Dioscoros

2.7K posts

Dioscoros banner
Dioscoros

Dioscoros

@dioscoros_

Присоединился Şubat 2024
24 Подписки403 Подписчики
Dioscoros
Dioscoros@dioscoros_·
Actually, Maximus explicitly holds that the 2 natures are said to be “united” by being hypostatically identical, while not being essentially identical. So no, Maximus does not hold that the union is a natural henosis into one nature, which is what a union “by/according to nature” would be. If the saints become identical to Christ according to hypostatic identity, then that’s exactly how strong Maximus conceives the “union” of the 2 natures.
English
1
0
0
39
MetaChristianity
MetaChristianity@M_Christianity·
2/2 “….Maximus the Confessor distinguishes the Hypostatic Union in Christ as a "by nature" ie union of two natures into one person, whereas Deification is a "by grace" ie union where human persons are incorporated into Christ's existing personhood. While Christ's incarnation involves the Word enhypostasizing human nature, deification involves the Word identifying believers with that human nature, making it a completed extension of the incarnation….” x.com/m_christianity…
MetaChristianity tweet media
MetaChristianity@M_Christianity

4/4 “Samuel Korb’s essay: Maximus the Confessor distinguishes the Hypostatic Union in Christ as a "by nature" ie union of two natures into one person, whereas Deification is a "by grace" ie union where human persons are incorporated into Christ's existing personhood. While Christ's incarnation involves the Word enhypostasizing human nature, deification involves the Word identifying believers with that human nature, making it a completed extension of the incarnation.”

English
1
0
0
43
Dioscoros
Dioscoros@dioscoros_·
Hill, you already conceded that EO theosis is wrong when you conceded that the saints do not become identical to the Lord. Yet it was shown to you that Maximus very explicitly says and then elaborates that they do become identical to the Lord, twice in the same passage. You then put your head into the sand and claimed “kai tauton auto” doesn’t mean that “and identical to him” even though that’s very obviously what it means. You aren’t a serious interlocutor, you’re doing your own religion a disservice by continuing to speak after showing you don’t know the first thing about EO. Sit down and learn about your own religion first.
Hill@YariLogos

Anti Chalcedonians say the EO theosis is incorrect, the Saints are not uncreated. Yet, St Cyril says the Saints are: "made conformable to His Resurrection and His glory" & that Christ "shares with His creatures what appertains to Himself alone."

English
2
4
20
1.4K
Dioscoros
Dioscoros@dioscoros_·
Now you’re just blatantly misrepresenting me. I already said that Maximus has multiple concepts of identity, which means he does not have to be referring to identity of essence when he says the saints become identical to the Lord Himself. Thanks for showing that you’re unable to engage honestly. You and your cohorts will never be able to cope with Maximus saying the saints become identical to Him (the Lord) and “if such a thought is not to onerous for some to bear” that they become the Lord Himself. So you will only ever point to other passages of Maximus to try to argue that he was inconsistent with himself. But the burden of proof isn’t on anyone but you to prove that Maximus was self-consistent. It actually helps my position when you attempt to demonstrate him being inconsistent.
English
1
0
0
32
MetaChristianity
MetaChristianity@M_Christianity·
@maksimologija @orthobrohammer @Fatherspyridon @mjjhoskin ▪️Deification as a Hypostatic Union is possible depending on what the requisite terms mean. ▪️Maximus’s Union ≠ Identical ▪️Miaphysitism may insist Uncreated-Created becomes metaphysically indistinguishable in its Christology, but that’s just not a serious conclusion. The predication you chose is [IDENTICAL] and that has a simple solution because that term necessitates Essence. You are free to draw further distinctions beyond “IDENTICAL” but until you do your claim is that Maximus necessarily includes Essence. Whereas that is not the case presumably as per: “….the whole man wholly pervading the whole God, and becoming everything that God is, without, however, identity in essence, and receiving the whole of God instead of himself….” Maximus ~ x.com/m_christianity… ~
MetaChristianity@M_Christianity

@miaphysite3 @maksimologija @orthobrohammer @Fatherspyridon @mjjhoskin @YariLogos 3/3 Whole God and whole man: Deification as incarnation in Maximus the Confessor —by Samuel Korb Open Access ——>

