Christ is incapable of even giving us salvation.  If Christ was two persons, then Christ can never be in communion with us.  Therefore, theology is best placed on what Christ is not:  He is not Apollinarian, Arian, or Adoptionist.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2011, 09:56:58 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.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 12, 2011, 10:34:12 PM »

So, I am interested in this dilemma.

The Saints of fourth century used Nestorian arguments to counteract Arian arguments about Christ's humble sayings... St. Athanasius and St. Gregory the Theologian applied these sayings to the human nature, which was considered Nestorian later...


This is about IV anathema of St. Cyril, about people applying some verses to Jesus' humanity and some to his divinity.

St. Athanasius:

"but why, though He knew, He said, 'no, not the Son knows,' this I think none of the faithful is ignorant, viz. that He made this as those other declarations as man by reason of the flesh. For this as before is not the Word's deficiency , but of that human nature whose property it is to be ignorant." - Third Discourse Against Arians, 43. [http://newadvent.org/fathers/28163.htm]

And St. Gregory the Theologian:

"we are to understand the ignorance in the most reverent sense, by attributing it to the Manhood, and not to the Godhead." - Orations N30, XV [http://newadvent.org/fathers/310230.htm]



That's why Theodoret writes against anathemas of St. Cyril that: "Let then this exact professor of theology tells us how he would confute the blasphemy of the heretics, while applying to God the Word what is uttered humbly and appropriately by the form of the servant. Does Divine Son say the words: My God, my God why have you forsaken me; or Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me; or Father save me from this hour; or That hour no man knows, not even the Son of Man; Who then is He who was perfected by toils of virtue and who was not perfect by nature? Who is He who learned obedience by experience, and before his experience was ignorant of it?(cites Hebrews 5:7)..."


So what can you say about this? What do you think?


Just because one is Dyo-physite doesn't mean one is Nestorian. However, I see that you were able to see what I saw in the 4th century. Especially in regards to the theology of some of those of the 2nd council.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2011, 10:36:59 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 12, 2011, 10:47:01 PM »

Very interesting answer, although Nestorius(and others) always denied two persons in Christ.

Well, yes and no.  There are instances where he did talk about prosopa of Christ, and other instances where he talks about the prosopon of union.

Let us assume he was consistent and did believe in one prosopon.  The language used however was inconsistent.  If one was to ask Nestorius, "Do you Nestorius believe that God the Word was crucified, tempted, hungered in His humanity?"  His answer would be, "NEVER!  This would make the divinity properties of suffering, temptation, and hunger!  Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, was crucified, tempted, and hungered.  God the Word was the one who worked miracles, who raised Jesus from the dead, who destroyed the power of Satan.  Two separate natures, two hypostases, one person of union."

Theodoret falls in this same error, accusing St. Cyril of some form of Monophysitism, as if St. Cyril blasphemed against the properties of divinity.  Theodoret was a pseudo-Nestorian, and these writings were later condemned for its confused comprehension of theology.

St. Cyril asks a very important question against Nestorius.  What makes your words about Christ make him different from a God-inspired saint or prophet?  St. Cyril argues that Nestorius, even if he may not intend it, dangerously puts Christ into a two-personist Christology.  It's like saying, "I don't believe in docetism.  By the way, Christ never became man."  Nestorius and Theodoret were very confused men, and could not put themselves in a consistent manner with the Cappadocian fathers and St. Athanasius who did not have a problem using the phrase "God the Word" as a subject of the united hypostasis of Christ, not as a separate nature from Christ.

So anything Christ said, it was the Word of God who said it.  The Word of God said, "the Father is greater than I," and He is talking about His humanity.  Christ by His human tongue also vocally confessed, "Before Abraham was, I am" and "I and the Father are one" and "He who has seen me has seen the Father."  Nestorians find it convenient taking one verse ignoring all others that pertain to Christ's divinity.  The same vocal cords that spoke about His own humanity also spoke about His own divinity.

Christ's sinlessness is both natural and out of human free will.  However, one has to understand what really is "free" will.  All of humanity, save Christ, has no true free will.  Christ was born truly free, and like a warrior fought the ugliest temptations and the most humiliating death.  He empowered humanity.  That is the most important issue.  If Christ was not God, the temptation and the crucifixion are nothing but a legend of bravery, not a means of salvation.  God became man, so that man might become God.  So we have to understand the position of Christ is a unique position.  All that He is doing is not merely a subject of "follow my example" but "I am doing this for your salvation" and "so that your humanity may be in communion with my humanity, that you may partake of my divinity."  Nestorianism has a shady history of theosis, and may have even rejected it due to their over-reliance on a human person doing great things.

Orthodoxy does not deny the proper qualities of humanity, and that the Word of God ascribed those qualities to Himself, not separate from Himself to a man named Jesus that He inspired.

Great post!
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 12, 2011, 11:05:33 PM »

ialmisry
Quote
In the tomb with the Body
 In Hell with the Soul
 In Paradise with the Thief

This would mean his soul was separated from his being, which divides him into two Christs? So, the human Christ went into hell and divine into paradise? And do we have proof that gates of heaven were opened before his ressurection? I am not arguing, I am just interested...

Quote
He who has seen Me has seen the Father. John 14:9

True, because he is the perfect image of the Father, only being who was born from the very nature of Father. All creatures were made from "Father through Son"(john 1:3)... Son was born from the nature of the Father, without any "through"...
 
Quote
No one is saying that Satan is particularly bright in trying to tempt God. Rather than pulling rank, Christ shows us our proper response

This sounds true, but all other temptations which he could have endured in lifetime? Was he really tempted as other humans are tempted? Was his free will to stay sinless or all the time Divine Nature intervened and removed the possibility? That's what I am asking...

Melodist

Let's not talk about trinity please. As we all affirm Christ's full divine nature, there is no need for polemics about that in this topic. Although I personally deny his equality with the Father Allmighty. As Corinthians Chapter 15 says, from verse 24, finishing with 28 - "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."

Lets not talk about this here, this topic was made for discussing how divine and human natures existed in Him.

1.) The Dogma of the Trinity is connected with this issue and so we have to talk about it.

2.) The Quote Isa gave isn't talking about how many persons. Instead, it is talking about His Presence. At least that is what I got from it.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2011, 11:09:54 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 12, 2011, 11:20:53 PM »


Not quite. Christ says: "Destroy this temple and I will raise it." He doesn't say: "Destroy me and I will raise myself..." Which means temple(humanity) is outside of his being...

This is a misinterpretation of Jesus' statement. When Jesus said "Destroy this temple", He did not refer to His human nature, but to His body:

Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.” Then the Jewish leaders said to him, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and are you going to raise it up in three days?” But Jesus was speaking about the temple of his body. (John 2:19-21)

Doesn't his body mean his human nature? The human nature of every person dies upon death, why would Christ's have survived it? Upon death only soul("mind"/'persona') survives, which doesn't have human nature...

Actually, is there a big difference between Apollinarianism and Miaphysitism? Apollinarius rejected human 'persona' of Christ, saying he only had human nature which included his body and lower soul(human emotions)... If he had human 'persona', wouldn't that actually make 2 Christs?

The Chalcedonian term "Fully Man" - would obviously make 2 Christs if we include person of Human Christ in it, thus why was Apollinarius wrong?

You just opened up another can of worms. I'm gonna stay out of this one. But I will say this. It doesn't mean 2 Christs. Just because one is Dyo-Physite doesn't mean they have to be Nestorian. The 2nd council did condemn Apollinarianism, however, everything about Apollinarianism wasn't wrong. Like you I believe in One Divine Person in/of two Natures.

Unlike you, I agree with the 2nd council in why it condemned Apollinarianism.......which will also lead to the 4th council.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2011, 11:29:57 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
OtherguyLB
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic, but lover of Theology and Church History.
Jurisdiction: Under Myself
Posts: 87


« Reply #26 on: March 12, 2011, 11:28:16 PM »

minasoliman

Quote

Well, then it looks like you're equating a human mind with the divine "mind," if that's even possible to say.  That would be blasphemy.  How is that our spirit fuses with an animal mind and yet we're not double-personed?  Second of all, how can you even continue this discussion without asking yourself, "why am I equating a human person with a divine person?"  They're not the same thing.  Some Church fathers didn't like even calling the Trinity "persons" so as not to sound tri-theist.  Hypostasis seemed "safer" of a word.  They're "existences" so to speak, and that might the best way to describe them, but that might not even be accurate enough.

Because animals don't have spirit, so addition of spirit isn't fusion. Imagine the master of the dog is dissapointed and incarnates himself in a dog. What kind of example will he be for other dogs, if he just animates the soulless body of dog and be faithful to the master?

With Christ, this is complicated - we have our own soul, our own awareness and personality. Even if fusion with Divine occurs, we can't lose it. Thus were did Christ's human soul/personality go after crucifixion or ressurection? It can't get fused with God and become one with God the Word. As Theodoret says - divine is immutable, there is no fusion or confusion.

In any case, if Divine Word got fused with human soul of Jesus, that still means he animated one of the humans to achieve this and we get into Nestorian fallacy.


Quote

The question, "Could Jesus have sinned" is a logical fallacy.  That's like saying could God be not God?

Christ is a certain point of perfection that we strive to be like, not a member of society that He strove to be part of.  Christ is the head of the Church, not the hand, not the heart, not the feet.  We must accept our position in terms of Who He is.

If Christ did not assume all of humanity, then there is no salvation for us, and there is no point of reference to say, "This is the fullness of human perfection."  If Christ didn't have a human soul, then there is no human perfection, just a animal creation.

Christ's temptation was real.  You need to differentiate between temptation and a mindful acting upon temptation, i.e. sinning in the heart. 


So why is it written: "as he was tempted fully, he is helper for others who are also being tempted"(Hebrews 2:18) - if he was impotent of sinning, how was it possible to tempt him?

If I am impotent and never have sexual urges, will I ever be example to others if I stay virgin my whole life?

Quote
Think everything you know in terms of what it means for salvation.  If Christ did not have a human soul, then He only gave salvation to part of us.  If Christ was not equal to God, then Christ is incapable of even giving us salvation.  If Christ was two persons, then Christ can never be in communion with us.  Therefore, theology is best placed on what Christ is not:  He is not Apollinarian, Arian, or Adoptionist.

But what differentiates human reasoning from divine reasoning? I am not talking about power here. I have divine reasoning if I want to be sinless, obey God, have love and etc. Although my flesh has urges and if I don't have enough strength of will, I will fail. That's why I say, it's the urges that may sin and not the mind. That's why I say, that for Christ, assuming human soul with human mind wasn't necessary. Although there is only one big issue here - We don't have the amount of faith we needed, as Christ said to Apostles, or else we could have lifted mountains. This is what differentiates human soul from the divine minded soul. I am kind of Pelagianist and say that we don't have sinful nature and we can achieve sinlessness from our nature and personal will, with the help of God(divine sinergy) in case of Christians. Although I believe that the non-Christian can also be sinless, because sin is transgression of law, and not faithlessness(which is obligatory nevertheless)

I can't explain incarnation any other way. There can't be fusion. And if there was human soul, that soul should have had thoughts which are considered sin too, or else Word of God was controlling those thoughts too, and it's obscure how can we achieve what Incarnated Christ has achieved.
Logged
OtherguyLB
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic, but lover of Theology and Church History.
Jurisdiction: Under Myself
Posts: 87


« Reply #27 on: March 12, 2011, 11:29:43 PM »

You just opened up another can of worms. I'm gonna stay out of this one.

Wow, that sounded scary. Sad

p.s. I just said - Christ didn't have human soul, so there was nothing to fuse with Divine Word of God. So there is just one - Divine persona. Although Christ had full human nature with all the urges and emotions that people have.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2011, 11:40:37 PM by OtherguyLB » Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 12, 2011, 11:38:32 PM »

You just opened up another can of worms. I'm gonna stay out of this one.

Wow, that sounded scary. Sad

Just know that every Dyo-Physite isn't a Nestorian/Theodore Mopsuestian and that every Mono-physite isn't Apollinarian/Eutychian.

As long as you know this then everything should be fine. But I'm gonna stay out of this! PEACE OUT!
« Last Edit: March 12, 2011, 11:40:04 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
OtherguyLB
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic, but lover of Theology and Church History.
Jurisdiction: Under Myself
Posts: 87


« Reply #29 on: March 12, 2011, 11:39:59 PM »

You just opened up another can of worms. I'm gonna stay out of this one.

Wow, that sounded scary. Sad

Just know that every Dyo-Physite isn't a Nestorian/Theodore mopsuestian and that every Mono-physite isn't Apollinarian/Eutychian.

As long as you know that then everything should be fine. But I'm gonna stay out of this!

I actually think Myaphisites have same understanding of incarnation as Dyophisites. I don't blame anyone with anything, unless I talk with them, and it's not a "blame", it's just evaluation.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #30 on: March 12, 2011, 11:42:45 PM »

Quote
Thus were did Christ's human soul/personality go after crucifixion or ressurection? It can't get fused with God and become one with God the Word.

The hymnography for the Orthodox services for the Meeting of the Lord, the Raising of Lazarus, Holy Week, Pascha, Thomas' Sunday and the Ascension of the Lord have much to say on the natures of Christ.

Like I said before: the liturgical services of the Orthodox Church have the answers. There are a also dozens of triadika/troitseniy/Trinity hymns which proclaim what we believe about the divine Persons.
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: 12,677


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


« Reply #31 on: March 13, 2011, 12:57:15 AM »

Because animals don't have spirit, so addition of spirit isn't fusion. Imagine the master of the dog is dissapointed and incarnates himself in a dog. What kind of example will he be for other dogs, if he just animates the soulless body of dog and be faithful to the master?

That's precisely the point.  How on earth will a dog really know humanity unless humanity stoops to the level of the dog?

Quote
With Christ, this is complicated - we have our own soul, our own awareness and personality. Even if fusion with Divine occurs, we can't lose it. Thus were did Christ's human soul/personality go after crucifixion or ressurection? It can't get fused with God and become one with God the Word. As Theodoret says - divine is immutable, there is no fusion or confusion.

I don't mean "fusion" as confusion.  I mean a very real unity.  If a human was incarnate into a dog form, wouldn't you direct the dog senses and mind towards human means?  This is what the Word of God did.  In becoming man, He directed humanity, all of it, towards divine means.  It is partaking of the divinity with full knowledge, full desire, full human instinct.  If Christ didn't have a human soul, then the incarnation means nothing for us.

Second of all, the being of animal is at a much lower level than the being of a man.  You can call that being "person."  Nevertheless, because animals don't have spirits do not mean they're not "persons."  They are, albeit in a different level.

When you are conflicted between human persona and divine persona, you are equating both of them, and not realizing that the divine "person" is at a level of which we cannot understand.  So He came to us at a level that we can understand.

Quote
In any case, if Divine Word got fused with human soul of Jesus, that still means he animated one of the humans to achieve this and we get into Nestorian fallacy.

He didn't animate "one of the humans."  He was formed and born from the womb of the Theotokos.  From the very moment of His human existence, the Word of God partook of it and became it.  There was no adoptionism.


Quote
So why is it written: "as he was tempted fully, he is helper for others who are also being tempted"(Hebrews 2:18) - if he was impotent of sinning, how was it possible to tempt him?

I just explained to you how He is a helper to those who are tempted.  Read what I wrote again.  Temptation is not sinning.  It's temptation.  Two different things.  He destroyed temptation and with it destroyed sin.  That's the point.  And when He does this, He promises us the same when we are in communion with Him.

Quote
If I am impotent and never have sexual urges, will I ever be example to others if I stay virgin my whole life?

Why would you assume a person who does not have sexual urges "impotent"?  Those are two different things.  And yes, it's very important that a person who does not have sexual urges be the fulcrum of my need to lay off sexual urges.  If I am blind, I want someone who can see to lead me to the right path, not someone else who's blind.

Quote
But what differentiates human reasoning from divine reasoning?

Even in reasoning, there's a HUGE CHASM.  Human reasoning is nothing compared to divine reasoning.  That's the whole point of this conversation that I've been trying to tell you.

Quote
I have divine reasoning if I want to be sinless, obey God, have love and etc.

No, you do not have divine reasoning.  You have human reasoning, and you seek divine inspiration.  Big difference.  If you say you have divine reasoning, you say you are God.


Quote
Although my flesh has urges and if I don't have enough strength of will, I will fail. That's why I say, it's the urges that may sin and not the mind.

Your urges are weaknesses of your marred will.  It's like being blind.  You spiritual blindness will lead you to fail more and more.  You need someone who can see to lead you away from failure.

Quote
That's why I say, that for Christ, assuming human soul with human mind wasn't necessary.

Since your arguments before that fail, it shows how necessary it is for Christ to have assumed a human mind.

Quote
Although there is only one big issue here - We don't have the amount of faith we needed, as Christ said to Apostles, or else we could have lifted mountains. This is what differentiates human soul from the divine minded soul.

Faith is putting all your trust and belief in God.  It has nothing to do with what type of soul one has.  A dog has faith in his master and will do the craziest things for him, and yet the dog is not even human.

Quote
I am kind of Pelagianist and say that we don't have sinful nature and we can achieve sinlessness from our nature and personal will, with the help of God(divine sinergy) in case of Christians. Although I believe that the non-Christian can also be sinless, because sin is transgression of law, and not faithlessness(which is obligatory nevertheless)

Pelagianism is the belief that one can be sinless WITHOUT God.  But if one seeks God's help, then that means one can't be sinless alone, and that's Orthodox.

Quote
I can't explain incarnation any other way. There can't be fusion. And if there was human soul, that soul should have had thoughts which are considered sin too, or else Word of God was controlling those thoughts too, and it's obscure how can we achieve what Incarnated Christ has achieved.

It's obscure because you're not at His level, i.e. you're not God.  He came to your level to lift you up, not to struggle in human means.  He came for us, not for Himself.  So taking full humanity is an obscure thing in and of itself, and we have to acknowledge that, and we also have to acknowledge why He came.  It's not for Him to struggle, but He endured human temptation, suffering, and death, and rose from it all for us to struggle in Him.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2011, 12:59:10 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.
Tags: nestorianism Arianism Christology heresy Apollonarianism 
Pages: 1   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 0.168 seconds with 58 queries.