OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 24, 2014, 12:41:07 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Assyrian Church of the East  (Read 59153 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #585 on: January 09, 2010, 11:44:00 PM »

Deacon Lance is correct, there was no miaphysite Church in India before the Portuguese who disconnected the St.Thomas Christians from the COE, these St.Thomas Christians then appealed to Antioch for clergy and received a miaphysite Bishop.



If by Orthodox Church of the East you mean a Miaphysite Church, non existed apart from the Syriac or Armenian Churches in Iraq or Iran.  The Miaphysite Church in India you can thank the Portuguese for.  It didn't exist until some St. Thomas Christians who received their bishops from the Assyrians were cut off from them by the Portuguese and then turned to Miaphysite Antioch.

Yet I have seen numerous sources indicate that the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch at some point not long after the schism introduced an ecclesia in the East parallel to the "Nestorian" Catholicos-Patriarch at Seleucia-Ctesiphon.

It is true that no one directly from the "West Syrian" section of the OO were present in India beforehand. But what makes you so sure that this supposed Miaphysite Church of the East did not exist? And perhaps if it did that it was related to the church in India?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #586 on: January 09, 2010, 11:44:33 PM »

Deacon Lance is correct, there was no miaphysite Church in India before the Portuguese who disconnected the St.Thomas Christians from the COE, these St.Thomas Christians then appealed to Antioch for clergy and received a miaphysite Bishop.



If by Orthodox Church of the East you mean a Miaphysite Church, non existed apart from the Syriac or Armenian Churches in Iraq or Iran.  The Miaphysite Church in India you can thank the Portuguese for.  It didn't exist until some St. Thomas Christians who received their bishops from the Assyrians were cut off from them by the Portuguese and then turned to Miaphysite Antioch.

Yet I have seen numerous sources indicate that the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch at some point not long after the schism introduced an ecclesia in the East parallel to the "Nestorian" Catholicos-Patriarch at Seleucia-Ctesiphon.

It is true that no one directly from the "West Syrian" section of the OO were present in India beforehand. But what makes you so sure that this supposed Miaphysite East Syrian church did not exist? And perhaps if it did that it was related to the church in India?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #587 on: January 09, 2010, 11:53:52 PM »

Meaning of parsopa? Well...I'm not sure. I don't think there is anything outside the Western definition. Also, to answer Minas question: the definition of Qnome leaves open many more than three qnome for God. The burning Bush is a Qnome I suppose under the definition. Also, God's Kyana is not as limited as our own (or better, it is unlimited). I was thinking of some Jewish mystical texts(these texts vary in their interpretation and at times oppose scripture so I avoid them) which in turn connect to ancient Christological ideas of the COE and which are repeatedly encountered in the East Syriac Peshitta . In the Mysticism of the Tree of Life, God actually has 10 Qnome, and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the Upper Three. I don't dwelve too much in this topic though, since it requires absolute mastery of plain scripture:

Quote
If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
John 3:12

A Jewish believer and dear friend pointed that out to me. That was to Nicodemus, a Master of the Land of Israel favored by the Messiah. If he received this message, what hope have we? So I don't think too much beyond the basics.

I am One Thousand Percent positive that the only Church in India before the Portuguese disrupted the COE episcopate was the COE, everybody else came later. The Miaphysites by accident, the Roman Catholics were local Indians converted by the Portuguese (Poor Fishermen who didn't like the caste system), and now protestants.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2010, 11:57:20 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #588 on: January 10, 2010, 12:06:23 AM »

What scares me is that in Greek "prosopa" is plural as opposed to "prosopo" which is singular.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #589 on: January 10, 2010, 12:22:56 AM »

One Bound Person. The COE does not believe in two persons, that is slanderous Cyrillian slander.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #590 on: January 10, 2010, 01:23:00 AM »


I am One Thousand Percent positive that the only Church in India before the Portuguese disrupted the COE episcopate was the COE, everybody else came later. The Miaphysites by accident, the Roman Catholics were local Indians converted by the Portuguese (Poor Fishermen who didn't like the caste system), and now protestants.

