did Jesus' divinity suffer?

[jckstraw72]

this came up on another discussion board and has me confused. does the Orthodox Church teach that Jesus' divinity suffered on the cross? the person on the other forum is saying no, but that sounds Nestorian to me--whats the deal?

[icxn]

Christ as a person suffered but only in His humanity. His divinity did not suffer. (cf St. John Damascene - See Chapter VI (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_exp3.aspx))

[Protoevangel]

Christ as a person suffered but only in His humanity. His divinity did not suffer. (cf St. John Damascene - See Chapter VI (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_exp3.aspx))
That really does seem kind of Nestorian. Didn't the Council of Chalcedon state that the “two natures are in perfect unity, without mixture, division, confusion, or separation"? Stating that one nature suffered, but not the other would seem to divide and separate the natures.

I bookmarked that link, to read it later.

[Jacob4707]

That really does seem kind of Nestorian. Didn't the Council of Chalcedon state that the “two natures are in perfect unity, without mixture, division, confusion, or separation"? Stating that one nature suffered, but not the other would seem to divide and separate the natures.

I bookmarked that link, to read it later.

Did His divinity die? By your argument, if His human nature died, so did His Divine nature, right?

Does "unity" mean everything that happened to one nature happened to the other nature? Or does it mean that the wills and actions of both natures were in perfect harmony and agreement with each other to the full and complete extent that a sinless human nature can be in agreement with the divine nature?

[Protoevangel]

Did His divinity die? By your argument, if His human nature died, so did His Divine nature, right?

Does "unity" mean everything that happened to one nature happened to the other nature? Or does it mean that the wills and actions of both natures were in perfect harmony and agreement with each other to the full and complete extent that a sinless human nature can be in agreement with the divine nature?
You make a good point. Both natures in Christ were present, undivided, but the Divine nature is not susceptible to the suffering and death that the human nature is vulnerable to. Just as that does not divide the natures, it does not mix them, as I was doing. Thanks!






BTW, I just realized that ixcn was only really pointing to chapter 6. Somehow I missed that the first time I read his post. :sorry: I still want to read the whole thing, though. Would it be best to start at book one, though?

[NyssaTheHobbit]

I'd recommend reading the whole thing. It's an amazing book; I'm nearly done with it. It's full of all sorts of explanations for doctrines and practices. You can also find it here http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.html , where you can read it in PDF.

[Knowledge3]

this came up on another discussion board and has me confused. does the Orthodox Church teach that Jesus' divinity suffered on the cross? the person on the other forum is saying no, but that sounds Nestorian to me--whats the deal?

Nestorius was anathemized by St. Cyril.

You are referring to the orthodox doctrine of kenosis, Jesus being the kenotic Son of God.

[Grigorii]

Jckstraw72http://www3.christianforums.com/images/icons/icon10.gif did Jesus' divinity suffer?

this came up on another discussion board and has me confused. does the Orthodox Church teach that Jesus' divinity suffered on the cross? the person on the other forum is saying no, but that sounds Nestorian to me--whats the deal?

",.. we must pursue our contemplation with all fear and reverence, as we seek to prove how the reality of each nature exists in one and the same person."

"Moreover the Son of God is said to have died, in virtue of that nature which could certainly admit of death, while he of whom it is proclaimed that 'he shall come in the glory of God the Father with the holy angels' is called the Son of man. And for this reason, throughout the whole of scripture, while the divine nature is spoken of in human terms the human nature is in its turn adorned with marks that belong to the divine prerogative."

Origen On First Principles Bk II ch VI


Exchange of properties - Communicatio idiomatum. The cornerstone of orthodox christology.


Knowledge3,
What do you mean by "Jesus is the kenotic Son of God?"

