Author Topic: Who raised Christ?  (Read 14100 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline OtherguyLB

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #45 on: February 18, 2012, 07:16:19 PM »
But Ecclesiastical Historians insist that Eusebius of Caesarea's baptismal creed including "first-born of all creation" wasn't accepted by the council
It wasn't, but like I said; the Caesarean creed was the basis for much of the Creed. It was heavily discussed, therefore, at the Council.
There were, however, several Arian and counter-arian informal additions to the creed that existed between Nicea I and the Council of Constantinople I. This could be what Theodore is referring to, if indeed he is citing the creed and not merely speaking about Colossians.

So nobody's lying, and Ephesus didn't remove Firstborn of Creation. Nicea discussed it and did not include it when it utilized the Casearean creed.

Theodore hated Arians, he wouldn't have used their creed. He consistently says: "Our Fathers at wonderful council of Nicaea didn't overlook the human nature of Christ and added the clause: 'firstborn of all creation'."

And he is talking to general audience in this, which means at this time this clause as part of Nicaean Creed was well-known.



I think Theodore was trying to refute the Arian idea that the "first-born of all creation" equates "begotten of the Father before all ages," whereas Theodore rightfully shows that the former phrase the Nicene Fathers (not Nicene Creed) mentioned it as pertaining to His humanity and the latter phrase pertains to His divinity.  So I don't think Theodore is alluding to the Nicene Creed containing such words, but how the Nicene FATHERS interpreted such words.

Actually, come to think of it, it seems Theodore was quoting, probably by accident, the Creed of Eusebius of Caesarea, and interpreted it in an Orthodox manner (in this particular passage, but of course, Nestorian overall).  If you read the Creed of Eusebius, they're all great words that one can agree to, but it was missing the "homousios" that the Orthodox party wanted, thus putting the Creed in suspect as an Arian Creed rather than an Orthodox one.  It's probably why the Nicene Creed does not have the phrase, "first-born of all creation" despite it can be interpreted in an Orthodox manner.  This is also probably why the Orthodox party avoided adding "first-born of all creation" so as not to equate it with "Begotten of the Father before all ages" despite that it can be interpreted in a correct manner (and Biblical).  I'm also sure many of the Church fathers addressed that part as well.

Theodore's commentary also has this:

"To this our blessed Fathers added that the Son was "consubstantial" with His Father, a word that confirms (the faith of) the children of faith and rebukes the unbelievers."

And then he goes on to explain why the Fathers at Nicaea added this phrase. He doesn't quote Eusebian Creed at all it seems to me.

That's why this testimony is interesting as to alternate variant of Nicene Creed, which is obviously Orthodox but was understood by Arians in a different way and then at Ephesus was completely rejected because of fear of Nestorian interpretation.


p.s. At moments Theodore is fully Orthodox, but sometimes he says such phrases which even Nestorius would never dream of saying...
« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 07:18:34 PM by OtherguyLB »

Offline username!

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,090
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #46 on: February 18, 2012, 07:30:49 PM »
Who raised Christ? His family.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 07:31:10 PM by username! »

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #47 on: February 18, 2012, 07:42:57 PM »
But Ecclesiastical Historians insist that Eusebius of Caesarea's baptismal creed including "first-born of all creation" wasn't accepted by the council
It wasn't, but like I said; the Caesarean creed was the basis for much of the Creed. It was heavily discussed, therefore, at the Council.
There were, however, several Arian and counter-arian informal additions to the creed that existed between Nicea I and the Council of Constantinople I. This could be what Theodore is referring to, if indeed he is citing the creed and not merely speaking about Colossians.

So nobody's lying, and Ephesus didn't remove Firstborn of Creation. Nicea discussed it and did not include it when it utilized the Casearean creed.

Theodore hated Arians, he wouldn't have used their creed. He consistently says: "Our Fathers at wonderful council of Nicaea didn't overlook the human nature of Christ and added the clause: 'firstborn of all creation'."

And he is talking to general audience in this, which means at this time this clause as part of Nicaean Creed was well-known.



I think Theodore was trying to refute the Arian idea that the "first-born of all creation" equates "begotten of the Father before all ages," whereas Theodore rightfully shows that the former phrase the Nicene Fathers (not Nicene Creed) mentioned it as pertaining to His humanity and the latter phrase pertains to His divinity.  So I don't think Theodore is alluding to the Nicene Creed containing such words, but how the Nicene FATHERS interpreted such words.

Actually, come to think of it, it seems Theodore was quoting, probably by accident, the Creed of Eusebius of Caesarea, and interpreted it in an Orthodox manner (in this particular passage, but of course, Nestorian overall).  If you read the Creed of Eusebius, they're all great words that one can agree to, but it was missing the "homousios" that the Orthodox party wanted, thus putting the Creed in suspect as an Arian Creed rather than an Orthodox one.  It's probably why the Nicene Creed does not have the phrase, "first-born of all creation" despite it can be interpreted in an Orthodox manner.  This is also probably why the Orthodox party avoided adding "first-born of all creation" so as not to equate it with "Begotten of the Father before all ages" despite that it can be interpreted in a correct manner (and Biblical).  I'm also sure many of the Church fathers addressed that part as well.

Theodore's commentary also has this:

"To this our blessed Fathers added that the Son was "consubstantial" with His Father, a word that confirms (the faith of) the children of faith and rebukes the unbelievers."

And then he goes on to explain why the Fathers at Nicaea added this phrase. He doesn't quote Eusebian Creed at all it seems to me.

That's why this testimony is interesting as to alternate variant of Nicene Creed, which is obviously Orthodox but was understood by Arians in a different way and then at Ephesus was completely rejected because of fear of Nestorian interpretation.


p.s. At moments Theodore is fully Orthodox, but sometimes he says such phrases which even Nestorius would never dream of saying...

