# رد الانبا بيشوى على جريدة الدستور فى الخرفات التى نسبتها للانبا بيشوى



## اثناسيوس الرسول (4 يونيو 2007)

رد الانبا بيشوى على جريدة الدستور فى الخرفات التى نسبتها للانبا بيشوى
  نشرت جريدة الدستور في عددها الصادر يوم 2/6/2007 مقالاً عن محاضرة ألقاها الأنبا بيشوى في قاعة مكتبة الإسكندرية بدعوة من المكتبة في المؤتمر الدولي الرابع لمركز المخطوطات بعنوان: "مشكلات فهم مصطلحات اللاهوت المسيحي بين السريانية واليونانية واللاتينية والعربية ".
وكانت المحاضرة باللغة الإنجليزية وتم توزيع نسخ على الحاضرين جميعاً، وهى في محفل أكاديمي علمي. ولم يرد في محاضرة الأنبا بيشوي إطلاقاً أن من يقول أن المسيح هو الله يكون كافراً، فهذا غير صحيح. بل رفض الأنبا بيشوي تأليه الإنسان. وذلك رداً على سؤال عقب المحاضرة للأستاذ الدكتور يوسف زيدان رئيس مركز المخطوطات بالمكتبة، عن الخلاف الذي حدث في التعبيرات اللاهوتية بين البابا كيرلس الأول (الكبير) بابا الإسكندرية ونسطوريوس بطريرك القسطنطينية والذي تم عزله في مجمع أفسس المسكوني سنة 431م. فقال الأنبا بيشوي رداً على سؤاله أن نسطور قال "أن السيد المسيح هو إنسان سكن فيه الله الكلمة ومن أجل كرامة الإله الساكن في الإنسان يسوع المسيح يُعبد الإنسان مع الإله". ورد البابا كيرلس الكبير بأن هذا نوع من الشرك بالله أن يعبد الإنسان مع الإله لأن المسيحية ترفض تأليه الإنسان. وقال البابا كيرلس الأول في رده على نسطور أن المسيح هو كلمة الله المتجسد وليس إنساناً صار إلها. وقال الأنبا بيشوى أننا نرفض الشرك بالله، ونؤمن بإله واحد. وإن المسيح هو كلمة الله المتجسد. وقد ورد عن السيد المسيح أنه هو كلمة الله في الإنجيل وورد ذلك أيضاً في القرآن، وقال الأنبا بيشوى أن الله وكلمته لا ينفصلان. فالله وكلمته وروحه إله واحد وهذا ما تؤمن به المسيحية وترفض إعتبار السيد المسيح إلهاً منفصلاً عن الله لأن الله واحد.
  أما عن ترجمة الإنجيل بواسطة الخلفاء الراشدين فقد ورد الحديث في محاضرات أخرى في المؤتمر لمحاضرين آخرين، ولم يرد إطلاقاً في محاضرة الأنبا بيشوى. وكان من ضمن المشاركين في هذا المؤتمر نيافة المطران مار يوحنا إبراهيم مطران حلب بسوريا للسريان الأرثوذكس وألقى محاضرة عن "الترجمات المبكرة بين السريانية والعربية وأثرها على ثقافة اللغتين". وكانت المحاضرة في نفس الجلسة مع محاضرة الأنبا بيشوى.
  لذلك نأمل نشر هذا التصحيح منعاً للبلبلة وحرصاً على سلامة النشر خاصة في موضوع حساس يتعلق بإيمان المسيحيين بالسيد المسيح في العالم أجمع.
الراسل: دير القديسة دميانة ببراري بلقاس


