Talk:Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Using random church websites

Latest comment: 13 years ago31 comments4 people in discussion

Esoglou keeps using random Orthodox church websites to source an encyclopedia article. Why is that?[1] [2] Esoglou's use of this Orthodox website [3] to source a passage in the -Orthodox opinion that agrees hell is separation from God- section. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not? They don't necessarily show what the Eastern Orthodox Church as such teaches, but they do show what Eastern Orthodox churches (parishes etc.) propose as Orthodox teaching. Note too that in the two cases mentioned, these sites were not proposed in isolation, but in conjunction with and in agreement with statements by Eastern Orthodox bishops and theologians. Unless some valid justification is produced, the deletion should be reversed.

I have removed from the heading the non-neutral claim that I have used these sites as "more valid" than church authorities. I have used them instead in support of church authorities. Esoglou (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well one obvious thing about it is..Are these sites peer reviewed? How are these sites notes not giving citations or posting their sources, for their comments be justified for use here? If they have posted that, please mirror it here on this article's talkpage. I was wondering, about the sources of their comments since I can not find those sources on those websites. If I source something that is not peer-reviewed I at least source a person whom is called a theologian and is someone (if not peer-reviewed) involved in inter-faith relations and is involved in the subject of this article like say Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev who is actually in the World Council of Churches and has actually engaged in ecumenical talks with other Christian groups including the Roman Catholic church. Hilarion is a permanent member of the Joint International Commissions for the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, between the Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church, between the Orthodox Church and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

An Eastern Orthodox church (parish etc.) doesn't have to be peer-reviewed, if cited only as a view propounded by that one Eastern Orthodox church (parish etc.): what it actually says is clear proof that it does propound that view. The situation would of course be different, if it were cited as proof of what the Eastern Orthodox Church as such holds. In that case, a "citation needed" tag could well be attached to it. However, immediate removal of the citation would not be in accord with Wikipedia norms. In Wikipedia, as Richwales said above, there are established mechanisms for flagging sources whose validity might be unclear, without immediately removing them. He added that exceptions naturally exist (such as when questionable, unverifiable material is included in a biography of a living person), but these are exceptions. Esoglou (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This does not appear to be in step with the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy on Wikipedia. Which part of the policy are you referring to? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Take it up with Richwales: I was only quoting him (see above). As for me, I am letting this discussion drop. Esoglou (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I was summarizing something in a recent ArbCom ruling. Please feel free to go read it for yourself and see if you feel I described it accurately and/or if it applies here or not. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it applies here.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Intervention by Andrew Lancaster

Hi Esoglou. LoveMonkey has raised this question on the RS/N board. I thought I'd come look. I think I can understand how these citations can be made to be within WP:RS rules, but I am not sure that is the only concern with them. The other point I think that might potentially be raised, and which you can perhaps fix, is that it almost appears as if you are yourself trying to argue a case which you do not have one self-contained source for, but which you need to synthesize from several. See WP:SYNTH. In other words some of the wording seems to be presenting a narrative that makes this more than just a few random sources. Consider a reader of this article who trusts the article for example. Let's say they do not know anything about the specific authors and churchs you name. So in that case won't they be led to believe that editors of the article have agreed that this sampling of quotes is typical of the whole of Orthodoxy, and standard within Orthodoxy? Your argument above suggests that you are saying this is not your intention, so if that is not your intention perhaps you need to make slightly more clear what the sources are meant to be proving or not proving concerning Orthodoxy as a whole? I think you are just showing what some Orthodox theologians believe?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Andrew, I have failed to find in the article, as it now stands, whatever the problem is about. Since I indicated above that I was dropping the discussion, did I simply remove it as not worth fighting about? I think I cited a church site as an indication of what some Orthodox (not the Orthodox as a whole) hold (and I have since shown with much weightier sources that Eastern Orthodox are by no means unanimous in support of the views that LoveMonkey claims to be the views of the Eastern Orthodox - see, for instance, #Evident falsehood of claim that "the Orthodox" say humans had no body before the Fall), but I cannot find it now, and I don't have time tonight to search further. Please indicate what the problem is (now). Tomorrow, I will look at it again. Esoglou (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

LoveMonkey has not yet been very exact concerning which words are his concern, but I would imagine the last sentence of the section, which cites an Indiana Orthodox webpage, could be a concern under WP:NOTE and WP:DUE but also because it implies that the material is notable for the whole of Orthodoxy? (Therefore a concern under WP:SYNTH?) Is it a really important sentence? I am also thinking that the section might be helped by adding an introductory sentence that says something like "Although it is not standard doctrine, some Orthodox theologians have expressed agreement with the concept of...". I am not a big reader on church doctrines, but just using google the description of hell being discussed in this section seems more associated with American evangelical churches in modern times?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It took me some time to identify "the section" you meant, since a search for "Indiana" brought up no result, but I have now found it: the subsection "Orthodox opinion that views separation of man from God as hell" and the reference to the website of the Saint Andrew Greek Orthodox Church in "Michiana". It was your comment on hell that provided the clue. That reference is only an additional auxiliary source that shows the lack of foundation of the idea that LoveMonkey was maintaining (and perhaps still is), that all Orthodox hold hell to be in no sense separation from God. The reference is not meant to indicate that all Orthodox hold that hell is separation from God. I certainly do not question the statement that some Orthodox hold the LoveMonkey view of hell. But it is evident that not all of them share his view of hell. If the Michiana source were questioned specifically, I would doubtless not insist on its preservation. It would not be worth fighting over, in view of the more-than-sufficient evidence from Evdokimov, Ware, Quenot, Sophrony against the universality among Eastern Orthodox of LoveMonkey's idea. But, even if I would not fight to preserve the reference, I must say that what that Orthodox church (parish) teaches does seem to be clear objective incontrovertible verifiable evidence that the "in no sense separation from God" idea of hell is not universally held by Eastern Orthodox. Esoglou (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So as a practical step what about my suggestion to add an introductory sentence and to remove the church website? I can see you guys disagree about some things, but if we can define what common ground is non controversial then surely the article can be improved on that basis. Apparently concerning this section it is not controversial to say that not ALL orthodox theologians believe in this doctrine? Would you go so far as to agree with LoveMonkey that it is perhaps not even typical or approved of overall? Of course if that is correct it would be ideal to have a source for that other side of the story. I notice there is already a footnote in this direction.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary - or have I misunderstood your comment? - it is controversial to say that ALL orthodox theologians believe that hell is in no sense separation from God. I must surely have misunderstood you. Or else you misunderstood me. The context would be much clearer if the section had not been broken up into many subsections (one of them headed "Pedagogy of fear", which seems to insinuate, on the basis of a caricature, that the Western Church, but not the Eastern, holds a view of hell intended above all to inculcate fear). The article is about theological differences. Does the section on hell show that the two churches hold opposing theological views on this matter? If it cannot indicate some coherent view as that of the Eastern Orthodox Church, it cannot show any difference. Esoglou (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now rearranged the subsections to point up more clearly the two views presented as held by Eastern Orthodox about whether hell involves separation from God. I have also changed the "Pedagogy of fear" heading to a more neutral indication of the content of the subsection and, since it purports to be about the Roman Catholic view, I have put it (again) immediately before the subsection that presents the Roman Catholic view on the basis of the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church itself. Esoglou (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so then in fact you and LoveMonkey disagree about even the basics? In WP policy terms this means you disagree about what is "obvious" or "common knowledge". If that is the case then sourcing discussion becomes more difficult. The citations style you are using is hard to defend if you know there is no agreement with other editors. Remember on WP we basically only have "consensus" to appeal to. You are citing specific people as if they represent Orthodoxy, without any discussion about why that would be, but the people are not famous to the general public, who'll read the article, so they'll need to guess why; and apparently also your fellow editors are not all comfortable that these sources represent Orthodoxy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The web page that Esoglou used is directly against the view that the Orthodox church (via it's representatives including John Romanides) presented as Orthodox to the World Council of Churches for example. This view is uniform and I have given 5 MAJOR theologians Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos, Father John Romanides, George Metallinos, Isaac of Nineveh, Vladimir Lossky plus the works of two lay theologians Alexandre Kalomiros with one explicitly being endorsed by the OCA (Peter Chopelas) in the sources provided. (Lossky covers the same position in the end of his book Mystical Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church but I haven't added it yet). It is Esoglou's position that there is no significant differences between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic church (when caught about this Esoglou says there is but hasn't provided any and all these are from Orthodox theologians these that Esoglou is fighting and denying). Esoglou is trying very hard to undermine this position without the backing from his own church as he has provided no Roman Catholic theologians refutation but is just googling anything he can to contradict the position that is also an Orthodox source (wikipedia is not the place for this). Esoglou is not knowledgeable about Orthodox theology and is constantly going against estiblished Orthodox theologian and or distorting and twisting and taking out of context and misusing what they say to then pit them against one another in this and other articles. And Esoglou does allot of original research and edit warring to try and not actually allow what is being said by Orthodox theologians to be stated by trying and under cutting those statement with nonsense. I am of the persuasion that there is and that those differences needs to be addressed as a part of ecumenism and that ecumenism should be as honest as possible to fix the issues correctly as to reconcile and not actually resolve the issues of the past will only doom people to repeat them. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So do you have a clear source which could better represent Orthodoxy on this point?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

[4], [5] Please note on this second one that it is an authorized account by the same Father Thomas Hopko [6] who is the OCA peer over the Orthodox study Bible [7]. As well as Archbishop Lazar Puhalo of Ottawa Canada and the other endorsements listed in the blue box on the article including Kalomiros the author of the first link. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As you will have noticed, Andrew, these do show that there is more than one view among the Eastern Orthodox. The second account is utilized also as a basis for what is presented as the supposedly contrasting RCC teaching. Esoglou (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You asked earlier, didn't you, for something more official and authoritative than the views of theologians (even if the theologians are also bishops). That is not so easy for the EOC as for the RRC. The best I can produce, at least immediately, is The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church

383. But what will be the lot of unbelievers and transgressors?

They will be given over to everlasting death--that is, to everlasting fire, to everlasting torment, with the devils.

Whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Rev. xx. 15. And, That is the second death. Rev. xx. 14. Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. Matt. xxv. 41. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. Matt. xxv 46. It is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. Mark ix. 47, 48.

384. Why will such severity be used with sinners?

Not because God willed them to perish; but they of their own will perish, because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 2 Thess. ii. 10. Esoglou (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't post the one about Hell did you Esoglou. I beat cause it wasn't clear enough for you to justify your edit warring on this article. I hope people realize when they read this that you are by your post stating that the sources I provided are not teaching the dogma of the church and are instead outside of the church. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Before Esoglou begins his "my opinion not back by Roman Catholic sources and only possibly by Orthodoxs ones if you believe my take on them over what a whole list of Orthodox theologians are actually" treatment.

214. What is hades or hell?

Hades is a Greek word, and means a place void of light. In divinity, by this name is understood a spiritual prison, that is, the state of those spirits which are separated by sin from the sight of God's countenance, and from the light and blessedness which it confers. Jude i. 6; Octoich. tom. v.; sticher. ii. 4.

Note here no mention of Hell being a separation from God. No place and not separate from those in Heaven. As the German word Hell is no where in the Greek bible and the Greek word Hades was the abode of the heroes of old, just ask Socrates.[8] Also what is said here to said in away to be as the page explains a The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church Catechism not a theological difference nor specific clarification of difference but rather something so vague that it would encompass all three of the groups listed without indicating a difference between them. As even the word hell is Western and not used in Patristic text. It is only appended onto to those via translation. And Chopelas explains that quote clearly in his article. Now if a random church wants to compromise what is being said by multiple authoritative Orthodox sources without themselves provided a source for this let them. But they can not be justify in then being used as a source for an encyclopedia article. But Esoglou wants it both ways. As Esoglou put in multiple invalid source tags on this passage in the article..

Orthodox Christians have usually understood Roman Catholicism as professing St. Augustine's teaching^[1]^{[unreliable source?]} that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of Adam's sin.^{[citation needed]} This teaching, which is contrary to that of the Roman Catholic Church,^[2] appears^[1]^{[unreliable source?]} to have been confirmed by multiple councils,^{[clarification needed]} the first of them being the Council of Orange in 529.^[1]^{[unreliable source?]}

But at least with the Orthodox wiki there is a set of peers whom allow and or review the articles and remove them. As here is yet another Orthodox Catechism that does says very specifically that eternal punishment is not a fire in a physical sense. [9] Also esoglou is not provided Roman Catholic sources AT ALL and is spending his time attack Orthodox theologians with forensics rather than with Roman Catholic sources. This whole thing is Esoglou by himself. Again all the while against the ACTUAL POSTED AND SOURCED WORDS OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGIANS. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose if you don't agree then you're destined to just making your sources as good as possible (in order to convince each other) and trying to make the WP article reflect whatever there is that you can agree upon. In the end if you want to get in more than just a minimum overlap you have to focus more on convincing each other. Remember WP works on the basis of consensus. Sometimes, I get the impression, you'll be able to convince by offering re-wordings even.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If there was consensus Andrew there would be no schism. Wikipedia is not the place to heal the schism of the Churches it is to provided data on the why the history. I don't understand what you are saying. So the abortion article has it to where one side can not post it's position without consensus with the other? Of course not as then nothing would get posted. I appears that controversial issues could not be addressed then since what would and should be posted would first have to have consensus. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, did you perhaps mean to write: "Sometimes, I get the impression, you'll be unable to convince ..."? If you do mean "able", is there any hope you would be willing to guide us? It will be no easy task to get agreement on whether there is or is not diversity of opinion among the Eastern Orthodox on the nature of hell. See above how extremely long a discussion was required on the claimed unanimous belief of the Eastern Orthodox that before the Fall Adam and Eve had no bodies: it seems to have concluded merely with cessation of insistence on the existence of that unanimous belief, but with no admission of its non-existence. But if you feel up to providing guidance, I would welcome it. Esoglou (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou, I do not know this subject well, but I'll keep watching discussion for a while, but do not expect me to talk much. I am a fellow Wikipedian who knows what it is like. I know a third party can sometimes, perhaps rarely, help, but actually it can also hurt, because I do not want to distract from the practical fact that the only option is that the article will reflect whatever the most active editors can agree on. Waiting for someone to come and solve disagreements rarely works out well here. Turning to the comment of LoveMonkey, perhaps my previous sentences are the answer to what you wrote. Remember that writing this article does NOT require consensus between the churchs. WP is far less ambitious, and maybe this is something to always keep in mind. Wikipedia just summarizes what people agree or disagree about. I reckon you should not assume this to be impossible. No need to solve the problems of the world here, just summarise them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Esoglou needs to actually read Orthodox sources and then explain why even though I am posting what they say verbatim 1- Esoglou can't allow them to be posted and 2- Esoglou is not using Roman Catholic sources to justify what Esoglou is stating. Rather Esoglou is obsuring and wiki hounding. Why does this article say exactly what the Orthodox position on Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation is [10] and Esoglou is not posting the Orthodox position nor clarifying what the issue is. Esoglou posts two paraghs into the article giving the definition of the transubstantion. Just like Esoglou has done about Lossky about Romanides about Hell about Hesychasm about theoria about Augustine about Cassian which is to obfuscate and wiki hound not post sources about the Roman Catholic position. But rather try and find some obscure reference somewhere from a questionable source and say that some website trumps ecumenical statements by Orthodox church theologians or who Michel Quenot state that Dante said that hell is the separation of God and man but yet says that Christ removed the chasm that separates God and man somehow means that Michel Quenot now agree with Dante and not the Orthodox church he is part of. This is very poor and unacceptable tactics. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In reference to LoveMonkey's remarks at 17:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC): I think everyone else but LoveMonkey agrees that a wiki is not a reliable source (and that tags calling attention to that fact are required, if a wiki continues to be cited). ~~I think everyone else but LoveMonkey agrees that the Catechism of Philaret is a reliable source for EOC doctrine.~~ I think everyone else but LoveMonkey interprets that catechism as speaking of hell when it says unbelievers and transgressors "will be given over to everlasting death--that is, to everlasting fire, to everlasting torment, with the devils". And I think everyone else but LoveMonkey will see no essential difference between the phrase "separated by sin from the sight of God's countenance" in the part that ~~Esoglou~~ LoveMonkey himself has quoted and the phrase "separated by sin from God". Esoglou (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you should speak for yourself as I have not stated that Philaret is unreliable. I stated that it appears to be a bit in-appropriate as I also explained why so. I did not say unreliable. As for Orthodox Wiki there are some many articles here on Wikipedia that use it as a source as has been pointed out to you already that you have no excuse. I think the sevn Orthodox sources I posted would definitely see a difference and I think that they hold more as to what the Orthodox position is then you taking vague statements and reinterpreting them to use them against their own Church and theologians. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for not having understood "Also what is said here to said in away to be as the page explains a The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church Catechism not a theological difference nor specific clarification of difference but rather something so vague that it would encompass all three of the groups listed without indicating a difference between them" and I withdraw my remark about it with apologies. Esoglou (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is now 216 kbytes long

Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

...which is way over any acceptable level. Several of the lengthier sections must be moved to their own articles, with a brief summary left. If no one else does this, I will do it myself. Modalism and heaven and hell are among the obvious candidates. Also the lead needs to summarize the rest of the article, which at the moment it does not attempt. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Do go ahead, please. Esoglou (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should cut the first part of the article entirely as priest can or can not marry is off topic and not theological. Here I'll remove those ecclesiastical and non-theological difference for you both now. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. That removed a lot of text. Did it go somewhere else? The idea is not to remove text from Wikipedia entirely but to move them to other articles. I'm not sure what article title would be appropriate for the material that you removed. Perhaps something like "Catholic–Eastern Orthodox ecclesiastical differences"? If you read Johnbod's original proposal, it seems he had intended to move the text on modalism and "heaven and hell" to subsidiary articles. Can we discuss this a bit further before committing to a specific change? --Richard S (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well.. I mean the data is in the archive I have absolutely no problems with it being used by Richard to create a Orthodox-Catholic Ecclesiastical differences article. If I had deleted the sections about the actual theological sections where would they go? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted LoveMonkey's deletion for now. We will probably want to delete it again soon but I think we need to think about and discuss what we're doing first rather than act hastily without forethought and consideration. There's a lot of valuable stuff in the deleted text even if it is not technically "theological". This article started as a spin-off to keep East-West Schism from being too large. We need to make sure that the "non-theological" stuff is adequately summarized and linked to in that article. Let's discuss whether Catholic–Eastern Orthodox ecclesiastical differences is the right place for this stuff. --Richard S (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent place to put the info. I agree Richard. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, with moving these sections about "ecclesiastical issues" to a new article, however I think the new article should be called "Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox ecclesiastical differences" (especially, if we rename this article).Cody7777777 (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If the "ecclesiastical issues" go to a new article, which I don't object to, there should be explanations & links in both leads explaining the differences between the two subjects (and of course linking), as many readers will not be clear on this. Love Monkey's edit still left the article over 200K, by the way, and it is currently a few bytes under 220K! Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I find this hard to believe as Esoglou refused to not distort or summarize a book review in the Augustine section on this article that could be cut to just a few sentences. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Also there is repetitious after repetitious statement in the article under the Cassian passages. As the whole conflict is that the Roman Catholics have staked out both sides of the issue. Which contradicts itself and confuses people much like the inane Roman Catholic teachings on the Trinity. And in Cassian's case have done so and condemned Cassian as they have many many others for not being wrong (per se as one can see in their dunce, Duns Scotus) but simply because the person spoke out against and or criticized Augustine is some way. How are people going to be informed from an article that has to conform the subject matter to some arbitrary data size? How are people ever going to resolve these issues if they are not honest about them? As all of the sudden the issue can not be depicted unless it matches as certain size criteria? I think that might be OK for the Roman Catholics whom what to deny that there is anything wrong and or that this is all no big deal.

But anyone with half a brain and some negotiating skills will very quickly tell you NEVER minimize or discard or disparage out of hand one's essential position. As that will do nothing but escalate and or inflame those whom hold that position. I perceive this latest salvo as nothing more than another desperate attempt by Roman Catholic editors to silence what they don't like and or what is and has been, being said in the East. This is oh so much like the conversations with the Coptic church whom will not address how Christ has human free will but like to instead argue over the wretchedness of Rome. Distracting will not give valid data about the modes of contention, it will only sour the disagreeing parties own ecumenical sentiments. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved the text about ecclesiastical differences to a separate article titled [[Roman Catholic-Eastern Orthodox ecclesiastical differences. This article is still 219kb long though. This suggests that a dramatic reduction in text is in order (on the order of 50-70%). --Richard S (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Richard could we remove all of the duplicate, repeated mention of Lauren Pristas and Augustine Casiday mentions under the Cassian article section as the section could be rewritten as I have attempted in the past to be more concise and have been reverted by Esoglou. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea, provided of course that the duplicate repeated balance-requiring contrary claims are also removed. Esoglou (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Latest reverts Incorporeal to corporeal flesh

Latest comment: 13 years ago76 comments4 people in discussion

This latest set of reverts by Esoglou stating that the sources do not say what they say. I have removed Esoglou using the article rather then the article talkpage to vent his lack of understanding.[11] This is at least the fourth time that I have initiated at discussion on esoglou attack on contributions into the article here on the talkpage first. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou put this comment into the article
"Surely the Orthodox Church doesn't teach that it was only after the Fall that God gave human beings flesh? Genesis 2:21 expressly says that God gave flesh at least to the female human being before the Fall?" and
"Failed verification|date=August 2010|Lossky says nothing about flesh being fashioned only after the Fall"

Here is what Vladimir Lossky says in the source that I posted via Jean-Claude Larchet's book. Here I will quote Lossky directly.

"Thus in the condition of mortality which is the consequence of the coming of sin, the spiritual nature of the soul maintains a certain link with the disunited elements of the body, a link which it will find again at the moment of the resurrection in order that the parts may be transformed into a 'spiritual body', which is indeed our true body, different from the grossness of those we now have, the "garments of skin' which God made for Adam and Eve after their sin." The mystical theology of the Eastern Church By Vladimir Lossky page 104

[12].LoveMonkey (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious and a bit confused here. I have always understood the "coats of skins" (כָּתְנוֹת עוֹר) mentioned in Genesis 3:21 to refer to clothing which was given to Adam and Eve to wear over the fleshly bodies which they already had (in the Garden of Eden, before the Fall). Is the generally accepted Eastern Orthodox understanding of this passage significantly different? Please remember that I am neither Catholic nor Orthodox, and I'm not in any position to speak with confidence on the theology of either of these traditions. Richwales (talk · contribs) 14:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. That's the difference I am pointing out. Esoglou is stating that there is no such of an opinion and is edit warring on me for adding it. Esoglou first tried to claim that this distinction was irrelevant and off topic. Look at the edits he did to the addition. Edits without discussion here on the talkpage. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So, LoveMonkey, do I understand correctly that Eastern Orthodox theology (as exemplified by Lossky) does include a traditional understanding that the coats/garments of skins (χιτῶνας δερματίνους) in Genesis 3:21 either literally were, or were figuratively analogous to, physical / fleshly bodies? And Esoglou, are you saying this is not in fact a view consistent with Orthodox tradition? It would seem to me that if this view is or was widely held in Eastern Orthodoxy, there ought to be more sources available to substantiate it — if for no other reason than to assure ourselves that this really was what Lossky meant and that his words aren't being misunderstood or taken out of context. LoveMonkey, have you been able to find anyone else (other than Lossky) who has talked about this? As for myself, my first impression is that this interpretation is stretching the Genesis text and seems to contradict earlier portions of Genesis — but I'm not familiar with the Orthodox tradition on this point — though I think it's appropriate (especially given the seemingly extraordinary and controversial nature of this claim) that more sources should be brought to bear here. Apologies if you've already done that and I just am not aware of what else you've done. Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

From the philokalia (which is still not all together translated to English yet)Flesh (sarx) [13] The Orthodox really are taught the one above about flesh after the fall and when there is ecumenical discussion this distinction is as something commonly overlooked I think. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that Kallistos Ware has some issues with Greece and some theologians have been critical of him. As such it appears that the fifth volume of the Philokalia that he was supposed to be involved with appears to be on hiatus. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sarx is the mortal flesh (Rom 7:18) that was given to mankind after his choice to be a god as one whom is self sufficient onto (ontologically) himself (to be a god in the knowledge of good and evil as one whom can choose good or evil as one who is self sufficient i.e. self-ish). A by product of this is mankind unwisely, chose to live off his environment rather than to live off of God directly (God is the tree of life to love God is to live off of the tree of life). Since before the fall man did not really "eat". Since life feeds on life if not off of God, mankind had to now kill in order to maintain existence. The sarx of mortal flesh is this apparatus added to mankind i.e. why would one need to eat if one is immortal? For to need is to be mortal. Orthodoxy defeated the pagan teaching of emanationism (oroborus) as a form of fatalism or determinism. This was a clarification that validated that mankind has freedom of choice or freewill and is separate from the old pagan culture that used fate as a justification for such things as slavery and inequality towards woman, mass murder, starvation etc. etc. Since the change or fall of man from God as is embraced in the East (influenced by Origen) teaches that mankind's fall was mankind choosing to be separate from God and then that choice causing the cosmos to be infused with things like randomness (sumbebekos) and death and things like that to be added to our existence making it (our nous, consciousness, existence) separated. separate, apart from God or without God directly. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sarx (σάρξ) is also what Jesus had after his resurrection (Luke 24:39) and what Eve had before the Fall (Genesis 2:21).

The KJV has "coats of skin", but more modern English translations use the word "garments". As Richwales says, the Septuagint, which at least some Orthodox prize higher than the Hebrew text, says the Lord God made for Adam and his wife χιτῶνας δερματίνους, leather tunics, something more adequate than the περιζώματα (loincloths) that after the Fall they themselves had made for themselves by sewing fig leaves together (Genesis 3:7) . The word "flesh" (σάρξ, בשׂר) does not appear in either place. But the word "flesh" does appear in Genesis 2:21 in the account of the making of Eve, before the Fall.

There seems to be no foundation for LoveMonkey's claim that the Orthodox (all of them?) say that the flesh was "fashioned for man by God after mankind's fall" on the basis of a single book (presented as if it were two), in which Larchet actually quotes John of Damascus as expressly rejecting the idea that, while still naked, man "possessed neither flesh nor body". Is it be an oversight of mine that I have failed to find either in Larchet's quotation from Lossky or in LoveMonkey's above anything about "flesh" being fashioned for man after the Fall. Would it not be better to rephrase LoveMonkey's text to avoid this difficulty by omitting the problematic reference to "flesh" (σάρξ, sarx), while keeping the rest?

