This is actually for all non Chalcedonian churches not just the Coptic church... I don't know how you say that it's just one nature "Man-God" or the divined man as saint Cyril of Alexandria I think put it, but when it comes to answering people who ask about how Jesus said "The father is greater than me" you say that Jesus was talking with his human form (his human part) I mean saint Cyril (I am not sure again) said we can't speak of two natures after the union, after the incarnation we can't speak about two natures... I think this is a contradiction, and it bugged me for years.
Plus how it can be one nature of two natures without mixture or so, this is not logical... and don't mention the example of the steel that is in fire, the steel that is in fire becomes molten steel and some of its properties change (like being solid, or the color when it becomes red, maybe even the outer layers turning to ash) so the steel in fire example is not logical for me!
By the way, I'm kinda agnostic, but I like to know about theological arguments and so... I was raised a Coptic orthodox and since I was 16 years old (7 years ago) I swayed to many religions but stayed for some time in a protestant church and now I left (or thinking about leaving) again, so yea my knowledge is not great and I apologize if I couldn't make my question clear enough.
Comments
“GREATER THAN” IMPLIES BEING OF ONE SUBSTANCE WITH THE FATHER. BASIL THE GREAT: “Greater” is used when talking about size, time, dignity, power, or the cause of something. The Father cannot be called greater than the Son in size because he is incorporeal. He cannot be called greater than the Son in time because the Son is the creator of time. You can’t say that he is greater in dignity either, because he was not made into something that he had not previously been, nor can you say he is greater in power since, “whatever the Father does, the Son does as well.” And finally, no one can say the Father is greater because he is the cause of the Son’s existence, because he is also the cause of our existence, and this would place the Son on a similar footing with us. Instead, see the words as expressing the honor that is given by the Son to the Father instead of devaluing the Son who speaks these words. You should also realize that what is greater is not necessarily of a different essence. One human being is called greater than another human being, just like one horse is called greater than another horse. If the Father is called greater, it does not immediately follow that he is of another substance. In a word, the comparison lies between beings of one substance, not between those of different substances. A human being is not properly said to be greater than a brute or an inanimate thing. Human beings are compared to human beings, just as brutes are compared with other brutes. The Father is therefore of one substance with the Son, even though he is called greater. AGAINST EUNOMIUS 4.42
This would be the official answer to this verse from a non-chalcedonian perspective.
All the verses you point out have explanations of their own. For instance, I was thought that the Jewish habit at the time was to recite the beginning of a verse/psalm as a means for all to begin and refer to it. Thus, when Christ was saying ELoi, Eloi, he was referring them to go and read Psalm 22. Telling them, go read, the prophecies are fullfilled.
I pray that somewhat guides your discussion, and that God bless your search.
Jesus had the human nature as well.
Combine the two natures and we have one, but they didn't mingle because He didn't sin.
Which coincidentally is what we are trying to achieve by His wisdom.
Hope I am making sense. Please forgive if not.
So we can say that the Divine nature united hypostatically with the human nature within the Virgin’s womb, but after this unity we do not ever speak again about two natures of Christ. In fact, the expression "two natures" implies in itself division or separation, and although those who believe in "the two natures" admit unity, the tone of separation was obvious in the Council of Chalcedon - a matter which prompted us to reject the Council and caused the exile of St. Dioscorus of Alexandria.
SJC,
I know you meant well but your analogies are filled with mistakes and heresies. The definition of Chalcedon is very specific and its meaning was further clarified in their 5th council. It does not speak of two separate glasses where one glass is seen when He heals the blind and another glass when he eats. (This is Nestorianism and Modalism). What Chalcedon says is the two natures and all their respective properties are preserved in the one hypostasis/person of Christ. When Christ does something BOTH His natures are "acting" simultaneously. (I put acting in quotes because natures don't act, persons or hypostases act. But that's besides the point.) That is dyophysitism. Using your analogies, Chalcedon seems to insist that the two glasses are natures and they are distinct. Sort of like one glass is a mug and the other is a cup with no handle. The point is that Chalcedonians stress a distinction of the two glasses with respective materials in it but no separation.
Miaphysitism does not mean there is one table with one glass. That would be monophysitism. If I understand your analogy correctly, in your example, miaphysitism would be still be two identical glasses with different materials or properties but they are so intimately attached to each other that the really become one composite unit. In essence, it is exactly like the dyophysite example but we just prefer to see the two glasses glued together, where Chalcedonians want to stress two glasses are distinct but not separated.
Also be careful of how you understand John 1:14. Yes, St John wrote "the Word became flesh" but that in itself can mean the Word changed or transformed into flesh. What all Christian Churches (minus some ultra-protestant churches) believe is that the Word took flesh and made that flesh His own (i.e., The Word did not take someone else's flesh or enter someone else's flesh or become something not divine). There is a big difference in the two concepts. In his time, St John wasn't concerned with difference between the two. But now the difference is important because Arianism and other heresies highlighted the difference to support their heresy.
One more thing. "Ps. For chalcedonian churches, they speak of 2 distinct natures united in 1 essence."
That is not true either. Chalcedonians are very specific in their terminology. Their definition says, "One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons"
Notice the word essence is never used at all. My point here is let's not misrepresent what Chalcedonian Churches actually say. We've done it too long and it only illustrates our ignorance to them.
Minasoliman, do you concur?
But if there is one analogy to help illustrate the nature of Christ, perhaps I would like using the idea of water and heat. Fire burns and water cools, but fiery water burns. This is a Miaphysite understanding of Christ's humanity "vibrating with divine energies" as St. Severus would say. Now the difference is that Christ can "empty Himself". In other words the fiery water can choose to cool someone even though the fullness of fire dwells "waterly" (use some imagination here without trying to be scientifically accurate) and that is because unlike contingent things like fire, the divine is free and diverse in His actions.
Another example can also be an electric wire. A wire without electricity carries no power, but electricity does. An electric wire also does.
The words "mix" or "mingle" meant different things at different times. So, I prefer to say this: the full integrity of divinity was kept and the full integrity of humanity was kept, but they were interweaved with one another, or rather the one was interwoven into the other that we may also be interwoven into it. We also are called "divine" not by a change in our integrity, but are filled with fire and power from the electric divinity, which gives us all types of gifts and blessings enhancing our humanity.
Furthermore we stress "one nature" in that if Christ isn't one in Himself for our salvation, how can we be one with and in Him?
Now Chalcedonians would probably use the same exact analogies today and mean the same thing. They are very scholastic in their words. They want to be exact as much as they can with theology. We are looser, in that we do not think of metaphysics, but in the purpose of our salvation. Christ does not act in His divinity alone or humanity alone, but uses both at all times as one whole unit for our salvation, no matter what He does. That is the purpose of Miaphysitism. Christ does not do human acts and divine acts, but theandric acts that our human acts may be deified. Chalcedonians also believe this, but they like to stress the distinctions and their full integrities, and count them. So a heated water or an electric wire will be two to them and one to us.