ويعلق القس عبد المسيح بسيط قائلا


  كان محور الحديث مع نيافة الأنبا بيشوي الذي نُسج حوله هذا القول هو الخلاف الذي حدث في التعبيرات اللاهوتية بين البابا كيرلس الأول (الكبير) بابا الإسكندرية ونسطوريوس بطريرك القسطنطينية حول طبيعة المسيح، فقد كان نسطور يرى أن العلاقة بين اللاهوت والناسوت في شخص المسيح هي علاقة مصاحبة وليس اتحاد، وكانت الكنيسة تؤمن بناء على ما جاء في الإنجيل وما تسلمته من الآباء، خاصة رسل المسيح وتلاميذه، بالاتحاد بين اللاهوت والناسوت في شخص واحد أو أقنوم واحد هو المسيح. والاتحاد هنا مقصود به تجسد المسيح وتأنسه وظهوره على الأرض كالإله المتجسد، كقول الإنجيل: " في البدء كان الكلمة والكلمة كان عند الله وكان الكلمة الله 000 والكلمة صار جسدا وحل بيننا ورأينا مجده مجداً كما لوحيد من الآب مملوءا نعمة وحقا " (يو1 :1و14)، وقوله أيضاً " ومنهم المسيح حسب الجسد الكائن على الكل إلها مباركا إلى الأبد " (رو9 :5)، و " الذي فيه يحل كل ملء اللاهوت جسدياً " (كو2 :9)، و " عظيم هو سر التقوى الله ظهر في الجسد " (1تي3 :16)، وأيضا " الذي كان من البدء (أي المسيح كلمة الله) الذي سمعناه الذي رأيناه بعيوننا الذي شاهدناه ولمسته أيدينا من جهة كلمة الحياة. فان الحياة أظهرت وقد رأينا ونشهد ونخبركم بالحياة الأبدية التي كانت عند الآب وأظهرت لنا. الذي رأيناه وسمعناه نخبركم به لكي يكون لكم أيضا شركة معنا. وأما شركتنا نحن فهي مع الآب ومع ابنه يسوع المسيح " (1يو1:1-3). وكان تعليق نيافة الأنبا بيشوي حول هذه النقطة مستخدما تعبيرات القديس كيرلس الكبير بالمضمون المذكور أعلاه.




وفيما يلي النص الإنجليزي الذي تم توزيعه في مكتبة الإسكندرية


Bibliotheca Alexandrina
Fourth International Manu****** Centre Conference
29 May – 1 June 2007 


Difficulties in Understanding 
the Christian Theological Expressions
between the Syriac, Greek, Latin, and Arabic Languages


Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette
Coptic Orthodox Church

Definitions of the Theological Terms:
ouvsi,a (ousia): The term ousia is derived from the Greek verb einai, “to be”. It is usually translated “substance” or “essence” (Lat. substantia, essentia), but carries an ample series of meanings not completely expressed by these words.


Essentia: essence; the whatness or quidditas of a being, which makes the being precisely what it is; e.g., the essence of Peter, Paul, and John is their humanity; the essence of God is deity or divinity. 


Substantia: substance; the underlying “stuff,” material or spiritual, of things; that which exists. Emphasis here is on concrete reality as distinct from essential, which indicates simply what a thing is. In the Aristotelian perspective, substantia indicates a union of form and matter. Form is the idea or actuality of a thing; matter (materia) is the underlying corporeal substratum. Neither by itself is a thing or a substance, since substantia is the stuff of actual, individual things and is neither an abstract genus nor an unidentifiable, indeterminate material. Thus, substance is distinguished from essence, since it is not a universal considered in the abstract. Nonetheless, substantia can indicate the formal and material reality held in common by all members of a genus as well as the formal and material reality of an individual.


Subsistentia: subsistence or subsistent; indicating a particular being or existent, an individual instance of a given essence. In this latter sense, the Latin equivalent of hypostasis, and a more technical and philosophically adequate term than persona for indicating the Father, Son, and Spirit in the Trinity.


Modus Subsistendi: mode of subsistence; used in Trinitarian language as a synonym for subsistentia and as a Latin equivalent for hypostasis; modus subsistendi is more technical and precise than persona. The term can be used generally to indicate the mode or manner of the individual existence of any thing.


