Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Cannibalism entails the destruction of the one being consumed. No such thing happens with Christ. He suffers no loss when we receive His flesh and blood.Was Jesus practicing cannibalism? Do we really practice cannabilism? It's one of the most heinous crimes there is.
It is for the literal minded. The literal minded have almost no choice but to reject what Jesus teaches.It's like I said nothing at all. You wouldn't even address my point about cannibilism. Jesus ate His own flesh and drank His own blood? That is weird beyond belief.
He said what He said. Most Christians believe it. Y'all don't. The Pharisees didn't either. If that's the company you want to keep...It's like I said nothing at all. You wouldn't even address my point about cannibilism. Jesus ate His own flesh and drank His own blood? That is weird beyond belief.
Jesus broke the bread and gave it to His disciples. He didn't eat of it Himself. He then took the cup and gave it to His disciples. He didn't drink of it Himself.It's like I said nothing at all. You wouldn't even address my point about cannibilism. Jesus ate His own flesh and drank His own blood? That is weird beyond belief.
He bears the marks of His suffering forever and is risen in the flesh, yet transformed being the first born of an entirely new eternal creation.
In this I am inclined to think the Shroud is genuine evidencing the transition between the creations.
They are not the same thingsDo you mean the Shroud of Turin, also known as the Mandylion and the Orthodox Iconographic reproduction of it known as
”Not Made By Hands” ?
It's like I said nothing at all. You wouldn't even address my point about cannibilism. Jesus ate His own flesh and drank His own blood? That is weird beyond belief.
They are not the same things
I think of what Paul states -m I right then to conclude then, that this blood and body that the disciples consumed as they partook of the bread and wine, were of His eternal resurrected body and not His pre-resurrection body ?
It’s not cannibalism. It’s his resurrected body under the appearance of bread and wine. A sacred mystery. It wasn’t like eating bone or a toenail.It's like I said nothing at all. You wouldn't even address my point about cannibilism. Jesus ate His own flesh and drank His own blood? That is weird beyond belief.
Was Jesus practicing cannibalism? Do we really practice cannabilism? It's one of the most heinous crimes there is.
I associate accusations such as "Jesus was a cannibal" with paganism and anti-Christian atheism rather than with any branch of Christianity. Isn't it a tragedy that some who call themselves Christian choose the vocabulary anti-Christian atheism as their own.Is it more or less heinous than human sacrifice?
Yet I doubt that's the accusation you'd make against Christ's self-offering of Himself on the cross as the sacrifice that takes away the sins of the world.
The charge of cannibalism is, of course, false; but worse, it is blasphemous against the gift of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist.
-CryptoLutheran
The body of Christ before and after the resurrection is the same. And the disciples consumed this body, just like we do today.Am I right then to conclude then, that this blood and body that the disciples consumed as they partook of the bread and wine, were of His eternal resurrected body and not His pre-resurrection body ?
The body of Christ before and after the resurrection is the same. And the disciples consumed this body, just like we do today.
Thus, there were heresies that considered Christ changeable and corruptible until the resurrection, to which the Holy Fathers of the Church gave the example that if this were so, then the Apostles would not have been able to receive communion at the Last Supper.
Thus, we partake of the Flesh of Christ at this very moment in time. Although we become participants in the sacrifice that happened in the past.
Yes, human nature in Christ is not changed in any way after the union. Although, of course, the body of Christ was completely deified.I want to ask our Coptic Orthodox friend @dzheremi for input here. Now, my understanding of the Oriental Orthodox Christological formula, that originated with St. Cyril of Alexandria, that is to say, the miaphysite concept of the union of the human and divine natures into the one theandric nature of the incarnation, in which our incarnate Lord is from rather than of two natures as in the Chalcedonian model of Pope* Leo of Rome, is that in the Incarnation the humanity and divinity are united without change, confusion, separation or division, is that the phrase without change means that the humanity and divinity are not altered as a result of the union, contrary to the heresy of Eutyches, who was anathematized by Pope Dioscorus.
It was not that Christ's human flesh was glorified or different before the resurrection. In the resurrection, Christ openly revealed his divinity. He did the same thing before the resurrection during the Transfiguration, for example.However, I haven’t come across anything that is contrary to the widely accepted idea that when Christ rose from the dead, He had through His passion restored and glorified the human nature as the New Adam.
I think there is a difference between the Armenian Church and other Oriental Orthodox on this issue. Severus of Antioch taught that Christ before the resurrection was qualitatively different (corruptible) than after the resurrection. For this he is anathematized by the Armenian Church.On this point my understanding is that Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, or at least Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox doctrine, are identical** (I don’t know as much about the Armenian Apostolic Church and it is possible there are aspects to Armenian Christology that I am unaware of, although I was under the impression that all of the Oriental Orthodox churches believed basically the same thing. Likewise if I am more broadly mistaken, for example, if Eastern Orthodox doctrine is that our Lord in His resurrection was not different from before His crucifixion, hopefully @prodromos or @Ignatius the Kiwi or @FenderTL5 or @HTacianas might be able to bring some clarity. Unfortunately the Syriac Orthodox member we had a few months back from Malankara is not at present active, as far as I am aware.
I think there is a difference between the Armenian Church and other Oriental Orthodox on this issue. Severus of Antioch taught that Christ before the resurrection was qualitatively different (corruptible) than after the resurrection. For this he is anathematized by the Armenian Church.