You may think that because there was no jurisdictional division in India before that time. But that's not inconsistent with what I'm saying. What I am wondering is if:

-There were two jurisdictions in "Greater Persia", the Assyrian Church of the East and the Orthodox Church of the East. The ACoE being Theodorean and the OCoE being Oriental Orthodox.
-The Church in India was of one jurisdiction (what sort of association it had with the two Persian churches being unclear
-The West Syrian church, today known as the "Syriac Orthodox Church" showed up on the scene in India sometime in the 17th century
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #591 on: January 10, 2010, 01:24:25 AM »

Rafa, how many parsopa do you say there are in the Trinity? Zero, one, or three?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #592 on: January 10, 2010, 01:26:45 AM »

Only the COE existed in India before the Portuguese. Anybody who says otherwise knows no history.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #593 on: January 10, 2010, 01:27:22 AM »


Only the COE existed in India before the Portuguese. Anybody who says otherwise knows no history.

What even constitutes "the COE" seems potentially confusing.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #594 on: January 10, 2010, 01:29:21 AM »

The Church of the East was bigger than the Roman Catholic Church before Tamerlane and crew slew 80 million people.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 11,904


St. Hripsimeh pray for us!


« Reply #595 on: January 10, 2010, 01:43:26 AM »


I am One Thousand Percent positive that the only Church in India before the Portuguese disrupted the COE episcopate was the COE, everybody else came later. The Miaphysites by accident, the Roman Catholics were local Indians converted by the Portuguese (Poor Fishermen who didn't like the caste system), and now protestants.

You may think that because there was no jurisdictional division in India before that time. But that's not inconsistent with what I'm saying. What I am wondering is if:

-There were two jurisdictions in "Greater Persia", the Assyrian Church of the East and the Orthodox Church of the East. The ACoE being Theodorean and the OCoE being Oriental Orthodox.


From what little I understand, the Assyrians and Syriac Orthodox Christians are basically the same ethnic group.  The Assyrians are the descendants of those who had the Theodorean Christology and the Syriac Orthodox are descended from those who chose the Cyrilian.  This is probably over-simplifying.  Someone correct me if I am wrong here. 
Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 35,631



« Reply #596 on: January 10, 2010, 01:47:29 AM »

What scares me is that in Greek "prosopa" is plural as opposed to "prosopo" which is singular.

The plural is parsope in Eastern Syriac.
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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #597 on: January 10, 2010, 01:56:38 AM »


I am One Thousand Percent positive that the only Church in India before the Portuguese disrupted the COE episcopate was the COE, everybody else came later. The Miaphysites by accident, the Roman Catholics were local Indians converted by the Portuguese (Poor Fishermen who didn't like the caste system), and now protestants.

You may think that because there was no jurisdictional division in India before that time. But that's not inconsistent with what I'm saying. What I am wondering is if:

-There were two jurisdictions in "Greater Persia", the Assyrian Church of the East and the Orthodox Church of the East. The ACoE being Theodorean and the OCoE being Oriental Orthodox.


From what little I understand, the Assyrians and Syriac Orthodox Christians are basically the same ethnic group.  The Assyrians are the descendants of those who had the Theodorean Christology and the Syriac Orthodox are descended from those who chose the Cyrilian.  This is probably over-simplifying.  Someone correct me if I am wrong here. 

I'm aware that they're both Assyrian. What I'm wondering is if the presence of OOy simply disappeared from the East Syrian area after the schism with the Theodoreans or if the SOC influenced the development of an OO church in the area of the ACE shortly after the schism as that Wikipedia page suggests.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #598 on: January 10, 2010, 01:57:04 AM »

Rafa, how many parsopa do you say there are in the Trinity? Zero, one, or three?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #599 on: January 10, 2010, 02:14:19 AM »

If they dissapeared their line was broken, meaning they were schismatics. Really, I'm not even wasting time on that since everybody in India knows the COE was there first. It's not even up to debate with scholars and historians. The "Theodoreans" represented COE orthodoxy.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2010, 02:17:44 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,905


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #600 on: January 10, 2010, 02:16:02 AM »


This is the same guy who our Coptic Metropolitan H.E. Met. Bishoy clashed with when Mar Bawai compared "two persons in one person" to our "two natures in one nature."

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg387227.html#msg387227

But "two natures in one nature" isn't even the proper formula of the OOC.

Sure it is.  Two concrete realities existin in a mode as one united incarnate concrete reality.

