Imitatio Christi - is the following Biblical?

[The Liturgist]

Paul didn't live in the extreme

I would differ with you on that. St. Paul, who was an ascetic, clearly, indeed his own writings are the basis for Christian asceticism, particularly perpetual virginity or celibacy, and his life after his rebirth on the Road to Damascus, dominated by providing spiritual fatherhood and constant physical pain, and concluding with imprisonment and martyrdom, is extreme compared to what is asked of most Christians. Indeed, comparably speaking, the Stylites had an easier time of it.

 

[The Liturgist]

We don't need to look for suffering.

No one is saying that we should.

But self-denial is another matter.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The point isn’t that the sickness honors God, it is that God, having put on our humanity and having suffered with us, is alongside us and does not just understand but has of his own voilition experienced our suffering, to the point of suffering death, in order to it.

This is why on Pascha we Orthodox sing this Troparion:

Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and on those in the tombs bestowing life!​

I have no reference to quantify what is posted. The question in the OP is on Biblical status - "is it Biblical" That means is it found in the Bible.

I am comforted to know that Anchorites such as Fr Lazarus el Antony are praying for me.

As for the stylites, as an agoraphile, I would happily serve as one, except our society would tragically not permit it. But it is a fact that their consul was sought by the good and the great, including the Emperors of New Rome, and that their blessings helped many Christians in ways both spiritual and temporal.

It is also known that the stylites continue to pray for us even now and miracles are wrought through their intercession, as of the rest of the saints and the choirs of angels, especially our glorious lady Theotokos and ever virgin Mary!

St. Paul the Hermit, Pray for Us!

St. Anthony the Great, Pray for Us!

St. John, St. Symeon, St. Symeon the Younger, St. Symeon the Third, St. Nicetas and all Stylites, Pray for Us!

As you know, we have a marked difference when it comes to praying to the dead.

St. Mary, the Mother of God, Proprietess of Mount Athos, and Joy of All Who Sorrow, Save Us, for the glory of Thy Son, Christ our True God!

Sorry - I understand the position that you hold in beliefs about Mary - we dod not need to o down that well worn path - but please - One and One one can Save us - His Name is Jesus

But can we Please return to the topic of the thread.

 

[Always in His Presence]

What does it mean to be an imitator?

Eph 5:1 Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.​

​

3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For [a]this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them.​

​

Note - it has nothing to do with pain, sickness etc...

​

​

 

[Always in His Presence]

I would differ with you on that. St. Paul, who was an ascetic, clearly, indeed his own writings are the basis for Christian asceticism, particularly perpetual virginity or celibacy, and his life after his rebirth on the Road to Damascus, dominated by providing spiritual fatherhood and constant physical pain, and concluding with imprisonment and martyrdom, is extreme compared to what is asked of most Christians. Indeed, comparably speaking, the Stylites had an easier time of it.

The bolded and underlined I concur.

The assertion that Paul lived as an ascetic is partially correct - there were times that he indeed suffered want - but there were also times he experienced abundance.

As evidenced in his own words

Philipians 4:11 Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content: 12 I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. 13 I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.​

 

[BNR32FAN]

Co-Sufferers (Imitatio Christi): Christians are called to participate in the suffering of Christ. Personal suffering is utilized as a means of purification (removing self-will and sin) and spiritual growth. By uniting one's own pain to the Passion, it ceases to be meaningless and becomes a source of grace for oneself and others.

Is this a Biblical understanding?

I’m not aware of any passages of scripture that support this idea. The only passages that come to mind about our suffering with Christ are dealing with perseverance in the face of persecution.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Matthew 16:24-25:

Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.​

​

So, I think yes .. Btw 'Imitatio Christi' literally means 'imitators of Christ' in Latin .. not suffering. The original book De Imitatione Christi (15th century AD) by Thomas à Kempis primarily focuses on private spiritual life and devotion, not just suffering. It was immensely popular in its day.

I see this as a call to perseverance in the face of persecution, warning them not to turn away from the faith in fear of the persecution they were about to face. I don’t see this as a call to do penance which appears to be what the OP is referring to if I’m not mistaken.

 

[The Liturgist]

The bolded and underlined I concur.

The assertion that Paul lived as an ascetic is partially correct - there were times that he indeed suffered want - but there were also times he experienced abundance.

As evidenced in his own words

Philipians 4:11 Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content: 12 I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. 13 I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.​

If read exegetically, its clear he is speaking of one and the same thing - spiritual abundance in the faith through abasement of the carnal passions. We are talking about a celibate male Apostle who clearly, according to all epistles, voluntarily sacrificed personal and social comfort to spread the Gospel among the Greeks, just as the other Apostles did in their apostolates (St. Thomas to the Syrians, Mesopotamians and Indians, both gentile and Jewish, following the northern trade route to Kerala via Edessa, Nineveh, Seleucia-Cstesiphon and Basra; St. Bartholomew to the Armenians, St. Peter to the Jews of Antioch and Rome, St. James the Just to the Jews of Jerusalem and Judaea, and so on).

 

[The Liturgist]

I have no reference to quantify what is posted. The question in the OP is on Biblical status - "is it Biblical" That means is it found in the Bible.

Of course you do. The Orthodox hymn is Biblical as is the idea that Christ trampled down death by death.

