In the articles, two important issues were mentioned, inserted here and there without a complete treatment that would exhaust the topic. My circumstances while writing were harsh because I was busy with my personal concerns, both ecclesiastical and legal (1).

I decided to devote it to this chapter so that the reader can avoid any errors that some authors may encounter.

Veloski presented the topic in a confusing and incorrect way (page 144 of Sufi Theology). It was based solely on Maximus the Confessor (2). He is fond of Dionysius's distorted approach, i.e. negative theology, and applies it constantly everywhere. As for John of Damascus, he understood Maximus as he was, using moderation and reconciling the sayings of the fathers to choose the best opinions. Loski mostly follows the line of the philosophical fathers, namely Nyssa, the apostate Dionysius, and Maximus. Bulgakov is a theologian who philosophizes matters and becomes passionate (The Incarnate Word, p. 220 and... French translated from Russian). But it is known that the greatest fathers of the Church were jurists, so they used jurisprudential language, according to de Reunion.

1 - The first issue

The first issue concerns Adam's state in Paradise before and after sin.

In Paradise, Adam lived a state of bliss without knowing illnesses, illnesses, or rejected whims and desires. He was destined for eternal immortality. God created him free with the authority to choose good or incline to evil. His freedom is a vital area for him to choose his energy for good and to benefit from the grace of the Holy Spirit in order to become a god by grace, not in the style of Satan, who was arrogant when he sought divinization with his own ability, but in the style of his transparency to the action of the Holy Spirit.

But Adam chose sin. His freedom reflected God's freedom and will. He committed a sin, and corruption entered his will and nature, and he fell prey to rejected desires, subject to pain and other symptoms and fluctuations. He died spiritually, and his spiritual death resulted in his physical death and the dissolution of the body after death and its becoming dust. Sin entered the world, and all people inherited Adam's fallen nature, so they were subjected, like him, to the law of death and dissolution. (3).

After that, we became wearing leather, losing our initial transparency. In the opinion of Nyssa and Maximus, after sex was a possibility, since God expected [not as man expects] our fall, it became a necessity. It is a way to preserve people after the fall. Sex was not the cause of susceptibility to death but a relative antidote to it (4).

During the funeral service, he repeated with Gregory the Theologian that God had decreed death for us so that evil would not remain eternal. Death eliminates evil (5). The Eastern Fathers did not say in Augustine's article that we are responsible for Adam's personal sin. He was misled by the Latin translation of Romans 5:12 (6). We are responsible for our personal sins. But we inherited nature from him, so we suffered what the bearer of corruption suffers. It was death to the human race (7). Human nature fell, and its fall was irreparable. Only the hand of the Almighty was able to raise her up (8).

2 - The second issue

It relates to the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Epistle to the Hebrews says that he became like us in everything except sin (9). The Holy Spirit descended on the Virgin Mary before her conception, purified her, and she conceived the beloved Son and gave him human nature. As long as Mary was pure like Adam and Eve before sin, it is necessary theoretically That Christ's human nature would be like the nature of Adam and Eve in Paradise. This is theoretically. In reality, Mary suffered bitter pain at Calvary and died. Jesus himself knew hunger, thirst, sleep, anxiety, and confusion in the face of death, and the struggle of death until his sweat became drops of blood. He tasted the bitter cup of pain. His body was pierced with nails, spears, and a crown of thorns. He suffered all the misery that the sin of Adam and Eve brought upon us, except sin. He had no inclination to sin. He bore our whole burden except sin. Athanasius the Great and other fathers, and our Orthodox hymns during Holy Week in particular, narrate what Jesus endured and make that tools to save us, meaning that Jesus endured it on our behalf so that we might be saved from it and sanctified by it.

So what's the matter? Jesus bore everything for us so that we could escape all the consequences. However, it is impossible for him to have a tendency to sin, otherwise he would need someone to redeem him. It is the mineral of purity. Therefore, He became able to be our Redeemer while His humanity is still united with His divinity. His pain is the pain of an incarnate God capable of erasing our pain and suffering. Not only were they equal in everything I mentioned, but he went beyond that before Satan tempted him. But he did not fall, and his fear in the face of death was not the fear of a coward, but rather the reaction of a fully humane person in the face of death.

