[center]Isaiah vision in Chapter 6 to be about the Son [/center]
Scriptural Evidence St John the Evangelist comments saying:
"These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him." John 12:41
Church Fathers:
Origen: It is clear, too, that Isaiah saw the mystery of Him who sat upon the throne, and of the two seraphim, and of the veiling of their faces and their feet, and of their wings, and of the altar and of the tongs. Ezekiel, too, understood thetrue significance of the cherubim and of their goings, and of the firmament that was above them, and of Him that sat on the throne, than all which what could be loftier or more splendid? I need not enter into more particulars; the point I aim at establishing is clear enough already, namely, that those who were made perfect in earlier generations knew not less than the Apostles did of what Christ revealed to them, since the same teacher was with them as He who revealed to the Apostles the unspeakable mysteries of godliness.
St Cyril of Alexandria: "And Isaiah, ‘I saw the Lord of Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, and the Seraphim were standing round about Him’(Isaiah 6:1, 2). And (Marvel!) The prophet was beholding the Son and called Him Lord of Sabaoth, and introduces Him as King with the highest Powers as Body-guard. And that it really was the Glory of the Only-Begotten he was beholding, the wise John will testify saying, ‘these things said Isaiah because he saw His glory: and of Him spake he’(John 12:41)”.
St. Augustine (Tractate 53) What Isaiah saw, and how it refers to Christ the Lord, are to be read and learned in his book. For he saw Him, not as He is, but in some symbolic way to suit the form that the vision of the prophet had itself to assume.
Bar Salibi (1171) in his treatise Against the Melechites (chap. X) uses the same arguments asserting that the expression "Thou art holy, God", refers exclusively to the Son. His reply to what the Chalcedonians say that the Trisagion is derived from the Sanctus found in Isaiah is as follows: "the one who Isaiah saw on a high throne and the Seraphim around him is the Son. This we know from John the Evangelist says: "These things said Isaiah about Him when he saw His glory" (John 12:41). Cyril, John Chrysostom, and other Doctors teach us that it was the Son, the Word, that Isaiah saw on the throne and not the Father". He also says: "the words of the Trisagion have been attributed by the Doctors to the Son because He became flesh. Put on the weak and mortal human body, and was addressed by them as "God", "omnipotent", "immortal", and "Who has been crucified for us" in the flesh… The Trisagion is, therefore, to be truly referred to the Son and Word-God who became man, and who is both mortal and immortal; mortal in the flesh, and immortal in His Godhead, and He was crucified on our behalf"
In the same treatise, and in his Exposition of the Liturgy, Bar Salibi suggests that three choirs of angels carried the body of our Lord to the grave, and the first choir sang "Holy God", the second "Holy and omnipotent", and the third “Holy and Immortal", while Joseph of Aramaththea and Nicodemus added "Who was crucified for us", and Ignatius the fiery, the disciple of John established it in the Churches
Ibn Sibaa (13th, 14th century) interprets the repetition of the word "Holy" nine times in the Trisagion as referring to the nine angelic orders sanctifying Him. He also connects the Trisagion with the preceding hymn "Christ is risen from the dead", (now said only in Eastertide).
The following scriptures from the Old and New Testaments are almost identical with the exception for the sitting
In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. Isaiah 6:1-3
And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. Revelation 4:8
I would like to ask a question,
Who does the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit speaking of?
What exactly are you trying to say? Just because the Sanctus is found in Isaiah 6 and Revelation 4 that it must be a Christological hymn? That conclusion is weak at best. Just because we have independent events of angelic hymns singing the Sanctus, it doesn't mean we know for sure whom they are addressing. I'm not saying the Sanctus in Isaiah 6 is not addressing the Logos, but your evidence does not validate the conclusion you want.
Furthermore, if you read Revelation 5, you'll notice that the Lord sitting on the throne in Revelation 4 is not the Logos because in Revelation 5, the Lord sitting on the throne holds a scroll that no one is worthy to break the seal and open the scroll except the Lamb and the Lamb appears in verse 6 standing in the center of the throne. This actually proves my point. Revelation 4:8 where the heavenly creatures sing the Sanctus are addressing both the Lord Pantocrator and the Lamb. It is a Trinitarian hymn in Revelation 4. (Rev 4:2 introduces the Holy Spirit).
Does this mean Isaiah 6 is definitely a Trinitarian hymn because Revelation 4 is Trinitarian hymn? No. I personally believe Isaiah 6 is a Christological hymn. If you want to read the classical Chalcedonian defense by John of Damascus, you'll find it here. He apparantly believes that Sts Athanasius and Basil believed the hymn in Isaiah 6 was Trinitarian. John of Damascus also has other, very good theological arguments about Isaiah 6. But again, I don't agree with his conclusions.
Regardless we are not speaking about the Sanctus in Isaiah 6. We are speaking of later hymns.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13535.msg158617#msg158617 date=1344375761] [center]Isaiah vision in Chapter 6 to be about the Son [/center]
Scriptural Evidence St John the Evangelist comments saying:
"These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him." John 12:41 If you look at all of John 12, as well as the whole book of Isaiah, one can conclude that Isaiah 6 is a Trinitarian hymn.
First of all, St John doesn't say, "These things Isaiah said when he saw Jesus' glory and spoke of Him when he heard the Seraphim singing Holy, Holy, Holy". The immediate question at hand is, did Isaiah see Jesus' glory more than once and spoke about it? Yes, Isaiah 11 (the Branch, shoot, and Root of Jesse) and Isaiah 53 (the suffering Lamb), Isaiah 42 (Servant of God), Isaiah 9 (Child born from a Virgin, great counselor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace). Is it not possible that St John was referring to Isaiah's visions throughout his book and not just one incident?
Secondly, If you look at John 12:37-40, you'll notice St John mentions 2 messages from Isaiah, one from Isaiah 53 and one from Isaiah 6. How do we know which of Isaiah's visions St John is speaking of? We don't. He could be speaking in general terms about Isaiah's visions.
Thirdly, if you look at the rest of John 12, St John shifts the topic from Christ's triumphant entry in Jerusalem and Isaiah's vision to Jesus' words in 44-45. "“When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me." Therefore, we move from the physical events of Christ to the Trinity's providence and salvation plan.
Let me reiterate. I am not saying Isaiah 6 is definitely Trinitarian. I am saying using John 12:41 is not enough to say Isaiah 6 is conclusively Christological.
Regarding the Church fathers quoted, I will not disagree that they viewed Isaiah 6 as Christological. However, these are only a handful of references with one understading. We may find other fathers who understood Isaiah 6 as Trinitarian. More research is needed.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13535.msg158626#msg158626 date=1344388844] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13535.msg158617#msg158617 date=1344375761] [center]Isaiah vision in Chapter 6 to be about the Son [/center]
Scriptural Evidence St John the Evangelist comments saying:
"These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him." John 12:41 If you look at all of John 12, as well as the whole book of Isaiah, one can conclude that Isaiah 6 is a Trinitarian hymn.
First of all, St John doesn't say, "These things Isaiah said when he saw Jesus' glory and spoke of Him when he heard the Seraphim singing Holy, Holy, Holy". The immediate question at hand is, did Isaiah see Jesus' glory more than once and spoke about it? Yes, Isaiah 11 (the Branch, shoot, and Root of Jesse) and Isaiah 53 (the suffering Lamb), Isaiah 42 (Servant of God), Isaiah 9 (Child born from a Virgin, great counselor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace). Is it not possible that St John was referring to Isaiah's visions throughout his book and not just one incident?
How dare you you say this in spite of the Fathers quoted and the Trisagion as prayed by the Church?
Why can't we humbly accept what our Holy Fathers teach and what our Church prays?
Is it now you that conclude? Is it you that interprets and dictate the Church teaching? Where is the spirit of discipleship?
Our personal opinion oes not matter, especially when it is in conflict with the Churh Fathrs,
Secondly, If you look at John 12:37-40, you'll notice St John mentions 2 messages from Isaiah, one from Isaiah 53 and one from Isaiah 6. How do we know which of Isaiah's visions St John is speaking of? We don't. He could be speaking in general terms about Isaiah's visions.
Yes, we do know exactly which one he is speaking of. The key word is HIS GLORY.
The verse again: "These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him"
Isaiah did see that glory. Isaiah 53 is about the crucifixion; neither is this event glorious (in terms of divinity) nor did Isaiah saw it. He only spoke about the crucifixion. In contrast he saw and spoke of the vision in Isaiah 6.
On top of that the Church fathers do say that this verse refers to Isaiah 6.
So, who should we believe? Your exegesis?
I would side with the Fathers.
Regarding the Church fathers quoted, I will not disagree that they viewed Isaiah 6 as Christological. However, these are only a handful of references with one understading. We may find other fathers who understood Isaiah 6 as Trinitarian. More research is needed.
Well, why do not you enlighten us with your research before putting yourself in conflict with the Church and the Holy Fathers.
What is this notion of "Handful"? St. Cyril the pillar of faith is not enough for you? The one from whom you receive the absolution in every liturgy you attend, while bowing your head.
Where is the spirit of humility, humbleness and discipleship?
Our fathers passed on certain teaching and the Church followed that teaching through her prayers, yet this is not enough.
If I do not have the evidence .. I would sit quietly till I do instead of making empty claims and putting myself at odds with the Church and her Fathers.
[quote author=RamezM link=topic=13535.msg158613#msg158613 date=1344372669] I have a couple questions however. You say that both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians claim their versions are more authentic and older. How is this the case, when no one disputes the Syrian addition of "who was born of the Virgin" by Peter the Fuller? I'm not sure I follow. Many bishops disagreed with Peter the Fuller's additions. Peter the Fuller added "who was crucified for us" when he became patriarch of Antioch in 463AD. (Ironically, he was a prelate in the Church of St Bassa in Chalcedon. In the end, he was excommunicated by a council in Rome in 485AD. Your question assumes that Peter the Fuller was the first to introduce the addition. However, there is nothing that says Peter the Fuller enforced it because he already found it used widely in Syria when he became patriarch.
