OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 12:17:21 PM *
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 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 63197 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 #630 on: January 11, 2010, 06:34:51 PM »


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.

LOL

The fact that the concept doesn't even make sense for you and that you can't imagine a thing produced after the union having anything to do with the inherent being of the Logos just goes to show that the problem really is in its simply being deficient.
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 #631 on: January 11, 2010, 06:43:27 PM »


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

"From two natures" is much more of a nuanced formula than people perceive. In actuality, we believe that there was never a time when there were two natures in Christ. "From two natures" is strictly theoretical, and when Cyril introduced hit, he actually added right after the phrase "in theory". Before the union there was one divine nature. After the union there was one theanthropic nature. "From two natures" is a theoretical imagining of the divinity and humanity as if two distinct subsistences so that we can perceive a twoness for the sake of perceiving a union. In reality, the never was a time that the humanity of Christ existed that it was not enhypostatic, that it was not a part of the nature of the Logos.

I highly doubt that this "one person from two persons" terminology is comparable, if even espoused by our Nestorian friend.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2010, 06:43:41 PM by deusveritasest » 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: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #632 on: January 11, 2010, 07:23:29 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.

But of couse we have a fourth (and fifth and sixth and seventh) council to deal with.  Chalcedonian Churches are diophysite, we do not employ the term miaphysis.  From Chalcedon:


"...Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably, and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us."
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #633 on: January 11, 2010, 07:44:21 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.

But of couse we have a fourth (and fifth and sixth and seventh) council to deal with.  Chalcedonian Churches are diophysite, we do not employ the term miaphysis.  From Chalcedon:


"...Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably, and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us."

You didn't listen to me. Yes, you do employ the term miaphysis as found in the capitulas of the Second Council of Constantinople, which is the "Fifth Ecumenical Council", coming after Chalcedon.
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: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #634 on: January 11, 2010, 08:14:35 PM »

If you mean Capitula 8:

"If anyone uses the expression “of two natures,” confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression “the one nature made flesh of God the Word,” and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit:  that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema.  For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically [to humanity] we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each [nature] remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh.  Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood.  Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery."

You are confusing how it was employed.  Diophysitism, not miaphysitism, was reaffirmed.
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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,196


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


WWW
« Reply #635 on: January 11, 2010, 08:36:35 PM »

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

When we confess one nature from two, we still believe in the existence of an unconfused and undivided concrete reality with full humanity and full divinity.

When I hear someone comparing "one person from two persons" to our "one nature from two natures," in my mind, there is one center of action while still believing in the existence of two unconfused and undivided beings in communion together.  Sounds like a marriage of sorts, not a real hypostatic union.

Therefore, if you insist on comparing "one person from two persons" to our "one nature from two natures," then you automatically are saying that the Assyrians are in fact "two personist" in their Christology, which they continually deny.

HE Metropolitan Bishoy puts it best:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg387227.html#msg387227

I suppose then when it comes to Assyrian Christology, when asked about whether they believe in two persons in Christ, their lips say no, their liturgies and Church fathers and clergy say yes.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2010, 08:41:42 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.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,129


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #636 on: January 11, 2010, 08:53:19 PM »


I suppose then when it comes to Assyrian Christology, when asked about whether they believe in two persons in Christ, their lips say no, their liturgies and Church fathers and clergy say yes.
I guess that this is what concerns me.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #637 on: January 11, 2010, 09:30:51 PM »

If you mean Capitula 8:

"If anyone uses the expression “of two natures,” confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression “the one nature made flesh of God the Word,” and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit:  that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema.  For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically [to humanity] we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each [nature] remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh.  Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood.  Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery."

You are confusing how it was employed.  Diophysitism, not miaphysitism, was reaffirmed.

Are you serious? Are we looking at the same paragraph here? It's saying that the Holy Fathers taught the miaphysis formula and that it is appropriate to believe it for what they meant by it.
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 #638 on: January 11, 2010, 09:35:21 PM »


I suppose then when it comes to Assyrian Christology, when asked about whether they believe in two persons in Christ, their lips say no, their liturgies and Church fathers and clergy say yes.
I guess that this is what concerns me.

No. The Logos is never called a person, unless its English and the term has a connotation different than the one that would be conveyed in semitic thought. The post-incarnation Logos has a human nature bound in a person, that is ok.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2010, 09:35:45 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #639 on: January 11, 2010, 09:48:54 PM »

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

When we confess one nature from two, we still believe in the existence of an unconfused and undivided concrete reality with full humanity and full divinity.

When I hear someone comparing "one person from two persons" to our "one nature from two natures," in my mind, there is one center of action while still believing in the existence of two unconfused and undivided beings in communion together.  Sounds like a marriage of sorts, not a real hypostatic union.

Therefore, if you insist on comparing "one person from two persons" to our "one nature from two natures," then you automatically are saying that the Assyrians are in fact "two personist" in their Christology, which they continually deny.

HE Metropolitan Bishoy puts it best:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg387227.html#msg387227

I suppose then when it comes to Assyrian Christology, when asked about whether they believe in two persons in Christ, their lips say no, their liturgies and Church fathers and clergy say yes.

Of course just because Met. Bishoy says so does not make it so.  Have you read the Liturgy of Addai and Mari?  It speaks of One Lord Jesus Christ, not the Logos and his temple the man Jesus.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #640 on: January 11, 2010, 10:03:54 PM »

If you mean Capitula 8:

"If anyone uses the expression “of two natures,” confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression “the one nature made flesh of God the Word,” and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit:  that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema.  For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically [to humanity] we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each [nature] remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh.  Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood.  Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery."

You are confusing how it was employed.  Diophysitism, not miaphysitism, was reaffirmed.

Are you serious? Are we looking at the same paragraph here? It's saying that the Holy Fathers taught the miaphysis formula and that it is appropriate to believe it for what they meant by it.
Yes and you a misinterpreting it to mean that miaphysis is as good a term as diophysis which it was not considered by the Fathers to be.  They are in effect saying St. Cyril used the term miaphysis but really meant diophysis unlike Dioscoros who remains under anathema for:  “from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ.”
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #641 on: January 11, 2010, 10:12:50 PM »


When I hear someone comparing "one person from two persons" to our "one nature from two natures," in my mind, there is one center of action while still believing in the existence of two unconfused and undivided beings in communion together.  Sounds like a marriage of sorts, not a real hypostatic union.