You're missing the fact that the fullness of a nature both in Cyrillian and Theodorean Christology (only the Byzantines revised this) involves the reality of subsistence. It has never been acceptable to say that hypostasis, in its full meaning, is "two in one" in Christ. Hypostasis is only ever one.

The formula breaks down if you ask the question: "are those two concrete realities independently subsistent?" The answer is clearly "no". One of the concrete realities is dependent upon the other for subsistence and finds subsistence only in union with it. However, if we are to speak of the reality of the Incarnate Logos, we can say, on the contrary, that it is completely subsistent. So, really, the "two concrete realities" and the "one united incarnate concrete reality" are two different categories, and thus we cannot make them sound as if they are the same types of things by saying "two natures in one nature".

Of course, I'm not saying both natures are self-subsistent, neither am I saying the character of existence of both natures are the same.  I don't think that formula does break down when I say that.  It simply needs clarification, which you provided.  Every thing we say needs clarification.  In fact, we actually sing in our Psalmody, "one nature out of two."

"One nature out of two" is acceptable as it is essentially a rephrasing of "from two natures", but this is not at all the same as "two natures in one". The latter formula implies the condemned "two natures after the union".

The implication you give it is not that clear to me.

Two natures being in one nature implies that there are still two natures. Otherwise, there are not two natures in the one nature because "two natures" don't even exist.

The whole idea of that phrase to me is to continue to believe in the reality of humanity and divinity in one Christ.  And when we say one nature, we solidify this union by putting both unconfused natures into one concrete reality.  This is how I interpret "two natures in one nature."  It's a play on semantics.  It may mean something different to you.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2010, 02:19:19 AM 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.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #601 on: January 10, 2010, 02:18:54 AM »

Minas, post a little on the COE forum, the Qashas are there to answer all your questions. Your already registered there aren't you?
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,905


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #602 on: January 10, 2010, 02:20:19 AM »

Minas, post a little on the COE forum, the Qashas are there to answer all your questions. Your already registered there aren't you?

yes, but I'm really lazy and busy all at the same time...lol

But sure, maybe one day, I can engage in a discussion in that forum.
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.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #603 on: January 10, 2010, 02:21:04 AM »

The Orthodox forum  Wink
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,431


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #604 on: January 10, 2010, 02:29:19 AM »

Minas, post a little on the COE forum, the Qashas are there to answer all your questions. Your already registered there aren't you?
You haven't posted a link this time, but I fear that your solicitation of a competing forum may still be in violation of OC.net forum rules.  Until I find out for certain, I ask that you stop encouraging others here to post on the COE forum.  Thank you.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2010, 02:30:15 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #605 on: January 10, 2010, 03:01:37 PM »


This is the same guy who our Coptic Metropolitan H.E. Met. Bishoy clashed with when Mar Bawai compared "two persons in one person" to our "two natures in one nature."

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg387227.html#msg387227

But "two natures in one nature" isn't even the proper formula of the OOC.

Sure it is.  Two concrete realities existin in a mode as one united incarnate concrete reality.

You're missing the fact that the fullness of a nature both in Cyrillian and Theodorean Christology (only the Byzantines revised this) involves the reality of subsistence. It has never been acceptable to say that hypostasis, in its full meaning, is "two in one" in Christ. Hypostasis is only ever one.

The formula breaks down if you ask the question: "are those two concrete realities independently subsistent?" The answer is clearly "no". One of the concrete realities is dependent upon the other for subsistence and finds subsistence only in union with it. However, if we are to speak of the reality of the Incarnate Logos, we can say, on the contrary, that it is completely subsistent. So, really, the "two concrete realities" and the "one united incarnate concrete reality" are two different categories, and thus we cannot make them sound as if they are the same types of things by saying "two natures in one nature".

Of course, I'm not saying both natures are self-subsistent, neither am I saying the character of existence of both natures are the same.  I don't think that formula does break down when I say that.  It simply needs clarification, which you provided.  Every thing we say needs clarification.  In fact, we actually sing in our Psalmody, "one nature out of two."

"One nature out of two" is acceptable as it is essentially a rephrasing of "from two natures", but this is not at all the same as "two natures in one". The latter formula implies the condemned "two natures after the union".

The implication you give it is not that clear to me.

Two natures being in one nature implies that there are still two natures. Otherwise, there are not two natures in the one nature because "two natures" don't even exist.

