Is Jesus YHWH in the flesh?

Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present. All forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.


AndyHolland
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue 1 November 2005 5:43 pm

Post by AndyHolland »

One last point concerning the unfortunate Armenian deacon:

1 John iv 3 is first quoted below by St. Polycarp below:

"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist; "and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross,is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. Wherefore, forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning; "watching unto prayer," and persevering in fasting; beseeching in our supplications the all-seeing God "not to lead us into temptation ," as the Lord has said: "The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak."

andy holland
sinner

catechuman
Newbie
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon 19 December 2005 3:42 pm

Post by catechuman »

Thanks Andy. I will read your posts. That is why I am asking questions.
I hear so many sub-doctrines within these various jurisdictions that I am curious if they stem from one particular Patristic statement.

Again, Thank you! I am glad for your comments!!

God Bless,
C

AndyHolland
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue 1 November 2005 5:43 pm

Post by AndyHolland »

Hi Catechuman,

When I was a Catechuman, I read the Incarnation of the Word by St. Athanasius the Great which gives the doctrine of the Orthodox with regard to the Incarnation as well as anyone could. You can read online for free at:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/athanasius/incarnation.html

and download or you can click on the title and page forward.

Sorry to come down so hard in the Armenian Deacon, but it is extremely dangerous to start thinking in terms of an OT/NT disconnect. Leads to the dark side. :)

A remarkable thing about the Fathers is the consistency and love they bring to their OT interpretations. It is man who is warped and reads the OT God as being somehow different. In reality, the God of the OT is the same humble, loving God - but the revelation of God in the OT is obscured by our own sinfulness that we read into the passages our own sins - because we judge for ourselves. If we refrain from judging, and read the OT as little children, God is revealed as the loving Father who puts up with allot of nonsense (God just tells is as it is).

From a website that I am not sure is reliable, we have this also from St. Athanasius in a letter concerning the Psalms (which are to be sung according to the Saint) for instance:

If, again, you want to sing Psalms that speak especially about the Saviour, you will find something in almost all of them; but 45 and 110 to relate particularly to His Divine Begetting from the Father and His coming in the flesh, while 22 and 69 foretell the holy cross, the grievous plots He bore and how great things He suffered for our sakes. The 3rd and 109th also display the snares and malice of the Jews and how Iscariot betrayed Him; 21, 50, and 72 all set Him forth as judge and foretell His Second Coming in the flesh to us; they also show the Gentiles' call. The 16th shows His resurrection from the dead, in flesh, the 24th and 47th His ascension into heaven. And in the four Psalms 93, 96, 98, and 99, all the benefits deriving to us from the Saviour's Passion are set forth together.

Such, then, is the character of the Book of Psalms, and such the uses to which it may be put, some of its number serving for the correction of individual souls, and many of them, as I said just now, foretelling the coming in human form of our Saviour Jesus Christ. But we must not omit to explain the reason why words of this kind should be not merely said, but rendered with melody and song; for there are actually some simple folk among us who, though they believe the words to be inspired, yet think the reason for singing them is just to make them more pleasing to the ear! This is by no means so; Holy Scripture is not designed to tickle the aesthetic palate, and it is rather for the soul's own profit that the Psalms are sung. This is so chiefly for two reasons. In the first place, it is fitting that the sacred writings should praise God in poetry as well as prose, because the freer, less restricted form of verse, in which the Psalms, together with the Canticles and Odes,[The reference is probably to the hymns in Exodus 15: 1-18, Deuteronomy 32: 1-43, and Habakkuk 3, which are called Odes in the Septuagint. Some other Old Testament hymns, e.g. the Song of Hannah and the Benedicite, may be included.] are cast, ensures that by them men should express their love to God with all the strength and power they possess. And, secondly, the reason lies in the unifying effect which chanting the Psalms has upon the singer. For to sing the Psalms demands such concentration of a man's whole being on them that, in doing it, his usual disharmony of mind and corresponding bodily confusion is resolved, just as the notes of several flutes are brought by harmony to one effect; and he is thus no longer to be found thinking good and doing evil, as Pilate did when, though saying I find no crime in Him, [Jn 18:38] he yet allowed the Jews to have their way; nor desiring evil though unable to achieve it, as did the elders in their sin against Susanna - or, for that matter, as does any man who abstains from one sin and yet desires another every bit as bad. And it is in order that the melody may thus express our inner spiritual harmony, just as the words voice our thoughts, that the Lord Himself has ordained that the Psalms be sung and recited to a chant.

andy holland
sinner

The Apostate

Post by The Apostate »

Orthodox6 wrote:

Just passing by and noting that nobody has (unless I missed it) pointed out that the Armenian Christian group is not part of the Orthodox Churches. (hence the deacon referenced is not the most useful source of information for the Orthodox position)

Well said, Orthodox6! I was reading the thread and thinking just this.

The Armenians are not Orthodox. There are points on which we agree, but by no means would I take what they say as authoritative.

Post Reply