The way I see it, no one is in disagreement that the Trisagion was originially without any explicit Christological statements. The disagreement however lies in the question of meaning, not the text itself. Since the text without the additions can be understood either way, both sides differ on what it means. Can you please clarify where you stand regarding Peter the Fuller and the Syrian additions of the Trisagion?
No I disagree. The Syrian and Coptic understanding is that the original Trisagion was given by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea (along with the Myron). See Youhann Nessim Youssef's "Notes on the Trisagion" While it may be completely apocryphal, I think the story is true and apocryphal elements were added later (unlike the Chalcedonian story which takes place later in the 5th century and it is filled with apocryphal elements). It is also possible that the Chalcedonians had developed the Trisagion without Christological elements before the 5th century. So the controversy is the text itself. The Non-Chalcedonians had their own text and interpretation while the Chalcedonians independently developed their own text and interpretation. I understand why it seems the Non-Chalcedonian version came after the Chalcedonian because half of the text is found in both versions and the Non-Chalcedonian adds text. However, this assumption is not validated with any corroborating evidence.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13535.msg158631#msg158631 date=1344392327] [quote author=RamezM link=topic=13535.msg158613#msg158613 date=1344372669] I have a couple questions however. You say that both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians claim their versions are more authentic and older. How is this the case, when no one disputes the Syrian addition of "who was born of the Virgin" by Peter the Fuller?
I'm not sure I follow. Many bishops disagreed with Peter the Fuller's additions.
And who were those many?
They were the Chalcedonians. As they disagreed with the rest of the Orirentals Patriarchs till today.
Peter the Fuller added "who was crucified for us" when he became patriarch of Antioch in 463AD. (Ironically, he was a prelate in the Church of St Bassa in Chalcedon. In the end, he was excommunicated by a council in Rome in 485AD.
His excommunication is meaningless to us the Orientals and does not have any bearing on the matter.
Your question assumes that Peter the Fuller was the first to introduce the addition. However, there is nothing that says Peter the Fuller enforced it because he already found it used widely in Syria when he became patriarch.
So why was he excommunicated if he did not enforce it or if he was not the first one to introduce it?
In other words, if it was widely used in Syria before he bacame Patriarch, as you say, then why was it a big deal that the Emperor, Rome and council interfere with the matter?
It is also possible that the Chalcedonians had developed the Trisagion without Christological elements before the 5th century.
That is not true.
Jerusalem rite, the Latin rite and the Byzantine rite allowed the Christological understanding.
If your claim is true, then it would have been a big deal in the 5th century councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.
No one spoke against St Cyril, St Agustine, Origen, St Cyril of Jerusalem for attributing the vision of Isaiah to the Son on which the Trisagion is based.
So the controversy is the text itself.
The controversy is the understanding. The text was already there, pointing to the Son as is evident through the rites of Rome, Jerusalem and Constantinople predating the Council of Trullo (692) which banned the Christological authentic understanding.
The Oriental Church still hold on the authentic understanding of the Trisagion, the Tradition and scriptural bases of its Christological roots. Unfortunately, the Byzantines diverted from this teaching in 692.
Ok, so there is disagreement between us so far even regarding the history of the text itself. Sorry, I mistakenly assumed that what I read in multiple places was universally accepted. However, for the sake of clarity and academic integrity, let me provide one such reference. I will try to provide others later, this just happened to be a book I am reading right now and I coincidentally came across this footnote:
This addition [Who was crucified for us] was made to the Trisagion by the celebrated Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, Peter the Fuller, who succeeded in making it the war-cry of the Monophysites. Cf. L. Duchesne, Histoire Ancienne de l'Eglise iii (Paris, 1910), pp. 508 ff.
This quote comes from Anton Baumstark, Comparative Liturgy (London, 1958), p.86. Just as a bit of background, Baumstark is considered the father of the science of comparative liturgy, and his basic theories and principles are useful till this day in elucidating the history of many liturgical rites. His Comparative Liturgy is still a textbook in many graduate programs.
Not to say that Baumstark must be correct in every fact he lists, but here are some of the other references I have that mention Peter the Fuller as the originator of the Christological addition:
Hugh Wybrew, The Orthodox Liturgy: The Development of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite. (New York, 2003), p.79
This is the textbook that was required reading in the course on Liturgy and the Eucharist in my MA program.
Athanasius Al-Maqari, The Agpeya, or the Hourly Prayers, (Cairo, 2010), p.319 (in Arabic).
Fr. Athanasius is a prolific author that I just recently discovered. He has written over 40 books on the history of rites in the Coptic church, and he is generally very impressive in his academic accuracy. For this particular detail, he is actually citing Burmester, The Horologion of the Egyptian Church, Coptic and Arabic Text from a Mediaeval Manuscript (Studia Orientalia Christiana, Aegyptiaca), Cairo, Edizioni del Centro Francescano di Studi Orientali Cristiani, 1973. Unfortunately, I don't have access to Burmester's article.
Can you please provide evidence that Peter the Fuller was not the one that introduced the phrase "Who was crucified for us"? I hope my request for evidence does not offend you, as it seems to offend others. Just trying to have a conversation based on more than personal opinion. At any rate, that's where I got my information from.
In Isaiah's vision and in the Apocalypse, the Trisagion was said only once. That is why the Church Fathers interpreted Isaiah's vision in light of St. John's vision chanting that single Trisagion to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Lamb of God and Lord of Hosts.
However, the Trisagion we say in the Liturgy of the Word before the Gospel (in the Coptic rite) is not one Trisagion, but a triple Trisagion. In this case, it is very difficult to prove that the repetition of the Trisagion three times addresses the Son of God three times. If it was composed with the intention of addressing God the Son, it would have been said once, as in the prophecy of Isaiah, the Apocalypse, and the interpretation of the Fathers (brought up by imikhail) concerning that single Trisagion.
The addressing of the triple Trisagion to the Son of God only is a later invention. There's nothing wrong with admitting that it was changed -- it is better than falling into the heresy of Sabellianism.
However, the Trisagion we say in the Liturgy of the Word before the Gospel (in the Coptic rite) is not one Trisagion, but a triple Trisagion. In this case, it is very difficult to prove that the repetition of the Trisagion three times addresses the Son of God three times. If it was composed with the intention of addressing God the Son, it would have been said once, as in the prophecy of Isaiah, the Apocalypse, and the interpretation of the Fathers (brought up by imikhail) concerning that single Trisagion.
Isaiah 6 is not the only inspiration of the Trisagion. The burial of our Lord is another source for it.
Here is what Ibn Sibaa said:
In his Pertiosa Margarita (Chap 68), gives the same story adding that at the words "Holy Immortal One", Christ opened His eyes in their faces, then Joseph and Nicodemus said "Who was crucified for us, have mercy upon us". Ibn Sibaa also interprets the repetition of the word "Holy" nine times in the Trisagion as referring to the nine angelic orders sanctifying Him.
The addressing of the triple Trisagion to the Son of God only is a later invention.
And what is your source for this claim?
Who invented it? When? Why? Where?
There's nothing wrong with admitting that it was changed
There is something wrong in misrepresenting Tradition to fit a personal opinion.
-- it is better than falling into the heresy of Sabellianism.
How is Sabellianism fit into this Trisagion discussion?
Thanks for jumping in. I think we are largely saying the same thing from different angles. You are saying that the Trisagion repeated three times cannot be all regarding the Son, while I am simply saying the Isaiah vision (or Revelation for that matter) is not the liturgical Trisagion at all, but the anaphoral sanctus.
Amen, there is nothing wrong with admitting it was changed. This is exactly the healthy and sober Orthodoxy that everyone should be proud to present.
Nonetheless, not to get too distracted from my main point, here is another piece of information that I am sure will surprise some and upset many: I just found out yesterday for the first time that even in the Syrian Orthodox rite, the Trisagion is chanted as follows:
The celebrant puts three fingers of his left hand on the left corner of the folded shushefo and with the first three fingers of his right hand joined together, he touches first the tablitho, saying: Holy are You, O God.
Deacons and People: Holy are You, O Almighty; Holy are You, O Immortal; You Who were crucified + for us, have mercy on us.
When the deacons say: "You Who were crucified for us," the celebrant raises the fingers of his right hand and crosses himself. Then he puts his three fingers on the rim of the paten and says: Holy are You, O God.
Deacons and People: Holy are You, O Almighty; Holy are You, O immortal; You Who were crucified + for us, have mercy upon us.
The celebrant puts his three fingers on the edge of the tablitho. When the deacons and the people say: You Who were crucified for us, " he crosses himself for the second time. Then he puts his three fingers on the chalice and says for the third time: Holy are You, O God.
Deacons and People:Holy are You, O Almighty; Holy are You, O Immortal; You Who were crucified + for us, have mercy upon us.
When the deacons and the people say: "Holy are You, O Almighty," he brings his fingers to the rim of the paten and then to the edge of the tablitho when they say: "Holy are You, O Immortal." And when they say: "You Who were crucified for us, " he crosses himself. Then the deacons and people shall add:
What is important here in my opinion is that there is no Doxa throughout the chanting of the Trisagion, and consequently the hymn is theologically consistent throughout, addressing Christ. Rem, and Bibo...this is a big deal and it fits in perfectly with my issue in this whole thing! The Syrian Trisagion is consistent, addressing only the Son with no Trinitarian aspects. The Byzantine Trisagion is also consistent, addressing the Trinity with nothing specifically Christological. It is only the Coptic Trisagion unfortunately that seems to exhibit the mix between Trinitarian and Christological praise that I mentioned, and that is my whole point. In fact, I have no problem whether the Trisagion initially was understood as Christological or Trinitarian, as long as the prayer is consistent. It is totally fine if the meaning changed over time in either direction, but what is not fine dogmatically is to insert Christological phrases in an otherwise Trinitarian prayer (or the other way around if the Christological phrases were always there).
