› ›

The Christ Arose Himself!

socoolbishoysocoolbishoy
edited December 1969 in Faith Issues
Our dear, The Christ, arose Himself...

so not to interfere in other topics, I thought why not discuss this on a separate topic... openly!

lets take it one by one... The Christ... not much explanation needed... because He is The Christ...

arose Himself... when I say he arose Himself, it is because of His own will and power He arose Himself...

I do not know what to "argue" about, so I'll just leave it for those who don't like it to start with their point of view... then I will respond!

Truly, The Christ arose Himself!

nakhod el baraka... neshkor Allah!

Comments

  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    what's i said on the other post is the concept is this, according to these verses:

    Ro 6:4
        Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
    Ga 1:1
        Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead),

    Christ raises HIMSELF.
  • ophadeceophadece
    spot on Mina. As I can remember there is also another reference in the Bible of the Holy Spirit executing His part in the resurrection of Christ not forgetting that it was Him who was alive when Jesus died. Bottom line is as St. Athanasios taught us we can't assume one of the acts of one of the Trinity Persons to another or ignore for that matter any of such acts
    [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    to add to that.....it's really "confusing" and puzzling to people when they hear something that is not used a lot. that doesn't mean it's "wrong".....it's just hard to understand.
  • HezekielHezekiel

    And the third day He Arose from the Dead

    1.      The Lord Jesus Christ arose by Himself not raised by anyone

    v    Three people were raised by Our Lord Jesus Christ: The son of the widow Nain (Luke 7:15), the daughter of  Jarius (Luke 8:35) and Lazarus (John 11: 43-44)

    2.      He alone arose in a glorious body.
    v    “We also eagerly wait for the resurrection; the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body.” Philippians 3:20-21

    3.      He alone arose and did not die again

    v    “I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold I am alive forevermore. Amen.”

    Revelation 1:17-18

    4.      His resurrection is proof of His power and victory, and a proclamation that He will raise us with Him.

    v    “For since by man came death, by man also came resurrection of the dead.” I Corinthians 15:21

    http://www.suscopts.org/stgeorgetampa/the_creed_college_meeting_2.htm
  • godislove260godislove260
    I was taught He arose by the power of His divinity, hence it would not be incorrect to say He arose Himself, would it?
  • ophadeceophadece
    Dear all,
    You are all right; but as I said before mentioning the saying "Christ arose Himself" would somehow indicate that no other Person in the Trinity "participated" in that act. This is dogmatically wrong - here I would simply reply (as minagir) said: we were not taught this in the Church. Remember St. Athanasius started off his defence against the heresy of Arius by saying what? We didn't receive this from our forefathers.
    Please be careful using those deep dogmatic expressions without much research.
    Sorry for replying late
    [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
  • Unknown
    Christ is Risen

    I don't think there can be any debate about the fact that, as with all key events in the redemptive plan of God (particularly the Incarnation of the Word and the Baptism of the Incarnate Word), the Resurrection of the Lord Christ was an act to be attributed to the Holy Trinity.

    Whilst linguistically awkward, I do not find there to be any real theological problem with SuperMAN's individual rendition of the paschal greeting. It is not necessarily exclusive as others have tried to read it. Nevertheless, I still strongly disapprove of its propriety on account of the following:

    The sense of conservativeness embedded in the Coptic cultural mindset is what has allowed the beauty of Orthodoxy to be preserved in our Church for so long and with such purity. We should always understand that traditions, even as they pertain to simple expressions like the paschal greeting, bear witness to important truths. There should not be any tendency whatsoever to alter these traditions, no matter how innocent the intention nor insignificant the perceived effect; and no indidivudal should dare do so especially as a matter of personal discretion running counter to that which is generally universal practice.

    The key word in the standard (and, I maintain, only acceptable) english rendition of the paschal greeting, "Christ is Risen," is the word "IS." The primary point of the paschal greeting is not simply to affirm that Christ did indeed rise from the dead once upon a time, but to testify to the active presence and work of the Risen Christ in the here and now. This is indeed the sense conveyed by the original Greek to which the Coptic bears witness.

    Please, let us not think ourselves wiser than we ought; let us shy away from any sort of innovation, no matter how seemingly petty, and just submit to the universal conscience of the Church.
  • Boricua_OrthodoxBoricua_Orthodox
    Christ is Risen! Al Masih Kam! Cristo ha Resucitado!

