OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 23, 2014, 07:12:22 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Did God Die?  (Read 3663 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,391


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« on: December 13, 2013, 06:13:36 PM »

This is a question that perplexes me. It's one of the things heretical sects and Muslims use as an argument against the Orthodox Christian Faith. It seems that the EO's can answer this by saying that Christ died in His humanity but not in His divinity. But since we don't separate Our Lord's nature, then doesn't this mean that God died? And how can God die? I know that ultimately these things are mysteries, but I'd like to know what our OO theological answer to this is. Forgive my ignorance.


Selam
Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2013, 06:23:29 PM »

I can't give an OO perspective, but here are a couple of Holy Saturday hymns from EO tradition which express this mystery:

All things above the world and all below the earth quaked with fear at Your death, as they saw You on the throne above and below in a tomb; for beyond understanding You appeared as one dead, You the source of life.

Great Moses mystically prefigured this present day when he said, ‘And God blessed the seventh day’. For this is the blessed Sabbath; this is the day of rest on which the only-begotten Son of God rested from all His works, through the dispensation in accordance with death, He kept the Sabbath in the flesh; and returning once again to what He was through the Resurrection He has granted us eternal life, for He alone is good and loves mankind.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,391


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2013, 06:29:01 PM »

I can't give an OO perspective, but here are a couple of Holy Saturday hymns from EO tradition which express this mystery:

All things above the world and all below the earth quaked with fear at Your death, as they saw You on the throne above and below in a tomb; for beyond understanding You appeared as one dead, You the source of life.

Great Moses mystically prefigured this present day when he said, ‘And God blessed the seventh day’. For this is the blessed Sabbath; this is the day of rest on which the only-begotten Son of God rested from all His works, through the dispensation in accordance with death, He kept the Sabbath in the flesh; and returning once again to what He was through the Resurrection He has granted us eternal life, for He alone is good and loves mankind.



Thank you.


Selam
Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,621



« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2013, 06:46:18 PM »

I'm not sure ... I usually reference the Nicene Creed for tough questions.
Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2013, 06:55:32 PM »

Of course the Nicene Creed answers this (good luck getting the Muslims and heretics to listen, though), but in terms of uniquely OO texts, doesn't the Syrian Fraction answer this in some way? I'll post it and let you decide:


Thus truly the Logos of God suffered in the flesh and was sacrificed and broken on the Cross. His soul parted from His body,

while His divinity in no way parted either from His soul or from His body.

He was pierced in His side with a spear; blood and water flowed from Him for the forgiveness of the whole world. His body was smeared in them, and His soul came and was reunited with His body.

On behalf of the sins of the whole world, the Son died on the Cross.

He turned us from the way on the left towards the right. Through the blood of his Cross, He established the reconciliation of the heavenly with the earthly, and united the people with the peoples and the soul with the body.

And on the third day He rose from the tomb.

One is Emmanuel who cannot be divided after the union; there is no division into two natures. Thus we believe, thus we confess, and thus We affirm that this Body belongs to this Blood, and this Blood belongs to this Body.

You are Christ Our God, who for our sake were pierced in Your side with a spear on the heights of Golgotha in Jerusalem.

You are the Lamb of God who take away the sin of the world.
Absolve us of our transgressions and make us stand at Your right hand side.

O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who are blessed by the Cherubim, hallowed by the Seraphim, and exalted by thousands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand of the rational servants;

who sanctify and complete the gifts and the fullness of the fruits that have been brought to You as a sweet savor; sanctify also all of our bodies, our souls, and our spirits,

so that with a pure heart and an unashamed face, we may call upon You, O God the Father who are in the heavens, and pray, saying,

Our Father...
Logged

orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2013, 06:59:44 PM »

Yes.

The poetic effusions referenced above aren't going to be very helpful for anyone who doesn't already understand the answer. Inside baseball and stuff are for those inside. When you are outside it properly sounds like gibberish.

To deal with Muslims, you are going to be better off understanding where they are coming from and understanding in a serious manner the theology of the Trinity.

The divide might be impossible to bridge, but at least you will properly understand the divide.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Miaphysite Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: The Church of Alexandria
Posts: 5,042


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2013, 07:10:28 PM »

Yes, we can say that God the Word did in fact die, but by virtue of His humanity. The person (prosopon) or subsistence (hypostasis) of God the Word died on the cross and suffered in His humanity, remaining impassible in His Divinity. To use a real life example, when you are afflicted with a wound, you feel pain as is in accord with your bodily faculties, but remain impassible in soul and spirit.

This concept is called the communicate idiomatum, that is, all actions of Christ (whether Divine or human in nature) can be attributed to the one hypostasis of God the Word incarnate. This is how we can say that God was born of a Virgin and that "the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5) mediates on our behalf to God the Father. Because there is no division into two hypostases. The man Christ Jesus is God the Word incarnate and vice-versa. This is in contrast to Nestorianism which attributes the actions of Christ to two distinct hypostases, which is why to this day they deny that God suffered in the flesh.
Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

I am currently not an active poster on the forum. Please forgive any offense I might have caused in the past. Thank you.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,859


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2013, 07:11:37 PM »

Yes.

In fact, it's an ongoing theme in Christianity (at least from reading the Bible) that God's greatest achievements often lie in His greatest, self-created defeats. The Creation of mankind is the first example I could think of--the creation of conscious beings capable of neglecting and disobeying God, which is a bit of a feat in itself--as well as the Incarnation where God descends to the human level and through doing so achieves another great victory of uniting the created world back to the creator, and finally in the Crucifixion--God's death--where this theme of God's victory lying in His defeat is epitomized through the Resurrection.

Commenting on what Jason said about the Trinity stuff, the issue of God dying may be related to the different views about God's immanence and transcendence in Christianity and Islam. I think the issue that Muslims may have with the thought of God dying (and they can correct me if I'm wrong) is that they view it as oppositional to God's transcendence and therefore blasphemous. However, in Christianity we'd say that God is transcendent in virtue of being Triune, therefore, the issue for us isn't so much about God's transcendence but more so about His immanence, and IMHO, I don't understand how any God could be fully immanent unless He/She/It could in fact experience death and every other human malady. But of course, that's because I accept the Trinity, which is understandably a big stumbling block for many people.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2013, 07:14:42 PM »

Yes, we can say that God the Word did in fact die, but by virtue of His humanity.

It was not in virtue of his humanity alone. Nothing happens save that God wills it. God may will to be limited thus overcoming the limitation of being unlimited.

This is where you can begin to talk to Muslims. They must believe the same, the latter sentence.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,391


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2013, 07:16:57 PM »

I appreciate the responses. I confess that they are a bit over my head. If God the Son died, did God the Father also die? And if God the Son died but not God the Father, then doesn't that separate the Trinity? If you guys can simplify it as much as possible, I'd appreciate it.  Embarrassed


Selam
Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,059


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2013, 07:17:44 PM »

Yes.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,391


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2013, 07:17:59 PM »

Yes, we can say that God the Word did in fact die, but by virtue of His humanity.

It was not in virtue of his humanity alone. Nothing happens save that God wills it. God may will to be limited thus overcoming the limitation of being unlimited.

This is where you can begin to talk to Muslims. They must believe the same, the latter sentence.

I think I can wrap my head around this. Thanks.

But then again, if God truly dies, then doesn't that nullify His ability to un-die? It would seem that God only appeared to die, but didn't actually die. (I'm not stating this as my belief, just trying to grasp it.)


Selam
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 07:20:07 PM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,787


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2013, 07:18:44 PM »

I appreciate the responses. I confess that they are a bit over my head. If God the Son died, did God the Father also die?

No. That would be patripassianism.



Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Miaphysite Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: The Church of Alexandria
Posts: 5,042


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 13, 2013, 07:19:03 PM »

Yes, we can say that God the Word did in fact die, but by virtue of His humanity.

It was not in virtue of his humanity alone. Nothing happens save that God wills it. God may will to be limited thus overcoming the limitation of being unlimited.

This is where you can begin to talk to Muslims. They must believe the same, the latter sentence.
I was not denying that God died according to His Divine will. What I was denying was that He suffered in His Divinity or that He somehow ceased to exist after His death on the cross, as this would compromise the distinction of the natures.

I appreciate the responses. I confess that they are a bit over my head. If God the Son died, did God the Father also die? And if God the Son died but not God the Father, then doesn't that separate the Trinity? If you guys can simplify it as much as possible, I'd appreciate it.  Embarrassed


Selam
God the Father did not die, because His hypostasis is not united to a human nature as the Son's is. The Hypostasis of the Son died in His humanity, remaining impassible in his Divinity (thus, the Father and Holy Ghost did not die either).
Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

I am currently not an active poster on the forum. Please forgive any offense I might have caused in the past. Thank you.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,391


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 13, 2013, 07:21:33 PM »


God the Father did not die, because His hypostasis is not united to a human nature as the Son's is. The Hypostasis of the Son died in His humanity, remaining impassible in his Divinity (thus, the Father and Holy Ghost did not die either).

OK, I think I understand. Thank you.  Smiley


Selam
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 07:22:00 PM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,059


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #15 on: December 13, 2013, 07:23:37 PM »

I appreciate the responses. I confess that they are a bit over my head. If God the Son died, did God the Father also die? And if God the Son died but not God the Father, then doesn't that separate the Trinity? If you guys can simplify it as much as possible, I'd appreciate it.  Embarrassed


Selam
Gebre,

When we say "God the Son died" we do not mean "God the Son ceased to exist" or "God the Son was annihilated". Since we don't believe those things happen(ed) to mere humans when they died, it would be strange to suddenly start believing them about the death of Christ.

When God the Son died, his spirit descended into Sheol and ransomed all of its dead, as depicted in the Anastasis icon. So just as the Son maintained his Communion with the Father when he became incarnate, so he maintained his Communion with the Father even in the pit of death itself. This Righteousness is life, and death could not hold life, nor could corruption seize it, which is why God raised Christ from the dead.
 
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #16 on: December 13, 2013, 07:23:59 PM »

I appreciate the responses. I confess that they are a bit over my head. If God the Son died, did God the Father also die? And if God the Son died but not God the Father, then doesn't that separate the Trinity? If you guys can simplify it as much as possible, I'd appreciate it.  Embarrassed


Selam

No. Gebre it's hard to know where to begin. Really, while this gets talked about like it is some "mystery" in the pedestrian sense, I think it is entirely plausible to come to a decent understanding of the Trinity.

And there are a number of ways of getting there. Unfortunately, I think most people who talk about such stuff are using terms and arguments from a time which don't make a lot of sense any more (not that they made a lot of sense back then).

How simple do you want to get, whatever simple means?

For instance, when Jesus wet himself as an infant, did the Father as well? We die as much as persons as live as persons. I am not sure how it could be otherwise or what your specific problems are with the passibiilty of the persons of Trinity. They are indeed separate persons.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #17 on: December 13, 2013, 07:24:33 PM »


God the Father did not die, because His hypostasis is not united to a human nature as the Son's is. The Hypostasis of the Son died in His humanity, remaining impassible in his Divinity (thus, the Father and Holy Ghost did not die either).

OK, I think I understand. Thank you.  Smiley


Selam

I hope not, cause I don't buy it.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #18 on: December 13, 2013, 07:30:32 PM »

Yes, we can say that God the Word did in fact die, but by virtue of His humanity.

It was not in virtue of his humanity alone. Nothing happens save that God wills it. God may will to be limited thus overcoming the limitation of being unlimited.

This is where you can begin to talk to Muslims. They must believe the same, the latter sentence.

Although oddly enough I've tried that exact line of reasoning with Muslims, and suddenly they don't seem to go for it and start back-peddling on things they had agreed with minutes prior once we begin to poke at the idea even the slightest bit. This is what I mean when I've written in the past that Islam is extremely simple and externalized (for which our newest neophyte Muslim took me to task). They've got their ideas, alright, but taking them to any kind of deeper conclusion...? Many Muslims, like many Christians, seem unwilling.

It is true that no one can say that Christ is Lord but by the Holy Spirit. Relating to each other, while a good goal perhaps, can really only take us so far.

For discussion with Muslims, if that's what this thread is supposed to be about (sorry, that wasn't clear to me from the OP), it might be best to start off with some kind of agreeable statement on what it means to be a person, and if you can get them to agree that there is something more to it than just existing in a body, work your way toward the idea that man can die or suffer any number of other calamities while remaining essentially untouched in whatever this essentialness is (or, put simply, biologically living and eternally existing can be thought of as different things, particularly for believers in a resurrection and an after-life paradise, i.e., Christians and Muslims alike). When Muslims or Christianity-based heretics look at the cross as an instrument of death and torture, you can explain to them how we view in Orthodoxy as one of the things that has been transformed by our Lord, just as He has transformed the entire creation with His death and resurrection. It is now after all a symbol of permanent and eternal victory over the power of death.
Logged

orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #19 on: December 13, 2013, 07:30:53 PM »

I appreciate the responses. I confess that they are a bit over my head. If God the Son died, did God the Father also die? And if God the Son died but not God the Father, then doesn't that separate the Trinity? If you guys can simplify it as much as possible, I'd appreciate it.  Embarrassed


Selam
Gebre,

When we say "God the Son died" we do not mean "God the Son ceased to exist" or "God the Son was annihilated". Since we don't believe those things happen(ed) to mere humans when they died, it would be strange to suddenly start believing them about the death of Christ.

When God the Son died, his spirit descended into Sheol and ransomed all of its dead, as depicted in the Anastasis icon. So just as the Son maintained his Communion with the Father when he became incarnate, so he maintained his Communion with the Father even in the pit of death itself. This Righteousness is life, and death could not hold life, nor could corruption seize it, which is why God raised Christ from the dead.
 

This is typical apologetics and the bolded part always seemed like nonsense to me.

Christ died. So in some manner he was held by it. So its just a 48 hour impossibility? And Christ's body was broken, therefore saw corruption. God doesn't need a why.

Etc.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #20 on: December 13, 2013, 07:31:23 PM »

I appreciate the responses. I confess that they are a bit over my head. If God the Son died, did God the Father also die? And if God the Son died but not God the Father, then doesn't that separate the Trinity? If you guys can simplify it as much as possible, I'd appreciate it.  Embarrassed


Selam

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I was under the impression that the Orthodox view of death is that it's the separation of the soul from the body. This is why we have prayers like the Syrian Fraction quoted above which states:

Quote
His soul parted from His body, while His divinity in no way parted either from His soul or from His body.

Since the Father and Holy Spirit don't have have bodies, I don't think Christ's death would mean that they die as well.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #21 on: December 13, 2013, 07:33:18 PM »

Yes, we can say that God the Word did in fact die, but by virtue of His humanity.

It was not in virtue of his humanity alone. Nothing happens save that God wills it. God may will to be limited thus overcoming the limitation of being unlimited.

This is where you can begin to talk to Muslims. They must believe the same, the latter sentence.

Although oddly enough I've tried that exact line of reasoning with Muslims, and suddenly they don't seem to go for it and start back-peddling on things they had agreed with minutes prior once we begin to poke at the idea even the slightest bit.

This is shared by nearly everyone I've met. You included. You retract into what is comfortable to you.

But you are not going to get from God's necessary immanence via the limitation of being always unlimited to Christ easily. It takes a lot work and thought.

You need to become Muslim then find Christ there. That's what Paul would claim to do.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #22 on: December 13, 2013, 07:34:58 PM »

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I was under the impression that the Orthodox view of death is that it's the separation of the soul from the body.

If you are going the trichotomous route, it is the spirit that "departs". All life is ensouled. Perhaps everything is ensouled, but certainly all things we call "alive" are.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #23 on: December 13, 2013, 07:35:56 PM »

Yes, we can say that God the Word did in fact die, but by virtue of His humanity.

It was not in virtue of his humanity alone. Nothing happens save that God wills it. God may will to be limited thus overcoming the limitation of being unlimited.

This is where you can begin to talk to Muslims. They must believe the same, the latter sentence.

Although oddly enough I've tried that exact line of reasoning with Muslims, and suddenly they don't seem to go for it and start back-peddling on things they had agreed with minutes prior once we begin to poke at the idea even the slightest bit.

This is shared by nearly everyone I've met. You included. You retract into what is comfortable to you.

But you are not going to get from God's necessary immanence via the limitation of being always unlimited to Christ easily. It takes a lot work and thought.

You need to become Muslim then find Christ there. That's what Paul would claim to do.

Did I not include Christians in the full post, as well? Or did I accidentally mis-type "every Christian but me"?  Huh

Anyway, off topic...sorry...my only point is that saying "they should agree with this, too" doesn't work in practice. Better to find some other way to approach it.
Logged

NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,059


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #24 on: December 13, 2013, 07:38:09 PM »

Christ died. So in some manner he was held by it.
I was using the term "held" as in "continued to hold him" (Acts 2:24) vs. what happened, where he stopped being dead.

And Christ's body was broken, therefore saw corruption. God doesn't need a why.
I don't mean corruption as in the classical divine attribute of incorruptibility. I mean corruption as in, his body didn't just decompose away (Acts 2:31).

Really I was just paraphrasing from Acts. It's apologetic, it's poetic, sure, and it's more persuasive to my sensibilities than the impassibility discussion above.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,859


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #25 on: December 13, 2013, 07:38:12 PM »

Hey Jason, would you mind responding to a similar question I asked here not too long ago?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,059


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #26 on: December 13, 2013, 07:39:41 PM »

God doesn't need a why.
Oh?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #27 on: December 13, 2013, 07:40:37 PM »

I appreciate the responses. I confess that they are a bit over my head. If God the Son died, did God the Father also die? And if God the Son died but not God the Father, then doesn't that separate the Trinity? If you guys can simplify it as much as possible, I'd appreciate it.  Embarrassed


Selam

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I was under the impression that the Orthodox view of death is that it's the separation of the soul from the body. This is why we have prayers like the Syrian Fraction quoted above which states:

Quote
His soul parted from His body, while His divinity in no way parted either from His soul or from His body.

Since the Father and Holy Spirit don't have have bodies, I don't think Christ's death would mean that they die as well.

