Coptic Forums

The official forums of the Coptic Media Network, focusing on Coptic hymns, Orthodoxy, spirituality, friendship, and member experiences.

My God and Your God (John 20:17)

Post new topic Reply to topic

Previous  1, 2

Truth.Seeker

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Apr 30, 2008 - 01:40 PM

You sent me to an Eastern Orthodox site and a Catholic Site. The only site that had John Chrysostom (the first site, had somebody talking about Giles). Personally, I don't care about Giles or the guy talking about Giles. I just wanted a reference to what St. John Chrysostom said. If you don't mind, would you find it (since you're more familiar with the text than me, then tell me what Ctrl+F I need to do to find it?

Even if Chrysostom said the Logos was caused by the Father, he probably doesn't mean it in the sense of "cause" in the logical sense. If he meant it in the sense of cause in the logical sense, then he's wrong. If a saint says 2+2 = 3, but 2 means 1.5, then he's using bad terminology. If a saint says 2 + 2 = 3, then he's wrong.

Like I said, a "cause" is a sufficient condition to bring the caused into existence. We simply can't say the Father caused the Son, because without the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Father doesn't exist.

P.S. I can find you at least 10 statements by any saint that are wrong. And they're not just wrong in my view (personally, I don't think you would care if I thought a saint was wrong), but they're wrong with respect to what other saints have said.

View user's profile Send private message

lowlyman

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Apr 30, 2008 - 03:10 PM

I am not sure it was Chrysostom. i saw many references to St. gregory the theologian. maybe they meant cause in the "philosophical" sense. also, St thomas aquinas seems to agree with you.

From Truth.Seeker:You sent me to an Eastern Orthodox site and a Catholic Site. The only site that had John Chrysostom (the first site, had somebody talking about Giles). Personally, I don't care about Giles or the guy talking about Giles. I just wanted a reference to what St. John Chrysostom said. If you don't mind, would you find it (since you're more familiar with the text than me, then tell me what Ctrl+F I need to do to find it?

Even if Chrysostom said the Logos was caused by the Father, he probably doesn't mean it in the sense of "cause" in the logical sense. If he meant it in the sense of cause in the logical sense, then he's wrong. If a saint says 2+2 = 3, but 2 means 1.5, then he's using bad terminology. If a saint says 2 + 2 = 3, then he's wrong.

Like I said, a "cause" is a sufficient condition to bring the caused into existence. We simply can't say the Father caused the Son, because without the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Father doesn't exist.

P.S. I can find you at least 10 statements by any saint that are wrong. And they're not just wrong in my view (personally, I don't think you would care if I thought a saint was wrong), but they're wrong with respect to what other saints have said.

View user's profile Send private message

mikokiko

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on May 06, 2008 - 10:28 AM

Truthseeker, you deal with the subject as if context has nothing to do with this, as if words themselves are as solid as numbers in mathematical equations, but nothing could be further from the truth, especially not with the linguistics of the humans of metaphors. Had we dealt with the Bible in such an illogical way, we would have concluded long ago that the Bible is self-contradictory, but it's not. It's not that Christ does not want us to call anyone on earth our father, but that we recognize God the Father as our True Father. It's not that our Lord Jesus wanted us to really castrate ourselves to become pure, but that we sacrifice our lusts for His eternal kingdom.

If words by themselves gave meaning to the world, sentences would be useless. But when we clarify words we use such as eternal causation, we mean something specific. Whether that something specific is easily described by those words depends on the clarity of the context, NOT just on the words used.

To demonstrate what I mean when I speak of Christ as the Father's eternal "creation" (Now I know you don't like that word, neither do I, because in most of the cases I have seen it, it implies ex-nihlo, but notice the word preceding it, and try to understand what it is trying to say), here is a passage from the book of Wisdom, by Jesus, the Son of Sirach:
"From eternity, in the beginning, He created Me, and for eternity I shall not cease to exist." (Sirach 24:9)
FROM ETERNITY He Created Me.
Go read the entire passage, it is undoubtedly a late prophecy concerning the Incarnate Logos of God, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Just remember, context is everything.

But anyway, this conversation has completely sidetracked, can we get back to that verse and how it applies to our God and Saviour Jesus Christ?

GB

View user's profile Send private message

Fortunatus

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on May 07, 2008 - 10:00 PM

+Pi`<rictos aftwnf!

Hey guys,

Just a comment from reading this thread... To be safest, especially when getting into technicalities and discussions that are not as light as talking about basketball(!), use of references is probably appropriate to ensure correctness of thought. Some of these are not topics that we have "opinions" about. Smile Keep in mind that errors here will be amplified when other people read them, and are particularly dangerous to readers who don't understand but want to... Smile I'm not a moderator or anything, but I'm just worried about some of those readers.

Pray for me, please.


_________________
 Agapy,
Vortounatoc
Amyn
, Maren a;a!

Administrator for Content, Newsletters, and the Book Exchange
coptichymns.net
- a taste of what is Coptic ...


