My church defined your church's bible

[Inquiring Mind]

Nestoria denied that Jesus was God before the Crucifixion. Jesus only acquired his God nature when he ascended to heaven.

 

[Inquiring Mind]

Could you answer the question, instead of rehashing your distractory quotes?
Do YOU believe the "literal sense" proves the EOC or RCC (like you're trying to push on me)? If so, why are you "Congregational Holiness", and also claim not to believe in any local church at all, just "you and your Bible under a tree"?
Who are you, and what do you really believe?

I believe in a local church, I just don't attend a local church in more. What I am partial toward is those churches that are sacramental in nature. Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Luthern, RCC, EOC, Disciples of Christ. But they all have doctrinal problems, but thier Doctrinal problems when added together is less than those of other individual denominations and those of the each individual non-denomnational.

Worry less about what I am not.
Worry less about what I might be.
Worry about what I argue about.

I read the book "The Final Quest". The dream of the hords of demons in the battle is enlightening. Each leader of each battalion and squad denotes a Demon riding upon the back of a christian pastor. All of these Pastors are being guided by Satan in furthering the schism of Christ's True Church. When I read when a battalion or squad is beaten down or destroyed another comes up to replace it. The Battallions and Squads and Platoons are ever increasing. This parallels the ever increasing number of Denominations and non-denominations.

Buy the book and read it.

Decide for yourself.

Satan over the couse of 500 years has chipped away at everything that was believed by the early church believed.

Satan has created new doctrines:

Baptism does not have saving properties.

Contraception is no longer a sin.

Abortion is okay(yes certain denoms say it is okay, because it is just in plain simple terms another form of Contraception)

Bread, the Body of Christ has become a symbolic notion.

Wine, the Blood of Christ has become a symbolic notion.

Praying for the dead (Which Jews still do, They even have a holiday for it and a term for it) has been deemed pagan.

The Body of Christ is no longer those that are living now and those in heaven, it is now only those here on earth. Satan teaches that once the Body Dies the Soul is no longer a member of the Holy Body of Christ. The term Saint has been regulated to only those here in on earth, there are not any Saints in heaven.

Children that are born with original sin are denied the saving grace of Baptism because the new doctrine is that only a believing person can be baptised. This doctrine has place many babies, retarded children, and brain damaged adults in hell because we no longer want them to be baptized as Christ was baptized.

Just calling on the Lord is all one has to do to be saved. Nothing else is required of the believer, just believe and all your problems are solved.

Christ is only preached resurrected instead of preaching that he was crucifiied and resurrected. A crucifix is a horrible reminder of what Christ suffered. No one wants to contemplates what Christ suffered for us. The Crucifix is God's icon to us of his pure love for his Creation (US).

Satan has removed the idea of suffering for our faith. We doctrine that we are Crucified with Christ as been erased.

Just to name a few.

Satan truely is the god with a little g of this world.

Yes worry about what I was, what I am, or what I will be. None of that is important. What is important is true discernment of the Word of God in Flesh, Word of God in Writing, Word of God in the Flesh.

If the EOC or the RCC has interpreted one way, we who believe the they are wrong must find an alternate meaning. There are the Early Church Fathers books. 38 volumes containing what they wrote. Not all agreed or believed the same thing, but there was a majority consensus. Councils were held to rectify these differences. I have to assume that the Holy Spirit was active in these Bishops, Pastors, Deacons, and Elders that convened in the name of the God, Son, and Holy Spirit in order to determine how to discern the passages.

History, History, History.

History tells us that the Doctrine of the Triinity was not esablsihed until nearly 400 years after the death of Christ. Sometimes I don't believe the Doctrine. It is not explicit in the Bible at all. One could equally say that the Doctrine of the Triinity is a New Doctrine outside what was believed if you talk to a certain type of poeple of the day. But fortunately History is always written by the Majority and the Victor.

If you want me to believe the exaggerated evils of the EOC and the RCC, I might as well believe the fiction of Dan Brown is in fact Truth.

And what if the Bible is in reality nothing more than a book of Mythology? Then we are all delusional. What if the atheists are right and we are nothing but superstitiious barbarians believing in an invisible God that no one has actually seen. What if Christianiity is nothing more than a Con Job designed to help instill fear by introducing a place of eternal torment so that we may think tiwice about bieng immoral. There are christian sects that do not believe in hell. SDAs don't bellieve in an eternal punishment. Now we have these New Age movements and this new "Church Emergent" movement coming into play. Satan surely is working storng to further remove every last vistage of what what believed by the majority of the early chirstians. What's next?

Good day.

 

[orthodox]

The point there was Peter's double life. He was not really following the Law, only putting on a show in front of Jews, as if the OT really supported his behavior, and now Paul came with "tradition" that overrides it.

Why do you say he wasn't following it? Under the law, associating with gentiles would have made him unclean.

And why is it not about voting? You said the entire Church decided these matters, and could oppose the leaders, even.

It's not about voting in so far as individuals just follow the Traditions, there is no actual vote.

So now you bring the Spirit into it. I thought it was just a matter of just believing whatever you were taught. If the Spirit can do that, then the Spirit could also guide other Christians outside this one denomination, and still, men's judgments can still cloud the Spirit's guidance leading to dissension.

Yes the Spirit COULD, but why would He, since He already has been doing that over 2000 years, but you want Him to start at square one with every Christian. As I said, Mark 4:25 "For whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him."

And how would you even know if He was guiding those outside Orthodoxy since you for one are not willing to listen to the Church? As the bible says, Luke 16:31 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

In many cases, it is not a matter of explaining the book, it is the person adding things that are not there, and only claining it is a separate tradition from what is there. It's like if I have a Windows system, and a Mac technician comes and tells me it's a Mac, regardless of what I see in the manual, or in the program itslef. He then stakes his claim of being an older computer company.

You're assuming it is a windows system because that is what your tradition says.

That's what you earlier called the lowest common denominator. Only problem, if the Church (or part of it) changed at that point and afterward (for there to be a split), it could have been changing before that (up to that point) as well.

The Church doesn't change, only people leave the Church through heresy.

1Cor.1:12-13, where Paul criticizes division, including those who claim to be be the true follwers of Christ. The entire Church has erred here, so for one to claim "we are the true one" simply perpetuates the very problem.

That verse is about following personalities, not following the Truth and the Traditions. Care to try again?

You're jumping all over the place here. You keep saying "not the leaders, not the organization", "it's their teaching" the people can decide; no the people only follow the tradition, etc. yet an institution, is clearly what you are advocating regardless of how many "organizations" you count within it. (what entity embodies and maintains this teaching but the institution and its leaders?)

Not an entity or an institution but the Church! The people!

Also, because you keep counting our organizations and claim they are a barrier to unity, so organizations must be a determining factor in unity.

I only count them in so far as the different organisations have different beliefs. Actually I'm being generous because in one organisation like the Anglican Church is varies wildly between say Bishop Spong and his wildly liberal philosophy, and some diocese which are radically evangelical.

So it's a group of people defined purely by certain teachings, which are the truth because they all agree on them, and can trace their institution back to the early Church.

Yes we trace the institution back, but also the teachings and the body.

No truth is ever established on "we're the oldest group", and "we have never changed" (which is highly doubtful anyway).

The same catch cry of liberals who are always changing everything.

There is more truth beyond just a declaration of faith in Christ, but that does not prove that everything your church teaches is all the truth and that you have not added things to it. "Bind on earth" was spoken to the original apostles who had to establish the new faith.

Uh, read the text again, it was spoken to the disciples, and Christ had more than 12 disciples.

I also didn't say God forced anyone to fall away, but by narrowing "the truth" down to your particular sectarian denominational distinctives, then God allowed most of the Church to fall away, which your view always denies could happen when confronting the "underground Church" theory.

You cannot fall away from the Church if you were never in the Church in the first place.

The "heresies" were always small and died out eventually. Not the Church dividing in half. (And then a larger half dividing even more, and only the less known group being the true one). So a person born in a Christian culture where there is no EOC then has to do all of this searching through history to find Christ (that's not what Christ meant by "seek and you shall find", becuase we are also told "and He be NOT FAR from each of you", meaning it is a spiritual search, not a historical one.

God may not be far from all of us, but to be in the Church proper you need some historical information - the scriptures for one. That's not to say you can't be saved without the scriptures, but not even you could say you have the fullness of truth and be in the Church in some pagan land.

However, the "search history" argument is what is used by underground Church theorists such as the sabbathkeepers!)

There is nothing underground about the EOC. It has been the visible Church for 2000 years.

So if you realy believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church, then as av1611 earlier said, He uses one group up to a point, (which doesn't necessarily mean that this group is 100% correct on everything) and when it crosses a certain line, then He raises people to challenge it. All of us have followed the Spirit in some areas, and ignored Him and followed their own traditions in other areas. This is the cause of disunity, and saying "no, God's group is only 100% correct in everything, and it's my group", only makes the problem worse.

Here's the thing. You are on record as saying that the EOC is a valid Church - great. But Eliyahu is here saying that I'm an idolater and going to hell and a heretic because I say Mary bore God. I've had Puratins tell me that if you see "The Passion of the Christ" movie you are an idolater because it depicts God. But they don't mind depicting other people, just not Christ. I've had other Protestants say it is OK to depict Christ because he can be worshipped, but to depict other people is idolatry. I've seen a 19th century copy of the Puritin "Pilgrim's Progress" book, and it depicts Christ in a colour plate in the front. At the protestant catering book store there are wall plaques depicting Christ (though of course, not Orthodox ones), and plenty of books, Tee shirts and vidoes depicting Christ and the disciples. I've even heard of Jesus dolls for the kids to play with. On the other hand the iconoclasts of the 8th century eschewed ALL images, so no family photos, TV, photography, internet etc etc.

The charge of idolatry is a serious one. If he's right, we are going to hell, and other Christians ought rightly anathematize us. On the other hand, 98% of protestantism has gravitated towards iconography, but because it isn't Orthodox iconography, they think they can tell us we are going to hell.

But who is right in this whole debate? Is there no authority on earth who can bind what is bound in heaven and be a source of the Truth? Or must we wallow in bitter in-fighting until the end of time?

 

[Eliyahu]

What's the difference? You want to split Christ in two and say Mary bore only one nature of Christ?



What you think it sounds like is irrelevant. It doesn't mean that. We defined the term, we'll say what it means and doesn't mean, and the confusion of some protestants 1500 years later is due to their ignorance, due to them not being instructed in the Church.



Uh, yes they did. Clearly you are ignorant of Church history.



That's right she wasn't, and your feigned ignorance is again, irrelevant.



Huh??!?!? If we say that we do a certain thing, then we get to define what we believe, we get to define our own terms. In point of fact itt doesn't matter what the dictionary says, but I just pointed out that you venerate the saints just like we do, as you already admitted when we see the dictionary.



Fine, but we don't do that. Glad we could put you straight.