Sorry - I understand the position that you hold in beliefs about Mary - we dod not need to o down that well worn path - but please - One and One one can Save us - His Name is Jesus

That reply was not addressed to you.

 

[Always in His Presence]

If read exegetically, its clear he is speaking of one and the same thing - spiritual abundance in the faith through abasement of the carnal passions.

That would be two things - not one.

I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.

To be full and to be hungry - one end of a spectrum to another -

(then in the same sentence) both to abound and to suffer need.

There is no change in thought - The word ABOUND means

1. to be abundantly furnished with, to have in abundance, abound in (a thing), to be in affluence.

Which is the other end of "suffer need" -


Have you not read what Paul said in 1 Cor 9:

My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no [b]right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? 7 Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock?​

​

8 Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more?​

 

[Always in His Presence]

We speak often of the errors of the prosperity gospel - which I agree is flawed - but so is the poverty gospel flawed.

 

[The Liturgist]

There is a misinterpretation lurking in this thread by the way, that being that some of us are advocating seeking out pain or sickness. This is not the case.

Indeed were I healthier, I would be in a position to pursue a vocation of monasticism or Holy Matrimony. However, I have the consolation of knowing that even in suffering, Christ our God is with me.

To be full and to be hungry - one end of a spectrum to another -

I can be full of one thing and hungry for another. The passions wrap around. But Christ is always satisfying.

 

[The Liturgist]

That would be two things - not one.


To be full and to be hungry - one end of a spectrum to another -

(then in the same sentence) both to abound and to suffer need.

There is no change in thought - The word ABOUND means

1. to be abundantly furnished with, to have in abundance, abound in (a thing), to be in affluence.

Which is the other end of "suffer need" -


Have you not read what Paul said in 1 Cor 9:

My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no [b]right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? 7 Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock?​

​

8 Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more?​

Of course I have - and St. Paul is using a classical rhetorical device - he is pointing out that he could claim this compensation, that he could have a wife with him, and indeed some of the Apostles were married, but in due course within the Orthodox Church it proved meet that the bishops should follow the example of St. Paul and be celibate, whereas the presbyters and deacons could be married (indeed several of the first deacons were, most infamously Nicolas, who founded the Nicolaitan heresy on the basis of the idea of his wife and those of his followers as property that should be shared, according to St. Irenaeus and other ancient heresiologists).

Nicolas the Deacon should not be confused with St. Nicholas of Myra, a hierarch and confessor tortured in the DIocletian persecutions and an example of one who served God and Man, loving God above all else and His neighbor as Himself, famed for his generosity as the Bishop of Myra and for his tearful repentance after slapping Arius (which caused him to be automatically deposed, for under ancient canon law, still in force in my church, clergy cannot strike anyone, even to elicit repentence, but in the case of St. Nicholas he was forgiven after the Emperor and others present had a vision the following night urging them to do so, and in the Orthodox Church we commemorate St. Nicholas every Thursday).

 

[Always in His Presence]

I can be full of one thing and hungry for another. The passions wrap around. But Christ is always satisfying.

That is not exegetically sound. if he was speaking in metaphor, i could agree - however he was speaking literaly

Of course I have - and St. Paul is using a classical rhetorical device

There is no rhetorical in scripture -

The verses are literal, not metaphorical.

Paul literally made tents to supply his financial needs
Paul received monetary gifts to supply his needs

Paul knew what is was like to abound in finances and be abase (in need).

Either way he was content with what he had.

 

[The Liturgist]

There is no rhetorical in scripture -

The verses are literal, not metaphorical.

That’s simply not the case - St. Paul makes use of a vast array of skillful oratorial techniques, even referring to the ancient logical error of Epimenides Paradox in his epistle to St. Titus.

Rhetoric is not evil if used to promote truth; indeed Christ our True God employs skillful use of parable, a classic rhetorical technique of antiquity.

And then we have the amusing case of St. Elias the Prophet, one of four we know of holy enough to be taken up bodily into Heaven (the others being the Holy Prophets Enoch and Moses, and the Mother of God), together with Christ our God, who also has a body in His resurrection; the rest of those present existing pneumatically until the General Resurrection and the Life of the World to Come (although time might well be vastly different); in 1 Kings 18:27 St. Elias openly mocks the idolaters.

The use of rhetorical devices is not sinful when in service of the truth, and the reality is Christ and St. Paul are the two best known orators of antiquity, orators both in the sense of prayer and of rhetoric. Little of what Gaius Julius Caesar said is remembered; the speech of Marc Antony, ”Friends, Romans, Countrymen” is mostly a fabrication of Shakespeare, but the rhetoric of Christ our True God had staying power, because it expressed truth. Christ used Semitic rhetorical techniques such as fables and the provocative dialectic of the Hebrew people, ancient and modern, whereas St. Paul adapted his approach to reach Greeks and Greek-speaking Romans accustomed to a different style of rhetoric, and St. Luke the Evangelist, a Hellenized Jew, wrote with extreme elegance according to the norms of the Greek language.

Indeed many suspect that the Epistle to the Hebrews was penned by St. Luke working with St. Paul; ;most early church sources attribute Luke-Acts to a collaboration between the Evangelist and Apostle (likewise, the Gospel of St. Mark the Evangelist, who owned the great house with the Cenacle, which survives to this day by the way as a Syriac Orthodox monastery), is thought to have been guided by St. Peter; in both cases the Evangelists also being inspired by the Holy Spirit.