English
2
0
1
80
Dioscoros
Dioscoros@dioscoros_·
Actually, you misrepresented Hill because he said “we are not made identical to Christ” without qualification (attached). Besides, I was the one who pointed out to someone else before that Maximus has a framework where he can reject the identity of essence between the 2 natures, but also can confess an identity of hypostasis between them. The relevant identity, as described throughout but ignored by your incompetence, is that Maximus says the saints are identical to “the Lord Himself” if such a thought is “not too onerous for some to bear.” Whether one wants to identify the self/auto of “kai tauton auto” with hypostatic identity, essential identity, or if they want to posit a third type of identity, is entirely another matter. So no you don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s fitting for you to display this when defending Hill who also doesn’t know the very basics of what he talks about.
Hill@YariLogos

Anti Chalcedonians be honest challenge: impossible We are not made identical to Christ. We are made one with Him.

English
1
0
0
102
MetaChristianity
MetaChristianity@M_Christianity·
@dioscoros_ Well as @YariLogos points out the predication of Identity is a messy zip code. It’s peculiar that you say Identity in Essence is unnecessary data because without that bit of data your definition could land anywhere.
MetaChristianity@M_Christianity

@miaphysite3 @maksimologija @orthobrohammer @Fatherspyridon @mjjhoskin @YariLogos 8/8 This is called lying: “See! E.O. DOES believe we become the divine essence itself equal to God in every way! Heretics!” ((Miaphysite))

English
1
0
0
78
Dioscoros
Dioscoros@dioscoros_·
I didn’t say that Maximus explicitly invokes identity of essence with the saints though. I said that he says the saints become identical to the Lord, which he does say, and which Hill admitted he regards as heretical. Whether identity of essence is a logical entailment of being identical to the Lord is another question which is not under the immediate investigation.
English
1
0
0
59
Dioscoros
Dioscoros@dioscoros_·
That would depend on whether Hill is just that oblivious as to tauton being identity or if he was conscious about denying the meaning. Either way; I can give him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn’t know that that is the word for identity since that would be consistent with his general ignorance.
English
1
0
2
101
Dioscoros
Dioscoros@dioscoros_·
You posted pages that are totally different pages than the pertinent one that multiple Apostolic Orthodox Christians showed you. You were then showed that their editions have those pages that you posted within their edition. From what @CCyrillian said, it sounds like you either are not looking at the relevant page, or that you have an older edition than the one he has which did not yet have the page. That would mean, contrary to your initial statement, that your older edition subsequently got a page added to it in order to say what was shown to you. That would work 180 degrees against your initial statement.
English
1
0
3
115
iKan.
iKan.@CCyrillian·
The most recent edition available on Amazon is from 2008. Here is my own copy of the OSB still possessing this text. So no, it was not “ignorance which was corrected”.
iKan. tweet media
Orthodox Ethos@OrthodoxEthos

@awmanspider Edited out in later editions... Ignorance which was corrected.

English
3
3
34
3.7K
Dioscoros
Dioscoros@dioscoros_·
Holding Symeon to be a “blasphemer” in regards to “homoeroticism” is satisfied by holding to the major and minor premises: Major: One who openly likens God’s relationship with a repentant to their analogy of homoerotic actions/fantasies is a blasphemer. Minor: Symeon happened to openly write about God’s relationship with a repentant by analogizing it to homoerotic actions/fantasies of his imagination. You have expressed agreement with the minor, Hill with the major, while you have disagreed with the major, and Hill with the minor. Therefore, what I wrote above holds absolutely true and undeniable in regard to picking within the summation of the two of your positions. Yet, you seem to consider both you and Hill to be reasonable, from all that has been observed. Whether Hill reciprocates that is another question.
English
0
0
0
142
Ethan Wayne
Ethan Wayne@EthanWayne2001·
@dioscoros_ @HankRenter The attack is calling St. Symeon a blasphemer, which neither I nor Jonathan have done.
English
1
0
0
79
Dioscoros
Dioscoros@dioscoros_·
Come on Hill, just because it’s June it doesn’t mean you have to go with the cultural tidal wave. Also, even those within EO who study this recognize that Symeon fantasized about the sin of that burned-down place. @EthanWayne2001 is honest about it, brought the receipts, and none of the Dyerite mobsters were able to refute the perspicuousness of Symeon’s blasphemous homoeroticism:
Dioscoros tweet media
Hill@YariLogos

The ignorance of anti Chalcedonian knows no bounds When they go after St Symeon the New Theologian Hymns of Love, you know they're nothing but little cockroach demons