Gregorios

[marlo]

God became man, when christ died on the cross, we can say that God died on the cross

[Eusebios]

I would recommend checking out the OCA web-site's (http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=75) info on Great and Holy Saturday. The general emphasis is on the fact that though Christ's mortal flesh died, his divinity in no way suffered. There are many illusions to the fact that although both Hell and the Angels perceived a lifeless corpse, they encountered instead the living God, already in the process of destroying death.
Peace,
Don

[felicissimus]

The divinity is by definition perfect and apart/above of anything i.g. it cannot be affected by anything .If it would be susceptible to change or suffer,it would be also susceptible to the death or destruction because the thing that bears smth from another being affected by it can be also destroyed by it...
So as long as the divinity is smth unchangeable,eternal and perfect,it cannot by no means suffer . :)

[Bushmaster78FS]

I have also read Protestant doctrines teach that Christ also suffered spiritually, carrying the burden of sins on the Cross and being separated from holiness of God the Father because of the sins of the world, hence quoting Psalms 22.

[nikostheater]

God cannot die.
Only his human nature died.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Phil. ii. 7 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Phil+2:7,), that Christ, since he was God, might have at once manifested his glory openly to the world, but waived his right and of his own will emptied himself, putting on the form of a servant and, content with that humble station, suffering his Divinity to be hidden by a veil of flesh.

[SeraphimSarov]

I'd recommend reading the whole thing. It's an amazing book; I'm nearly done with it. It's full of all sorts of explanations for doctrines and practices. You can also find it here http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.html , where you can read it in PDF.
This is amazing; must read!

[Akathist]

Phil. ii. 7 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Phil+2:7,), that Christ, since he was God, might have at once manifested his glory openly to the world, but waived his right and of his own will emptied himself, putting on the form of a servant and, content with that humble station, suffering his Divinity to be hidden by a veil of flesh.

Be careful about what bible translations you use as some Protestant versions put their doctrines into the translation. This is not what the King James version says:

6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

[Akathist]

I would recommend checking out the OCA web-site's (http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=75) info on Great and Holy Saturday. The general emphasis is on the fact that though Christ's mortal flesh died, his divinity in no way suffered. There are many illusions to the fact that although both Hell and the Angels perceived a lifeless corpse, they encountered instead the living God, already in the process of destroying death.
Peace,
Don

Here are some quotes from services on that site:


When Thou didst descend to death 0 Life Immortal, Thou didst slay hell with the splendor of Thy Godhead! And when from the depths Thou didst raise the dead, all the powers of heaven cried out: O Giver of Life! Christ our God! Glory to Thee!

The angel standing by the grave cried out to the women: Myrrh is proper for the dead, but Christ has shown himself a stranger to corruption.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Be careful about what bible translations you use as some Protestant versions put their doctrines into the translation. This is not what the King James version says:I usually use KJV but it wasn't next to me so I think I grabed an amplified bible. I have so many scattered around the house. Actually I usually dont use Amplified.

To me it still shows that God was made man even though He still was God.

[Akathist]

I usually use KJV but it wasn't next to me so I think I grabed an amplified bible. I have so many scattered around the house. Actually I usually dont use Amplified.

To me it still shows that God was made man even though He still was God.

Yes, the amblified (which I used when a protestant a lot so I should have identified it... :blush: ) version does indicate the indivisible nature of the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ.

But the amplified emphasized the suffering of God ... or to be punny, it amplified the suffering of God. :P Thus putting a slant to the translation toward the juridicial aspect of the crucifixion rather then the EO approach which is the healing aspect of the work of the crucifixion.

I grab bible quotes from biblegateway and use the King James versin from there as it is public domain. Personally, I use the New King James Version or the old old "Jerusalem Bible" for Old Testament readings as my NKJV is the Orthodox Study Bible which is only NT and Psalms.

[buzuxi02]

Only human nature can suffer death, Divine nature transcends the fallen corrupted nature of man and is totally alien to the fruits of ancestral sin.

