Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

600Re: [SORForum] Jesus is a Jew

Expand Messages
  • Steve Dennehy
    May 3, 2004
      Jesus, from His conception in an egg in the womb of
      the All-Holy Virgin Miriam is Spirit-Soul-Body, as are
      all human persons.
      His Spirit is His Person, His "I" (God the
      Son/Word/Image), eternal and Divine.
      His Soul is perfect universal, but at the same time
      is unique and individual.
      His Body is male and ethnically Jewish Semitic
      He is One Lord Yeshua Messiah (Jesus Christ).

      You state this correctly when you say He is a single
      hypostasis (Person).

      Your statement that"He never actually became a Jewish
      man, He just assumed the role of one for the purpose
      of establishing the Kingdom of God..." strikes me as
      Nestorian and Gnostic. You seem to be denying the
      Incarnation altogether. I don't undertsand how you
      could read St. Athanasius and come to that conclusion.

      The tradition in the Church from ancient times is that
      the Gospels are arranged in chronological order, in
      the order in which they were written. The Tradition
      is that Mathew's was addressed to the Aramaic-Syriac
      speaking Jewish and Syrian Christians, Luke to the
      Greek speaking Christians and Mark to the Latin
      speaking Christians.

      It is always a mistake to subvert theology to
      philosophy. It is always a mistake to subvert God to
      theology. Dogmas are boundaries; they tell us where
      to go, where not to go. But dogmas are not God,
      statements about God are not God. ONLY GOD IS GOD.
      God is Father-Jesus-Spirit, One in Essence and
      In Him,
      --- Edward Moore <emoore@...> wrote:
      > Steve,
      > > God the Son became man, He became a Jewish man.
      > His
      > > Person is God the Son but he has a human nature-
      > male
      > > and Jewish Semitic Caucasian .
      > This statement is theologically unsound. The
      > Orthodox Church Fathers
      > unanimously hold that Christ was a single person
      > (hupostasis) possessing two
      > natures, divine and human. His human nature was not
      > the specific,
      > individual nature of a single man; rather, as
      > God-man, the New Adam, Christ
      > united the totality of human nature with divinity in
      > His single hupostasis.
      > You are, of course, correct that the God-man existed
      > in the 'person'
      > (prosopon) of a Jewish man at a particular time in
      > history, but as St.
      > Athanasius affirms (in his De incarnatione), He
      > never stopped functioning as
      > the Logos holding the universe together by the power
      > of His divine will. We
      > know from the New Testament that Christ unites all
      > of humanity in His
      > person, so that we are no longer able to make
      > distinctions between Jew and
      > Greek (Gentile), male and female, slave and free,
      > etc. Further, as the
      > Epistle to the Hebrews tells us, Christ is eternally
      > the same. He never
      > actually became a Jewish man; He simply assumed the
      > role of one for the
      > purpose of establishing the Kingdom of God and the
      > New Coveneant in a manner
      > that transcends ethnic division. This He could not
      > have accomplished, I
      > posit, if He did not possess the totality of human
      > nature -- including Jews
      > but all other races as well -- in His person.
      > Perhaps we will understand each other better if we
      > invoke the ancient
      > Sophistic distinction between nature (phusis) and
      > convention (nomos). Can
      > we agree that Christ was a Jew by covnention, but
      > not by nature?
      > > The first Gospel to be written was Mathew which
      > was
      > > written in Aranmaic Syrian as it was addressed to
      > > Aramaic speaking Syrian and Jewish Christians.
      > This is incorrect. The first Gospel to be written
      > was Mark, and the
      > language of composition was Greek. I know of no
      > archaeological or
      > manuscript evidence supporting the theory that the
      > Gospels were originally
      > composed in Aramaic, or any other language but
      > Greek. Cf. Paul N. Tarazi,
      > _The New Testament: Introduction_, vol. 1, Paul and
      > Mark (Crestwood, NY: St.
      > Vladimir's Seminary Press 1999). On the original
      > language of the Gospels
      > consult the various studies by Jaroslav Pelikan, for
      > example.
      > That said, as an editor of the Orthodox journal
      > _Theandros_, I invite you,
      > Steve, or anyone interested to submit an article
      > arguing in favor of a
      > theory of original Aramaic composition. Please see
      > the link in my signature
      > for information on submitting, should you be so
      > inclined.
      > In Christ,
      > Edward
      > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      > Edward Moore, S.T.L., Ph.D. (candidate)
      > St. Elias School of Orthodox Theology
      > E-mail: emoore@...
      > Homepage: www.theandros.com/emoore
      > Theandros: An Online Journal of
      > Orthodox Christian Theology and
      > Philosophy
      > www.theandros.com
      > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > ----------
      > "Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow
      > to anger."
      > (James 1:19)
      > Syriac Orthodox Resources: http://sor.cua.edu
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > SOR-Forum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Do you Yahoo!?
      Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic