Thank you for the paper. That was very helpful in seeing that the indefinite article does not always mean one thing everytime it is used, and neither is it correlary with the Greek lack of article.
imikhail,
I don't understand why you keep making arguments no one makes. If one can define where a soul is, the Holy Spirit can even dwell inside that, fully. No one is saying that there is a new being consisting of body, soul, spirit, and Holy Spirit. No one is saying that we are going to hypostatically unite to the Holy Spirit. No one is saying that the Holy Spirit will incarnate into us. What I am refuting is the idea that MERELY the work of the Holy Spirit dwells in us. No! It's the whole hypostasis of the Holy Spirit who dwells in each and every one of us.
Furthermore, your use of "being in union" confuses me. When you get married, are you not "being in union" with your spouse? Does that mean that I am hypostically united to my spouse? Furthermore, to dwell in is something God can do, as God is spirit. Therefore, God does both with us. He dwells in us and is "being in union" with us. In fact, that is the ultimate reason of our existence and the ultimate reason of the incarnation, that we may enjoy unity with God, and that we may dwell in Him and He in us, so that we may share and partake of His glorious and eternal nature. Immortality and incorruption is not something that can be created, but something that is shared. It is what God possesses by nature, and what we obtain by grace, by deifying us and making us one with Him. Read this whole thread, and you will see references where I make this. No one said our nature is turned into divine nature. But I am saying it is communicated into our nature and our nature grows forevermore as it partakes of the divine nature.
To add to Mina's argument. Even in Christ's hypostatic union of the two natures, nothing changed. His human nature remained fully human. The only person who claimed the divine nature of Christ changed his human nature was Eutyches.
So even if we had a hypostatic union with the Holy Spirit (and NO ONE MAKES THAT CLAIM), it would still not mean our nature would cease to exist or turn into a divine nature. So why are you arguing against Eutychianism applied to the Holy Spirit with mankind, when it doesn't even exist and no one has made that claim?
Maybe it has something to do with what I wrote in that paper. People assume the existence of any divine union with God will automatically be a hypostatic union, like Christ theandric union of natures. They will dismiss anything less than a hypostatic union that only the Trinity can enjoy. But scripture and patristics prove that there is a theosic (is that a real word?) union of God and man.
I still disagree. Now you're saying the complete opposite, and a new argument in this that I haven't even seen the clergy make. What you are saying then is that the Holy Spirit (pipnevma) in Luke 3:23 is hypostatically united to Christ in the Jordan? You're making a distinction between indefinite and definite articles that was not intended. Read Rem's paper. It really elucidates where this thinking is wrong.
In agreement with Rem, I could say, yes, "theosic" (becoming God) or "theopoeitic" (made God) would probably be the type of union. We call Christ the "theanthropos", the "God-man" implying "God-made-man" or "God-become-man". In reverse, we are men-made-Gods, but not the same way as God-made-man. There is an asymmetry involved, because with our union to God, there is still multiple persons involved, even though we become "one flesh and one soul" in a mystical marriage with Christ.
You certainly can disagree. The point I was making is that theologians like Fr. Shenouda Maher and Mouris Tawadros do make that point. I will mention it here again for clarity:
The use of the definite article with nawma (in Greek and Coptic) is to denote hypostatic union.
Then that means the Holy Spirit is hypostatically united to Christ in the Jordan. That is heresy. And if Fr. Shenouda is making that argument, he should know better than that.
Remember, Nestorius was the archbishop of Constantinople. That doesn't mean he was free from error.
That would certainly be the case, but who said that except the heretics? The Coptic and Greek translations are very clear in Matthew 3:16 using oobnawma.
Did you even read Rem's research? The Coptic and Greek don't always agree with each other.
So you are agreeing that the Holy Spirit hypostatically united to Christ on the Jordan? Surely, an intelligent person like you should realize how ridiculous that sounds.
I did not say that. Read my comment carefully. The definite article is not used in the story of baptism as mentioned Matthew 3:16. So you can be rest assured that the Holy spirit is not hypostatically united in Christ in the Jordan.
Can you please be consistent with me here? Earlier you wrote this:
The answer to the original questions lies in the translation. When archangel Gabriel told St Mary that the Holy Spirit will descend on her he used oobnawma not bibnawma. But when the holy Spirit descended on our Lord in the Jordan River it was bibnawma. The original translations like Greek and coptic are careful to draw the distinction between the two to refer either to a hypostatic reception or a grace
The short answer to the question it is impossible for humans to receive the bibnawma hypostatically otherwise we will be in union with God hypostatically and become Gods like Him.