Ya, I don't think Ephesus rejected that phrase due to some Nestorian understanding (although it might be possible that indeed a Nestorian understanding can come about that phrase), but that the phrase never existed in the Nicene Creed to begin with.  I really think Theodore misquoted (probably not intentionally) and added this to the Nicene Creed, and thought it was part of the Nicene Creed.
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.

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Antivoluntarist evangelist
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,836
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #48 on: February 18, 2012, 07:44:35 PM »
Theodore hated Arians, he wouldn't have used their creed. He consistently says: "Our Fathers at wonderful council of Nicaea didn't overlook the human nature of Christ and added the clause: 'firstborn of all creation'."

And he is talking to general audience in this, which means at this time this clause as part of Nicaean Creed was well-known.
I said arian AND anti-arian additions to the creed. Various additions to the Creed were circulating at the time, both from the Orthodox and Arian parties.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 07:45:30 PM by NicholasMyra »
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline ironchapman

  • A bull of truth in a china shop of falsehoods.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 829
  • I see you.
  • Faith: Serious inquirer.
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #49 on: February 18, 2012, 09:31:09 PM »
I'd just like to point out that just a few verses after John 2:19, in verse 22, the Gospel says this:

When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. (ESV)

So, given that this verse from the same general passage and is in line with all other verses/sections that mention Jesus's resurrection, I, for one, assume that John well understood what he meant in 2:19
« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 09:31:21 PM by ironchapman »
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." --Bertrand Russell

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #50 on: February 18, 2012, 11:09:03 PM »
This is a very interesting question in my opinion, because it was used first by Nestorians to "smash" Arians in theological debates, but they got anathematized themselves...

Whole New Testament is clear that God raised Christ:

Galatians 1:1 - "...Jesus Christ and God his Father, he who raised him from among the dead,"

Acts 2:32 - "God has raised up this Jesus, and we are all his witnesses."

Now this seems pretty Arian as though Jesus(as God) couldn't raise himself and was only a human.

BUT, in John 2:19 - "Jesus answered and said to them: “Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”"

Now here it's obvious Jesus said he would raise himself as he was talking about his body. And Nestorians found it easy to equate Jesus with God as it's clear from other verses that God raised Christ. (Thus it's historical fact Theodore converted thousands of Arians in his diocese)

But in reality, does this separate the persons in Christ? Because God raised Christ and Christ(or divine nature?) said he would raise himself.

St. Ambrose of Milan used to separate those natures when quoting Hebews 2:9 in his De Fide, saying: "Christ, apart from God, tasted death, so we know that divinity didn't suffer at all." Thus it was this divine nature who raised him up.

What is EO and OO Orthodox response to this question? I generally read lot of books about Nestorianism so I pretty much know the whole controversy well... For me it still seems crazy to assume Trinity separate and man Jesus Christ - it's just illogical.


Sincerely,

Lasha.

Hi Lasha,

I'm one of those people who don't mind absolutely telling you "I don't entirely know".    The trinity and how it funcitons is beyond that which I can understand.  I've spent years trying to do so.  I'm not going to be a smart alec, twist your wording, or answer you with attacks.

What I can tell you is that it's obvious the beliefs in the trinity has been argued with many times and that the more powerful bishops win.   This happened in Nicea, this is why you also have OO vs. EO (more or less back then), and Nestorianism.... Arguments over the trinity based issues.

As I could sit here and add to your point

"If Christ was God, and God died on the cross, then how did God raise up himself if he was dead?"
or
"If Christ's human nature died, but not God, then God did not die on the cross".

The only answer I can give you is "I don't entirely know but I know what they tell me".
With that said as a Christian this issue has been fought over time and time again, with 10 gillion explanations and attacks.

Sometimes I just have to shrug it off and say "oh well, I'm never going to understand it entirely".

As with many things in life, religion, and Science, things may remain a mystery.   All have undefined and confusing areas.

Where did we come from?  Where did God come from?  Why on Earth are bulldog puppies so cute?  Why do we love?  Why can't Science prove love? 

Does that mean I'm agnostic because of trinitarian arguments and logical disputes?  Absolutely not.  Even EO prayers sung & chanted say the words "mystery" and "defies logic".

God Bless
I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline Shiny

  • Site Supporter
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,265
  • Paint It Red
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #51 on: February 18, 2012, 11:43:25 PM »
Reports indicated that Chuck Norris may have had a hand in raising the baby Jesus
Who raised Christ? His family.

What is this crap? This was a question he wanted an answer to, who also is an agnostic and this is how you try to share the Gospel?

I'm glad to see such quality, especially from a moderator.
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,920
    • Blog
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #52 on: February 19, 2012, 09:38:41 AM »
I've noticed the underlining issue with OtherguyLB that yeshuaisiam just readdressed.

       What is the nature of the Trinity, and how does it relate to Jesus?

It might be helpful, if you (OtherguyLB) outline your understanding in God (the Trinity?), and then subsequently Jesus' relation within it. From there we might not talk as much past key disagreements.

I'm going to need this.

Offline OtherguyLB

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #53 on: February 19, 2012, 01:54:01 PM »

Hi Lasha,

I'm one of those people who don't mind absolutely telling you "I don't entirely know".    The trinity and how it funcitons is beyond that which I can understand.  I've spent years trying to do so.  I'm not going to be a smart alec, twist your wording, or answer you with attacks.

What I can tell you is that it's obvious the beliefs in the trinity has been argued with many times and that the more powerful bishops win.   This happened in Nicea, this is why you also have OO vs. EO (more or less back then), and Nestorianism.... Arguments over the trinity based issues.

As I could sit here and add to your point

"If Christ was God, and God died on the cross, then how did God raise up himself if he was dead?"
or
"If Christ's human nature died, but not God, then God did not die on the cross".

