Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
COE Theology and stuff about the 2 persons
#1
Hey

I am intrigued by the theology of the COE and the stuff about 2 persons [if that is right] but I want to find some detailed, authentic info about it. I say 'authentic' because most resources are about Nestorius which some say are incorrect because they are biased against him, and the COE according to my ex-prof Erica, hates being called Nestorian.

Can anyone guide? I want to especially know about the difference of Jesus son of Mary and Jesus and the Rowkha Qedosh and the Word.

To the Thadmobile on this one chaps!
This post is sponsored by Thadmania! Inc
All rights reserved
Reply
#2
Shlama Gentile,

See the series of articles from the Pro-Oriente consultations here http://www.cired.org/east.html

P.S. - Forgive me if I'm slow, but what is "Thadmania" and the "Thadmobile"? ( is this a reference to the Thadman? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> )
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#3
Thanks. I am even more intrigued by this. Demarcation between Jesus the son of Mar-yam [of the Christokos] and Jesus the manifestation of the Rokha Qedosh. Intriguing to say the least!

Another concern of mine - how can this relate to the Trinity doctrine? What we have here is one person - Christ - who has the human element of eating, breathing, sleeping etc, and the spiritual element of the Rokha Qedosh whereby he heals and guides. In my estimation, with this understanding, would the Trinity doctrine be of any relevance anyway?

As for the Thadding around stuff, I am just messing about with Stevo's screenname for a laugh <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue -->
This post is sponsored by Thadmania! Inc
All rights reserved
Reply
#4
Shlama Akhi,

Synodicon Oriental Wrote:???Concerning this, we believe in our hearts and confess with our lips one Lord Yeshua Meshikha, bar-Alaha, whose Alahotha (Godhead) does not disappear, and whose manhood is not stolen away, but who is complete Alaha and complete bar-Nasha. When we say of Meshikha ???complete Alaha` we are not naming the Tlithayutha ("trinity"), but one of the qnome of the Tlithayutha, Alaha the Miltha. Again, when we call Meshikha ???complete bar-Nasha` it is not all nashe ("men") we are naming, but the one qnoma which was specifically taken for our salvation into union with the Miltha.???
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#5
Shlama Akhi Paul

Synodicon Oriental Wrote:???Concerning this, we believe in our hearts and confess with our lips one Lord Yeshua Meshikha, bar-Alaha, whose Alahotha (Godhead) does not disappear, and whose manhood is not stolen away, but who is complete Alaha and complete bar-Nasha. When we say of Meshikha ???complete Alaha` we are not naming the Tlithayutha ("trinity"), but one of the qnome of the Tlithayutha, Alaha the Miltha. Again, when we call Meshikha ???complete bar-Nasha` it is not all nashe ("men") we are naming, but the one qnoma which was specifically taken for our salvation into union with the Miltha.???
[/quote]

I'm really amazed! If I understood well, it's the same faith ("christology") that we roman catholics confess, with different terminology. I was suspecting that since some time ago. I'll carefully study the documents in cired.org.
God bless you!

Fwx0b
Ab. Valentin[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)][/font]
Reply
#6
Shlama Akhi Paul:

Synodicon Oriental Wrote:???Concerning this, we believe in our hearts and confess with our lips one Lord Yeshua Meshikha, bar-Alaha, whose Alahotha (Godhead) does not disappear, and whose manhood is not stolen away, but who is complete Alaha and complete bar-Nasha. When we say of Meshikha ???complete Alaha` we are not naming the Tlithayutha ("trinity"), but one of the qnome of the Tlithayutha, Alaha the Miltha. Again, when we call Meshikha ???complete bar-Nasha` it is not all nashe ("men") we are naming, but the one qnoma which was specifically taken for our salvation into union with the Miltha.???
[/quote]

I'm really amazed! If I understood well, it's the same Faith ("Christology") that we roman catholic (and other christians) confess, but with different terminology... I was suspecting that since some time ago. I'll seriously study the documents of cireg.org.

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fwx0b[/font]Ab. Valentin
Reply
#7
Vsanzcm Wrote:Shlama Akhi Paul:

Synodicon Oriental Wrote:???Concerning this, we believe in our hearts and confess with our lips one Lord Yeshua Meshikha, bar-Alaha, whose Alahotha (Godhead) does not disappear, and whose manhood is not stolen away, but who is complete Alaha and complete bar-Nasha. When we say of Meshikha ???complete Alaha` we are not naming the Tlithayutha ("trinity"), but one of the qnome of the Tlithayutha, Alaha the Miltha. Again, when we call Meshikha ???complete bar-Nasha` it is not all nashe ("men") we are naming, but the one qnoma which was specifically taken for our salvation into union with the Miltha.???

I'm really amazed! If I understood well, it's the same Faith ("Christology") that we roman catholics (and other christians) confess, but with different terminology... I was suspecting that since some time ago. I'll seriously study the documents of cireg.org.

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fwx0b[/font]Ab. Valentin[/quote]
Reply
#8
Shlama Qashisha,

Vsanzcm Wrote:I'm really amazed! If I understood well, it's the same Faith ("Christology") that we roman catholics (and other christians) confess, but with different terminology... I was suspecting that since some time ago. I'll seriously study the documents of cireg.org.

Yes, amazing isn't it? The difference in terminology arises from the fact that one church in one empire used Greek to formulate dogma, but the other church in the other empire used Aramaic to formulate dogma.

When you have languages as different as Greek and Aramaic being used to formulate dogma, there will be perceived problems when comparing the two because there are shades of meaning in one language that are inaccurately conveyed, or not conveyed at all, in the other language (and vice-versa.)