[Philothei]

It is a question that we do not truly know. I agree somehow with Bouzouxi but that will leave us with the problem of treating the natures as separate. One died and the other one did not. We know from the hymnology of our church that Hades got terrified when he encounted God in Hades... that would mean that God to Hades since Christ is fully God and man. The mystery of death is the same of the mystery of the incarnation. We do not fully comprehend how Christ "katilthe" went down to Hades and how the bowels of Hell contained Him. What we know is that he freed all those who were under the bondage of Hades, since He preached to them the Good News of salvation. This topic is too part of Theodicy (theological speculation). It is safe though to say that it is a mystery.

http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=mystery+of+Christ%27s+death+orthodox&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt&u=www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/music/frawley_death_hymns.htm&w=mystery+mysteries+christ%27s+death+orthodox&d=ENWBr_mdOeU9&icp=1&.intl=us
God bless,
Philothei

[repentant]

All it takes is a look at ourselves. We are spirit and flesh, in one. When we die, our flesh dies, but our spirit cannot. So when we die, our spirit and flesh seperate for the time, but then, our spirit returns to the flesh in our new bodies at the resurrection. Same with Jesus and His divinty. His flesh died, for the time being, but His Spirit returned to His Body at the resurrection. So His flesh died, but not His Spirit, just like us..

[ThePilgrim]

Phil. ii. 7 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Phil+2:7,), that Christ, since he was God, might have at once manifested his glory openly to the world, but waived his right and of his own will emptied himself, putting on the form of a servant and, content with that humble station, suffering his Divinity to be hidden by a veil of flesh.
You're misunderstanding the form of English being used there. In older English, "suffer" means to allow. So when it says about Christ that He "suffered His divinity to be veiled in flesh," it means He allowed it.

The same thing is true about the verse where Jesus says, "Suffer the little children to come to me..."

[ThePilgrim]

It is a question that we do not truly know. I agree somehow with Bouzouxi but that will leave us with the problem of treating the natures as separate. One died and the other one did not. We know from the hymnology of our church that Hades got terrified when he encounted God in Hades... that would mean that God to Hades since Christ is fully God and man. The mystery of death is the same of the mystery of the incarnation. We do not fully comprehend how Christ "katilthe" went down to Hades and how the bowels of Hell contained Him. What we know is that he freed all those who were under the bondage of Hades, since He preached to them the Good News of salvation. This topic is too part of Theodicy (theological speculation). It is safe though to say that it is a mystery.

http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=mystery+of+Christ%27s+death+orthodox&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt&u=www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/music/frawley_death_hymns.htm&w=mystery+mysteries+christ%27s+death+orthodox&d=ENWBr_mdOeU9&icp=1&.intl=us
God bless,
Philothei
Philothei, with all due respect, your post wasn't quite correct. This isn't a topic of theological speculation. This is a topic that the Church in her teachers and hymnographers, has been clear about.

Christ suffered and died, according to His humanity, not according to His divinity.

However, Christ is fully God, so it is correct to say that God suffered and that God died. It isn't corrected to say that divinity suffered, though.

Christ, who is God, suffered, according to His humanity.

This was in a lot of the hymns throughout Holy Week.

Also, theodicy doesn't mean an area of theological speculation. The word theodicy refers to a specific area of philosophy or theology, that tries to explain the existence of evil in the face of a good God, or to explain how the justice of a good God could allow evil.

Theological speculation is theologumena.

Grace and peace,
John

[C.F.W. Walther]

Be careful about what bible translations you use as some Protestant versions put their doctrines into the translation. This is not what the King James version says:
I'm curious about your use of the KJV. My observance of the Orthodox Church is that they would use the Greek Bible (Septuagint) and not KJV since it's inceptions were in the Masorectic autographs and not from the Septuagint. Am I perceving this wrong or do I have my facts incorrect?

[Kristos]

"And that the words Why hast Thou forsaken Me? are His...(though He suffered nothing, for the Word was impassible), is notwithstanding declared by the Evangelists; since the Lord became man, and these things are done and said as from a man, that He might Himself lighten these very sufferings of the flesh, and free it from them. Whence neither can the Lord be forsaken by the Father, Who is ever in the Father, both before He spoke, and when He uttered this cry. Nor is it lawful to say that the Lord was in terror, at Whom the gatekeepers of Hades shuddered and set open Hades, and the graves did gape, and many bodies of the saints arose and appeared to their own people" (St. Athanasios the Great, "Discourses against the Arians," III.29, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. IV [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978], p. 424).