The only answer I can give you is "I don't entirely know but I know what they tell me".
With that said as a Christian this issue has been fought over time and time again, with 10 gillion explanations and attacks.

Sometimes I just have to shrug it off and say "oh well, I'm never going to understand it entirely".

As with many things in life, religion, and Science, things may remain a mystery.   All have undefined and confusing areas.

Where did we come from?  Where did God come from?  Why on Earth are bulldog puppies so cute?  Why do we love?  Why can't Science prove love? 

Does that mean I'm agnostic because of trinitarian arguments and logical disputes?  Absolutely not.  Even EO prayers sung & chanted say the words "mystery" and "defies logic".

God Bless


Hi,

Nice reply, but those questions rest on the fact that there is no afterlife. The death according to Church Tradition is separation of soul and body. So the questions you have lose credibility unless you prove that there is no afterlife. :)


Offline OtherguyLB

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #54 on: February 19, 2012, 01:54:59 PM »
Reports indicated that Chuck Norris may have had a hand in raising the baby Jesus
Who raised Christ? His family.

What is this crap? This was a question he wanted an answer to, who also is an agnostic and this is how you try to share the Gospel?

I'm glad to see such quality, especially from a moderator.

I was quite shocked when I saw those posts from a moderator.

Offline FountainPen

  • Is not wasting any more of her ink
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,025
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #55 on: February 19, 2012, 02:33:19 PM »
Reports indicated that Chuck Norris may have had a hand in raising the baby Jesus
Who raised Christ? His family.

What is this crap? This was a question he wanted an answer to, who also is an agnostic and this is how you try to share the Gospel?

I'm glad to see such quality, especially from a moderator.

I was quite shocked when I saw those posts from a moderator.

Why? If they're not speaking as a mod then their posts are no different to yours or mine. If it can be seen that the inquirer's question was being addressed by others in the thread then why can't they post in a light-hearted way if they want to?
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 02:35:16 PM by FountainPen »
None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

Offline Theophilos78

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,042
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #56 on: February 19, 2012, 03:59:25 PM »
This incident has reminded me of a response given by a poster at another forum during a heated debate over the Gospel of Judas. While an Islamist was trying to prove with the help of this apocryphal text that the Quranic doctrines regarding the denial of Jesus' crucifixion were true, he focused on Jesus' words to Judas: "You are going to sacrifice the man that clothes me". An atheist responded: "It is clear that who was sacrificed by Judas was Jesus' tailor!" :laugh:
Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem

Offline OtherguyLB

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #57 on: February 19, 2012, 06:05:15 PM »
This incident has reminded me of a response given by a poster at another forum during a heated debate over the Gospel of Judas. While an Islamist was trying to prove with the help of this apocryphal text that the Quranic doctrines regarding the denial of Jesus' crucifixion were true, he focused on Jesus' words to Judas: "You are going to sacrifice the man that clothes me". An atheist responded: "It is clear that who was sacrificed by Judas was Jesus' tailor!" :laugh:

:)))

Is that from Gospel of Judas:  "You are going to sacrifice the man that clothes me". That sounds like Nestorianism to me... :D


Offline username!

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,090
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #58 on: February 19, 2012, 08:04:00 PM »
Reports indicated that Chuck Norris may have had a hand in raising the baby Jesus
Who raised Christ? His family.

What is this crap? This was a question he wanted an answer to, who also is an agnostic and this is how you try to share the Gospel?

I'm glad to see such quality, especially from a moderator.

hey achronos, I'm glad to see you're posting quality stuff as well.

Offline OtherguyLB

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #59 on: February 19, 2012, 08:37:42 PM »
Anyway, did we come up with an answer about who raised Jesus Christ?  :)

Saying that God raised not Jesus Christ but only his body is putting extra words in Paul's mouth. He never says: "God raised Jesus Christ's body for us", but he says: "God raised Jesus Christ for us".


Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #60 on: February 19, 2012, 08:49:20 PM »
Anyway, did we come up with an answer about who raised Jesus Christ?  :)

Saying that God raised not Jesus Christ but only his body is putting extra words in Paul's mouth. He never says: "God raised Jesus Christ's body for us", but he says: "God raised Jesus Christ for us".



The Father raised Christ through the power of Christ by the Holy Spirit.
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.

Offline OtherguyLB

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #61 on: February 19, 2012, 08:52:19 PM »
Anyway, did we come up with an answer about who raised Jesus Christ?  :)

Saying that God raised not Jesus Christ but only his body is putting extra words in Paul's mouth. He never says: "God raised Jesus Christ's body for us", but he says: "God raised Jesus Christ for us".



The Father raised Christ through the power of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

This is never written in the Bible. Bible only says that Father raised Christ and for this we have to be thankful to him. Because with this, God showed mercy and love.

So this means two things:

1) Father wasn't obliged to raise him but still did it.

2) Christ couldn't raise himself.

Or else why should we be thankful to God for raising Christ?
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 08:52:39 PM by OtherguyLB »

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #62 on: February 19, 2012, 09:01:39 PM »
Anyway, did we come up with an answer about who raised Jesus Christ?  :)

Saying that God raised not Jesus Christ but only his body is putting extra words in Paul's mouth. He never says: "God raised Jesus Christ's body for us", but he says: "God raised Jesus Christ for us".



The Father raised Christ through the power of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

This is never written in the Bible. Bible only says that Father raised Christ and for this we have to be thankful to him. Because with this, God showed mercy and love.

So this means two things:

1) Father wasn't obliged to raise him but still did it.

2) Christ couldn't raise himself.

Or else why should we be thankful to God for raising Christ?

There are parts in the Scriptures that indicate the Father raised Christ from the dead (in passages that say God raised Christ, and it's clear in Galatians 1:1).  There is one verse in the Scriptures I recall that indicate the Holy Spirit raised Christ from the dead. (Romans 8:11).  There is one verse in the Scriptures I recall where Christ says He raises Himself from the dead. (John 2:19).