Or worse yet, as happened in this case, the Aramaic word "Qnoma" was changed by the western Aramaic speakers to evolve into the cognate of the Greek "prosopon", while the archaic meaning was preserved by eastern Aramaic speakers.

When you saw us saying "Two Qnome", you immediately became suspicious because you had more contact with the western Aramaic-speakers and thought that we were saying "Two persons", when in reality Qnoma doesn't mean "person" in any sense of the term.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#9
The part of the Nestoian heresy that we Eastern Orthodox find most heretical is the division of Christ's humanity and divinity into two seperate entities each responsable for their own seperate actions. Narsai the Great explains the action of Jesus of Nazareth by dividing the human actions (crying, hunger, death (which is a process and not a end-point...ie it is a passage; therefore it is not death but falling asleep to awaken)) and the divine actions (turning water into wine, raising the dead, etc).
So whats the big deal?
Well us Orthodox belive that God the Son became in the flesh (incarnate) in order to recapitulate the fallen creation into a divine order (the true "natural" order after all). In English, man fell away from God and has no ability on his own to perfect himself so that he can become a "partaker of the divine nature" once again as was Adam. Unless, God becomes man, lives as a man, endures this world totally and thereby offers back a spotless MATERIAL sacrifice. HOWEVER, the divine LOGOS/MELTA is still the SON of GOD and the Man is still man but with one person and one action. That which the divine feels and does is also done to the human and felt by the human and visa-versa. If not then God has not reached down into humanity to pull it back up to divinity. And only in the divine state can perfection be found; only the perfect can dwell with God, much less touch his body and blood to their lips. In short, no perfect GOD-Man then no salvation. As said St Clement ofAlexandria "God became man so that man can become god"(little g intentional). We become through grace what God is by nature.

So the Nestorian dogma of Christ causes God to be seperated from man and therefore the Orthodox idea of the LOGOS having made us partakers of the divine nature is lost in Nestorian duality.

Furthermore, the Theotokos is not a honoring of St. Mary as much as it is an assurance of the proper understanding of Christ's nature. Since if Christ is both perfect man and perfect GOD in one divine unity on the level of PARSOPON/PARSOPA then see did truely give birth to God the Word (hence THEOTOKOS-birthgiver to God and not mearly Christ)

ps THEOTOKOS is the most theologically perfect tearm for Christ's Mother as it encompasses the entirety of her identity rather that only that which is birhtgiver to the humanity of Christ but to both GOD and man in one Christ. Hence God endured complete humanity from womb to tomb to resurrection.

His most sinful servant,
Ephraim (crismated name) (Ashur-secular name)
Reply
#10
Ashur - is that you buddy? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> Welcome.

The Nestorian heresy, as you've defined it, isn't followed by anyone...not even Nestorius himself. See the Common Christological agreement for the definitive stance of the CoE on the subject.

Nar Narsai the Great was simply showing that He was both God and man, but that each nature is preserved in its own Qnoma and that each is has its own property.

For instance, God cannot die and man cannot forgive sins. So you see Mar Narsai is explaining the great mystery, Raza, of the Incarnation to us - the meaning of Ammanu-El. God is with Us. He is both He and Us at one and the same time.

As a former Shamashe in the CoE, I respect your opinion and I hope you reconsider the evidence from our viewpoint.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#11
Akhai Paulous:
Slame wa Sheyne d'Maran 'mayk

To the Orthodox the idea that God the Son did die as a man and as a God in one movment of the full Statsis (existential being as contrased with hypostasis meaning below the existential being and being only one conglomerate thereof) of Christ is imperative to our understanding of salvation.
Here's why...
To us there is one head of the Trinity-God the Father from whom proceed the Son and the Holy Spirit-each with his own role and responsability but none more important than the other. Analogious to this is the Husband and wife relationship; the husband is the head, but he is not more valuble than the wife-they are equals. Nevertheless the wife shouldn't say "I wanna be the man and/or head" nor would the Holy Spirit way "I wanna be the Father". Each has his own role. THe role of the God the Son is to take the material world that was one with the Divine (Eden) but has fallen and Christ is to return fallen earth to a divine one. In short, redeem that which man's weakness caused to fall. We insist that God (through the LOGOS) must become man. HE must endure suffering and temptation (aside, a common theologumen (non dogmatic theological thought) is that Christ would not have been tempted by hate or lust etc but by seeing man living in a fallen world and Christ who is GOD in the flesh would want to eliminate the fallen world altogeter to aliviate suffering. His love would make him want to eliminate free will, and that would be Christ's temption).
GOD Himself does enter into a human state and does die as such. God can die as much as he can be angry since death is just a pathway and it only can destroy the falleness which we inherit here on earth. You can't be lustful during/after death or smell roses for that matter. The material becomes etheral. If anyting it would be most logical that the LOGOS would die inorder to fully recapitualate the cycle of man. In adams time we were mere mortals not fit to proclaim glory to God, but we become priests in Christ's time whose duty it is to offer back creation. Wait, creation must be spotless in order to be offered back to God. So we need Christ to recapitulate it in order to make it a "spotless sacrifice". Moreover, death is the ultimate offering back to God, and therefore it cannot be a fallen process but a perfect one. So God must endure it in order to recreate death into a redemptive and holy perfection. If not no one man may be saved since death would mare him and he would die far from His God. To say that God did not, in his perfecting grace, endure death is to say that death, as a part of the fallen world, was not glorified and made a part of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Humbly and sinfully
Ephriam
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)