Nature: is the total sum of the characteristics of a thing or a being. For example the nature of gold is that it does not rust, is a good conductor of electricity, its color or yellowish, etc.


u`po,stasij (hypostasis): A Greek noun formed from the verb hyphist?mi (stand under, support, stand off or down from). The Hypostasis is the intellectual person together with the essence or the nature that he carries.


pro,swpon (prosopon): A Greek word combining pro,j (pros) meaning “towards” with w;y (ops) meaning “face”, therefore the term means “towards face”: “kai. (kai ) o` (o) lo,goj (logos) h=n (ein) pro.j (pros) to.n (ton) qeo,n (theon)” (John 1:1). The person is the carrier of the essence and the owner of the capabilities of his nature. He is the possessor of the decision, and the one who exchanges relations with another, knows him and exchanges love with him, as Christ said to God the Father “for You loved Me before the foundation of the world” (John 17: 24). The person is morally responsible of his actions. He is distinguished from another of the same nature or essence in regards to species. The person is what distinguishes between Archangel Michael and Gabriel, between the Apostles Peter and Paul. The person is the one who is capable and responsible of his actions. 




Problems of  Terminology [ fu,sij (physis) & u`po,stasij]:


In the past Chalcedonian theologians insisted that Saint Kyrill of Alexandria was using the term fu,sij in the meaning of u`po,stasij but the Coptic, Syrian and Armenian non-Chalcedonian Churches refused this interpretation as shown below in this paper. But recently agreed statements on (Feb. 1998, June 1989, Sept. 1990) brought together the two divided parties to eliminate these problems of terminology. Also there was a debate concerning the Christology of Saint Severus of Antioch. Although Saint Severus use the term u`po,stasij in a wider meaning, yet his Christology is the same as the Christology of Saint Kyrill of Alexandria as we shall present in this paper.




fu,sij, u`po,stasij, Hypostatic Union in the Teaching of Saint Kyrill of Alexandria:


Saint Kyrill spoke about “Hypostatic Union” and refused completely the term “Prosopic Union” although for him a hypostasis cannot exist without its own prosopon.


For him to speak about two hypostaseis means speaking about two persons. That is why he wrote to his friend Acacius Bishop of Melitene:-
“Behold, those who fashion the confession of the true faith clearly name two natures, but maintain that the expressions of those inspired by God are divided according to the difference of the two natures. Then, how are these assertions not opposite to yours? For you do not allow the attributing of expressions to two persons, that is, to two hypostaseis.
But, my dear friends, I would say, I have written in the propositions:
If anyone attributes to two persons, that is, to two hypostaseis, the sayings and a***ibes some to a man considered separately from the Word of God, and a***ibes others, as proper to God, only to the Word of God the Father, let him be condemned.”


Saint Kyrill also wrote against the Nestorians in his letter to Valerian Bishop of Iconium refusing the concept that Christ was formed out of two hypostasis:
“If they should say that God and man by coming together in one constituted the one Christ with the hypostasis of each obviously preserved unblended but distinguished by reason, it is possible to see that they are thinking and saying nothing accurate in this.” 


But it is clear that he didn’t refuse that Christ is formed out of two natures as stated in his letter to bishop Acacius of Meletene: 
“Wherefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts; but after the union since the distinction into two is now done away with, we believe that, there is one physis of the Son”.


Saint Kyrill showed his refusal to prosopic union in his second letter to Nestorius (epistula dogmatica – letter 4) and wrote:
“In no way will it be profitable that the true account of the faith mean this even if some admit the union of persons (prosopic union). For the ******ure has not said that the Word united the person of a man to himself, but that he became flesh.”


But on the other side Saint Kyrill wrote in the same epistle:
“We say rather that the Word by having united to himself hypostatically (Kath Hypostasin) flesh animated by a rational soul, inexplicably and incomprehensibly became man.”


Saint Kyrill further explained :
“But if we reject the Hypostatic unity as either unattainable or improper, we fall into saying that there are two sons.”


The question now is to interpret the difference between the term “prosopon” (person) and the term “hypostasis” for Saint Kyrill.


The term hypostasis for Saint Kyrill meant always the personalised nature i.e. the person together with the nature he  possessed.


The composite hypostasis for Saint Kyrill does not mean a composition of prosopons but rather a composition of natures in one single prosopon (person).


The term hypostatic union (e[nwsij kaqV u`po,stasin) for him always meant the union of natures in one single person (prosopon).


