OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 31, 2014, 06:51:38 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 3599 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,396



« 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: 2,396



« 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: 2,396



« 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: 2,396



« 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: 1,137


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: 2,396



« 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: 17,959


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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

Still posting.

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

Posts: 2,396



« 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: 12,328


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


WWW
« 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: 2,396



« 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: 12,328


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


WWW
« 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: 2,396



« 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: 12,328


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


WWW
« 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: 2,396



« 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: 12,328


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


WWW
« 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: 5,992


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: 5,992


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: 2,396



« 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: 12,328


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


WWW
« 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: 1,137


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: 5,992


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
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,361

"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

"Beauty is truth, and Orthodoxy is beautiful." +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: 4,580



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: 17,959


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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

Still posting.

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
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
******
Online Online

Faith: Old Belief?
Jurisdiction: Antiochian?
Posts: 641


"Петр [Мартюшев] говорит им: иду ловить рыбу."


« 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

Pharaoh714
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Rite
Posts: 151


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: 4,580



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: 16,540



« 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
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,361

"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

"Beauty is truth, and Orthodoxy is beautiful." +GMK+
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,992


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.
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 0.187 seconds with 71 queries.