They mean the same!! You venerate the saints, stop begin a hypocrite.



Ah huh! So you picture them and then you venerate them. Ahhh, the hypocrisy.




Nonsense. Idol worshippers weren't carrying family pictures, it's a completely different thing.

Absolute Lies by you!

Where did I say that I venerate the saints or family photos ?

If you cannot show me the sentence where I said I venerate the saints, you are a typical liar !
Show me, I mentioned that I do respect the disciples !
Do you know how to distinguish between Respect and Venerate ?

You are spliting Godheads into 3 pieces, otherwise you cannot say that Mary is Mother of God, while you are saying Mary is not the Mother of God the Father !
You are dividing Godheads into 3 pieces, denying Tri-Unity.
So, you are not Orthodox, while Orthodox claim that they believe in Tri-Unity.

You may say that
Mary was the mother of God the Son, Jesus Christ, while He was on earth.
Jesus was God when He created Adam and Eve, where was Mary at that time ? Was Mary Mother of God the Son when He created the Universe ? NOPE!
Was Mary Mother of God when David confessed this ?

Pslam 110:
1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.


You may bow down to the Enemies because Footstool is what you have to bow down to, right ? that's why you may not understand Jesus Crhist worked before He came out of Mary, right ?


Have you ever read this ?

John 8:56-58
56Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.


Where was Mary when Jesus met Abraham ?
Was Jesus different from the person who met Abraham ?

 

[Eliyahu]

Nobody in the Bible calls the God Head the Trinity either.

Are you sure?

Luk 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Mother of my Lord?

Jesus is the Lord in question.
Jesus is God.

Mother of my God.

The word used for Lord:

G2962 kurios
koo'-ree-os
From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.

Are you blind ?
Don't you know the difference between God and Lord ?
What did you read? Did you find any word, theos ?

It sounds like you don't know how to distinguish (offensive language removed)
Is my adonai the same as my Elohim ?

If you can convert My Lord to My God, then you can create another religion, as Catholic did so far.

[Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.]

 

[Eric B]

Why do you say he wasn't following it? Under the law, associating with gentiles would have made him unclean.

Because what he was criticized for was living a double life. Living like a gentile at other times when he was not urging gentiles to live as Jews. The Law commanded no such hypocrisy.

It's not about voting in so far as individuals just follow the Traditions, there is no actual vote.

Then how do they override leaders, then?

Not an entity or an institution but the Church! The people!

Yes the Spirit COULD, but why would He, since He already has been doing that over 2000 years, but you want Him to start at square one with every Christian. As I said, Mark 4:25 "For whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him."

And how would you even know if He was guiding those outside Orthodoxy since you for one are not willing to listen to the Church? As the bible says, Luke 16:31 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

I was reponding to where you said the Spirit writes the truth on the heart of the Church. The Church consists of the individuals who comprise it, as you yourself have been arguing. Now you're asking "why should He?" continue to do that, as if that were a one time act to only a certain generation, and all each individual can do is just follow what the institution (all of the other people together) hold. Salvation is ultimately in individual transaction. There should be more of a horizontal aspect to it than many churches have, but each person must still be begotten, born, and elnlightened by the Spirit. Then the Mark verse would apply.
And Luke you have cired out of context as well. I am not an unbelieving Jew and the Church is not Moses and the Prophets. The unbelieving Jews trusted in that, and the point was it should have pointed them to Christ. You have turned it around, where Christ should point us to the Church.

You're assuming it is a windows system because that is what your tradition says.No, the Mac man is the one with the tradition; I have the manual, remember.

That verse is about following personalities, not following the Truth and the Traditions. Care to try again?

Same principle. Personalities were the source of division, now it is traditions. The one that claims above all others to be the true follower of Christ is criticized just as much as being apart of the whole mess.

The Church doesn't change, only people leave the Church through heresy.

Yes we trace the institution back, but also the teachings and the body.

No, you trace them back to ECF's, and then jump them to the apostles with the unproven assertion that "these must have been the unwritten tradtitions".

Uh, read the text again, it was spoken to the disciples, and Christ had more than 12 disciples.

That still says nothing about later leaders.

The same catch cry of liberals who are always changing everything.

I've never heard liberals say that. Liberals say it doesn't matter because we must change with the times.

You cannot fall away from the Church if you were never in the Church in the first place.

So Rome was never in the Church?

God may not be far from all of us, but to be in the Church proper you need some historical information - the scriptures for one. That's not to say you can't be saved without the scriptures, but not even you could say you have the fullness of truth and be in the Church in some pagan land.

There is nothing underground about the EOC. It has been the visible Church for 2000 years.

It is still a similar principle. Many people have the Bible, but have never heard of the EOC, for that to be the ony true Church. Christ said wherever two or three are gathered in His name. There should ideally be more people than that, of course, but you cannot deny people are in Christ because they are not in an EOC parish.

I only count them in so far as the different organisations have different beliefs. Actually I'm being generous because in one organisation like the Anglican Church is varies wildly between say Bishop Spong and his wildly liberal philosophy, and some diocese which are radically evangelical.