English
4
5
29
6.9K
Dioscoros
Dioscoros@dioscoros_·
If agreeing with Hill on Y and disagreeing with you on Y, while agreeing with Hill on Z and disagreeing with you on Z (because you two hold opposite things), constitutes a position which when explicated, denotes an intolerance of Symeon and an attack of a religious body, then consider this: Why is it that two people in your religious body, who you think are reasonable in this matter (yourself and Hill), are able to result in an attack on your own shared religious body? I think that’s something for the two of you to ponder, unless Hill thinks that your position is unreasonable and perhaps even blasphemous, but would prefer to not say so.
English
1
0
0
114
Ethan Wayne
Ethan Wayne@EthanWayne2001·
You’re just grasping at straws to hate on a beloved saint of our Church, because of ulterior motives. It is transparent that this is just a manifestation of your general antipathy for our Church. Saints say all sorts of scandalizing things. Often there is something to learn from in that feeling of scandal. Christ himself did this! If we went around yelling “blasphemy” at every scandalizing word, we’d quickly find ourselves in the place of the Sanhedrin, judging Christ!
English
1
0
0
66
Dioscoros
Dioscoros@dioscoros_·
I didn’t say that he endorsed the practice of same-sex activity in this life. I said that he “fantasized” about it, because that’s the appropriate language to use given that the major articles on this are called “Divine Fantasy and the Erotic Imagination in the Hymns of Symeon the New Theologian” and “Homoerotic Spectacle and the Monastic Body in Symeon the New Theologian.” You may disagree with me saying it is “blasphemous,” but that’s because I agree with people like @YariLogos in thinking that analogizing salvation to same-sex activity is blasphemous. Where Jonathan and I disagree is whether Symeon happened to analogize in a homoerotic way. But, that’s a point in which you and I agree he did. Therefore, my position on in this just a combination of what you and Hill agree on, and what you and Hill disagree on. That’s why I asked what you think about Hill’s rejection that Symeon could have possibly used this homoerotic analogy to describe God’s relationship with sinners who repent.
English
1
0
0
137
Ethan Wayne
Ethan Wayne@EthanWayne2001·
No, I don’t think Jonathan is an Orthobro. I think his point is that you’re trying to act like Symeon is endorsing same sex sexual activity, which he isn’t doing just by employing this imagery. In fact, St. Symeon writes quite explicitly that one shouldn’t read such imagery in a carnal way.
English
1
0
0
77
Dioscoros
Dioscoros@dioscoros_·
What I object to is speaking of salvation with homoerotic imagery. As a Christian, I do not believe that homosexual activities are reflective of God’s design for men and women. Ethan, you have already agreed with me that Symeon is using not bride and bridegroom analogies, or merely Solomonic eroticism within a healthily sexual framework, but that Symeon is particularly homoerotic. Now, as a counter-question for you; do you believe that @YariLogos’ utter rejection of attributing homoeroticism to Symeon is misguided, or that it makes him an “Orthobro?” Also, I commend you for unblocking me to make these responses. I respect that. I’m open to talking about these things and our past disagreements, as I have said back then and continue to say now.
English
1
0
0
55
Ethan Wayne
Ethan Wayne@EthanWayne2001·
@dioscoros_ @HankRenter Do you seriously object to speaking of the love of God for man and man for God as erotic? What about Christ being the bridegroom and the Church the bride? This is clearly just a matter of your personal bias and contempt for Eastern Orthodoxy.
English
1
0
0
80
Boris
Boris@hoppladidi·
@dioscoros_ @HankRenter @EthanWayne2001 Its your church which is turning more and more into a mega church evangelical worship not ours. By their fruits you will know them.
English
2
0
0
237
iKan.
iKan.@CCyrillian·
EOs will tell you that true theology is mystical, arising from experience of God through the sacraments, and then let a catechumen who’s never experienced the sacraments to teach theology to a bunch of strangers on the internet. It’s ok because he has a blessing though!
Orthodox Ethos@OrthodoxEthos

@NewsNFTU He has a spiritual father. He has a blessing.