Now, you're backtracking on what you wrote here by saying the indefinite article is not used. Please be consistent with me here and stop running around in circles in this discussion.
I went back and check the Coptic bible from Luke 1 to Luke 3. I realized I forgot a very important piece of information that completely debunks the theory that the indefinite article is used for non-hypostatic union and the definite article is used for hypostatic union: consistency.
As I mentioned in the previous article, the Bohairic Coptic use of the indefinite article does not follow the Greek anathrous form. I decided to compare the Bohairic New Testament to the Sahidic New Testament.
For reference, the indefinite article used with the Holy Spirit in Bohairic Coptic is “ⲟⲩⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ” and the definite article is “ⲡⲓⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ”. In Sahidic, the indefinite article is “ⲟⲩⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ” and the definite article is “ⲡⲉⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ”.
From Luke 1 to Luke 3, the Holy Spirit is mentioned 12 times. (Lk 1:15, 1:17, 1:35, 1:41, 1:47, 1:67, 1:80, 2:25, 2:26, 2:27, 3:16, 3:22). 8 times the Bohairic article matches the Sahidic article (whether indefinite or definite). These eight instances are Lk 1:35, 1:47, 1:80, 2:25, 2:26, 2:27, 3:16, 3:22. This means in 4 verses, the Bohairic and the Sahidic do not match. If, as some argue, the Coptic definite article indicates a hypostatic union, it must be found in both Bohairic and Sahidic. The evidence shows the texts in question were understood differently between the Greek authors to the Bohairic authors to the Sahidic authors. It also shows the definite article in Sahidic was used differently compared to the Bohairic. There is no support that Coptic grammar indicates a theological distinction in the type of Holy Spirit union.
Second. In Luke 2:25, the Greek, the Bohairic and the Sahidic all use the anathrous form of the noun. As my previous article showed, there is some affinity in all three language/dialects, but it is not consistently uniform. There must be other reasons why one language uses the anathrous form, one uses the indefinite article and one uses the definite article that is idiomatic or semantically exclusive to that language. That is it not a universal concept as proponents of the definite article=hypostatic union claim it is.
One more thing. Someone explain how Christ can hypostatically unite to the Holy Spirit at His Baptism. He is already hypostatically united to the Holy Spirit before time. Why would Christ need to hypostatically reunite to the Holy Spirit during His baptism? It implies Christ lost His hypostatic union with the Trinity when He became man. Someone please clarify it.
Wait...hypostatic union, as far as I have read about it, describes the incarnation. It's when the pre-eternal hypostasis of the Word and the "hypostatic" (or existent) flesh became one theandric hypostasis at the very instance of the incarnation.
To say there's a hypostatic union between the Holy Spirit and Christ means there's no longer two hypostases, but one.
A union where there continues to exist multiple self-subsistent hypostases is not a "hypostatic union", as I understand it.
Basically, to summarize the original argument of what I heard is this. The indefinite article means a work of the noun, while the definite article means the very hypostasis of the noun itself. If that's the case, then John 1:1c would be supporting the Arian and Jehovah's Witness theology.
Later on, our esteemed colleague imikhail says another extreme. The indefinite article means non-hypostatic union and the definite article means a hypostatic union. If that's the case, we might actually be supporting the theology of Sabellius, in a modified format, or even Paul of Samasota, because the Church fathers never taught or implied (in the Cyrillian use of the term) a "hypostatic union" between the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.
As Rem has shown, the use of indefinite article shows something more stylistic within a narrative than it is an affirmation of some sort of theological distinction. ooNoute or ooPnevma does not always imply a direct Anglo-style indefinite article of "a god" or "a spirit". Furthermore, the use of the indefinite and definite articles are not even consistently translated through between the Bohairic and Sahidic, which means the way the Bohairic is read seems to be understood in a different manner than a straightforward Anglo-style definite and indefinite articles.
