It's OK I'm also still learning
I don't know if Rafa is accurately expressing his Church's beliefs, but it seems he was catechized by the COE. Also, what I think started this whole thing was something that I quoted from their catechism which compared Christ and his divinity to the President and the office of the presidency. Again, that is not something I or any other OO would ever say.
OK let me review that quote:
35) In what sense can we recognize or acknowledge certain theological terminology used by our beloved sister apostolic churches who will address The Ever Virgin Mary as “The Mother of God”??
The Orthodox position will declare this: The Blessed Mother did not give birth to His Godhead, which is from eternal; but rather she had given birth to His manhood, at the end of time, still it is right to be called “the Mother of God,” why? Because He who is born of her is at once God and Man. By way of example: The mother of the President of the United States did not give birth to his presidency, she gave birth to the man; and indeed we call her the mother of the President; and again, the Catholicos Patriarch of the East received his office from The Church, and not from his mother who bore him, and we do call her the mother of the Patriarch.
This Catechism was compiled for the Assyrian Church of the East Youth Ministry, so I'm guessing that they were trying to use analogies simple enough for kids to understand? I really don't know Salpy, I didn't compile this, I suppose you can write to those who teach this Catechism (Diocese of California) for clarification.
What kind of analogies would OOs use?
You seem to feel that the COE confesses that "the Word of God suffered in the flesh." If that is so, then I would like to see someone from the COE actually confess that, in those words.
I'll try to find at least one quote from an official document, in addition to what Deacon Lance has already posted from the Catechism:
It's my understanding that they reject even "The Word of God suffered in the flesh."
Saying "Christ suffered" is not necessarily the same thing if you believe in separation between Christ and the Word of God.
5) In the Creed we confess: “ . . . He suffered and was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate . . .” what is the purpose for this statement?
To show to the believer, that our Lord did indeed and in fact suffered and died, to give evidence of His humanity, contrary to the heresy of one of the early centuries of The Church history, who taught that Jesus Christ was a phantom. “ . . . know ye that the Spirit of God, every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God . . . and every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God . . . and this that spirit of anti-Christ, whereof ye have heard that it should come and even now is already in the world . .” (I John 4:2,3)
7) How is it possible to apply suffering and death to our Lord Jesus Christ, since we confess Him as God?
His suffering is not applied to His Godhead, but rather to that of His humanity (manhood), not because He could not have avoided it, but by an act of love and willingly accepted the consequences of humanity and their sin. It is written, “ . . . My Father doth love Me, because I lay down My life, that I might take it again. No man takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself, I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This have I received of My Father . . .” (John 10:17:18)
Also the COE does recite the Nicene Creed which includes this statement:
"...he was crucified for us
under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried
, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;"
Saying that "Jesus Christ" suffered is not necessarily the same thing if the relationship between Christ and the Word is the same as the relationship between the man who is the president and the office of the presidency.
Fair enough but can we really determine that that's the case if we don't look at the Catechism as a whole?
By the way, I know I have read that Mar Babai the Great explicitly rejected the Theopaschite formula which the EO's put in their fifth council.
As he should've.
Now I'm no authority on the issue but it seems to me that The AOC with this diagram doesn't believe in a pre-incarnate Christ or Holy Spirit.
Can you explain how you got this impression?
Where kyana represents two natures, gnoma is representing a separation of the essence or Kyana. Giving the impression that the holy spirit and Christ have there beginning in time. While kyana also represent the fragmenting of human nature, it doesn't differentiate whether that human nature is preexistent or not. In other words the diagram is equating human nature with its own essence. While in orthodoxy the ousia is specific to just the trinity.
A diagram should always be accompanied by an explanation of it to put it into perspective IMO, so what do you think when I accompany this:
“A singular essence is called a ‘qnoma’. It stands alone, one in number, that is, one as distinct from the many. A qnoma is invariable in its natural state and is bound to a species and nature, being one [numerically] among a number of like qnome. It is distinctive among its fellow qnome [only] by reason of any unique property or characteristic which it possesses in its ‘parsopa’. With rational creatures this [uniqueness] may consist of various [external and internal] accidents, such as excellent or evil character, or knowledge or ignorance, and with irrational creatures [as also with the rational] the combination of various contrasting features. [Through the parsopa we distinguish that] Gabriel is not Michael, and Paul is not Peter. However, in each qnoma of any given nature the entire common nature is known, and intellectually one recognizes what that nature, which encompasses all its qnome, consists of. A qnoma does not encompass the nature as a whole [but exemplifies what is common to the nature, such as, in a human qnoma, body, soul, mind, etc.].”—Fourth Memra, Book of the Union, Published by Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Paris, 1915, A. Vaschalde, ed.
This diagram is not about chronology of existance but level of existence - abstract, concrete and material.