You speak with authority; use human logic to interpret the Holy Scripture and write long post, but your understanding of the Scripture is incorrect at best. There is an orthodox golden rule in interpreting the Old Testament that it should reveal Lord Jesus Christ in almost every chapter. So when you do not see that the Seraphim’s in Isaiah 6 are praising the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, then your understanding of the Holy Scripture is weak at best. How dare you ignore that the “LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple” is the Logos and for that reason the Seraphim’s are singing unto Him. The seen that Isaiah saw was the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
Secondly who do you suggest that the One “which was, and is, and is to come”. You said He is the Father, I am sorry to tell you that this is exactly what one of Jehovah’ Witness told HH Pope Shenouda III. You can listen to that conversation in one of his vides that interpreting the Book of Revelations.
John of Damascus is not a Coptic Father to use him as a reference.
but what is not fine dogmatically is to insert Christological phrases in an otherwise Trinitarian prayer (or the other way around if the Christological phrases were always there).
I am still quite baffled by this opinion. So, I will give it another try in the hope of understanding what is not fine dogmatically.
So the hymn omonojanees is not fine with you since it is attributed to the Son but switches the Trinity at the end?
How about the Introduction of the Creed:
The Prayer "We exalt you the Mother .." The beginning of the Creed.
Glory to You, our Master, our King, Christ, the pride of the apostles, the crown of the martyrs, the joy of the righteous, the firmness of the churches, the forgiveness of sins.
We proclaim the Holy Trinity in One Godhead. We worship Him. We glorify Him.
Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord bless. Amen.
The prayer switches from the Son to the Trinity and back to the Son.
To my recollection, this prayer is decreed by the Council of Ephesus in 431.
Is this prayer bad dogmatically because it keeps switching back and forth.
I have quite few other examples, but let's address one by one.
You speak with authority; use human logic to interpret the Holy Scripture and write long post, but your understanding of the Scripture is incorrect at best. There is an orthodox golden rule in interpreting the Old Testament that it should reveal Lord Jesus Christ in almost every chapter. Are you sure this Orthodox golden rule is actually to interpret the Old Testament as a revelation of the Trinity?
So when you do not see that the Seraphim’s in Isaiah 6 are praising the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, then your understanding of the Holy Scripture is weak at best. How dare you ignore that the “LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple” is the Logos and for that reason the Seraphim’s are singing unto Him. The seen that Isaiah saw was the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
Do you bother to read my posts in its entirety? In my reply to your post, twice I said I believe Isaiah 6 is Christological, not Trinitarian. Unlike you, however, I do not see a need to conclusively condemn people who consider it Trinitarian since it can still be considered Orthodox.
Secondly who do you suggest that the One “which was, and is, and is to come”. You said He is the Father, I am sorry to tell you that this is exactly what one of Jehovah’ Witness told HH Pope Shenouda III. You can listen to that conversation in one of his vides that interpreting the Book of Revelations.
Fine. Give me a link and I will check it out. I will tell you that Fr Tadros Malaty's book, found here, on page 64 states "He saw a throne and upon it sits, "The Glorified God." And because of the magnificence of His majesty he did not know how to call God, so he called Him, "One sat on..." and this what Isaiah (6:1), and Daniel (7:3) had done. No one could call God by a name for He is extremely dazzling." Not once does Fr Tadros explicitly claim Revelation 4:2 was Christ.
In addition, you continue to ignore Revelation 5, which is a continuation of the vision in Revelation 4. In Revelation 5:6, as I already said, says the Lamb was standing in the center of the Throne, not sitting on the throne. But if you continue to verse 7, it says, "Then He [the Lamb] came and took the scroll out of the right hand of Him [the Lord Pantocrator] who sat on the throne. It's obvious that there are 2 actors in this vision, one who sits on the throne who gives the scroll to the other. Unless you believe that the Lamb sat on the throne and gave the scroll to God the Pantocrator or to a third party, I fail to see how both can be the second person of the Trinity.
John of Damascus is not a Coptic Father to use him as a reference.
Again, have the courtesy to read my whole post. I did not use John of Damascus as a Coptic father reference. I used him as the classical reference of the Chalcedonian view. He uses Coptic fathers to substantiate his view.
while I am simply saying the Isaiah vision (or Revelation for that matter) is not the liturgical Trisagion at all, but the anaphoral sanctus.
So you are saying that Ibn Sibaa is wrong and Bar Salibi is wrong, our Koulagion by Abouna Abd Al Messieh is wrong, but only your claim is right?
Oh by the way, Abouna Athanasius Al Makary, your reference, is wrong.
What about John Brownlie, the hymnologist, is wrong too.
While we are at it, Abouna Shenouda Maher is wrong as well.
Only RamzyM is the authoritative reference.
Is this what they teach in seminaries nowadays to disregard all evidence, scholars and stick to personal opinions?
May God have mercy on His Church.
Let's make this simple. Does Isaiah 6 say "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, (with additions), have mercy on us"? If yes, then Ibn Sibaa, Bar Salibi, Fr Abdel Messeh, Fr Athanasius, Fr Shenouda, or anybody else you want to mention whom you claim believe Isaiah 6 and the Liturgical Trisagion are identical texts, are correct and Ramez and I are wrong. If not, then Isaiah 6 is not the liturgical Trisagion.
On the other hand, if Isaiah 6 says, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Hosts, heaven and earth are full of your glory", commonly known as the Sanctus, and it has an identical text to the anaphora prayer "The Cherubim worship You.." then it is the anaphoral sanctus.
There is no need to be condescending with ad hominem comments about Ramez or anyone else.
Let's make this simple. Does Isaiah 6 say "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, (with additions), have mercy on us"? If yes, then Ibn Sibaa, Bar Salibi, Fr Abdel Messeh, Fr Athanasius, Fr Shenouda, or anybody else you want to mention whom you claim believe Isaiah 6 and the Liturgical Trisagion are identical texts, are correct and Ramez and I are wrong. If not, then Isaiah 6 is not the liturgical Trisagion.
On the other hand, if Isaiah 6 says, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Hosts, heaven and earth are full of your glory", commonly known as the Sanctus, and it has an identical text to the anaphora prayer "The Cherubim worship You.." then it is the anaphoral sanctus.
There is no need to be condescending with ad hominem comments about Ramez or anyone else.
Reminkimi,
You have not added anything new to the discussion.
You put yourself as an authority.
What you are saying is NOT the teaching of the Church. It is personal opinion.
Do not claim a personal opinion as the teaching of the Church.
then Ibn Sibaa, Bar Salibi, Fr Abdel Messeh, Fr Athanasius, Fr Shenouda, or anybody else you want to mention whom you claim believe Isaiah 6 and the Liturgical Trisagion are identical texts
I did not say that they believe they are identical texts. Either you deliberately twisting the argument or you have poor choice of words. I said the Trisagion is based on the vision.
I have already posted for Bar Salibi, Ibn Sibaa, and John Brownlie quotations that do prove they see the Trisagion as the vision of Isaiah.
Fr. Abd Al Meseih Al Baramousy the Holy Koulaji printed 1902 P.314 2nd ed.
Fr. Athanasius Al Makary addresses the Trisagion in his book on the Holy Liturgy ( 1st book pp. 471-477)
Fr. Shenouda Maher addresses the Trisagion in his book Liturgical and Ritual Issues (pp 43 - 49)
Reading the above proves that:
[list type=decimal] [li]The vision of Isaiah is Christological
[/li][li]The Trisagion is based on Isaiah's vision, the Son whom He saw, through Christendom before the Council of 692
[/li][li]The Orientals kept the CORRECT understanding, of the hymn, while the Byzantines developed the Trinitarian understanding.
[/li][/list]
I hope we refrain from personal opinions and instead discuss the teaching of the Church as presented in the above sources and any other additional ones.
St Athanasius did in fact believe the "Holy, Holy, Holy" addressed in Isaiah 6 was addressed to the Trinity, disproving the Arians by showing that each hypostasis of the Trinity has equal holiness:
And how do the impious men venture to speak folly, as they ought not, being men and unable to find out how to describe even what is on the earth? But why do I say ‘what is on the earth?’ Let them tell us their own nature, if they can discover how to investigate their own nature? Rash they are indeed, and self-willed, not trembling to form opinions of things which angels desire to look into (1 Pet. i. 12), who are so far above them, both in nature and in rank. For what is nearer [God] than the Cherubim or the Seraphim? And yet they, not even seeing Him, nor standing on their feet, nor even with bare, but as it were with veiled faces, offer their praises, with untiring lips doing nought else but glorify the divine and ineffable nature with the Trisagion. And nowhere has any one of the divinely speaking prophets, men specially selected for such vision, reported to us that in the first utterance of the word Holy the voice is raised aloud, while in the second it is lower, but in the third, quite low,—and that consequently the first utterance denotes lordship, the second subordination, and the third marks a yet lower degree. But away with the folly of these haters of God and senseless men. For the Triad, praised, reverenced, and adored, is one and indivisible and without degrees (ἀσχηματιστός). It is united without confusion, just as the Monad also is distinguished without separation. For the fact of those venerable living creatures (Isa. vi.; Rev. iv. 8) offering their praises three times, saying ‘Holy, Holy, Holy,’ proves that the Three Subsistences are perfect, just as in saying ‘Lord,’ they declare the One Essence. They then that depreciate the Only-begotten Son of God blaspheme God, defaming His perfection and accusing Him of imperfection, and render themselves liable to the severest chastisement. For he that blasphemes any one of the Subsistences shall have remission neither in this world nor in that which is to come. But God is able to open the eyes of their heart to contemplate the Sun of Righteousness, in order that coming to know Him whom they formerly set at nought, they may with unswerving piety of mind together with us glorify Him, because to Him belongs the kingdom, even to the Father Son and Holy Spirit, now and for ever. Amen.