Of course, the difficulty would remain of the claim that "the Orthodox" teach something the contrary of which appears, on the basis of verifiable evidence, to be taught by some quite authoritative Orthodox. And the opening sentence is at present unsourced, with its assertion that the Orthodox teach that man didn't have a material body until he sinned. I did not question these difficulties, vainly thinking that the easiest first step would be to point out to LoveMonkey that the citations he gives have no mention whatever of "flesh" being fashioned only after the Fall. I mention these other difficulties now without intending that they be discussed immediately. However, if LoveMonkey would adjust his text to take account of them, that would be all to the good. I think a distinction about the meanings of the word "material" would solve most of the problems, but from LoveMonkey's point of view this would probably remove the grounds for one more of his many claims of a supposed incompatibility between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic teaching. He seems below to be initiating yet another attack on the Westerners for being confused and "WRONG". Esoglou (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope that Rich can now see that there is a great bit of difference and many differences between Latin Christianity (Roman Catholic) and Eastern Christianity (Orthodoxy). That these differences create in the persons involved very "different men". As the sarx will not be raised but the soma (body) will. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, I have never doubted for a moment that the differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches are many and vast — extending to the roots of many foundational issues. That's why I've been suggesting that (1) people need to concentrate on apologetics rather than polemics, (2) people on each side need to understand (and accept) that the views on each side may sometimes be based in part on misunderstandings of what the other side is saying, and (3) we need to get more editors involved here — not only for purposes of developing a wider overall consensus, but also so that editors working on explaining each side can hash out source issues pertaining to the exposition of that side's position without getting tripped up over the fact that the two sides disagree so deeply on so many planes.

Right now, the fact that you (Esoglou and LoveMonkey) are effectively the only two editors working on this article means that each of you is being put in the arguably untenable position of having to represent both sides of this theological debate. If one of you criticizes a source (or the use of a source) offered by the other — something which you really have to do, since there's no one else around to do it instead of you — you are in effect getting into a disagreement over what the other side thinks. It might be possible, of course, for one or both of you to do this — after all, participants in debating competitions are trained to be able to argue either side of an issue equally well — but even skilled debaters don't try to argue both sides of a given issue at the same time. I think the results here would be greatly improved if we could get several editors concentrating on representing the Eastern viewpoint, and several editors concentrating on representing the Western viewpoint, and let each group focus on a fair portrayal of their own side and trust that the other group will do an equally good job of focussing on a fair portrayal of their side. As long as the two of you are the only two people available to review the fitness and accuracy of each other's sources, we're probably going to keep on having problems and generate more heat than light. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you returning to your original point from months back. I am in agreement now as I was then. I wish you would look through the archives and see how much of interpretation plays a demon in all this.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Back to topic?

Nobody denies that there are big differences between East and West, but not everyone agrees that East and West represent two incompatible faiths to the extent in which LoveMonkey depicts them. And it seems that even Richwales is losing hope of seeing an end to the stand-off between LoveMonkey and me, unless perhaps an abstension is imposed on us. But these, I think, are matters for discussion in other sections. Is there any chance that we can bring the discussion here back to what this section is supposed to be about? Has LoveMonkey shown to be verified his claim that human flesh (σάρξ) did not exist before the Fall? As well as what he has put in the article, he reaffirms above: "Sarx is the mortal flesh (Rom 7:18) that was given to mankind after his choice to be a god ..." Does he deny that Eve is described as having flesh (σάρξ) before the Fall? He also affirms: "The sarx will not be raised but the soma (body) will". Does he deny that Luke 24:39 presents the resurrected Jesus as saying he has flesh? Does he disown as unOrthodox, for instance, Saint Justin Martyr, who professed "the resurrection of the flesh" (here)? So did Saint Irenaeus in his Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 39. However, the essential point is that LoveMonkey has not provided verification of his claim that there was no σάρξ before the Fall and that there is no σάρξ after Resurrection, and without verification his claim has no place in Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Khomiakov states...

"The Holy Church, in confessing that she looks for the Resurrection of the dead and the final judgment of all mankind, acknowledges that the perfecting of all her members will be fulfilled together with her own, and that the future life pertains, not only to the spirit, but also to the spiritual body; for God alone is a perfectly incorporeal Spirit. Wherefore she rejects the pride of those who preach a doctrine of an incorporeal state beyond the grave, and consequently despise the body, in which Christ rose from the dead. This body will not be a fleshly body, but will be like unto the corporeal state of the Angels, inasmuch as Christ Himself said that we shall be like unto the Angels."[14] LoveMonkey (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we can let this pass as a source for the view that LoveMonkey holds about the situation after the Resurrection (to be balanced of course by sources for the opposing view). But what about LoveMonkey's more surprising view about the non-existence of flesh before the Fall? Esoglou (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev states

"According to many church Fathers, the new body will be immaterial and incorruptible, like the body of Christ after His resurrection. However, as St Gregory of Nyssa points out, there will still be an affinity between a person’s new immaterial body and the one he had possessed in his earthly life. Gregory sees the proof of this in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus: the former would not have recognized the latter in Hell if no physical characteristics remained that allowed people to identify each other. There is what Gregory calls the ‘seal’ of the former body imprinted on every soul. The appearance of one’s new incorruptible body will in a fashion resemble the old material body. It is also maintained by St Gregory that the incorruptible body after the resurrection will bear none of the marks of corruption that characterized the material body, such as mutilation, aging, and so on. Immediately after the common resurrection, will be the Last Judgment at which the final decision is taken as to who is worthy of the Kingdom of heaven and who should be sentenced to the torments of Hell. Before this event, however, there exists the possibility for the person in Hell to gain release; after the Last Judgment this possibility no longer remains."[15]LoveMonkey (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Lossky again states

""Thus in the condition of mortality which is the consequence of the coming of sin, the spiritual nature of the soul maintains a certain link with the disunited elements of the body, a link which it will find again at the moment of the resurrection in order that the parts may be transformed into a 'spiritual body', which is indeed our true body, different from the grossness of those we now have, the "garments of skin' which God made for Adam and Eve after their sin." The mystical theology of the Eastern Church By Vladimir Lossky page 104 LoveMonkey (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Jean-Claude Larchet states also about recapitulation.

"This new condition of existence is signified in the Book of Genesis by the expression "garments of skin" (Gen 3:21). These garments of skin symbolize both the material, animal, mortal aspect to human life, and the fact that this condition is added to man's true nature." The theology of illness By Jean-Claude Larchet pg 30 [16] LoveMonkey (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As sarx is the flesh or thing that separates God from Mankind and Mankind from God.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Back to the strict topic of deletion of citation requests

Have we forgotten that my citation requests were not about the post-Resurrection state, but about the claimed non-existence of flesh before the Fall? Esoglou (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Larchet, whom LoveMonkey quotes above, far from saying that there was no flesh (σάρξ) before the Fall, quotes on the same page John of Damascus as expressly rejecting the idea that, while still naked, man "possessed neither flesh nor body". Esoglou (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox anthropology teaches Between image and likeness as outlined by Origen for example. As Origen taught a double creation (if you will). of an eternal creation, depicted in Genesis 1:26 as a true creation and a true original man and the second creation of the fallen man as depicted in Geneis 2:7 For fallen man is nous clothed in a garment of skin. [17] LoveMonkey (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Genesis 2:7 precedes the Fall, and precedes even the creation of Eve. In spite of his alleged condemnation by an ecumenical council as heretical, is Origen considered a reliable source for what "the Orthodox" teach? The reference to some unspecified page of vol. I of Lacoste's Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, without quotation of what exactly he said, is not very helpful. And you don't even claim that Origen says there was no flesh before the Fall; if he says the second creation story in chapter 2 is of fallen man, he would seem to have said that the man thus created had his flesh before he actually fell (chapter 3)! Esoglou (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Page 53 [18] LoveMonkey (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As usual if Esoglou doesn't agree and his first criteria is met, what does Esoglou do? Esoglou moves the goal posts. I provide Orthodox sources that state that the resurrected body is immaterial. I provided a primary source in Lossky stating the teaching. I provided a secondary source confirming that Lossky teaches this. I provided a source validating the teaching is not from Lossky and is actually pre canon. In the Origen source it explicitly states "after the fall" and here Esoglou is trying to ignore all of this and still just can't see it. Where is it Wikipedia policy that even after providing numerous sources (in this case Orthodox and non-Orthodox) that in order for something to be a validate contribution I have to convince another editor. Even after meeting the criteria for sourcing?LoveMonkey (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This proves my point that Esoglou does not know the Orthodox church's theology and that is why Esoglou thinks it is OK to attack that theology when I post it because Esoglou thinks that the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox church have the same "theology" and when I show that they don't Esoglou not really knowing the Orthodox theology starts edit warring on it and claiming that I have fabricated it. How many times in just this one article's talkpage has Esoglou done this? LoveMonkey (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The goalposts were set up when you twice deleted unanswered citation requests about the claim that there was no flesh before the Fall. Leave the goalposts there. Keep to the topic. You have not answered the citation requests either in the article or on the Talk page. Esoglou (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats your perspective. I provided valid sources your citations comments on those sources where inflammatory and that is why I removed them. They did nothing to clarify nor improve they appear as nothing but an attempt on your part Lima/Esoglou to discredit. As if I invented Origen. I'll say something here. Until the Roman Catholic church stops attacking Origen and restores him to a victim of his later students (whom where the ones condemned) there will be no reconciliation. To us as Eastern Orthodox Origen is most precious and people in the East have seen how "the church" in the West treats people whom get associated to him. Between Photius and Origen the West has a credibility problem with its past treatment of people essential to the Eastern Orthodox. Again I can not stress enough in the minds of the Eastern Orthodox the West's treatment of Origen is beyond unacceptable. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You say Origen is venerated by the Eastern Orthodox Church and treated as an authority for doctrine. I am surprised, since I have come upon no mention of "Saint Origen" in Eastern Orthodox calendars. But if we let that pass, would you be kind as to quote for me Origen's statement that man had no flesh before the Fall? In this country Google Books does not give access to page 53 of volume 1 or Lacoste's encyclopedia, although it may in your country. (I will soon - though not immediately - transcribe for you the passage from Quenot that you have asked me to transcribe, although you surely have access to it as easily as I have.) If you prefer, you can direct me to an accessible source that shows that Origen did say that. Then at last you will justify post factum your removal of the "citation needed" tag. Esoglou (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I will respond in 3 parts.