I don't know that I would even grant them "one center of action". You know what the Tome of Leo said about that.
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 #642 on: January 11, 2010, 10:19:07 PM »

If you mean Capitula 8:

"If anyone uses the expression “of two natures,” confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression “the one nature made flesh of God the Word,” and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit:  that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema.  For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically [to humanity] we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each [nature] remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh.  Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood.  Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery."

You are confusing how it was employed.  Diophysitism, not miaphysitism, was reaffirmed.

Are you serious? Are we looking at the same paragraph here? It's saying that the Holy Fathers taught the miaphysis formula and that it is appropriate to believe it for what they meant by it.
Yes and you a misinterpreting it to mean that miaphysis is as good a term as diophysis which it was not considered by the Fathers to be.  They are in effect saying St. Cyril used the term miaphysis but really meant diophysis unlike Dioscoros who remains under anathema for:  “from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ.”

1. I wasn't comparing the two. I was simply stating that miaphysis (along with diophysis) remains an acceptable formula of the EO Tradition. That's exactly what this capitula shows.

2. That's sounds like simple slander. Where do you get the idea that Dioscorus taught a mixture of substances in Christ?
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 #643 on: January 11, 2010, 10:21:05 PM »

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

When we confess one nature from two, we still believe in the existence of an unconfused and undivided concrete reality with full humanity and full divinity.

When I hear someone comparing "one person from two persons" to our "one nature from two natures," in my mind, there is one center of action while still believing in the existence of two unconfused and undivided beings in communion together.  Sounds like a marriage of sorts, not a real hypostatic union.

Therefore, if you insist on comparing "one person from two persons" to our "one nature from two natures," then you automatically are saying that the Assyrians are in fact "two personist" in their Christology, which they continually deny.

HE Metropolitan Bishoy puts it best:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg387227.html#msg387227

I suppose then when it comes to Assyrian Christology, when asked about whether they believe in two persons in Christ, their lips say no, their liturgies and Church fathers and clergy say yes.

Of course just because Met. Bishoy says so does not make it so.  Have you read the Liturgy of Addai and Mari?  It speaks of One Lord Jesus Christ, not the Logos and his temple the man Jesus.

The reality of the "union" being based on a "face" called Christ that was created at the time of this "union" does not accomplish anything near the hypostatic union of Cyril. "One Lord Jesus Christ" is rendered meaningless by the perversions Theodoreans.
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 #644 on: January 11, 2010, 10:24:28 PM »


I suppose then when it comes to Assyrian Christology, when asked about whether they believe in two persons in Christ, their lips say no, their liturgies and Church fathers and clergy say yes.
I guess that this is what concerns me.

No. The Logos is never called a person, unless its English and the term has a connotation different than the one that would be conveyed in semitic thought. The post-incarnation Logos has a human nature bound in a person, that is ok.

I understand why parsopa is not appropriate to be applied to the pre-Incarnate Logos.

However, it's not appropriate that there is no other category by which the Man Jesus is identified with what was inherent to the Logos.

Also, I don't understand how you can say that "the Logos has a human nature", when you establish that both the kyana and the qnome of the human nature is distinct from that of the Logos.
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: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #645 on: January 11, 2010, 10:49:54 PM »

If you mean Capitula 8:

"If anyone uses the expression “of two natures,” confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression “the one nature made flesh of God the Word,” and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit:  that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema.  For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically [to humanity] we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each [nature] remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh.  Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood.  Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery."

You are confusing how it was employed.  Diophysitism, not miaphysitism, was reaffirmed.

Are you serious? Are we looking at the same paragraph here? It's saying that the Holy Fathers taught the miaphysis formula and that it is appropriate to believe it for what they meant by it.
Yes and you a misinterpreting it to mean that miaphysis is as good a term as diophysis which it was not considered by the Fathers to be.  They are in effect saying St. Cyril used the term miaphysis but really meant diophysis unlike Dioscoros who remains under anathema for:  “from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ.”

1. I wasn't comparing the two. I was simply stating that miaphysis (along with diophysis) remains an acceptable formula of the EO Tradition. That's exactly what this capitula shows.

2. That's sounds like simple slander. Where do you get the idea that Dioscorus taught a mixture of substances in Christ?

1.  Obviously it was not or the anathemas of Severus and Dioscoros would have been lifted and the EO s and OOs would be in communion right now.

2.  Whether he did or not the Fathers anathematized him for it.
Logged

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

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


« Reply #646 on: January 11, 2010, 11:06:31 PM »


I suppose then when it comes to Assyrian Christology, when asked about whether they believe in two persons in Christ, their lips say no, their liturgies and Church fathers and clergy say yes.
I guess that this is what concerns me.

No. The Logos is never called a person, unless its English and the term has a connotation different than the one that would be conveyed in semitic thought. The post-incarnation Logos has a human nature bound in a person, that is ok.

I understand why parsopa is not appropriate to be applied to the pre-Incarnate Logos.

However, it's not appropriate that there is no other category by which the Man Jesus is identified with what was inherent to the Logos.

Also, I don't understand how you can say that "the Logos has a human nature", when you establish that both the kyana and the qnome of the human nature is distinct from that of the Logos.

I was using the term logos as you would use it (the person of the messiah). The Logos as I understand it in the COE is the second Qnome of the trinity which in its pre-incarnate form was never human, and which assumed by its side a human nature during the incarnation.

Mar Odisho refutes this miaphysite gunk best:

FIRST: If it is right to believe that there is but one Nature and one Qnuma in CHRIST after the union, either the human nature and Qnuma are destroyed through the union — here is destruction, not salvation. Or, the Divine Nature and Qnuma are destroyed — a monstrous profanity. Or, that they were mingled and confounded together — behold hence a corruption! neither divinity nor humanity any longer existing. Mar Yokhanan Bar Pinkhaye adduced the name of CHRIST, written with black and red ink, by way of illustrating this confused union which the Jacobites believe , and the union of adherence which we believe; thus, CHRIST  , behold corruption! behold confusion! Is it red ink? It is not. Is it black ink? It is not. Now look at this CHRIST behold beauty! behold light! Is it black ink? It is. Is it red ink? It is.