Well we do have somewhere in the funerary texts (not sure where, as I have never been to a Coptic funeral; HH Pope Shenouda III quotes it in his contemplations on Psalm 6, "O Lord, do not rebuke me in Your anger") also the observation that "there is no death for Your servants, but a departure." I would think that this is a relatively traditional way of looking at things.
Logged

orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #28 on: December 13, 2013, 07:43:03 PM »


No.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,059


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #29 on: December 13, 2013, 07:45:14 PM »

What of the times where he provides a why? Even if he does not "need" it, shouldn't we still take the why's we get seriously?
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 07:45:45 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,859


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #30 on: December 13, 2013, 07:50:58 PM »

...The Hypostasis of the Son died in His humanity, remaining impassible in his Divinity (thus, the Father and Holy Ghost did not die either).

See, this is the part that confuses me. Either the Son died or the Son did not die. I think that this "impassible in His Divinity/But/only Humanity" stuff makes the issue more confusing and complicating than it has to be, regardless of however much the Fathers may be in love with this type of talk. I think that once you start to view the Son as a real person like everybody else (leaving behind the whole dual essences/natures/Divinity vs. Humanity stuff until later) things start to make more sense. Tbh, the simplest answers are usually the best ones, if I'm understanding Occam's Razor correctly.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #31 on: December 13, 2013, 07:54:39 PM »

When we find the bones we'll let you know.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #32 on: December 13, 2013, 08:08:53 PM »

Shiny is back to green . . .
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #33 on: December 13, 2013, 08:11:08 PM »

Shiny is back to green . . .
It's an inside joke you wouldn't understand...

EDIT: Don't worry buddy you are next on my list...
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 08:12:46 PM by Shiny » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,311


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 13, 2013, 09:29:49 PM »

Either the Son died or the Son did not die. I think that this "impassible in His Divinity/But/only Humanity" stuff makes the issue more confusing and complicating than it has to be, regardless of however much the Fathers may be in love with this type of talk.

Yeah.  They're dumb.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,311


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 13, 2013, 09:32:32 PM »

And Christ's body was broken, therefore saw corruption.

What exactly do you mean by this?  The NT rejects both of these assertions...are you talking about something other than what it is talking about?
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,311


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 13, 2013, 09:34:21 PM »

When we find the bones we'll let you know.

Lovely.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #37 on: December 13, 2013, 09:38:29 PM »

And Christ's body was broken, therefore saw corruption.

What exactly do you mean by this?  The NT rejects both of these assertions...are you talking about something other than what it is talking about?

I meant what I said. It's not hard. If Christ's body wasn't broken what was he showing Thomas again? Corruption means broken (broken intensely I guess to more precise), getting crucified and stuck with a sword would count as getting my body rather intensely broken.

Pretty straightforward stuff.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 09:41:05 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,179


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #38 on: December 13, 2013, 09:38:51 PM »

Fwiw...

"We needed an Incarnate God, a God put to death, that we might live. We were put to death together with Him, that we might be cleansed; we rose again with Him because we were put to death with Him; we were glorified with Him, because we rose again with Him." - St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 45, 28

"Yesterday I was crucified with Him; today I am glorified with Him; yesterday I died with Him; to-day I am quickened with Him; yesterday I was buried with Him; to-day I rise with Him.  But let us offer to Him Who suffered and rose again for us--you will think perhaps that I am going to say gold, or silver, or woven work or transparent and costly stones, the mere passing material of earth, that remains here below, and is for the most part always possessed by bad men, slaves of the world and of the Prince of the world.  Let us offer ourselves, the possession most precious to God, and most fitting; let us give back to the Image what is made after the Image.  Let us recognize our Dignity; let us honour our Archetype; let us know the power of the Mystery, and for what Christ died." St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 1.4

"For Christ also likewise, when it was possible for him to abide in His own honour and deity, not only so far emptied Himself as to take the form of a slave, (Phil. 2:7) but also endured the cross, despising the shame, (Heb. 12:2) that he might by His own sufferings destroy sin, and by death slay death." - St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 12.4

Or perhaps: Jesus was a person; that person suffered and died.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,311


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 13, 2013, 10:01:16 PM »

I meant what I said. It's not hard. If Christ's body wasn't broken what was he showing Thomas again? Corruption means broken (broken intensely I guess to more precise), getting crucified and stuck with a sword would count as getting my body rather intensely broken.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

Then the fishermen were wrong. 
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #40 on: December 13, 2013, 10:17:17 PM »

I meant what I said. It's not hard. If Christ's body wasn't broken what was he showing Thomas again? Corruption means broken (broken intensely I guess to more precise), getting crucified and stuck with a sword would count as getting my body rather intensely broken.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

Then the fishermen were wrong.  

As would be St John the Evangelist, the prophets and the psalmist.  Tongue

John 19:36-37, Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12; Psalm 33:20, Zechariah 12:10.

« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 10:19:36 PM by LBK » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,311


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 13, 2013, 10:27:29 PM »

St John was a fisherman.  Wink
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #42 on: December 13, 2013, 10:28:49 PM »

I meant what I said. It's not hard. If Christ's body wasn't broken what was he showing Thomas again? Corruption means broken (broken intensely I guess to more precise), getting crucified and stuck with a sword would count as getting my body rather intensely broken.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

Then the fishermen were wrong.  

As would be St John the Evangelist, the prophets and the psalmist.  Tongue

John 19:36-37, Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12; Psalm 33:20, Zechariah 12:10.



Yeah, later Christians did carefully choose language to make things more poetic. But the next time some one at work pulls a muscle and talks about breaking their back, I'll forward them on to you, so you can let them know they were not broken.

And if any decide to get crucified and pierced with a sword, I'll do that same.

I am quite aware of the Scripture involved and the allegorical meanings, but if you going to talk to people who are not and don't care, you might want to put less inside nuance on it.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 10:29:17 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #43 on: December 13, 2013, 10:29:44 PM »

St John was a fisherman.  Wink

I know, but I mentioned him re his clarity of expression regarding the fulfillment of that prophecy.  Smiley
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,391


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #44 on: December 13, 2013, 10:32:15 PM »

I wonder if it's significant that the Nicene Creed states that "He was crucified, He suffered, and was buried," rather than "He was crucified, suffered, died, and was buried."?


Selam
Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #45 on: December 13, 2013, 10:33:21 PM »

I meant what I said. It's not hard. If Christ's body wasn't broken what was he showing Thomas again? Corruption means broken (broken intensely I guess to more precise), getting crucified and stuck with a sword would count as getting my body rather intensely broken.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

Then the fishermen were wrong.  

As would be St John the Evangelist, the prophets and the psalmist.  Tongue

John 19:36-37, Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12; Psalm 33:20, Zechariah 12:10.



Yeah, later Christians did carefully choose language to make things more poetic. But the next time some one at work pulls a muscle and talks about breaking their back, I'll forward them on to you, so you can let them know they were not broken.

And if any decide to get crucified and pierced with a sword, I'll do that same.

I am quite aware of the Scripture involved and the allegorical meanings, but if you going to talk to people who are not and don't care, you might want to put less inside nuance on it.

The Evangelist, a disciple chosen by Christ Himself, couldn't be more explicit in showing the fulfillment of the Passover lamb of the OT in the person and passion of Jesus Christ.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #46 on: December 13, 2013, 10:37:22 PM »

I wonder if it's significant that the Nicene Creed states that "He was crucified, He suffered, and was buried," rather than "He was crucified, suffered, died, and was buried."?


Selam

Maybe Romaios or some other historian shed light on whether that is salient. The symbol of faith functioned as much of the work of councils to speak out against what was not held in common or what was threatening.

Jesus died. God died. God also didn't die since two other persons are God. If you can believe in a Trinitarian God, this isn't much of a problem, but if you are talking to people who don't, then it is a big problem.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #47 on: December 13, 2013, 10:38:26 PM »

I meant what I said. It's not hard. If Christ's body wasn't broken what was he showing Thomas again? Corruption means broken (broken intensely I guess to more precise), getting crucified and stuck with a sword would count as getting my body rather intensely broken.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

Then the fishermen were wrong.  

As would be St John the Evangelist, the prophets and the psalmist.  Tongue

John 19:36-37, Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12; Psalm 33:20, Zechariah 12:10.



Yeah, later Christians did carefully choose language to make things more poetic. But the next time some one at work pulls a muscle and talks about breaking their back, I'll forward them on to you, so you can let them know they were not broken.

And if any decide to get crucified and pierced with a sword, I'll do that same.

I am quite aware of the Scripture involved and the allegorical meanings, but if you going to talk to people who are not and don't care, you might want to put less inside nuance on it.

The Evangelist, a disciple chosen by Christ Himself, couldn't be more explicit in showing the fulfillment of the Passover lamb of the OT in the person and passion of Jesus Christ.

In a poetic manner the community that Gospel came out of certainly wanted to make that clear, yes, we agree.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,075


"My god is greater."


« Reply #48 on: December 13, 2013, 10:41:22 PM »

This is a question that perplexes me. It's one of the things heretical sects and Muslims use as an argument against the Orthodox Christian Faith. It seems that the EO's can answer this by saying that Christ died in His humanity but not in His divinity. But since we don't separate Our Lord's nature, then doesn't this mean that God died? And how can God die? I know that ultimately these things are mysteries, but I'd like to know what our OO theological answer to this is. Forgive my ignorance.

God died in the same way that he was born of a Virgin. Unless you believe "Theotokos" means that Mary gave birth to the pre-eternal Godhead, yes, you do distinguish between the natures.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,311


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #49 on: December 13, 2013, 10:41:28 PM »

I wonder if it's significant that the Nicene Creed states that "He was crucified, He suffered, and was buried," rather than "He was crucified, suffered, died, and was buried."?

The Syriac recension of the Nicene Creed, the Armenian Creed used in the Liturgy, the Roman baptismal creed known as the Apostles' Creed, and probably some others explicitly say Christ "died".  
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #50 on: December 13, 2013, 10:43:16 PM »

I wonder if it's significant that the Nicene Creed states that "He was crucified, He suffered, and was buried," rather than "He was crucified, suffered, died, and was buried."?

The Syriac recension of the Nicene Creed, the Armenian Creed used in the Liturgy, the Roman baptismal creed known as the Apostles' Creed, and probably some others explicitly say Christ "died".  

I would like to know why the syriac is different, but I am likely to lack the appropriate context to understand.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #51 on: December 13, 2013, 10:48:10 PM »

I wonder if it's significant that the Nicene Creed states that "He was crucified, He suffered, and was buried," rather than "He was crucified, suffered, died, and was buried."?


Selam

I'm fairly sure that the Syrian text of the creed does specify that he died. At least, in the Indian version it does.
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: 12,674


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


« Reply #52 on: December 13, 2013, 10:52:04 PM »

In the Creed it also says "He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried, and on the third day, He rose from the dead..."

You can't have a rising "from death" if death didn't occur first.
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.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #53 on: December 13, 2013, 10:55:26 PM »

In the Creed it also says "He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried, and on the third day, He rose from the dead..."

You can't have a rising "from death" if death didn't occur first.

Hey, we are talking about theology . . . ! I know of at least four ways of getting around that one while nodding off to sleep
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,075


"My god is greater."


« Reply #54 on: December 13, 2013, 10:55:52 PM »

St. Cyril's 12th anathema:

Quote
Whosoever shall not recognize that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh he tasted death and that he is become the first-begotten of the dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he that giveth life: let him be anathema.

Note that he says the Word died "in the flesh", which is the same as Chalcedonians saying "in his human nature".
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #55 on: December 13, 2013, 10:58:07 PM »

This is a question that perplexes me. It's one of the things heretical sects and Muslims use as an argument against the Orthodox Christian Faith. It seems that the EO's can answer this by saying that Christ died in His humanity but not in His divinity. But since we don't separate Our Lord's nature, then doesn't this mean that God died? And how can God die? I know that ultimately these things are mysteries, but I'd like to know what our OO theological answer to this is. Forgive my ignorance.

God died in the same way that he was born of a Virgin. Unless you believe "Theotokos" means that Mary gave birth to the pre-eternal Godhead, yes, you do distinguish between the natures.

Sorry to butt in, but this apparent dilemma is not much of one when you consider the already-stated belief (see the Syrian fraction posted earlier) that it is after the union that the natures are considered to have been made one in an indivisible union, and hence not considered anymore as two. This is why our fathers were okay with the statement that He is "from two natures", but not that He is "in two natures".

It may seem like a minor point, but it isn't really.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 11:05:04 PM by dzheremi » Logged

Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,391


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #56 on: December 13, 2013, 11:29:56 PM »


Jesus died. God died. God also didn't die since two other persons are God.

This question made me pull out On The Incarnation by St. Athanasius. This quote seems to be saying the same thing:

"Thus it happened that two opposite marvels took place at once: the death of all was consummated in the Lord's body; yet because the Word was in it, death and corruption were in the same act utterly abolished."


Selam
Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,059


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #57 on: December 14, 2013, 03:06:58 AM »

but if you going to talk to people who are not and don't care
We were talking to Gebre, yo.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #58 on: December 14, 2013, 03:24:47 AM »

but if you going to talk to people who are not and don't care
We were talking to Gebre, yo.

Gebre brought up Muslims and others. Keep up.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #59 on: December 14, 2013, 04:16:08 AM »

Well, He both died and didn't die. He died because His divine nature was united with his human nature making Him just one person. He didn't die because His divine nature cannot experience any death. In other words, He was both an authentic human and authentic God.

Spiritually speaking, ultimately there is no death because our souls do not die. So, dying to the flesh, the world and death itself is actually the most life giving experience because we awaken to the reality of our indestructible soul. Death is rather the (tormenting) state of a soul who does not live, but that soul continues forever.
Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #60 on: December 14, 2013, 04:32:33 AM »

Well, He both died and didn't die. He died because His divine nature was united with his human nature making Him just one person. He didn't die because His divine nature cannot experience any death. In other words, He was both an authentic human and authentic God.

Yet we accept the theopaschite formula as orthodox ("One of the Trinity suffered for us") and believe in the communication of properties between the two natures. Just as Our Lord's humanity was deified, His divinity was also humanized, i.e. was enabled to experience pain and death.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #61 on: December 14, 2013, 04:44:27 AM »

Well, He both died and didn't die. He died because His divine nature was united with his human nature making Him just one person. He didn't die because His divine nature cannot experience any death. In other words, He was both an authentic human and authentic God.

Yet we accept the theopaschite formula as orthodox ("One of the Trinity suffered for us") and believe in the communication of properties between the two natures. Just as Our Lord's humanity was deified, His divinity was also humanized, i.e. was enabled to experience pain and death.

That's not true. His divinity can never suffer, but He can truly suffer by taking on human nature. In other words, He did fully assume human nature and suffered, but it is false to say that His divine eternal nature ever suffers.
Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #62 on: December 14, 2013, 04:49:29 AM »

That's not true. His divinity can never suffer, but He can truly suffer by taking on human nature. In other words, He did fully assume human nature and suffered, but it is false to say that His divine eternal nature ever suffers.

You can take it up with Saint Justinian, I guess. And skip the second Antiphon at DL...

Quote
Only-Begotten Son and Immortal Word of God,
Who for our salvation didst will to be incarnate of the holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary;
Who without change didst become man and was crucified;
Who art one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit:
O Christ our God, trampling down death by death, save us!
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #63 on: December 14, 2013, 04:54:01 AM »

That's not true. His divinity can never suffer, but He can truly suffer by taking on human nature. In other words, He did fully assume human nature and suffered, but it is false to say that His divine eternal nature ever suffers.

You can take it up with Saint Justinian, I guess. And skip the second Antiphon at DL...

Quote
Only-Begotten Son and Immortal Word of God,
Who for our salvation didst will to be incarnate of the holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary;
Who without change didst become man and was crucified;
Who art one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit:
O Christ our God, trampling down death by death, save us!

I don't understand your argument. Exactly, who without change became man and was crucified. By that "exchange of properties" you are implying that His divine nature mixed with human nature which is a heresy. His divine nature joined with human nature, but did not fuse or mix; there is only a synergy between them.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 04:54:27 AM by IoanC » Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #64 on: December 14, 2013, 05:06:26 AM »

I don't understand your argument. Exactly, who without change became man and was crucified. By that "exchange of properties" you are implying that His divine nature mixed with human nature which is a heresy. His divine nature joined with human nature, but did not fuse or mix; there is only a synergy between them.

I talked of communication of properties, not exchange or confusion. It's like fire and iron: the iron rod becomes hot and glows - without fire it wouldn't, because iron isn't incandescent in its natural state. Not mixture, but synergy - as you say. 
Logged
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Miaphysite Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: The Church of Alexandria
Posts: 5,042


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #65 on: December 14, 2013, 05:07:33 AM »

I don't understand your argument. Exactly, who without change became man and was crucified. By that "exchange of properties" you are implying that His divine nature mixed with human nature which is a heresy. His divine nature joined with human nature, but did not fuse or mix; there is only a synergy between them.

I talked of communication of properties, not exchange or confusion. It's like fire and iron: the iron rod becomes hot and glows - without fire it wouldn't, because iron isn't incandescent in its natural state. Not mixture, but synergy - as you say. 
It is heretical to believe that Christ suffered in His Divine nature. All the Patristic writers maintained that He remained impassible in His Divinity.
Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

I am currently not an active poster on the forum. Please forgive any offense I might have caused in the past. Thank you.
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #66 on: December 14, 2013, 05:13:57 AM »

I don't understand your argument. Exactly, who without change became man and was crucified. By that "exchange of properties" you are implying that His divine nature mixed with human nature which is a heresy. His divine nature joined with human nature, but did not fuse or mix; there is only a synergy between them.

I talked of communication of properties, not exchange or confusion. It's like fire and iron: the iron rod becomes hot and glows - without fire it wouldn't, because iron isn't incandescent in its natural state. Not mixture, but synergy - as you say.  

Well, then ultimately we are saying the same thing. Didn't I say in my earlier post that Christ truly died as a human? But as God, He could not die (or suffer). In fact, it would be useless for our salvation if He could because then we cannot defeat death and resurrect. Yet, you seem to imply that it His divine nature that died/suffered by receiving pain from His human nature. That's not true.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 05:14:34 AM by IoanC » Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #67 on: December 14, 2013, 05:17:22 AM »

It is heretical to believe that Christ suffered in His Divine nature. All the Patristic writers maintained that He remained impassible in His Divinity.

Funny that an OO of all people should split up natures and attribute something that happened to the Logos after the Incarnation (death) to one nature alone (humanity).  Wink

What does it mean that "One of the Holy Trinity suffered for us"?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 05:31:19 AM by Romaios » Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #68 on: December 14, 2013, 05:21:59 AM »

It is heretical to believe that Christ suffered in His Divine nature. All the Patristic writers maintained that He remained impassible in His Divinity.

