› ›

The Deification of Man, HH Pope Shenouda III

coptic_deacon
edited November 2014 in Faith Issues
Perhaps this issue has been answered before, but I can't browse through thousands of threads.

I have no idea what this phrase means 'The Deification of Man'. Many people have tried to explain it to me and everyone has been different, and too be honest I've forgotten them all.

The one thing I do remember is someone speaking passionately about this specific book by the late Holy Father. They mentioned it has numerous errors and shortcomings and vehemently opposed reading it. It was not clear to me if they were attacking the actual concepts presented in it or the shortcomings of the english translation. I am very aware of the shortcomings of translation, particularly when it comes to a complex dogmatic issue such as this which has its own proper syntax. 

NB. It was translated into english by someone called Dr. Wedad Abbas.

My question is this:

1) What is the concept of 'The Deification of Man'?

2) What do we believe regarding this issue?

3) Are there indeed any errors in the book by the late Holy Father?

4) And if so, are they fundamental or 'translatory'?

5) What the qualifications of the translator, Dr. Wedad Abbas?

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, do not vomit huge slabs of info paste them in the response box. I cannot follow your train of thought. Please answer the 5 subquestions in the order above and be direct and precise.
«1345

Comments

  • ReturnOrthodoxyReturnOrthodoxy
    I'll be brief.

    1) "He took what is ours, and gave us what is His."
    2) it is not a side issue to our faith. It is central. St. Athanasius basicallly, in defending the deity of Chirst draws upon the deification of man to prove it. That how could Christ deifiy us if he is not, himself, God. So its interesting to see how basic the understanding of the deification of man was, such that it was used to prove Christ's natural divinity. 
    3) Yes. The whole book.
    4) Fundamental. Any attempt to call it translatory is masking a truth in order to vindicate the late pope. It is not a problem in translation. 
    5) Knows English? LOL. Not sure to be honest, but I don't imagine him being a theologian (which i think you should be in order to translate a theological work, nor a U.N level translator. But thats irrelevant. The book is just as erroneous in Arabic as it is in English. 

    Ray
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    With all due respect coptic_deacon, I don't think it is fair to ask a very difficult theological question and then say "don't vomit huge slabs of info (and) paste them in the response box." RO answered as you requested. But any short response fails to explain what deification really means, how it was understood by St Athanasius, how it was understood by Pope Shenouda when he wrote the book and how it is understood after Pope Shenouda, etc. 

    If you (or anyone) want to treat nuggets of information as an adequate answer for profound questions, then we shouldn't be surprised of the subsequent confusion and lack of intellectual honesty. All this will serve to do is exacerbate the "Sunday School phenomenon"; which is to get a cookbook, less than basic, recycled, unreferenced, unsupported, unsubstantiated list of information sent to your lap with no effort on your part and treat it as the holy grail of cathecesis sent directly from heaven.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited November 2014
    HH Pope Shenouda was a product of scholastic theology gone the wrong direction in both Protestant and Islamic schools of thought.  The idea that we cannot partake or unite with God has been strong among Protestant (particularly Nestorianizing) and Islamic doctrines, and sadly, because there has not been enough translations of the Greek Church fathers, such as St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, and the Cappadocians, we seem to have lost track of the real reason for our purpose in life and for belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.  I admire the resolve for many of our bishops who defended them just because the Bible and the "tradition" taught them so, but once you go beyond that and find out what deification really is, that is the sharing of the nature of God Himself in us, in the fabric of our beings, as a form of love and unity in God, that is the ultimate reason for our existence that is worth defending.  The Church fathers took this for granted and used deification as an argument to defend the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit.  Now, if we defend the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, but not deification, we only defend the vanity of our doctrines.

    It is forgivable however, because His Holiness Pope Shenouda did a lot of good for the Coptic Church and lead the Coptic Church with its truest intentions into the learning of the Church fathers.  It's because of the Pope's work in the Church, ironically, that lead the next generation of many of those who love him to defend the essential Orthodox doctrine of deification.  So make no mistake about it, His Holiness did make a mistake, but if you understand the contemporary historical development of our theological understanding of the situation, you can recognize that this has been a pivotal and confusing moment that helps us recognize and reinvigorate our resolve in comprehending what the Church fathers have taught.