1. The veneration of Origen from your criteria is very narrow. Sainthood and even halos are not the same thing East and West. Blessed to us is by the layman not the clergy there is no vetting process with councils for that as a general rule. Halo to the Eastern Orthodox is the Tabor uncreated light, instead of a ring hovering over someone's head in hindsight. This teaching is very much something covered in the source I provided. A source that is not Orthodox.
2. Quoting from the secondary source.

Origen*, further elaborating Philo's idea of double creation, considers Genesis 1:26 to refer to the creation of the true, original man, who must be recovered, and Genesis 2:7 to indicate the fallen man, the nous clad in garments of skin.

Please keep in mind this book has a whole section that this is in dealing with the term -garment of skin this is but one definition of the term from the source.

"Human sexuality, along with the characteristics of the flesh as we now know it, was realized in the 'garments of skins'. (Genesis 3:21) These garments of skins are remedial, rather than punitive, enabling mankind to continue in existence in exile from paradise, and, as it is through these garments that mankind now reaches the foreordained number, they have a positive role to play in the fallen world. In the final consummation, when the fullness of mankind has been reached. God's originally intended creation will be realized, without the economic addition of the garments of skin." This is in the section as an overview of the works of Saint Gregory of Nyssa.

3. How what Origen clarified is taught by the saints, church fathers.

As for veneration that has nothing to do with it.. Because the Cappadocian fathers changed Origen to be that not everyone was a nous that got clothed with a garment of skin after leaving the mind of God. But rather that Adam and Eve were- and all of men and woman after that are as off spring of Adam and Eve born into the world this way. nous clothed in garments of skin or sarx. As in that there is no pre-existence for the off spring of Adam and Eve in the mind God whom individually chose to separate from God and are then born into this reality (as Origen taught about the pre-existence of the souls of persons). Rather only Adam and Eve were like this and this is the fallen state the rest of us called mortals, inherit. The source gives this in it's examples like Gregory of Nyssa whom like his brother Basil are both Blessed or Saints. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That was interesting. Thank you. The quotation you gave from Lacoste does not state that Origen held that man had no flesh before the Fall (though your source may say it elsewhere). However, C. P. Bammel does say that Origen "appears to deny that Adam and Eve had bodies of flesh and bones in paradise". He also agrees with another of your observations, saying that, according to Origen's allegorical interpretation (which he took from Philo), "Adam represents the mind (nous), Eve sensation (aisthēsis) and the serpent pleasure (hēdonē)".

I would like a verifying source for your statement that Origen's teaching about Adam and Eve having no flesh until after the Fall is now the teaching of "the Orthodox". Do you mind if I attach a "citation needed" tag? I had better not. I don't want you to think that I attach tags just to be difficult. Any that I do attach are because I sincerely (even if perhaps mistakenly) consider that a statement is indeed in need of the support of a reliable source. You must surely admit that it seems strange that "the Orthodox" (all of them?) now choose to follow Origen, whose exegesis "was attacked by Basil, Epiphanius and Jerome", instead of aligning with these critics, each of whom they venerate as a saint. They also recognize Methodius of Olympus, who has been called the first scientific opponent of Origen, as a saint. Is it that Origen had theoria and those others lacked it, in much the same way as you say Saint Augustine lacked theoria? And isn't John of Damascus, who is quoted by Larchet as rejecting the idea that before the Fall man had neither flesh nor body, considered one of the pillars of Orthodoxy? Esoglou (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Lossky on Adam and Eve having no flesh before the Fall

1 Cor. 15:44, I Cor. 15:50, John 20:26

"I would like a verifying source for your statement that Origen's teaching about Adam and Eve having no flesh until after the Fall is now the teaching of "the Orthodox".

So you have already forgotten Lossky?LoveMonkey (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Quote, please. Or better, why not change "the Orthodox teach" to something like "some Orthodox theologians hold" or "Orthodox theologians such as ... teach", as you have very praiseworthily done under the heading "Bodies of the resurrected"? Esoglou (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I will post it yet again for 3rd or 4th time.. Here is what Vladimir Lossky says in the source that I posted via Jean-Claude Larchet's book. Here I will quote Lossky directly.

"Thus in the condition of mortality which is the consequence of the coming of sin, the spiritual nature of the soul maintains a certain link with the disunited elements of the body, a link which it will find again at the moment of the resurrection in order that the parts may be transformed into a 'spiritual body', which is indeed our true body, different from the grossness of those we now have, the "garments of skin' which God made for Adam and Eve after their sin." The mystical theology of the Eastern Church By Vladimir Lossky page 104

[19]. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Esoglu wrote
The quotation you gave from Lacoste does not state that Origen held that man had no flesh before the Fall (though your source may say it elsewhere).

LoveMonkey response
Lacoste states very clearly that Origen that the garment of skin came after the fall of man.

Origen*, further elaborating Philo's idea of double creation, considers Genesis 1:26 to refer to the creation of the true, original man, who must be recovered, and Genesis 2:7 to indicate the fallen man, the nous clad in garments of skin.[20] LoveMonkey (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Esoglu wrote
I would like a verifying source for your statement that Origen's teaching about Adam and Eve having no flesh until after the Fall is now the teaching of "the Orthodox".

LoveMonkey response
1.[21]

Esoglu wrote
You must surely admit that it seems strange that "the Orthodox" (all of them?) now choose to follow Origen, whose exegesis "was attacked by Basil, Epiphanius and Jerome", instead of aligning with these critics, each of whom they venerate as a saint.

LoveMonkey response
I have already clarified what the issue of the transmigration of the souls was. As Origen taught that each person had a pre-existence in God before their existence here. This was rejected for that teaching that only Adam and Eve would meet such a criteria and the rest of mankind would instead be made from ex-nihilo into this world.

Esoglu wrote
They also recognize Methodius of Olympus, who has been called the first scientific opponent of Origen, as a saint.

LoveMonkey response
Ahh Methodius how much so very much does he have in common with Cassian. As for your use of Methodius.. Methodius attack the resurrection body argument of Origin which is not the same thing and you are just blurring the distinction between sarx and soma. Post here what Methodius (whom is incompatible with modern Roman Catholicism) say about the sarx and not the soma. HINT the logos sarx. 18:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Esoglu wrote
Is it that Origen had theoria and those others lacked it, in much the same way as you say Saint Augustine lacked theoria?

LoveMonkey response
I can not say that Origen was right or wrong because he was as much a victim of politic as he was of his own inability to properly be understood. I can say that Gregory of Nyssa and Basil had theoria. Origen was much to much of a rationalist to have the same understanding of theoria. However in order for him to have so well established himself as Lossky points out Origen had theoria. It is just that he willed to use his mind to reconcile with the pagan neoplatonic that he so mush admired that he compromised the will of God as it was given to him via Revelation. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So you interpret these words of Lossky about the grossness of our bodies at present, with the disunited elements of which, he says, the spiritual nature of the soul maintains a certain link, a link which, he says, it will find again at the moment of the resurrection in order that the parts may be transformed into a "spiritual body" (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 999), as meaning that before the Fall Adam and Eve had no bodies of flesh and bone. Not everyone would agree with that interpretation. Nor would everyone agree that Lossky's teaching is necessarily what "the Orthodox" (all of them) teach. Esoglou (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Post here an Orthodox theologian whom states Lossky is not 'necessarily what "the Orthodox" (all of them) teach. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I also see your continued distortion of Lossky very evident again. This time in how Esogou completely has ignored for at least the third time Lossky's passage...