Jesus came from a virgin mother, just as Adam was from a virgin mother. However, for our sake and for the sake of our salvation, He condescendingly agreed that His nature should be susceptible to the symptoms to which we are exposed, except for the tendency toward sin and corrupt desires. This is kindness on his part, so he accepted pain willingly and endured everything willingly Never out of necessity (10). Isn’t it He, may He be glorified and exalted, who said: “But I give it by choice.” I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it back. This is the commandment that I received from my Father.” (11).

But we remain with two sub-issues: 1- Was his body in the grave capable of dissolution? Al-Dimashqi says that the inspired fathers held that Jesus' body was invulnerable in the grave. Marmor 16, which was cited by the Apostle Peter (Acts 2:31), speaks explicitly that God will not let the body of Jesus see corruption. Athanasius the Great talks about his divinity, which established his humanity. For our sake, He took a body capable of death, but the divinity exists so that the body, after death, may wear imperishability. Al-Damashqi, after Anastasius of Sinai and others, makes a distinction between two types of corruption, making disappearance in the grave a type of both of them. Jesus’ body was not capable of it. (12). Al-Dimashqi excluded sex and reproduction from the humanity of Jesus, as they are of no use (13).

A final issue remains the birth of Jesus without labor pains. There are many church hymns that mention this. The Theotokos say at Vespers to the sixth tune: “...Who does not praise and glorify your birth, innocent of childbirth and childbirth...” Thus God erased the pain of childbirth that He decreed on Eve. (14).

3 - Historical overview

Given that the Antiochian See resisted the heresy and issued a synodal decision condemning it, a historical overview was added here. The heresy of those who believed in corruption appeared in Egypt among the Copts of Julian's party and his companions. Severus of Antioch and his group of them resisted it. The Copts split into two parties. The heresy infiltrated Emperor Justinian through the infiltrated followers of Origen (Bishop of Jaffa). He issued an imperial order (15). The Patriarch of Constantinople resisted it and was deposed. John of Antioch (from the village of Sarmin) succeeded him without accepting it. It met resistance in Palestine, Egypt and France. But the eyes of the world turned to Patriarch Anastasius I of Antioch. He called his bishops to a council that included 153 bishops (16). They condemned it, declared their readiness to give up their seats, and sent a message to the Emperor rejecting it, along with their justifications for doing so. Anastasius Hattab prepared to say goodbye. But the emperor's death in the same year 565 turned things around. Suddenly his successor Justin II canceled the order (17). Thus, the great emperor failed to impose a deviant doctrine on the church. We have suffered greatly from the pranks and fluctuations of the emperors, from the first of them, Constantine, until the end. Orthodoxy remained steadfast. All credit here goes to Anastasius, the champion of the faith (18).

(1) Here we see that it is good to present a profile of Deacon Espero: born in 1923 [May God prolong his life and make his years peaceful and his service blessed] Al-Muzaira’a, Latakia/Syria. He studied law at the University of Damascus and graduated in 1946. He registered as a lawyer in the Latakia Bar in 1947. He devoted himself to practicing law and studying theology, philosophy, law, psychoanalysis, and history. In 1962, he fought sectarian battles alongside Patriarch Theodosius Abi Rjaileh until Bishop Elias Moawad won the patriarchate. So he turned to theological writing. He was ordained a deacon on November 3, 1972. His most important works: ^[1]The secret of divine management, ^[2]Jehovah or Jesus, ^[3]Oh Jesus, ^[4]God in Christian theology, ^[5]Manifestations in the Constitution of Faith, ^[6]The fake ones, ^[7]Fadi and Thespina, ^[8]Recognition and psychoanalysis, ^[9]Women in the eyes of the church , ^[10]Ape or human?, ^[11]In repentance, ^[12]The path of hermits…The most important points of interest: Christian doctrines, Sufi ascetics, and ecumenical councils. “About the book: You asked me, and I answered you.” (Al-Shabaka)

(2) Regardless of this topic, which the deacon will explain later. There is always a danger in relying on one patristic saying. He may have dropped some ideas and not presented them, or he may not have expanded on another idea. Therefore, we will receive incomplete information, and the problem will become greater if we try to tell the saint what he did not say or what he did not mean.... (the network)

(3) In 1951, I revised a weak translation of the Russian book of Saint Enocandius without being able to use the Arabic translation of Gerasimus Yared and the English translation of Father Lazarus Moore, as my brothers lost my copy of them. It was printed in Latakia and Amman. The book holds up well. On page 16 and the following, the author discusses the topic.