 Mingled Union                                          Union of adherence
   


SECONDLY: The Divine Nature and Qnuma, before and after the union, is an eternal, uncompounded Spirit. But the human nature and Qnuma is a temporal and compound body. Now, if the union nullifies the attributes which distinguish the Natures and Qnume in CHRIST, either the one or the other of these becomes a nonetity, or they become a thing which is neither GOD nor man. But if the union does not destroy the attributes which distinguish the Natures and Qnume in CHRIST; then CHRIST must exist in two Natures and. two Qnume, which united in the person of the Sonship.

 THIRDLY: the Gospel declares, that the child Jesus “grew in his stature, and in his wisdom, and in favour with GOD and man”. And the Apostle Peter, the head of the Apostles, says: “JESUS, a Man of GOD, appeared among you by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which GOD did by Him among you”. And, again, St. Paul, the master-builder of the Church, testifies that “there is one Mediator between GOD and man, the Man CHRIST JESUS".These three quotations most clearly affirm of CHRIST, after the union, that He existed in two Natures and two Qnume, and whosoever shall dispute these testimonies is lost from all truth.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2010, 11:20:20 PM by Rafa999 » 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: 12,321


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #647 on: January 11, 2010, 11:13:37 PM »

I was using the term logos as you would use it (the person of the messiah). The Logos as I understand it in the COE is the second Qnome of the trinity which in its pre-incarnate form was never human, and which assumed by its side a human nature during the incarnation.

Goodness gracious, Rafa, "by its side" makes it sound like a conjoined twin.
Logged

"They mean it as a mark of shame, we must then wear it as a mark of hope..."
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/07/nun-sign-of-genocide.html
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #648 on: January 11, 2010, 11:15:52 PM »

God turned into a human and spilled his blood sounds incomplete at best, pagan at worse. Like Hercules, who was half God half human and spilled literal blood during the 12 tasks of Hercules. Also Gilgamesh, Pharaoh, etc. all the classic Greek pagan tradition men-gods unlike the MAN/GOD which is Meshiakha Eshua.


I believe the Messiah offered himself as a holy Qurbana (mass/sacrifice), he offered his humanity and that his divinity remained untouched since God cannot die or suffer or bleed (or else the universe stops). The humanity of the Messiah assured that the sacrifice was accepted by the Father, if something 1% less human than 100% humanity was offered we are utterly doomed and have no atonement.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2010, 11:30:30 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
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: 37,124



« Reply #649 on: January 11, 2010, 11:40:29 PM »


I suppose then when it comes to Assyrian Christology, when asked about whether they believe in two persons in Christ, their lips say no, their liturgies and Church fathers and clergy say yes.
I guess that this is what concerns me.

No. The Logos is never called a person, unless its English and the term has a connotation different than the one that would be conveyed in semitic thought.

No, this semite understands it quite well, thank you.

Quote
The post-incarnation Logos has a human nature bound in a person, that is ok.
In HIS Person.
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
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: 37,124



« Reply #650 on: January 11, 2010, 11:48:51 PM »

God turned into a human and spilled his blood sounds incomplete at best, pagan at worse. Like Hercules, who was half God half human and spilled literal blood during the 12 tasks of Hercules. Also Gilgamesh, Pharaoh, etc. all the classic Greek pagan tradition men-gods unlike the MAN/GOD which is Meshiakha Eshua.

Yes, we've heard all the Muslim propoganda before.

Quote
I believe the Messiah offered himself as a holy Qurbana (mass/sacrifice), he offered his humanity and that his divinity remained untouched since God cannot die or suffer or bleed (or else the universe stops). The humanity of the Messiah assured that the sacrifice was accepted by the Father, if something 1% less human than 100% humanity was offered we are utterly doomed and have no atonement.

As St. Cyril points out, if the Son has not become the Son of Man, than the Man Christ is just the instrument, and we worship the Created and not the Creator.
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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #651 on: January 11, 2010, 11:53:09 PM »

Cyril disputes St.Peter who called Christ a "Man of God" thus showing his nature to be 100% human and 100% Divine. May whoever present another gospel be khrim. Further the Man Christ grew in his stature and secured the favour of man and God as paraphrased from the Gospels. There is a clear distinction. Cyril's successor Dioscorus was anathematized by the Fathers in accordance with St.Paul's holy instruction mentioned above.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2010, 11:56:20 PM by Rafa999 » 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 #652 on: January 11, 2010, 11:54:50 PM »


1.  Obviously it was not or the anathemas of Severus and Dioscoros would have been lifted and the EO s and OOs would be in communion right now.

I honestly think you're just being stubborn on this point now, because it seems clear as day to me. The capitula says that the Holy Fathers taught the miaphysis formula under a certain meaning. If the Holy Fathers taught the miaphysis formula and their meaning behind it is clarified, then why would it be unacceptable to use it in the exact same way? Further, the capitula anathematizes those who use the formula if they do not understand it as the Holy Fathers did, implying that if they do use it as the Holy Fathers did that they are not anathematized.

Severus and Dioscorus were not anathematized because of their use of the miaphysis formula, but rather because of their rejection of Chalcedon and their perceived Eutychian leanings.


2.  Whether he did or not the Fathers anathematized him for it.

Show me where the Chalcedon/post-Chalcedonian tradition attributed a mixing of substances to Dioscorus.
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
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: 37,124



« Reply #653 on: January 11, 2010, 11:55:11 PM »

Cyril disputes St.Peter who called Christ a "Man of God"

Where did he do that?  I remember "Son of the Living God"



Quote
thus showing his nature to be 100% human and 100% Divine. May whoever present another gospel be khrim.
Indeed.
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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #654 on: January 11, 2010, 11:57:24 PM »

not nature I meant his parsopa. Two Kyanas. A  100% Divine and 100% Human Kyana and their mutual qnome.

« Last Edit: January 12, 2010, 12:25:01 AM by Rafa999 » 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 #655 on: January 12, 2010, 12:21:19 AM »


I was using the term logos as you would use it (the person of the messiah). The Logos as I understand it in the COE is the second Qnome of the trinity which in its pre-incarnate form was never human, and which assumed by its side a human nature during the incarnation.

I don't particularly like talk like "person of the Messiah". Ecumenists actually use such talk in relations with the Nestorian tradition because it is akin to persona, prosopon, and parsopa, and is thus more digestible to your tradition. I prefer calling the Logos the being of the Messiah.