This is why to speak about “hypostatic union” (hypostatical union) is automatically speaking about “natural union” (physical union).


That is what Saint Kyrill wrote in  his third letter to Nestorius (letter 17):
“We do not think that, being made flesh, the Word is said to dwell in Him just as in those who are holy, and we do not define the indwelling in Him to be the same. But united according to nature “kata physin” kata fu,sin and not changed into flesh, the Word produced an indwelling such as the soul of man might be said to have in its own body.”


Again in the same letter he wrote:
“The Word of God united, as we already said before, to flesh according to hypostasis “kath hypostasin”   kaqV u`po,stasin is God of all and is Lord of all, and neither is he servant of himself nor master of himself.”


For the same reason Saint Kyrill used both the expressions (Mia Physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene) and (Mia Hypostasis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene), since hypostatic union for him always meant natural union.


In the second letter to Succensus Bishop of Diocaesarea in Isauria Saint Kyrill wrote:
“If we call the Only-begotten Son of God become incarnate and made man ‘one’, that does not mean he has been ‘mingled’, as they suppose; the Word’s nature has not transferred to the nature of the flesh or that of the flesh to that of the Word--no, while each element was seen to persist in its particular natural character for the reason just given, mysteriously and inexpressibly unified he displayed to us one nature (but as I said, incarnate nature) of the Son. ‘One’ is a term applied properly not only to basic single elements but to such composite entities as man compounded of soul and body. Soul and body are different kinds of thing and are not mutually consubstantial; yet united they constitute man’s single nature despite the fact that the difference in nature of the elements brought into unity is present in the composite condition.  It is therefore idle for them to claim that if there is one incarnate nature of the Word it follows there must have been a mingling and merger, with the human nature being diminished by its removal. It has neither got smaller nor is it being removed (to use their terminology); for to state that he is incarnate gives completely adequate expression to the fact that he has become man. Had we kept silence on that point, their captious criticism might have had some ground; as it is, seeing that the fact that he is incarnate has of course been added, how can there be any suggestion of diminution or illicit removal?
‘If the self-same is seen as fully God and fully man, as consubstantial in Godhead with the Father and consubstantial with us in manhood, what about the fullness if the manhood no longer exists? What about the consubstantiality with us, if our substance..  no longer exists?’
The answer, or explanation, in the preceding paragraph adequately covers this further point. If we had spoken of the one nature of the Word without making the overt addition ‘incarnate’, to the exclusion apparently of the divine plan, there might have been some plausibility to their pretended question about the complete humanity or the possibility of our substance’s continued existence. In view, though, of the fact that the introduction of the word ‘incarnate’ expresses completeness in manhood and our nature, they should cease leaning on that broken reed. There would be good grounds for charging anybody who deprives the Son of his complete manhood with casting overboard the divine plan and denying the incarnation; but if, as I said, to speak of his being incarnate contains a clear, unequivocal acknowledgement of his becoming man, there is no problem to seeing that the same Christ, being one and unique Son, is God and man as complete in Godhead as he is in manhood. Your Perfection expounds the rationale of our Saviour’s passion very correctly and wisely, when you insist that the Only-begotten Son of God did not personally experience bodily sufferings in his own nature, as he is seen to be and is God, but suffered in his earthly nature. Both points, indeed, must be maintained of the one true Son: the absence of divine suffering and the attribution to him of human suffering because his flesh did suffer.”


In this passage Saint Kyrill explained both facts that the two natures with all its properties continued to persist in the union which formed one incarnate nature or one composite united nature.


But it should be noticed that the one nature mentioned in the teaching of Saint Kyrill does not mean that the Holy Trinity became incarnate, since the three persons of the Trinity are completely distinct from each other yet one in essence (co-essential) and one in divine nature.


The union of natures of the incarnate Word of God are the union of individualized nature, in one single person and thus forming one composite hypostasis of the Incarnate Logos.




Christology of Saint Severus of Antioch


Saint Severus strongly defended the Kyrillian Alexandrine Christology and skillfully brought into unity the Antiochene and Alexandrine teachings concerning the incarnation of the Logos.
(i) The Double Consubstantiality
Saint Severus of Antioch wrote:
“Since the one Christ is one nature and hypostasis of God the Word incarnate from Godhead and manhood, it necessarily follows that the same is known at once as consubstantial with the Father as to Godhead and consubstantial with us as to manhood. The same is the Son of God and the Son of man. He is not, therefore, two sons, but he is one and the same son.”


(ii) The Composite Hypostasis and Single Prosopon
V. C. Samuel in his book “The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined” wrote the following:
“The non-Chalcedonian theologian affirms that the union of Godhead and manhood in Jesus Christ was not a union of two natures understood as abstract realities, but of God the Son with the manhood which became individuated in the union. Though the manhood was not an independent hypostasis over against God the Son, it is hypostatic in the union. Accordingly, Severus and almost all other theologians recognized by the non-Chalcedonian side insist that the one hypostasis is not ‘simple’; but it is ‘composite’. As we have noted, this is a Cyrilline idea, which shows that the ‘one nature’ expression, as it is conserved in Alexandrine tradition, does not lend itself to be de***ibed as ‘monophysite’.
The one hypostasis of Jesus Christ is not simply the hypostasis of God the Son, but it is the hypostasis of God the Son in his incarnate state. So Severus writes in his contra Grammaticum.
The natures and the hypostases, of which he has been composed are perceived irreducibly and unchangeably in the union. But it is not possible to recognize a prosopon for each of them, because they did not come into being dividedly either in specific concretion or in duality. For he is one hypostasis from both, and one prosopon conjointly, and one nature of God the Word incarnate.”


For Saint Severus of Antioch a human hypostasis can be an individuated human nature and not a personalised nature but not in a separate existence in Jesus Christ. That is why he said that the hypostases of which the incarnate Logos has been composed “are perceived irreducibly and unchangeably in the union. But it is not possible to recognize a prosopon for each of them.”


He explained that the prosopon of the hypostasis of God the Word is shared by both the divine and the human hypostases of our Lord Jesus Christ, because as he wrote, “they did not come into being dividedly either in specific concretion or in duality. For he is one hypostasis from both, and one prosopon conjointly, and one nature of God the Word incarnate.”


The concept of assuming an individuated human nature can be seen in thought alone in the formation of Eve from Adam and also in the incarnation of the Word of God from Saint Mary the Mother of God (Theotokos).




Controversy over the Term Hypostasis u`po,stasij during the time of Saint Athanasius:


A Synod was convened in Alexandria in the year 362 AD and addressed a synodical letter to the Antiochenes from Saint Athanasius Tomus ad Antiochenos.


5 - THE CREED OF SARDICA NOT AN AUTHORIZED FORMULA. QUESTION OF ‘HYPOSTASIS.’
And prohibit even the reading or publication of the paper, much talked of by some, as having been drawn up concerning the Faith at the synod of Sardica. For the synod made no definition of the kind. For whereas some demanded, on the ground that the Nicene synod was defective, the drafting of a creed, and in their haste even attempted it, the holy synod assembled in Sardica was indignant, and decreed that no statement of faith should be drafted, but that they should be content with the Faith confessed by the fathers at Nicaea, inasmuch as it lacked nothing but was full of piety, and that it was undesirable for a second creed to be promulged, lest that drafted at Nicaea should be deemed imperfect, and a pretext be given to those who were often wishing to draft and define a creed. So that if a man propound the above or any other paper, stop them, and persuade them rather to keep the peace. For in such men we perceive no motive save only contentiousness. For as to those whom some were blaming for speaking of three Subsistences, on the ground that the phrase is un******ural and therefore suspicious, we thought it right indeed to require nothing beyond
the confession of Nicaea, but on account of the contention we made enquiry of them,  whether they meant, like the Arian madmen, subsistences foreign and strange, and alien in essence from one another, and that each Subsistence was divided apart by itself, as is the case with creatures in general and in particular with those begotten of men, or like different substances, such as gold, silver, or brass; — or whether, like other heretics, they meant three Beginnings and three Gods, by speaking of three Subsistences. They assured us in reply that they neither meant this nor had ever held it. But upon our asking them ‘what then do you mean by it, or why do you use such expressions?’ they replied, Because they believed in a Holy Trinity, not a trinity in name only, but existing and subsisting in truth, ‘both a Father truly existing and subsisting, and a Son truly substantial and subsisting, and a Holy Spirit subsisting and really existing do we acknowledge,’ and that neither had they said there were three Gods or three beginnings, nor would they at all tolerate such as said or held so, but that they acknowledged a Holy Trinity but One Godhead, and one Beginning, and that the Son is coessential with the Father, as the fathers said; while the Holy Spirit is not a creature, nor external, but proper to and inseparable from the Essence of the Father and the Son.