Theologically, it is necessary to uphold the doctrine that the Holy Spirit in His hypostasis (existence) does in fact dwell in us. Not a mere work or grace, not a hypostatic union either. But the whole hypostasis residing within us, and guiding and nurturing us. Just because the divine nature is infinite does not mean it is unable to dwell fully in us. As St. Severus wrote to the Emesenes in Letter XXV:
Even though the Word of God is infinite, the whole of him was united to the flesh that was received from the holy Virgin, the God-bearer and ever-virgin Mary, even the very person of the Word and not a partial operation as in the prophets. How then is it anything but ridiculous for us to say that he who was in the actual divine hypostasis wholly united to a body naturally as well as miraculously is without flesh, even in the greatness of his infinite Godhead? For "there is no limit to his greatness" (Psalm 144:3 LXX), as David said, and he fills everything, and is above everything, and cannot be comprised by anyone. And the subtlety of the mystery cannot be explored by reason and intellect, how the whole of him was in flesh, and the whole of him is in all things and the whole of him is superior to all things and he himself is Ruler of all in infinity. But, that we believe that the very hypostasis of God the Word became incarnate, according to the apostolic tradition of the church that has been handed down from of old, it is superfluous for us to demonstrate by testimonies to those who have once believed in the Gospel, when John who was divine in words beyond the evangelists said, "The Word became flesh and came to dwell in us" (John 1:14).
The only time the idea of infinity is a problem for theologians is Islam. Judaism has the theological concept of Shekinah, and has some traditions of an indwelling God, especially in the Temple. But Islam forbids that the divine nature can dwell in anything in the universe. He is so separate from us, there is no way we can communicate to God. This means the incarnation of God is also impossible. This type of theology is also a theology many Protestants hold, and it is not surprising that these same Protestants are also Nestorians in Christology, but to even greater "rationalizing" degree. It makes sense because Nestorius did not believe in a hypostatic unity, but a "moral unity" between the Word and Jesus. Jesus was only "God" insomuch as God works in Him, but He is not the Word Himself. St. Cyril would say that this makes Jesus no different than the saints, because they too have the Holy Spirit residing and working in them as well. Protestants are worse than Nestorius in that the divine nature does not even reside in humanity to begin with due to the infinite nature, but still can "work" in humanity.
Infinity is not numerical. Infinity is qualitative. God can do all things and be in all things at all times. He who is uncontainable can also dwell in everything and anything. That is how He bestows His grace on us.
The implications of the characteristics of the divine nature being present 1. in all places, 2. at all times, and 3.in all things also carries into the Eucharist and to the nature of the Church (Ecclesiology).
When we partake of a piece of bread and a sip of the wine, is this a piece of body and a drop of blood of Christ? Or is it a mitotically multiplied Jesuses? As we should all confidently know, it's neither. For every piece of bread and every sip of wine, there the fullness of Christ lies, both humanity and divinity in every communicant. As Abba Bulus al Bushi wrote:
Then He said the greatest thing when He made the statement, "Just as the living Father sent me, and I have life on account of the Father, so too whoever eats Me lives on account of Me." (John 6:57). He did not need to say here, "whoever eats my body," because He already established that in the preceding statement. He said first, "the living bread" (John 6:51), and informed us that that bread was truly His body. Then, He said third, "whoever eats me" (John 6:57). He means (here) that He is God incarnate, and His divinity is not differentiated from His humanity. Whoever partakes (of the Eucharist) in a worthy manner and with faith, (God) resides in him and gives him the life that He gave to the body united to Him.
Truly this is the life-giving flesh which is one with His divinity, inseparable for a single moment or a blink of an eye. Where the unconfused and unaltered humanity of Christ is, there also is the unconfused and unaltered divine nature. As Pope St. Matthew IV wrote:
For the one who created the world with a word is able to do this wondrous thing. He enacts his body by his Word when he says through the mouth of the priest, ‘This is my body,’ and he gave his body to his disciples in Emmaus, while being no-where. And just as his divinity was hidden in the womb of the Virgin Mary, in the same way it is hidden under the accidents of the bread and wine.
It is therefore agreeable to the faith that when a communication of the properties of the divine nature is in the human nature, we find that in the Eucharist, Christ's full humanity and divinity is 1.in all places,2.at all times, and3.in all Christians.
Same thing with the Church. Where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church, as St. Ignatius of Antioch teaches. We are not part of the Church, we are not multiple Churches either. The Church of NY/NE under Bishop David is the One Holy Catholic Church as is the Catholic Church under Bishop Youssef, the Catholic Church under Bishop Serapion, the Catholic Church under Bishop Mina, etc., because the Church is also 1.in all places,2.at all times, and3.in all episcopally-lead assemblies. (I'm in NJ, so I don't know what to call that)
So overall, this shows the importance of the dogma of the ability for God in the fullness of His divine nature to dwell in anyone or anything. If we use an Islamic concept of the divine nature, where we speculate in a heterodox manner that God is unable to dwell in anything or anyone, there is no incarnation, no Church, and no Eucharist. Basically, all of Christianity (and Judaism's concept of the Shekinah) is a sham. This is why any idea of "oopnevma" that denies the fact that the Holy Spirit FULLY dwells in us must be avoided as if heresy.