'spiritual body', which is indeed our true body, different from the grossness of those we now have, the "garments of skin' which God made for Adam and Eve after their sin."

LoveMonkey (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN says that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." At the moment, I think the burden is LoveMonkey's to demonstrate that Lossky's views on this topic represent mainstream Orthodox teaching (if, in fact, they do). And we still need additional editors (particularly editors who are familiar with Eastern Orthodox theology) to confirm that Lossky is (or is not) mainstream on this and other issues, and also to confirm that this really is what Lossky and others meant (so we don't need to depend on interpretation, and possibly WP:OR / WP:SYNTH, coming from a single editor). I am not Orthodox, but from what I know (or think I know), this position of Lossky's sounds more to me like varieties of dualism or Gnosticism than anything I thought the EOC currently taught — and, accordingly, it sounds to me like an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. I really don't think there is anything more either LoveMonkey or Esoglou can say on this right now that can conclusively clarify the issue; I say this not because of any bias of mine for or against either editor, but simply because two diametrically opposing editors can't reasonably be expected to generate a consensus on an issue where they disagree so strongly. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand you really don't understand or know, but Rich as you have just said something very hateful about Orthodox saints and their teachings. Please don't say the Orthodox church are pagan and deterministic, again. If you are ignorant (as you just demonstrated) it is better to not say anything at all. As for burden of proof here [22]. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, I did not say any such thing. I'm sorry if that is what it sounded like to you, but I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Again, I hope we can get more people involved here who do understand the topic and the sources, because it seems clear to me that that's the only way a solution can come. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK Rich I feel the need to ask. Where in gnosticism or any of the gnostics sects is there the teaching that the same God the created the spirit, also created the flesh? Just asking. Also where is it in say the Nag Hammadi that God created bodies of flesh after the fall for Adam and Eve? Just asking because I myself have never heard this, but that does not mean that it is not so. Just asking where it might be that you got the idea that this is a duality teaching that "seems" or "sounds" like gnosticism. Since in Orthodoxy the flesh is the means that one though our existence here achieves theosis and is not taught as evil, but rather a challenge. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am probably no more of an expert on gnosticism than I am on the Eastern Orthodox Church (i.e., not at all, in either case). What I had tried to say earlier was that what you seemed to be describing as Lossky's understanding was very confusing to me — because it sounded very, very different from what I had thought I understood Orthodoxy believed regarding the resurrection of mankind. That's all I was trying to communicate, and I'm sorry if I did so in a clumsy manner that confused or offended you or anyone else, and I really think we need to get off this inadvertent sidetrack and return to the original question of what the EOC believes/teaches regarding the nature of the physical body, etc., and what the recognized, reliable sources say about this issue. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well OK no big deal it is just that some Roman Catholic sources have in the past tried to imply that the Orthodox Church was corrupted by mystical tenets akin to gnosticism (even though the mystery schools and the gnostics would not really think of their teachings as irrational or mystic by the modern use of the word). As the mystery religions where rational in away of rationalizing metaphysical concepts of their systems. Their contemplation of these systems gives them gnosis. The mixing of first principles is called magic and the practice of such. The essentials of their systems are called arcana. Christianity however was based on free will and faith and as such it's mysticism is "irrational" as the mystery systems did not believe in faith nor randomness. I would prefer that if people said stuff like that they have good sources to back that up. Considering that not so long ago the Orthodox where called heretics by the Roman Catholic church. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I had not meant to push any buttons or touch any raw nerves (even unintentionally). I am not Catholic, BTW — and although I am not Orthodox either, I do not consider myself to be "anti-Orthodox" (or "anti-Catholic") in any aggressively polemic sense — but that shouldn't be an issue here; the important thing is that we need to make sure we are using good sources, and that the information in these sources is properly understood and properly represented in the article, and that the end result of our efforts is a balanced (and hopefully accurate) representation of the subject. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK so what did you think of the Christopher Knight I posted?[23] I will however say for the record that there is some possible misunderstanding.[24] As there is the encratite which as Irenaeus (Adversus 1:5:5) points out believed that Adam and Eve where given soma (as the garment of skins) by God lastly. I think it is un-clear on how this was taken to mean the garments of skin but John Behr does state that Irenaeus was against this teaching [25].. Could this be maybe what you are referring to? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the passage from Irenaeus

"5. Having thus formed the world, he (the Demiurge) also created the earthy [part of] man, not taking him from this dry earth, but from an invisible substance consisting of fusible and fluid matter, and then afterwards, as they define the process, breathed into him the animal part of his nature. It was this latter which was created after his image and likeness. The material part, indeed, was very near to God, so far as the image went, but not of the same substance with him. The animal, on the other hand, was so in respect to likeness; and hence his substance was called the spirit of life, because it took its rise from a spiritual outflowing. After all this, he was, they say, enveloped all round with a covering of skin; and by this they mean the outward sensitive flesh.[26]" LoveMonkey (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is Lossky's explanation for that in Lossky's calling the garments of skin the tunics of skin. [27] Page 76 goes over how Origen's anthropology of man was a response to the Manichaeism of his day (i.e. the stuff that Augustine claims he stopped believing when he converted to Christianity). LoveMonkey (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Gregory of Nyssa and the garments of skin

This is the divine plan, and the attachment to the "material condition" is only a hindrance for this growth. Gregory, moreover, sees the final restoration in a resurrected body, made "from the same elements, but not with its present coarse and heavy texture, but subtler and lighter." This is quite important, because Gregory's metaphors often give the impression, on a first reading, that they hold matter in contempt, sounding almost dualist at times, but his view of evil and matter is decisively different from this. The "material condition" he often mentions is a condition of the soul rather than an inherent property of body matter. Gregory had an interesting view of the "material condition", or the "condition of the flesh", which is not directly associated to the original body of Adam and Eve. After the Fall, he argued, God gave Adam and Eve "garments of skin", that correspond to the fallen body and the bodily passions, but the natural, original condition of the human being is still part of the human nature, which will eventually return to it. This way Gregory maintains the ascetic ideal, but combined with a deep respect for matter itself. The ontological transformation of the body, both before the fall and after the end, are consequences of the movement of the soul away from or towards God. In that, Gregory differs significantly from Origen, whose theory of beginning and eschatology has no place for matter and the body. [28]
and
“When I hear the word ‘skin’ it conveys to me the form of irrational nature, with which, having become familiar with passion, we have been clothed. It is those things which man took in addition from irrational skin: sexual union, conception, birth, pollution, the nipple, food, excretion, gradual growth to full stature, adult life, old age, sickness, death” (On the Soul and Resurrection Gregory of Nyssa)."
and
Let us look with our inner eyes at this great spectacle, our nature, which dwells for all eternity with the immaterial fire of the divinity. And let us take off the coats of skins (cf Gen. 3:21), the earthy and carnal ways of thinking, in which we were clothed because of our transgression, and stand on holy ground (cf Exod. 3:5), each one of us hallowing our own ground by means of virtue and reaching up to God. In this way we shall have boldness when God comes in light, and as we run to Him we shall be enlightened, and, once illumined, shall live for ever to the glory of the one brightness in three Suns, now and for ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen. (Gregory of Nyssa Homily 35) LoveMonkey (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

John Maximos the confessor and the garments of skin

John Chrysostomos and the garments of skin

Panayiotis Nellas the confessor and the garments of skin

You inquired about the Patristic idea that the “garments of skins” (Gen. 3:21) God made for Adam and Eve were not merely the furry hides of some animals, but in fact physical bodies, their supralapsarian forms having been of a spiritual, or at least more rarified, order. One of the best studies of this question I know of can be found in Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas (St Vladimir’s, 1987), notably in a section entitled “The ‘Garments of Skin’”.

Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and the garments of skin

"Through Adam's fall, man's communion with God, with himself, and with the whole creation was broken. Thus man was wearing the garments of the skin of decay and mortality, and of course the whole creation fell into darkness, and "has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time" (Rom. 8,22)."[29]
and
"Moreover, in the Church we say that there is no division between physical and metaphysical things, as philosophy claimed, but between created and uncreated. And further, we accept that the uncreated enters into the created, and thus man himself, as St. Maximos the Confessor says, also becomes uncreated by grace. Adam failed to transcend these divisions. And not only did he fail to transcend the division which we mentioned, but he also lost the purity which existed between the two sexes, with the result that decay and mortality entered into nature, that he wore the coats of skin of decay and mortality. Therefore now man's way of conception, gestation, birth, etc. , is a result of the fall, it is what the Fathers called coats of skin, which he wore after the fall."[30]
and
"If we want to look more concretely at the matter of the fall we will say that, as St. John of Damaskos teaches, the fall in reality is darkness of the image, loss of the divine life and putting on the coats of skin."[31] LoveMonkey (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Mere original research

Not one of those you have quoted, Lossky included, say that Adam and Eve had no flesh, no body, before the Fall, they only say that as a result of the Fall their bodies, their flesh, became mortal, diminished in powers and subject to sin. Resurrected bodies are like that of Christ, no longer mortal, no longer diminished in powers, no longer subject to sin. The body, the same body that someone had before death, becomes "a spiritual body, imperishable and immortal". To say that the body becomes a spiritual body does not mean that the person becomes a mere spirit, without flesh and bones. The body becomes like Christ's risen body, of which, according to Luke 24:39, he said: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." With the resurrection, the body puts off the mortality etc. that it put on with the Fall. Neither the resurrection nor the Fall signify a passage in one direction or the other between a bodiless fleshless boneless existence and an existence with body, flesh and bones.