Funny that an OO of all people should split up natures and attribute something that happened to the Logos after the Incarnation (death) to one nature alone (humanity).  Wink

What does it mean that "one of the Trinity suffered for us"?

As far as I am concerned, I don't think we are speaking about splitting up natures, but understanding that Christ has two natures which do not fuse or mix, but are perfectly united. It is enough that He suffered in His human nature; you don't want Him to suffer in His divine nature as well.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 05:22:26 AM by IoanC » Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #69 on: December 14, 2013, 05:22:17 AM »

But as God, He could not die (or suffer). In fact, it would be useless for our salvation if He could because then we cannot defeat death and resurrect. Yet, you seem to imply that it His divine nature that died/suffered by receiving pain from His human nature. That's not true.

God could and did suffer, because He so willed it. This is what theopaschism is all about.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #70 on: December 14, 2013, 05:23:49 AM »

But as God, He could not die (or suffer). In fact, it would be useless for our salvation if He could because then we cannot defeat death and resurrect. Yet, you seem to imply that it His divine nature that died/suffered by receiving pain from His human nature. That's not true.

God could and did suffer, because He so willed it. This is what theopaschism is all about.

God did suffer as a human. His suffering was real, but His divine nature can never be touched by suffering. You can't seem to understand that the same person can have two natures and that they don't have to mix in order for God to experience suffering.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 05:24:18 AM by IoanC » Logged

Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Miaphysite Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: The Church of Alexandria
Posts: 5,042


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #71 on: December 14, 2013, 05:25:25 AM »

It is heretical to believe that Christ suffered in His Divine nature. All the Patristic writers maintained that He remained impassible in His Divinity.

Funny that an OO of all people should split up natures and attribute something that happened to the Logos after the Incarnation (death) to one nature alone (humanity).  Wink

What does it mean that "one of the Trinity suffered for us"?
We do not "split up the natures." You are failing to take into account the distinction between nature and hypostasis. Natures are abstract concepts which cannot act in and of themselves. The nature defines the hypostasis' class of being (I.e. whether it is God or man). Thus, Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, died in accordance with His humanity, remaining impassible in Divinity. To say otherwise is to attribute each nature's properties to each other, rather than the one hypostasis.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 05:25:49 AM by Severian » Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

I am currently not an active poster on the forum. Please forgive any offense I might have caused in the past. Thank you.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #72 on: December 14, 2013, 05:26:28 AM »

As far as I am concerned, I don't think we are speaking about splitting up natures, but understanding that Christ has two natures which do not fuse or mix, but are perfectly united. It is enough that He suffered in His human nature; you don't want Him to suffer in His divine nature as well.

It's not a question of what I want, but of what He wanted and did.

If the natures are "perfectly" united, how can one remain unaffected by what happens to the other? This would indeed be Nestorianism. If you put a piece of iron in the fire, does it stay cold?
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #73 on: December 14, 2013, 05:30:20 AM »

As far as I am concerned, I don't think we are speaking about splitting up natures, but understanding that Christ has two natures which do not fuse or mix, but are perfectly united. It is enough that He suffered in His human nature; you don't want Him to suffer in His divine nature as well.

It's not a question of what I want, but of what He wanted and did.

If the natures are "perfectly" united, how can one remain unaffected by what happens to the other? This would indeed be Nestorianism. If you put a piece of iron in the fire, does it stay cold?

It's actually backwards. You think that the iron is God's nature and the fire is human nature? Smiley I'd say that the fire is God's nature and it affects the human nature. Anyway, this fire and iron analogy can lead to other problems. Christ is one person with two natures. As God he cannot suffer, but as human He can. It is one person who can do both.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 05:31:59 AM by IoanC » Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #74 on: December 14, 2013, 05:38:30 AM »

It's actually backwards. You think that the iron is God's nature and the fire is human nature? Smiley I'd say that the fire is God's nature and it affects the human nature. Anyway, this fire and iron analogy can lead to other problems. Christ is one person with two natures. As God he cannot suffer, but as human He can. It is one person who can do both.

The analogy is not perfect, I admit. The idea is that if one person is to function in virtue of two natures, their properties must be commonly shared. God suffered in the flesh - the deified flesh defied corruption and rose from the dead on the third day.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 05:40:51 AM by Romaios » Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #75 on: December 14, 2013, 05:42:06 AM »

It's actually backwards. You think that the iron is God's nature and the fire is human nature? Smiley I'd say that the fire is God's nature and it affects the human nature. Anyway, this fire and iron analogy can lead to other problems. Christ is one person with two natures. As God he cannot suffer, but as human He can. It is one person who can do both.

The analogy is not perfect, I admit. The idea is that if one person is to function in virtue of two natures, their properties are commonly shared. God suffered in the flesh - the deified flesh defied corruption and rose from the dead on the third day.

I disagree that the properties are commonly shared. The person has both properties, but the properties themselves remain perfectly unmixed. Furthermore, Christ's divine nature needs nothing from the human. He only took it on for our benefit.
Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #76 on: December 14, 2013, 05:48:15 AM »

I disagree that the properties are commonly shared. The person has both properties, but the properties themselves remain perfectly unmixed. Furthermore, Christ's divine nature needs nothing from the human. He only took it on for our benefit.

Quote from: Hebrews 2
It was fitting that God, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many children to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters, 12 saying,

‘I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters,
    in the midst of the congregation I will praise you.’

13 And again,

‘I will put my trust in him.’

And again,

‘Here am I and the children whom God has given me.’

14 Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death. 16 For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters[n] in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #77 on: December 14, 2013, 05:51:22 AM »

I disagree that the properties are commonly shared. The person has both properties, but the properties themselves remain perfectly unmixed. Furthermore, Christ's divine nature needs nothing from the human. He only took it on for our benefit.

Quote from: Hebrews 2
It was fitting that God, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many children to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters, 12 saying,

‘I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters,
    in the midst of the congregation I will praise you.’

13 And again,

‘I will put my trust in him.’

And again,

‘Here am I and the children whom God has given me.’

14 Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death. 16 For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters[n] in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested.

You are reading it wrongly. He as a person shared the same things. It doesn't say that His divine nature can actually suffer.
Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #78 on: December 14, 2013, 05:58:39 AM »

We do not "split up the natures." You are failing to take into account the distinction between nature and hypostasis. Natures are abstract concepts which cannot act in and of themselves. The nature defines the hypostasis' class of being (I.e. whether it is God or man). Thus, Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, died in accordance with His humanity, remaining impassible in Divinity. To say otherwise is to attribute each nature's properties to each other, rather than the one hypostasis.

I agree - but it is precisely your argument that natures are abstract notions denoting classes of being that serves my position: the communication/sharing of properties in the one hypostasis. 

All I'm saying is God (i.e. One of the Trinity, not some abstract nature) suffered in the flesh.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 06:01:15 AM by Romaios » Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #79 on: December 14, 2013, 06:04:12 AM »

We do not "split up the natures." You are failing to take into account the distinction between nature and hypostasis. Natures are abstract concepts which cannot act in and of themselves. The nature defines the hypostasis' class of being (I.e. whether it is God or man). Thus, Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, died in accordance with His humanity, remaining impassible in Divinity. To say otherwise is to attribute each nature's properties to each other, rather than the one hypostasis.

I agree - but it is precisely your argument that natures are abstract notions denoting classes of being that serves my position: the communication/sharing of properties in the one hypostasis. 

All I'm saying is God (i.e. One of the Trinity, not some abstract nature) suffered in the flesh.

Please, be careful because you are slandering my words and someone who might read just the one post may think that I saying that the two natures are abstract notions. I never said that. The two natures are real, but distinct and unmixed. God does not need to receive anything in His divinity in order to suffer in the flesh).
Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #80 on: December 14, 2013, 06:05:00 AM »

You are reading it wrongly. He as a person shared the same things. It doesn't say that His divine nature can actually suffer.

He couldn't have if there had been no hypostatic union > communication/sharing of properties of the two natures.

Sharing does not mean confusing or mixing up.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 06:09:49 AM by Romaios » Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #81 on: December 14, 2013, 06:06:51 AM »

We do not "split up the natures." You are failing to take into account the distinction between nature and hypostasis. Natures are abstract concepts which cannot act in and of themselves. The nature defines the hypostasis' class of being (I.e. whether it is God or man). Thus, Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, died in accordance with His humanity, remaining impassible in Divinity. To say otherwise is to attribute each nature's properties to each other, rather than the one hypostasis.

I agree - but it is precisely your argument that natures are abstract notions denoting classes of being that serves my position: the communication/sharing of properties in the one hypostasis. 

All I'm saying is God (i.e. One of the Trinity, not some abstract nature) suffered in the flesh.

Please, be careful because you are slandering my words and someone who might read just the one post may think that I saying that the two natures are abstract notions. I never said that. The two natures are real, but distinct and unmixed. God does not need to receive anything in His divinity in order to suffer in the flesh).

In case you haven't noticed, it was Severian whom I quoted.

And it is persons, not words that can be slandered. Wink
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 06:35:24 AM by Romaios » Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #82 on: December 14, 2013, 06:07:07 AM »

You are reading it wrongly. He as a person shared the same things. It doesn't say that His divine nature can actually suffer.

He couldn't have if there had been no hypostatic union > communication/sharing of properties of the two natures.

Ok, so you believe there is communication of properties between the two natures. This is heresy and you need to do your homework.
Logged

IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #83 on: December 14, 2013, 06:08:59 AM »

We do not "split up the natures." You are failing to take into account the distinction between nature and hypostasis. Natures are abstract concepts which cannot act in and of themselves. The nature defines the hypostasis' class of being (I.e. whether it is God or man). Thus, Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, died in accordance with His humanity, remaining impassible in Divinity. To say otherwise is to attribute each nature's properties to each other, rather than the one hypostasis.

I agree - but it is precisely your argument that natures are abstract notions denoting classes of being that serves my position: the communication/sharing of properties in the one hypostasis. 

All I'm saying is God (i.e. One of the Trinity, not some abstract nature) suffered in the flesh.

Please, be careful because you are slandering my words and someone who might read just the one post may think that I saying that the two natures are abstract notions. I never said that. The two natures are real, but distinct and unmixed. God does not need to receive anything in His divinity in order to suffer in the flesh).

In case you haven't noticed, it was Severian whom I quoted.

Sorry, but you can still use what I said.
Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #84 on: December 14, 2013, 06:13:48 AM »

Ok, so you believe there is communication of properties between the two natures. This is heresy and you need to do your homework.

LOL - you have no idea what the notion refers to:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04169a.htm

Sharing =/= mixing up or confusing. I can share my tools with my neighbour and they'll still be mine even if he uses them.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 06:16:22 AM by Romaios » 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: 12,674


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


« Reply #85 on: December 14, 2013, 06:29:47 AM »

You are reading it wrongly. He as a person shared the same things. It doesn't say that His divine nature can actually suffer.

He couldn't have if there had been no hypostatic union > communication/sharing of properties of the two natures.

Ok, so you believe there is communication of properties between the two natures. This is heresy and you need to do your homework.
ummm...no, YOU need to do your homework. Communicato idiomatum is a central tenet of the third ecumenical council. Rejection of the communication of properties is Nestorian
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.
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #86 on: December 14, 2013, 06:34:43 AM »

Well, then I am luck because my deification means that The Holy Spirit receives the properties of my nature and I receive His. In other words, we mix or even switch places. There is communication between the two natures, not communication of properties of the natures.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 06:35:10 AM by IoanC » Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #87 on: December 14, 2013, 06:39:00 AM »

Well, then I am luck because my deification means that The Holy Spirit receives the properties of my nature and I receive His. In other words, we mix or even switch places. There is communication between the two natures, not communication of properties of the natures.

That is one analogy that won't work: the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ is of a different order than our theosis/deification.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 06:39:33 AM by Romaios » Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #88 on: December 14, 2013, 06:39:38 AM »

Well, then I am luck because my deification means that The Holy Spirit receives the properties of my nature and I receive His. In other words, we mix or even switch places. There is communication between the two natures, not communication of properties of the natures.

That is one analogy that won't work: the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ is of a different order than theosis/deification.

God became man so that man can become God. Isn't that what the saints say?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 06:40:14 AM by IoanC » Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #89 on: December 14, 2013, 06:42:30 AM »

Well, then I am luck because my deification means that The Holy Spirit receives the properties of my nature and I receive His. In other words, we mix or even switch places. There is communication between the two natures, not communication of properties of the natures.

That is one analogy that won't work: the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ is of a different order than theosis/deification.

God became man so that man can become God. Isn't that what the saints say?

Yes, but you will not become one of the Trinity. You might become by grace what He is by nature.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #90 on: December 14, 2013, 06:45:55 AM »

Well, then I am luck because my deification means that The Holy Spirit receives the properties of my nature and I receive His. In other words, we mix or even switch places. There is communication between the two natures, not communication of properties of the natures.

That is one analogy that won't work: the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ is of a different order than theosis/deification.

God became man so that man can become God. Isn't that what the saints say?

Yes, but you will not become one of the Trinity. You might become by grace what He is by nature.

But you said He also receives properties from the human nature through the Incarnation. Is He becoming deified by us?
Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #91 on: December 14, 2013, 06:53:35 AM »

But you said He also receives properties from the human nature through the Incarnation. Is He becoming deified by us?

Humanized. Not by us personally, but by virtue of the human nature which He assumed from the Most Holy Theotokos.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 06:54:34 AM by Romaios » Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #92 on: December 14, 2013, 07:02:02 AM »

But you said He also receives properties from the human nature through the Incarnation. Is He becoming deified by us?

Humanized. Not by us personally, but by virtue of the human nature which He assumed from the Most Holy Theotokos.

Well, since human nature belongs to us and you say that His divine nature receives properties from the human one, then it's just like saying that we are deifying Him.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #93 on: December 14, 2013, 08:13:19 AM »

This is a question that perplexes me. It's one of the things heretical sects and Muslims use as an argument against the Orthodox Christian Faith. It seems that the EO's can answer this by saying that Christ died in His humanity but not in His divinity. But since we don't separate Our Lord's nature, then doesn't this mean that God died? And how can God die?

Selam

We attribute death to Yeshua's human nature, but we can say God died as the subject of Yeshua's human acts is also God. God's humanity died and rose, not God's divinity. Who was born from Panaghia was God, but what was born from Panaghia was the human body assumed by God.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #94 on: December 14, 2013, 08:19:41 AM »

But you said He also receives properties from the human nature through the Incarnation. Is He becoming deified by us?

Humanized. Not by us personally, but by virtue of the human nature which He assumed from the Most Holy Theotokos.

Well, since human nature belongs to us and you say that His divine nature receives properties from the human one, then it's just like saying that we are deifying Him.

That's just silly: our nature does not possess divine properties of itself, so it cannot confer them to anybody - it cannot deify; it humanizes.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #95 on: December 14, 2013, 08:27:34 AM »

But you said He also receives properties from the human nature through the Incarnation. Is He becoming deified by us?

Humanized. Not by us personally, but by virtue of the human nature which He assumed from the Most Holy Theotokos.

Well, since human nature belongs to us and you say that His divine nature receives properties from the human one, then it's just like saying that we are deifying Him.

That's just silly: our nature does not possess divine properties of itself, so it cannot confer them to anybody - it cannot deify; it humanizes.

Well, that was not the point. Whatever the case may be, whether it divinizes or humanizes, it gives to God's divine nature something that it doesn't have, it modifies it according to its human properties. That's what you keep implying.
Logged

IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #96 on: December 14, 2013, 08:43:05 AM »

And, a question would be: why would His divine nature need to receive something from His human nature, when He has a full human nature to begin with? What more can He receive?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 08:43:34 AM by IoanC » Logged

JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,156


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #97 on: December 14, 2013, 10:16:18 AM »


I am really enjoying this discourse and I am learning a lot here on this topic.

I like to ascribe to the axiom: "The more I know, the more I don't know".
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #98 on: December 14, 2013, 10:21:47 AM »


I am really enjoying this discourse and I am learning a lot here on this topic.

I like to ascribe to the axiom: "The more I know, the more I don't know".

Love that axiom. I know it in the form of: "the larger the island of knowledge the longer the shoreline of wonder".
Logged

Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,311


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #99 on: December 14, 2013, 11:53:10 AM »

We do not "split up the natures." You are failing to take into account the distinction between nature and hypostasis. Natures are abstract concepts which cannot act in and of themselves. The nature defines the hypostasis' class of being (I.e. whether it is God or man). Thus, Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, died in accordance with His humanity, remaining impassible in Divinity. To say otherwise is to attribute each nature's properties to each other, rather than the one hypostasis.

I agree - but it is precisely your argument that natures are abstract notions denoting classes of being that serves my position: the communication/sharing of properties in the one hypostasis. 

All I'm saying is God (i.e. One of the Trinity, not some abstract nature) suffered in the flesh.

Severian,

I understand your objection, and certainly there is a danger in pushing analogies or concepts too far.  But, if I'm understanding Romaios correctly, he's really not saying anything different from what we already sing to Christ in the Trisagion: "Holy Immortal, crucified for us". 
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #100 on: December 14, 2013, 12:20:39 PM »

"Monophysitism was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which among other things adopted the Definition of Chalcedon (often known as the "Chalcedonian Creed") stating that Christ is the eternal Son of God "made known in two natures without confusion [i.e. mixture], without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being by no means removed because of the union, but the property of each nature being preserved and coalescing in one prosopon [person] and one hupostasis [subsistence]--not parted or divided into two prosopa [persons], but one and the same Son, only-begotten, divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism
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: 12,674


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


« Reply #101 on: December 14, 2013, 01:17:09 PM »

Property of each is preserved unchanged, unmixed, and exchanged/communicated.  St Cyril says when you have an iron that's heated with fire, it's hot like the fire, thus the iron gets the property of the fire on it.  When the iron is struck, the fire is not touched, but it does bend with the iron.

That's how St. Cyril explained the communication of idioms.  In fact if anything we believe in a God "enmanned" so that we become men deified.  What Christ conferred upon His human nature he confers upon ALL human nature.  If you don't believe in the communicato idiomatum, there is no forgiveness of sins or eternal life.  There is no salvation.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 01:19:41 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.
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #102 on: December 14, 2013, 01:21:00 PM »

Property of each is preserved unchanged, unmixed, and exchanged/communicated.  St Cyril says when you have an iron that's heated with fire, it's hot like the fire, thus the iron gets the property of the fire on it.  When the iron is strike, the fire is not touched, but it does bend with the iron.

That's how St. Cyril explained the communication of idioms.  In fact if anything we believe in a God "enmanned" so that we become men deified.  What Christ conferred upon His human nature he confers upon ALL human nature.  If you don't believe in the communicato idiomatum, there is no forgiveness of sins or eternal life.  There is no salvation.

Personally, what I don't believe in is that God's nature is changed by the human. Even vice-versa doesn't work. God does not change human nature, but imparts His life through His energies. There is absolutely no change or mixing of nature, both for Him and for us; just synergy.
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: 12,674


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


« Reply #103 on: December 14, 2013, 01:24:30 PM »

Property of each is preserved unchanged, unmixed, and exchanged/communicated.  St Cyril says when you have an iron that's heated with fire, it's hot like the fire, thus the iron gets the property of the fire on it.  When the iron is strike, the fire is not touched, but it does bend with the iron.

That's how St. Cyril explained the communication of idioms.  In fact if anything we believe in a God "enmanned" so that we become men deified.  What Christ conferred upon His human nature he confers upon ALL human nature.  If you don't believe in the communicato idiomatum, there is no forgiveness of sins or eternal life.  There is no salvation.


Personally, what I don't believe in is that God's nature is changed by the human. Even vice-versa doesn't work. God does not change human nature, but imparts His life through His energies. There is absolutely no change or mixing of nature, both for Him and for us; just synergy.
There's no change, yes.  But the unity in Christ and the unity we have with God is not the same. To  call both "synergy" really puts me aback a bit. What do you mean by synergy when it comes to Christ?
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.
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #104 on: December 14, 2013, 01:29:19 PM »

Property of each is preserved unchanged, unmixed, and exchanged/communicated.  St Cyril says when you have an iron that's heated with fire, it's hot like the fire, thus the iron gets the property of the fire on it.  When the iron is strike, the fire is not touched, but it does bend with the iron.

That's how St. Cyril explained the communication of idioms.  In fact if anything we believe in a God "enmanned" so that we become men deified.  What Christ conferred upon His human nature he confers upon ALL human nature.  If you don't believe in the communicato idiomatum, there is no forgiveness of sins or eternal life.  There is no salvation.


Personally, what I don't believe in is that God's nature is changed by the human. Even vice-versa doesn't work. God does not change human nature, but imparts His life through His energies. There is absolutely no change or mixing of nature, both for Him and for us; just synergy.
There's no change, yes.  But the unity in Christ and the unity we have with God is not the same. To  call both "synergy" really puts me aback a bit. What do you mean by synergy when it comes to Christ?

Well, in the case of Christ the two natures work in harmony with each other, but they don't change or mix. We could say that the two natures work in synergy.  Christ is both God and man, yet one person.
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: 12,674


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


« Reply #105 on: December 14, 2013, 01:35:19 PM »

Property of each is preserved unchanged, unmixed, and exchanged/communicated.  St Cyril says when you have an iron that's heated with fire, it's hot like the fire, thus the iron gets the property of the fire on it.  When the iron is strike, the fire is not touched, but it does bend with the iron.

That's how St. Cyril explained the communication of idioms.  In fact if anything we believe in a God "enmanned" so that we become men deified.  What Christ conferred upon His human nature he confers upon ALL human nature.  If you don't believe in the communicato idiomatum, there is no forgiveness of sins or eternal life.  There is no salvation.


Personally, what I don't believe in is that God's nature is changed by the human. Even vice-versa doesn't work. God does not change human nature, but imparts His life through His energies. There is absolutely no change or mixing of nature, both for Him and for us; just synergy.
There's no change, yes.  But the unity in Christ and the unity we have with God is not the same. To  call both "synergy" really puts me aback a bit. What do you mean by synergy when it comes to Christ?

Well, in the case of Christ the two natures work in harmony with each other, but they don't change or mix. We could say that the two natures work in synergy.  Christ is both God and man, yet one person.
to say that the two natures work in synergy like me and God is  Nestorianism.
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.
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #106 on: December 14, 2013, 02:01:43 PM »

Property of each is preserved unchanged, unmixed, and exchanged/communicated.  St Cyril says when you have an iron that's heated with fire, it's hot like the fire, thus the iron gets the property of the fire on it.  When the iron is strike, the fire is not touched, but it does bend with the iron.

That's how St. Cyril explained the communication of idioms.  In fact if anything we believe in a God "enmanned" so that we become men deified.  What Christ conferred upon His human nature he confers upon ALL human nature.  If you don't believe in the communicato idiomatum, there is no forgiveness of sins or eternal life.  There is no salvation.


Personally, what I don't believe in is that God's nature is changed by the human. Even vice-versa doesn't work. God does not change human nature, but imparts His life through His energies. There is absolutely no change or mixing of nature, both for Him and for us; just synergy.
There's no change, yes.  But the unity in Christ and the unity we have with God is not the same. To  call both "synergy" really puts me aback a bit. What do you mean by synergy when it comes to Christ?

Well, in the case of Christ the two natures work in harmony with each other, but they don't change or mix. We could say that the two natures work in synergy.  Christ is both God and man, yet one person.
to say that the two natures work in synergy like me and God is  Nestorianism.

But He remains one person with two distinct natures. Otherwise, I'd say we are leaning towards monophysitism.
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: 12,674


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


« Reply #107 on: December 14, 2013, 02:03:31 PM »

Property of each is preserved unchanged, unmixed, and exchanged/communicated.  St Cyril says when you have an iron that's heated with fire, it's hot like the fire, thus the iron gets the property of the fire on it.  When the iron is strike, the fire is not touched, but it does bend with the iron.

That's how St. Cyril explained the communication of idioms.  In fact if anything we believe in a God "enmanned" so that we become men deified.  What Christ conferred upon His human nature he confers upon ALL human nature.  If you don't believe in the communicato idiomatum, there is no forgiveness of sins or eternal life.  There is no salvation.


Personally, what I don't believe in is that God's nature is changed by the human. Even vice-versa doesn't work. God does not change human nature, but imparts His life through His energies. There is absolutely no change or mixing of nature, both for Him and for us; just synergy.
There's no change, yes.  But the unity in Christ and the unity we have with God is not the same. To  call both "synergy" really puts me aback a bit. What do you mean by synergy when it comes to Christ?

Well, in the case of Christ the two natures work in harmony with each other, but they don't change or mix. We could say that the two natures work in synergy.  Christ is both God and man, yet one person.
to say that the two natures work in synergy like me and God is  Nestorianism.

But He remains one person with two distinct natures. Otherwise, I'd say we are leaning towards monophysitism.

You're not going to lean towards monophysitism.  The Logos emptied Himself to experience all human characteristics.  But there's no "cooperation" between natures, as if the human nature can make a decision in parallel with divinity.  That makes Christ two persons, not "two natures."
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 02:04:24 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.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,059


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #108 on: December 14, 2013, 02:05:44 PM »

IoanC, the problem is that if the natures function like you and God, then it can imply that the Divine is inhabiting the human like God indwelling a prophet. Which would would definitely be Nestorian.

Both the humanity and Divinity of Christ belong properly and naturally to him.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,059


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #109 on: December 14, 2013, 02:08:19 PM »

But there's no "cooperation" between natures, as if the human nature can make a decision in parallel with divinity.  
You don't have to ascribe personal subsistent agency to the natures in order to speak of their cooperation. Just as you don't have to ascribe personal subsistent agency to the movement of my fingers working in cooperation with the movement of my arm, or the beating of my heart working in cooperation with the reflex of breathing. These operations are diverse, and work in cooperation and communication, but belong properly to me, nonetheless.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 02:08:38 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« Reply #110 on: December 14, 2013, 02:08:49 PM »

Property of each is preserved unchanged, unmixed, and exchanged/communicated.  St Cyril says when you have an iron that's heated with fire, it's hot like the fire, thus the iron gets the property of the fire on it.  When the iron is strike, the fire is not touched, but it does bend with the iron.

That's how St. Cyril explained the communication of idioms.  In fact if anything we believe in a God "enmanned" so that we become men deified.  What Christ conferred upon His human nature he confers upon ALL human nature.  If you don't believe in the communicato idiomatum, there is no forgiveness of sins or eternal life.  There is no salvation.


Personally, what I don't believe in is that God's nature is changed by the human. Even vice-versa doesn't work. God does not change human nature, but imparts His life through His energies. There is absolutely no change or mixing of nature, both for Him and for us; just synergy.
There's no change, yes.  But the unity in Christ and the unity we have with God is not the same. To  call both "synergy" really puts me aback a bit. What do you mean by synergy when it comes to Christ?

Well, in the case of Christ the two natures work in harmony with each other, but they don't change or mix. We could say that the two natures work in synergy.  Christ is both God and man, yet one person.
to say that the two natures work in synergy like me and God is  Nestorianism.

But He remains one person with two distinct natures. Otherwise, I'd say we are leaning towards monophysitism.

You're not going to lean towards monophysitism.  The Logos emptied Himself to experience all human characteristics.  But there's no "cooperation" between natures, as if the human nature can make a decision in parallel with divinity.  That makes Christ two persons, not "two natures."

No, it doesn't make Him two persons, but it's a mystery above human logic how He can have two distinct natures and remain one person. The two natures do not work in parallel but in union and harmony with each other.
Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #111 on: December 14, 2013, 02:13:04 PM »

I understand your objection, and certainly there is a danger in pushing analogies or concepts too far.  But, if I'm understanding Romaios correctly, he's really not saying anything different from what we already sing to Christ in the Trisagion: "Holy Immortal, crucified for us". 

Pushing it too far would be to say that His divinity suffered/died ("God suffered/died" is orthodox and we confess it in the Creed). But that's non-sense talk, anyway, after the Incarnation - natures don't act, persons (hypostases) do.

Yes, what you sing in the Trisagion is exactly what I meant. Though I could never sing it that way...  Wink But we do have the O Monogenes in common.  
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: 12,674


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


« Reply #112 on: December 14, 2013, 02:21:52 PM »

ANYWAY,

I think Gebre got his answer.  I don't feel like getting into these tedious arguments.  In the OO forum, Gebre asked about whether God can die.  The answer is yes, in human form.  That is why God is incarnate, so that He can have a body capable of human death.  The Son of God (not the Father, not the Holy Spirit) was incarnate, died, and rose from the dead, and experienced all things human that we may be engrafted in the Triune relationship as sons to the Father by the Holy Spirit resting in us as it rested in Christ.

God hungered, God suffered, God died, God rose from the dead, all of which work in synergy with the will of the Father by the Holy Spirit, that the will of the Son may be the will of all mankind.  The human faculty of willing is necessary to be confessed, that we also may have the human faculty of willing deified in Christ.  And thus our wills become deified, or "divine wills" as we conform in Christ to the Father by the Spirit.

That is the central theme of OO understanding in all of this.  Muslims believe in a God that has no communion with man.  God cannot dwell in man, let alone dwell in the world.  God has to create intermediaries for communication with man for his "betterment" (Arianism) turning God into a morally dictating being, which mankind must follow morally.  Eternal life is only a "created" life given to men forever in a paradise filled with physical pleasures.  This mindset is what makes a Muslim unable to understand the spiritual depth of communion with God, and how God intimately unites Himself to us through Christ.
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.
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #113 on: December 14, 2013, 03:34:39 PM »

And Christ's body was broken, therefore saw corruption.

What exactly do you mean by this?  The NT rejects both of these assertions...are you talking about something other than what it is talking about?

I meant what I said. It's not hard. If Christ's body wasn't broken what was he showing Thomas again? Corruption means broken (broken intensely I guess to more precise), getting crucified and stuck with a sword would count as getting my body rather intensely broken.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

"Incorrupt" (=aphtharton), as used in the hymnography in reference to Christ's body, usually refers to the fact that he did not decompose (he did not have time to, because he rose so soon afterward). This fact then gets used as a colorful illustration of the fact that his eventual triumph over death was inevitable.

But I'm very surprised to see theologically educated people here apparently defending the notion that he had an incorruptible body. It is so patently absurd... am I reading you people wrong?
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #114 on: December 14, 2013, 03:49:18 PM »

And Christ's body was broken, therefore saw corruption.

What exactly do you mean by this?  The NT rejects both of these assertions...are you talking about something other than what it is talking about?

I meant what I said. It's not hard. If Christ's body wasn't broken what was he showing Thomas again? Corruption means broken (broken intensely I guess to more precise), getting crucified and stuck with a sword would count as getting my body rather intensely broken.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

"Incorrupt" (=aphtharton), as used in the hymnography in reference to Christ's body, usually refers to the fact that he did not decompose (he did not have time to, because he rose so soon afterward). This fact then gets used as a colorful illustration of the fact that his eventual triumph over death was inevitable.

But I'm very surprised to see theologically educated people here apparently defending the notion that he had an incorruptible body. It is so patently absurd... am I reading you people wrong?

So the Lord's body has the same properties before and after his resurrection?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,156


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #115 on: December 14, 2013, 04:32:26 PM »

And Christ's body was broken, therefore saw corruption.

What exactly do you mean by this?  The NT rejects both of these assertions...are you talking about something other than what it is talking about?

I meant what I said. It's not hard. If Christ's body wasn't broken what was he showing Thomas again? Corruption means broken (broken intensely I guess to more precise), getting crucified and stuck with a sword would count as getting my body rather intensely broken.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

"Incorrupt" (=aphtharton), as used in the hymnography in reference to Christ's body, usually refers to the fact that he did not decompose (he did not have time to, because he rose so soon afterward). This fact then gets used as a colorful illustration of the fact that his eventual triumph over death was inevitable.

But I'm very surprised to see theologically educated people here apparently defending the notion that he had an incorruptible body. It is so patently absurd... am I reading you people wrong?

So the Lord's body has the same properties before and after his resurrection?

His Body changed into a Glorified state as we will become one day?
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,059


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #116 on: December 14, 2013, 06:35:01 PM »

But I'm very surprised to see theologically educated people here apparently defending the notion that he had an incorruptible body. It is so patently absurd... am I reading you people wrong?

It was also condemned by St. Eutychius of Constantinople and Severus of Antioch; an example of post-schism agreement on something.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
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 #117 on: December 14, 2013, 07:26:44 PM »

I understand your objection, and certainly there is a danger in pushing analogies or concepts too far.  But, if I'm understanding Romaios correctly, he's really not saying anything different from what we already sing to Christ in the Trisagion: "Holy Immortal, crucified for us". 

Pushing it too far would be to say that His divinity suffered/died ("God suffered/died" is orthodox and we confess it in the Creed). But that's non-sense talk, anyway, after the Incarnation - natures don't act, persons (hypostases) do.

Yes, what you sing in the Trisagion is exactly what I meant. Though I could never sing it that way...  Wink But we do have the O Monogenes in common.  
exactly.  And it states "...Word of God...became incarnate...and without change did become crucified for us O Christ Our God..."

As you say, natures do not act, persons do. So His divinity did not die, though His person, by the communication of this idioms, through His humanity did.
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
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,391


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #118 on: December 14, 2013, 07:32:22 PM »


Jesus died. God died. God also didn't die since two other persons are God.

This question made me pull out On The Incarnation by St. Athanasius. This quote seems to be saying the same thing:

"Thus it happened that two opposite marvels took place at once: the death of all was consummated in the Lord's body; yet because the Word was in it, death and corruption were in the same act utterly abolished."


Selam

Wow. Thanks to everyone for the answers and the enlightening discussion. Although I confess that most of this was way over my head. This quote from St. Athanasius has sort of settled it for me, I think. Here's how I have it worked out in my simple mind:

Yes, God died. But in dying God destroyed death. So it's a divine paradox. God's death destroyed death. He truly died in every sense of the word, while simultaneously proving that death had no power over Him.

Is that a proper Orthodox understanding of it?


Selam
Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #119 on: December 14, 2013, 07:52:31 PM »

And Christ's body was broken, therefore saw corruption.

What exactly do you mean by this?  The NT rejects both of these assertions...are you talking about something other than what it is talking about?

I meant what I said. It's not hard. If Christ's body wasn't broken what was he showing Thomas again? Corruption means broken (broken intensely I guess to more precise), getting crucified and stuck with a sword would count as getting my body rather intensely broken.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

"Incorrupt" (=aphtharton), as used in the hymnography in reference to Christ's body, usually refers to the fact that he did not decompose (he did not have time to, because he rose so soon afterward). This fact then gets used as a colorful illustration of the fact that his eventual triumph over death was inevitable.

But I'm very surprised to see theologically educated people here apparently defending the notion that he had an incorruptible body. It is so patently absurd... am I reading you people wrong?
I think the confusion is people think for a word to have meaning it must have a referent. Take a dragon for example, we both cannot pick this out right? We can get it from movies, TV, paintings, etc. but that is only referencing the image of the dragon. This is why I chuckle at people like El Bee Kay and others who are nothing more than image worshipers, yeah you believe in the image of Christ's corruptible body, but not the actual thing.

If I say Christ exists however He is nonidentical to the actual material, divine and human, from which He is composed of. To simplify, suppose there are yellow canaries, well yellowness doesn't exist. It can never exist. We would have to gather all yellow canaries, but before that we need to know what is yellow. But yellow canaries can exist and not be related to its compositional material. I don't think canaries have any non-relational properties though. If we take my McDonald's cup that is on my computer desk right now, it is something I take a drink from. If we take a spear and drive it into Christ's side while he hung from the cross, we break him. He was broken even before that.

I think this ridiculous gymnastics IoanC engages in that Christ supersedes our human logic is bordering on some terrible misuse of what mystical is. Why should Christ transcend our human logic? That makes no sense, especially if He is to be a person.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 07:54:03 PM by Shiny » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #120 on: December 14, 2013, 07:55:52 PM »

And Christ's body was broken, therefore saw corruption.

What exactly do you mean by this?  The NT rejects both of these assertions...are you talking about something other than what it is talking about?

I meant what I said. It's not hard. If Christ's body wasn't broken what was he showing Thomas again? Corruption means broken (broken intensely I guess to more precise), getting crucified and stuck with a sword would count as getting my body rather intensely broken.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

"Incorrupt" (=aphtharton), as used in the hymnography in reference to Christ's body, usually refers to the fact that he did not decompose (he did not have time to, because he rose so soon afterward). This fact then gets used as a colorful illustration of the fact that his eventual triumph over death was inevitable.

