OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 05:04:33 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 3531 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pharaoh714
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Rite
Posts: 148


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: 4,551



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: 8,342

"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

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,722


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: 4,551



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: 12,722


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: 17,726


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« 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: 16,523



« 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: 17,726


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,342

"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

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,726


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


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

Posts: 17,726


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #152 on: December 16, 2013, 04:45:44 PM »

Oh wait I forgot:


I didn't forget.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
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
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Rite
Posts: 148


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: 4,551



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: 12,722


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: 8,342

"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

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,551



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
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,967


Avowed denominationalist


« 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.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,551



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: 17,726


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
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: 4,551



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: 17,726


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,342

"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

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,722


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: 12,722


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
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Rite
Posts: 148


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: 4,551



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: 4,551



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: 12,058


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


WWW
« 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: 17,726


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,342

"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

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,551



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: 17,726


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,551



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: 12,722


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: 12,058


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


WWW
« 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.
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 0.208 seconds with 72 queries.