The whole idea of that phrase to me is to continue to believe in the reality of humanity and divinity in one Christ.  And when we say one nature, we solidify this union by putting both unconfused natures into one concrete reality.  This is how I interpret "two natures in one nature."  It's a play on semantics.  It may mean something different to you.

Regardless, I've never seen it established as an official formula of the OOC.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #606 on: January 10, 2010, 03:02:13 PM »

Rafa, how many parsopa do you say there are in the Trinity? Zero, one, or three?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #607 on: January 11, 2010, 12:02:54 AM »

I already answered this several times. Read the thread before. The COE does not talk about persons of the trinity, only qnome.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #608 on: January 11, 2010, 12:45:03 AM »

What I still have not figured out is how the humanity of "Jesus" is directly identified with the Logos? If:

-There is one kyana and three qnome in the Trinity but not parsopa
-There is two kyane and two qnome in Christ and one parsopa
-The parsopa of Christ is a result of the "union" and is not eternal

Where is the actual identification with the eternity of God for the human Jesus? He possesses a temporal qnoma individuated from the human kyana and is identified with a parsopa that is a creation of the Incarnation. There appears to be no actual union with eternity.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #609 on: January 11, 2010, 12:46:34 AM »

his human qnome is created yes, but the divine is not. Therefore I am not an arian.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,905


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #610 on: January 11, 2010, 01:18:16 AM »

What I still have not figured out is how the humanity of "Jesus" is directly identified with the Logos? If:

-There is one kyana and three qnome in the Trinity but not parsopa
-There is two kyane and two qnome in Christ and one parsopa
-The parsopa of Christ is a result of the "union" and is not eternal

Where is the actual identification with the eternity of God for the human Jesus? He possesses a temporal qnoma individuated from the human kyana and is identified with a parsopa that is a creation of the Incarnation. There appears to be no actual union with eternity.

These are rather interesting and well-thought out observations, and I don't think Rafa is understanding your observations very well though.

Another observation is this:  Since there is no divine parsopa, but only a human one, while there are two qnome, and since there are three qnome in the Trinity, wouldn't that introduce a tertium quid?
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.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #611 on: January 11, 2010, 04:52:45 AM »


his human qnome is created yes, but the divine is not. Therefore I am not an arian.

I'm not suggesting that you're an Arian. That addresses the nature of the Logos simply with respect to His divinity. Rather, with respect to the Incarnation, I'm suggesting that your brand of Nestorianism does not seem to preserve any legitimate sort of union between the Logos and the humanity He assumed. It appears to be nothing more than the closest of conjunctions.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #612 on: January 11, 2010, 04:54:35 AM »


Since there is no divine parsopa, but only a human one

I don't know if he even explained that much about the parsopa of Christ (that is its nature being simply human).
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,735


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #613 on: January 11, 2010, 08:50:54 AM »

I think you are misinterpreting.  The COE consistently speak of one divine Lord Jesus Christ, the parsopa of Christ is divine.  Parsopa, however, is only used of one who enters the physical realm.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 35,631



« Reply #614 on: January 11, 2010, 11:25:43 AM »

I think you are misinterpreting.  The COE consistently speak of one divine Lord Jesus Christ, the parsopa of Christ is divine.  Parsopa, however, is only used of one who enters the physical realm.

With the emphasis on the "otherness" of the Divine Qnome, how can a "parsopic" union really describe the Incarnation, since the parsopa is only on the physical level.  Either the qnoma enters the physical (or better, created) realm, in which case the union would be hypostatic, or He does not, in which case Christ and the Word in conjunction, not union.
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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,735


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #615 on: January 11, 2010, 12:32:03 PM »

I would agree parsopic union doesn't cut it in the framework of the Greek fathers, but then neither does miaphysis.   Why do the Orientals get a pass and not the Assyrians, when neither uses our language or intends to yet both say they mean they same as we do?
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 35,631



« Reply #616 on: January 11, 2010, 01:10:46 PM »

I would agree parsopic union doesn't cut it in the framework of the Greek fathers, but then neither does miaphysis.   Why do the Orientals get a pass and not the Assyrians, when neither uses our language or intends to yet both say they mean they same as we do?

The Assyrians and Syriac Orthodox (and also the Copts) use the same language.

The EO Antiochians used it too, and those of us who use Arabic now share that with the Assyrians, Syriacs and even the Copts as we once shared Greek.