Questions? Comments? E-mail or PM me!
Need help? - Post here. Comment or criticism? - Use our Feedback Form

View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message MSN Messenger

Truth.Seeker

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on May 08, 2008 - 01:05 AM

Miko,

Notice that I said that if someone says "2 + 2 = 3 but 2 means 1.5" then they're not wrong, they're just using bad terminology. I don't know how you can read that and tell me I'm ignoring the context.

My concern is the "other people" that Fortunas mentioned. You can use any words you like - I know what you believe. If someone were to somehow reach this thread and wants to know what this Christianity thing is about, he'll say, "A created God? What's that? They say God created everything, did He create Himself? These people are crazy!"

Only problem is that he's not going to spend the time to think about the context and look into Sirach, and do some exegesis, and see if it was a prophecy about Christ or if it was about Wisdom, and whether the Hebrew was translated correctly into the Greek for the Septuagint and then whether that was translated correctly into English. Then whether the Protestants are right into excluding Sirach altogether, etc.

I like to make things as simple as possible. I don't want on one hand to say, "Christ is God" and on the other hand say, "Christ was created from eternity." Instead of using bad terminology then saying "look at the context," I'd rather not use it altogether. You'll tell me look at Sirach, I'll tell you there's more disputes about Sirach than the verses in John that you were questioning in another thread.

View user's profile Send private message

mikokiko

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on May 08, 2008 - 04:47 AM

Fair enough. I must say I agree with you that the word creation here is very poor, and I would never use it, but it undeniably pops up in other instances for example when St. Paul the Apostle says: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." (Colossians 1:15), and also: "But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “ Let all the angels of God worship Him.” (Hebrews 1:6)

Still would like to know what that verse is trying to say...
GB

View user's profile Send private message

Truth.Seeker

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on May 08, 2008 - 10:50 AM

A few thoughts about the original topic:

Can we say that God is God's God? I think that's possible in context Smile. At this point, I mean the divine essence. In other words, God's nature is His authority. So, when Christ says that our God is His God He may just be saying the same divine essence is the authority of all.

It doesn't necessarily diminish Christ. It's like comparing a president and a member of his cabinet. The cabinet's president is the president's president (himself). It doesn't necessarily mean that the president and the cabinet member are on the same level.

Of course when I say God's nature is His authority, i.e. His "limit," all I'd be saying is that He's not limited because His nature isn't limited. So, Christ may be using the same word, but meaning two completely different things.

View user's profile Send private message

mikokiko

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on May 08, 2008 - 07:10 PM

That is I think a good way of looking at it. To mean that God here implies a sort of authoritative Figure. What are the fathers' opinion on this?

View user's profile Send private message

Truth.Seeker

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on May 08, 2008 - 11:22 PM

No idea, I'm free-styling.

View user's profile Send private message

mikokiko

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on May 08, 2008 - 11:53 PM

But what do you think that verse from Colossians means? I heard the Greek word was protokos which can be translated better than firstborn. What is your opinion?

View user's profile Send private message

Truth.Seeker

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on May 09, 2008 - 12:08 AM

From St. Athanasius's Second Discourse Against the Arians about Colossians 1:15:

"Scripture would have said of Him also that He was First-born of other creatures; but in fact, the saints saying that He is 'First-born of the whole creation Colossians 1:15,' the Son of God is plainly shown to be other than the whole creation and not a creature. For if He is a creature, He will be First-born of Himself. How then is it possible, O Arians, for Him to be before and after Himself? next, if He is a creature, and the whole creation through Him came to be, and in Him consists, how can He both create the creation and be one of the things which consist in Him? Since then such a notion is in itself unseemly, it is proved against them by the truth, that He is called 'First-born among many brethren?' because of the relationship of the flesh, and 'First-born from the dead,' because the resurrection of the dead is from Him and after Him; and 'First-born of the whole creation,' because of the Father's love to man, which brought it to pass that in His Word not only 'all things consist ,' but the creation itself, of which the Apostle speaks, 'waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, shall be delivered' one time 'from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God .' Of this creation thus delivered, the Lord will be First-born, both of it and of all those who are made children, that by His being called first, those that come after Him may abide , as depending on the Word as a beginning."

View user's profile Send private message

Truth.Seeker

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on May 09, 2008 - 01:52 AM

I should note that St. Athanasius wrote the preceding quote after he showed that Christ was the creator of all things. With that in mind, he discussed the illogic of saying that Christ created all things and that He himself was among creation - i.e. the illogic of saying He created Himself.

St. Athanasius then describes what "firstborn" means: "Apostle speaks, 'waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, shall be delivered' one time 'from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God .' Of this creation thus delivered, the Lord will be First-born."

In other words, Christ was the first to Resurrect. So, since He was indeed born of the virgin, then He's the firstborn among creation (because we were all created) to Resurrect. So, He's not being "lumped" together with creation, but He is like those who will be saved in that He Resurrected.

View user's profile Send private message

mikokiko

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on May 09, 2008 - 06:19 AM

Thanks, that really clarified it. That book that St. Athanasius wrote is very clear and concise I must say, I put it side by side with his On the Incarnation. Any more comments that would like to be shared on the aforementioned verse?