But I'm very surprised to see theologically educated people here apparently defending the notion that he had an incorruptible body. It is so patently absurd... am I reading you people wrong?

I don't know what 'referent' means.
Logged

rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,697



WWW
« Reply #121 on: December 14, 2013, 07:56:51 PM »

This is a question that perplexes me. It's one of the things heretical sects and Muslims use as an argument against the Orthodox Christian Faith. It seems that the EO's can answer this by saying that Christ died in His humanity but not in His divinity. But since we don't separate Our Lord's nature, then doesn't this mean that God died? And how can God die? I know that ultimately these things are mysteries, but I'd like to know what our OO theological answer to this is. Forgive my ignorance.
Selam
Good point. According to deacon Kuraev, this is one of the EO proofs that it is possible to speak of a human nature existing after the union into one. Namely, God experienced death, which reflects a mortal nature, rather than an immortal nature. You can say that the divine nature cooperated with the process, but the process itself was distinctly human. And as St. Cyril says, the human nature remains "distinct" even after the union.

Regards.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #122 on: December 14, 2013, 08:05:10 PM »

And Christ's body was broken, therefore saw corruption.

What exactly do you mean by this?  The NT rejects both of these assertions...are you talking about something other than what it is talking about?

I meant what I said. It's not hard. If Christ's body wasn't broken what was he showing Thomas again? Corruption means broken (broken intensely I guess to more precise), getting crucified and stuck with a sword would count as getting my body rather intensely broken.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

"Incorrupt" (=aphtharton), as used in the hymnography in reference to Christ's body, usually refers to the fact that he did not decompose (he did not have time to, because he rose so soon afterward). This fact then gets used as a colorful illustration of the fact that his eventual triumph over death was inevitable.

But I'm very surprised to see theologically educated people here apparently defending the notion that he had an incorruptible body. It is so patently absurd... am I reading you people wrong?

I don't know what 'referent' means.
If we cannot talk about never encountering something or even identifying it, can there be a referent?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 08:06:06 PM by Shiny » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,311


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #123 on: December 14, 2013, 08:06:22 PM »

And Christ's body was broken, therefore saw corruption.

What exactly do you mean by this?  The NT rejects both of these assertions...are you talking about something other than what it is talking about?

I meant what I said. It's not hard. If Christ's body wasn't broken what was he showing Thomas again? Corruption means broken (broken intensely I guess to more precise), getting crucified and stuck with a sword would count as getting my body rather intensely broken.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

"Incorrupt" (=aphtharton), as used in the hymnography in reference to Christ's body, usually refers to the fact that he did not decompose (he did not have time to, because he rose so soon afterward). This fact then gets used as a colorful illustration of the fact that his eventual triumph over death was inevitable.

But I'm very surprised to see theologically educated people here apparently defending the notion that he had an incorruptible body. It is so patently absurd... am I reading you people wrong?

Since I'm quoted above, I presume I'm one of the "people" you have in mind.  

My only point in the quoted post was that the NT specifically quotes OT prophecy to state that a) Christ was not broken and b) did not see corruption.  This need not require, explicitly or implicitly, that Christ have an incorruptible body anymore than the virginal conception and birth mean he was not really human.  Speaking personally, this is an instance where I'd rather not depart from the language of Scripture because I don't know if its testimony is a matter of primitive people's misunderstanding of the biology of death, a miraculous phenomenon associated with the end of Christ's earthly life paralleling those associated with its beginning, or something else.      

Regarding the claim that Christ's body "did not have time" to decompose in the grave, I'm not sure I agree.  I'm no physician, but I've been at the bedside of a couple of relatives as they died, and corruption seems to set in pretty quickly.  My grandmother's death is more vivid since it was only a few years ago.  She died shortly before 2pm.  While her body lay in the hospital bed, we waited for the priest and other family members to come.  The hospital administration was patient with us, but after three or four hours had passed, the smell of her decomposition became noticeable to others on the floor (we didn't notice it so much, I guess, because we never left the room, and so we got accustomed to it) and was disturbing patients getting around to their evening meal, so we had to summon the funeral directors to take and prepare her body.  My grandmother died a bit more peacefully than Christ, but if corruption set in after a few hours in a climate controlled hospital room in 2008, I'm pretty sure Christ's starved, stressed, scourged, beaten, crucified, and stabbed body had a chance to corrupt in the conditions to which he was exposed (outdoors, first century Palestinian springtime, no time to prepare the body for burial, etc.).  Yet, Scripture speaks of it in a certain way, and my preference is to stick to this language: I don't think this automatically puts me at odds with St Severus and the other holy fathers.    
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #124 on: December 14, 2013, 08:08:09 PM »

And Christ's body was broken, therefore saw corruption.

What exactly do you mean by this?  The NT rejects both of these assertions...are you talking about something other than what it is talking about?

I meant what I said. It's not hard. If Christ's body wasn't broken what was he showing Thomas again? Corruption means broken (broken intensely I guess to more precise), getting crucified and stuck with a sword would count as getting my body rather intensely broken.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

"Incorrupt" (=aphtharton), as used in the hymnography in reference to Christ's body, usually refers to the fact that he did not decompose (he did not have time to, because he rose so soon afterward). This fact then gets used as a colorful illustration of the fact that his eventual triumph over death was inevitable.

But I'm very surprised to see theologically educated people here apparently defending the notion that he had an incorruptible body. It is so patently absurd... am I reading you people wrong?

I don't know what 'referent' means.
If we cannot talk about never encountering something or even identifying it, can there be a referent?

A referent is just whatever a word refers to. A dragon is just much a referent as a table or a puppy or the enveloping sense of dread that I feel when reading this thread.
Logged

Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #125 on: December 14, 2013, 08:12:21 PM »

And Christ's body was broken, therefore saw corruption.

What exactly do you mean by this?  The NT rejects both of these assertions...are you talking about something other than what it is talking about?

I meant what I said. It's not hard. If Christ's body wasn't broken what was he showing Thomas again? Corruption means broken (broken intensely I guess to more precise), getting crucified and stuck with a sword would count as getting my body rather intensely broken.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

"Incorrupt" (=aphtharton), as used in the hymnography in reference to Christ's body, usually refers to the fact that he did not decompose (he did not have time to, because he rose so soon afterward). This fact then gets used as a colorful illustration of the fact that his eventual triumph over death was inevitable.

But I'm very surprised to see theologically educated people here apparently defending the notion that he had an incorruptible body. It is so patently absurd... am I reading you people wrong?

I don't know what 'referent' means.
If we cannot talk about never encountering something or even identifying it, can there be a referent?

A referent is just whatever a word refers to. A dragon is just much a referent as a table or a puppy or the enveloping sense of dread that I feel when reading this thread.
But what is the word dragon referring to Jeremy? Don't assume that for a word to carry some kind of meaning it has to refer.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 08:14:23 PM by Shiny » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #126 on: December 14, 2013, 08:18:56 PM »

Um...read some de Saussure. Words don't 'have to' do anything; but that is one of the things they do. To bring it back to OO discussion, the referent is united with the word-form inseparably, never to be parted. Tongue

Dragon refers to this, by the way:



You know...Welsh people.



« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 08:19:21 PM by dzheremi » Logged

Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #127 on: December 14, 2013, 08:22:15 PM »

Um...read some de Saussure. Words don't 'have to' do anything; but that is one of the things they do. To bring it back to OO discussion, the referent is united with the word-form inseparably, never to be parted. Tongue

Dragon refers to this, by the way:



You know...Welsh people.
Yeah like I said, the image of a dragon refers.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Hawkeye
Дїѡни́сїй Качема́ческїй, Oнома́тодоѯологъ
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: The Old Belief, as it were
Jurisdiction: Betwixt a "Rock" and familiarity
Posts: 645


IN THIS, CONQUER!


« Reply #128 on: December 14, 2013, 08:24:17 PM »

Regarding the claim that Christ's body "did not have time" to decompose in the grave, I'm not sure I agree.  I'm no physician, but I've been at the bedside of a couple of relatives as they died, and corruption seems to set in pretty quickly.  My grandmother's death is more vivid since it was only a few years ago.  She died shortly before 2pm.  While her body lay in the hospital bed, we waited for the priest and other family members to come.  The hospital administration was patient with us, but after three or four hours had passed, the smell of her decomposition became noticeable to others on the floor (we didn't notice it so much, I guess, because we never left the room, and so we got accustomed to it) and was disturbing patients getting around to their evening meal, so we had to summon the funeral directors to take and prepare her body.  My grandmother died a bit more peacefully than Christ, but if corruption set in after a few hours in a climate controlled hospital room in 2008, I'm pretty sure Christ's starved, stressed, scourged, beaten, crucified, and stabbed body had a chance to corrupt in the conditions to which he was exposed (outdoors, first century Palestinian springtime, no time to prepare the body for burial, etc.).  Yet, Scripture speaks of it in a certain way, and my preference is to stick to this language: I don't think this automatically puts me at odds with St Severus and the other holy fathers.

Just to pitch in my own experience, when I visited my great-grandmother some 32 hours after her death, her skin had turned grey but I don't recall any odors or noticeable decomposition. At that point I believe she had been in room temperature for at least half a day.
Logged

Quote from: The Excess of Blessed Constantine's Pious Concern
For while the people of God, whose fellow servant I am, are thus divided amongst themselves by an unreasonable and pernicious spirit of contention, how is it possible that I shall be able to maintain tranquility of mind?
Pharaoh714
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Rite
Posts: 152


Lord Have Mercy! Christ Save me.


« Reply #129 on: December 15, 2013, 09:07:57 AM »

This is a question that perplexes me. It's one of the things heretical sects and Muslims use as an argument against the Orthodox Christian Faith. It seems that the EO's can answer this by saying that Christ died in His humanity but not in His divinity. But since we don't separate Our Lord's nature, then doesn't this mean that God died? And how can God die? I know that ultimately these things are mysteries, but I'd like to know what our OO theological answer to this is. Forgive my ignorance.
Selam
Good point. According to deacon Kuraev, this is one of the EO proofs that it is possible to speak of a human nature existing after the union into one. Namely, God experienced death, which reflects a mortal nature, rather than an immortal nature. You can say that the divine nature cooperated with the process, but the process itself was distinctly human. And as St. Cyril says, the human nature remains "distinct" even after the union.

Regards.


I know in the Liturgy of St Basil the great we say:


Priest: For every time you eat of this Bread and drink of this cup, you proclaim My death, confess My
resurrection and remember Me until I come.

Cong: Amen. Amen. Amen. Your death, O Lord, we proclaim. Your holy resurrection and ascension, we confess.
We praise You, we bless You, we thank You, O Lord, and we entreat You, o our God.


We don't say "your death in your humanity... O Lord we proclaim" because that would be separating Christ. This phrase is also present in St. Cyril liturgy and St Gregory.

Source: http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/liturgy/liturgy_of_st_basil.pdf
Logged

"If I say, "My foot slips," Your mercy, O LORD, will hold me up. In the multitude of my anxieties within me, Your comforts delight my soul." Psalm 94:18-19
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,697



WWW
« Reply #130 on: December 15, 2013, 03:25:12 PM »

I know in the Liturgy of St Basil the great we say:

Priest: For every time you eat of this Bread and drink of this cup, you proclaim My death, confess My resurrection and remember Me until I come.

Cong: Amen. Amen. Amen. Your death, O Lord, we proclaim. Your holy resurrection and ascension, we confess.

We don't say "your death in your humanity... O Lord we proclaim" because that would be separating Christ.
Saying that God died in His humanity still means that God died.

1 Peter 4 says: Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

Saying that Christ's suffering was in His flesh does not mean that He did not suffer. Saying that he suffered in His flesh does not mean that He is being split in half.

Again, 1 Peter 3 says:
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.

And Paul writes the same way:
2 Corinthians 13:4
For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God's power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God's power we will live with him in our dealing with you.

The divine qualities make him alive and his human qualities were those in which He suffered. He did not die in the divine quality, category, type, or nature, but in the weak, human one.

Otherwise, you are left with the problem Gebre asked about in the OP about how God's divine, immortal set of characteristics would be those through which He died.

Likewise, Paul writes that it is the Resurrection that proves Christ is God
in Rom. 1:4, saying He is:
declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead

In other words, the Resurrection proves that Christ has divine properties. Why? Because Self-Resurrection reflects a Divine quality. Self-Resurrection is not a normal quality of man. Thus, He rose in His Divinity. Nonetheless, as Pope Leo wrote, the two natures do cooperate in their activity. Thus, Christ, who is both God and man, was raised. The fact that He was man did not prevent His divine qualities from raising Him.

Regards.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 03:36:53 PM by rakovsky » Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #131 on: December 15, 2013, 03:35:22 PM »

Um...read some de Saussure.

I suggested once he read some Levi Strauss and he went to Macy's and read jeans labels. You might want to be more specific when dealing with Shiny.

Sorta kidding. Sorta.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 03:35:49 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,391


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #132 on: December 15, 2013, 07:51:50 PM »


This question made me pull out On The Incarnation by St. Athanasius.

"Thus it happened that two opposite marvels took place at once: the death of all was consummated in the Lord's body; yet because the Word was in it, death and corruption were in the same act utterly abolished."


Thanks to everyone for the answers and the enlightening discussion. Although I confess that most of this was way over my head. This quote from St. Athanasius has sort of settled it for me, I think. Here's how I have it worked out in my simple mind:

Yes, God died. But in dying God destroyed death. So it's a divine paradox. God's death destroyed death. He truly died in every sense of the word, while simultaneously proving that death had no power over Him.

Is that a proper Orthodox understanding of it?



So is this acceptable?


Selam
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 07:53:24 PM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,059


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #133 on: December 15, 2013, 07:53:24 PM »

Gebre,

What about God the Son dying would separate him from the Trinity?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Miaphysite Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: The Church of Alexandria
Posts: 5,042


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #134 on: December 15, 2013, 07:59:17 PM »


This question made me pull out On The Incarnation by St. Athanasius.

"Thus it happened that two opposite marvels took place at once: the death of all was consummated in the Lord's body; yet because the Word was in it, death and corruption were in the same act utterly abolished."


Thanks to everyone for the answers and the enlightening discussion. Although I confess that most of this was way over my head. This quote from St. Athanasius has sort of settled it for me, I think. Here's how I have it worked out in my simple mind:

Yes, God died. But in dying God destroyed death. So it's a divine paradox. God's death destroyed death. He truly died in every sense of the word, while simultaneously proving that death had no power over Him.

Is that a proper Orthodox understanding of it?



So is this acceptable?


Selam
Yes.
Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

I am currently not an active poster on the forum. Please forgive any offense I might have caused in the past. Thank you.
Pharaoh714
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Rite
Posts: 152


Lord Have Mercy! Christ Save me.


« Reply #135 on: December 15, 2013, 08:20:14 PM »

I know in the Liturgy of St Basil the great we say:

Priest: For every time you eat of this Bread and drink of this cup, you proclaim My death, confess My resurrection and remember Me until I come.

Cong: Amen. Amen. Amen. Your death, O Lord, we proclaim. Your holy resurrection and ascension, we confess.

We don't say "your death in your humanity... O Lord we proclaim" because that would be separating Christ.
Saying that God died in His humanity still means that God died.

1 Peter 4 says: Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

Saying that Christ's suffering was in His flesh does not mean that He did not suffer. Saying that he suffered in His flesh does not mean that He is being split in half.

Again, 1 Peter 3 says:
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.

And Paul writes the same way:
2 Corinthians 13:4
For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God's power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God's power we will live with him in our dealing with you.

The divine qualities make him alive and his human qualities were those in which He suffered. He did not die in the divine quality, category, type, or nature, but in the weak, human one.

Otherwise, you are left with the problem Gebre asked about in the OP about how God's divine, immortal set of characteristics would be those through which He died.

Likewise, Paul writes that it is the Resurrection that proves Christ is God
in Rom. 1:4, saying He is:
declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead

In other words, the Resurrection proves that Christ has divine properties. Why? Because Self-Resurrection reflects a Divine quality. Self-Resurrection is not a normal quality of man. Thus, He rose in His Divinity. Nonetheless, as Pope Leo wrote, the two natures do cooperate in their activity. Thus, Christ, who is both God and man, was raised. The fact that He was man did not prevent His divine qualities from raising Him.

Regards.

That terminology is acceptable because notice the Apostles say Christ suffered than they explain it. They do not say Christ suffered in His humanity but His divinity was not present, or say in his human form Christ suffered but the Divine did not. The Apostles proclaim Christ suffered (the Union of both natures) and then explain it to us who want to dissect everything and say that Christ flesh suffered but His Divinity is present, but Divinity cannot suffer.

This is what we do in the O.O also we do not reject the 2 natures in Christ nor do we combine them into one mixed nature but rather when we speak of Him we speak of Him as One Christ.

Logged

"If I say, "My foot slips," Your mercy, O LORD, will hold me up. In the multitude of my anxieties within me, Your comforts delight my soul." Psalm 94:18-19
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,697



WWW
« Reply #136 on: December 15, 2013, 09:13:00 PM »

Saying that God died in His humanity still means that God died.

1 Peter 4 says: Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

Saying that Christ's suffering was in His flesh does not mean that He did not suffer. Saying that he suffered in His flesh does not mean that He is being split in half.

Again, 1 Peter 3 says:
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.

And Paul writes the same way:
2 Corinthians 13:4
For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God's power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God's power we will live with him in our dealing with you.

The divine qualities make him alive and his human qualities were those in which He suffered. He did not die in the divine quality, category, type, or nature, but in the weak, human one.

Otherwise, you are left with the problem Gebre asked about in the OP about how God's divine, immortal set of characteristics would be those through which He died.

Likewise, Paul writes that it is the Resurrection that proves Christ is God
in Rom. 1:4, saying He is:
declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead

In other words, the Resurrection proves that Christ has divine properties. Why? Because Self-Resurrection reflects a Divine quality. Self-Resurrection is not a normal quality of man. Thus, He rose in His Divinity. Nonetheless, as Pope Leo wrote, the two natures do cooperate in their activity. Thus, Christ, who is both God and man, was raised. The fact that He was man did not prevent His divine qualities from raising Him.

Regards.

That terminology is acceptable because notice the Apostles say Christ suffered than they explain it. They do not say Christ suffered in His humanity but His divinity was not present, or say in his human form Christ suffered but the Divine did not. The Apostles proclaim Christ suffered (the Union of both natures) and then explain it to us who want to dissect everything and say that Christ flesh suffered but His Divinity is present, but Divinity cannot suffer.
Christ had both sets of qualities (natures), and they were united in him. But that does not mean both sets of qualities were put into action in each instance. The act of dying was an act of his mortal quality, that is, it reflects his humanity. The act of dying is not a reflection of his immortality, which belongs to His divine nature.

The apostle specifies that Christ suffered in the flesh, but does not say that Christ suffered in His divine power. The apostle says Christ died in the flesh, but does not say He died in His divinity. In fact, the word "but" in phrase "died in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit" suggests that there is a contrast between the two. Namely, Christ's immortal soul did not die.

The apostle says that the act of self-resurrection proves He was divine. It does not prove He was a man, because man does not resurrect by himself. Thus, the self-resurrection was a reflection of His divinity in particular and was not a reflection of his normal human qualities.

The apostle says that Christ was crucified in weakness. Weakness is a human quality, but not a divine one. The apostle does not say Christ was crucified in His divine power. The apostle adds the word "yet" showing that there is a contrast again. The crucifixion in weakness contrasts with the resurrection "in power". It's a divine power. Thus, the resurrection again was a reflection of Christ's divine powers.

As a result, some things Christ did show that He had human nature, and He performed those activities using that human nature. Thus, for example the acts of weakness, being crucified, suffering, and dying all were done within His human properties but they did not use His divine properties like His immortality. His immortality was not involved in that.

Let me give another example. A tadpole developing into a frog has an ability to use gills and lungs. Sometimes it will use the qualities of an aquatic animal, while other times it will use the qualities of an air breathing animal. Thus, if something has more than one nature, it does not always put all of its natures to use.

Regards.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,391


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #137 on: December 15, 2013, 11:21:20 PM »


This question made me pull out On The Incarnation by St. Athanasius.

"Thus it happened that two opposite marvels took place at once: the death of all was consummated in the Lord's body; yet because the Word was in it, death and corruption were in the same act utterly abolished."


Thanks to everyone for the answers and the enlightening discussion. Although I confess that most of this was way over my head. This quote from St. Athanasius has sort of settled it for me, I think. Here's how I have it worked out in my simple mind:

Yes, God died. But in dying God destroyed death. So it's a divine paradox. God's death destroyed death. He truly died in every sense of the word, while simultaneously proving that death had no power over Him.

Is that a proper Orthodox understanding of it?



So is this acceptable?


Selam
Yes.

Good. Then that's my story and I'm sticking to it!  Smiley


Selam
Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,820


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #138 on: December 16, 2013, 12:00:06 AM »

A comment using the M word was moved to the private forum:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,55506.0.html
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 02:31:09 AM by Salpy » Logged

rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,697



WWW
« Reply #139 on: December 16, 2013, 01:14:37 AM »

A comment using the M word was moved to the private forum:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,55506.0.html
The M word in that case was meant by me to refer to actual Mon_____s. No offense meant, only humor.
Logged
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,820


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #140 on: December 16, 2013, 02:30:12 AM »

A comment using the M word was moved to the private forum:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,55506.0.html
The M word in that case was meant by me to refer to actual Mon_____s. No offense meant, only humor.


If you want to use the word as part of a joke, the joke has to be obvious.   Smiley
Logged

Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #141 on: December 16, 2013, 01:35:08 PM »

And Christ's body was broken, therefore saw corruption.

What exactly do you mean by this?  The NT rejects both of these assertions...are you talking about something other than what it is talking about?

I meant what I said. It's not hard. If Christ's body wasn't broken what was he showing Thomas again? Corruption means broken (broken intensely I guess to more precise), getting crucified and stuck with a sword would count as getting my body rather intensely broken.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

"Incorrupt" (=aphtharton), as used in the hymnography in reference to Christ's body, usually refers to the fact that he did not decompose (he did not have time to, because he rose so soon afterward). This fact then gets used as a colorful illustration of the fact that his eventual triumph over death was inevitable.

But I'm very surprised to see theologically educated people here apparently defending the notion that he had an incorruptible body. It is so patently absurd... am I reading you people wrong?

So the Lord's body has the same properties before and after his resurrection?

No, obvs? Where'd you dig that one up?
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #142 on: December 16, 2013, 01:42:40 PM »

I understand your objection, and certainly there is a danger in pushing analogies or concepts too far.  But, if I'm understanding Romaios correctly, he's really not saying anything different from what we already sing to Christ in the Trisagion: "Holy Immortal, crucified for us". 

Pushing it too far would be to say that His divinity suffered/died ("God suffered/died" is orthodox and we confess it in the Creed). But that's non-sense talk, anyway, after the Incarnation - natures don't act, persons (hypostases) do.

Yes, what you sing in the Trisagion is exactly what I meant. Though I could never sing it that way...  Wink But we do have the O Monogenes in common.  
exactly.  And it states "...Word of God...became incarnate...and without change did become crucified for us O Christ Our God..."

As you say, natures do not act, persons do. So His divinity did not die, though His person, by the communication of this idioms, through His humanity did.

How are you getting "and without change did become crucified for us" out of atreptos enanthropesas?

(never mind why they chose to phrase it "did become crucified.")
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #143 on: December 16, 2013, 01:49:57 PM »

And Christ's body was broken, therefore saw corruption.

What exactly do you mean by this?  The NT rejects both of these assertions...are you talking about something other than what it is talking about?

I meant what I said. It's not hard. If Christ's body wasn't broken what was he showing Thomas again? Corruption means broken (broken intensely I guess to more precise), getting crucified and stuck with a sword would count as getting my body rather intensely broken.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

"Incorrupt" (=aphtharton), as used in the hymnography in reference to Christ's body, usually refers to the fact that he did not decompose (he did not have time to, because he rose so soon afterward). This fact then gets used as a colorful illustration of the fact that his eventual triumph over death was inevitable.

But I'm very surprised to see theologically educated people here apparently defending the notion that he had an incorruptible body. It is so patently absurd... am I reading you people wrong?
I think the confusion is people think for a word to have meaning it must have a referent. Take a dragon for example, we both cannot pick this out right? We can get it from movies, TV, paintings, etc. but that is only referencing the image of the dragon. This is why I chuckle at people like El Bee Kay and others who are nothing more than image worshipers, yeah you believe in the image of Christ's corruptible body, but not the actual thing.

If I say Christ exists however He is nonidentical to the actual material, divine and human, from which He is composed of. To simplify, suppose there are yellow canaries, well yellowness doesn't exist. It can never exist. We would have to gather all yellow canaries, but before that we need to know what is yellow. But yellow canaries can exist and not be related to its compositional material. I don't think canaries have any non-relational properties though. If we take my McDonald's cup that is on my computer desk right now, it is something I take a drink from. If we take a spear and drive it into Christ's side while he hung from the cross, we break him. He was broken even before that.

I think this ridiculous gymnastics IoanC engages in that Christ supersedes our human logic is bordering on some terrible misuse of what mystical is. Why should Christ transcend our human logic? That makes no sense, especially if He is to be a person.

^^The prophecy of Norm has been fulfilled!
If you talk to a non-sophisticate (if someone of your erudition know such folks), ask them in a plain way about "universals". If green exists? And wait for their answer.

And I never did become fully believing in the omniscience of logical systems anyway.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #144 on: December 16, 2013, 02:00:08 PM »

And Christ's body was broken, therefore saw corruption.

What exactly do you mean by this?  The NT rejects both of these assertions...are you talking about something other than what it is talking about?

I meant what I said. It's not hard. If Christ's body wasn't broken what was he showing Thomas again? Corruption means broken (broken intensely I guess to more precise), getting crucified and stuck with a sword would count as getting my body rather intensely broken.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

"Incorrupt" (=aphtharton), as used in the hymnography in reference to Christ's body, usually refers to the fact that he did not decompose (he did not have time to, because he rose so soon afterward). This fact then gets used as a colorful illustration of the fact that his eventual triumph over death was inevitable.

But I'm very surprised to see theologically educated people here apparently defending the notion that he had an incorruptible body. It is so patently absurd... am I reading you people wrong?

Since I'm quoted above, I presume I'm one of the "people" you have in mind.  

My only point in the quoted post was that the NT specifically quotes OT prophecy to state that a) Christ was not broken and b) did not see corruption.  This need not require, explicitly or implicitly, that Christ have an incorruptible body anymore than the virginal conception and birth mean he was not really human.  Speaking personally, this is an instance where I'd rather not depart from the language of Scripture because I don't know if its testimony is a matter of primitive people's misunderstanding of the biology of death, a miraculous phenomenon associated with the end of Christ's earthly life paralleling those associated with its beginning, or something else.      

Regarding the claim that Christ's body "did not have time" to decompose in the grave, I'm not sure I agree.  I'm no physician, but I've been at the bedside of a couple of relatives as they died, and corruption seems to set in pretty quickly.  My grandmother's death is more vivid since it was only a few years ago.  She died shortly before 2pm.  While her body lay in the hospital bed, we waited for the priest and other family members to come.  The hospital administration was patient with us, but after three or four hours had passed, the smell of her decomposition became noticeable to others on the floor (we didn't notice it so much, I guess, because we never left the room, and so we got accustomed to it) and was disturbing patients getting around to their evening meal, so we had to summon the funeral directors to take and prepare her body.  My grandmother died a bit more peacefully than Christ, but if corruption set in after a few hours in a climate controlled hospital room in 2008, I'm pretty sure Christ's starved, stressed, scourged, beaten, crucified, and stabbed body had a chance to corrupt in the conditions to which he was exposed (outdoors, first century Palestinian springtime, no time to prepare the body for burial, etc.).  Yet, Scripture speaks of it in a certain way, and my preference is to stick to this language: I don't think this automatically puts me at odds with St Severus and the other holy fathers.    

It only says his bones were not broken. And I'm still not sure in what sense you think his body "did not see corruption."

I think it's still plausible that Christian writers had decomposition in mind when they invoked the "no corruption" OT verses, since although the body doubtless did become smelling, they would not have seen any signs of the body falling apart. The neighboring Egyptians for sure were bent on stopping the rotting process.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,311


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #145 on: December 16, 2013, 03:31:28 PM »

It only says his bones were not broken. And I'm still not sure in what sense you think his body "did not see corruption."

I think it's still plausible that Christian writers had decomposition in mind when they invoked the "no corruption" OT verses, since although the body doubtless did become smelling, they would not have seen any signs of the body falling apart. The neighboring Egyptians for sure were bent on stopping the rotting process.

Maybe I'm missing something, or am otherwise not able to follow you.  If so, please help me. 

Orthonorm made the claim that Christ's body was broken and therefore saw corruption.  I responded with the assertion that the NT rejects both of those claims and asked if he meant it in a different way, and he affirmed he meant it as he wrote it. 

You, then, responded that "incorrupt" usually means "did not decompose", and that Christ did not have time to decompose.  My response to this was that, basically, human decomposition begins shortly after death (if Wiki is to be believed, it begins immediately after death), and so I'm not sure I accept that argument.  In response, you claim that what Christian writers had in mind was that the body did not fall apart, even if it began to smell. 

Is there any support for the idea that "decomposition", in the mind of the NT authors, only or primarily referred to the falling apart of the body?  That the people of the time did not consider the foul smell of a dead body to be "decomposition" (even if we understand it to be a stage in the process today)?  How, if at all, does Jn 11.39 factor into this?  Also, if the OT only speaks of the bones not being broken, does it follow that they would have understood a pierced body to have been broken?  Or does the reference to the bones really refer to the whole?  Certainly, that's not impossible: Ps 103.1 in Syriac reads "Bless the Lord, my soul, and all my bones bless his holy name", but I don't think the intent here is that the flesh need not bother (I can't read Hebrew, so I can't say whether this is unique to Syriac or not).   

I don't really have an opinion of my own regarding how Christ's body "did not see corruption"--armchair autopsies not being my thing, I've been content to use the Scriptural language.  Since I'm now having to think about it a bit more, I'm trying to understand your argument and, if my knowledge in this area is lacking, better comprehend any underlying issues.   
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #146 on: December 16, 2013, 03:51:02 PM »

It only says his bones were not broken. And I'm still not sure in what sense you think his body "did not see corruption."

I think it's still plausible that Christian writers had decomposition in mind when they invoked the "no corruption" OT verses, since although the body doubtless did become smelling, they would not have seen any signs of the body falling apart. The neighboring Egyptians for sure were bent on stopping the rotting process.

Maybe I'm missing something, or am otherwise not able to follow you.  If so, please help me. 

Orthonorm made the claim that Christ's body was broken and therefore saw corruption.  I responded with the assertion that the NT rejects both of those claims and asked if he meant it in a different way, and he affirmed he meant it as he wrote it. 

Hold up homeslice, the NT agrees with me. Unless you are willing to say that somehow getting nailed to a cross and pierced with a sword doesn't break your body. The later poetic understanding to read the crucifixion in light of what the Church saw as messianic texts in the OT is something else, so that has no bearing here. There corruption takes on another meaning which has nothing to do with what happened on Calvary.

I meant corruption as I meant it. To be broken, a lot. Which is what both crucifixion and getting jabbed with swords are.

You never answered my question, what did Thomas demand to place his hands into? You can't have wounds you stick hands into if you are not broken outside poetical discourse.   

Or do you think Christ's body remained intact and formed itself around the nails and sword to make it appear as though his body had been penetrated or broken?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #147 on: December 16, 2013, 03:54:20 PM »

It only says his bones were not broken. And I'm still not sure in what sense you think his body "did not see corruption."

I think it's still plausible that Christian writers had decomposition in mind when they invoked the "no corruption" OT verses, since although the body doubtless did become smelling, they would not have seen any signs of the body falling apart. The neighboring Egyptians for sure were bent on stopping the rotting process.

Maybe I'm missing something, or am otherwise not able to follow you.  If so, please help me. 

Orthonorm made the claim that Christ's body was broken and therefore saw corruption.  I responded with the assertion that the NT rejects both of those claims and asked if he meant it in a different way, and he affirmed he meant it as he wrote it. 

You, then, responded that "incorrupt" usually means "did not decompose", and that Christ did not have time to decompose.  My response to this was that, basically, human decomposition begins shortly after death (if Wiki is to be believed, it begins immediately after death), and so I'm not sure I accept that argument.  In response, you claim that what Christian writers had in mind was that the body did not fall apart, even if it began to smell. 

Is there any support for the idea that "decomposition", in the mind of the NT authors, only or primarily referred to the falling apart of the body?  That the people of the time did not consider the foul smell of a dead body to be "decomposition" (even if we understand it to be a stage in the process today)?  How, if at all, does Jn 11.39 factor into this?  Also, if the OT only speaks of the bones not being broken, does it follow that they would have understood a pierced body to have been broken?  Or does the reference to the bones really refer to the whole?  Certainly, that's not impossible: Ps 103.1 in Syriac reads "Bless the Lord, my soul, and all my bones bless his holy name", but I don't think the intent here is that the flesh need not bother (I can't read Hebrew, so I can't say whether this is unique to Syriac or not).   

I don't really have an opinion of my own regarding how Christ's body "did not see corruption"--armchair autopsies not being my thing, I've been content to use the Scriptural language.  Since I'm now having to think about it a bit more, I'm trying to understand your argument and, if my knowledge in this area is lacking, better comprehend any underlying issues.   

Oh wait I forgot:

Quote
This is my body which is [size=1000000000pt]broken[/size] for you...

I wonder why?

Quote
...for the remission of sins.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #148 on: December 16, 2013, 04:05:32 PM »

It only says his bones were not broken. And I'm still not sure in what sense you think his body "did not see corruption."

I think it's still plausible that Christian writers had decomposition in mind when they invoked the "no corruption" OT verses, since although the body doubtless did become smelling, they would not have seen any signs of the body falling apart. The neighboring Egyptians for sure were bent on stopping the rotting process.

Maybe I'm missing something, or am otherwise not able to follow you.  If so, please help me. 

Orthonorm made the claim that Christ's body was broken and therefore saw corruption.  I responded with the assertion that the NT rejects both of those claims and asked if he meant it in a different way, and he affirmed he meant it as he wrote it. 

You, then, responded that "incorrupt" usually means "did not decompose", and that Christ did not have time to decompose.  My response to this was that, basically, human decomposition begins shortly after death (if Wiki is to be believed, it begins immediately after death), and so I'm not sure I accept that argument.  In response, you claim that what Christian writers had in mind was that the body did not fall apart, even if it began to smell. 

Is there any support for the idea that "decomposition", in the mind of the NT authors, only or primarily referred to the falling apart of the body?  That the people of the time did not consider the foul smell of a dead body to be "decomposition" (even if we understand it to be a stage in the process today)?  How, if at all, does Jn 11.39 factor into this?  Also, if the OT only speaks of the bones not being broken, does it follow that they would have understood a pierced body to have been broken?  Or does the reference to the bones really refer to the whole?  Certainly, that's not impossible: Ps 103.1 in Syriac reads "Bless the Lord, my soul, and all my bones bless his holy name", but I don't think the intent here is that the flesh need not bother (I can't read Hebrew, so I can't say whether this is unique to Syriac or not).   

I don't really have an opinion of my own regarding how Christ's body "did not see corruption"--armchair autopsies not being my thing, I've been content to use the Scriptural language.  Since I'm now having to think about it a bit more, I'm trying to understand your argument and, if my knowledge in this area is lacking, better comprehend any underlying issues.   

Oh wait I forgot:

Quote
This is my body which is [size=1000000000pt]broken[/size] for you...

I wonder why?

Quote
...for the remission of sins.

Then there is that.

Really, I was confused by Gebre's question. It sounds like he wanted to work out a problem for himself. I thought for him that problem was within the context of apologetics of people outside the Church. Nick evidently was correct and I was wrong. So I didn't think bringing up liturgical forms of understanding history would make much sense. Eventually you have to get there, but I thought we were speaking on more of an introductory basis thus having to remain in the realm of what most people involved would agree with.