Anyway, my understanding of who the Logos is is really not that much different from the second definition your provided. I recognize Him as the second Qnome of the Trinity who, before the union, was not human, and who assumed a human nature. However, I didn't like the "by its side" language because, again, it sounds more like a conjunction rather than a union. I would rather say that condescended and assumed a human nature into Himself.


Mar Odisho refutes this miaphysite gunk best:

FIRST: If it is right to believe that there is but one Nature and one Qnuma in CHRIST after the union, either the human nature and Qnuma are destroyed through the union — here is destruction, not salvation. Or, the Divine Nature and Qnuma are destroyed — a monstrous profanity. Or, that they were mingled and confounded together — behold hence a corruption! neither divinity nor humanity any longer existing. Mar Yokhanan Bar Pinkhaye adduced the name of CHRIST, written with black and red ink, by way of illustrating this confused union which the Jacobites believe , and the union of adherence which we believe; thus, CHRIST  , behold corruption! behold confusion! Is it red ink? It is not. Is it black ink? It is not. Now look at this CHRIST behold beauty! behold light! Is it black ink? It is. Is it red ink? It is.

 Mingled Union                                          Union of adherence
   


SECONDLY: The Divine Nature and Qnuma, before and after the union, is an eternal, uncompounded Spirit. But the human nature and Qnuma is a temporal and compound body. Now, if the union nullifies the attributes which distinguish the Natures and Qnume in CHRIST, either the one or the other of these becomes a nonetity, or they become a thing which is neither GOD nor man. But if the union does not destroy the attributes which distinguish the Natures and Qnume in CHRIST; then CHRIST must exist in two Natures and. two Qnume, which united in the person of the Sonship.

 THIRDLY: the Gospel declares, that the child Jesus “grew in his stature, and in his wisdom, and in favour with GOD and man”. And the Apostle Peter, the head of the Apostles, says: “JESUS, a Man of GOD, appeared among you by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which GOD did by Him among you”. And, again, St. Paul, the master-builder of the Church, testifies that “there is one Mediator between GOD and man, the Man CHRIST JESUS".These three quotations most clearly affirm of CHRIST, after the union, that He existed in two Natures and two Qnume, and whosoever shall dispute these testimonies is lost from all truth.


I don't think this fellow really properly understood our Christology. It seems you do not have a sense of the distinction between objective and subjective, substance and subsistence. If you did it would be clear what we are meaning. We do not believe that the object of the humanity of Christ and the object of the divinity of the Logos became one. There was no mixture of substance. That illustration of the mingling does not represent our faith. If anything the second illustration is actually closer to what we believe. Severus of Antioch explained this when we spoke of two different definitions of hypostasis. On one hand, hypostasis can mean individuation of a substance, a concrete reality. On this level we maintain that the humanity and divinity of Christ remained distinct. On the other hand, as is more commonly used in our faith, hypostasis means the inner and experiential reality of an individual that can be likened to consciousness. On this level, we insist that the hypostasis behind the humanity of Christ is the Logos. He assumed an instance of humanity, subsisted in it, and made it His own.

So, if we theoretically take subsistence out of the picture, if we take kyana to mean a taxanomic type of being we can say that there are two kyane in Christ, and if we take qnoma to mean an individuated substance we can say that there are two qnome in Christ. However, if we take subsistence into account, as we must if we are to consider reality rather than theory, we must insist that there is only one subsistence behind the humanity and divinity of Christ, that being the subsistence who was begotten from the Father from eternity and later took flesh from the Virgin, the Logos.
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 #656 on: January 12, 2010, 12:27:42 AM »


God turned into a human and spilled his blood sounds incomplete at best, pagan at worse. Like Hercules, who was half God half human and spilled literal blood during the 12 tasks of Hercules. Also Gilgamesh, Pharaoh, etc. all the classic Greek pagan tradition men-gods unlike the MAN/GOD which is Meshiakha Eshua.

No, logically they are not alike. Hercules was not God. When we say "God" we mean the supreme and fully divine being who is above all others. Hercules only possessed half of what God is, and thus he wasn't actually God. So that story cannot satisfy "God became a human". I really don't see what is problematic about stating that the subsistence of the Logos took an instance of humanity from the Virgin as His own and perfectly subsisted in it.



I believe the Messiah offered himself as a holy Qurbana (mass/sacrifice), he offered his humanity and that his divinity remained untouched since God cannot die or suffer or bleed (or else the universe stops).

The divine substance of the Logos remained untouched, yes. But the Logos in His human substance was crucified.


The humanity of the Messiah assured that the sacrifice was accepted by the Father, if something 1% less human than 100% humanity was offered we are utterly doomed and have no atonement.

If something less than 100% human and 100% divine was offered we have no atonement.
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 #657 on: January 12, 2010, 12:29:56 AM »


Cyril disputes St.Peter who called Christ a "Man of God" thus showing his nature to be 100% human and 100% Divine.

No, he doesn't.
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 #658 on: January 12, 2010, 12:30:48 AM »


not nature I meant his parsopa. Two Kyanas. A  100% Divine and 100% Human Kyana and their mutual qnome.

"Mutual qnome"? This sound like something new.
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
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,196


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


WWW
« Reply #659 on: January 12, 2010, 12:44:13 AM »

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

When we confess one nature from two, we still believe in the existence of an unconfused and undivided concrete reality with full humanity and full divinity.

When I hear someone comparing "one person from two persons" to our "one nature from two natures," in my mind, there is one center of action while still believing in the existence of two unconfused and undivided beings in communion together.  Sounds like a marriage of sorts, not a real hypostatic union.

Therefore, if you insist on comparing "one person from two persons" to our "one nature from two natures," then you automatically are saying that the Assyrians are in fact "two personist" in their Christology, which they continually deny.

HE Metropolitan Bishoy puts it best:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg387227.html#msg387227

I suppose then when it comes to Assyrian Christology, when asked about whether they believe in two persons in Christ, their lips say no, their liturgies and Church fathers and clergy say yes.

Of course just because Met. Bishoy says so does not make it so.  Have you read the Liturgy of Addai and Mari?  It speaks of One Lord Jesus Christ, not the Logos and his temple the man Jesus.