"In Abbasid times there were more Christian thinkers interested in the philosophies and sciences of the Greeks than just those Aristotelians among the Jacobites and the Nestorians who took their texts and commentaries from the Alexandrian tradition. And there were more Muslims whose philosophical and scientific interests reached well beyond a single-minded devotion to Aristotle. Nevertheless these were the Christian and Muslim philosophers who shaped the intellectual milieu in which Hunayn ibn Ishaq and Yahya ibn 'Adi pursued their careers.
And just as the Muslims among this generation of philosophers wanted “to vindicate the pursuit of rational activity as an activity in the service of Islam,” so did Hunayn and Yahya and their associates intend to vindicate with the same philosophy the doctrines and practices of the Christians and the Christology of the Nestorians and the Jacobites respectively. Indeed, one important reason for the sustained interest in Aristotelian thought among the Jacobites and Nestorians of the time, and a significant impetus behind their projects to translate texts from Greek into Syriac from the sixth century onward, and latterly into Arabic, was precisely the need for "the Philosopher's" definitions and distinctions of terms in the effort evermore to clearly differentiate and defend their confessional formulas, and hence their ecclesiastical identities.
This process was still underway by the time of the Islamic occupation in the seventh century of the largely Syriac-speaking, Aramean homeland. It continued well into Islamic times, with the Muslims themselves now becoming new participants in the enterprise to find ways clearly to articulate and to defend their own distinctive religious identities. By the ninth century, Arabic-speaking Christian and Muslim philosophers in Baghdad were together commending the philosophical life as a workable model for interreligious convivencia in a city that by their time had a large and important Christian population."
Fr. Sidney H. Griffith, Church in the Shadow of the Mosque, 117
All Christian churches under the yolk of Islam (the Chalcedonian Orthodox were no exception) used Aristotelian philosophy as a tool to teach the Christian faith. The idea to be "anti-scholastic" I think is a more recent attitude by the Eastern churches, spearheaded first by the Chalcedonian Orthodox of the "neo-patristic brand". They have pretty much called forth a way to dismiss the Chalcedonian Orthodox tradition of the Middle Ages as a "dark period" of theology in their Church. I hesitate to do the same for our Coptic Church. Some people want to do that, but I think that would be a bit disingenuous. We should at the very least study the way they thought at the time, at how theology developed with them. What is important is not so much that they agreed with the theology of Thomas Aquinas for example, but they used the same language, which was the language of Islam, to define Coptic theology. The dangers of course is to misunderstand this use and redefine theological concepts in the wrong direction, which I feel has been done relatively recently in the Church.
Some famous Coptic theologians who used scholastic language include Abba Severus ibn Muqaffa, Abba Bulus al Bushi, and the sons of Ibn-Assal, who I think seemed to agree for the most part with the essence of the theologies of the Greek Alexandrian fathers Sts. Athanasius and Cyril and did not go to that "wrong direction". One might be able to argue that the use of the word "accidents" in HH Pope St. Matthew while it has a scholastic root does not necessarily intend to have the same effect of believing in "transubstantiation" as the Roman Catholics had. The essential intentions of Roman Catholic theology on the Eucharist was accepted, but not the detail-oriented ideas of "transubstantiation". (I would even argue that the idea of "transubstantiation" is not wrong per se, we should just take a view that it's not "necessary").
Good points. I would like to point out one of the Aristotelian philosophical frameworks is the concept of classical elements. Aristotle didn't start it. It dates farther back to medical science. He simply added ether to the four classical elements/humors (fire, water, air, earth). The concept of the four humors prevailed way into the 16-18th centuries AD. It is, as I believe, the basis of all music theory of all the Middle East, including the Coptic Church as seen in Ibn Kabar. It would be disingenuous, as you say, to claim any framework built on Aristotelian philosophy was part of the "dark ages". It would frame nearly all of our early patristic writings who used accepted philosophies to form their theology as invalid. It would be disingenuous to say the stoics of all ages, Coptic sages included, were all superstitious folks. Modernity requires, as 19th century Protestant missionaries of Egypt claimed, to abandon these customs and theories.