One source says the following: "Early Christian writers interpreted these 'garments of skin' as symbols of death, or mortality" (not as symbols of first-time acquisition of flesh and bones). "The early church fathers also associated the garments of skin worn by Adam and Eve with the clothing that candidates removed in preparation for baptism" (what the candidates removed was not their bodies, but something added to their bodies). "As when Adam was formerly naked and was in nothing ashamed of himself, but after having broken the commandment and become mortal, he found himself in need of an outer covering, so also you, who are ready to draw nigh to the gift of the holy baptism and become symbolically immortal, rightly remove your covering, which is a sign of mortality and a reproving mark of that [Divine] decree by which you were brought low to the necessity of a covering" (not only the garments that Adam and Eve put on, but also the garments that the candidates for baptism put off, are a symbol of mortality; and in both cases the body remains and merely puts on or takes off something added to it).

A source in the article, into which you yourself inserted it, quotes Saint Maximus as saying explicitly: "The first man was naked, not in the sense that he possessed neither flesh nor body, but in that he was free of that more material constitution that renders the flesh mortal and hard" (emphases added).

(I think that previously I misread this as a quotation from Saint Gregory of Nazianzus. If I did, I apologize for my mistake.)

Clearly, it is only on the basis of a personal original-research interpretation that you, on whom lies the burden of proof, are claiming that, when the fathers of the church spoke of Adam and Eve's garments of skin as symbolizing "decay and mortality", loss of "the purity which existed between the two sexes", "the fallen body and the bodily passions", they were all talking of a passage from non-existence to existence of human flesh and bones, instead of referring to a change for the worse in the condition (Lossky's word) of something that already existed..

I would dearly love others to become involved, but this point is clear even now. Esoglou (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Mere editwarring

Hello Esoglou Hello... Are you not reading? Soma is body. Sarx is flesh. You are not listening. [32] Hello Esoglou you calling it WP:OR after source after source does not change what has been said. You are just edit warring thats all. It is not as if the matter is one of dogma as my link shows here but it is something taught by the Eastern fathers. As Christopher Knights book shows that exact thing I did not invent Christopher Knight I did not invent his book published by Cambridge. [33] This is nothing other then more Esoglou trying to not have to address the issue at hand and argue against how what Esoglou believes is true is the truth even when I posts Saints and Professor and Orthodox theologians to the contrary. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Here I will again lay out the works of valid sources that validate the teachings. Note Esoglou should know about this is Esoglou is properly informed about Orthodox theology but Esoglou ejects anything Orthodox that is not really Roman Catholic theology. When Esoglou gets caught over and over again. Esoglou then states that it's Original Research or Lossky or Romanides are not widely accepted without providing source to that effect.

1.Orientalia, Clement, Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Chrysostom, Volume 41 By F. Young, M. Edwards, P. Parvis validates the Origen and St Gregory of Nyssa taught the garments of skin.[34]
2.Stages on life's way: Orthodox thinking on bioethics By John Breck, Lyn Breck expressing the teaching as Orthodox anthropology [35]
3.Deification in Christ Panayiotis Nellas is the work I am pretty much basing my input here on. [36]
4.Redemptive change: atonement and the Christian cure of the soul By Russell R. Reno here the distinction is made about the Orthodox teaching of existence and the Roman Catholic one. [37]
5.Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, Volume 1 edited by Jean-Yves Lacoste Just as soon as Esoglou was provided this source and I posted what the source said Esoglou then forgot about it or at least is acting like it doesn't exist.[38]
6.The theology of illness By Jean-Claude Larchet[39] LoveMonkey (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course I know that σῶμα is translated as "body" and σάρξ as "flesh" and that East and West profess faith in the resurrection of the body and the resurrection of the flesh, as in the case of Jesus. So please spell out for me what you claim I am missing in this. Is it as elusive as the quotation marks that you claim to see somewhere in Quenot?

In spite of your interpretation of the sources you cite, they do not actually say, as Origen apparently did, that Adam and Eve, before the Fall, had no flesh. Some of them even say the contrary. So we certainly can't make Wikipedia say that this is the teaching, not just of "some Eastern Orthodox", but of "the Eastern Orthodox". Esoglou (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Your just trying to cause a distraction. You know it would be one thing if I were editing on Roman Catholic theology Esoglou, but I am not and you are completely wrong. Could it be anymore obvious than your comment recently about Lossky?

"Nor would everyone agree that Lossky's teaching is necessarily what "the Orthodox" (all of them) teach." [40]

Again where is a source for this and how is this so Esoglou? So when an Orthodox theologian states Orthodox theology that shows a difference that Esoglou can't twist, distort or spin to cover for and confuse people enough to believe there is no difference Esoglou attacks the theologian (as Esoglou has done continually to Lossky even before now) as you will just remain argumentative no matter how many sources I post because you can not accept that Orthodoxy Anthropology is different then Roman Catholic anthropology and you will disagree no matter what because people here have have interfered for you to keep you getting criticized for this.

1 Cor. 15:44, I Cor. 15:50, John 20:26 As Lossky states:

After the Fall, he argued, God gave Adam and Eve "garments of skin", that correspond to the fallen body and the bodily passions, but the natural, original condition of the human being is still part of the human nature, which will eventually return to it.

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"... correspond to the fallen body and the bodily passions" but not to the unfallen body free of these passions that is the natural, original condition of the human being and to which through Christ's salvation the human being is to return in the resurrection of the flesh. So where does Lossky say Adam and Eve had no bodies, no flesh, before the Fall? Esoglou (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. As Lossky returns to the subject in his book Orthodox theology and calls the concept there tunics of skin and then explains how Origen and Gregory of Nyssa used the teaching to refute the gnosticism of the Manicheans whom stated as gnosticism as general that there is a God of perfect and spirit (the true God) and a God of the material world and body.

The Orthodox answer is the flesh that St Paul talked about that is what Christians war against and which can not be redeemed is something added to our soma or bodies after Adam and Eve sinned. This coursiness added to our soma or bodies is not part of God's original design and was added in order to facilitate mankind's existence in a cosmos separated from direct communication with God. [41] This whole teaching is called Orthodox Anthropology. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Definition of sarx is exactly this.

"The creation of man in the image of God is thus referred to Christ, who is himself the likeness and image of the invisible God (2 Cor 4:4 and Col 1:15) and so Paul's anthropology has an eschatological orientation, unlike the protological mythologizating of the Gnostics (gnosis*). The continuity of man from his original creation to his future spiritual existence is guaranteed, for Paul, by the body (soma) and essential dimension of human existence (see 1 Thes 5:23, which refers to man as "spirit and soul and body"), and which is to be distinguished from the flesh* (sarx), the hardened state of man turned away from God." [42]

As Nellas points out it is nothing more than 1 Cor 15:42-50 -"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." As the Flesh which is perishable...Anyone can see what your doing Esoglou. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Flesh and bones

Have you given no thought to the possibility that "σάρξ"/"flesh" can have more than one meaning? You do accept Orthodox belief, don't you, in the resurrection of the "flesh"? You do believe, don't you, that after his resurrection Jesus had flesh and ~~blood~~ bones ("σάρκα καὶ ὀστἐα")? Surely you don't join the Bogomils in denying the resurrection on the grounds that in 1 Cor 15:50 Paul said, in one sense of "σάρξ", that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"? If "flesh" meant only that against which we must struggle in our attempts to be faithful to God, we would certainly not be hoping for a "resurrection of the flesh"!

More than a mere affirmation by you or a synthesis based on one only of the meanings of "σάρξ", is required as proof that Lossky or Nellas held that Adam and Eve had no bodies until the Fall, that they were clothed or imprisoned in bodies as a consequence of their disobedience, and that, if they had not fallen, they would have remained forever disembodied, in a state quite different from that of Jesus after his resurrection, a state in which he does have flesh, does have a body, to which our bodies are to be conformed in the resurrection of our flesh. And more than a mere affirmation by you is required for inserting in Wikipedia an affirmation that this idea is the belief of "the Orthodox". Esoglou (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you thought that maybe this is not personal opinion and maybe it is a matter of valid sources. As it appears Esoglou consistently thinks himself the master historian, theologian whom knows all and when something is not to his liking rather admitting it might have escaped him, he instead insists "he knows" and that it just can't be right unless it's what Esoglou opinion insists that it already is. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As for your comments about the resurrected Christ as -

"Jesus after his resurrection, a state in which he does have flesh, does have a body, to which our bodies are to be conformed in the resurrection of our flesh."