Because when the Orientals make their case, it is evident we are talking about the same thing, the reason why Theotokos, "God's blood," etc. is perfectly fine on both sides. The Assyrians, however, have refined their teminology, but it only makes clearer that we are not speaking of the same thing.

What Greek Fathers?  Chalcedonian, Miaphysite, Nestorian-they all have Greek Fathers.  Cyril, Nestorius, Theodore, Diodore, Theodoret, Eutyches, Dioscoros, Severus, etc. all wrote in Greek. 
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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,735


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #617 on: January 11, 2010, 03:14:07 PM »

They use related linguistics, obviously the words used by each do not share the same definition or have the same theological frame work.  By Greek Fathers I mean the Chalcedonian ones.  While I accept the Orientals believe the same as we do, I also think their language and definitions are easily misinterpreted.  Miaphysis can easily be misunderstood as Jesus is 50% God and 50% man since miaphysis means one composite nature.  Diophysis better protects the understanding that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, two complete natures in one person.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #618 on: January 11, 2010, 03:52:15 PM »

Here, Deacon Lance who belongs to a Western tradition is explaining everything just like somebody from the COE would. The Church with this deacon is priveldged  Wink Of course we can't talk of the pre-incarnate logos as a person. East Syriac contains expressions which were not changed during the theological controversies. Why the COE uses the East Syriac Peshitta, not one where "M-word" supportive theology sneaked in. Regardless, the Western Peshitta is still very similar and it supports the major contention points of the COE, except in certain verses like Acts 20:28.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,965


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #619 on: January 11, 2010, 03:54:53 PM »

Here, Deacon Lance who belongs to a Western tradition is explaining everything just like somebody from the COE would. The Church with this deacon is priveldged  Wink Of course we can't talk of the pre-incarnate logos as a person. East Syriac contains expressions which were not changed during the theological controversies. Why the COE uses the East Syriac Peshitta, not one where "M-word" supportive theology sneaked in. Regardless, the Western Peshitta is still very similar and it supports the major contention points of the COE, except in certain verses like Acts 20:28.
This is why so many have a problem with your Christology. The Logos was not some amorphous soup.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 35,631



« Reply #620 on: January 11, 2010, 04:10:54 PM »

Here, Deacon Lance who belongs to a Western tradition is explaining everything just like somebody from the COE would. The Church with this deacon is priveldged  Wink Of course we can't talk of the pre-incarnate logos as a person.

LOL. We do so at length.  Check out the Orthodox-Other Chrisitan private thread "Jesus Christ the God-Man, A Divine Person, Also a Human Person?"

Quote
East Syriac contains expressions which were not changed during the theological controversies.

Since the theological controversies took place in Greek, that's besides the point even if true.

Quote
Why the COE uses the East Syriac Peshitta, not one where "M-word" supportive theology sneaked in.

Because it was edited out.

Quote
Regardless, the Western Peshitta is still very similar and it supports the major contention points of the COE, except in certain verses like Acts 20:28.
Because it was edited out.
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
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,905


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #621 on: January 11, 2010, 04:27:18 PM »

They use related linguistics, obviously the words used by each do not share the same definition or have the same theological frame work.  By Greek Fathers I mean the Chalcedonian ones.  While I accept the Orientals believe the same as we do, I also think their language and definitions are easily misinterpreted.  Miaphysis can easily be misunderstood as Jesus is 50% God and 50% man since miaphysis means one composite nature.  Diophysis better protects the understanding that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, two complete natures in one person.

Dear Deacon Lance,

What in the world is a parsopa?  Rafa just said again that the pre-incarnate Logos is not a parsopa.  So, what's that supposed to mean?  If you define the incarnate Logos as a parsopa, doesn't that mean that the parsopa is not divine?  This doesn't make any sense to me.

