Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Early Christian view of the Holy Trinity
#46
Quote:Is Saint Isaac a heretic? Or is he a saint? Please choose.

If it's this Saint Issac, I say He sounds like a Saint to me. I'll have to read his books to get to know his teachings better though.

I like what he says here: "Be persecuted, rather than be a persecutor. Be crucified, rather than be a crucifier. Be treated unjustly, rather than treat anyone unjustly. Be oppressed, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice."

And here below is a statement about him from Orthodoxwiki.org, which is very interesting.

Much has been made in some circles that St. Isaac was a member of the Church of Persia (known today at the Assyrian Church of the East), which has been associated with the Nestorian heresy.

The first edition (1984) of the Orthodox English translation of St. Isaac's Ascetical Homilies contained an extensive Epilogue entitled "A Brief Historical and Theological Introduction to the Church of Persia to the End of the Seventh Century," written by Syriac scholar Dr. Dana R. Miller of Fordham University, which has been summarized thusly in the new (2011) more compact second edition: "Saint Isaac was and still is commonly called 'Nestorian Bishop of Nineveh' and the Church of Persia of his day, 'Nestorian'.

The [first edition] Epilogue endeavored to demonstrate that the teachings of Nestorius did not inform the theology of the Church of Persia; that the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia known to her were partial and imperfect translations, and that the controversy his writings caused in the Greek-speaking world were mostly unknown to the Church of Persia, cut off by linguistic differences and political boundaries; that in some cases it was extremism on the part of the Monophysites that led the Church of Persia to take a stance that might seem to lend itself to a Nestorian interpretation, such as the cautious avoidance of the term Theotokos to avoid Monophysite Theopaschism, though she professed the Virgin's Son to be perfect God and perfect man; that the fraternal relations with Byzantium remained open: no general and hardened opposition to the Fourth [Ecumenical] Council created a final division between the Church of Persia of Saint Isaac's day and the 'Chalcedonian' Church, as it did with the Monophysites, for whom the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon became a defining element of their identity.

Its aim, in a word, was to show that the Church of Persia to which Saint Isaac belonged was neither heretical in theology nor schismatic in confession." (pages 74-75, "Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian", Revised Second Edition, translated and published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Brookline, MA, 2011)

Source of quote: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://orthodoxwiki.org/Isaac_of_Syria">http://orthodoxwiki.org/Isaac_of_Syria</a><!-- m -->


Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#47
Yes chuck, he is a canonised saint of both churches, the reason why I ask Arkady is how can someone be a heretic and a saint at the same time?
Reply
#48
Alan G77 Wrote:Yes chuck, he is a canonised saint of both churches, the reason why I ask Arkady is how can someone be a heretic and a saint at the same time?

Akhan Alan,

Such logic does not apply to some people. This is the same group that anathematized a Doctor of the Church, long after his death ... not only couldn't he defend himself, but there is still no shame or regret in that move.

+Shamasha
Reply
#49
You are right Shamash, much to their own shame.
Reply
#50
Brothers,

This is sad to hear, that this is still going on in hearts and minds. Does this still continue in the members of The Coptic and Oriental Orthodox Churches...and if so, is this their official stance on The Church of the East? And what about the whole of The Eastern Orthodox Churches? How do they view the ACOE...and do The Coptic and Oriental Orthodox Churches not accept the Council of Chaledon's judgment on the two natures of Chirst?

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#51
Chuck the OO can't stand us.

But some ecumenical steps have recently taken place between us and the EO.
Reply
#52
Akhan Chuck,

What Alan said. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

Here's how I would rank relations with the other major branches of the Church (from most cordial to least):

Catholic (Roman, Chaldean, Maronite, Byzantine, etc)
Anglican
Lutheran
EO (Greek, Russian, etc)
....almost any other of hundreds of churches here
OO (Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopian, and last of all Coptic)

Bishop Cyril was, of course, a Copt. (for what that's worth)

+Shamasha
Reply
#53
Check this interesting statement out.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.v.vi.html?highlight=mother">http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.i ... ght=mother</a><!-- m --> of god#highlight
Reply
#54
Arkady,

you better find out more about these people before using sharp words.
I was born in Orthodox family, I heard about Church of East that they are small group of heretics called Nestorians. But it appeared not true.

This church is Aramaic speaking church who faithfully transmitted the New testament during its long history. They are not Nestorians, they just gave refuge to Nestorius who was persecuted by the westerners. This Church was during first millennium the biggest church in the world. They suffered a lot of persecution by muslims but remained faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ. The problem I see for myself that they keep to the corrupted Masoretic text of the Old testament and close their eyes on the corruptions. Another problem on this forum is that certain Jew(s) try to steal our freedom in Christ and force us into observing of Torah.

If you want to know the true New testament in original, you have to stick to their 22 books Peshitta. We have big shame to Chistianity which is corrupted Greek New Testament(s). So, the COE saved the truth of the Gospel for us.

Dear discussers,

let me put up my point of view on the Trinity.
I do not place my faith into different "saints" and church "authories" but into the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
My view is Mary is mother of human nature of Jesus and God is father of divine nature of Jesus.
Jesus became Messiah (anointed) after the baptismal when the Holy Spirit descended upon him.
The Holy Spirit is part of God and proceeds only from God. The Holy Spirit is not individuality.
Nobody in the Scriptures prayed to the Holy Spirit or had conversation with.
Jesus is not here but on the right hand of God, in the heaven but the Holy Spirit was send in His place for us.

Joel 2:27-29 "...I will pour out of My Spirit....'.
We come to Father only through Jesus Christ John 14:6
John 15:25 "....the Spirit of Truth that proceeds from father..."
John 4:24 "..God is Spirit..."

