Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

"Fallen nature" vs. "Fallen persons"

person nature original sin

  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 Lakis Papas

Lakis Papas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 04 January 2014 - 10:50 PM

This quote by Prof. Begoz cannot be right, considering the quote you gave from John ch 6 and what you said about the communion prayers.  It sounds from post 14 like Scriptural context has determined the language we use.   

 

The body is considered anthropologically neutral in the ascetic literature, where the context is that the Fathers are trying to say that sin does not originate in the body, but only in the soul, although the body participates in the sin or the righteousness of the soul. 

 

I would suggest that for the use of these words, context is everything.

 

A remarkable aspect of Byzantine anthropology  ...



#22 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,028 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 04 January 2014 - 10:53 PM

A remarkable aspect of Byzantine anthropology  ...

 

Meaning?



#23 Lakis Papas

Lakis Papas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 04 January 2014 - 11:57 PM

Meaning?

 

Meaning that the context of Begzos' quotation is about Byzantine anthropology, and in this context he is right, in agreement with St Paul's quotation (Romans 8:4-8) about flesh:
 

that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.  So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

 

This connection of "flesh" with sin does not apply in the case of Christ, because His human nature is free of sin. It is illuminating to pinpoint that during the Last Supper the disciples received the Holy Communion, the Lord's body and blood, before the occurrence of the Sacrifice, before the occurrence of the Resurrection.

Edited by Lakis Papas, 05 January 2014 - 12:00 AM.


#24 Lakis Papas

Lakis Papas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 05 January 2014 - 12:15 AM

...

Likewise, as noted above, it is clear in Scriptural usage that "sarx" (flesh) often refers to our nature as a whole - not just our body, but our body and soul.  Usually sarx has a wider meaning then soma when it comes to an anthropological context.  And yet, when we talk about partaking of Christ's Body in the context of the Eucharist, we have to understand that we are not partaking of just his physical body but rather we partake of Christ Himself- fully man, and fully God.  The typical anthropological definition of body as only part of our nature is not appropriate in this context.

...

 

We must be careful to point out that we are not partake in Christ's divine nature.

 

As Virgin Mary gave birth to Christ's humanity, but she is Theotokos = God-bearer = Mother of God, likewise we partake in Christ's humanity only, therefore we become members of His Body, which is God-man's body.  



#25 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,028 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 05 January 2014 - 08:43 AM

This connection of "flesh" with sin does not apply in the case of Christ, because His human nature is free of sin. It is illuminating to pinpoint that during the Last Supper the disciples received the Holy Communion, the Lord's body and blood, before the occurrence of the Sacrifice, before the occurrence of the Resurrection.


I remember when (and this would be during January 1992) I was being prepared for entry into the Church I asked Bishop Irenaeos how the disciples could receive the Body and Blood of Christ before His crucifixion and resurrection. He explained that the events of the Church occur mystically outside time and space, and this is why we say 'Today' at the start of many of the hymns of the Feasts. The Last Supper also existed within time and space and there has only ever been one Eucharist which, by the celebration in time and space of the Divine Liturgy, is manifested for us. Christ's words, 'Do this in remembrance of me' (Luke 22:19) are not to be taken to mean that the Divine Liturgy is a mere memorial; it is the making real of the Last Supper, the one Eucharist.



#26 Antonios

Antonios

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,039 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 06 January 2014 - 10:21 PM

From what I am getting (or understanding) is that flesh has a negative connotation and seems to refer to a more base and worldly aspect of our being.  It is the aspect of our being which is related mostly to this world which is now since the fall corruptible and dieing away.    

 

And the body refers to a more 'holistic', natural and neutral aspect of our being

 

Christ has sanctified both flesh and the body, for He has perfected everything.   And the flesh has been redeemed and enspirited in perfection and the body made whole and indeed deified. 

 

Is this an acceptable understanding? :huh:



#27 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,028 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 06 January 2014 - 10:33 PM

If that is so, does it mean that in Christ there is no difference between sarx and soma?



#28 Antonios

Antonios

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,039 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 06 January 2014 - 11:46 PM

If that is so, does it mean that in Christ there is no difference between sarx and soma?

I don't know! lol

I think we can safely say that Christ perfects all things, and thus any relationship between the two within His resurrected and glorified body becomes unified so that there exists no difference in glory. Both the sarx and the soma perfected in glory as it were, thus while we can speak of our sarx and our soma in classifications according to the context of the aspect of our being we are discussing, for Christ Who is Perfect Man and Perfect God, such a distinction is merely theoretical.

Of course, I am merely rambling and can be completely off course here.

Edited by Antonios, 06 January 2014 - 11:48 PM.


#29 Lakis Papas

Lakis Papas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 07 January 2014 - 08:27 AM

If that is so, does it mean that in Christ there is no difference between sarx and soma?

 

There are many differences:

  • Βody is composed of members, flesh has no members
  • Flesh is the structural material of the body
  • Body performs operations, flesh is the functional structures of the organs of the body

Most important: body has a form and contributes to the definition of the identity of a human being, while the flesh is amorphous and is not associated with the identity of the human being. For example, I recognize my father by the visual form of his body.

 

It is noteworthy that in the early years the phrase of the Creed: "I look forward to the resurrection of the dead.." was used in the form "I look forward to the resurrection of the flesh", or in the form "I look forward to the resurrection of the bodies".  But the resurrection is about the whole human nature not only the material aspect of it. 


Edited by Lakis Papas, 07 January 2014 - 08:28 AM.


#30 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,028 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 07 January 2014 - 09:16 AM

Most important: body has a form and contributes to the definition of the identity of a human being, while the flesh is amorphous and is not associated with the identity of the human being. For example, I recognize my father by the visual form of his body.

 

We would have to be careful how we applied this to Christ since His bodily form during His life on earth, though presumably identifiable in terms of recognition, was not part of His 'identity' as 'a human being' since He was not 'a human being'. Further, His body was at all times 'in the original beauty of the Image' (aposticha from the Transfiguration) though this was concealed except at the Transfiguration.



#31 Lakis Papas

Lakis Papas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 07 January 2014 - 12:01 PM

I aggree with Reader Andreas Moran.
 
Βut, also we must maintain a balance with the biblical passages: 
 
Philippians 2:5-8

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

 

 
John 14:7-9

“If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
 
Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
 
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 

 

I mean, the human body of Christ is His Βody. As God-man is seen in His human nature. He is visible and his vision is Him. Of course there is the uncreated vision of Christ. But, both the created view with the uncreated one are views of One person, the Son of God. This issue was addressed during the iconoclastic period.


Edited by Lakis Papas, 07 January 2014 - 12:03 PM.


#32 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,028 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:14 PM

Lakis Papas is right - there is a balance to be found which is not only consonant with but expressive of the theology of the Incarnation. As ever, we have recourse to the texts of the services for the relevant feasts and to the holy icons.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: person, nature, original sin

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users