And also Athanasius the Great in the Divine Incarnation 3-5 and Against the Pagans 2-4, Cyril of Alexandria Min. 69: 745 [or 740, the number is not clear], 1197, 71: 377, 73: 128, 752, 76: 637, 640, Theodoretus of Cyrus Min. 80: 125, 137, 1244, Doritius of Gaza (pp. 146-149 of the edition [no text]), Maximus Min 90: 312 and Centuries 2: 76. Athanasius said that Adam was created from nothing and his nature was therefore capable of ending in death. Rather, divine grace preserved him for eternal immortality. Many of them are based on this, including Maximus and Damascus 2:3 and Photius (The Library, Volume 3: 76, Paris Edition 1962) and also Nemesius of Homs, The Soul, Chapter 3.

(4) Loski, Orthodox Doctrines, No. 48, pp. 231-233.

(5) Sermon 45:9

(6) On this topic, see the following topics: “Comparative theology on the consequences and transmission of serious sin" And the"The consequences of serious sin"… (the network)

(7) Isidorus of Vermios, Min. 1101 and 1292, and Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople. in Latin Minn. 48: 685, 779 and Theodoretus of Cyrus Minn. 80: 1244, 136, 1326 and Minn. 83: 40, 482, 245 and..; Maximus the Confessor, Min 90: 632 and 312, Anastasius of Sinai, on Psalm 50: 7 (1244). As for Cyril, he mentioned it repeatedly, Min. 69: 21, 856, 1100, 73: 656, 74: 784, 788, 789, 75: 1271, and 76: 1205.

(8) Al-Dhahabi in his sermon 11 on John.

(9) Hebrews 4: 15. Maximus the Confessor dealt with the subject in his own difficult theological style, the important provisions of which were conveyed by Damascus. However, I avoided that here as it is exhausting to read. It was presented briefly by Rioux in his book on Maximus (80-88). Borodin touched on this and the previous topic in her book (40-52 and 188-208). It is also difficult to understand. Loski's methods were presented in his books “Sufi Theology” (109-131) and “In Image and Likeness” (123-139). Borodin excelled in clarifying the differences between the West and the East.

(10) Athanasius the Great, In the Incarnation of the Word 5-8, against Aerius 2:69 and 3:34 and 56 and Athanasius the Apostle against Apollinarius, Min. 26:1903 and…; Blind Didymus, in Trinity 3:21; Basil the Great, Epistle 261:3; Gregory the Theologian, Chapter 30:3, 14, 21 and Chapter 36; Nyssa, Epistle 17 and Against Apollinarius; Epiganius, Incoratus 23; Chrysostom, Al-Mimara 11:2, 23:23:1Z2Z67:1 and 2 or 2 and 67:or 2 on John, and Al-Mimara on Psalm 6, Book on Heresies 10, Anastasius of Sinai, Min 89:13 and..., Maximus the Confessor, Neighborhood With Pyrrhus, Damascus, On Faith 3:20-28 in Minn. 64:1084-1100 and The Two Wills, Minn. 95:173-177.

(11) Anastasius of Sinai, Min 89: 295 and 293, Damascene 3: 28, Athanasius, On the Incarnation 9 and 20.

(12) Al-Dimashqi, Maine 95: 176 and Meyendorff.

(13) John 10:18.

(14) Genesis 3:16.

(15) Flesh and Martin see only an order.

(16) According to Stein's estimate, 150 according to Deschenes' estimate, and 195 according to Flesch and Martin's estimate, citing John of Ephesus (in Michael the Syrian). Whatever the number, it shows the strength of the Antiochian see in the year 565. Not all bishops were present. However, the number of bishops is large.

(17) Ernest Strin, Historie du Bass-Empire, t. ii, p. 233-235, 681, n. I et 687-689, Paris, 1949; Fliche and Martin, Hist. de l'Eglise, t. IV, p. 480-1, Paris, 1948; Louise Duchesne, Eglise au VI Siècle, p. 270-3, Paris, 1925.

There is a stream of references in each of these three references.