Here's the thing. You are on record as saying that the EOC is a valid Church - great. But Eliyahu is here saying that I'm an idolater and going to hell and a heretic because I say Mary bore God. I've had Puratins tell me that if you see "The Passion of the Christ" movie you are an idolater because it depicts God. But they don't mind depicting other people, just not Christ. I've had other Protestants say it is OK to depict Christ because he can be worshipped, but to depict other people is idolatry. I've seen a 19th century copy of the Puritin "Pilgrim's Progress" book, and it depicts Christ in a colour plate in the front. At the protestant catering book store there are wall plaques depicting Christ (though of course, not Orthodox ones), and plenty of books, Tee shirts and vidoes depicting Christ and the disciples. I've even heard of Jesus dolls for the kids to play with. On the other hand the iconoclasts of the 8th century eschewed ALL images, so no family photos, TV, photography, internet etc etc.

The charge of idolatry is a serious one. If he's right, we are going to hell, and other Christians ought rightly anathematize us. On the other hand, 98% of protestantism has gravitated towards iconography, but because it isn't Orthodox iconography, they think they can tell us we are going to hell.

But who is right in this whole debate? Is there no authority on earth who can bind what is bound in heaven and be a source of the Truth? Or must we wallow in bitter in-fighting until the end of time?

Well, I cannot control what others say. I do believe that they get to harsh at times, while others are too liberal. But once again, to come back with "you all are false, we are the true Church" is to pay their game and be apart of the whole disorder.

 

[Eliyahu]

Nestorius rejected the traditional doctrine of the Incarnation by implicitly denying the hypostatic union of human and divine natures in the one divine person of Jesus. This denial was characterized notably by the rejection of the title "Theotokos" ("God bearer" or "Mother of God") for the mother of Jesus. He claimed that Mary was the mother of Christ's human nature but not the mother of God and concluded that only Jesus the man suffered and died on the cross.

History

From the definitions and condemnations of the Arian heresy of the fourth century several things resulted. The divinity of Christ and the reality of his Incarnation were clearly established in the minds of the faithful. Consequently, the exaltation and veneration of Mary by the faithful became more widespread. Since Jesus was truly God and Mary was his mother, she was venerated with the title of Theotokos. This veneration was especially popular in the East.

Controversy erupted in 428 when Nestorius, the newly installed bishop of Constantinople, attacked the title Theotokos from the pulpit in the cathedral on Christmas day, claiming that Mary was the mother of Christ but not the mother of God. He stated that to call Mary the Mother of God implied that the divine nature was born of a woman, thus making her a goddess.

Immediately his teaching was attacked by the laity and the clergy of Constantinople. When word spread of this new doctrine, neighboring bishops condemned him outright. Chief among his critics was bishop Cyril of Alexandria who responded, "I am astonished that the question should ever have been raised as to whether the Holy Virgin should be called Mother of God, for it really amounts to asking, is her Son God or is he not?" He wrote to Nestorius condemning the heretical aspects of his doctrine and asking him to explain and defend himself. The reply betrayed even further the depth of his heresy.

Cyril sent his personal correspondence with Nestorius as well his own five-book response titled Against Nestorius to Pope Celestine in Rome for the pontiff's decision. The Pope gave a general condemnation of the teaching of Nestorius regarding Mary's divine maternity and commanded him to recant within ten days. Cyril was to receive the recantation or depose Nestorius. Far from submitting, Nestorius demanded an ecumenical council and proclaimed his beliefs more loudly than ever.

While claiming to believe in one Christ in two natures, his explanation described the union of two distinct persons: "He who was formed in the womb of Mary was not God himself, but God assumed him. Through him that bears I worship him who is born." A mother cannot bear a son older than herself, he contended. Therefore, Mary did not give birth to the incarnate Word of God, only to Jesus, the temple or vessel of God. Rejecting the orthodox sense of Theotokos, he opted instead for Christokos ("Mother of Christ"), saying that he could never bring himself to call the Christ-child God. Nestorius concluded that it was not God who suffered and died on the cross, but only the man Jesus.

Orthodox Response

Besides St. Cyril, many other clergy and laymen rose to defend the divine maternity of Mary against the attack of Nestorius. Among these were Philip of Side, Proclus, Leo of Rome, and the layman Eusebius, later to become a bishop. Eusebius, while still a lawyer, is said to have risen from the congregation after Nestorius' initial Christmas homily and to have indignantly responded, "The eternal Word begotten before the ages had submitted also to be born a second time."

With Nestorius holding firm to his position, the emperor proposed to have a council meet in Ephesus to decide the matter once and for all. The council opened in the name of Pope Celestine I on June 22, 431.

Nestorius, who refused to attend, had his teachings anathematized, along with all who held communion with him, and he was deposed as bishop of Constantinople. Mary was officially proclaimed Mother of God to the delight of the faithful of Ephesus.

The controversy created by Nestorius made it obvious that a clearer terminology was needed to define the doctrine of the Incarnation which protected the divinity as well as the humanity of Christ. The solution, arrived at by Pope St. Leo the Great, was the use of the word "person," for which there was no well-defined concept before that time. Leo summed it up in his Tome 20 years after the Council of Ephesus: Each nature performs the actions proper to it, but every action is performed by the one person, Jesus the Word of God.
.

You cannot judge a person without listening to him or her directly. Your post is based on the accusations only. It seems that you have not read what I posted before.