The reason why Chalcedonians are able to accept Miaphysis simply by the fact that Ephesus 431 and Constantinople 553 allows them to, not because they understand our language.  They're forced to understand our language because it is part of their tradition as well, whereas the Theodorean/Nestorian tradition and the language used seems just far out, borderline blasphemy, if not blasphemy.  Whenever we ask for a clarification of the language, we get two-different-pronoun Christology somewhere in the middle.  And when we inquire on that pronoun issue, no one answers back.  That either means someone just keeps missing those posts, either confused, too lazy to answer, or there's a fundamental problem in that language Assyrians use.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2010, 04:29:09 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.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,735


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #622 on: January 11, 2010, 05:27:34 PM »

Minasoliman,

A parsopa is a person with physical reality.  The pre-Incarnate Logos does not have a parsopa, the post-Incarnate Logos does.  The Catholic and Assyrian Churches profess:

As heirs and guardians of the faith received from the Apostles as formulated by our common Fathers in the Nicene Creed, we confess one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten of the Father from all eternity who, in the fullness of time, came down from heaven and became man for our salvation. The Word of God, second Person of the Holy Trinity, became incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit in assuming from the holy Virgin Mary a body animated by a rational soul, with which he was indissolubly united from the moment of his conception.
 
    Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity, consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us in all things but sin. His divinity and his humanity are united in one person, without confusion or change, without division or separation. In him has been preserved the difference of the natures of divinity and humanity, with all their properties, faculties and operations. But far from constituting "one and another", the divinity and humanity are united in the person of the same and unique Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ, who is the object of a single adoration.
 
    Christ therefore is not an "ordinary man" whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and the prophets. But the same God the Word, begotten of his Father before all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was born of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity. The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is the reason why the Assyrian Church of the East is praying the Virgin Mary as "the Mother of Christ our God and Savior". In the light of this same faith the Catholic tradition addresses the Virgin Mary as "the Mother of God" and also as "the Mother of Christ". We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety.
 
    This is the unique faith that we profess in the mystery of Christ.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,905


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #623 on: January 11, 2010, 05:31:37 PM »

Yes, Deacon Lance, I read that agreement many times.  Fine, that's great.  But this doesn't seem consistent with this:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg392863.html#msg392863
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.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,735


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #624 on: January 11, 2010, 05:55:20 PM »

I suppose in a way they are saying one person from two persons the way you say one nature from two natures.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #625 on: January 11, 2010, 06:19:03 PM »


I think you are misinterpreting.  The COE consistently speak of one divine Lord Jesus Christ, the parsopa of Christ is divine.  Parsopa, however, is only used of one who enters the physical realm.

Like I said, whether the parsopa of Christ is described as "divine", "human", or both has not really been clarified.

But that is irrelevant. If it is denied that the parsopa existed as part of the Logos before the union, then it is not an inherent part of His being, and we are thus left with no point in which the Man Jesus is directly one with the Logos' inherent being.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #626 on: January 11, 2010, 06:21:41 PM »


I would agree parsopic union doesn't cut it in the framework of the Greek fathers, but then neither does miaphysis.   Why do the Orientals get a pass and not the Assyrians, when neither uses our language or intends to yet both say they mean they same as we do?

"Miaphysis" does cut it.

And it is your language. Read the capitulas of the Second Council of Constantinople.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #627 on: January 11, 2010, 06:24:28 PM »


Miaphysis can easily be misunderstood as Jesus is 50% God and 50% man since miaphysis means one composite nature.

It should, however, be clear that the Cyrillian usage of "one nature" is orthodox because it was used in your Third Council. We can't say the same thing about the strictly parsopic union, it has absolutely no standing in the OO or EO Tradition.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #628 on: January 11, 2010, 06:26:52 PM »


Here, Deacon Lance who belongs to a Western tradition is explaining everything just like somebody from the COE would.

I'm not surprised. The RCC has always been more inclined to Nestorianism than the EOC.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #629 on: January 11, 2010, 06:29:16 PM »

Here, Deacon Lance who belongs to a Western tradition is explaining everything just like somebody from the COE would. The Church with this deacon is priveldged  Wink Of course we can't talk of the pre-incarnate logos as a person. East Syriac contains expressions which were not changed during the theological controversies. Why the COE uses the East Syriac Peshitta, not one where "M-word" supportive theology sneaked in. Regardless, the Western Peshitta is still very similar and it supports the major contention points of the COE, except in certain verses like Acts 20:28.
This is why so many have a problem with your Christology. The Logos was not some amorphous soup.

Actually, before the union He was certainly amorphous, at least with respect to that word indicating a physical form.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Tags: Church of the East Assyrian Aramaic Theodore of Mopsuestia icons Christology 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »   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 0.147 seconds with 71 queries.