It seems to be intellectually misleading to think that the Church fathers were clear that the Trisagion was only to Christ (As it is also misleading to say it has only been referring to the Trinity). In fact, if anything, (if you believe that the Trisagion was based based on Isaiah 6) this may indicate that liturgically, the Trisagion in St Athanasius' time was referring to the Trinity at least in the Church of Alexandria.
[quote author=minasoliman link=topic=13535.msg158700#msg158700 date=1344481603] St Athanasius did in fact believe the "Holy, Holy, Holy" addressed in Isaiah 6 was addressed to the Trinity, disproving the Arians by showing that each hypostasis of the Trinity has equal holiness:...It seems to be intellectually misleading to think that the Church fathers were clear that the Trisagion was only to Christ (As it is also misleading to say it has only been referring to the Trinity). So when I said in Reply #65, "However, these are only a handful of references with one understading. We may find other fathers who understood Isaiah 6 as Trinitarian. More research is needed." I was correct. Yet, imikhail feels the need for ad honimen comments like "You have not added anything new to the discussion. You put yourself as an authority. What you are saying is NOT the teaching of the Church. It is personal opinion. Do not claim a personal opinion as the teaching of the Church."
Mina makes a good point: "the Trisagion in St Athanasius' time was referring to the Trinity at least in the Church of Alexandria." Again, it may now be considered a Christological hymn but it was not always. The problem, as Ramez has already pointed out, is not whether it is Christological or Trinitarian, but that it may be understood (and misunderstood) both ways. The post-Chalcedonian polemics against Peter the Fuller and St Severus are all based on the Chalcedonians refusal to conceptualize Isaiah 6 as Christological. So they claimed heresy. Now some in the Oriental Church have refused to conceptualize Isaiah 6 as Trinitarian and are throwing around claims of heresy.
But what do I know. This must be my personal opinion.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13535.msg158689#msg158689 date=1344475906] I did not say that they believe they are identical texts. Either you deliberately twisting the argument or you have poor choice of words. I said the Trisagion is based on the vision. Ramez said the two text are different. And you said he was wrong. Here is Ramez's quote again: "while I am simply saying the Isaiah vision (or Revelation for that matter) is not the liturgical Trisagion at all, but the anaphoral sanctus. " And you replied, "So you are saying that Ibn Sibaa is wrong and Bar Salibi is wrong, our Koulagion by Abouna Abd Al Messieh is wrong, but only your claim is right?" Either you believe the two texts are identical or the Isaiah vision is not the anaphoral sanctus but the Trisagion. My reply was to address the second possible claim. If Isaiah 6 text is different than the liturgical Trisagion, then it's not the same hymn. Maybe it can be seen as a type of Trisagion, but it can't be the liturgical Trisagion. Maybe the liturgical Trisagion can be based on the Isaiah Trisagion, but it is not the same text. Therefore, Ramez's comment was accurate from the beginning.
"So when I said in Reply #65, "However, these are only a handful of references with one understading. We may find other fathers who understood Isaiah 6 as Trinitarian. More research is needed." I was correct.
Reminkimi,
I am afraid you were not correct.
There is a difference between what Isaiah saw and the praise itself which he heard.
Did Isaiah see the Trinity? No.
By all means, Isaiah saw a theophany of our Lord Christ. No Church father disagreed on this.
Above all, the scripture is very clear in John 12:41
To Whom was the praise directed to? This is where the disagreement between the Church fathers come in play. Some understood it to be directed to the holy Trinity.
Others believe it was directed to the person of Christ whom Isaiah saw. And this is the view of the Oriental Church. The references I provided show that the Church as a whole accepted the praise to be directed to the person of Christ since the additions to the Trisagion, in Constantinople, Rome, Jerusalem and Syria, were Christological . However, the Byzantines insisted on the Trinitarian understanding by 692.
What is sad is that the Byzantines deny the Orientals the Christological understanding in spite of Church fathers supporting it and they themselves approved it at one point in time.
These are some of what you wrote in this thread, “The Syrian and Coptic understanding is that the original Trisagion was given by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea (along with the Myron). See Youhann Nessim Youssef's "Notes on the Trisagion" While it may be completely apocryphal, I think the story is true and apocryphal elements were added later (unlike the Chalcedonian story which takes place later in the 5th century and it is filled with apocryphal elements)”. “I personally believe Isaiah 6 is a Christological hymn”.
If this is your understanding of the issue, why are you swinging to the other side of the argument and not adhering and defending your personal and Coptic Church believe. I can see it as either you do not want to upset some of posters on this forum or you have personal vendetta against one poster. I will quote what St Paul said “ For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ”.
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=13535.msg158757#msg158757 date=1344637068] If this is your understanding of the issue, why are you swinging to the other side of the argument and not adhering and defending your personal and Coptic Church believe. First of all, if you think the only reason is to present counter arguments is to please men, then you are terribly mistaken. Take a look at any university debating course or writing course. Here is one summary: "One way to strengthen your argument and show that you have a deep understanding of the issue you are discussing is to anticipate and address counterarguments or objections. By considering what someone who disagrees with your position might have to say about your argument, you show that you have thought things through, and you dispose of some of the reasons your audience might have for not accepting your argument. " If I present a convincing counter argument and we are not able to defend our position, then there is something wrong with our argument. Or at least we can acknowledge we need to strengthen our argument, not ignore counterargument and claim anyone who holds these argument is ignorant or a hell-bound heretic.
Biblically, St Peter instructs the same thing in 1 Peter 3:!5. "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." St Peter assumes 2 things. (1) you have hope in Christ and (2) you are prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks, even those who challenge your hope or your arguments. If you are able and ready to answer your opponents, you will strengthen your own faith, keep a clear conscience, and put your opponents to shame.
Additionally, you still have to definitively prove your argument is what the Coptic Church officially believes. I'm not saying it isn't. Saying "This is what the Coptic Church says" without providing sufficient references, or official documents, or a majority agreement by bishops or the Synod, doesn't make you the authoritative ambassador speaking for the Coptic Church.
I can see it as either you do not want to upset some of posters on this forum or you have personal vendetta against one poster.
The truth is I care about every poster. I don't want to upset or offend any poster and I go out of my way to discuss arguments and logic, not attacking people. My personal "vendetta" - more accurately called personal motive - is (1) to elevate full education, full disclosure, full love for Christ, for the Church and for Orthodox wisdom and (2) to combat ever-increasing anti-intellectual movements.
"This is what the Coptic Church says" without providing sufficient references, or official documents, or a majority agreement by bishops or the Synod, doesn't make you the authoritative ambassador speaking for the Coptic Church.
It is always easy for anyone to refute an argument by saying that there are insufficient references. What is your standard of being sufficient?
Sorry I've been away from the discussion for a few days. I see the discussion has progressed quite a bit since I've last responded. I don't know if I can respond to everything that has been said since, especially imikhail's comments and questions. I am just going to make a few comments to add to your excellent points and I will try to leave the discussion. It seems that you, Bibo, and Minasoliman all largely agree with me and I respect all of your opinions, even in the small details in which we may have differed.
First of all, let me state that there is a certain standard for any academic theological discussion that ought to be there for it to be a fruitful and blessed discussion. I have been observing the forums here for some time and especially some of the hot topics such as the sainthood of King Constantine, the assumption of St. Mary's body, and others. In all of these discussions I saw people like you presenting valid, coherent responses, while others responding by simply stating what they believe to be the "Coptic" faith (not sure what that is. I can at least say my faith is Orthodoxy), and proceeding from that premise to call others heretics, going against the Tradition of the Church, and asserting personal opinions. This kind of mentality is unfortunately rampant in our Church, and it is the result of generation after generation of uneducated clergy, servants, and congregation, simply parroting the ideas given to them by alleged scholars who may or may not have any theological background. I know this will offend many, but be that as it may. I am not interested in convincing anonymous strangers of this or that academic position, or even to adamantly asserting what I think is true about this or that topic. This is because the Orthodox faith is not dependent on every last question getting answered in favor of Oriental Orthodoxy or what some here like to call "the Coptic faith". In other words, like you and some others, I don't feel that my faith depends on how we should interpret the Trisagion, or whose version was older. These are interesting historical questions that I like to discuss in an atmosphere of respect and mutual recognition of each others' research efforts. Unfortunately, what imikhail does here falls far below the standards I tried to explain, and that is why I choose not to address him directly, instead focusing the discussion on those (like you, Bibo, and Minasoliman) who possess the real tools for such a discussion.
Second, to address imikhail's last post that was directed at me (in what was clearly an ad hominem, polemical fashion), here is what I have to say about his sources.