As Nicholas has shown you, with proper Trinitarian and Christological understanding, the whole Trinity was involved in raising Christ from the dead.
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.

Offline Theophilos78

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,042
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #63 on: February 19, 2012, 09:03:01 PM »
This incident has reminded me of a response given by a poster at another forum during a heated debate over the Gospel of Judas. While an Islamist was trying to prove with the help of this apocryphal text that the Quranic doctrines regarding the denial of Jesus' crucifixion were true, he focused on Jesus' words to Judas: "You are going to sacrifice the man that clothes me". An atheist responded: "It is clear that who was sacrificed by Judas was Jesus' tailor!" :laugh:

:)))

Is that from Gospel of Judas:  "You are going to sacrifice the man that clothes me". That sounds like Nestorianism to me... :D



Yes, but it is purely Gnostic in nature. The flesh, as a garment, would be torn and thrown away whereas the Spirit would be liberated from the curse/prison of the material/flesh.
Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,920
    • Blog
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #64 on: February 19, 2012, 09:10:14 PM »
I've noticed the underlining issue with OtherguyLB that yeshuaisiam just readdressed.

       What is the nature of the Trinity, and how does it relate to Jesus?

It might be helpful, if you (OtherguyLB) outline your understanding in God (the Trinity?), and then subsequently Jesus' relation within it. From there we might not talk as much past key disagreements.

or not...

I'm going to need this.

Offline Theophilos78

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,042
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #65 on: February 19, 2012, 09:13:09 PM »
The Father raised Christ. This is obviously a Christological formulation. The Father sent the Christ, raised the Christ, and showed that He was the Christ.

St. Paul regarded Jesus' resurrection as His proclamation by the Father as the Messiah, which reminds us of Jesus' baptism.
Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem

Offline OtherguyLB

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #66 on: February 19, 2012, 09:19:58 PM »

There are parts in the Scriptures that indicate the Father raised Christ from the dead (in passages that say God raised Christ, and it's clear in Galatians 1:1).  There is one verse in the Scriptures I recall that indicate the Holy Spirit raised Christ from the dead. (Romans 8:11).  There is one verse in the Scriptures I recall where Christ says He raises Himself from the dead. (John 2:19).

As Nicholas has shown you, with proper Trinitarian and Christological understanding, the whole Trinity was involved in raising Christ from the dead.

The Romans 8:11 says that "Spirit of God" raised Christ.

But Arians could always reply that Holy Spirit was power of God, not a separate God - who raised man Jesus(not separate, but same Son of God, who wasn't God). While Nestorians could always argue that man Jesus was raised by the Trinity.

I don't see the refutation of this here, that's all.



Aindriú

I am just trying to understand all these. I know all major heresies well...

I know Theodore's Nestorian idea was rejected(because it sounds crazy), but how exactly was he proved wrong? No one ever did that in his lifetime. He used Bible to back up his ideas pretty well.

Since and including the condemnation of Arianism, it seems to me that bishops were trying to form a best-sounding(and I don't deny it is) doctrine even though it wasn't clearly proved by the Bible. This explains the usage of Greek ideas and formulas. This is why Arianism and Nestorianism got rejected.



Offline OtherguyLB

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #67 on: February 19, 2012, 09:21:46 PM »
The Father raised Christ. This is obviously a Christological formulation. The Father sent the Christ, raised the Christ, and showed that He was the Christ.

St. Paul regarded Jesus' resurrection as His proclamation by the Father as the Messiah, which reminds us of Jesus' baptism.

Father raised Christ you say, but why does Christ say: "I will raise my body"?

Father and Christ are two separate persons you know.

Offline Theophilos78

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,042
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #68 on: February 19, 2012, 09:28:05 PM »

Father raised Christ you say, but why does Christ say: "I will raise my body"?

Father and Christ are two separate persons you know.

Because Jesus is also the Son. He is both Christ and Son. As the Son, He's in the Father and the Father is in Him.
Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem

Offline ironchapman

  • A bull of truth in a china shop of falsehoods.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 829
  • I see you.
  • Faith: Serious inquirer.
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #69 on: February 19, 2012, 09:30:21 PM »
The Father raised Christ. This is obviously a Christological formulation. The Father sent the Christ, raised the Christ, and showed that He was the Christ.

St. Paul regarded Jesus' resurrection as His proclamation by the Father as the Messiah, which reminds us of Jesus' baptism.

Father raised Christ you say, but why does Christ say: "I will raise my body"?

Father and Christ are two separate persons you know.
And yet John, in the same passage as 2:19 and only a couple of verses later makes the following clear:

When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. (John 2:22, ESV)
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." --Bertrand Russell

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #70 on: February 19, 2012, 09:35:46 PM »

There are parts in the Scriptures that indicate the Father raised Christ from the dead (in passages that say God raised Christ, and it's clear in Galatians 1:1).  There is one verse in the Scriptures I recall that indicate the Holy Spirit raised Christ from the dead. (Romans 8:11).  There is one verse in the Scriptures I recall where Christ says He raises Himself from the dead. (John 2:19).

As Nicholas has shown you, with proper Trinitarian and Christological understanding, the whole Trinity was involved in raising Christ from the dead.

The Romans 8:11 says that "Spirit of God" raised Christ.

But Arians could always reply that Holy Spirit was power of God, not a separate God - who raised man Jesus(not separate, but same Son of God, who wasn't God). While Nestorians could always argue that man Jesus was raised by the Trinity.

I don't see the refutation of this here, that's all.



Aindriú

I am just trying to understand all these. I know all major heresies well...

I know Theodore's Nestorian idea was rejected(because it sounds crazy), but how exactly was he proved wrong? No one ever did that in his lifetime. He used Bible to back up his ideas pretty well.