      Brother Iqbal! How have you been? Where have you been? You have been missed! Hope all is well and is a great joy to see you back! God bless you, ahooyah  ;D ;D ;D!
  • coolboy1000gcoolboy1000g
    If I am not correct, I read recently a small booklet by Bishop Demetrious, bishop of Malawy Ansena and el ashmonen, the booklet was about the importance of the coptic language and in it was mentioned the meaning of the word aftonf and he said that aftonf doesnt mean that he was/is raised but rather it means that he raised himself.
    I havent really researched this topic so I am not sure if it is theologically true or not.
  • ophadeceophadece
    Dear Iqbal,
    Thanks a lot - I am here to learn, so forgive me if I was mistaken. Just thought that the English "Christ is risen" puts the verb in indirect form, while what I am used to in both Arabic and Coptic (haven't learnt Greek) is that it is a rather present perfect tense within the direct form of the verb.
    Dear I am all yours Lord,
    With all due respect to Bishop Demetrius, I disagree - the word "[coptic]aftwnf[/coptic]" consists of "[coptic]af[/coptic]" past tense pertinent to the "he"; "[coptic]twn[/coptic]" the root of the verb conjugated in the past tense; and "[coptic]f[/coptic]" which is the object of the clause meaning "him". Now yes, it would be like SuperMAN(BAM) translated superficially into "He arose Himself", but the fact of the Coptic language is that verb, like many other verbs cannot be worded in another style. So the translation then becomes literal, and inaccurate. The accuracy and completion of translation should come from expressing what the verb does express in Coptic language. As far as I am concerned "[coptic]P,C aftwnf[/coptic]" means "al Massih qam" meaning "Christ has risen" FULL STOP. It doesn't mean "Christ arose Himself".
    [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
  • coolboy1000gcoolboy1000g
    I am not an expert in the coptic language, so I was merely stating what was said in the book; but for clarification, Bishop Demetrious didnt explain the meaning of the word aftonf when it came to its theological meaning
    but thanks for the clarification
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    OK. I have asked about this and confirmed something very important.

    First, i still stand what i said before. Christ did raise HIMSELF. What Iqbal said is more towards why we must keep "Christ is risen" because it's the Tradition and Ophadece explained clearly the word [coptic]aftwnf[/coptic].

    This will be a little hard to understand, but bear with me.

    Christ, being the Son is One of the all-holy Trinity “but [He] made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7). To understand that we have to think that our Lord Jesus did not do anything other than what the Father said. It’s hard to accept a little but it’s true. Christ Himself said it many times:
    John 8:28
    Then Jesus said to them, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things.

    Matthew 26:39
    He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will."

    In the Resurrection, Christ rose Himself after the “go-ahead” from the Father. Again, it is hard to understand. It’s just that it’s part of the Economy of salvation that this happens. Now we can’t think that Christ is “less” than the Father because of this. This happens simultaneously. We can’t comprehend as an event in an order. I can simply summarize this in “The Father wills, the Son does, and the Holy Spirit sanctifies”
  • ophadeceophadece
    Dear Mina,
    Thanks for your short and concise point of view - it certainly helped me learn what things I didn't understand before.
    Dear I am all yours Lord,
    I hope you didn't take my last post as an attack on you, or Bshp Demetrius for that matter. I just meant to make it clear that there are verbs in the Coptic language (as with any other language) that are confusing. Confusing in their format rather than their meaning, and that is what I would like to state clearly. "[coptic]aftwnf[/coptic]" doesn't mean "raised Himself". The verb should become "[coptic]aftounoctef[/coptic]" to mean "raised Himself". It is a different verb with similarity to the root of the first verb. Thanks for all the opinions anyway.
    [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
  • coolboy1000gcoolboy1000g
    I am still a beginner when it comes to the coptic language, so I didnt know and I know that you were not trying to attack me or sayedna.
    but this brings me to my question, what is the best way to learn coptic, to actually be able to read it correctly and to understand its meaning. what books are useful etc
  • ophadeceophadece
    [coptic]anoktyrtpevwkP[C pamenrit>
    ]`souwrp nak `n,wb qa petouws `ncwoun `ntek[icbw `nrem`n<ymi[/coptic]
    I can send you privately about what you want to know to learn Coptic
    [coptic]]nou eimyn epenkw] `mpen`;ren[i `nrem`n<ymi qen ouatsyk e;be ;ai ouswk emasw te `noulac[/coptic]
    Now sticking to our debate let's not take Coptic superficially for it is very deep a language
    [coptic]]ouws `ncwtem `ncaji `nte nikeratwmi[/coptic]
    I would like to hear the words of the other members
    [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
  • the_leastthe_least
    i didn't get what people were saying pertaining to the past or present tense. Some people seem to be in agreement with each other; however, they are stating different views.

    So, to make it clear, should it be

    Christ is Risen

    or

    Christ has Risen

    and why?

    thanks and pray for me
  • coolboy1000gcoolboy1000g
    Ophadece,
    I sent you a message earlier, if you have a chance to reply that would be great
  • ophadeceophadece
    Dear the_least,
    I am objecting to the use of the indirect format of "Christ is risen", and would rather it was "Christ has risen". The former gives a connotation of Christ not participating in that Trinitarian Act - however, my command in English is not that great, and I would still like to hear other people's views on that debate.
    Dear I am all your Lord,
    I have already replied to your PM. Please let me know if you didn't receive that message...
    [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
  • the_leastthe_least
    [quote author=ophadece link=topic=7970.msg103355#msg103355 date=1242840174]
    I am objecting to the use of the indirect format of "Christ is risen", and would rather it was "Christ has risen". The former gives a connotation of Christ not participating in that Trinitarian Act