Nestorian Theology
by Mark Dickens
You are welcome to quote any material from this website in an article or research paper, but please give the appropriate URL of the webpage you are quoting from. Thank you!
1) Theological Background

• The Christological question which formed the background to the Nestorian controversy: "How are divinity and humanity joined together and related to each other in Jesus Christ?"
• The Western Church affirmed Tertullian's formula: in Christ, there are two natures united in one person.
• The Eastern Church had two schools of thought: the Antiochene and the Alexandrian.
• The Antiochene school was influenced by Aristotle and adhered to an historical exegesis (i.e. concentrating on what the Bible actually said), affirming that Jesus was fully human, that the Godhead dwelt in him, but did not eclipse his humanity.
• The Alexandrine school was influenced by Plato and followed an allegorical tradition (i.e. tending to attach several layers of meaning to every text), affirming that Jesus' divinity must take precedence, even if at the expense of his humanity.
• The Antiochenes spoke of two natures in Christ, so they came to be known as Dyophysites (from the Greek duo physis, "two natures"), whereas the Alexandrians insisted upon one nature, at once divine and human, so they came to be known as Monophysites (from mono physis, "one nature").
• In order to preserve the emphasis on oneness, it was difficult for the Alexandrians not to weaken either the deity or the humanity of Christ; in the view of Antioch, they tended to do the latter.
• Antioch considered that Alexandria devalued the humanity of Jesus, whereas Alexandria looked upon Antioch as overemphasizing his humanity.

2) Political Background

• Prior to the fourth century, Alexandria had been second only to Rome as the greatest patriarchate.
• The Council of Constantinople in 381 had declared that Rome and Constantinople were equal, thus demoting Alexandria from its former position.
• Since Constantinople held a higher position than Antioch or Alexandria, the bishops of both competed for the honor of being the Patriarch of Constantinople.
• Since the Antiochenes were more successful than the Alexandrines in occupying the Patriarchate, the latter regarded both Antioch and Constantinople somewhat as enemies.
• There was a history of animosity between the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Constantinople.
• John Chrysostom, a presbyter in Constantinople, became Patriarch in 398; he was a fearless and dedicated reformer, as well as a former pupil of Diodore of Tarsus (d. 394) and fellow student with Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428).
• Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, an ambitious prelate, was nominated to be John's consecrator.
• Theophilus lived as a great magnate, while John was an ascetic whose main concern was social justice and charity to the poor.
• John's campaign to evangelize the city resulted in opposition from clergy and others who resented his pure life and uncompromising zeal.
• His greatest opponent was Theophilus, who was jealous of the popularity of his rival and of the priority of honour enjoyed by Constantinople.
• Theophilus assembled a synod of bishops (most from Egypt) in Constantinople in 403 and summoned John before them, but he did not appear, so they condemned him in his absence on various false charges.
• John protested his innocence, but surrendered to the Imperial bodyguard and left Constantinople

 

[Eliyahu]

Nestorius ( II)

3) Nestorius and His Theological Influences

• Nestorius, a Syrian monk from Antioch, was elected Patriarch of Constantinople in 428, possibly because he was a popular preacher.
• Prior to his election, he had been a relatively obscure priest.
• Upon election to his new position, he embarked on a campaign of persecution against Arians and other heretics.
• He had been influenced by the Christology of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, under whom he probably studied.
• Diodore presented Christ as having two natures, human and divine; the divine Logos indwelt the human body of Jesus in the womb of Mary, so that the human Jesus was the subject of Christ's suffering, thus protecting the full divinity of the Logos from any hint of diminishment.
• Theodore, the father of Antiochene theology, taught two clearly defined natures of Christ: the assumed Man, perfect and complete in his humanity, and the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, perfect and complete in his divinity, the two natures (physis) being united by God in one person (prosopon).
• Theodore maintained that the unity of human and divine in Jesus did not produce a "mixture" of two persons, but an equality in which each was left whole and intact.
• Diodore and Theodore were considered orthodox during their lifetime, but came under suspicion during the Christological controversies of the fifth century.
• The Syriac Fathers (including Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorius) used the Syriac word kyana to describe the human and divine natures of Christ; in an abstract, universal sense, this term embraces all the elements of the members of a certain species, but it can also have a real, concrete and individual sense, called qnoma, which is not the person, but the concretized kyana, the real, existing nature.
• The Greek word prosopon (person) occurs as a loan word parsopa in Syriac; thus, the Syriac Christological formula was "Two real kyana united in a single parsopa, in sublime and indefectable union without confusion or change."
• Whereas Antioch taught that Christ had two natures (dyophysitism), Alexandria interpreted their position as teaching that he had two persons (dyhypostatism).
• Whereas the Syriac Fathers were willing to leave the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in the realm of mystery, the Alexandrians sought a clear-cut doctrine that would guard the church against heresy.

4) The Teaching of Nestorius

• At the time, Theotokos ("bearer/mother of God") was a popular term in the Western Church (including Constantinople) used to refer to the Virgin Mary, but it was not used in Antioch.
• Nestorius maintained that Mary should be called Christotokos ("bearer/mother of Christ"), not Theotokos, since he considered the former to more accurately represent Mary's relationship to Jesus.
• Nestorius promoted a form of dyophysitism, speaking of two natures in Christ (one divine and one human), but he was not clear in his use of theological terms.
• Nestorius spoke of Christ as "true God by nature and true man by nature... The person [parsopa] is one... There are not two Gods the Words, or two Sons, or two Only-begottens, but one."
• Alexandria understand him to mean that the second person of the Trinity was actually two persons: the man Jesus who was born, suffered and died and the divine Logos, eternal and unbegotten.
• Part of the problem lay in his use of the Greek word prosopon (Syriac parsopa) for "person"; this word was weaker in meaning than hypostasis, the word used by his opponents.
• At no time did he deny Christ's deity; he merely insisted that it be clearly distinguished from his humanity.