Once again His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy uses Al-Keraza to disseminate his own views that are at variance with what we received from the fathers of the church. In a recent Arabic article titled “ىѧѧѧѧѧѧاألقنوم ولѧѧѧѧѧѧالحل” His Eminence pontificates:
أما عن حلول الروح القدس فى يوم الخمسين فأننا نفضل أن نقول عنه أنه "حلول مواھب" ألنه اليمنح جوھره للرسل والمؤمنين بل مواھبه وعطاياه. "As for the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, we prefer to refer to this as “descent of gifts” because he (the Holy Spirit) does not grant his essence to the apostles and the believers but rather his gifts and his graces."
Here I would like to ask His Eminence, Which of the fathers of the church taught this? Saint Gregory the theologian left us a wonderful oration on the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost in which he says the opposite
He (the Holy Spirit) is no longer present only in energy, but as we may say, substantially, associating with us, and dwelling in us.
Gregory Nazianzen: Oration 41 On Pentecost N/PNF series 2, volume 7 p. 383. أنه (الروح القدس) ليس بعد حاال فقط بواسطة فعله؛ بل كما نقول؛ جوھريا؛ متحدا معنا وساكننا فينا
It is quite obvious that His Eminence prefers (as he says) his own view to the view of the fathers. But just in case he thinks that St. Gregory is the only father who says this, I hope he will allow me to introduce a selection of the sayings of the fathers on this:
God the Father then hath, of Himself, and in Himself, His own Spirit; that is, the Holy Spirit, through Whom He dwelleth in the Saints, and reveals His mysteries to them; not as though the Spirit were called to perform a merely ministerial function (do not think this), but rather, as He is in Him essentially
St. Cyril’s commentary on the Gospel of St. John Book 11 page 4 إن اللة االب له فى ذاته روحه الخاص أى الروح القدس، الذى من خالله يسكن فى القديسين، ويكشف أسراره لھم . وليس كأن الروح القدس قد دعى لكى يؤدى وظيفة رسمية مجردة، بل بالحرى كما ھو كائن فيه جوھريا.
The Greek word ousia is translated into English as “substance” (from the Latin substantia) and also as “essence”. Generally speaking Catholics use the word “substance” which is taken from Latin while the Orthodox use “essence”. We speak about the Son and the Holy Spirit as Co-essential (of one essence with the Father) while the Catholic prefer to use Consubstantial (of one substance with the Father). In Arabic ousia means جوھر
Let us consider again (for I will take up again the aim of my discourse) that in the holy Prophets there was a certain rich shining upon and torch-illumination from the Spirit, mighty to lead them to the apprehension of things to come and the knowledge of things hidden: but in those who believe on Christ, we are confident that not torch-illumination simply from the Spirit, but the Spirit Itself dwells and has His habitation. Whence rightly are we called temples too of God, though no one of the holy Prophets was ever called a Divine Temple.
St. Cyril’s commentary on the Gospel of St. John Book 5 pp 23-24
إن حلول الروح القدس فى األنبياء كان مثل مصباح ينير عليھم، ويقودھم إلى فھم األمور المستقبلة ومعرفة الخفيات . اما فى المؤمنون بالمسيح فنحن نثق أنه ليس مصباحا ينير، ولكن الروح ذاته يسكن ويقيم فيھم. ومن ھذا ندعى بالحق ھياكل للة، بالرغم من أنه لم يدع أحد األنبياء قط ھيكال إلھيا.
If the Spirit Itself dwells and has His habitation in the believers as St. Cyril tells us, then to claim that the Holy Spirit “does not grant his essence to the apostles and the believers but rather his gifts and his graces.” As His Eminence wants us to believe is an error that the holy Synod should investigate.
The Spirit came to be in the Prophets for the need's sake of prophesying, He indwelleth now through Christ in believers, having begun in Him first when He was made Man. For as God He has unceasingly the Spirit Who is Essentially of His Nature and His own. He is anointed for our sakes and said to receive the Spirit as Man, not for Himself bringing in the participation of the Divine good things, but for the nature of man as we have already-taught. When then the Divine Evangelist says to us, For the Spirit was not yet because that Jesus was not yet glorified, let us understand him to mean the full and complete habitation in men of the Holy Ghost.