Since and including the condemnation of Arianism, it seems to me that bishops were trying to form a best-sounding(and I don't deny it is) doctrine even though it wasn't clearly proved by the Bible. This explains the usage of Greek ideas and formulas. This is why Arianism and Nestorianism got rejected.


Romans 8 is the ultimate anti-Arian chapter.  The Spirit gives life (2), the Spirit helps us live accordingly (4), the Spirit desires (5), the Spirit governs (6), the Spirit owns a realm and lives (9), the Spirit gives life (10), the Spirit raises from death and grants immortality (11), the Spirit that belongs to God belongs to Christ (9), the Spirit grants us adoption to become the children of God, to be co-heirs with Christ (14-17), the Spirit helps us in our weakness (26), the Spirit INTERCEDES for us (26, 27) just as Christ is interceding for us (34), the Spirit has a mind (27).

This chapter shows that the Spirit is not impersonal, but a Person.  And as the Scriptures all over attest, the Spirit is not impersonal.  The Arians and Eunomians may have tried to say this, but St. Gregory of Nyssa refutes all of this.  Furthermore, God is equated to Christ in this chapter, and not lower than God.

It is not Nestorian to say that the Trinity was involved in raising Christ from the dead, for if one says that Christ is the second person of the Trinity, and that by His divine power, He is able to raise Himself from the dead, then there is no scandal in affirming that the Father raised Christ through the power of Christ by the Holy Spirit.  And as I've shown you, it is perfectly Scriptural to say that the Father raised Christ, Christ raised Himself, and Holy Spirit raised Christ.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 09:41:57 PM by minasoliman »
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.

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,920
    • Blog
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #71 on: February 19, 2012, 09:43:00 PM »
Aindriú

I am just trying to understand all these. I know all major heresies well...

I know Theodore's Nestorian idea was rejected(because it sounds crazy), but how exactly was he proved wrong? No one ever did that in his lifetime. He used Bible to back up his ideas pretty well.

Since and including the condemnation of Arianism, it seems to me that bishops were trying to form a best-sounding(and I don't deny it is) doctrine even though it wasn't clearly proved by the Bible. This explains the usage of Greek ideas and formulas. This is why Arianism and Nestorianism got rejected.

A different perspective on orthodox theology is that it's not about who won the argument, but who held the correct faith as passed down by the Apostles. This is the Orthodox position.

Have you ever read "On the Unity of Christ" by St. Cyril of Alexandria? He expounds greatly on this very topic (of Jesus's humanity and divinity) and is considered a cornerstone in orthodox Christology.

Also, asking you to explain your understanding of the Trinity isn't about heresy, as much as it is about using the same words. You appeared to show confusion earlier when speaking of Jesus and "God" in the same sentences.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 09:47:33 PM by Aindriú »

I'm going to need this.

Offline username!

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,090
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #72 on: February 19, 2012, 09:48:48 PM »
The Father raised Christ. This is obviously a Christological formulation. The Father sent the Christ, raised the Christ, and showed that He was the Christ.

St. Paul regarded Jesus' resurrection as His proclamation by the Father as the Messiah, which reminds us of Jesus' baptism.

Father raised Christ you say, but why does Christ say: "I will raise my body"?

Father and Christ are two separate persons you know.

Isn't that Sabellianism to say that the three persons of the Trinity are separate modes?

Offline OtherguyLB

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #73 on: February 19, 2012, 09:51:08 PM »
The Father raised Christ. This is obviously a Christological formulation. The Father sent the Christ, raised the Christ, and showed that He was the Christ.

St. Paul regarded Jesus' resurrection as His proclamation by the Father as the Messiah, which reminds us of Jesus' baptism.

Father raised Christ you say, but why does Christ say: "I will raise my body"?

Father and Christ are two separate persons you know.
And yet John, in the same passage as 2:19 and only a couple of verses later makes the following clear:

When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. (John 2:22, ESV)

"He was raised from dead" is a passive voice but it doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus/Son of God didn't raise himself.

This is not Trinitarian debate here, "what Father does, Son does also", so Father and Son both took part in raising the temple.

But my interest is - why is temple called Christ separately? "Father raised Christ" himself, not "temple of Christ"...

Offline OtherguyLB

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #74 on: February 19, 2012, 09:51:45 PM »
The Father raised Christ. This is obviously a Christological formulation. The Father sent the Christ, raised the Christ, and showed that He was the Christ.

St. Paul regarded Jesus' resurrection as His proclamation by the Father as the Messiah, which reminds us of Jesus' baptism.

Father raised Christ you say, but why does Christ say: "I will raise my body"?

Father and Christ are two separate persons you know.

Isn't that Sabellianism to say that the three persons of the Trinity are separate modes?

No, Sabellianism teaches that there is only 1 person in the Godhead, with different names/masks...

Offline username!

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,090
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #75 on: February 19, 2012, 09:56:38 PM »
I must admit I misread "raised."  I thought it meant "reared."  I gather you mean raised Jesus from the dead.
Couldn't he have just risen himself?

Offline OtherguyLB

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #76 on: February 19, 2012, 09:58:46 PM »
Romans 8 is the ultimate anti-Arian chapter.  The Spirit gives life (2), the Spirit helps us live accordingly (4), the Spirit desires (5), the Spirit governs (6), the Spirit owns a realm and lives (9), the Spirit gives life (10), the Spirit raises from death and grants immortality (11), the Spirit that belongs to God belongs to Christ (9), the Spirit grants us adoption to become the children of God, to be co-heirs with Christ (14-17), the Spirit helps us in our weakness (26), the Spirit INTERCEDES for us (26, 27) just as Christ is interceding for us (34), the Spirit has a mind (27).

This chapter shows that the Spirit is not impersonal, but a Person.  And as the Scriptures all over attest, the Spirit is not impersonal.  The Arians and Eunomians may have tried to say this, but St. Gregory of Nyssa refutes all of this.  Furthermore, God is equated to Christ in this chapter, and not lower than God.

It is not Nestorian to say that the Trinity was involved in raising Christ from the dead, for if one says that Christ is the second person of the Trinity, and that by His divine power, He is able to raise Himself from the dead, then there is no scandal in affirming that the Father raised Christ through the power of Christ by the Holy Spirit.  And as I've shown you, it is perfectly Scriptural to say that the Father raised Christ, Christ raised Himself, and Holy Spirit raised Christ.


So if I say "water gives me life" - am I saying water is personal? Or "elexir of life granted me immortality", or "food helps us in our weakness" and much more.

Actually I doubt Arians denied that that Holy Spirit was a person, but they thought Holy Spirit was servant of Son. JW-s deny it today though.

In overall it seems obvious John 2:19 refutes the whole Arianism singlehandedly. Only Nestorianism is left though...


Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #77 on: February 19, 2012, 10:04:12 PM »
Does water intercede for us and lives in us?  Does water have a mind?

I don't understand where you find supposed Nestorianism, especially if one can say that Christ raised Himself, as opposed to God the Son raising Jesus.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 10:05:22 PM by minasoliman »
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.

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,920
    • Blog
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #78 on: February 19, 2012, 10:05:26 PM »
Just for fun I checked what St. Athanasius said when speaking about Jesus's Incarnation.

On the Incarnation - St. Athanasius (296-373)
Quote
26. Reasons for His rising on the Third Day. (1) Not sooner for else His real death would be denied, nor (2) later; to (a) guard the identity of His body, (b) not to keep His disciplestoo long in suspense, nor (c) to wait till the witnesses of His death were dispersed, or its memory faded.

The death on the Cross, then, for us has proved seemly and fitting, and its cause has been shown to be reasonable in every respect; and it may justly be argued that in no other way than by the Cross was it right for the salvation of all to take place. For not even thus— not even on the Cross— did He leave Himself concealed; but far otherwise, while He made creation witness to the presence of its Maker, He suffered not the temple of His body to remain long, but having merely shown it to be dead, by the contact of death with it, He straightway raised it up on the third day, bearing away, as the mark of victory and the triumph over death, the incorruptibility and impassibility which resulted to His body. 2. For He could, even immediately on death, have raised His body and shown it alive; but this also the Saviour, in wise foresight, did not do. For one might have said that He had not died at all, or that death had not come into perfect contact with Him, if He had manifested the Resurrection at once. 3. Perhaps, again, had the interval of His dying and rising again been one of two days only, the glory of His incorruption would have been obscure. So in order that the body might be proved to be dead, the Word tarried yet one intermediate day, and on the third showed it incorruptible to all. 4. So then, that the death on the Cross might be proved, He raised His body on the third day. 5. But lest, by raising it up when it had remained a long time and been completely corrupted, He should be disbelieved, as though He had exchanged it for some other body— for a man might also from lapse of time distrust what he saw, and forget what had taken place— for this cause He waited not more than three days; nor did He keep long in suspense those whom He had told about the Resurrection: 6. but while the word was still echoing in their ears and their eyes were still expectant and their mind in suspense, and while those who had slain Him were still living on earth, and were on the spot and could witness to the death of the Lord's body, the Son of God Himself, after an interval of three days, showed His body, once dead, immortal and incorruptible; and it was made manifest to all that it was not from any natural weakness of the Word that dwelt in it that the body had died, but in order that in it death might be done away by the power of the Saviour.

Assuming the accuracy of the translation, it would seem he considered Jesus to have raised Himself.

I personally don't see a problem with which person of the Trinity raised Jesus's flesh. What is the concern? You speak of Nestorianism, but is that the issue?
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 10:07:18 PM by Aindriú »

I'm going to need this.

Offline OtherguyLB

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #79 on: February 19, 2012, 10:12:31 PM »
Does water intercede for us and lives in us?  Does water have a mind?

I don't understand where you find supposed Nestorianism, especially if one can say that Christ raised Himself, as opposed to God the Son raising Jesus.

But I have never read in scripture, the phrase: "Christ raised himself". The fact that Christ is saying: "I will raise this temple" in no way excludes the Nestorian idea.

What we know is God raised Christ, that is sure, as lot of verses demonstrate this. And we also know that Christ said he would raise himself.

But on the other hand we have Paul saying in Acts 2: "You will not leave your saint in Hades, you won't let his body decay"... This means Christ couldn't raise himself, because it shows God's mercy for not leaving Christ's body dead, not Christ's own action.


Offline OtherguyLB

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #80 on: February 19, 2012, 10:14:30 PM »
I personally don't see a problem with which person of the Trinity raised Jesus's flesh. What is the concern? You speak of Nestorianism, but is that the issue?

The issue is, nowhere it's written that "Trinity raised Jesus's flesh', but it's written: "God raised Christ" himself, not his flesh only...

Even if you consider Trinity in God, Christ is still "alone" here...

What does St. Cyril write about this verse? I know he wrote commentary on John.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #81 on: February 19, 2012, 10:17:02 PM »
Does water intercede for us and lives in us?  Does water have a mind?

I don't understand where you find supposed Nestorianism, especially if one can say that Christ raised Himself, as opposed to God the Son raising Jesus.

But I have never read in scripture, the phrase: "Christ raised himself". The fact that Christ is saying: "I will raise this temple" in no way excludes the Nestorian idea.

What we know is God raised Christ, that is sure, as lot of verses demonstrate this. And we also know that Christ said he would raise himself.

But on the other hand we have Paul saying in Acts 2: "You will not leave your saint in Hades, you won't let his body decay"... This means Christ couldn't raise himself, because it shows God's mercy for not leaving Christ's body dead, not Christ's own action.

And yet John 2:21 affirms that Christ was talking about His very own flesh.  And if John 2:19 mentions a saying of that same enfleshed Christ, then by what tongue did He speak?  A divine tongue while keeping a human mouth shut?  Or a human tongue deified?  I think any Nestorian understanding of these verses is delusional.  It's no different than me saying, "I will subdue this flesh for the sake of Christ."  Am I, a mere human, a separate person from my own flesh?
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 10:18:48 PM by minasoliman »
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.

Offline OtherguyLB

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #82 on: February 19, 2012, 10:28:52 PM »

And yet John 2:21 affirms that Christ was talking about His very own flesh.  And if John 2:19 mentions a saying of that same enfleshed Christ, then by what tongue did He speak?  A divine tongue while keeping a human mouth shut?  Or a human tongue deified?  I think any Nestorian understanding of these verses is delusional.  It's no different than me saying, "I will subdue my own flesh for the sake of Christ."  Am I, a mere human, a separate person from my own flesh?

Yes, the idea seems crazy, not just delusional. I would suggest the fact that the temple had a full human nature, without the 'prosopon'.

Nestorius, who wasn't as radical as Theodore, got himself confused with the terms, which wasn't hard thing to do. :D

The whole terminology used by Nestorius, in general school of Antioch and Chalcedon seems pretty complicated. Somehow, the person is a bit different than full human nature.

Recently I found(but forgot where it was) a very good analysis of Nestorius's apologetic work where he denied teaching two Sons, and tried to explain over and over again with complicated terms. St. Cyril's terminology was simple and better understandable.



p.s. I guess I will just believe in dual nature of Christ and one person, sounds logical to me.


« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 10:29:53 PM by OtherguyLB »

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,920
    • Blog
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #83 on: February 19, 2012, 10:35:14 PM »
Cyril's commentary on John

Quote
18   What sign shewest Thou unto us, seeing that Thou doest these things?

The multitude of the Jews are startled at the unwonted authority, and they who are over the temple are extremely vexed, deprived of their not easily counted gains. And they cannot convict Him of not having spoken most rightly in commanding them not to exhibit the Divine Temple as a house of merchandise. But they devise delays to the flight of the merchants, excusing themselves that they ought not to submit to Him off-hand, nor without investigation to receive as Son of God Him Who was witnessed to by no sign.

 |165

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_john_02_book2.htm

post modified quote shortened as text is provided in link we are not to quote long lengths of cited material on oc.net -username! section moderator

« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 10:49:10 PM by username! »

I'm going to need this.

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,920
    • Blog
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #84 on: February 19, 2012, 10:48:35 PM »
On the Unity of Christ
Quote
A. Do we not say over and over again that the Word of God was made flash and became man?
B. Yes, and how could it be otherwise?
A.Well then, it is one "who is weak" in the flesh, insofar as he was revealed as man who "lived from the power of God," a power indeed not alien to him but integral, since he actualy was God in the flesh.
B. Yet the Father is said to have raised him, for it is written: "According to the working of that power of his might which he worked in the Christ, raising him from the dead and sitting him at his right hand in the heavenly places, above every name that can be named" (Eph 1:19-21)
A We say that he is the life-giving power of the Father, and that he is naturally resplendent in all the dignities of the one who begot him, even when he became flesh. He himself can stand as him own witness here when he says: "For just as the Father gives life to whomsoever he wills, so does the Son give life to anyone he wills" (Jn 5:21). And he is quite able to do this effortlessly, for he addressed the Jewish people as follows "Destroy this temple and in three days I shall raise it" )Jn 2:19). Yet he who rose again say "upon the right hand of the Father in the heavenly places, above every Principality, and Authority, and dominion, and every name that can be named" (Eph 1:20-21). So is this a different son to the Word who issued from him? someone who is honored because of a mere conjunction, who receives the title of Godhead by the lot of Grace? Or is it not rather the one who is truly and naturally the Son, the one who "came in the likeness of men and was found in fashion as a man" (phil 2:7) in an economic manner?
p.119

You might find this interesting.

I'm going to need this.

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Antivoluntarist evangelist
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,836
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #85 on: February 19, 2012, 11:16:06 PM »
The Father raised Christ through the power of Christ by the Holy Spirit.
As Fr. Hopko would say, "For those with half a brain and a little purity of heart..." that is it right there.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 11:16:18 PM by NicholasMyra »
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #86 on: February 19, 2012, 11:25:16 PM »

And yet John 2:21 affirms that Christ was talking about His very own flesh.  And if John 2:19 mentions a saying of that same enfleshed Christ, then by what tongue did He speak?  A divine tongue while keeping a human mouth shut?  Or a human tongue deified?  I think any Nestorian understanding of these verses is delusional.  It's no different than me saying, "I will subdue my own flesh for the sake of Christ."  Am I, a mere human, a separate person from my own flesh?

Yes, the idea seems crazy, not just delusional. I would suggest the fact that the temple had a full human nature, without the 'prosopon'.

Nestorius, who wasn't as radical as Theodore, got himself confused with the terms, which wasn't hard thing to do. :D

The whole terminology used by Nestorius, in general school of Antioch and Chalcedon seems pretty complicated. Somehow, the person is a bit different than full human nature.

Recently I found(but forgot where it was) a very good analysis of Nestorius's apologetic work where he denied teaching two Sons, and tried to explain over and over again with complicated terms. St. Cyril's terminology was simple and better understandable.



p.s. I guess I will just believe in dual nature of Christ and one person, sounds logical to me.




Well, I think the discussion about Nestorius' theology can be saved for another thread.  My only concern was to answer any alleged Nestorianism in the verse.
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.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #87 on: February 19, 2012, 11:26:34 PM »
The Father raised Christ through the power of Christ by the Holy Spirit.
As Fr. Hopko would say, "For those with half a brain and a little purity of heart..." that is it right there.

Thanks Nicholas.  I appreciate the compliment.  Likewise, I am refreshed to find a commonality with you on this point.  :)
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.

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #88 on: February 20, 2012, 12:33:22 AM »

Hi Lasha,

I'm one of those people who don't mind absolutely telling you "I don't entirely know".    The trinity and how it funcitons is beyond that which I can understand.  I've spent years trying to do so.  I'm not going to be a smart alec, twist your wording, or answer you with attacks.

What I can tell you is that it's obvious the beliefs in the trinity has been argued with many times and that the more powerful bishops win.   This happened in Nicea, this is why you also have OO vs. EO (more or less back then), and Nestorianism.... Arguments over the trinity based issues.

As I could sit here and add to your point

"If Christ was God, and God died on the cross, then how did God raise up himself if he was dead?"
or
"If Christ's human nature died, but not God, then God did not die on the cross".

The only answer I can give you is "I don't entirely know but I know what they tell me".
With that said as a Christian this issue has been fought over time and time again, with 10 gillion explanations and attacks.

Sometimes I just have to shrug it off and say "oh well, I'm never going to understand it entirely".

As with many things in life, religion, and Science, things may remain a mystery.   All have undefined and confusing areas.

Where did we come from?  Where did God come from?  Why on Earth are bulldog puppies so cute?  Why do we love?  Why can't Science prove love? 

Does that mean I'm agnostic because of trinitarian arguments and logical disputes?  Absolutely not.  Even EO prayers sung & chanted say the words "mystery" and "defies logic".

God Bless


Hi,

Nice reply, but those questions rest on the fact that there is no afterlife. The death according to Church Tradition is separation of soul and body. So the questions you have lose credibility unless you prove that there is no afterlife. :)



Well I think the questions in relation to the Trinity run in human logic.  It's because we have trouble equating 3=1 because it does not entirely work out.  But there is instances where 1 can equal 3.

Let's take love for example, the feeling we know exists but Science has not proven to exist. (the actual feeling)

I love my wife.   I love my children.  I love my extended family.  I love my brothers & sisters in Christ.  I love YHWH, Yeshua, and the Holy Spirit.
(and many other types of love too)

With that said, the love for my wife is ENTIRELY different than that of my children.  The love for my sons differs from that of my daughters some.  The love for my extended family is much different than the love I hold for my wife and the love for my children.  The love for my brothers and sisters in Christ is so much different than all of that.  The love for God is also entirely different from all the other types of love.

Yet it is all Love.

So yes logically how can I say "Well love is love".... Then a relative dies....  Do I still love them?  Does the love change?  Yes to both questions. 

But how can we have so many types of love, even for those who have reposed, yet love (the actual feeling) has never been proven by Science?
I don't know the answer to that either.  But I know the feeling itself exists.  I can't prove it to you.  I can't explain to you how the exactness of God dying on the cross works with God raising himself. 

The Trinity is confusing because it doesn't work on our level of understanding of Math, Science, or logic.   But the person of Yeshua/Jesus died, and that person was God, and he was raised by God.   The Father & Holy Spirit existed at the death of the son.

Interestingly the Scriptures also say "God is love".  Love is something that confuses many people too, but everybody (I hope) knows it exists.

There are issues with always using logic to define & validate things that are mystical and beyond the logic which we can understand.  To say "prove such and such" when dealing with these issues is not viable.  Even those who have witnessed heaven and/or hell in near death experiences get shot down as having an agenda.  There is no way to prove it.... No more than it is possible to prove the actual feeling of love.

All I know is that the subject of the Trinity has caused countless arguments and fights between Christians.   The logic factor does not really work with the Trinity.  I guess for me personally I shrug my shoulders and just say "it all works out in the end".   But this doesn't make me agnostic, because I refuse to accept only human logic, only human interpretation, only human math.  Humans can't even figure out something as drastically important to us as love....

The issues that I focus on is the lessons explained to us and the example set for us by the scriptures and church. (and I'm not even "officially EO today entirely", but rather have some kind of morph of Anabaptist, EO, and Messianic Jew theology).  It's hard enough to follow the teachings given to us by our savior in a clear cut manner and try to focus as much of my time on those. I could waste a lifetime trying to logically figure out what people have been fighting about for centuries - and I probably still would not have a clear cut answer. 
I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: Who raised Christ?
« Reply #89 on: February 20, 2012, 12:38:53 AM »

And yet John 2:21 affirms that Christ was talking about His very own flesh.  And if John 2:19 mentions a saying of that same enfleshed Christ, then by what tongue did He speak?  A divine tongue while keeping a human mouth shut?  Or a human tongue deified?  I think any Nestorian understanding of these verses is delusional.  It's no different than me saying, "I will subdue my own flesh for the sake of Christ."  Am I, a mere human, a separate person from my own flesh?

Yes, the idea seems crazy, not just delusional. I would suggest the fact that the temple had a full human nature, without the 'prosopon'.

Nestorius, who wasn't as radical as Theodore, got himself confused with the terms, which wasn't hard thing to do. :D

The whole terminology used by Nestorius, in general school of Antioch and Chalcedon seems pretty complicated. Somehow, the person is a bit different than full human nature.

Recently I found(but forgot where it was) a very good analysis of Nestorius's apologetic work where he denied teaching two Sons, and tried to explain over and over again with complicated terms. St. Cyril's terminology was simple and better understandable.



p.s. I guess I will just believe in dual nature of Christ and one person, sounds logical to me.




If you are willing to go deep down a HUGE logic rabbit hole, start reading the writings of Origen.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
WARNING: The link does contain some very heretical writings of the Gnostics.

Origen is not the kind of writing that you want to read as you are dozing off at bedtime.  LOL.  VERY Logical but after a while, I want to stick a CPU cooling fan on my forehead.  LOL.   But he covers the Trinity a lot.
I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com