1- Ibn Saba does not say anything about the Trisagion being based on Isaiah 6:3. What he does say is the tradition about the Trisagion based on the prayer of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea at the burial of Christ, as well as some other numerological meditations on the number of times the word Holy is repeated in the hymn. 2- I do not have access the the Euchologion of Abouna Abdel Massih. I can assume from context that he referred the Trisagion to Isaiah 6:3, but I will again adamantly repeat: Unless imikhail provides references and quotations, nothing he presents will be considered as sufficient reference. 3- Regarding Fr. Athanasius Almaqarry, here is what he wrote about this: "And it [the Trisagion] depends in its origin on the text of Isaiah the prophet 6:3". This is my translation of the Arabic text, "wa taatamed fi aslaha ala nass Asheya Alnabi 6:3"[sup]1[/sup] The operative word here is depends, which I interpret as that the Trisagion is derived or inspired by the vision of Isaiah, not that the prayer in the vision of Isaiah 6:3 itself is the Trisagion. This of course goes without saying, since the texts are obviously different. In light of this, I don't see the problem with what I said that the vision of Isaiah is the Sanctus not the Trisagion. 4- I did not notice that imikhail referred to Brownlie until he reminded me here, so I had to do some digging. Turns out, Brownlie seems to be significantly confused about the whole thing, even calling the Trisagion "The Cherubic Hymn". Given that the title of his book is Hymns from the Greek Office Books, it is surprising to me that he does not seem to understand that the Cherubic Hymn is a completely different hymn in the Byzantine rite, not based on any Biblical passages, and is different from both the Trisagion and the Sanctus. A quick Wikipedia search of the Cherubic Hymn will explain more. Just because a person is labeled a hymnologist, does not make him an authority. As always, critical thinking is important, not simply finding jus about any one to add to one's list of "sources". 5- Finally, I am very glad imikhail finally brought up Fr. Shenouda Maher, waving him around as another big name that I am unfortunately going against. What imikhail forgot to mention in this whole discussion, is that he has been simply cutting/pasting from an article by Fr. Shenouda Maher to beef up his argument, without ever citing his source or indicating that Fr. Shenouda Maher is the bread and butter of his position. This is where imikhail has typed information about Bar Salibi and Ibn Saba, as well as other positions paraded as final teachings of the "Coptic Faith". This level of academic dishonest is the reason I see no point in continuing to discuss. He finally indicated for us where Fr. Shenouda Maher addresses this issue, but notice that he never ever indicated when he simply lifted whole passages from Fr. Shenouda without even giving credit to someone he regards as an authority on liturgical history. I happen to know this because I have the article he was using.
Minasoliman,
Thank you very much for the passage you provided. I learned something I did not know at all before, and this passage helps me a great deal in my original argument.
In the end, my argument has nothing to do strictly with whether the Trisagion is Isaiah 6:3 or not, or whether it is Christological, Trinitarian, or both. I'd like here to reiterate what I said a couple pages ago about the other rites of the Orthodox Churches. The Byzantine tradition is consistent in addressing the Trinity throughout. The Syrian Orthodox tradition is consistent, addressing Christ throughout. The Coptic tradition, unfortunately, seems to be halfway in between the two, addressing Christ then the Trinity without clearly delineating or indicating the switch. I feel this is dogmatically risky and could place many neophytes at least at risk of misunderstanding some very important dogma. This is all I have to say.
I will continue keeping a subdued presence on these forums, only entering into discussions where I know I have my seminary education, my languages, and my books which seem to threaten some people to back me up, and not merely to masquerade non-academic drivel as the final word on "Coptic faith", as though there is any such thing independent from the Orthodox faith that we share with other Churches in Syria, Armenia, Ethiopia, Constantinople, and Russia.
1- Ibn Saba does not say anything about the Trisagion being based on Isaiah 6:3. What he does say is the tradition about the Trisagion based on the prayer of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea at the burial of Christ, as well as some other numerological meditations on the number of times the word Holy is repeated in the hymn.
No one suggested that Ibn Sibaa said the Trisagion is based on Isaiah's vision.
This has already been discussed in posts #61 and #72
4- I did not notice that imikhail referred to Brownlie until he reminded me here, so I had to do some digging. Turns out, Brownlie seems to be significantly confused about the whole thing, even calling the Trisagion "The Cherubic Hymn". Given that the title of his book is Hymns from the Greek Office Books, it is surprising to me that he does not seem to understand that the Cherubic Hymn is a completely different hymn in the Byzantine rite, not based on any Biblical passages, and is different from both the Trisagion and the Sanctus. A quick Wikipedia search of the Cherubic Hymn will explain more. Just because a person is labeled a hymnologist, does not make him an authority. As always, critical thinking is important, not simply finding jus about any one to add to one's list of "sources".
Emphasis is mine.
How did you reach the conclusion that he was in fact talking abut the Cherubic hymn and not the Trisagion?
The cherubic hymn references the Trisagion. Here is the text:
We who mystically represent the Cherubim, and who sing to the Life-Giving Trinity the thrice-holy hymn, let us now lay aside all earthly cares that we may receive the King of all, escorted invisibly by the angelic orders. Alleluia
John Brownlie says on page 102 of the reference below:
"The Trisagion or the Cherubic hymn has been in use in the worship of the Eastern Church from the very earliest. No form of valuation is such frequent burns in all the offices of the church. No form of adoration is of such frequent occurrence in all the offices of the church. Originally, the Trisagion (thrice holy), was in the exact form found in Isaiah 6:3, but as the years passed, additions were made to went to express doctrine both Orthodox and heterodox. [b]The accompanying form is the one found in the service books, and is in the news at the present time."
Then he lists the text of the Byzantine Trisagion on page 102. Here is the link:
Comments
[/center]
Scriptural Evidence
St John the Evangelist comments saying:
"These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him." John 12:41
Church Fathers:
Origen:
It is clear, too, that Isaiah saw the mystery of Him who sat upon the throne, and of the two seraphim, and of the veiling of their faces and their feet, and of their wings, and of the altar and of the tongs. Ezekiel, too, understood thetrue significance of the cherubim and of their goings, and of the firmament that was above them, and of Him that sat on the throne, than all which what could be loftier or more splendid? I need not enter into more particulars; the point I aim at establishing is clear enough already, namely, that those who were made perfect in earlier generations knew not less than the Apostles did of what Christ revealed to them, since the same teacher was with them as He who revealed to the Apostles the unspeakable mysteries of godliness.
St Cyril of Alexandria:
"And Isaiah, ‘I saw the Lord of Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, and the Seraphim were standing round about Him’(Isaiah 6:1, 2). And (Marvel!) The prophet was beholding the Son and called Him Lord of Sabaoth, and introduces Him as King with the highest Powers as Body-guard. And that it really was the Glory of the Only-Begotten he was beholding, the wise John will testify saying, ‘these things said Isaiah because he saw His glory: and of Him spake he’(John 12:41)”.
St. Augustine (Tractate 53)
What Isaiah saw, and how it refers to Christ the Lord, are to be read and learned in his book. For he saw Him, not as He is, but in some symbolic way to suit the form that the vision of the prophet had itself to assume.
Bar Salibi (1171)
in his treatise Against the Melechites (chap. X) uses the same arguments asserting that the expression "Thou art holy, God", refers exclusively to the Son. His reply to what the Chalcedonians say that the Trisagion is derived from the Sanctus found in Isaiah is as follows: "the one who Isaiah saw on a high throne and the Seraphim around him is the Son. This we know from John the Evangelist says: "These things said Isaiah about Him when he saw His glory" (John 12:41). Cyril, John Chrysostom, and other Doctors teach us that it was the Son, the Word, that Isaiah saw on the throne and not the Father". He also says: "the words of the Trisagion have been attributed by the Doctors to the Son because He became flesh. Put on the weak and mortal human body, and was addressed by them as "God", "omnipotent", "immortal", and "Who has been crucified for us" in the flesh… The Trisagion is, therefore, to be truly referred to the Son and Word-God who became man, and who is both mortal and immortal; mortal in the flesh, and immortal in His Godhead, and He was crucified on our behalf"
In the same treatise, and in his Exposition of the Liturgy, Bar Salibi suggests that three choirs of angels carried the body of our Lord to the grave, and the first choir sang "Holy God", the second "Holy and omnipotent", and the third “Holy and Immortal", while Joseph of Aramaththea and Nicodemus added "Who was crucified for us", and Ignatius the fiery, the disciple of John established it in the Churches
Ibn Sibaa (13th, 14th century)
interprets the repetition of the word "Holy" nine times in the Trisagion as referring to the nine angelic orders sanctifying Him. He also connects the Trisagion with the preceding hymn "Christ is risen from the dead", (now said only in Eastertide).
The following scriptures from the Old and New Testaments are almost identical with the exception for the sitting
In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. Isaiah 6:1-3
And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. Revelation 4:8
I would like to ask a question,
Who does the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit speaking of?
The Logos or the Trinity
What exactly are you trying to say? Just because the Sanctus is found in Isaiah 6 and Revelation 4 that it must be a Christological hymn? That conclusion is weak at best. Just because we have independent events of angelic hymns singing the Sanctus, it doesn't mean we know for sure whom they are addressing. I'm not saying the Sanctus in Isaiah 6 is not addressing the Logos, but your evidence does not validate the conclusion you want.
Furthermore, if you read Revelation 5, you'll notice that the Lord sitting on the throne in Revelation 4 is not the Logos because in Revelation 5, the Lord sitting on the throne holds a scroll that no one is worthy to break the seal and open the scroll except the Lamb and the Lamb appears in verse 6 standing in the center of the throne. This actually proves my point. Revelation 4:8 where the heavenly creatures sing the Sanctus are addressing both the Lord Pantocrator and the Lamb. It is a Trinitarian hymn in Revelation 4. (Rev 4:2 introduces the Holy Spirit).
Does this mean Isaiah 6 is definitely a Trinitarian hymn because Revelation 4 is Trinitarian hymn? No. I personally believe Isaiah 6 is a Christological hymn. If you want to read the classical Chalcedonian defense by John of Damascus, you'll find it here. He apparantly believes that Sts Athanasius and Basil believed the hymn in Isaiah 6 was Trinitarian. John of Damascus also has other, very good theological arguments about Isaiah 6. But again, I don't agree with his conclusions.
Regardless we are not speaking about the Sanctus in Isaiah 6. We are speaking of later hymns.
[center]Isaiah vision in Chapter 6 to be about the Son
[/center]
Scriptural Evidence
St John the Evangelist comments saying:
"These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him." John 12:41
If you look at all of John 12, as well as the whole book of Isaiah, one can conclude that Isaiah 6 is a Trinitarian hymn.
First of all, St John doesn't say, "These things Isaiah said when he saw Jesus' glory and spoke of Him when he heard the Seraphim singing Holy, Holy, Holy". The immediate question at hand is, did Isaiah see Jesus' glory more than once and spoke about it? Yes, Isaiah 11 (the Branch, shoot, and Root of Jesse) and Isaiah 53 (the suffering Lamb), Isaiah 42 (Servant of God), Isaiah 9 (Child born from a Virgin, great counselor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace). Is it not possible that St John was referring to Isaiah's visions throughout his book and not just one incident?