View user's profile Send private message

Biboboy

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on May 09, 2008 - 02:39 PM

“Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; to my God, and your God.” There are points in these words which we must examine with brevity indeed, but with somewhat more than ordinary attention. For Jesus was giving a lesson in faith to the woman, who had recognized Him as her Master, and called Him so in her reply; and this gardener was sowing in her heart, as in His own garden, the grain of mustard seed. What then is meant by “Touch me not”? And just as if the reason of such a prohibition would be sought, He added, “for I am not yet ascended to my Father.” What does this mean? If, while standing on earth, He is not to be touched, how could He be touched by men when sitting in heaven? For certainly, before He ascended, He presented Himself to the touch of the disciples, when He said, as testified by the evangelist Luke, “Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have;” or when He said to Thomas the disciple, “Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and put forth thy hand, and thrust it into my side.” And who could be so absurd as to affirm that He was willing indeed to be touched by the disciples before He ascended to the Father, but refused it in the case of women till after His ascension? But no one, even had any the will, was to be allowed to run into such folly. For we read that women also, after His resurrection and before His ascension to the Father, touched Jesus, among whom was Mary Magdalene herself; for it is related by Matthew that Jesus met them, and said, “All hail. And they approached, and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him.” This was passed over by John, but declared as the truth by Matthew. It remains, therefore, that some sacred mystery must lie concealed in these words; and whether we discover it or utterly fail to do so, yet we ought to be in no doubt as to its actual existence. Accordingly, either the words, “Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father,” had this meaning, that by this woman the Church of the Gentiles was symbolized, which did not believe on Christ till He had actually ascended to the Father, or that in this way Christ wished Himself to be believed on; in other words, to be touched spiritually, that He and the Father are one. For He has in a manner ascended to the Father, to the inward perception of him who has made such progress in the knowledge of Christ that he acknowledges Him as equal with the Father: in any other way He is not rightly touched, that is to say, in any other way He is not rightly believed on. But Mary might have still so believed as to account Him unequal with the Father, and this certainly is forbidden her by the words, “Touch me not;” that is, Believe not thus on me according to thy present notions; let not your thoughts stretch outwards to what I have been made in thy behalf, without passing beyond to that whereby thou hast thyself been made. For how could it be otherwise than carnally that she still believed on Him whom she was weeping over as a man? “For I am not yet ascended,” He says, “to my Father:” there shalt thou touch me, when thou believest me to be God, in no wise unequal with the Father. “But go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father.” He saith not, Our Father: in one sense, therefore, is He mine, in another sense, yours; by nature mine, by grace yours. “And my God, and your God.” Nor did He say here, Our God: here, therefore, also is He in one sense mine, in another sense yours: my God; under whom I also am as man; your God, between whom and you I am mediator.

— St. Augustine of Hippo, "Homilies on the Gospel of John" (Tractate CXXI).


_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).

"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.

In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member

Image
+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!

View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

Meghalo05

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on May 09, 2008 - 03:34 PM

Christ is Risen,

Wow! St. Augustine writes pure gold. That was very well said and summarized perfectly.

Truly he is risen

View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

Truth.Seeker

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on May 09, 2008 - 05:37 PM

Not all the writings of St. Augustine are pure gold. Just keep in mind - the Coptic Church disagrees with much of Augustinian theology.

View user's profile Send private message

mikokiko

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on May 09, 2008 - 05:48 PM

St. Augustine writes very eloquently, and speaks in clear philosophy, that is why he is one of my most favourite saints in the Church, however I do recognize that there are certain teachings that have always been deemed questionable by those in the Orthodox Church, more than others. Especially in the Eastern Orthodox Church, where there is more of the Anti-Western theological mentality, he is sometimes deemed and called the Father of all Western Heresy, as the local Archbishop of Vancouver, Archbishop Lazar calls him.

So what teachings exactly are condemned? I understand he gave place for the idea of Atonement from Archbishop of Anselm, and even John Calvin to put forth their heretical ideas.

GB

View user's profile Send private message

Truth.Seeker

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on May 09, 2008 - 07:35 PM

The Filioque for starters.

View user's profile Send private message

mikokiko

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on May 09, 2008 - 08:05 PM

There is nothing wrong with the filoque, St. Athanasius used it we already had a discussion about this in another thread.

View user's profile Send private message

Truth.Seeker

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on May 09, 2008 - 08:30 PM

I have spent more time debating the Filioque than I ever wanted, I'm not about to spend more time on it. I'll just refer you to the Canons of Constantinople and Ephesus.

View user's profile Send private message
 
 
 

Return to the Forum Index

Powered by the coptichymns.net Network of Coptic Hymns and Coptic Orthodox Sites.

TotalDaily
Topics:71904.00
Users:61203.40
Posts:6052033.66
 
mikokiko

917 unlogged users and 1 registered user online now.

 

Already a member? Log in above.

Not a member? Register your unique identity to participate more fully in our site!