Come on.  Just because I quoted HE Met.Bishoy doesn't mean that I listen to everything he says.  He just happens to put quite well something that I seem to find from your interpretation of Nazerene's quote.  I'm saying since you compare our "one nature out of two" to Assyrian "one person out of two" you are implying that they still believe in a distinct and unconfused "two personist" Christ.

That's great that the Liturgy of Addai and Mari says that, but what was Nazarene quoting then:

Quote
O Virgin, the Holy Spirit found Him in thee, and the Word dwelt in Him by union, without conversion or confusion, the Natures continuing to subsist unchanged, and the Qnome's also, by their essential attributes,the Divinity and Humanity subsisting in one Parsopa of Filiation.
(I changed Persons to "Qnome's" because I don't want anyone to tell me that the word Persons is a mistranslation; I get that; I want to know where are there two different pronouns for Christ!)
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg392820.html#msg392820

I'm starting to detect a pattern:  you, Nazerene, and Rafa999 have yet to answer my question about this particle quote in the Assyrian tradition, and it's a shame that none of you are able to answer it.  I have never in my life when seeing a quote in the OO tradition that confused EO's did I ever leave them in the dark to misunderstand it, but with detail do I go on in my explanation.  I fail to see anyone who defends the Assyrian tradition give me something substantial about this particular quote Nazerene gave, and not only is it a shame, but it is frustrating, because I really do want to understand and believe in the alleged "Orthodoxy" of the Assyrians and their predecessors.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2010, 12:53:42 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.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #660 on: January 12, 2010, 01:13:07 AM »


I'm starting to detect a pattern:  you, Nazerene, and Rafa999 have yet to answer my question about this particle quote in the Assyrian tradition, and it's a shame that none of you are able to answer it.  I have never in my life when seeing a quote in the OO tradition that confused EO's did I ever leave them in the dark to misunderstand it, but with detail do I go on in my explanation.  I fail to see anyone who defends the Assyrian tradition give me something substantial about this particular quote Nazerene gave, and not only is it a shame, but it is frustrating, because I really do want to understand and believe in the alleged "Orthodoxy" of the Assyrians and their predecessors.

I'm pretty sure that it's because they can't explain because they aren't actually orthodox.
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: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #661 on: January 12, 2010, 01:21:02 AM »


1.  Obviously it was not or the anathemas of Severus and Dioscoros would have been lifted and the EO s and OOs would be in communion right now.

I honestly think you're just being stubborn on this point now, because it seems clear as day to me. The capitula says that the Holy Fathers taught the miaphysis formula under a certain meaning. If the Holy Fathers taught the miaphysis formula and their meaning behind it is clarified, then why would it be unacceptable to use it in the exact same way? Further, the capitula anathematizes those who use the formula if they do not understand it as the Holy Fathers did, implying that if they do use it as the Holy Fathers did that they are not anathematized.

Severus and Dioscorus were not anathematized because of their use of the miaphysis formula, but rather because of their rejection of Chalcedon and their perceived Eutychian leanings.


2.  Whether he did or not the Fathers anathematized him for it.

Show me where the Chalcedon/post-Chalcedonian tradition attributed a mixing of substances to Dioscorus.

St. Cyril is the only one they admitted used miaphysis in a way consistent with diophysis.  They did not admit this of Dioscoros and Severus which is why they were anathematized again at the 6th Council.

The Definition of Faith of the 6th Council, the Third in Constantinople

The holy, great, and Ecumenical Synod which has been assembled by the grace of God, and the religious decree of the most religious and faithful and mighty Sovereign Constantine, in this God-protected and royal city of Constantinople, New Rome, in the Hall of the imperial Palace, called Trullus, has decreed as follows.
The only-begotten Son, and Word of God the Father, who was made man in all things like unto us without sin, Christ our true God, has declared expressly in the words of the Gospel, “I am the light of the world; he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” And again, “My peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you.” Our most gentle Sovereign, the champion of orthodoxy, and opponent of evil doctrine, being reverentially led by this divinely uttered doctrine of peace, and having convened this our holy and Ecumenical assembly, has united the judgment of the whole Church. Wherefore this our holy and Ecumenical Synod having driven away the impious error which had prevailed for a certain time until now, and following closely the straight path of the holy and approved Fathers, has piously given its full assent to the five holy and Ecumenical Synods (that is to say, to that of the 318 holy Fathers who assembled in Nice against the raging Arius; and the next in Constantinople of the 150 God-inspired men against Macedonius the adversary of the Spirit, and the impious Apollinaris; and also the first in Ephesus of 200 venerable men convened against Nestorius the Judaizer; and that in Chalcedon of 630 God-inspired Fathers against Eutyches and Dioscorus hated of God; and in addition to these, to the last, that is the Fifth holy Synod assembled in this place, against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, and the writings of Theodoret against the Twelve Chapters of the celebrated Cyril, and the Epistle which was said to be written by Ibas to Maris the Persian), renewing in all things the ancient decrees of religion, and chasing away the impious doctrines of irreligion. And this our holy and Ecumenical Synod inspired of God has set its seal to the Creed which was put forth by the 318 Fathers, and again religiously confirmed by the 150, which also the other holy synods cordially received and ratified for the taking away of every soul-destroying heresy.
The Nicene Creed of the 318 holy Fathers.
We believe, etc.
The Creed of the 150 holy Fathers assembled at Constantinople. We believe, etc.
The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius, and endeavouring craftily to destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of will or operation. Christ, therefore, our God, has raised up our faithful Sovereign, a new David, having found him a man after his own heart, who as it is written, “has not suffered his eyes to sleep nor his eyelids to slumber,” until he has found a perfect declaration of orthodoxy by this our God-collected and holy Synod; for, according to the sentence spoken of God, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” the present holy and Ecumenical Synod faithfully receiving and saluting with uplifted hands as well the suggestion which by the most holy and blessed Agatho, Pope of ancient Rome, was sent to our most pious and faithful Emperor Constantine, which rejected by name those who taught or preached one will and one operation in the dispensation of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ who is our very God, has likewise adopted that other synodal suggestion which was sent by the Council holden under the same most holy Pope, composed of 125 Bishops, beloved of God, to his God-instructed tranquillity, as consonant to the holy Council of Chalcedon and to the Tome of the most holy and blessed Leo, Pope of the same old Rome, which was directed to St. Flavian, which also this Council called the Pillar of the right faith; and also agrees with the Synodal Epistles which were written by Blessed Cyril against the impious Nestorius and addressed to the Oriental Bishops. Following the five holy Ecumenical Councils and the holy and approved Fathers, with one voice defining that our Lord Jesus Christ must be confessed to be very God and very man, one of the holy and consubstantial and life-giving Trinity, perfect in Deity and perfect in humanity, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and human body subsisting; consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before all ages according to his Godhead, but in these last days for us men and for our salvation made man of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, strictly and properly the Mother of God according to the flesh; one and the same Christ our Lord the only-begotten Son of two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, inseparably indivisibly to be recognized, the peculiarities of neither nature being lost by the union but rather the proprieties of each nature being preserved, concurring in one Person and in one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons but one and the same only-begotten Son of God, the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, according as the Prophets of old have taught us and as our Lord Jesus Christ himself hath instructed us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers hath delivered to us; defining all this we likewise declare that in him are two natural wills and two natural operations indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, inconfusedly, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers. And these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: “I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father which sent me!” where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature (ὄρῳ τε καὶ λόγῳ), so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: “His will [i.e., the Saviour’s] is not contrary to God but altogether deified.”
We glorify two natural operations indivisibly, immutably, inconfusedly, inseparably in the same our Lord Jesus Christ our true God, that is to say a divine operation and a human operation, according to the divine preacher Leo, who most distinctly asserts as follows: “For each form (μορφὴ) does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely, doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh.”
For we will not admit one natural operation in God and in the creature, as we will not exalt into the divine essence what is created, nor will we bring down the glory of the divine nature to the place suited to the creature.
We recognize the miracles and the sufferings as of one and the same [Person], but of one or of the other nature of which he is and in which he exists, as Cyril admirably says. Preserving therefore the inconfusedness and indivisibility, we make briefly this whole confession, believing our Lord Jesus Christ to be one of the Trinity and after the incarnation our true God, we say that his two natures shone forth in his one subsistence in which he both performed the miracles and endured the sufferings through the whole of his economic conversation (δἰ ὅλης αὐτοῦ τῆς οἰκονομκῆς ἀναστροφῆς), and that not in appearance only but in very deed, and this by reason of the difference of nature which must be recognized in the same Person, for although joined together yet each nature wills and does the things proper to it and that indivisibly and inconfusedly. Wherefore we confess two wills and two operations, concurring most fitly in him for the salvation of the human race.
These things, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #662 on: January 12, 2010, 01:42:29 AM »