In any case, I am not sure if Mor is agreeing or disagreeing with my point now. God didn't die and God died. Christ was broken and he wasn't broken. But saying such understandings to those outside those in a community which believes such things amounts to speaking nonsense for the most part.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,311


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #149 on: December 16, 2013, 04:39:53 PM »

Hold up homeslice, the NT agrees with me. Unless you are willing to say that somehow getting nailed to a cross and pierced with a sword doesn't break your body. The later poetic understanding to read the crucifixion in light of what the Church saw as messianic texts in the OT is something else, so that has no bearing here. There corruption takes on another meaning which has nothing to do with what happened on Calvary.

I'm interested in how the NT uses terms, not how we want to use them.  Arguably, the process of decomposition begins at the moment of death, so in order to affirm that Christ died, we'd have to say he decomposed.  But we don't speak like that, and it's not simply a matter of poetry (e.g., you will note that I have not quoted any liturgical texts). 

Quote
You never answered my question, what did Thomas demand to place his hands into? You can't have wounds you stick hands into if you are not broken outside poetical discourse.

That wasn't a rhetorical question?  I thought it was...as if I don't know about St Thomas.  Tongue    

Quote
Or do you think Christ's body remained intact and formed itself around the nails and sword to make it appear as though his body had been penetrated or broken?

No. 
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,391


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #150 on: December 16, 2013, 04:43:30 PM »

God didn't die and God died. Christ was broken and he wasn't broken. But saying such understandings to those outside those in a community which believes such things amounts to speaking nonsense for the most part.

This is the simplicity that I like. I am content to acknowledge that the Mysteries of our Faith transcend rational scrutiny.


Selam
Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,311


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #151 on: December 16, 2013, 04:44:52 PM »

In any case, I am not sure if Mor is agreeing or disagreeing with my point now. God didn't die and God died. Christ was broken and he wasn't broken. But saying such understandings to those outside those in a community which believes such things amounts to speaking nonsense for the most part.

Even among those within the community, these things can sound like nonsense if we are not careful in how we say things, what we mean when using terms, etc.  I suspect we agree more than we disagree.    
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,311


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #152 on: December 16, 2013, 04:45:44 PM »

Oh wait I forgot:


I didn't forget.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Remnkemi
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 123


« Reply #153 on: December 16, 2013, 04:47:25 PM »

Good point. According to deacon Kuraev, this is one of the EO proofs that it is possible to speak of a human nature existing after the union into one. Namely, God experienced death, which reflects a mortal nature, rather than an immortal nature. You can say that the divine nature cooperated with the process, but the process itself was distinctly human. And as St. Cyril says, the human nature remains "distinct" even after the union.
Is deacon Kuraev suggesting that the divine nature took a back seat while the human process of death took place? Or was the divine nature responsible for some sort of rubber stamp cooperation? (I am specifically using this dictionary definition: "a mostly powerless yet officially recognized body or person that approves or endorses programs and policies initiated usually by a single specified source <the parliament was a rubber stamp for the dictator>")  How would deacon Kuraev explain the virginal birth? Is not birth normally a reflection of the mortal nature, not the divine nature? But the virginal birth is reflection of both natures, not just humanity. The virginal birth, just like Christ's life-giving death, is a reflection of both the mortal and immortal natures at once, as the quote from St Athanasius illustrates.
Logged
Pharaoh714
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Rite
Posts: 152


Lord Have Mercy! Christ Save me.


« Reply #154 on: December 16, 2013, 08:08:40 PM »

How would deacon Kuraev explain the virginal birth? Is not birth normally a reflection of the mortal nature, not the divine nature? But the virginal birth is reflection of both natures, not just humanity. The virginal birth, just like Christ's life-giving death, is a reflection of both the mortal and immortal natures at once, as the quote from St Athanasius illustrates.
Hi Remnkemi.

You asked a good question.

Kuraev did not mention the Virgin birth, but he explained about how there is not "one will only" this way:
Quote
If we ascribe "one God-man action" to the hypostasis, it turns out that Christ wanted to eat not with normal hunger of a human nature, but some kind of "divineman" desire, some desire that only Christ had. No - the desire of the nature, his attraction was common to makind, natural, and it was the hypostasis of the Logos that could decide to eat or not. The hypostasis has... the decision to follow or not to follow the will of a nature [such as a human one].
http://kuraev.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=38
He added that important examples are the ignorance of the date of Judgment and His fear before dying. It would be incorrect to ascribe both of them to a single will that is both divine and human, based on his view. The hypostasis acted through its nature onto its will and this will then created the activity. In that case, it was the human nature to fear and the will that went along with it was a human one.

Dcn. Kuraev notes:
"'Christ fears death but does not tremble, in order to show the properties of both natures. The diversity between the natural and anti-natural fear of death is clear and obvious for those who are judicious' explains John of the Ladder."

By the way, this goes along with my earlier claim that God died in order to clear things up for the Mo_____s.

Pope Leo's writing in the Tome is helpful:
Quote
This birth in time in no way detracted from, in no way added to, that divine and everlasting birth; but expended itself wholly in the work of restoring man, who had been deceived; so that it might both overcome death
This is an interesting moment. When we say that Christ was begotten, it actually has an interesting meaning. God the Father did create the Word, that is begot Him, as Christ comes from God. However, Christ existed before all ages. Now at what point was that creation of Christ? It was before all time and before Creation.

Additionally, there was also a birth in time. And that birth in the world was certainly miraculous, and miracles are done by God. For her part, the Virgin did conceive, and conception is a human act. An angel announced it to her beforehand, and the Holy Spirit caused this to occur. Thus, it was God acting on man. And man carried out this act in accordance with the Divine will.


Regards.[/i]


To say the Word is Created is Heresy and is against the Nicean Creed. You can say like the Apostles that He took flesh but at no time did the Hypostasis of the Word became created He was born true God from true God or light from light, eternally spoken from God the Father, Begotten (Born) not Made (Created) of one essence with the Father.. for you to suggest other wise is heresy.  How can the Word of God be created when the Word is Eternal? Forgive me if I misunderstood what you are saying.
Logged

"If I say, "My foot slips," Your mercy, O LORD, will hold me up. In the multitude of my anxieties within me, Your comforts delight my soul." Psalm 94:18-19
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,697



WWW
« Reply #155 on: December 16, 2013, 08:22:55 PM »

To say the Word is Created is Heresy and is against the Nicean Creed. You can say like the Apostles that He took flesh but at no time did the Hypostasis of the Word became created He was born true God from true God or light from light, eternally spoken from God the Father, Begotten (Born) not Made (Created) of one essence with the Father.. for you to suggest other wise is heresy.  How can the Word of God be created when the Word is Eternal? Forgive me if I misunderstood what you are saying.
You and Remnkini are correct that we do not say the Word was "Created." I could not think of a better word to explain how God the Father produced Christ "before all ages". I tried to explain this by adding:
Quote
created, that is begot Him, as Christ comes from God. However, Christ existed before all ages. Now at what point was that creation of Christ? It was before all time and before Creation.
The problem with Arianism is that He saw Christ as being created as part of the Created world, as part of Creation. To distinguish ourselves from Arian, we do not say Christ was "created".

Actually, I personally think it might be OK to use the phrase as long as the person makes clear they are not talking about something as happening in the Created World. The reason I say that is because to beget something means to make, create, or produce something. This gets tougher because we say "begotten not made". What this means is that Christ came from God, but not as part of the Created world. On the other hand, Christ was even begotten before He became incarnate and His fleshly body was made.

If I were to go into my ideas further, I would just cite EO and OO websites to better explain what I mean. I do not have any special or unique ideas on this question, other than looking for synonyms for "beget." Kuraev and Pope Leo did not say J.C. was "created" either.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 08:23:34 PM by rakovsky » Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #156 on: December 16, 2013, 08:36:41 PM »

I disagree that the properties are commonly shared. The person has both properties, but the properties themselves remain perfectly unmixed. Furthermore, Christ's divine nature needs nothing from the human. He only took it on for our benefit.

Quote from: Hebrews 2
It was fitting that God, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many children to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters, 12 saying,

‘I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters,
    in the midst of the congregation I will praise you.’

13 And again,

‘I will put my trust in him.’

And again,

‘Here am I and the children whom God has given me.’

14 Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death. 16 For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters[n] in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested.

You are reading it wrongly. He as a person shared the same things. It doesn't say that His divine nature can actually suffer.

That's because natures can't suffer.  Persons suffer.  And Christ was a person who was divine.  And He suffered.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,820


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #157 on: December 16, 2013, 11:13:43 PM »

To say the Word is Created is Heresy and is against the Nicean Creed. You can say like the Apostles that He took flesh but at no time did the Hypostasis of the Word became created He was born true God from true God or light from light, eternally spoken from God the Father, Begotten (Born) not Made (Created) of one essence with the Father.. for you to suggest other wise is heresy.  How can the Word of God be created when the Word is Eternal? Forgive me if I misunderstood what you are saying.
You and Remnkini are correct that we do not say the Word was "Created." I could not think of a better word to explain how God the Father produced Christ "before all ages". I tried to explain this by adding:
Quote
created, that is begot Him, as Christ comes from God. However, Christ existed before all ages. Now at what point was that creation of Christ? It was before all time and before Creation.
The problem with Arianism is that He saw Christ as being created as part of the Created world, as part of Creation. To distinguish ourselves from Arian, we do not say Christ was "created".

Actually, I personally think it might be OK to use the phrase as long as the person makes clear they are not talking about something as happening in the Created World. The reason I say that is because to beget something means to make, create, or produce something. This gets tougher because we say "begotten not made". What this means is that Christ came from God, but not as part of the Created world. On the other hand, Christ was even begotten before He became incarnate and His fleshly body was made.

If I were to go into my ideas further, I would just cite EO and OO websites to better explain what I mean. I do not have any special or unique ideas on this question, other than looking for synonyms for "beget." Kuraev and Pope Leo did not say J.C. was "created" either.


You are better off never using the word "created" in relation to Christ, regardless of what you mean by it.  It is something that Orthodox Christians never do.  He was never created.  Period.  He was not created either inside or outside the Created World.  He was not created before time or after time.  He was not created.

The word "begotten" is what the Scriptures and Fathers used to indicate Christ's relationship to His Father. 

We don't know what that means.  Don't try to define it.  It's just the word that is used.  It's actually beyond our understanding.  Don't go there.

It's like the word "proceed" for the Holy Spirit.  We don't know what it means.  It just indicates the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Father.  Don't try to define it.  Don't go there.

I was once told by a deacon in my Church that in the Armenian Tradition we try to use as little language as possible to describe God.  He is a mystery.  The Holy Trinity is a mystery.  Don't over-define.
Logged

Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,391


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #158 on: December 16, 2013, 11:25:31 PM »

To say the Word is Created is Heresy and is against the Nicean Creed. You can say like the Apostles that He took flesh but at no time did the Hypostasis of the Word became created He was born true God from true God or light from light, eternally spoken from God the Father, Begotten (Born) not Made (Created) of one essence with the Father.. for you to suggest other wise is heresy.  How can the Word of God be created when the Word is Eternal? Forgive me if I misunderstood what you are saying.
You and Remnkini are correct that we do not say the Word was "Created." I could not think of a better word to explain how God the Father produced Christ "before all ages". I tried to explain this by adding:
Quote
created, that is begot Him, as Christ comes from God. However, Christ existed before all ages. Now at what point was that creation of Christ? It was before all time and before Creation.
The problem with Arianism is that He saw Christ as being created as part of the Created world, as part of Creation. To distinguish ourselves from Arian, we do not say Christ was "created".

Actually, I personally think it might be OK to use the phrase as long as the person makes clear they are not talking about something as happening in the Created World. The reason I say that is because to beget something means to make, create, or produce something. This gets tougher because we say "begotten not made". What this means is that Christ came from God, but not as part of the Created world. On the other hand, Christ was even begotten before He became incarnate and His fleshly body was made.

If I were to go into my ideas further, I would just cite EO and OO websites to better explain what I mean. I do not have any special or unique ideas on this question, other than looking for synonyms for "beget." Kuraev and Pope Leo did not say J.C. was "created" either.


You are better off never using the word "created" in relation to Christ, regardless of what you mean by it.  It is something that Orthodox Christians never do.  He was never created.  Period.  He was not created either inside or outside the Created World.  He was not created before time or after time.  He was not created.

The word "begotten" is what the Scriptures and Fathers used to indicate Christ's relationship to His Father. 

We don't know what that means.  Don't try to define it.  It's just the word that is used.  It's actually beyond our understanding.  Don't go there.

It's like the word "proceed" for the Holy Spirit.  We don't know what it means.  It just indicates the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Father.  Don't try to define it.  Don't go there.

I was once told by a deacon in my Church that in the Armenian Tradition we try to use as little language as possible to describe God.  He is a mystery.  The Holy Trinity is a mystery.  Don't over-define.


+1


Selam
Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,697



WWW
« Reply #159 on: December 16, 2013, 11:36:48 PM »

You are reading it wrongly. He as a person shared the same things. It doesn't say that His divine nature can actually suffer.
That's because natures can't suffer.  Persons suffer.  And Christ was a person who was divine.  And He suffered.
James and Ioan,

You are both reading it right about what it means when we say suffering "in" his human nature. A nature means a set of qualities or classification.

Thus we read how Hosea 13:11 says: "I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath."

Anger is a quality here. It says that God was anger, and God acted in this quality. That is, his act of giving a king was in accordance with his anger, He acted in this way, etc.

This is similar to what we mean that Christ suffered "in" His human nature, or set of qualities, classification, etc.

It is like saying that even though the flowers die in the winter, they bloom again in their perenniel nature.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,059


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #160 on: December 16, 2013, 11:41:53 PM »

The word "begotten" is what the Scriptures and Fathers used to indicate Christ's relationship to His Father. 

We don't know what that means.  Don't try to define it.  It's just the word that is used. 

"I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him ... but I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore."
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,697



WWW
« Reply #161 on: December 16, 2013, 11:44:55 PM »

You are better off never using the word "created" in relation to Christ, regardless of what you mean by it.  It is something that Orthodox Christians never do.  He was never created.  Period.  He was not created either inside or outside the Created World.  He was not created before time or after time.  He was not created.


Quote
Justin Martyr (C. 160) explains before the ages of all ages means that the Lord Jesus Christ existed from the beginning of all things. "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning; before He formed the earth...You perceive that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created. Now, everyone will admit that He who is begotten is numerically distinct from Him who begets."

Alexander of Alexandria wrote:
"How can He be made of things that are not, when the Father says, 'My heart belched forth a good Word?' And, 'from the womb, before the morning, I have begotten you?"

Bishop Youssef
Bishop, Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States
http://suscopts.org/resources/literature/793/before-the-ages-of-all-ages/
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 11:48:01 PM by rakovsky » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,311


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #162 on: December 16, 2013, 11:54:42 PM »

Rakovsky,

That first Scriptural reference in St Justin is actually referring to wisdom; allegorically, it refers to Christ, and the Church reiterated this over the objections of people like Arius who would see in such passages validation of their own teaching that Christ was created (hence the anathema at the end of the Nicene Creed). 

Re: the second quote, try reading it again.  It is basically making this same point. 
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #163 on: December 17, 2013, 12:06:50 AM »

Rakovsky,

That first Scriptural reference in St Justin is actually referring to wisdom; allegorically, it refers to Christ, and the Church reiterated this over the objections of people like Arius who would see in such passages validation of their own teaching that Christ was created (hence the anathema at the end of the Nicene Creed). 

Re: the second quote, try reading it again.  It is basically making this same point. 

All OT prophecies were originally referring to something other than what Christians later typologically interpreted it as referring to.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,697



WWW
« Reply #164 on: December 17, 2013, 01:54:25 AM »

Mor,

You can be right, however this is clearly the meaning I get from what the Coptic bishop is saying:
Quote
Justin Martyr (C. 160) explains before the ages of all ages means that the Lord Jesus Christ existed from the beginning of all things. "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning; before He formed the earth...You perceive that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created. Now, everyone will admit that He who is begotten is numerically distinct from Him who begets."

Alexander of Alexandria wrote:
"How can He be made of things that are not, when the Father says, 'My heart belched forth a good Word?' And, 'from the womb, before the morning, I have begotten you?"

Bishop Youssef
Bishop, Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States
http://suscopts.org/resources/literature/793/before-the-ages-of-all-ages/
Whose existence from the beginning is the Bishop talking about? Jesus'. Whose creation is discussed by Justin? "His". Now His can mean wisdom, but at least taken by itself, the article from the Coptic Bishop does not mention that. In fact I did not even know the passage was from Proverbs until I looked it up. I am sure if you show this passage to others they will also think that the Bishop is using the passage to talk about Jesus.

I get that proverbs was not originally about Jesus literally. But in any case, the Bishop is talking about Jesus' origination and points to a passage about something or someone being created in order to ive the reader a description of the process of His origination.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 01:55:25 AM by rakovsky » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,311


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #165 on: December 17, 2013, 02:07:37 AM »

Mor,

You can be right, however this is clearly the meaning I get from what the Coptic bishop is saying...

...

Whose existence from the beginning is the Bishop talking about? Jesus'. Whose creation is discussed by Justin? "His". Now His can mean wisdom, but at least taken by itself, the article from the Coptic Bishop does not mention that. In fact I did not even know the passage was from Proverbs until I looked it up. I am sure if you show this passage to others they will also think that the Bishop is using the passage to talk about Jesus.

I get that proverbs was not originally about Jesus literally. But in any case, the Bishop is talking about Jesus' origination and points to a passage about something or someone being created in order to ive the reader a description of the process of His origination.

Only if you selectively quote from a larger piece, read out of context, and interpret according to your own faulty theological ideas. 

IOW, try again.  Or better yet, find another hobby. 
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,391


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #166 on: December 17, 2013, 02:18:45 AM »

I have a Muslim friend and a Jehovah's Witness friend. They both read through this thread. It convinced the Jehovah's Witness to become a Muslim, and the Muslim to become a Jehovah's Witness.


Selam
Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,820


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #167 on: December 17, 2013, 02:23:36 AM »

Posts referring to a post moved to the private forum were moved to the private forum:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,55506.new.html#new
Logged

Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,820


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #168 on: December 17, 2013, 02:27:45 AM »

Mor,

You can be right, however this is clearly the meaning I get from what the Coptic bishop is saying...

...