6 THE QUESTION OF ONE SUBSISTENCE (HYPOSTASIS). OR THREE, NOT TO BE PRESSED.
Having accepted then these men’s interpretation and defense of their language, we made enquiry of those blamed by them for speaking of One Subsistence, whether they use the expression in the sense of Sabellius, to the negation of the Son and the Holy Spirit, or as though the Son were non-substantial, or the Holy Spirit impersonal. But they in their turn assured us that they neither meant this nor had ever held it, but ‘we use the word Subsistence thinking it the same thing to say Subsistence or Essence;’ ‘But we hold that there is One, because the Son is of the Essence of the Father, and because of the identity of nature. For we believe that there is one God. head, and that it has one nature, and not that there is one nature of the Father, from which that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are distinct.’ Well, thereupon they who had been blamed for saying there were three Subsistences agreed with the others, while those who had spoken of One Essence, also confessed the doctrine of the former as interpreted by them. And by both sides Arius was anathematized as an adversary of Christ, and Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata, as impious men, and Valentinus and Basilides as aliens from the truth, and Manichaeus as an inventor of mischief. And all, by God’s grace, and after the above explanations, agree together that the faith confessed by the fathers at Nicaea is better than the said phrases, and that for the future they would prefer to be content to use its language.


It is also worthy to note that Saint Athansius was flexible in using terminology so that he was able to reconcile two different formularies in the usage of the term hypostasis by the interpretation of each terminology brining together the two parties to refuse the Arian heresy and confess the Nicean Creed.


It is historically recognized that “later the Cappadocians adopted for the formula “three hypostases, but one ousia”, which became the normal orthodox expression”.




Problems Concerning The Term Persona Pro,swpon


This term was used in the west in the meaning of hypostasis, the thing which cannot be reconcilable with the Christology of Saint Kyrill of Alexandria. 


“In the early sixth century, persona was finally given ****physical and philosophical definition by Boethius. In this classic definition, a person is “an individual substance of a rational nature” (rationalis naturae individua substantia). Boethius and his contemporary, Cassiodorus, were also responsible for the determination of subsistentia as the proper translation of hypostasis. Whereas this latter point of definition would ultimately clarify Trinitarian usage, the definition of persona retains, now at the ****physical level, the original problem of the Western reaction to the theological use of hypostasis. The latter term had caused discussion because of its original translation as substantia; and, here, persona, which Latin usage had juxtaposed with substantia, is defined as an individual substantia rather than as the Cappadocians had defined hypostasis, an individual instance of a substance or essence. This definition, with its internal problems, was inherited by the medieval doctors as the normative philosophical meaning of persona.”


“Thomas Aquinas… proposes also his own explanation of the term “person”: Persona significant in divinis relationem, ut rem subsistentem in natura divina (“Person signifies a relation in the divine, as a thing subsisting in the divine nature”)…  This solution to the problem, with its use of the term suppositum, or as frequently given, suppositum intelligens, an intelligent individual, becomes typical to medieval discussion of persona.”


“In brief, the term has traditionally indicated an objective and distinct mode or manner of being, a subsistence or subsistent individual, not necessarily substantially separate from other like personae. Thus, in trinitarian usage, three personae subsist in the divine substantia or essentia without division and, in christological usage, one persona has two distinct naturae, the divine and the human. This can be said while nonetheless arguing one will in God and two in Christ-since will belongs properly to the essence of God and to the natures in Christ, and in neither case to persona as such. Thus, in language of the scholastics, persona indicates primarily and individuum, an individual thing, or a suppositum, a self-subsistent thing, and more specifically still, an intelligent self-subsistent thing (suppositum intelligens).” 


The non-Chalcedonians believe in one united incarnate divine-human nature in Christ, which is a composite nature and also in one personal will for the Logos incarnate. They do not deny that this composite nature is out of two natures united together without confusion, with all their properties and functions including natural will and natural energy. Recently it was possible to reconcile Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christology in the agreed statement of Sept. 1990 (Chambesy – Switzerland). 


“The real union of the divine with the human, with all properties and functions of the uncreated divine nature, including natural will and natural energy, inseparably and unconfusedly united with the created human nature with all its properties and functions, including natural will and natural energy. It is the Logos incarnate who is the subject of all willing and acting of Jesus Christ.”


Two natural wills were united without confusion or separation in one person. The natural wills of both divinity and humanity continued to exist in the union. The natural will is an expression of the natural desire. i.e. the desire of the nature. 
The personal will is an expression of the decision i.e. the decision of the person.


Since Jesus Christ is composed only of one single free person (prosopon). That is why He always had one decision i.e. one personal will. In this decision He was one with the Father and the Holy Spirit according  to His divinity, at the same time He was obedient to the Father according to His humanity.


Our human nature was blessed in Jesus Christ, being the head of the Church, He became a cause of salvation to all who obey Him.




The Nestorian Heresy:


It was a great tragedy in the history of Christianity that Nestorius the condemned patriarch of Constantinople taught during his ministry that Christ is a man given the glory of God, saying that since the second person of the holy trinity, God the Logos, dwelled in the man Jesus Christ, this man should be worshipped with God, and that God the Logos gave his authority, honor and names to the man Jesus. By doing so he entered the heresy of deification of man which is refused by the true orthodox. He also separated the two natures of Christ but unified the will, and he spoke about personal (prosopic) union that is the union of two persons in Christ and that the Son of God is one and the Son of man is another. The prosopic union for Nestorius meant an external union of images, the image of man and the image of god. He absolutely refused the natural and hypostatic union. Orthodox Christianity believes that “great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh” (1Timothy 3:16) and refuses to separate Christ Who is the Word of God from God the Father as if another god can be worshipped since God said in the holy ******ures, “My glory I will not give to another” (Isaiah 42:8), and we believe in one God. 


Although Nestorius became Patriarch in the year 428 AD and Saint Athanasius departed in peace in the year 373 AD, yet Saint Athanasius in his synodical letter to the Antiochenes 362 AD Tomus ad Antiochenos wrote the following against the Nestorian heresy before it became a real danger faced by the third Ecumenical Council in the year 431 AD in Ephesus. This defense expressed the faith handled once to the Church:


“But since also certain seemed to be contending together concerning the fleshly Economy of the Savior, we enquired of both parties. And what the one confessed, the others also agreed to, that the Word did not, as it came to the prophets, so dwell in a holy man at the consummation of the ages, but that the Word Himself was made flesh, and being in the Form of God, took the form of a servant, and from Mary after the flesh became man for us, and that thus in Him the human race is perfectly and wholly delivered from sin and quickened from the dead, and given access to the kingdom of the heavens. For they confessed also that the Savior had not a body without a soul, nor without sense or intelligence; for it was not possible, when the Lord had become man for us, that His body should be without intelligence: nor was the salvation effected in the Word Himself a salvation of body only, but of soul also. And being Son of God in, truth, He became also Son of Man, and being God’s Only-begotten Son, He became also at the same time ‘firstborn among many brethren.’ Wherefore neither was there one Son of God before Abraham, another after Abraham: nor was there one that raised up Lazarus, another that asked concerning him; but the same it was that said as man, ‘Where does Lazarus lie;’ and as God raised him up: the same that as man and in the body spat, but divinely as Son of God opened the eyes of the man blind from his birth; and while, as Peter says, in the flesh He suffered, as God opened the tomb and raised the dead. For which reasons, thus understanding all that is said in the Gospel, they assured us that they held the same truth about the Word’s Incarnation and becoming Man.”


وفيما يلي ترجمة الجزء الخاص بنسطور


قدم نيافة الأنبا بيشوى ورقة باللغة الإنجليزية فى المؤتمر الدولى الرابع لمركز المخطوطات بمكتبة الأسكندرية بعنوان "مشكلات فهم مصطلحات اللاهوت المسيحى بين اللغات الأربعة: السريانية، اليونانية، اللاتينية، :والعربية" ورد فيها ما يلى فى صفحة 10 بخصوص الهرطقة النسطورية


The Nestorian Heresy:


It was a great tragedy in the history of Christianity that Nestorius the condemned patriarch of Constantinople taught during his ministry that Christ is a man given the glory of God, saying that since the second person of the holy trinity, God the Logos, dwelled in the man Jesus Christ, this man should be worshipped with God, and that God the Logos gave his authority, honor and names to the man Jesus. By doing so he entered the heresy of deification of man which is refused by the true orthodox. He also separated the two natures of Christ but unified the will, and he spoke about personal (prosopic) union that is the union of two persons in Christ and that the Son of God is one and the Son of man is another. The prosopic union for Nestorius meant an external union of images, the image of man and the image of god. He absolutely refused the natural and hypostatic union. Orthodox Christianity believes that “great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh” (1Timothy 3:16) and refuses to separate Christ Who is the Word of God from God the Father as if another god can be worshipped since God said in the holy ******ures, “My glory I will not give to another” (Isaiah 42:8), and we believe in one God. 


:وترجمة ذلك 
:الهرطقة النسطورية
كانت مأساة عظمى فى تاريخ الكنيسة أن نسطوريوس بطريرك القسطنطينية المدان علَّم فى أيام خدمته بأن المسيح هو إنسان أُعطى مجد الله، قائلاً بأنه حيث أن الأقنوم الثانى من الثالوث القدوس، الله الكلمة، سكن فى الإنسان يسوع المسيح، فإن هذا الإنسان يجب أن يُعبد مع الله، وأن الله الكلمة أعطى للإنسان يسوع سلطاته وكرامته وألقابه. وبذلك أدخل هرطقة تأليه الإنسان التى ترفضها الأرثوذكسية الحقيقية. كما أنه فصل بين طبيعتى المسيح، لكنه وحّد المشيئة، وتكلم عن إتحاد أشخاص (شخصانى) أى إتحاد شخصين فى المسيح، وأن إبن الله هو واحد وابن الإنسان هو آخر. إن الاتحاد الشخصانى بالنسبة لنسطور يعنى إتحاد خارجى فى الصورة، صورة الإنسان وصورة الله. ورفض تماماً الإتحاد الطبيعى والاتحاد الأقنومى. إن المسيحية الأرثوذكسية تؤمن بأنه "عظيم هو سر التقوى الله ظهر فى الجسد" (1تى 3: 16) وترفض فصل المسيح الذى هو الله الكلمة عن الله الآب، وكأن إله آخر يمكن أن يُعبد مع الله لأن الله قال فى الأسفار المقدسة "مجدى لا أعطيه لآخر" (اش 42: 8)، ونحن نؤمن بإله واحد

http://www.free-christian-voice.net/maqal-3.html


----------



## BITAR (5 يونيو 2007)

*رد على: رد الانبا بيشوى على جريدة الدستور فى الخرفات التى نسبتها للانبا بيشوى*

*شكرا *
*اثناسيوس الرسول*
* ربنا يباركك*
*مجهود رائع*​*تحياتى*​


----------



## Moony34 (5 يونيو 2007)

*رد على: رد الانبا بيشوى على جريدة الدستور فى الخرفات التى نسبتها للانبا بيشوى*

مسلسل من الإستفزاز والغباء لا ينتهي... أنا كنت باحترم الجريدة دي لكنها سقطت من نظري
ربنا يعوضك تعب محبتك يا أثناسيوس


----------