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

When we confess one nature from two, we still believe in the existence of an unconfused and undivided concrete reality with full humanity and full divinity.

When I hear someone comparing "one person from two persons" to our "one nature from two natures," in my mind, there is one center of action while still believing in the existence of two unconfused and undivided beings in communion together.  Sounds like a marriage of sorts, not a real hypostatic union.

Therefore, if you insist on comparing "one person from two persons" to our "one nature from two natures," then you automatically are saying that the Assyrians are in fact "two personist" in their Christology, which they continually deny.

HE Metropolitan Bishoy puts it best:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg387227.html#msg387227

I suppose then when it comes to Assyrian Christology, when asked about whether they believe in two persons in Christ, their lips say no, their liturgies and Church fathers and clergy say yes.

Of course just because Met. Bishoy says so does not make it so.  Have you read the Liturgy of Addai and Mari?  It speaks of One Lord Jesus Christ, not the Logos and his temple the man Jesus.


Come on.  Just because I quoted HE Met.Bishoy doesn't mean that I listen to everything he says.  He just happens to put quite well something that I seem to find from your interpretation of Nazerene's quote.  I'm saying since you compare our "one nature out of two" to Assyrian "one person out of two" you are implying that they still believe in a distinct and unconfused "two personist" Christ.

That's great that the Liturgy of Addai and Mari says that, but what was Nazarene quoting then:

Quote
O Virgin, the Holy Spirit found Him in thee, and the Word dwelt in Him by union, without conversion or confusion, the Natures continuing to subsist unchanged, and the Qnome's also, by their essential attributes,the Divinity and Humanity subsisting in one Parsopa of Filiation.
(I changed Persons to "Qnome's" because I don't want anyone to tell me that the word Persons is a mistranslation; I get that; I want to know where are there two different pronouns for Christ!)
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg392820.html#msg392820

I'm starting to detect a pattern:  you, Nazerene, and Rafa999 have yet to answer my question about this particle quote in the Assyrian tradition, and it's a shame that none of you are able to answer it.  I have never in my life when seeing a quote in the OO tradition that confused EO's did I ever leave them in the dark to misunderstand it, but with detail do I go on in my explanation.  I fail to see anyone who defends the Assyrian tradition give me something substantial about this particular quote Nazerene gave, and not only is it a shame, but it is frustrating, because I really do want to understand and believe in the alleged "Orthodoxy" of the Assyrians and their predecessors.

Try this:
O Virgin, the Holy Spirit found Him (human qnome) in thee, and the Word (divine qnome) dwelt in Him (human qnome) by union, without conversion or confusion, the Natures (Knayas) continuing to subsist unchanged, and the Persons (Qnomes) also, by their essential attributes,the Divinity and Humanity subsisting in one Parsopa (Person) of Filiation.”
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #663 on: January 12, 2010, 01:43:15 AM »


St. Cyril is the only one they admitted used miaphysis in a way consistent with diophysis.

In the sense that Cyril understood nature? None of the three taught a faith consistent with diophysis because diophysis in the Cyrilline understanding of nature is Nestorian.

In the sense that the Second Council of Constantinople revised the meaning of nature? All three taught a faith consistent with diophysis.


They did not admit this of Dioscoros and Severus which is why they were anathematized again at the 6th Council.

Like I thought, they were condemned for their rejection of Chalcedon.

But you didn't answer my challenge.

Show me where the Chalcedonian or post-Chalcedonian tradition attributed mixing of substances to Dioscorus.
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,441


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #664 on: January 12, 2010, 01:47:51 AM »

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

When we confess one nature from two, we still believe in the existence of an unconfused and undivided concrete reality with full humanity and full divinity.

When I hear someone comparing "one person from two persons" to our "one nature from two natures," in my mind, there is one center of action while still believing in the existence of two unconfused and undivided beings in communion together.  Sounds like a marriage of sorts, not a real hypostatic union.

Therefore, if you insist on comparing "one person from two persons" to our "one nature from two natures," then you automatically are saying that the Assyrians are in fact "two personist" in their Christology, which they continually deny.