5) Cyril of Alexandria

• Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (412-444) and the nephew of Theophilus, opposed Nestorius (he was a more able politician and theologian).
• His zeal for Orthodoxy was not accompanied by charity to his rivals and from the first his rule was marked by the acts of violence of his fanatical followers.
• Cyril was driven by the ambition to assert Alexandria's primacy over Antioch and Constantinople.
• Cyril maintained that in Christ the divine and the human nature were both complete and that the latter included the rational element; the unity in Christ was through the Logos who became incarnate in Christ and took on the general characteristics of man.
• Cyril saw Christ's humanity as that of humanity in general, not that of an individual man; salvation was accomplished by the personal Logos who assumed impersonal human nature, thus uniting it with the divine nature.
• Cyril championed the use of Theotokos and accused Nestorius of teaching that Christ had been a "mere man."
• Cyril's critics had been complaining of him to Emperor Theodosius II and to Nestorius, so Cyril was eager to shift attention away from himself and onto Nestorius.
• Cyril gained the support of the Western and Eastern Roman Emperors and the Pope.

6) The Council of Ephesus

• Emperor Theodosius II convened an ecumenical council at Ephesus in 431.
• A synod at Rome in 430 had ordered Nestorius either to recant or to be excommunicated.
• At another synod in Alexandria in 430, Cyril issued 12 anathemas against Nestorius and various propositions taught in Antioch; apart from his reluctance to use Theotokos, Nestorius was not guilty of any of the accusations brought against him.
• Nestorius and others of the Antiochene school counter-attacked, accusing Cyril of heresy.
• Nestorius' supporters, the Oriental bishops led by John, Patriarch of Antioch, were delayed on their way to the council; Nestorius himself refused to attend the council until John's party had arrived.
• Cyril summoned his followers, opened the council, and excommunicated Nestorius before John's arrival.
• When John and his party reached Ephesus and heard of this, they in turn excommunicated Cyril and his ally Memnon, Archbishop of Ephesus.
• When Celestine, the Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope) arrived, the reconvened council excommunicated John and his party.
• Both sides appealed to the Emperor, who confirmed the excommunications of Cyril, Memnon and Nestorius.
• Nestorius accepted the verdict and spent the rest of his life in exile in Upper Egypt, dying in obscurity.
• Cyril bribed his way back to power, returning to Egypt, where he continued on as Patriarch, dying amidst the trappings of ecclesiastical splendour.
• In 433, a peace by compromise was concluded between Cyril and John; Cyril retained his patriarchate, but withdrew his anathemas against Antioch, while the Oriental bishops accepted the use of Theotokos and sacrificed Nestorius by agreeing to his excommunication.
• After the deaths of John in 442 and Cyril in 444, the compromise collapsed.

7) The Council of Chalcedon

• The Council of Chalcedon (451) produced a "Definition of Faith" about Christ that was essentially Dyophysite in nature, thus alienating the Monophysite churches (the Syrian, Coptic, Armenian and Ethiopian Orthodox Churches), who separated from the Western Church after this council.
• Chalcedon defined Christ as "one person in two natures [rather than the Monophysite form "out of two natures"], human and divine."
• Chalcedon was unable to define the relationship of the two natures to each other, but confessed that the two are not destroyed by the union in the one person, but are preserved "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation."
• From his exile, Nestorius condemned the heresy falsely attributed to him, that the human Jesus and the divine Christ were two different persons, and asserted that Jesus Christ was one Lord, indivisible in his person (prosopon), but containing two natures (ousiai), the divine and the human.

8) Summary

• Nestorius spoke of Christ as one person (prosopon) in two natures (physis), human and divine.
• The Monophysites spoke of him as one person (hypostasis) and one nature (physis), both God and man.
• Chalcedon referred to Christ as one person (hypostasis) in two natures (physis), in essence a compromise between the Nestorian and Monophysite positions.
• The Nestorian bishops, in a statement drawn up in 612, stated: "There is a wonderful connection and indissoluble union between [Christ's] human nature, which was assumed, and God the Word who assumed it, a union existing from the first moment of conception. This teaches us to recognize only one Person (parsopa), our Saviour Jesus Christ, Son of God, begotten in the nature of his Godhead by the Father before all ages, without beginning, and born finally in the nature of his Manhood of the holy Virgin, the daughter of David."

http://www.oxuscom.com/theology.htm

 

[Inquiring Mind]

oxus is not credible. Personal websites are not credible.

 

[Inquiring Mind]

Are you blind ?
Don't you know the difference between God and Lord ?
What did you read? Did you find any word, theos ?

It sounds like you don't know how to distinguish [offensive language removed]
Is my adonai the same as my Elohim ?

If you can convert My Lord to My God, then you can create another religion, as Catholic did so far.

Every time the Lord is used with a Capital L in the New Testament, it is context of Jesus or God. You must reconcile that.

 

[Eliyahu]

The main problem with Theotokos is its contradiction with Trinity, Tri-Unity.

Rc calls Mary as Mother of God, saying Jesus Christ is God. Are they saying God is Jesus Christ ?
Let's analyze it.

They say Mary is Mother of God, then do they say Mary is Mother of God the Father ? No. Then is God the Father not God ? Yes, He is God. Then why Mary is not the mother of God the father while they claim Mary is Mother of God ?

If we want to be sane, we can say followings.
Mary is not Mother of God the Father, not Mother of God the Holy Spirit.
Mary is Mother of God the Son, for His humanity, not for His Divinity, in one Person Jesus Christ,
Mary was not Mother of Jesus Christ when He Created the Universe.
Mary was not Mother of Jesus Christ when He created Adam and Eve.
Mary was not Mother of Jesus Christ when Abraham met Him
Mary was not Mother of Jesus Christ when King David confessed Psalm 110:1-4
Mary didn't give birth to the Divinity of Jesus Christ because Divinity of Jesus exisited before the Creation of the Universe, before Mary started to exist.
Divinity just came out of her.
Even the humanity of Jesus Christ may have existed regardless of Mary as we read:
Word became flesh ( Jn 1:14), Word didn't become a sperm so that it could be fertilized with the ovum of Mary, which means that Mary is not the biological mother of Jesus but merely a surrogate mother for Him, as Jesus identifies Himself with the person whom Abraham met.

Moses suffered the reproach for the sake of Christ ( Heb 11:26)
Manoah, Samson's father met Him and asked Him about the name and He answered " Wonderful" ( Judges 13), Isaiah mentioned about Him as the Arm of Jehovah ( IS 53) as Wonderful ( 9:6)

Jesus Christ worked throughout the ages. Where was Mary at such times ? Was she Mother of Jesus Christ all the time ? or Throughout eternity, Mary was shortly used for awhile as a pot to contain the Great Creator, God the Son ?

Was God the Son united with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit all the time ? Then where was God when Jesus was in the womb of Mary ?

Mary was a sinner bounding for Hell but saved by her Savior Jesus Christ beecause He sacirificed Himself for her at the Cross.

Theotokos theory split God into 3 pieces and claim Mary is the Mother of God, based on her connection with 1/3 of Godhead, but in fact her involvement was limited to a time for a very short period throughout eternity, only for human nature, not for divine nature.
When she did nothing for the divine nature of Jesus Christ, should we still call her Mother of God ?

 

[Eliyahu]

Nobody in the Bible calls the God Head the Trinity either.

If you don't believe Trinity, you are not Orthodox.

We compare all the claims together, so that they may not contradict the basic principles.

 

[Eliyahu]

Dear Inquiring Mind and Orthodox,

If God entered Eve after He created her, then came out of her, then would you call Eve Mother of God and venerate her as Mother of God ?

If God entered Adam after He created Adam, then came out of him, would you call Adam Father of God? Will you venerate Adam as Father of God ?


Do you bow down to the Cross? The Cross was just a means of punishment or the method of execution.
If Jesus died by gun-shot, would you bown to the gun after hanging a gun on the wall ?


Your religion may be quite different from mine, as your god is the son of a jewish woman.

 

[Eric B]

I always understood Nestorianism as separating Christ into two persons. So that site is saying that was misconstrued? Interesting.
The Syrian school also produced Paul of Samosata, who took that view to its logical conclusion and had a divine Word unite to a purely human Christ who then became divine (either at conception or birth, or among some, at His baptism, and even as late as the Resurrection) This is basically what we know today as the unitarian theology as held by the Christadelphians and Way International. It was the third major heresy after Arianism and Sabellianism. While Sabellianism was known as "modalistic monarchianism", the Syrian view was known as "dynamic monarchianism". The line between even those two can become fuzzy, as when you press a Oneness believer today on how the Son could pray to the Father, they end up splitting Christ into two persons, thus creating Nestorianism all over again.
It seems both sides were in error, as they went off into two opposite extremes. We sometimes forget that God cannot always be understood according to conventional logic. So you have a person born of a woman (and who later dies), and one side concludes this means "God has a mother" and "God died". The other side figures there must be a greater separation between the human and divine, yet takes that too far. It is interesting to note that the Antioch party concluded it was a mystery, while the Alexandrians kept trying to explain it more. That was supposedly one of the definitive differences between East and West, with later Western father Augustine trying to explain the Godhead, predestination and other issues, and the East criticizing him, and the West later being further fractured by confusion and dissent because of it.

 

[orthodox]

Absolute Lies by you!

Where did I say that I venerate the saints

You said you respect the saints and I showed you that was a synonym for veneration.

Do you know how to distinguish between Respect and Venerate ?

Since you pretend not to engage in Orthodox veneration, how are you in any position to speak on the topic? Become Orthodox and then get back to me.

You are spliting Godheads into 3 pieces, otherwise you cannot say that Mary is Mother of God, while you are saying Mary is not the Mother of God the Father !

You are not Orthodox so don't lecture us on what theotokos signifies. Just because you misunderstand the term, don't project that onto us.

You are dividing Godheads into 3 pieces, denying Tri-Unity.
So, you are not Orthodox, while Orthodox claim that they believe in Tri-Unity.

What do you care about tri-unity since you deny the church that defined Tri-unity?

You may say that
Mary was the mother of God the Son, Jesus Christ, while He was on earth.
Jesus was God when He created Adam and Eve, where was Mary at that time ? Was Mary Mother of God the Son when He created the Universe ? NOPE!
Was Mary Mother of God when David confessed this ?

Again, just because you can't understand, don't project it onto us.

 

[orthodox]

Dear Inquiring Mind and Orthodox,

If God entered Eve after He created her, then came out of her, then would you call Eve Mother of God and venerate her as Mother of God ?

What do you mean "entered her"? The word Mother means that a person physically gave birth to someone, which is even clearer in the Greek - tokos - bearer. It has nothing to do with whether they were pre-existent or not.

Do you bow down to the Cross? The Cross was just a means of punishment or the method of execution.

The cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God.

If Jesus died by gun-shot, would you bown to the gun after hanging a gun on the wall ?

If that was the apostolic tradition, yes.

Does your church have a cross on it, or in the church buletins, or the bibles, or on the walls?

Your religion may be quite different from mine, as your god is the son of a jewish woman.

Hallelujah, God was incarnate.

 

[Inquiring Mind]

Your religion may be quite different from mine, as your god is the son of a jewish woman.

Hallelujah, God was incarnate.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

 

[orthodox]

Because what he was criticized for was living a double life. Living like a gentile at other times when he was not urging gentiles to live as Jews. The Law commanded no such hypocrisy.

So Paul would have given the thumbs up if he'd lived completely like a Jew? Nonsense

Then how do they override leaders, then?

Leaders who depart from the traditions get ignored and become irrelevant

I was reponding to where you said the Spirit writes the truth on the heart of the Church. The Church consists of the individuals who comprise it, as you yourself have been arguing. Now you're asking "why should He?" continue to do that, as if that were a one time act to only a certain generation, and all each individual can do is just follow what the institution (all of the other people together) hold. Salvation is ultimately in individual transaction. There should be more of a horizontal aspect to it than many churches have, but each person must still be begotten, born, and elnlightened by the Spirit. Then the Mark verse would apply.

The point is, it took hundreds of years for the church, in unity, to fully discern the Spirit concerning... say the canon. And you want individuals and tiny subsets of the Church to start again at square one discerning the Spirit's will in every generation. And you wonder why you have no unity.

You're assuming it is a windows system because that is what your tradition says.No, the Mac man is the one with the tradition; I have the manual, remember.

Ahh, every group thinks it is the manual for their computer. But we assembled the manual, we know better than anybody what it's for.

Same principle. Personalities were the source of division, now it is traditions. The one that claims above all others to be the true follower of Christ is criticized just as much as being apart of the whole mess.

It's not the same principle because Paul instructed to follow the traditions, but he instructed not to follow personalities. One is scriptural, the other isn't. That's a pretty big difference in my book.

No, you trace them back to ECF's, and then jump them to the apostles with the unproven assertion that "these must have been the unwritten tradtitions".

Some of these ECFs knew the apostles. Ignatius knew John, yet you doubt even him.

So Rome was never in the Church?

People are in churches, not cities.

It is still a similar principle. Many people have the Bible, but have never heard of the EOC, for that to be the ony true Church. Christ said wherever two or three are gathered in His name. There should ideally be more people than that, of course, but you cannot deny people are in Christ because they are not in an EOC parish.

I didn't say if the were or weren't in Christ, I said they weren't in the Church. I'm sure you've heard of lots of people who you suspect are Christians yet have left the Church.

Well, I cannot control what others say. I do believe that they get to harsh at times, while others are too liberal. But once again, to come back with "you all are false, we are the true Church" is to pay their game and be apart of the whole disorder.

But who is to say what is too harsh and what is too liberal? Idolatry is a serious charge if it's true right? How did God ever have hope fo unity when you have no mechanism for sorting out the distinction of too harsh/libera?

 

[orthodox]

:applause: :applause: :applause:

1 Timothy 3:16 God was manifest in the flesh

According to our learned friend, scripture is heretical because the Trinity was not incarnate.

 

[Eric B]

So Paul would have given the thumbs up if he'd lived completely like a Jew? Nonsense

Paul taught that if a person wanted to live that way to do it unto the Lord, and not to judge. Peter was doing the diametric opposite: living like the Gentiles, and compelling Gentiles to live like Jews.

The point is, it took hundreds of years for the church, in unity, to fully discern the Spirit concerning... say the canon. And you want individuals and tiny subsets of the Church to start again at square one discerning the Spirit's will in every generation. And you wonder why you have no unity.

The only reason we went back to "square one" is because of how corrupt the Church had gotten, and the total chaos we saw at times. Eliyahu's reference is a great example of what I was talking about, and it was not just the West, being long before the split. We see the politics and power mongering that was involved. That is why we do not just trust the "historical Church". Once again, the spirit was there, but people just did not listen to Him in many areas.

Ahh, every group thinks it is the manual for their computer. But we assembled the manual, we know better than anybody what it's for.

Si a Mac Man assembles a Windows manual for a Windows computer, and then comes and tells you it is a Mac. Something is wrong there.

It's not the same principle because Paul instructed to follow the traditions, but he instructed not to follow personalities. One is scriptural, the other isn't. That's a pretty big difference in my book.

But they are supposed to follow authority, aren't they? Those people could have argued that point, as it is scriptural too.

Some of these ECFs knew the apostles. Ignatius knew John, yet you doubt even him.

Who said I doubt him? What I doubt is the interpretation you put on him to suggest he taught full blown 4th or 10th century EOC doctrine from the rather ambiguous references taken from him. Even then, there was still no guarantee that he got that from John. Other followers of John were Quartodeciman, which was more likely something he would have practiced, but Ignatius and the others of his period did not advocate Jewish practices.

People are in churches, not cities.

You know what I men. the Roman Church. The whole patriarchate that broke away.

I didn't say if the were or weren't in Christ, I said they weren't in the Church. I'm sure you've heard of lots of people who you suspect are Christians yet have left the Church.

They are still in "the Church", just not in a local congregation, (which they should be). To be not in the Church is to not be in Christ.

But who is to say what is too harsh and what is too liberal? Idolatry is a serious charge if it's true right? How did God ever have hope fo unity when you have no mechanism for sorting out the distinction of too harsh/libera?

Once again, that is men and their own issues. Taking a bunch of those same men, putting them in offices in one ecclesisstical structure where they get to dictate those judgments as "apostolic tradition" only creates more problems, as we see in Elyahu's quotes..