(18) {Before we conclude this chapter and the topic of corruption and incorruption, we would like to quote what was stated in the lecture of Father Dr. Mesrop Krikorian, entitled “Messianism in the Liturgical Tradition of the Armenian Church.” It is one of the words delivered during the meetings of the Orthodox Church with the non-Chalcedonian churches. These meetings were collected in a book issued under the title “Does the Council of Chalcedon Divide or Bring Together?” “Towards a rapprochement in Orthodox Christianity.” Edited by: Paulus Gregory, William Lazareth and Nikos. Translated into Arabic by: Father Michel Negm. Issuing Al-Nour publications in partnership with the Middle East Council of Churches 1987. We quote from page 165 and the following, in which Father Mesrob speaks about the liturgy of the Armenian Church, and says (All that will come within... [] Here is a quote from the book:

[“O Virgin Mary, in your womb God Christ our Savior resides without corruption, so we glorify you” (Footnote 27) “And you were born of the holy Virgin with an incorruptible body, so we glorify and praise you without ceasing” (Footnote 28) The incorruptibility of the body of Christ, being an important and precise issue, has been the subject of research. Long and sharp and also argumentative. Severus of Antioch (465-538) taught “that the body of the Lord was corruptible on the cross and that it was subject to corruption.” (Footnote 29) This false teaching of Severus was rejected and refuted by Julian Halicarnus (in the fifth and sixth centuries), but his followers also fell into exaggeration and went so far as to declare “that the Lord’s body is immune to pain and that it is immortal even before the resurrection.” (Footnote 30).

The Armenian Church does not accept Severus heresy Concerning the suffering of God, that is, the suffering of the Divinity on the cross, or the opinion of Julian who said of the spectrum of the incarnation and the belief that the body of Jesus Christ was incorruptible and incorruptible and that Christ, being the true, indescribable unity of the perfect God and the perfect man, suffered on the cross:] .... etc.

Later, during the discussion of the lecture delivered by Father Mesrob, Father Samuel (as it turns out a representative of the Coptic Church) said in that session (p. 182):

[It is doubtful whether he truly understood the Armenian tradition rejected by Severus. In the Syrian history of Michael, the writer indicates that in the year 627 B. M. The Syriac and Armenian churches reached an agreement on the issue under discussion. The incident must be respected].

Father Masroub responded, on the same page:

[Recently the teachings of Severus and Julian have been closely examined by the Armenian Church, most notably by Patriarch Malachia Ormenian, Archbishop Gargin Yursufian, and Professor Arvand Terminasyan].

In this presentation, we did not want to show anyone’s heresy or which opinions are correct, but what we wanted to say here is that the Armenian Church considers the greatest saint of the non-Chalcedonian churches to be a heretic. Therefore, what we would like to say is that the non-Chalcedonian churches are not united by one faith and do not consider themselves one church, as much as they are united by their rejection of Chalcedon.

Today, too, the Syriac Church practices some sacraments with the Nestorian Church without hesitation.

So, when they were freed from the Chalcedonian complex, we reached communion. But if partisanship remains for history, nationalism, and people, instead of Christ, regardless of the status of these people in the church, we will not take any step toward the return of communion.

[(Footnote 29) (Girq Thltoc “Book of Letters” “Telvis 1901” p. 60) The Armenians, especially the Catholics Nerses Bagriond (548-557) and Yevanes Japtin (557-574) They condemned and bullied Severus and his heresy, see the Book of Letters, pages 56, 57 and 83 and Ivannes Ozniki (717-728). See Arvand Vardapt Treminasin, Relations of the Armenian Church with the Syriac Churches (in Armenian) (Ajmiazin 1918), pp. 185-203. However, it is useful to point out that his name is not mentioned Those heretics Those who were valiant in the laying on of hands ceremonies - see Mick Mastock, (The Great Book of Rites) (Istanbul 1807) pp. 259-60. The ritual of laying on of hands for the clergy, deacons, priests, fathers and patriarchs, the aforementioned reference, pp. 234-343.

(Margin 30) Zosrovik al-Tarjuman, eighth century, edited by Father Gargin Yusufvin (Ajmzin 1899), p. 163. Zosrovic refuted the heresy of Julian (cited reference, Chapter V, pp. 149-84), as well as the Armenian-Syriac Council of Malzgert (Menzikert), which was held in the days of the Catholicos Ivan Ozniki (Zosrovic, pp. 75-86). The name of Julian of Halicanus (Bodrum) was not mentioned among the names of the heretics who were put to death during the service of the laying on of hands on the clergy (Ritual of the Laying on of Hands, pp. 259-60).]}… (the network)