That the Holy Spirit is not different personality from God, we can see that
the Holy Spirit descended on Mary and Jesus was born and is called the Son of God NOT
the Son of the Holy Spirit.
Reply
#55
Ivan,
I see you have chosen for yourself to stay away from Who is the Truth and what is the truth as far as possible.

Don't you reallise that at some point in the early church there were no gospels, one might have had a piece of this, the other the piece of that, but not the whole thing. The account of the Mshikah's life and of His passions was spread by the word of mouth. Even so, gospels in them themselves are nothing without the tradition that the Word's disciples passed down to us along the way. What the apostle Paul deemed worthy of all acceptation who are we to annul?

I feel sorry for you.
Reply
#56
Arkady, Amen and Amen.
Reply
#57
Quote:Dear discussers,

let me put up my point of view on the Trinity.

Point of views are not always correct...but sometimes they are.

Quote:I do not place my faith into different "saints" and church "authories" but into the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Comment: When the Church Fathers/Saints, or Church authorities goes against what The Apostles of Christ have taught by God's Holy Spirit through them, then we are not to agree with it.


Quote:My view is Mary is mother of human nature of Jesus and God is father of divine nature of Jesus.

Comment: Though the Divine nature of God was present at the point of conception of The Messiah in the Holy Virgins womb, She was not the generator of that Divinity... rather it was The Holy Spirit of The Father, who overshadowed Her. The Messiah was both Divine and Human at conception, both of The Father and of His Mother, in perfect union.


Quote:Jesus became Messiah (anointed) after the baptismal when the Holy Spirit descended upon him.

Comment: The Holy Spirit was present with The Messiah from the moment of His conception...He having the Spirit of God without measure, as The Scripture teaches. At 12 years old He was blowing the religious leaders minds with the Wisdom that was coming out of Him...in fact He IS the Wisdom of God, personified. Certainly He was prepared to enter His Ministry by The Holy Spirit that day... and the sign was given so that John could know that He was indeed the promised Messiah.


Quote:The Holy Spirit is part of God and proceeds only from God. The Holy Spirit is not individuality.

Comment: The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father, and is given through/by The Son..."I will send you another Comforter". As The Scriptures teach, The Holy Spirit is both The Spirit of The Father & of The Son...The Spirit of God & The Spirit of Jesus. Through/By The Holy Spirit, both The Father & The Son, are resident IN His People/Temple. "We will come unto you, and make our abode with you."


Quote:Nobody in the Scriptures prayed to the Holy Spirit or had conversation with.

Comment: Consider these verses...Acts 16:7 "And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them." "Acts 8:29 "The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it." 1 Peter 1:11 "trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow."


Quote:Jesus is not here but on the right hand of God, in the heaven but the Holy Spirit was send in His place for us.

Comment: The Holy Spirit IS The Spirit of Jesus Christ. He is present with us by His Holy Spirit, which He shares with His Father, His God and our God... Consider these verses....Galatians 4:6 "Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, The Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." Romans 8:9 "You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ."


Quote:That the Holy Spirit is not different personality from God, we can see that
the Holy Spirit descended on Mary and Jesus was born and is called the Son of God NOT
the Son of the Holy Spirit.

Comment: The Holy Spirit IS The Spirit of GOD,The Father...and Jesus, His Only Begotton Son, has The Holy Spirit without measure...and indeed is His own Spirit. The Holy Spirit IS The Spirit of The Father and The Son. When we have The Holy Spirit dwelling with in us...We have God, The Father & His Son, dwelling within us....we being The Temple of GOD.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#58
Arkady wrote
Quote:Even so, gospels in them themselves are nothing without the tradition that the Word's disciples passed down to us along the way. What the apostle Paul deemed worthy of all acceptation who are we to annul?
Might be we misunderstood each other.
I just want to clarify that my faith is based on the Gospels and the Apostles, NOT
on traditions and teaching of people. We are pretty well fed up with streams and mainstreams
of Christianity fighting each other.


Looks like you belong to Greek Orthodox Church. No wonder why they and Vatican famously cursed and anathemized each other.

I see solution to the problems: use Aramaic original of the Gospels and writings of the Apostles as basis for our faith.
Reply
#59
IPOstapyuk Wrote:Might be we misunderstood each other.
I just want to clarify that my faith is based on the Gospels and the Apostles, NOT
on traditions and teaching of people. We are pretty well fed up with streams and mainstreams
of Christianity fighting each other.

Looks like you belong to Greek Orthodox Church. No wonder why they and Vatican famously cursed and anathemized each other.

I see solution to the problems: use Aramaic original of the Gospels and writings of the Apostles as basis for our faith.

I will refrain from commenting. I think I have already answered your question.

Imagine a person being interviewed somewhere. It's being videotaped by a couple of crews from some news channels. It lasts for 2 hours. Once it's over, it's edited to fit the news, say, 2 minute limit. And they show only the piece when the interviewee talks about what's important for the news channel. Aside from the the small part that you've seen on TV, you know nothing about the rest of it. But despite all that, you ardently claim you've heard it all, well... it's obvious that you haven't. And this is exactly the story with the Peshitta and the whole christian tradition. It was not possible for the apostles to put everything into their narratives so they didn't bother.

Arkady. Russia.
Reply
#60
When tradition goes against what is taught by Christ and His Apostles in Holy Scripture....then there is a problem. This is why we have had some of the divisions we have had, and continue to have. Men want to hold onto their traditions more than the truth found in God's Word...they are even willing to murder their brothers and sisters over it.

STOP IT!!!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)