Whose existence from the beginning is the Bishop talking about? Jesus'. Whose creation is discussed by Justin? "His". Now His can mean wisdom, but at least taken by itself, the article from the Coptic Bishop does not mention that. In fact I did not even know the passage was from Proverbs until I looked it up. I am sure if you show this passage to others they will also think that the Bishop is using the passage to talk about Jesus.

I get that proverbs was not originally about Jesus literally. But in any case, the Bishop is talking about Jesus' origination and points to a passage about something or someone being created in order to ive the reader a description of the process of His origination.

Only if you selectively quote from a larger piece, read out of context, and interpret according to your own faulty theological ideas. 

IOW, try again.  Or better yet, find another hobby. 


Good advice.

Rakovsky, maybe you should discuss these issues with your priest for a while before posting more on them.  This stuff is pretty difficult.  I know I don't really understand it.  I believe it's better not to post something, than to post something that may lead people astray.
Logged

Pharaoh714
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Rite
Posts: 152


Lord Have Mercy! Christ Save me.


« Reply #169 on: December 17, 2013, 04:39:44 AM »

To say the Word is Created is Heresy and is against the Nicean Creed. You can say like the Apostles that He took flesh but at no time did the Hypostasis of the Word became created He was born true God from true God or light from light, eternally spoken from God the Father, Begotten (Born) not Made (Created) of one essence with the Father.. for you to suggest other wise is heresy.  How can the Word of God be created when the Word is Eternal? Forgive me if I misunderstood what you are saying.
You and Remnkini are correct that we do not say the Word was "Created." I could not think of a better word to explain how God the Father produced Christ "before all ages". I tried to explain this by adding:
Quote
created, that is begot Him, as Christ comes from God. However, Christ existed before all ages. Now at what point was that creation of Christ? It was before all time and before Creation.
The problem with Arianism is that He saw Christ as being created as part of the Created world, as part of Creation. To distinguish ourselves from Arian, we do not say Christ was "created".

Actually, I personally think it might be OK to use the phrase as long as the person makes clear they are not talking about something as happening in the Created World. The reason I say that is because to beget something means to make, create, or produce something. This gets tougher because we say "begotten not made". What this means is that Christ came from God, but not as part of the Created world. On the other hand, Christ was even begotten before He became incarnate and His fleshly body was made.

If I were to go into my ideas further, I would just cite EO and OO websites to better explain what I mean. I do not have any special or unique ideas on this question, other than looking for synonyms for "beget." Kuraev and Pope Leo did not say J.C. was "created" either.


You are better off never using the word "created" in relation to Christ, regardless of what you mean by it.  It is something that Orthodox Christians never do.  He was never created.  Period.  He was not created either inside or outside the Created World.  He was not created before time or after time.  He was not created.

The word "begotten" is what the Scriptures and Fathers used to indicate Christ's relationship to His Father. 

We don't know what that means.  Don't try to define it.  It's just the word that is used.  It's actually beyond our understanding.  Don't go there.

It's like the word "proceed" for the Holy Spirit.  We don't know what it means.  It just indicates the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Father.  Don't try to define it.  Don't go there.

I was once told by a deacon in my Church that in the Armenian Tradition we try to use as little language as possible to describe God.  He is a mystery.  The Holy Trinity is a mystery.  Don't over-define.



God's light shines on you. Christ is not created nor was there a time where the Logos [Word] wasn't. Christ is begotten (Born) not like humans give birth  but born Light from Light. Just like the heat and light of the Sun always flow from the core, likewise the Word and Holy Spirit eternally flow from the Father. The Son is eternally spoken, always is, not created, unique, eternal, God. The Holy Spirit is God, always is, not created, eternal, unique and is always proceeding (flowing) from the Father. The Father, Son, H.S share the same Essence.

To suggest that the H.S or the Word was created or at one time did not exist is Heresy! and blasphemy against God.
Logged

"If I say, "My foot slips," Your mercy, O LORD, will hold me up. In the multitude of my anxieties within me, Your comforts delight my soul." Psalm 94:18-19
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,697



WWW
« Reply #170 on: December 17, 2013, 05:02:53 AM »

Quote
I get that proverbs was not originally about Jesus literally. But in any case, the Bishop is talking about Jesus' origination and points to a passage about something or someone being created in order to give the reader a description of the process of His origination.
Only if you selectively quote from a larger piece, read out of context, and interpret according to your own faulty theological ideas.  

IOW, try again.

OK, I will try again.

The context is about trying to understand what it means that Jesus was begotten before all ages. I go in trying to avoid presuppositions about the passage's theology. The goal is to see who or what it suggests was "created".

Here is how the article begins:

Quote
Before the Ages of All Ages

The Glorious Feast of the Holy Nativity commemorates the birth of the Infant Child, Jesus, who was in existence before all the ages. His being before all beginnings verifies the Lord Jesus Christ's omniscience, His perpetual "I am" from everlasting to everlasting. Micah the prophet proclaimed: "'But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.'" (Micah 5:2).

It is important to understand that the Glorious Nativity ushered to our world, Christ the Child who existed before all the creations and all the ages; before the sun, moon, and stars were created.

Justin Martyr (C. 160) explains before the ages of all ages means that the Lord Jesus Christ existed from the beginning of all things. "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning; before He formed the earth...You perceive that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created. Now, everyone will admit that He who is begotten is numerically distinct from Him who begets."
1. Justin Martyr is said to be talking about how Christ "existed from the beginning".
The next sentence is a quote by Justin Martyr that speaks of "me" being created "the beginning of His ways". Then it says that this "me" was established "in the beginning".

2. Regardless of who the "Me" is, note that "Me" is created  "from everlasting" and before the earth. Might it be referring to something that was created before "Creation"?

3. The next sentence then talks about this Offspring coming into being before all things created. Might that have something to do with "Me", who is created before the earth?

4. Is there a relationship between the two sentences about the creation of "me" before the earth and the sentences that come before or after it, which both talk about Christ and when He existed "from the beginning"?

5. After citing from Proverbs about the creation of "Me", Justin concludes about this verse: "the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father". Since the Scripture in question is the passage from Proverbs about "Me", doesn't Justin mean that the passage about creation is a passage about God begetting Offspring?

6. Considering the possibility that "Me" actually refers to God's Wisdom or Holy Spirit as you said, would you say God "created" the Holy Spirit, even though it was from everlasting? For what it's worth, we say the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

In conclusion, I still think that the passage is written so that it sounds like "Me" who is created is Christ. However, I think the passage's direct meaning is about Wisdom. And seeing that later in the article the author associates Wisdom with the Spirit- and you pointed in this direction in your reply, it is confusing what it would mean about Wisdom being created.

Anyway, I am basically defending my past use of the word "created". I do not think it is a very good word to use, and agree with you and Salpy about that. The term we use is "beget", although it seems to me that some other things could be said, like originate.

In any case, I wish you the best.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 05:03:45 AM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,697



WWW
« Reply #171 on: December 17, 2013, 05:15:17 AM »

Rakovsky,

That first Scriptural reference in St Justin is actually referring to wisdom; allegorically, it refers to Christ, and the Church reiterated this over the objections of people like Arius who would see in such passages validation of their own teaching that Christ was created (hence the anathema at the end of the Nicene Creed). 

Re: the second quote, try reading it again.  It is basically making this same point. 
In fact, you are right that in reality Proverbs was talking about Wisdom. This is why it is strange that we cannot talk about Wisdom being created before all ages when Proverbs does.

I can tell why you encouraged me to look at the passage's context to see this. Bishop Youssef quotes:
Quote
"For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things. He speaks to this one, saying "Let US make man after OUR image and likeness..." (Irenaeus c. 180).
So just as the Son is the Word, the Spirit is Wisdom.

Then the bishop quotes Alexander of Alexandria as saying:
Quote
Furthermore, if the Son is the Word, Wisdom, and Reason of God, how can there be a time when He was not? It is the same as if they said there was a time when God was without reason and wisdom
So in that next passage, the Son is Wisdom, rather than the Word being Wisdom. Of course, whether Wisdom is the Spirit or the Son, it is still confusing that Wisdom could be created at some point in time, since Alexander asks how can there be any time without them? And as we know, the main complaint against using the word created is that some might take it to mean created at a moment in the created world.

Regards.
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: 12,674


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


« Reply #172 on: December 17, 2013, 03:06:41 PM »

I have a Muslim friend and a Jehovah's Witness friend. They both read through this thread. It convinced the Jehovah's Witness to become a Muslim, and the Muslim to become a Jehovah's Witness.


Selam

So, what's the difference?  One practically decided that Mohammed was a prophet, and another renounced Mohamed as a prophet.  What in this thread caused them to switch places?
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.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,311


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #173 on: December 17, 2013, 03:10:55 PM »

This is why it is strange that we cannot talk about Wisdom being created before all ages when Proverbs does.

Rakovsky,

Your problem is not with Bishop Youssef, but with the 318:

Quote
Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ὅτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, ἢ κτιστόν, τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία.

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

This should clarify the fact that allegorical interpretations of OT texts in the service of theology are just that--allegorical.  If they tell us anything about Christ, it is not necessarily a literal description. 

Quote
I can tell why you encouraged me to look at the passage's context to see this. Bishop Youssef quotes:
Quote
"For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things. He speaks to this one, saying "Let US make man after OUR image and likeness..." (Irenaeus c. 180).
So just as the Son is the Word, the Spirit is Wisdom.

Then the bishop quotes Alexander of Alexandria as saying:
Quote
Furthermore, if the Son is the Word, Wisdom, and Reason of God, how can there be a time when He was not? It is the same as if they said there was a time when God was without reason and wisdom
So in that next passage, the Son is Wisdom, rather than the Word being Wisdom. Of course, whether Wisdom is the Spirit or the Son, it is still confusing that Wisdom could be created at some point in time, since Alexander asks how can there be any time without them? And as we know, the main complaint against using the word created is that some might take it to mean created at a moment in the created world.

Regards.

I didn't direct you to Bishop Youssef's entire piece so that you could confuse yourself even more, but so that you could read it carefully, think about it, and try to understand it properly: not so that you could understand it in the way you are predisposed to interpret it because you think your understanding is the same as that of the holy fathers. 

This time, I'm not going to tell you to try again, I'm going to ask you to listen to Salpy.  Wink
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,391


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #174 on: December 17, 2013, 03:38:09 PM »

I have a Muslim friend and a Jehovah's Witness friend. They both read through this thread. It convinced the Jehovah's Witness to become a Muslim, and the Muslim to become a Jehovah's Witness.


Selam

So, what's the difference?  One practically decided that Mohammed was a prophet, and another renounced Mohamed as a prophet.  What in this thread caused them to switch places?

Sorry. It was just a silly joke.


Selam
Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,697



WWW
« Reply #175 on: December 17, 2013, 05:00:30 PM »

Your problem is not with Bishop Youssef, but with the 318:

This should clarify the fact that allegorical interpretations of OT texts in the service of theology are just that--allegorical.  If they tell us anything about Christ, it is not necessarily a literal description. 
I can see it being considered "allegorical" when Bishop Youssef and Justin Martyr attributed the Proverb to Christ being begotten before all ages. If that is what you meant, then this is also what I meant what I used it- as a figure of speech, as I explained "created, that is, begotten".

But now that you have called the 318 on me, I have to note that according to Athanasius' declaration against Arius, Bishop Youssef and I are both incorrect to relate Proverbs to Christ's origin from before Creation.
Quote
'Has then the passage (Proverbs about the creation of Me) no meaning?' ...No surely, it is not without meaning, but has a very apposite one (to saying it is about Christ's origin); for it is true to say that the Son was created too, but this took place when He became man; for creation belongs to man.

...as to the character, it is indeed the Saviour's, but is said of Him when He took a body and said, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways unto His works Proverbs 8:22.' For as it properly belongs to God's Son to be everlasting. and in the Father's bosom, so on His becoming man, the words befitted Him, 'The Lord created me.' For then it is said of Him, as also that He hungered, and thirsted, and asked where Lazarus lay, and suffered, and rose again. And as, when we hear of Him as Lord and God and true Light, we understand Him as being from the Father, so on hearing, 'The Lord created,' and 'Servant,' and 'He suffered,' we shall justly ascribe this, not to the Godhead, for it is irrelevant, but we must interpret it by that flesh which He bore for our sakes: for to it these things are proper, and this flesh was none other's than the Word's.
Here, Athanasius makes a remarkable confirmation of the Tome of Leo and Duophysitism, when he writes: "on hearing, 'He suffered,' we shall justly ascribe this, not to the Godhead"

So Yes, Christ was created, as Athanasius explained when he disagreed with Arius, however this creation was part of his birth and incarnation in the world, and this reflect that He had a fully human nature, and that some activities are to be ascribed to His flesh and not to His divinity.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,311


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #176 on: December 17, 2013, 06:13:28 PM »

Here, Athanasius makes a remarkable confirmation of the Tome of Leo and Duophysitism, when he writes: "on hearing, 'He suffered,' we shall justly ascribe this, not to the Godhead"

LOL.  St Athanasius confirms a document composed nearly eight decades after his death?  Nice. 

Do you have the Greek text of this quotation?
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,697



WWW
« Reply #177 on: December 17, 2013, 06:39:38 PM »

Here, Athanasius makes a remarkable confirmation of the Tome of Leo and Duophysitism, when he writes: "on hearing, 'He suffered,' we shall justly ascribe this, not to the Godhead"
LOL.  St Athanasius confirms a document composed nearly eight decades after his death?  Nice. 
I am glad to provide humor. Unfortunately offhand I don't have a Greek copy, but I think what you may find will be straightforward. Athanasius referred to a passage that we agree says "created", and then Athanasius talked at length about how this cannot refer to Christ's begetting before all ages and must therefore refer to His "creation" at the Incarnation. In other words, Athanasius is talking about the word we agree means "created", and then he says how this term can be true.

St. Ambrose writes in the same way using the word "creation" from the passage in Proverbs, and referring to His Incarnation like Athanasius did:
Quote
“The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works,” means that the Lord Jesus was created of the Virgin for the redeeming of the Father’s works...
Now for the sake of what works the Lord was “created” of a virgin, He Himself, whilst healing the blind man, has shown...
It is clear, then, that the words “beginning of His ways,” which, as it seems, we must refer to the mystery of the putting on of His body, are a prophecy of the Incarnation.
So while Bishop Youseff took the passage's phrase about "beginning" to speak about existence before all ages, Ambrose says it is clear that the phrase "beginning" refers to the beginning of His earthly life.

Actually, when I read the passage in Proverbs I tend to read it like you and Bishop Youssef, that it is about Wisdom depicted as a woman being created without a set beginning in time.
But anyway, while it is OK to use the word "created" talking about Christ either literally in the incarnation or as a figure of speech to describe begetting, we would disagree with Arius that Christ's person was created at a point in time.

Nice talking with you.
Logged
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,820


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #178 on: December 17, 2013, 10:26:48 PM »

A tangent in which Christians were addressing questions and comments posed by a Moslem about the Christian Faith was moved, so the questions and comments could be better addressed:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,55552.0.html#top
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 10:30:34 PM by Salpy » 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: 12,674


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


« Reply #179 on: December 18, 2013, 02:09:08 AM »

I have a Muslim friend and a Jehovah's Witness friend. They both read through this thread. It convinced the Jehovah's Witness to become a Muslim, and the Muslim to become a Jehovah's Witness.


Selam

So, what's the difference?  One practically decided that Mohammed was a prophet, and another renounced Mohamed as a prophet.  What in this thread caused them to switch places?

Sorry. It was just a silly joke.


Selam
oh...my bad  Embarrassed

that makes more sense...lol

HH Pope Shenouda once said, "one time there was an atheist and a believer arguing each other.  At the end of the argument, the atheist became a believer and the believer became an atheist."
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.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,391


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #180 on: December 18, 2013, 02:28:50 AM »

I have a Muslim friend and a Jehovah's Witness friend. They both read through this thread. It convinced the Jehovah's Witness to become a Muslim, and the Muslim to become a Jehovah's Witness.


Selam

So, what's the difference?  One practically decided that Mohammed was a prophet, and another renounced Mohamed as a prophet.  What in this thread caused them to switch places?

Sorry. It was just a silly joke.


Selam
oh...my bad  Embarrassed

that makes more sense...lol

HH Pope Shenouda once said, "one time there was an atheist and a believer arguing each other.  At the end of the argument, the atheist became a believer and the believer became an atheist."

LOL! Blessed Pope Shenouda!  Smiley

I wish that we could all agree on a simple answer to this question. The Muslims would have a field day with this, using it as evidence that our theology is irrational and incomprehensible. That's why I'm sticking with St. Athanasius on this one. God died and conquered death by dying. A mystery indeed, and that's enough for me. I think sound theology should be simply articulated.


Selam
Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #181 on: January 23, 2014, 11:17:28 AM »

I appreciate the responses. I confess that they are a bit over my head. If God the Son died, did God the Father also die? And if God the Son died but not God the Father, then doesn't that separate the Trinity? If you guys can simplify it as much as possible, I'd appreciate it.  Embarrassed


Selam
Gebre,

When we say "God the Son died" we do not mean "God the Son ceased to exist" or "God the Son was annihilated". Since we don't believe those things happen(ed) to mere humans when they died, it would be strange to suddenly start believing them about the death of Christ.

When God the Son died, his spirit descended into Sheol and ransomed all of its dead, as depicted in the Anastasis icon. So just as the Son maintained his Communion with the Father when he became incarnate, so he maintained his Communion with the Father even in the pit of death itself. This Righteousness is life, and death could not hold life, nor could corruption seize it, which is why God raised Christ from the dead.
 

The Orthodox definition of death is the separation of the soul from the body not annihilation. God the Son did die for us on the Cross, because the human and divine natures of Christ are "without separation" as was declared at Chalcedon. We must understand that we cannot understand the mysteries of God. There is a hymn in the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy, usually attributed to Justinian, but probably written by Servius of Antioch
O Only-begotten Son, who are immortal, yet didst deign for our salvation to be incarnate of the holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, and without change wast made man; and wast crucified also, O Christ our God, and by thy deadth didst Death subdue; who art one of the Holy Trinity, glorified together with the Father and the Holy Spirit; save us.
This hymn clearly states that God the Son did die. The Father and the Holy Spirit did not die, but God the Son did die because the human and divine natures of Christ never separated. Whatever the human nature endured including death, the divine nature also endured for Christ is one person.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Tags: theopaschism 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.6 seconds with 209 queries.