Question about humanity and the cross

[Mina Monir]

two different theologians from the west and east. their names X , Y .

X= the Word took a body and united with it totally and saved us. he died on the cross for us ... alone , his body was on the cross alone...
Y= the Word took a body and united with it totally and saved us. he died on the cross BUT his body represented the world and he collected all humanity in his body.. me and u were crossed through him on the cross. died with him and resurrected with him.
he died with us, and his body with the humanity itself.

if you can recognize the difference in sense , choose one of the previous X and Y ... it would be important to justify your answer.

in Christ,
Mina

[Klod]

The way I understand it, is that both X and Y are valid to certain extent, because the human existence itself is on two levels that of personal individuality and that of human collectivity as a whole. Although these two levels are distinct from each other they are not (entirely) separable.

[Owen Jones]

The Fathers do not make a distinction between the individual and the collective. They make a distinction between one type of man and another type of man. The Christian is a typology.

[Klod]

Moreover, all these sort of questions, have a counterpart. As you know, one cannot consider crucifixion separately without affecting other areas of doctrine. I would mention as example, the very counterpart and equivalent of Cross, the first sin and they way it is understood in Church.

It is crucial to understand the way sin came into world, in order to understand they way the world gets rid of it.

The first sin, is represented in Church in both dimensions. First, as a pure individual personal action of the first couple and secondly as a action which affects automatically the rest of humanity. As an personal action, the first sin is personal, and that means that it bears no guilt to other individual persons. Adam was the (person) one who sinned, and none else sinned in a personal way in him.

On the other hand, the fact that the first sin affected the whole human race automatically, means that humanity touched sin in Adam in a collective level, which is distinguishable from the personal involvement.

It is in the same manner, salvation is brought, and it is therefore that I think that the two levels, personal and human collective, are distinguishable but not separable.

[Mourad Mankarios]

You seem to be referring to the works of Fr Matta El Meskeen and the attack of Pope Shenouda on him accusing him of heresy...

The real difference I believe is that HH is looking at salvation more from a penal substitutionary paradigm and hence salvation can only be the sole work of the perfect God-man...Whereas Fr Matta seems to be understanding salvation more from a synergetic and mystical model and hence the difference both in terminology and phraseology and the apparent foreigness of Fr Matta's wording to Pope Shenouda...

[Mina Monir]

dear Maurad,

the story is bigger than Fr.Matta. Fr. Matta has a personal problem with the church, u know the story from el-Sadat support... etc.

no dear, I'm talking about a serious concept is found in the language of western and some eastern theologians... and maybe Fr.Matta takes parts from them. mainly , I refer to theologians like Westcott, Lietzmann .. fr.Matta takes from them not more.

dear Klod,

The first sin, is represented in Church in both dimensions. First, as a pure individual personal action of the first couple and secondly as a action which affects automatically the rest of humanity. As an personal action, the first sin is personal, and that means that it bears no guilt to other individual persons. Adam was the (person) one who sinned, and none else sinned in a personal way in him. On the other hand, the fact that the first sin affected the whole human race automatically, means that humanity touched sin in Adam in a collective level, which is distinguishable from the personal involvement.

It is in the same manner, salvation is brought, and it is therefore that I think that the two levels, personal and human collective, are distinguishable but not separable.

I believe I agree with .. and if we were in adam when corruption reached his nature with the sin... we took a new nature and pure nature from the (PRWTOTOKOS) of humanity, the new beginning of humanity, Christ,through Eucharist and Baptism. but still on the personal side view, one and only one whose sacrifice can be acceptable for all humanity was on the cross.. no one was with him as Isaiah said. we took the merits of salvation by uniting with him FLESHLY AND SPIRITUALLY. S. Athanasius described this idea in the 8th chapter of his treatise on the incarnation of the word. still I cannot accept the sentence (we were crossed with him) because simply , no one cannot give a sacrifice even for himself only. I believe that humanity was not on the cross and christ's body did not represent humanity, but it gave redemption for the weak and defeated humanity.
I don't know , maybe there is a deep idea behind theologian Y .

I hope fr.Mathew shares us his opinion
in Christ,
Mina.

[Mourad Mankarios]

If you understand this to mean the pre-existence of souls and Christ as simply being a conglomerate of souls hanging on the cross then I doubt that this is what is intimated through such phrases...

Perhaps some Biblical references would be good to start with to show that such phraseology can indeed be Scriptural:

"Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him." (Rom 6:3-8)

" If we died with Him, We shall also live with Him." (2 Tim 2:11)

"I have been crucified with Christ." (Gal 2:20)

"Raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus." (Eph 2:6)

The patristic tradition, especially the Alexandrine one has a strong tradition of identifying Christ with the believer, and hence again such phraseology can also be patristic:

"It is very plain that the Spirit's descent on Him in Jordan was a descent upon us, because of His bearing our body...For when the Lord, as man, was washed in Jordan, it was we who were washed in Him and by Him. And when He received the Spirit, we it was who by Him were made recipients of It." (St Athanasius, Contra Arianos, 1:47)

And there are many more such references...

[Mina Monir]

dear Maurad,

thanks for this nice post, I believe both X Y models are correct, but this is relative to our view... I think Y as X needs to show his position from the term 'Theosis ' for example.
or even the term Divine Essence and grace. some people take the cross and redemption through unity with christ to be equality with christ through taking and sharing him the divine Essence

between essence and energy , a word lies between them , it is grace. grace can be defined by x and y differently . so, we may reach a different view towards cross and redemption .

i'm sorry if I cannot use an accurate english , excuse my weak english
in christ,
Mina

[Mourad Mankarios]

Again, Mina, it seems that you are referring specifically to attacks made by HH Pope Shenouda on Fr Matta...I don't believe that Fr Matta ever suggests that we partake of God's essence and hence are equal to Christ and hence the Father and hence pantheism or polytheism...that would simply be utterly ridiculous...One of two possibilities make themselves clear to me and possibly both are true and that is that there has been a grave misinterpretation of the the writing and that the writing requires clarification...However, to project on to a person a belief based on your own subjective interpretations and then to condemn that person as heretical I doubt is at all very fair...