HE Metropolitan Bishoy puts it best:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg387227.html#msg387227

I suppose then when it comes to Assyrian Christology, when asked about whether they believe in two persons in Christ, their lips say no, their liturgies and Church fathers and clergy say yes.

Of course just because Met. Bishoy says so does not make it so.  Have you read the Liturgy of Addai and Mari?  It speaks of One Lord Jesus Christ, not the Logos and his temple the man Jesus.


Come on.  Just because I quoted HE Met.Bishoy doesn't mean that I listen to everything he says.  He just happens to put quite well something that I seem to find from your interpretation of Nazerene's quote.  I'm saying since you compare our "one nature out of two" to Assyrian "one person out of two" you are implying that they still believe in a distinct and unconfused "two personist" Christ.

That's great that the Liturgy of Addai and Mari says that, but what was Nazarene quoting then:

Quote
O Virgin, the Holy Spirit found Him in thee, and the Word dwelt in Him by union, without conversion or confusion, the Natures continuing to subsist unchanged, and the Qnome's also, by their essential attributes,the Divinity and Humanity subsisting in one Parsopa of Filiation.
(I changed Persons to "Qnome's" because I don't want anyone to tell me that the word Persons is a mistranslation; I get that; I want to know where are there two different pronouns for Christ!)
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg392820.html#msg392820

I'm starting to detect a pattern:  you, Nazerene, and Rafa999 have yet to answer my question about this particle quote in the Assyrian tradition, and it's a shame that none of you are able to answer it.  I have never in my life when seeing a quote in the OO tradition that confused EO's did I ever leave them in the dark to misunderstand it, but with detail do I go on in my explanation.  I fail to see anyone who defends the Assyrian tradition give me something substantial about this particular quote Nazerene gave, and not only is it a shame, but it is frustrating, because I really do want to understand and believe in the alleged "Orthodoxy" of the Assyrians and their predecessors.

Try this:
O Virgin, the Holy Spirit found Him (human qnome) in thee, and the Word (divine qnome) dwelt in Him (human qnome) by union, without conversion or confusion, the Natures (Knayas) continuing to subsist unchanged, and the Persons (Qnomes) also, by their essential attributes,the Divinity and Humanity subsisting in one Parsopa (Person) of Filiation.”
Where in the COE service books can this hymnographic text be found?
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,196


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


WWW
« Reply #665 on: January 12, 2010, 01:50:26 AM »

Try this:
O Virgin, the Holy Spirit found Him (human qnome) in thee, and the Word (divine qnome) dwelt in Him (human qnome) by union, without conversion or confusion, the Natures (Knayas) continuing to subsist unchanged, and the Persons (Qnomes) also, by their essential attributes,the Divinity and Humanity subsisting in one Parsopa (Person) of Filiation.”

But I wouldn't call either qnome a "him."  The language is still heretical.  Why is a qnome a "him" when it is only a concrete reality, a "nature" in Chalcedonian terms in other words.  Chalcedonians didn't call the human nature a "him."  Do you see what I'm saying?

By Assyrian definition, a qnome shouldn't be a "Him" since it is only a concrete reality, and yet "Him" is used when referring to the human qnome, "in Whom" (as opposed "through which") the Word dwelt.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2010, 01:53:13 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.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #666 on: January 12, 2010, 01:56:51 AM »

Try this:
O Virgin, the Holy Spirit found Him (human qnome) in thee, and the Word (divine qnome) dwelt in Him (human qnome) by union, without conversion or confusion, the Natures (Knayas) continuing to subsist unchanged, and the Persons (Qnomes) also, by their essential attributes,the Divinity and Humanity subsisting in one Parsopa (Person) of Filiation.”

But I wouldn't call either qnome a "him."  The language is still heretical.  Why is a qnome a "him" when it is only a concrete reality, a "nature" in Chalcedonian terms in other words.  Chalcedonians didn't call the human nature a "him."  Do you see what I'm saying?

By Assyrian definition, a qnome shouldn't be a "Him" since it is only a concrete reality, and yet "Him" is used when referring to the human qnome, "in Whom" (as opposed "through which") the Word dwelt.

Qnome is probably more like hypostasis, with the connotation of subsistence, than we're being led on to believe, and parsopa is more like persona or prosopon, simply indicating the external/superficial personality or "face". Theodore of Mopsuestia even admitted that prosopon is a consequence of hypostasis, and thus his "prosopic union" was created simply because he knew the rest of the church affirmed some form of one personality.
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
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #667 on: January 12, 2010, 03:07:55 PM »

Try this:
O Virgin, the Holy Spirit found Him (human qnome) in thee, and the Word (divine qnome) dwelt in Him (human qnome) by union, without conversion or confusion, the Natures (Knayas) continuing to subsist unchanged, and the Persons (Qnomes) also, by their essential attributes,the Divinity and Humanity subsisting in one Parsopa (Person) of Filiation.”

But I wouldn't call either qnome a "him."  The language is still heretical.  Why is a qnome a "him" when it is only a concrete reality, a "nature" in Chalcedonian terms in other words.  Chalcedonians didn't call the human nature a "him."  Do you see what I'm saying?

By Assyrian definition, a qnome shouldn't be a "Him" since it is only a concrete reality, and yet "Him" is used when referring to the human qnome, "in Whom" (as opposed "through which") the Word dwelt.

There is no neuter gender in either Aramaic or Hebrew. "Him" does not always mean "him". Now I haven't seen the original Aramaic text of this Gaza quote but I'm betting that the word used here is hau, which appears in Peshitta Matthew 1:20 as this quote is obviously an exposition of that verse. Hau is gramatically masculine but it is more correctly rendered as "the one/this one/that one" according the Syriac Electronic Data Retrieval Archive. So I believe in this case the English translation is too literal to the point that it skews the meaning of the Aramaic - translating too literally is a big no no for Semitic languages.

Be careful not to read too much into a translation.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #668 on: January 12, 2010, 09:59:50 PM »


They did not admit this of Dioscoros and Severus which is why they were anathematized again at the 6th Council.

Like I thought, they were condemned for their rejection of Chalcedon.

But you didn't answer my challenge.

Show me where the Chalcedonian or post-Chalcedonian tradition attributed mixing of substances to Dioscorus.