Yes, communication was broken precisely because of the issue of the corruption of Christ. Unity was restored at the Manazkert Council in 726. At that council, although both sides did not come to absolute agreement, there was agreement in condemning the errors of both Severus and Julian.Oh, well that explains it then, since Mor Severus of Antioch is extremely important in not only Oriental Orthodox theology, but also Eastern Orthodox theology, due to the wide-ranging influence of his Theopaschitism.
Now out of curiosity, do you know why communion between the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch (with whom Mor Severus is most associated) and the Armenian church was for a few centuries interrupted, but later restored by the 16th century?
From the prepatory prayer(s) (emphasis added)Interesting, although I am not entirely sure that’s correct.
I want to ask our Coptic Orthodox friend @dzheremi for input here. Now, my understanding of the Oriental Orthodox Christological formula, that originated with St. Cyril of Alexandria, that is to say, the miaphysite concept of the union of the human and divine natures into the one theandric nature of the incarnation, in which our incarnate Lord is from rather than of two natures as in the Chalcedonian model of Pope* Leo of Rome, is that in the Incarnation the humanity and divinity are united without change, confusion, separation or division, is that the phrase without change means that the humanity and divinity are not altered as a result of the union, contrary to the heresy of Eutyches, who was anathematized by Pope Dioscorus. However, I haven’t come across anything that is contrary to the widely accepted idea that when Christ rose from the dead, He had through His passion restored and glorified the human nature as the New Adam.
On this point my understanding is that Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, or at least Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox doctrine, are identical** (I don’t know as much about the Armenian Apostolic Church and it is possible there are aspects to Armenian Christology that I am unaware of, although I was under the impression that all of the Oriental Orthodox churches believed basically the same thing. Likewise if I am more broadly mistaken, for example, if Eastern Orthodox doctrine is that our Lord in His resurrection was not different from before His crucifixion, hopefully @prodromos or @Ignatius the Kiwi or @FenderTL5 or @HTacianas might be able to bring some clarity. Unfortunately the Syriac Orthodox member we had a few months back from Malankara is not at present active, as far as I am aware.
*Technically Archbishop or Patriarch; while Leo was the first Bishop of Rome to adopt the style pontifex maximus, it was not until the 6th century that the style of Pope was adopted by the Bishops of Rome; prior to that time the style had only been used by the Popes of Alexandria, such as Saints Athanasius, Cyril and Dioscorus.
** It is the case that the Eastern Orthodox church also uses the Christological formula of full humanity and full divinity without change, confusion, seperation or division, the main difference being the Eastern Orthodox believe that Jesus Christ abides in two natures, human and divine that are united in one hypostasis, whereas the Oriental Orthodox believe that he abides in a hypostatic and natural union from two natures, human and divine, but in either case, there is no change, confusion, division or separation as a result of the theandric union of humanity and divinity in the Incarnation of Christ our true God.
Additionally the Eastern Orthodox also use the hymn Ho Monogenes, following the Second Antiphon, like in the Armenian Patarag, and this same hymn opens the Syriac Orthodox Divine Liturgy (Qurbono Qadisho), and the Coptic Orthodox use it at the high point of their liturgy on Great and Holy Friday. I regard the hymn as a highly reliable test of Christological Orthodoxy, since a Nestorian or a Eutychian could not recite it with any degree of comfort; in this respect it is similiar to the Syriac Orthodox communion hymn Haw Nurone, which is a useful test of Eucharistic orthodoxy.
The words of Ho Monogenes are as follows:
Only-Begotten Son and Immortal Word of God,
Who for our salvation didst will to be incarnate of the holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary;
Who without change didst become man and was crucified;
Who art one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit:
O Christ our God, trampling down death by death, save us![
From the prepatory prayer(s) (emphasis added)
Eighth Prayer of Saint Symeon Metafrastes (Saint Symeon the Translator)
Lord, Who alone are pure and incorrupt, Who through the ineffable compassion of Your love for mankind assumed our whole nature through the pure and virgin blood of her who supernaturally conceived You by the coming of the Divine Spirit and by the will of the Eternal Father; O Christ Jesus, Wisdom and Peace and Power of God, Who in assuming our nature suffered Your life-giving and saving Passion - the Cross, the Nails, the Spear, and Death - mortify all the deadly passions of my body.
You Who in Your burial spoiled the dominions of hell, bury with good thoughts my evil schemes and scatter the spirits of wickedness.
You Who by Your life-giving Resurrection on the third day raised up our fallen first Parent, raise me up who am sunk in sin and suggest to me ways of repentance.
You Who by Your glorious Ascension deified our nature which You had assumed and honored it by Your sitting at the right hand of the Father, make me worthy by partaking of Your holy Mysteries of a place at Your right hand among those who are saved.
You Who by the descent of the Spirit, the Paraclete, made Your holy Disciples worthy vessels, make me also a recipient of His coming.
You Who are to come again to judge the World with justice, grant me also to meet You on the clouds, my Maker and Creator, with all Your Saints, that I may unendingly glorify and praise You with Your Eternal Father and Your all-holy and good and life-creating Spirit, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.
This is a beautiful piece - the only part I struggle with is the "...pure and virgin blood of her..." I thought one of the strengths of Jesus was that He was born in humility in every respect - donkey, stable, humble devout human maiden, beautifully human, not divine. We were told that of all born of Women there was none greater than John the Baptist - this includes Mary.
Sorry - I think I just threw a match into the fire...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?