Secondly, If you look at John 12:37-40, you'll notice St John mentions 2 messages from Isaiah, one from Isaiah 53 and one from Isaiah 6. How do we know which of Isaiah's visions St John is speaking of? We don't. He could be speaking in general terms about Isaiah's visions.
Thirdly, if you look at the rest of John 12, St John shifts the topic from Christ's triumphant entry in Jerusalem and Isaiah's vision to Jesus' words in 44-45. "“When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me." Therefore, we move from the physical events of Christ to the Trinity's providence and salvation plan.
Let me reiterate. I am not saying Isaiah 6 is definitely Trinitarian. I am saying using John 12:41 is not enough to say Isaiah 6 is conclusively Christological.
Regarding the Church fathers quoted, I will not disagree that they viewed Isaiah 6 as Christological. However, these are only a handful of references with one understading. We may find other fathers who understood Isaiah 6 as Trinitarian. More research is needed.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13535.msg158617#msg158617 date=1344375761]
[center]Isaiah vision in Chapter 6 to be about the Son
[/center]
Scriptural Evidence
St John the Evangelist comments saying:
"These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him." John 12:41
If you look at all of John 12, as well as the whole book of Isaiah, one can conclude that Isaiah 6 is a Trinitarian hymn.
First of all, St John doesn't say, "These things Isaiah said when he saw Jesus' glory and spoke of Him when he heard the Seraphim singing Holy, Holy, Holy". The immediate question at hand is, did Isaiah see Jesus' glory more than once and spoke about it? Yes, Isaiah 11 (the Branch, shoot, and Root of Jesse) and Isaiah 53 (the suffering Lamb), Isaiah 42 (Servant of God), Isaiah 9 (Child born from a Virgin, great counselor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace). Is it not possible that St John was referring to Isaiah's visions throughout his book and not just one incident?
How dare you you say this in spite of the Fathers quoted and the Trisagion as prayed by the Church?
Why can't we humbly accept what our Holy Fathers teach and what our Church prays?
Is it now you that conclude? Is it you that interprets and dictate the Church teaching? Where is the spirit of discipleship?
Our personal opinion oes not matter, especially when it is in conflict with the Churh Fathrs, Yes, we do know exactly which one he is speaking of. The key word is HIS GLORY.
The verse again: "These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him"
Isaiah did see that glory. Isaiah 53 is about the crucifixion; neither is this event glorious (in terms of divinity) nor did Isaiah saw it. He only spoke about the crucifixion. In contrast he saw and spoke of the vision in Isaiah 6.
On top of that the Church fathers do say that this verse refers to Isaiah 6.
So, who should we believe? Your exegesis?
I would side with the Fathers.
Well, why do not you enlighten us with your research before putting yourself in conflict with the Church and the Holy Fathers.
What is this notion of "Handful"? St. Cyril the pillar of faith is not enough for you? The one from whom you receive the absolution in every liturgy you attend, while bowing your head.
Where is the spirit of humility, humbleness and discipleship?
Our fathers passed on certain teaching and the Church followed that teaching through her prayers, yet this is not enough.
If I do not have the evidence .. I would sit quietly till I do instead of making empty claims and putting myself at odds with the Church and her Fathers.
I have a couple questions however. You say that both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians claim their versions are more authentic and older. How is this the case, when no one disputes the Syrian addition of "who was born of the Virgin" by Peter the Fuller?
I'm not sure I follow. Many bishops disagreed with Peter the Fuller's additions. Peter the Fuller added "who was crucified for us" when he became patriarch of Antioch in 463AD. (Ironically, he was a prelate in the Church of St Bassa in Chalcedon. In the end, he was excommunicated by a council in Rome in 485AD. Your question assumes that Peter the Fuller was the first to introduce the addition. However, there is nothing that says Peter the Fuller enforced it because he already found it used widely in Syria when he became patriarch. No I disagree. The Syrian and Coptic understanding is that the original Trisagion was given by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea (along with the Myron). See Youhann Nessim Youssef's "Notes on the Trisagion" While it may be completely apocryphal, I think the story is true and apocryphal elements were added later (unlike the Chalcedonian story which takes place later in the 5th century and it is filled with apocryphal elements). It is also possible that the Chalcedonians had developed the Trisagion without Christological elements before the 5th century. So the controversy is the text itself. The Non-Chalcedonians had their own text and interpretation while the Chalcedonians independently developed their own text and interpretation. I understand why it seems the Non-Chalcedonian version came after the Chalcedonian because half of the text is found in both versions and the Non-Chalcedonian adds text. However, this assumption is not validated with any corroborating evidence.
Does this clarify things?
[quote author=RamezM link=topic=13535.msg158613#msg158613 date=1344372669]
I have a couple questions however. You say that both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians claim their versions are more authentic and older. How is this the case, when no one disputes the Syrian addition of "who was born of the Virgin" by Peter the Fuller? And who were those many?
They were the Chalcedonians. As they disagreed with the rest of the Orirentals Patriarchs till today.
His excommunication is meaningless to us the Orientals and does not have any bearing on the matter. So why was he excommunicated if he did not enforce it or if he was not the first one to introduce it?
In other words, if it was widely used in Syria before he bacame Patriarch, as you say, then why was it a big deal that the Emperor, Rome and council interfere with the matter?
Jerusalem rite, the Latin rite and the Byzantine rite allowed the Christological understanding.
If your claim is true, then it would have been a big deal in the 5th century councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.
No one spoke against St Cyril, St Agustine, Origen, St Cyril of Jerusalem for attributing the vision of Isaiah to the Son on which the Trisagion is based. The controversy is the understanding. The text was already there, pointing to the Son as is evident through the rites of Rome, Jerusalem and Constantinople predating the Council of Trullo (692) which banned the Christological authentic understanding.
The Oriental Church still hold on the authentic understanding of the Trisagion, the Tradition and scriptural bases of its Christological roots. Unfortunately, the Byzantines diverted from this teaching in 692.
Ok, so there is disagreement between us so far even regarding the history of the text itself. Sorry, I mistakenly assumed that what I read in multiple places was universally accepted. However, for the sake of clarity and academic integrity, let me provide one such reference. I will try to provide others later, this just happened to be a book I am reading right now and I coincidentally came across this footnote: This quote comes from Anton Baumstark, Comparative Liturgy (London, 1958), p.86. Just as a bit of background, Baumstark is considered the father of the science of comparative liturgy, and his basic theories and principles are useful till this day in elucidating the history of many liturgical rites. His Comparative Liturgy is still a textbook in many graduate programs.
Not to say that Baumstark must be correct in every fact he lists, but here are some of the other references I have that mention Peter the Fuller as the originator of the Christological addition:
Hugh Wybrew, The Orthodox Liturgy: The Development of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite. (New York, 2003), p.79
This is the textbook that was required reading in the course on Liturgy and the Eucharist in my MA program.
Athanasius Al-Maqari, The Agpeya, or the Hourly Prayers, (Cairo, 2010), p.319 (in Arabic).
Fr. Athanasius is a prolific author that I just recently discovered. He has written over 40 books on the history of rites in the Coptic church, and he is generally very impressive in his academic accuracy. For this particular detail, he is actually citing Burmester, The Horologion of the Egyptian Church, Coptic and Arabic Text from a Mediaeval Manuscript (Studia Orientalia Christiana, Aegyptiaca), Cairo, Edizioni del Centro Francescano di Studi Orientali Cristiani, 1973. Unfortunately, I don't have access to Burmester's article.
Can you please provide evidence that Peter the Fuller was not the one that introduced the phrase "Who was crucified for us"? I hope my request for evidence does not offend you, as it seems to offend others. Just trying to have a conversation based on more than personal opinion. At any rate, that's where I got my information from.
I call this a very silly discussion.
In Isaiah's vision and in the Apocalypse, the Trisagion was said only once. That is why the Church Fathers interpreted Isaiah's vision in light of St. John's vision chanting that single Trisagion to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Lamb of God and Lord of Hosts.
However, the Trisagion we say in the Liturgy of the Word before the Gospel (in the Coptic rite) is not one Trisagion, but a triple Trisagion. In this case, it is very difficult to prove that the repetition of the Trisagion three times addresses the Son of God three times. If it was composed with the intention of addressing God the Son, it would have been said once, as in the prophecy of Isaiah, the Apocalypse, and the interpretation of the Fathers (brought up by imikhail) concerning that single Trisagion.
The addressing of the triple Trisagion to the Son of God only is a later invention. There's nothing wrong with admitting that it was changed -- it is better than falling into the heresy of Sabellianism.
Here is what Ibn Sibaa said:
In his Pertiosa Margarita (Chap 68), gives the same story adding that at the words "Holy Immortal One", Christ opened His eyes in their faces, then Joseph and Nicodemus said "Who was crucified for us, have mercy upon us". Ibn Sibaa also interprets the repetition of the word "Holy" nine times in the Trisagion as referring to the nine angelic orders sanctifying Him. And what is your source for this claim?
Who invented it? When? Why? Where? There is something wrong in misrepresenting Tradition to fit a personal opinion. How is Sabellianism fit into this Trisagion discussion?
Thanks for jumping in. I think we are largely saying the same thing from different angles. You are saying that the Trisagion repeated three times cannot be all regarding the Son, while I am simply saying the Isaiah vision (or Revelation for that matter) is not the liturgical Trisagion at all, but the anaphoral sanctus.
Amen, there is nothing wrong with admitting it was changed. This is exactly the healthy and sober Orthodoxy that everyone should be proud to present.