Who do you think they were refering to if not Dioscoros and Severus?  Because they subscribed to miaphysis, which means one composite nature (which can be understood to mean a mixed 50/50 nature), and because they would not accept Chalcedon they fell under the anathema of the 6th Council.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #669 on: January 12, 2010, 10:03:19 PM »


They did not admit this of Dioscoros and Severus which is why they were anathematized again at the 6th Council.

Like I thought, they were condemned for their rejection of Chalcedon.

But you didn't answer my challenge.

Show me where the Chalcedonian or post-Chalcedonian tradition attributed mixing of substances to Dioscorus.

Who do you think they were refering to if not Dioscoros and Severus?  Because they subscribed to miaphysis, which means one composite nature (which can be understood to mean a mixed 50/50 nature), and because they would not accept Chalcedon they fell under the anathema of the 6th Council.

We don't know. It didn't attribute it to any one in particular. It was a rather general "if anyone shall...". So you were wrong about the Councils directly attributing that to Dioscorus.
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: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #670 on: January 12, 2010, 10:18:28 PM »


Try this:
O Virgin, the Holy Spirit found Him (human qnome) in thee, and the Word (divine qnome) dwelt in Him (human qnome) by union, without conversion or confusion, the Natures (Knayas) continuing to subsist unchanged, and the Persons (Qnomes) also, by their essential attributes,the Divinity and Humanity subsisting in one Parsopa (Person) of Filiation.”
Where in the COE service books can this hymnographic text be found?

I don't know, I can't find it in my copy of the Litrugy of Mar Addai and Mari or the propers that I have.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #671 on: January 12, 2010, 10:25:50 PM »


They did not admit this of Dioscoros and Severus which is why they were anathematized again at the 6th Council.

Like I thought, they were condemned for their rejection of Chalcedon.

But you didn't answer my challenge.

Show me where the Chalcedonian or post-Chalcedonian tradition attributed mixing of substances to Dioscorus.

Who do you think they were refering to if not Dioscoros and Severus?  Because they subscribed to miaphysis, which means one composite nature (which can be understood to mean a mixed 50/50 nature), and because they would not accept Chalcedon they fell under the anathema of the 6th Council.

We don't know. It didn't attribute it to any one in particular. It was a rather general "if anyone shall...". So you were wrong about the Councils directly attributing that to Dioscorus.

We know.  You may not want to know because you are trying to construct some rehabilitation of Dioscoros and Severus out of the 5th Council.  Again I ask who do you think they meant when they talked about those misconstruing miaphysis?  I am not saying you have to believe Dioscorus or Severus were actually guilty of teaching admixture of substances but the Fathers of Councils 4-7 did.
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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,196


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


WWW
« Reply #672 on: January 12, 2010, 10:28:02 PM »

Try this:
O Virgin, the Holy Spirit found Him (human qnome) in thee, and the Word (divine qnome) dwelt in Him (human qnome) by union, without conversion or confusion, the Natures (Knayas) continuing to subsist unchanged, and the Persons (Qnomes) also, by their essential attributes,the Divinity and Humanity subsisting in one Parsopa (Person) of Filiation.”

But I wouldn't call either qnome a "him."  The language is still heretical.  Why is a qnome a "him" when it is only a concrete reality, a "nature" in Chalcedonian terms in other words.  Chalcedonians didn't call the human nature a "him."  Do you see what I'm saying?

By Assyrian definition, a qnome shouldn't be a "Him" since it is only a concrete reality, and yet "Him" is used when referring to the human qnome, "in Whom" (as opposed "through which") the Word dwelt.

There is no neuter gender in either Aramaic or Hebrew. "Him" does not always mean "him". Now I haven't seen the original Aramaic text of this Gaza quote but I'm betting that the word used here is hau, which appears in Peshitta Matthew 1:20 as this quote is obviously an exposition of that verse. Hau is gramatically masculine but it is more correctly rendered as "the one/this one/that one" according the Syriac Electronic Data Retrieval Archive. So I believe in this case the English translation is too literal to the point that it skews the meaning of the Aramaic - translating too literally is a big no no for Semitic languages.

Be careful not to read too much into a translation.


Interesting point...would love to read more about the translation of this.

Thank you.  Previously, Deacon Lance assumed this prayer meant Assyrians believed in "two persons in thought alone" which troubled me.
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 #673 on: January 12, 2010, 10:50:21 PM »


They did not admit this of Dioscoros and Severus which is why they were anathematized again at the 6th Council.

Like I thought, they were condemned for their rejection of Chalcedon.

But you didn't answer my challenge.

Show me where the Chalcedonian or post-Chalcedonian tradition attributed mixing of substances to Dioscorus.

Who do you think they were refering to if not Dioscoros and Severus?  Because they subscribed to miaphysis, which means one composite nature (which can be understood to mean a mixed 50/50 nature), and because they would not accept Chalcedon they fell under the anathema of the 6th Council.

We don't know. It didn't attribute it to any one in particular. It was a rather general "if anyone shall...". So you were wrong about the Councils directly attributing that to Dioscorus.

We know.  You may not want to know because you are trying to construct some rehabilitation of Dioscoros and Severus out of the 5th Council.  Again I ask who do you think they meant when they talked about those misconstruing miaphysis?  I am not saying you have to believe Dioscorus or Severus were actually guilty of teaching admixture of substances but the Fathers of Councils 4-7 did.

It's nowhere made explicit and numerous EO sources indicate that Dioscorus was not a heretic.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,129


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #674 on: January 13, 2010, 10:54:25 AM »

God turned into a human and spilled his blood sounds incomplete at best, pagan at worse. Like Hercules, who was half God half human and spilled literal blood during the 12 tasks of Hercules. Also Gilgamesh, Pharaoh, etc. all the classic Greek pagan tradition men-gods unlike the MAN/GOD which is Meshiakha Eshua.
No it sounds Christian.
I believe the Messiah offered himself as a holy Qurbana (mass/sacrifice), he offered his humanity and that his divinity remained untouched since God cannot die or suffer or bleed (or else the universe stops). The humanity of the Messiah assured that the sacrifice was accepted by the Father, if something 1% less human than 100% humanity was offered we are utterly doomed and have no atonement.
No body said that his Divinity was affected by the cross. But the person who died on the cross was God the Son. Why do you miss this?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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 0.213 seconds with 71 queries.