St. Cyril’s commentary on the Gospel of St. John Book 5 p 24
َْد َ ُك ْن ق َْم ي ُُد َس ل ل ق ْ َ ﱠن ال ﱡر و َح ا َ ْع ُد ، َي أ ْع ِط ُ عندما يقول لنا اإلنجيلى الطاھر" أل َ ْع د " .فلنفھم أنه ب َْد ُم ﱢج َد ب َ ُك ْن ق َْم ي َ ُس و َع ل َ ﱠن ي أل يعنى الحلول التام والكامل للروح القدس فى البشر.
What does the full and complete habitation in men of the Holy Ghost mean? Does it mean that the Holy Spirit dwells in us hypostatically and essentially as the fathers say? Or does it mean that He dwells in us by his gifts and his graces as His Eminence wants us to believe?
Finally, allow me to quote Dydimus the Blind in the introduction of his book on the Holy Spirit:
It is important to investigate all divine matters with reverence and zealous attention, but especially what is said about the Holy Spirit, particularly since blasphemy against him is without forgiveness, so much so that the punishment of the blasphemer extends not only throughout the entirety of this present age, but also into the age to come. It was the Savior himself who said that there would be no pardon for whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, either in this age or in the age to come [Mt 12.31-32; Mk 3.29]. Hence it is all the more important to investigate what the Scriptures report about him lest any error creep up, at least any error that comes through ignorance. It is normally expedient for a faithful and reverent man in control of his capacities to pass over the enormity of the present question in silence and not to subject a matter so full of danger to his own judgment.
Comments
I went back and check the Coptic bible from Luke 1 to Luke 3. I realized I forgot a very important piece of information that completely debunks the theory that the indefinite article is used for non-hypostatic union and the definite article is used for hypostatic union: consistency.
As I mentioned in the previous article, the Bohairic Coptic use of the indefinite article does not follow the Greek anathrous form. I decided to compare the Bohairic New Testament to the Sahidic New Testament.
For reference, the indefinite article used with the Holy Spirit in Bohairic Coptic is “ⲟⲩⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ” and the definite article is “ⲡⲓⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ”. In Sahidic, the indefinite article is “ⲟⲩⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ” and the definite article is “ⲡⲉⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ”.
From Luke 1 to Luke 3, the Holy Spirit is mentioned 12 times. (Lk 1:15, 1:17, 1:35, 1:41, 1:47, 1:67, 1:80, 2:25, 2:26, 2:27, 3:16, 3:22). 8 times the Bohairic article matches the Sahidic article (whether indefinite or definite). These eight instances are Lk 1:35, 1:47, 1:80, 2:25, 2:26, 2:27, 3:16, 3:22. This means in 4 verses, the Bohairic and the Sahidic do not match. If, as some argue, the Coptic definite article indicates a hypostatic union, it must be found in both Bohairic and Sahidic. The evidence shows the texts in question were understood differently between the Greek authors to the Bohairic authors to the Sahidic authors. It also shows the definite article in Sahidic was used differently compared to the Bohairic. There is no support that Coptic grammar indicates a theological distinction in the type of Holy Spirit union.
Second. In Luke 2:25, the Greek, the Bohairic and the Sahidic all use the anathrous form of the noun. As my previous article showed, there is some affinity in all three language/dialects, but it is not consistently uniform. There must be other reasons why one language uses the anathrous form, one uses the indefinite article and one uses the definite article that is idiomatic or semantically exclusive to that language. That is it not a universal concept as proponents of the definite article=hypostatic union claim it is.
I agree with you on this even though the thread as a whole is way over my head.
Oujai
PS give me some time to digest your heavy PM, and *if* I don't get indigestion, I'll try to reply ASAP.
http://www.stmaryscopticorthodox.ca/index.php/english/abouna-s-blog/107-the-holy-spirit-dwells-in-us-substantially-essentially
THE HOLY SPIRIT DWELLS IN US SUBSTANTIALLY (ESSENTIALLY)
https://s3.amazonaws.com/stmaryscopticorthodox/articles/other/the_holy_spirit-dwells_in_us_substantially.pdf
Once again His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy uses Al-Keraza to disseminate his own views that are at variance with what we received from the fathers of the church. In a recent Arabic article titled “ىѧѧѧѧѧѧاألقنوم ولѧѧѧѧѧѧالحل” His Eminence pontificates:
أما عن حلول الروح القدس فى يوم الخمسين فأننا نفضل أن نقول عنه أنه "حلول مواھب" ألنه اليمنح جوھره للرسل والمؤمنين بل مواھبه وعطاياه.
"As for the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, we prefer to refer to this as “descent of gifts” because he (the Holy Spirit) does not grant his essence to the apostles and the believers but rather his gifts and his graces."
Here I would like to ask His Eminence, Which of the fathers of the church taught this? Saint Gregory the theologian left us a wonderful oration on the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost in which he says the opposite
He (the Holy Spirit) is no longer present only in energy, but as we may say, substantially, associating with us, and dwelling in us.
Gregory Nazianzen: Oration 41 On Pentecost N/PNF series 2, volume 7 p. 383.
أنه (الروح القدس) ليس بعد حاال فقط بواسطة فعله؛ بل كما نقول؛ جوھريا؛ متحدا معنا وساكننا فينا
It is quite obvious that His Eminence prefers (as he says) his own view to the view of the fathers. But just in case he thinks that St. Gregory is the only father who says this, I hope he will allow me to introduce a selection of the sayings of the fathers on this:
God the Father then hath, of Himself, and in Himself, His own Spirit; that is, the Holy Spirit, through Whom He dwelleth in the Saints, and reveals His mysteries to them; not as though the Spirit were called to perform a merely ministerial function (do not think this), but rather, as He is in Him essentially
St. Cyril’s commentary on the Gospel of St. John Book 11 page 4
إن اللة االب له فى ذاته روحه الخاص أى الروح القدس، الذى من خالله يسكن فى القديسين، ويكشف أسراره لھم . وليس كأن الروح القدس قد دعى لكى يؤدى وظيفة رسمية مجردة، بل بالحرى كما ھو كائن فيه جوھريا.
The Greek word ousia is translated into English as “substance” (from the Latin substantia) and also as “essence”. Generally speaking Catholics use the word “substance” which is taken from Latin while the Orthodox use “essence”. We speak about the Son and the Holy Spirit as Co-essential (of one essence with the Father) while the Catholic prefer to use Consubstantial (of one substance with the Father). In Arabic ousia means جوھر
Let us consider again (for I will take up again the aim of my discourse) that in the holy Prophets there was a certain rich shining upon and torch-illumination from the Spirit, mighty to lead them to the apprehension of things to come and the knowledge of things hidden: but in those who believe on Christ, we are confident that not torch-illumination simply from the Spirit, but the Spirit Itself dwells and has His habitation. Whence rightly are we called temples too of God, though no one of the holy Prophets was ever called a Divine Temple.
St. Cyril’s commentary on the Gospel of St. John Book 5 pp 23-24
إن حلول الروح القدس فى األنبياء كان مثل مصباح ينير عليھم، ويقودھم إلى فھم األمور المستقبلة ومعرفة الخفيات . اما فى المؤمنون بالمسيح فنحن نثق أنه ليس مصباحا ينير، ولكن الروح ذاته يسكن ويقيم فيھم. ومن ھذا ندعى بالحق ھياكل للة، بالرغم من أنه لم يدع أحد األنبياء قط ھيكال إلھيا.
If the Spirit Itself dwells and has His habitation in the believers as St. Cyril tells us, then to claim that the Holy Spirit “does not grant his essence to the apostles and the believers but rather his gifts and his graces.” As His Eminence wants us to believe is an error that the holy Synod should investigate.
The Spirit came to be in the Prophets for the need's sake of prophesying, He indwelleth now through Christ in believers, having begun in Him first when He was made Man. For as God He has unceasingly the Spirit Who is Essentially of His Nature and His own. He is anointed for our sakes and said to receive the Spirit as Man, not for Himself bringing in the participation of the Divine good things, but for the nature of man as we have already-taught. When then the Divine Evangelist says to us, For the Spirit was not yet because that Jesus was not yet glorified, let us understand him to mean the full and complete habitation in men of the Holy Ghost.
St. Cyril’s commentary on the Gospel of St. John Book 5 p 24
َْد َ ُك ْن ق َْم ي ُُد َس ل ل ق ْ َ ﱠن ال ﱡر و َح ا َ ْع ُد ، َي أ ْع ِط ُ عندما يقول لنا اإلنجيلى الطاھر" أل َ ْع د " .فلنفھم أنه ب َْد ُم ﱢج َد ب َ ُك ْن ق َْم ي َ ُس و َع ل َ ