coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

mikokiko

posted on Jun 19, 2009 - 09:36 PM

Sounds good. I think we finally reached an agreement Truth.Seeker!

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1152

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 19, 2009 - 11:49 PM

Just to show how close to God we can get:

On one occasion Abraham, the disciple of Abba Sisoes, was tempted by Satan. The old man saw him falling down. Straightaway he spread out his hands towards heaven, and said to God, "My Lord, I will not let You go until You have healed him." Instantly, Abraham was healed.

-The Paradise of the Holy Fathers

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 660

morqos

posted on Jun 23, 2009 - 05:27 PM

You should read this:
http://au.geocities.com/coptic_truth01/ ... eosis1.htm

and the whole site too:
http://au.geocities.com/coptic_truth01/

And by the way, the pope has written more than Matta El Meskin. So you can't condamn Matta El Meskin by just saying "he just wrote too much". You have read nothing written by him!!

_________________
"أنا هو الخبز الحي الذي نزل من السماء إن أكل أحد من هذا الخبز يحيا إلى الأبد والخبز الذي أنا أعطي هو جسدي الذي أبذله من أجل حيوة العالم"

يوحنا 6 : 51

Joined: Mar 16, 2005 | Posts: 187
Location: Italy

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 23, 2009 - 06:04 PM

I was just on that website a couple of days ago.

I didn't condemn Fr. Matta el Meskin because he wrote a lot - I condemned the fact that he conceals his theology through verbage and then those sympathetic to him think others are going out of their way to find something wrong with his writings.

If you have something specific to say ... say it. I'm not going to argue with a website on another website (this one).

Besides, anyone who thinks the last part of Mark should be out of the Bible AUTOMATICALLY gets put on the bottom shelf.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 660

morqos

posted on Jun 23, 2009 - 07:31 PM

VERBAGE?! But what does that mean, that one should write a no more than 20pages theologic treaty? We're speaking about theology, man! This makes no sense!

The question is: has the Pope - God preserves him - got any theology? Or better, is it Orthodox? Why is the world (orthodox and catholic above all) interested in Matta El Meskin and not in our Pope? (see the dozens of non coptic translations of his books...) Anyway, I don't want to enter in a querelle between persons. Our Pope DOES NOT believe in theosis which he defined "Shirk billah" which is "POLITEISM". End of the question.

As regards the question of Mark, did you read Matta's commentary about the gospel of Mark? Or you just saw a video on youtube in which Anba Musa anathemizes the Poor (it is really the case to call him like that...). Of course not, because it's too long for you! Too much verbage! Ok then. What Matta says is not "the last part of Mark should be out of the Bible" but something like "seen that most of the scholars agree in saying that the last verses of Mark about the resurrection have been added posteriorly and are not Mark's, I will not engage in commenting them!".

So please, don't stop at what people say. Read more, even if it's too much verbage for you.

_________________
"أنا هو الخبز الحي الذي نزل من السماء إن أكل أحد من هذا الخبز يحيا إلى الأبد والخبز الذي أنا أعطي هو جسدي الذي أبذله من أجل حيوة العالم"

يوحنا 6 : 51

Joined: Mar 16, 2005 | Posts: 187
Location: Italy

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 23, 2009 - 08:04 PM

Kol wa7ed hayetmaskinly feeha we ye3mily feeha ta2en el 3alam kolo 3aleih.

Verbage doesn't mean writing a lot. St. Athanasius wrote a lot. St. Augustine wrote a lot. Verbage means writing a lot of unnecessary things. In this case, writing alot of unnecessary things to conceal what you are saying.

If the world is not interested in Matta el Meskin, we would not be talking about him right now. What are you talking about? Or do you just want to have websites defending him and attacking the Church, but when anybody attacks his writings he should not speak? Enta bet2ool ehh?

As far as I'm concerned, what you just wrote (if true) is just a statement that proves exactly what I am saying. Through concealment and deception his point of view is hidden. Just imagine if St. Athanasius said we should stop saying the Nicene Creed because many scholars (Arians) think it's wrong. That would've been something.