    How so?
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    [quote author=ophadece link=topic=7970.msg103355#msg103355 date=1242840174]
    Dear the_least,
    I am objecting to the use of the indirect format of "Christ is risen", and would rather it was "Christ has risen". The former gives a connotation of Christ not participating in that Trinitarian Act - however, my command in English is not that great, and I would still like to hear other people's views on that debate.
    Dear I am all your Lord,
    I have already replied to your PM. Please let me know if you didn't receive that message...
    [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]

    I think the concept around the 2 is just the tense you'd like your declaration to be in. Also, this is just my opinion as a chanter, sometimes Christ has risen is better to sing (even thoo there is noo differnce in the number of syllables)
  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    I can't speak to the tense of the Coptic, but it is universal in the English language in all Orthodox, Catholic and Episcopal traditions to say 'Christ IS risen'.

    This seems to me to add something important to the sense of 'Christ has risen'.

    He is not simply risen as a past act, but he has entered into a resurrected and glorified state of being into which he calls us to participate now and in our own resurrection. So he IS risen (he is in the continuing state of being risen), rather than simply he has risen (this happened at a past date and is not passed).

    Again, that is not me translating the Coptic, but stating what the universal tradition in English has always been.

    God bless

    Father Peter
  • user00
    I agree with Father Peter.

    To say "Christ has risen", to me at least, is like okay, so now what?

    But to say "Christ is Risen" is like it's a living part of my life. Just as our CHurch kind of reenacts the Holy Week and Passion, so also we reenact the Resurrection and take it for ourselves personally.

    In other words, "Christ is risen" is more personal and gives the effect of that He is still risen and that the power of His resurrection is still present with His children.

    I feel that "Christ has risen" takes away from this.
  • ophadeceophadece
    Dear Father Peter and user00,
    I said before my command of English is not that great. I just don't want you to miss my point. The point I am trying to make is that "Christ is risen" portrays the verb in the "indirect" form, and gives the connotation of Him not participating in the Trinitarian Act. I of course appreciate what Father Peter said with regards to the tradition carried in the English expression. I would love to hear your opinions though...
    [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
  • socoolbishoysocoolbishoy
    The Christ Arose Himself, and ascended...

    my fathers, brothers and sisters,

    as I say The Christ Arose Himself, I speak of the Trinity... They are one.  if one says no its The Father that arose the son, or the son arose Himself, there is no difference... yet if we take one and forget about the other, then we are at err and that would be a big mistake theologically.


    Indeed He arose Himself, and ascended!

    Please pray for me, that God would give me comfort and peace of heart...

    nakhod el baraka... neshkor Allah!
  • ophadeceophadece
    SuperMAN(BAM),
    Your statement is not right. Christ didn't arise Himself - please. Our God has an Essence, a Logic, and a Spirit. The Logic did not arise Himself. You may only say God arose Himself not pointing to One person of the Trinity. Please ask for more debate from the elders in your church, and your father of confession.
    [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
  • socoolbishoysocoolbishoy
    Our Lord arose Himself and ascended,

    Ophadece, what I'm saying is from my head deacon, who is an elder... and is approved by my priest, actually the last post i posted was almost word for word of what they said!


    truly He arose Himself and ascended!

    pray for me and for my weakness, I the weak one... ask God to give me peace of heart

    nakhod el baraka... neshkor Allah!
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    Check out this sermon of HG Bishop Rafael concerning the holy Trinity:
    http://www.cairod-church.org/pages/getaudiofile.php?id=696

    it's in arabic....but he's arabic is clear enough to be understood by most of us here.
  • Unknown
    Happy Feast of the Pentecost to all.

    Dear ophadece,

    Rest assured that 'Christ is Risen' does not in any way imply anything with respect to the involvement of Christ in His own Resurrection, let alone imply something contrary to Orthodox theology. It is no coincidence that the paschal greeting of every local Orthodox church has been translated from their respective languages into 'Christ is Risen.' Surely the Holy Spirit is at work here.

    To everyone, in particular to SuperMAN(BAM),

    With all due respect to the noble intentions of SuperMAN(BAM), for he surely means well in wishing to emphasise what is a very important truth, we must not take it upon ourselves to become innovators.

    The point of the Paschal greeting is as I said in my initial post, and as has been confirmed more effectively and eloquently by Fr. Peter. The concern of the paschal greeting is NOT a theological concern regarding Christ's Divine ability to raise Himself from His own death, it is a practical concern for the relevance of the Resurrection to US today.

    SuperMAN(BAM)'s rendering is not only linguistically awkward, but it ignores the appropriate context of this greeting and the message which the Holy Spirit seeks to imprint upon our minds and hearts through expressing it.

    I hope SuperMAN(BAM) will be humble enough to understand and accept this.
Sign In or Register to comment.