This proves my point as it was the resurrected Christ who passed through walls as no flesh and bone as coursiness of flesh could ever do. John 20:26 All of this is addressed in the sources which you are too busy trying to discredit and discard out of hand, rather than actually read. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. So how do you explain Luke 24:39? Do you disbelieve Jesus' statement that, after his resurrection, he had flesh and bones? Or do you disbelieve Luke's report that Jesus said that? Esoglou (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Again not a matter of opinion so stop trying to bait me into an argument of over personal opinion. As I have just posted Christ passed through doors as corporeal flesh, I don't think so?

"Now the Spirit is not brought into intimate associating with the soul by local approximation. How indeed could there be a corporeal approach to the incorporeal? This association results from the withdrawal of the passions which, coming afterwards gradually on the soul from its friendship to the flesh, have alienated it from the close relationship with God. Only then after a man is purified from the shame whose strain he took through his wickedness, and has come back again to his natural beauty, and as it were cleaning the Royal Image and restoring its ancient form, only thus is it possible for him to draw near to the Paraclete. And He, like the sun, will by then aid of thy purified eye show thee in Himself the image of the invisible, and in the blessed spectacle of the image thou shalt behold the unspeakable beauty of the archetype." * St. Basil the Great. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)`

There is nothing either in this or in your previous citations that suggests that, before the Fall, Adam and Eve were bodiless, that in this respect they were different from the risen Christ, who had a body, had flesh and bones. There is nothing either in this or in your previous citations that suggests that, before the Fall, Adam and Eve lacked bodies that like the body of the risen Jesus were not impeded by locked doors and the like. "Corporeal" means pertaining to a body. A body is thus by definition corporeal. Soul and spirit are distinct from bodies. They are thus by definition incorporeal. According to Luke 24:39, which in spite of your previous contradiction of its contents you may perhaps accept as true, the risen Jesus states that he is not just an incorporeal spirit, but has a body: "A spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have." Do you really think a) that Adam and Eve were only spirits until after the Fall; and b) that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that until the Fall Adam and Eve were only spirits? Esoglou (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, more forensics. What do the sources I posted say Esoglou? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I see, Lossky speaks of a "transparent corporeality" (he does not refer to humans before the fall as just "corporeal" or "incorporeal"). Cody7777777 (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly Cody. It not so much a matter of the teaching being denied in the West but one either forgotten and or not stressed. As this Roman Catholic Deacon almost (almost) teachs it in this article here. [43] Note though how Esoglou should know these subtitles on this as even Tomáš Špidlík (in his The Spirituality of the Christian East: A systematic handbook) covers this teaching in his brief section on the Body in Eastern Christianity. Spidlik refers to it as the perishable flesh. Esoglou does not understand Orthodox theology and is continually attacking passages and teachings that I post and source with Orthodox theologians. Esoglou literally is using Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos in the article to attack Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev. It is completely shameful. As Metropolitan Alfeyev is attacked by lunatics as an ecumenicist while Metropolitan Vlachos is most pious. But Esoglou is so knowledgeable about Orthodox theology that, what does he care he obviously knows more than both of them. As they have no dispute between them at all and are our fathers in the faith. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Perishable flesh now; imperishable in pre-Fall and post-resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:53) situation (cf. Saint Maximus, Saint Gregory, the Catechism of Saint Philaret, Metropolitan Hierotheos ...). OK?

In any case, this subsection 14.11 is now superseded by subsection 14.12, immediately following. Esoglou (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats it? Pages and pages of resource and work and input. Esoglou can't even acknowledge that Esoglou did not know the teachings and yet is attacking it? Well if that does not prove that Esoglou should leave the Orthodox theology sections alone, nothing does. Also it shows just how far Roman Catholic theology is from what it claims to be. Its own people's having a great many misconceptions while pointing out such things in other people's perceptions. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

To Cody. Here I think is a very Western way to explain the Eastern teaching and the actual difference. I would have used the article but it is the only one whom I know that covers it in a Western cultural way and perspective, it says in a Western way what my other sources are saying in an Eastern way and there could be great confusion. It also appears to cover the topic of sumbebekos correctly which is another issue between East and West on the way God allows for Free will. As Augustine's broken minded approach of claiming an elect of saved and yet trying to say that we have free will is just not acceptable. Note to the article is a cut and drop in to an ongoing conversation between Protestants and Orthodox. Where the Protestants based on Roman Catholic distortion have tried to say that the Orthodox are Neoplatonic. This article IS VERY technical.[44]. As the works of Andrew Louth here kind of go over henosis as well check out page 71. [45] LoveMonkey (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

PS here is Mr Origen himself's answer (i.e. Edward Moore) [46] search on sarx it gives the whole of it dressed up in a Continental philosophy lingo. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Evident falsehood of claim that "the Orthodox" say humans had no body before the Fall

It seems that the only way to deal definitively with the claim that "the Orthodox" (all of them) teach that man had no body until the Fall, is to quote authoritative Eastern Orthodox sources that explicitly say the contrary. But first, may I draw attention to a much less authoritative source. If it were true that "the Orthodox" teach that until the Fall man had no body, how is it possible that several Orthodox could have a discussion on the differences the Fall brought to the bodies of Adam and Eve, with no thought on the part of any of the participants that their tradition said Adam and Eve had none before the Fall? (See this discussion.) But here as some more weighty authorities:

Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos has stressed the similarity between the condition of the bodies of the resurrected, of the body of Christ himself after his resurrection and of the body that Adam and Eve had before the Fall. (Quotation: "The resurrected body will keep the distinctive marks of its existence, but will be renewed. Since at the Second Coming of Christ there will be a fresh remodelling, a renewal, without the stigmas of corruption and mortality, it will be like that of Adam and of Eve before the Fall and like the Body of Christ after his Resurrection" ("Το αναστημένο σώμα θα έχη τα χαρακτηριστικά γνωρίσματα της υποστάσεώς του, αλλά θα είναι ανακαινισμένο, αφού κατά την Δευτέρα Παρουσία του Χριστού θα γίνη νέα ανάπλαση, ανακαίνιση, χωρίς να υπάρχουν τα στίγματα της φθαρτότητος και της θνητότητος, θα είναι όπως ήταν του Αδάμ και της Εύας προ της πτώσεως και όπως ήταν το Σώμα του Χριστού μετά την Ανάστασή Του") – [47] Saint Maximus the Confessor , speaking about "the constitution of the human body before the fall … an entirely different constitution, one in harmony with his body", said: "The first man was naked, not in the sense that he possessed neither flesh nor body, but in that he was free of that more material constitution that renders the flesh mortal and hard" (emphases added) (Jean-Claude Larchet, The Theology of Illness (St Vladimir's Seminary Press 2002 ISBN 0-88141-239-2), p. 30). Saint Gregory of Nyssa held that the "material condition" or "condition of the flesh" of fallen man is a condition of the soul rather than a property of the body, and the original condition of the human being remains part of human nature, which will eventually return to that condition; in saying this, he differed from Origen, who excluded matter and the body from the original and the final states of humanity ([http://www.theandros.com/restoration.html Andreas Andreopoulos: Eschatology and final restoration (apokatastasis) in Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximos the Confessor (Theandros, An Online Journal of Orthodox Christian Theology and Philosophy, vol. I, no. 3, Spring 2004).] That man had a body even before the Fall is the teaching also of the Orthodox Catechism of Philaret, which explains "the tree of life" as "A tree, by feeding on whose fruit man would have been, even in the body, free from disease and death" (emphasis added)(The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, 118).

Even if someone produced one or more Eastern Orthodox sources (other than Origen) that say (and are not just twisted to mean) that Adam and Eve had no bodies until the Fall - and none has yet been produced - nobody could seriously, even then, make the evidently false claim that "the Orthodox" (all of them) hold Origen's view. Esoglou (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The book you quoted, which states that Saint Maximus the Confessor claimed "The first man was naked, not in the sense that he possessed neither flesh nor body, but in that he was free of that more material constitution that renders the flesh mortal and hard.", seems to also suggest that, after the fall, man gained a "more material constitution" in his body, which was "mortal and hard". However, I do not really see any conflict with Lossky who claims that the body of man was different before the fall, more transparent and spiritual, but he obviously does not deny that man had a body before the fall. Cody7777777 (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree fully with you, Cody. Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Now I hope Cody will ignore this distraction and wiki hounding nonsense put up here on the talkpage and help me write the section based on Panayiotis Nellas. I have already told Esoglou repeatedly and over and over again that sarx is not the same as soma. Esoglou wants too much to bicker and argue and wiki hound. As Sarx means flesh and soma means body and Esoglou keeps acting like I have not posted a distinction between the two. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b ^c [48]
^ The Roman Catholic Church teaches that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405).

[orthodoxwiki.org-1] [48]

[2] The Roman Catholic Church teaches that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405).

[1]

[2]