Cite me your sources. Give me the book and the page of what you just wrote. I have no reason to think that Bishops who, before commenting, READ his statements out-loud are making this up, and believe Morqos from Italy because he told me I should.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 660

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 23, 2009 - 08:14 PM

A MILD example:

“The Exposition on the Gospel of St. John” part one

The scribes erred, and the translators followed them writing, “on a donkey” and “the foal of a donkey”, adding the ‘and’, and therefore the meaning became mistakable…”
Yet, according to the understanding of the Septuagint scribes, St. Matthew quoted it as such in his gospel, and he was compelled to align the meanings and terms with the plural, that is a donkey and the foal of a donkey together, and it appeared as: “Immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them to Me…” (Mt 21:2).

This copying error was overcome by the other saints, Mark, Luke, and John by mentioning that it was only one donkey…

_____

This is breathtaking. So, the scribes erred in copying the Septuagint and St. Matthew got it wrong because he just followed what the scribes had written. And here I thought, POOR ME, that the Holy Spirit was working in the Evangelists while they were writing their Gospels. For a man who's always claiming the divinity of man, divinity really left St. Matthew when he was making all of these mistakes.

It is not me who needs to read more, it is you who needs to read with more prudence and discernment.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 660

mikokiko

posted on Jun 24, 2009 - 01:53 AM

I think we should stop being so quick to judging our Church's clergy. While I cannot make a generalizing statement about Fr. Matta El-Meskeen as I can of Pope Shenouda, because I have not read through much of his theological work (the most I have done was listened to a commentary on the Monday Theotokia on the Feast of the Nativity), but I must say that his spiritual demeanor certainly appeals to me.

I think we should be really catious who we choose to call a heretc, or who we choose to charactarize as such. To be called a heretic is to say that you choose after all discretion to choose to listen to nothing but your ego after all reaching out (which is what happened to Nestorius, Arius and the likes). I'm not saying anyone has done this, but let's be careful not to.

Before stepping on dangerous ground, I wish to not start or continue this argument, but I just want to put things into perspective so as not to quickly convict someone of saying something he did not mean. I think that what often happens with so many people is that they misinterpret their views, because we don't take the time to really understand them.

For example we assume that the only possibility from a Saint making a mere linguistic error is that the Gospel is therefore not Divinely inspired, or spiritually infallible. What if it is true that the Holy Spirit does not dwell on details, but in the context and the meaning brought out by Scripture? Rather than clinging on words written in a specific language (which is translated to a variety of languages with discrepancies in literary meaning), the Spirit inspires the meaning and context of the Scriptures. Christianity isn't about reading, it's about living and understanding. The Scriptures arn't about ink, but about the meaning of the stories and the history behind them. Otherwise I would have already been a maimed castrated snake already (by taking everything literally, without giving attention to its overall meaning).

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1152

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 24, 2009 - 11:02 AM

Well, in this case, St. Matthew would also have to have not been one of the twelve disciples because presumably he would've seen all of this. If he saw all of this and still wrote what he wrote, than that would just make him a liar. If St. Matthew got the donkey and the colt wrong, what else could he have gotten wrong?

Matthew 5:18
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one JOT or one TITTLE will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

John 10:35
If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

Who said these words? Our Lord Jesus Christ, but perhaps Matthew got the quotation wrong and John also got the quotation wrong.

This is not a linguistic error. This would be a substantive error. Donkey and a colt is not the same as just donkey. For all of his creativity, Fr Matta el Meskeen was unable to come up with a solution for the apparent contradiction? Simple - He rode on one a part of the way, and then on the other the other part.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 660

morqos

posted on Jun 24, 2009 - 12:45 PM

Forgive me brother. I don't want to make a quarrel about people and I don't want even to judge. Please forgive me for God's love.
I just want to say a final word though about all the stuff. The thread subject asks: "Is the Coptic Church against Theosis?". Well, the answer is YES, OFFICIALLY the actual Coptic Church upper echelons (and in particular H.H. and H.E. Anba Bishoy) are against it because they consider it politheism. A little example I would like to give brother Truth.seeker is in fact a question: How many times you have heard H.H speak about Theosis? How many sermons he said about Theosis are out there? NONE. The only times he spoke about Theosis is to criticize it.