    I'll start with an analogy to help you out.  Do you remember how St. Cyril defended the miaphysis doctrine?  What analogy he used?
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    Thank you Mina for your comments.

    Can we skip the guessing game? We all know we can't read your mind and we are not as smart as you. 
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    I wanted to see if coptic_deacon can get this.  And I don't mean this to be smart, but if he can figure it out, it makes it much easier to understand the concepts he's asking.
  • coptic_deacon
    edited November 2014
    @minasoliman

    Iron and Fire??? I've heard about it but it hasn't been explained to me.


    I only asked for specificity and concision because I am below a beginner level in this area. Most people who try to help don't have a coherent structure to their answers, so I asked for the naked basics and then I like to ask an infinite amount of follow up questions to make sure I understand every single minute point being made.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited November 2014
    Hi coptic_deacon!

    When you touch iron it's cold, right?

    But when iron is heated, it turns reddish in color and it becomes hot, taking the property of the Fire. The analogy states that the fire and the iron become one nature, where the iron, while its own integrity of being iron is preserved, becomes fiery because of the Union with fire. Fire represents divinity and the iron represents humanity. Fiery iron is the divine humanity, our Lord the Word of God incarnate.

    So what happens when fiery iron is meshed and united with other cold irons?
  • mabsootamabsoota
    isn't wedad a lady's name?
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    @mabsoota...yes, Wedad is a lady's name. Wadeed would be the male version of it. Both coming from the word "Widd" which means friendship...
  • coptic_deacon
    @minasoliman

    They heat up?
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    And what does the heat represent?
  • ophadeceophadece
    @mina and @mabsoota,
    Wedd means liking or love, not exactly friendship..
    oujai
  • mcarmichaelmcarmichael
    @minasoliman +1
  • TITLTITL
    @minasoliman

    The Holy Spirit inside us?
  • mcarmichaelmcarmichael
    edited November 2014
    @minasoliman Fire doesn't start by itself. One must stoke a fire, before it is lit.

    Or It takes fire to make fire.

  • KahanKahan
    minasoliman said:

    HH Pope Shenouda was a product of scholastic theology gone the wrong direction in both Protestant and Islamic schools of thought.  The idea that we cannot partake or unite with God has been strong among Protestant (particularly Nestorianizing) and Islamic doctrines, and sadly, because there has not been enough translations of the Greek Church fathers, such as St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, and the Cappadocians, we seem to have lost track of the real reason for our purpose in life and for belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.  I admire the resolve for many of our bishops who defended them just because the Bible and the "tradition" taught them so, but once you go beyond that and find out what deification really is, that is the sharing of the nature of God Himself in us, in the fabric of our beings, as a form of love and unity in God, that is the ultimate reason for our existence that is worth defending.  The Church fathers took this for granted and used deification as an argument to defend the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit.  Now, if we defend the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, but not deification, we only defend the vanity of our doctrines.


    It is forgivable however, because His Holiness Pope Shenouda did a lot of good for the Coptic Church and lead the Coptic Church with its truest intentions into the learning of the Church fathers.  It's because of the Pope's work in the Church, ironically, that lead the next generation of many of those who love him to defend the essential Orthodox doctrine of deification.  So make no mistake about it, His Holiness did make a mistake, but if you understand the contemporary historical development of our theological understanding of the situation, you can recognize that this has been a pivotal and confusing moment that helps us recognize and reinvigorate our resolve in comprehending what the Church fathers have taught.

    I'll start with an analogy to help you out.  Do you remember how St. Cyril defended the miaphysis doctrine?  What analogy he used?
    Great. HH Pope Shenouda, a father of many, has been forgiven by an invalid on a Coptic forum.


  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited November 2014
    Do you have anything to substantiate your claim that I'm an invalid?  Or you do like to come to forums being useless and insulting people?
  • qawe
    edited November 2014
    minasoliman said:

    Do you have anything to substantiate your claim that I'm an invalid?  Or you do like to come to forums being useless and insulting people?