Nonetheless, not to get too distracted from my main point, here is another piece of information that I am sure will surprise some and upset many: I just found out yesterday for the first time that even in the Syrian Orthodox rite, the Trisagion is chanted as follows: What is important here in my opinion is that there is no Doxa throughout the chanting of the Trisagion, and consequently the hymn is theologically consistent throughout, addressing Christ. Rem, and Bibo...this is a big deal and it fits in perfectly with my issue in this whole thing! The Syrian Trisagion is consistent, addressing only the Son with no Trinitarian aspects. The Byzantine Trisagion is also consistent, addressing the Trinity with nothing specifically Christological. It is only the Coptic Trisagion unfortunately that seems to exhibit the mix between Trinitarian and Christological praise that I mentioned, and that is my whole point. In fact, I have no problem whether the Trisagion initially was understood as Christological or Trinitarian, as long as the prayer is consistent. It is totally fine if the meaning changed over time in either direction, but what is not fine dogmatically is to insert Christological phrases in an otherwise Trinitarian prayer (or the other way around if the Christological phrases were always there).
______________________________________________________
[sup]1[/sup] http://sor.cua.edu/Liturgy/Anaphora/PubCeleb.html
You speak with authority; use human logic to interpret the Holy Scripture and write long post, but your understanding of the Scripture is incorrect at best. There is an orthodox golden rule in interpreting the Old Testament that it should reveal Lord Jesus Christ in almost every chapter. So when you do not see that the Seraphim’s in Isaiah 6 are praising the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, then your understanding of the Holy Scripture is weak at best. How dare you ignore that the “LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple” is the Logos and for that reason the Seraphim’s are singing unto Him. The seen that Isaiah saw was the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
Secondly who do you suggest that the One “which was, and is, and is to come”. You said He is the Father, I am sorry to tell you that this is exactly what one of Jehovah’ Witness told HH Pope Shenouda III. You can listen to that conversation in one of his vides that interpreting the Book of Revelations.
John of Damascus is not a Coptic Father to use him as a reference.
Oh by the way, Abouna Athanasius Al Makary, your reference, is wrong.
What about John Brownlie, the hymnologist, is wrong too.
While we are at it, Abouna Shenouda Maher is wrong as well.
Only RamzyM is the authoritative reference.
Is this what they teach in seminaries nowadays to disregard all evidence, scholars and stick to personal opinions?
May God have mercy on His Church.
So the hymn omonojanees is not fine with you since it is attributed to the Son but switches the Trinity at the end?
How about the Introduction of the Creed:
The Prayer "We exalt you the Mother .." The beginning of the Creed.
Glory to You, our Master, our King, Christ, the pride of the apostles, the crown of the martyrs, the joy of the righteous, the firmness of the churches, the forgiveness of sins.
We proclaim the Holy Trinity in One Godhead. We worship Him. We glorify Him.
Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord bless. Amen.
The prayer switches from the Son to the Trinity and back to the Son.
To my recollection, this prayer is decreed by the Council of Ephesus in 431.
Is this prayer bad dogmatically because it keeps switching back and forth.
I have quite few other examples, but let's address one by one.
Dear Rem,
You speak with authority; use human logic to interpret the Holy Scripture and write long post, but your understanding of the Scripture is incorrect at best. There is an orthodox golden rule in interpreting the Old Testament that it should reveal Lord Jesus Christ in almost every chapter.
Are you sure this Orthodox golden rule is actually to interpret the Old Testament as a revelation of the Trinity? Do you bother to read my posts in its entirety? In my reply to your post, twice I said I believe Isaiah 6 is Christological, not Trinitarian. Unlike you, however, I do not see a need to conclusively condemn people who consider it Trinitarian since it can still be considered Orthodox. Fine. Give me a link and I will check it out. I will tell you that Fr Tadros Malaty's book, found here, on page 64 states "He saw a throne and upon it sits, "The Glorified God." And because of the magnificence of His majesty he did not know how to call God, so he called Him, "One sat on..." and this what Isaiah (6:1), and Daniel (7:3) had done. No one could call God by a name for He is extremely dazzling." Not once does Fr Tadros explicitly claim Revelation 4:2 was Christ.
In addition, you continue to ignore Revelation 5, which is a continuation of the vision in Revelation 4. In Revelation 5:6, as I already said, says the Lamb was standing in the center of the Throne, not sitting on the throne. But if you continue to verse 7, it says, "Then He [the Lamb] came and took the scroll out of the right hand of Him [the Lord Pantocrator] who sat on the throne. It's obvious that there are 2 actors in this vision, one who sits on the throne who gives the scroll to the other. Unless you believe that the Lamb sat on the throne and gave the scroll to God the Pantocrator or to a third party, I fail to see how both can be the second person of the Trinity.
Again, have the courtesy to read my whole post. I did not use John of Damascus as a Coptic father reference. I used him as the classical reference of the Chalcedonian view. He uses Coptic fathers to substantiate his view.
Oh by the way, Abouna Athanasius Al Makary, your reference, is wrong.
What about John Brownlie, the hymnologist, is wrong too.
While we are at it, Abouna Shenouda Maher is wrong as well.
Only RamzyM is the authoritative reference.
Is this what they teach in seminaries nowadays to disregard all evidence, scholars and stick to personal opinions?
May God have mercy on His Church.
Let's make this simple. Does Isaiah 6 say "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, (with additions), have mercy on us"? If yes, then Ibn Sibaa, Bar Salibi, Fr Abdel Messeh, Fr Athanasius, Fr Shenouda, or anybody else you want to mention whom you claim believe Isaiah 6 and the Liturgical Trisagion are identical texts, are correct and Ramez and I are wrong. If not, then Isaiah 6 is not the liturgical Trisagion.
On the other hand, if Isaiah 6 says, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Hosts, heaven and earth are full of your glory", commonly known as the Sanctus, and it has an identical text to the anaphora prayer "The Cherubim worship You.." then it is the anaphoral sanctus.
There is no need to be condescending with ad hominem comments about Ramez or anyone else.
You have not added anything new to the discussion.
You put yourself as an authority.
What you are saying is NOT the teaching of the Church. It is personal opinion.
Do not claim a personal opinion as the teaching of the Church.
I have already posted for Bar Salibi, Ibn Sibaa, and John Brownlie quotations that do prove they see the Trisagion as the vision of Isaiah.
Fr. Abd Al Meseih Al Baramousy the Holy Koulaji printed 1902 P.314 2nd ed.
Fr. Athanasius Al Makary addresses the Trisagion in his book on the Holy Liturgy ( 1st book pp. 471-477)
Fr. Shenouda Maher addresses the Trisagion in his book Liturgical and Ritual Issues (pp 43 - 49)
Reading the above proves that:
[list type=decimal]
[li]The vision of Isaiah is Christological
[/li][li]The Trisagion is based on Isaiah's vision, the Son whom He saw, through Christendom before the Council of 692
[/li][li]The Orientals kept the CORRECT understanding, of the hymn, while the Byzantines developed the Trinitarian understanding.
[/li][/list]
I hope we refrain from personal opinions and instead discuss the teaching of the Church as presented in the above sources and any other additional ones.
http://m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xi.ii.vi.html#xi.ii.vi-p2.3
It seems to be intellectually misleading to think that the Church fathers were clear that the Trisagion was only to Christ (As it is also misleading to say it has only been referring to the Trinity). In fact, if anything, (if you believe that the Trisagion was based based on Isaiah 6) this may indicate that liturgically, the Trisagion in St Athanasius' time was referring to the Trinity at least in the Church of Alexandria.
St Athanasius did in fact believe the "Holy, Holy, Holy" addressed in Isaiah 6 was addressed to the Trinity, disproving the Arians by showing that each hypostasis of the Trinity has equal holiness:...It seems to be intellectually misleading to think that the Church fathers were clear that the Trisagion was only to Christ (As it is also misleading to say it has only been referring to the Trinity).
So when I said in Reply #65, "However, these are only a handful of references with one understading. We may find other fathers who understood Isaiah 6 as Trinitarian. More research is needed." I was correct. Yet, imikhail feels the need for ad honimen comments like "You have not added anything new to the discussion. You put yourself as an authority. What you are saying is NOT the teaching of the Church. It is personal opinion. Do not claim a personal opinion as the teaching of the Church."
Mina makes a good point: "the Trisagion in St Athanasius' time was referring to the Trinity at least in the Church of Alexandria." Again, it may now be considered a Christological hymn but it was not always. The problem, as Ramez has already pointed out, is not whether it is Christological or Trinitarian, but that it may be understood (and misunderstood) both ways. The post-Chalcedonian polemics against Peter the Fuller and St Severus are all based on the Chalcedonians refusal to conceptualize Isaiah 6 as Christological. So they claimed heresy. Now some in the Oriental Church have refused to conceptualize Isaiah 6 as Trinitarian and are throwing around claims of heresy.
But what do I know. This must be my personal opinion.
I did not say that they believe they are identical texts. Either you deliberately twisting the argument or you have poor choice of words. I said the Trisagion is based on the vision.
Ramez said the two text are different. And you said he was wrong. Here is Ramez's quote again: "while I am simply saying the Isaiah vision (or Revelation for that matter) is not the liturgical Trisagion at all, but the anaphoral sanctus. " And you replied, "So you are saying that Ibn Sibaa is wrong and Bar Salibi is wrong, our Koulagion by Abouna Abd Al Messieh is wrong, but only your claim is right?" Either you believe the two texts are identical or the Isaiah vision is not the anaphoral sanctus but the Trisagion. My reply was to address the second possible claim. If Isaiah 6 text is different than the liturgical Trisagion, then it's not the same hymn. Maybe it can be seen as a type of Trisagion, but it can't be the liturgical Trisagion. Maybe the liturgical Trisagion can be based on the Isaiah Trisagion, but it is not the same text. Therefore, Ramez's comment was accurate from the beginning.
I am afraid you were not correct.