As about other copt authors they do admit Theosis. Someone speaks in an open manner also using the term (theosis or ta2alluh in Arabic) and others, like abuna Matta al - Meskin, speak about the subject but in a subtle way not citing the term not to displease the hierarchy.

Joined: Mar 16, 2005 | Posts: 187
Location: Italy

morqos

posted on Jun 24, 2009 - 12:48 PM

And by the way, for your personal information, Truth.seeker, the New Testament came after the foundation of the Church. The Church came before the text which SHE established because it represented the faith she lived every day.

Joined: Mar 16, 2005 | Posts: 187
Location: Italy

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 24, 2009 - 01:50 PM

As Fr. Matta el Meskin and his followers understand it, it IS polytheism. They think our nature is united with divinity in essence, making us Gods (not gods). That is why their response was so strong, it is a DANGEROUS idea (as taught by those on the outer-fringe of things). The regular understanding of Theosis is just fine.

For your personal information, I am very well aware that St. Athanasius was the first one to list the 27 books in the N.T. in his 367 AD Paschal Letter. I know very well about the Councils that later ratified that list.

I also very well know that NOT A SINGLE FATHER ever said, "well, St. Matthew made a mistake here," or "St. John made a mistake here." Instead, they lived their whole lives defending against heresy FROM the texts of the Bible, who even the heretics never questioned!

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 660

morqos

posted on Jun 24, 2009 - 03:06 PM

You have not replied to my question: how many times H.H. spoke about theosis? Do you know that in the other orthodox churches the patriarch or anyone allowed to preach speak about theosis every couple of weeks?
p.s. the first to make a list was Marcion...

Joined: Mar 16, 2005 | Posts: 187
Location: Italy

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 24, 2009 - 04:39 PM

I said the "first one to list THE 27 books in the N.T." Marcion's list was incomplete. It did not have the 27 books. If this is the level of your discernment, no wonder you can't apprehend the dangerousness of Fr. Matta el Meskeen's writings. Unless you're just trying to uselessly bicker with me . (I hope you get out of thinking that those who disagree with you simply don't know information. To date, I've really only encountered that very pervasive thinking with Catholics. All it does is serve to derogate the person you're talking to.)

To answer your question, I have NEVER heard H.H. Pope Shenouda talk about Theosis before addressing Fr. Matta el Meskeen's writings. In my opinion, that means nothing. Pope Shenouda himself recommended that every person read "On the Incarnation" once a year. With his ability to retain information and how much he has read from the Fathers, it's safe to assume he knows what it is. The fact he hasn't talked about it means nothing (again, he could have talked about it, but you and I have just not come across it). I assume you're trying to say he doesn't know much about the subject? Look at my note above.

Please verify to me that every EO patriarch and every preacher in the EO communion who preaches, preaches about Theosis at least once every two weeks. Please stop making impossible-to-verify claims. (Note that even if this claim is true, it doesn't mean much).

The more your replies drip with hints of ignorance on Pope Shenouda's or my part, my replies will just get tougher. You call me "brother" in one reply, then basically tell me I'm ignorant in the next. Are you in the business of concealing too!?

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 660

mikokiko

posted on Jun 25, 2009 - 12:05 AM

Truth.Seeker does have a point there about the donkey and the foal of a donkey segment of the Gospel. It might be that he meant something different by it (such that we translated it wrongly), but I think it would be wrong of us to accuse him of making an error in THIS specific case. It is forgivable in other places (such as what I heard about St. Paul's odd Greek Grammar in writing the epistles). But here, the ignorace would be so great that it wouldn't make sense for him to have written the entire Gospel. And if that is the case, it could not be an error in description of history so immense, for he was an eye witness.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1152