    To add to @minasoliman's question to you, @Kahan:
    Apart from the heterodox ecclesiology you seem to hold, do you have anything to substantiate your implication that fatherhood renders a person infallible and in no need of forgiveness?
  • ophadeceophadece
    @minasoliman,
    I didn't understand if you included St Athanasius and St Cyril with the Greek church fathers or they were separate?
    oujai
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    Yes, I included them as "Greek" since they wrote and spoke in Greek, even though they're ethnically Egyptian.  I guess in a similar way, you can say I'm "American" or St. Paul was "Roman".
  • ophadeceophadece
    @minasoliman,
    I completely disagree and cannot see your point at all.. anyway what is my opinion even worth?
    oujai
  • avvakarasavvakaras
    @minasoliman, @ophadece i think it will be better to say greek texts since were talking bout the language being greek. However, the fathers were egyptian and followed an alexandrian school of thought and theology so calling them greek fathers,while being patriarchs of Alexandria, would be inaccurate 
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    So by this logic, if we call the Cappadocian fathers (St Basil, St Gregory of Nyssa and St Gregory of Nazianzus) Greek fathers, we would all be wrong since ethnically they were not from Greece, even though everything they wrote was in Greek. I think we're splitting hairs here. This has nothing to do with deification and it is irrelevant. 

    Following Minasoliman's argument from an another thread, we would not call them Greek, Coptic, Alexandrian church fathers but simply "fathers" or "church fathers". The Church is one. The patriarchs of the Church in Alexandria are the same fathers as the Church in Greece, the Church in Constantinople, the Church in Rome. Here I would disagree with Mina in stating they were Greek church fathers. They are church fathers writing in Greek. Nothing more than that. And if you insist on using an ethical delimiter, then one would say "the church fathers from Alexandria who wrote in Greek". But adding "from Alexandria" or saying "Greek church fathers" is still irrelevant in our discussion on deification. 

    For God's sake, let's just reference them as "church fathers", specifically St Athanasius and St Cyril (or anyone else), and ignore what language they wrote in or what city they oversaw. Now let's get back to the discussion on deification.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited December 2014
    I'm not going to belabor the point, but yes, I called the Cappadocians "Greek" as well. I thought that was obvious.

    But I agree with Rem that we are splitting hairs and veering away from the topic, so I'm not going to discuss this any further.

    Coptic deacon, how about that last question I asked you?
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    For the record, I really don't like the example of fiery iron to explain theosis. I wrote about it in a previous thread a few years back. I will try to find it. The example has so many contradictions to modern science that needs a lot of "reconciliation". It makes one wonder why use such an example. 
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    For simplicity's sake.  Not looking for scientific accuracy.
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    But doesn't simplicity loose its efficacy if it is inaccurate scientifically or otherwise?
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    With that argument, we can say that Genesis chapter 1 should be scrapped due to its simplicity and its use of the "four elements science" of its day.  We can preface the discussion of the analogy by appealing to simplicity, not looking for scientific accuracy.  We shouldn't complicate things.  Analogies were meant to simplify what is already a complicated issue.
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    Yes. But Genesis 1 is describing an event modern science can't. No one should expect cohesion with its use of "four elements science" to "modern science". In the case of the fiery iron, you (and many of the fathers) are trying to use simple science to describe a phenomenon outside of science under the implication that the simple "science" is cohesively conformed to modern science. This isn't the case. Sure this is complicating the issue. But it is complicated because modern science shouldn't be used in the first place. 

    I will grant you that analogies are meant to be simple. But we should recognize the fallibility of the simplicity. And if there is such a high amount of fallibility, then fallible simplicity really serves no purpose and it becomes intrinsically counterproductive. To me, it's really no different than using a little white lie to verify the truth. It may work but this shouldn't be our method of operation.

    Then again, if everyone recognizes the fallibility and somehow manages to better understand theosis with this simple science, then by all means, go for it. That will result in glorifying God. 
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited December 2014
    Well, let's assume for simplicity's sake (even though inaccurate) that fire and iron are two different substances (and that fire is a "substance" in and of itself).
Sign In or Register to comment.