03-02-2012, 05:06 AM
Hello, thanks for the rapid response.
I have read nearly all of Theodore's works and I admire him a lot. He is the only one whom scientists nowadays agree the most out of all Church Fathers.
But you can not deny that he often talks about Jesus as a separate from Word Logos. Sometimes he seems Orthodox, while saying that there is only 1 person of Christ in two natures, but sometimes he clearly teaches two persons.
For example, even from that Commentary, saying that:
"From the fact that we say two natures we are not constrained to say two Lords nor two sons; this would be extreme folly." --- Sounds good so far, but what is Theodore's argument for it?
He continues: "All things that in one respect are two and in another respect one, their union through which they are one does not annul the distinction between the natures, and the distinction between the natures impedes them from being one. So in the sentence: "I and my Father are one" the word "one" does not annul the fact of "I and my Father," who are two. In another passage He said about the husband and wife that "they are no more twain but one flesh." The fact that the husband and wife are one flesh does not impede them from being two. Indeed they will remain two because they are two, but they are one because they are also one and not two. In this same way here (in the Incarnation) they are two by nature and one by union: two by nature, because there is a great difference between the natures, and one by union because the adoration offered to the one who has been assumed is not differentiated from that to the one who assumed Him, as the former is the temple from which it is not possible for the one who dwells in it to depart."
See, he clearly states that 2 persons in Christ are like husband and wife, or like members of Trinity, who are figuratively called one. Also, he says that there are no two Christs or Sons not because there is 1 person, but because only one of them is Christ and only one of them is Son of God.
But regarding the difference between OT Peshitta and NT Peshitta - thanks for the answer, that was satisfactory.
I have read nearly all of Theodore's works and I admire him a lot. He is the only one whom scientists nowadays agree the most out of all Church Fathers.
But you can not deny that he often talks about Jesus as a separate from Word Logos. Sometimes he seems Orthodox, while saying that there is only 1 person of Christ in two natures, but sometimes he clearly teaches two persons.
For example, even from that Commentary, saying that:
"From the fact that we say two natures we are not constrained to say two Lords nor two sons; this would be extreme folly." --- Sounds good so far, but what is Theodore's argument for it?
He continues: "All things that in one respect are two and in another respect one, their union through which they are one does not annul the distinction between the natures, and the distinction between the natures impedes them from being one. So in the sentence: "I and my Father are one" the word "one" does not annul the fact of "I and my Father," who are two. In another passage He said about the husband and wife that "they are no more twain but one flesh." The fact that the husband and wife are one flesh does not impede them from being two. Indeed they will remain two because they are two, but they are one because they are also one and not two. In this same way here (in the Incarnation) they are two by nature and one by union: two by nature, because there is a great difference between the natures, and one by union because the adoration offered to the one who has been assumed is not differentiated from that to the one who assumed Him, as the former is the temple from which it is not possible for the one who dwells in it to depart."
See, he clearly states that 2 persons in Christ are like husband and wife, or like members of Trinity, who are figuratively called one. Also, he says that there are no two Christs or Sons not because there is 1 person, but because only one of them is Christ and only one of them is Son of God.
But regarding the difference between OT Peshitta and NT Peshitta - thanks for the answer, that was satisfactory.