English
12
5
62
2.9K
Dioscoros
Dioscoros@dioscoros_·
@HankRenter @EthanWayne2001 Song of Solomon doesn’t talk about homoeroticism. That’s like a Muslim telling a Christian to read about King David the Prophet in response to pointing out Aisha’s age when Mohammed married her. Do you know what the difference between normal sexuality and homoeroticism is?
English
1
0
10
343
Dioscoros
Dioscoros@dioscoros_·
@HankRenter @EthanWayne2001 Symeon was a homoerotic individual, and you still call him “theologian” alongside only 2 other figures; an apostle and one of the greatest patriarchs to have ever lived. I guess your sect values being a homoeroticist. Good luck with that.
English
4
1
7
2.3K
Dioscoros ретвитнул
Apostolic Orthodoxy
Apostolic Orthodoxy@ApostolicOrtho·
Hmm, fair point. Maybe instead I should have shown your saint describing a male emperor lying in bed with another man, kissing him mouth to mouth, and pressing his face upon his “members”: as an analogy for God and repentant sinners. You can blame all these low blows on C2A
Apostolic Orthodoxy tweet media
Hill@YariLogos

The ignorance of anti Chalcedonian knows no bounds When they go after St Symeon the New Theologian Hymns of Love, you know they're nothing but little cockroach demons

English
8
7
81
10.3K
Dioscoros
Dioscoros@dioscoros_·
@YariLogos @EthanWayne2001 would rock your world on what Symeon really thought… or you could keep living in delusion.
Dioscoros@dioscoros_

Come on Hill, just because it’s June it doesn’t mean you have to go with the cultural tidal wave. Also, even those within EO who study this recognize that Symeon fantasized about the sin of that burned-down place. @EthanWayne2001 is honest about it, brought the receipts, and none of the Dyerite mobsters were able to refute the perspicuousness of Symeon’s blasphemous homoeroticism:

English
0
1
16
723
Hill
Hill@YariLogos·
The ignorance of anti Chalcedonian knows no bounds When they go after St Symeon the New Theologian Hymns of Love, you know they're nothing but little cockroach demons
English
6
3
44
11.2K
Dioscoros
Dioscoros@dioscoros_·
We don’t believe that it is merely body. We reject that it is merely body and we reject that it is merely divinity. We say that it is the composite of both. On the other hand, your heretical religion teaches that the Eucharist is corruptible flesh, which means you admit it is not Christ’s risen flesh. This means that our forefathers who your coreligionists force fed your “Eucharist” to were right to spit it out onto the ground. This by your own Anastasius of Sinai’s Eucharistology.
English
0
0
3
89
Nevsky
Nevsky@OrthodoxNev·
@dioscoros_ @OrthodoxEthos Next time you partake of the "eucharist" in your worship place, ask your "priest* how it is the body of Christ without being the divine essence, and if it is merely his body and created, how that is not Nestorian
English
1
0
1
104
Orthodox Ethos
Orthodox Ethos@OrthodoxEthos·
Sad… but not surprising… This is the spirit of the age, the pestilence we are all breathing in daily: an underlying if often undetected disdain for Truth as a Person/as the Body of Christ, an incarnate Reality in time and space, and thus a resignation from it, which was brought about in part due to a reluctance to crucify our fallen rationalism, which of course cannot be the conduit for epignosis (experiential knowledge). This is the milieu in which outright nihilism thrives.
George@GeorgeNicholasK

In case you were wondering why Jonathan of Roots of Orthodoxy/Roots of Faith decided to remain Roman Catholic, here he is asking for the intercessions of Pope Shenouda Credit to @C2Antiquity

English
3
16
170
7.9K
Dioscoros
Dioscoros@dioscoros_·
This is just empty jargon which you aren’t able to corroborate. Agen ran circles around David Erhan, for instance, getting him to admit that he (Erhan) disagrees with the Acts of Ephesus, namely the Conciliar Homilies of St Theodotus. He also explained how Erhan’s idea of counting by identity combined with his formal-material hypostasis explanation renders him to confess 2 hypostases after the union. Also a host of other things… But then again, I see from your bio that you’re ROCOR-MP meaning your whole identity is claiming Old Calendarist individuals while rejecting Old Calendarism. So what you’re doing is part and parcel with your confused identity.
English
1
0
6
118
Nevsky
Nevsky@OrthodoxNev·
@dioscoros_ @OrthodoxEthos As long as Agen is unable to make the same arguments as the Fathers he loves to quote mine, I dont see why any serious Christian should debate him. He is like a toddler repeating what his parents told him to do without understanding the reasoning behind it.
English
1
0
1
115

Открыть

@maksimologija @orthobrohammer @Fatherspyridon @mjjhoskin @YariLogos @CCyrillian @HankRenter @EthanWayne2001