There is a difference between what Isaiah saw and the praise itself which he heard.
Did Isaiah see the Trinity? No.
By all means, Isaiah saw a theophany of our Lord Christ. No Church father disagreed on this.
Above all, the scripture is very clear in John 12:41
To Whom was the praise directed to? This is where the disagreement between the Church fathers come in play. Some understood it to be directed to the holy Trinity.
Others believe it was directed to the person of Christ whom Isaiah saw. And this is the view of the Oriental Church. The references I provided show that the Church as a whole accepted the praise to be directed to the person of Christ since the additions to the Trisagion, in Constantinople, Rome, Jerusalem and Syria, were Christological . However, the Byzantines insisted on the Trinitarian understanding by 692.
What is sad is that the Byzantines deny the Orientals the Christological understanding in spite of Church fathers supporting it and they themselves approved it at one point in time.
These are some of what you wrote in this thread,
“The Syrian and Coptic understanding is that the original Trisagion was given by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea (along with the Myron). See Youhann Nessim Youssef's "Notes on the Trisagion" While it may be completely apocryphal, I think the story is true and apocryphal elements were added later (unlike the Chalcedonian story which takes place later in the 5th century and it is filled with apocryphal elements)”.
“I personally believe Isaiah 6 is a Christological hymn”.
If this is your understanding of the issue, why are you swinging to the other side of the argument and not adhering and defending your personal and Coptic Church believe.
I can see it as either you do not want to upset some of posters on this forum or you have personal vendetta against one poster.
I will quote what St Paul said “
For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ”.
If this is your understanding of the issue, why are you swinging to the other side of the argument and not adhering and defending your personal and Coptic Church believe.
First of all, if you think the only reason is to present counter arguments is to please men, then you are terribly mistaken. Take a look at any university debating course or writing course. Here is one summary: "One way to strengthen your argument and show that you have a deep understanding of the issue you are discussing is to anticipate and address counterarguments or objections. By considering what someone who disagrees with your position might have to say about your argument, you show that you have thought things through, and you dispose of some of the reasons your audience might have for not accepting your argument. " If I present a convincing counter argument and we are not able to defend our position, then there is something wrong with our argument. Or at least we can acknowledge we need to strengthen our argument, not ignore counterargument and claim anyone who holds these argument is ignorant or a hell-bound heretic.
Biblically, St Peter instructs the same thing in 1 Peter 3:!5. "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." St Peter assumes 2 things. (1) you have hope in Christ and (2) you are prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks, even those who challenge your hope or your arguments. If you are able and ready to answer your opponents, you will strengthen your own faith, keep a clear conscience, and put your opponents to shame.
Additionally, you still have to definitively prove your argument is what the Coptic Church officially believes. I'm not saying it isn't. Saying "This is what the Coptic Church says" without providing sufficient references, or official documents, or a majority agreement by bishops or the Synod, doesn't make you the authoritative ambassador speaking for the Coptic Church. The truth is I care about every poster. I don't want to upset or offend any poster and I go out of my way to discuss arguments and logic, not attacking people. My personal "vendetta" - more accurately called personal motive - is (1) to elevate full education, full disclosure, full love for Christ, for the Church and for Orthodox wisdom and (2) to combat ever-increasing anti-intellectual movements.
Sorry I've been away from the discussion for a few days. I see the discussion has progressed quite a bit since I've last responded. I don't know if I can respond to everything that has been said since, especially imikhail's comments and questions. I am just going to make a few comments to add to your excellent points and I will try to leave the discussion. It seems that you, Bibo, and Minasoliman all largely agree with me and I respect all of your opinions, even in the small details in which we may have differed.
First of all, let me state that there is a certain standard for any academic theological discussion that ought to be there for it to be a fruitful and blessed discussion. I have been observing the forums here for some time and especially some of the hot topics such as the sainthood of King Constantine, the assumption of St. Mary's body, and others. In all of these discussions I saw people like you presenting valid, coherent responses, while others responding by simply stating what they believe to be the "Coptic" faith (not sure what that is. I can at least say my faith is Orthodoxy), and proceeding from that premise to call others heretics, going against the Tradition of the Church, and asserting personal opinions. This kind of mentality is unfortunately rampant in our Church, and it is the result of generation after generation of uneducated clergy, servants, and congregation, simply parroting the ideas given to them by alleged scholars who may or may not have any theological background. I know this will offend many, but be that as it may. I am not interested in convincing anonymous strangers of this or that academic position, or even to adamantly asserting what I think is true about this or that topic. This is because the Orthodox faith is not dependent on every last question getting answered in favor of Oriental Orthodoxy or what some here like to call "the Coptic faith". In other words, like you and some others, I don't feel that my faith depends on how we should interpret the Trisagion, or whose version was older. These are interesting historical questions that I like to discuss in an atmosphere of respect and mutual recognition of each others' research efforts. Unfortunately, what imikhail does here falls far below the standards I tried to explain, and that is why I choose not to address him directly, instead focusing the discussion on those (like you, Bibo, and Minasoliman) who possess the real tools for such a discussion.
Second, to address imikhail's last post that was directed at me (in what was clearly an ad hominem, polemical fashion), here is what I have to say about his sources.
1- Ibn Saba does not say anything about the Trisagion being based on Isaiah 6:3. What he does say is the tradition about the Trisagion based on the prayer of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea at the burial of Christ, as well as some other numerological meditations on the number of times the word Holy is repeated in the hymn.
2- I do not have access the the Euchologion of Abouna Abdel Massih. I can assume from context that he referred the Trisagion to Isaiah 6:3, but I will again adamantly repeat: Unless imikhail provides references and quotations, nothing he presents will be considered as sufficient reference.
3- Regarding Fr. Athanasius Almaqarry, here is what he wrote about this: "And it [the Trisagion] depends in its origin on the text of Isaiah the prophet 6:3". This is my translation of the Arabic text, "wa taatamed fi aslaha ala nass Asheya Alnabi 6:3"[sup]1[/sup] The operative word here is depends, which I interpret as that the Trisagion is derived or inspired by the vision of Isaiah, not that the prayer in the vision of Isaiah 6:3 itself is the Trisagion. This of course goes without saying, since the texts are obviously different. In light of this, I don't see the problem with what I said that the vision of Isaiah is the Sanctus not the Trisagion.
4- I did not notice that imikhail referred to Brownlie until he reminded me here, so I had to do some digging. Turns out, Brownlie seems to be significantly confused about the whole thing, even calling the Trisagion "The Cherubic Hymn". Given that the title of his book is Hymns from the Greek Office Books, it is surprising to me that he does not seem to understand that the Cherubic Hymn is a completely different hymn in the Byzantine rite, not based on any Biblical passages, and is different from both the Trisagion and the Sanctus. A quick Wikipedia search of the Cherubic Hymn will explain more. Just because a person is labeled a hymnologist, does not make him an authority. As always, critical thinking is important, not simply finding jus about any one to add to one's list of "sources".
5- Finally, I am very glad imikhail finally brought up Fr. Shenouda Maher, waving him around as another big name that I am unfortunately going against. What imikhail forgot to mention in this whole discussion, is that he has been simply cutting/pasting from an article by Fr. Shenouda Maher to beef up his argument, without ever citing his source or indicating that Fr. Shenouda Maher is the bread and butter of his position. This is where imikhail has typed information about Bar Salibi and Ibn Saba, as well as other positions paraded as final teachings of the "Coptic Faith". This level of academic dishonest is the reason I see no point in continuing to discuss. He finally indicated for us where Fr. Shenouda Maher addresses this issue, but notice that he never ever indicated when he simply lifted whole passages from Fr. Shenouda without even giving credit to someone he regards as an authority on liturgical history. I happen to know this because I have the article he was using.
Minasoliman,
Thank you very much for the passage you provided. I learned something I did not know at all before, and this passage helps me a great deal in my original argument.
In the end, my argument has nothing to do strictly with whether the Trisagion is Isaiah 6:3 or not, or whether it is Christological, Trinitarian, or both. I'd like here to reiterate what I said a couple pages ago about the other rites of the Orthodox Churches. The Byzantine tradition is consistent in addressing the Trinity throughout. The Syrian Orthodox tradition is consistent, addressing Christ throughout. The Coptic tradition, unfortunately, seems to be halfway in between the two, addressing Christ then the Trinity without clearly delineating or indicating the switch. I feel this is dogmatically risky and could place many neophytes at least at risk of misunderstanding some very important dogma. This is all I have to say.
I will continue keeping a subdued presence on these forums, only entering into discussions where I know I have my seminary education, my languages, and my books which seem to threaten some people to back me up, and not merely to masquerade non-academic drivel as the final word on "Coptic faith", as though there is any such thing independent from the Orthodox faith that we share with other Churches in Syria, Armenia, Ethiopia, Constantinople, and Russia.
This has already been discussed in posts #61 and #72
How did you reach the conclusion that he was in fact talking abut the Cherubic hymn and not the Trisagion?
The cherubic hymn references the Trisagion. Here is the text:
We who mystically represent the Cherubim,
and who sing to the Life-Giving Trinity the thrice-holy hymn,
let us now lay aside all earthly cares
that we may receive the King of all,
escorted invisibly by the angelic orders.
Alleluia
John Brownlie says on page 102 of the reference below:
"The Trisagion or the Cherubic hymn has been in use in the worship of the Eastern Church from the very earliest. No form of valuation is such frequent burns in all the offices of the church. No form of adoration is of such frequent occurrence in all the offices of the church. Originally, the Trisagion (thrice holy), was in the exact form found in Isaiah 6:3, but as the years passed, additions were made to went to express doctrine both Orthodox and heterodox. [b]The accompanying form is the one found in the service books, and is in the news at the present time."
Then he lists the text of the Byzantine Trisagion on page 102. Here is the link:
Hymns from the Greek Office Books
He does not look to me he was confused. He knew exactly what he was talking about.