"Yet, I suppose, you [Arians who argued that the Logos was not coeternal with the Father, on the ground He displayed signs of weakness] will arm yourselves also for your godless contention with these words of the Lord, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? Perhaps you think that after the disgrace of the Cross, the favour of His Fathers help departed from Him, and hence His cry that He was left alone in His weakness. But if you regard the contempt, the weakness, the cross of Christ as a disgrace, you should remember His words, Verily I say unto you, From henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of Heaven" (St. Hilary of Poitiers, "On the Trinity," X.31, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. IX [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978], p. 190).

"And thus, He Who subjects presents to God that which He has subjected, making our condition His own. Of the same kind, it appears to me, is the expression, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? It was not He who was forsaken either by the Father, or by His own Godhead, as some have thought, as if It were afraid of the Passion, and therefore withdrew Itself from Him in His sufferings (for who compelled Him either to be born on earth at all, or to be lifted up on the Cross?). But as I said, He was in His own Person representing us. For we were the forsaken and despised before, but now by the Sufferings of Him Who could not suffer, we were taken up and saved. Similarly, He makes His own our folly and our transgressions; and says what follows in the Psalm, for it is very evident that the Twenty-first Psalm refers to Christ" (St. Gregory the Theologian, "Fourth Theological Oration," 30.5, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XXXVI, col. 109A).

"The cry My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? is the utterance of Adam, who trampled on the commandment given to him and disregarded Gods Law; thus did God abandon human nature, which had become accursed. When the Only-begotten Word of God came to restore fallen man, the abandonment entailed by that curse and corruption had to come to an end. My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? is the voice of Him Who destroyed our forsakenness, as if He were imploring the Father to be gracious to mankind. When, as man, He asks for something, it is for us; as God, He was in need of nothing" (St. Cyril of Alexandria, "Second Oration to the Empresses on the True Faith," 18, Patrologia Græca, Vol. LXXVI, col. 1357A.)

"Christs cry of Forsaken on the Cross was to teach us the insufficiency of the human nature without the Divine. Hence it is that the Lord Jesus Christ, our Head, representing all the members of His body in Himself and speaking for those whom He was redeeming in the punishment of the Cross, uttered that cry which He had once uttered in the Psalm, O God, My God, look upon Me; why hast Thou forsaken Me? That cry, dearly-beloved, is a lesson, not a complaint. For since in Christ there is one Person of God and man, and He could not have been forsaken by Him from Whom He could not be separated, it is on behalf of us, trembling and weak ones, that He asks why the flesh that is afraid to suffer has not been heard" (St. Leo the Great, "Homily," 67.7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XII [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978], p. 179).

[Photios]

I'm curious about your use of the KJV. My observance of the Orthodox Church is that they would use the Greek Bible (Septuagint) and not KJV since it's inceptions were in the Masorectic autographs and not from the Septuagint. Am I perceving this wrong or do I have my facts incorrect?

KJV is the most literal translation of the NT. The Septuagint is the OT. Really, with English translations, it's more a matter of preference for us. Most people I know have a RSV or NKJV preference.

The Septuagint is the version of the OT that we translate from, though, or read, if we're fluent enough in Greek.

[Kristos]

"It is of Him Who was made flesh that he here speaks, and it was said for the full assurance of the hearers, and on account of their weakness. That is (he would say), He went through the very experience of the things which we have suffered; now He is not ignorant of our sufferings; not only does He know them as God, but as man, also, He has known them, by the trial wherewith He was tried; He suffered much, He knows how to sympathize. And yet God is incapable of suffering [apathes]: but he describes here what belongs to the Incarnation, as if he had said, Even the very flesh of Christ suffered many terrible things. He knows what tribulation is; He knows what temptation is, not less than we who have suffered, for He Himself also has suffered" (St. John Chrysostomos, "Homilies on Hebrews," 5.2, Patrologia Græca, Vol. LXIII, col. 48; commenting on the verse: "For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted"[Hebrews 2:18]).

[Thekla]

Suppose this is not the best thread to say this, but
today's reading in Luke (chapter 11, vs. 27-28) contains in many versions an egregious mistranslation.

The word translated as rather (menoume) should instead be indeed.
In US english, rather carries a negative connotation (instead), indeed
an affirmative (of course, yes ...).

This translation completely changes the sense of the passage; it is a
glaring example of how translation can possibly effect theology -
in this case, the protestant view of the Theotokos.

[NyssaTheHobbit]

I checked out various translations of that verse using the Blue Letter Bible, and I see what you mean. The NASB uses "on the contrary" instead of "indeed"!

[C.F.W. Walther]

Suppose this is not the best thread to say this, but
today's reading in Luke (chapter 11, vs. 27-28) contains in many versions an egregious mistranslation.

The word translated as rather (menoume) should instead be indeed.
In US english, rather carries a negative connotation (instead), indeed
an affirmative (of course, yes ...).

This translation completely changes the sense of the passage; it is a
glaring example of how translation can possibly effect theology -
in this case, the protestant view of the Theotokos.
LCMS response about the Virgin Mary.

Like Luther himself, Lutherans hold Mary in high esteem for the chosen role she played in God's plan of salvation. Lutherans have never objected to denoting Mary as the "Mother of God" (theotokos, "God-bearer"), since she was the mother of Jesus and Jesus was and is indeed God. Since the Son of God was and is sinless, it is evident that some miraculous "exception" was made in the conception of Jesus through Mary that prevented original sin from tainting the Christ-child. This accounts for Luther's comments about Mary being "entirely without sin" (as far as the conception was concerned). Lutherans today are not bound to Luther's personal views regarding how this was accomplished; in any event, it is clear from Luther's other and later writings on Mary that he did not hold to the view that Mary was personally devoid of all sin (which would mean that she would have had no need of forgiveness or salvation). Luther also held to the semper virgo (the perpetual virginity) of Mary. This, again, is a personal view to which Lutherans today are not bound. Scripture is not clear on this matter, and Lutherans do not regard it as a theological issue.
In his early years Luther was still greatly influenced by his rigorous Roman Catholic and monastic training. In his later writings he clearly rejects invocation to Mary and/or the saints as having no Scriptural mandate or promise. None of this undermines the opening sentence of this response, which should be underscored as our belief on this issue. I'm not setting this up as an argument just as a point of our beliefs. This is not writen in stone and varibles are considered.

[Thekla]

Thanks, Radidio -

sorry; you are certainly right to call me on that sloppiness !

My dad is a protestant (he's actually attended a Lutheran seminary, among others). Although he is most of my exposure to protestants,
my extended family includes all "sorts" of protestants.

My Greek line left Orthodoxy in the mid 1800's. Interestingly, their
affinities include mainline denominations as well as Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses - but no Lutherans (or Catholics).

Anyway, my exposure to the Theotokos or Mary was about nil --
mostly art and Christmas stories. Recently, my dad has said repeatedly
that the protestants (apparently many of them, anyway) really messed
up by "dumping" Mary, the martyrs and the saints in general.

Is there "much of Mary" in your service ? That's where I first "met"
the Theotokos - and mention of her is glaringly absent in many churches.

Thanks again !
best, Thekla

[Thekla]

Whoops ! (typical me) I meant to say that my dad is a protestant minister.

[C.F.W. Walther]

We are Law and Gospel oriented in our services. The law to convict and God's grace to save simply put. Basically "Let them see Jesus". We advocate Theological Crusis and not Theological Gloria which is reformed protestant thinking and "me" oriented.

To answer you question, No, the theotokos is not part of our "service"

[ProfChrysostomos]

Χριστός Ανέστη, everyone!

It is good to be back again on CF after a very busy Holy Week and Pascha. In light of Great Week's hymnology referring to our Lord's suffering, death, and resurrection in the flesh, I would like to make a few observations here also.

First, it is critical to understand the primary decision of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod at Chalcedon, Asia Minor (451 AD), namely, the affirmation of the perfect balance existing between Christ's humanity and divinity, without change or confusion. Christ is fully God and fully man, the central mystery of the Church. He maintains within Himself the fullness of the divine nature (theologically, this is an oxymoron, as divinity cannot be measured by our limited human standards.). He also maintains within Himself the fullness of human nature, which signifies that He is the perfection of humanity, the state human beings are called to attain in unity with God's energies (St. Gregory Palamas). The only difference here is that Christ's perfect humanity is due to His union with the essence of God, since He is in His essence, God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Christ's death in the flesh can correctly be understood as Christ voluntarily suffering the frailties of human existence, but His humanity was already perfect by virtue of its association with His divinity (two natures in perfect sync with each other). As a result of the very same passion He endured, His death, and ultimately His resurrection, our humanity was cleansed, renewed, and restored in the perfect humanity of Christ. To be theologically accurate then, it would be incorrect to say that His humanity suffered per se, since His humanity was already perfect by virtue of its association with His divinity. Christ suffered in the flesh, in His humanity, but His humanity did not. There IS a difference.

As for His divinity, again, it did not suffer, but neither did God suffer death nor die nor enter into oblivion nor was held in the bowels of Hades. As Buzuxi said very correctly, God is certainly beyond the fruits of our own fallen humanity, thus "exempting" Him from sin, corruption, and death. In fact, all these things are signs of weakening and ultimately separation from God, and God cannot separate Himself from Himself!

Christ's descent into hell was obviously not a physical (i.e. bodily) descent. His body was laid in the new family tomb of St. Joseph of Arimathea. The fullness of the Godhead descended into Hades, and both Hades and Satan (read the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus for the account) were perplexed and terrified at seeing God demanding the release of the souls held captive there since the beginning of time. Hades gazed not only upon the fullness of the divinity of Christ, but also on the fullness of His humanity, in perfect union one with the other. For this reason, as St. Basil the Great writes, "He has become the first-fruits of those fallen asleep (η απαρχή των κεκοιμημένων), the first-born of the dead, that He might be the first ('model human being', the 'new Adam') in all things."

Blessings to all for a joyous paschal season!

+ The Prof.

[Thekla]

Thank-you -- this was lovely !

[Blackhawk]

This debate is exactly what Cyril and Nestorius debated about. It is basically the same as whether one should call Mary Theotokos or Christokos. Mary is Theotokos becasue she bore God. God experienced being born through the felsh. God also experienced suffering and death through the flesh of Christ. He must because the Logos is the one subject of Christ. How God experienced birth, sufferings, and death is a mystery. Cyril argued somewhere that God suffered impassibly.

[Blackhawk]

A good text to read is "On the Unity of Christ" by Cyril of ALexandria. St Vladimir's Press has a good translation of it by John McGuckin.

[Mary of Bethany]

Good to see you Blackhawk. :wave:

Did you make any of the Vespers services during Lent?

Mary

[minasoliman]

"Death" was described to me as a separation. So, when Adam disobeyed God, he "surely died," that is he separated himself from God in disobeying God, thus plunging himself into corruption and physical death, which is the separation of the soul from the body.

According to St. Cyril, when Christ died, His human soul separated from His human flesh, but the Divinity did not separate from either at any moment of time. If He had to go to the harrowing souls to save them, He went to them still with (using Chalcedonian language here) two natures: a human soul and a divine nature.

The Resurrection is that union of the soul and body by the Divine Power, which gives us hope in the end of ages for all of us that this must take place.

God bless.

[buzuxi02]

"Death" was described to me as a separation. So, when Adam disobeyed God, he "surely died," that is he separated himself from God in disobeying God, thus plunging himself into corruption and physical death, which is the separation of the soul from the body.

According to St. Cyril, when Christ died, His human soul separated from His human flesh, but the Divinity did not separate from either at any moment of time. If He had to go to the harrowing souls to save them, He went to them still with (using Chalcedonian language here) two natures: a human soul and a divine nature.

The Resurrection is that union of the soul and body by the Divine Power, which gives us hope in the end of ages for all of us that this must take place.

God bless.
I definately have to agree with that statement. The Christ's human nature is as much apart of him as his divine nature, inseperable, coming together without mingling in the Child of Mary to always be.

He voluntarily went to the cross and suffered in the flesh , his human Will submitting to the divine Will.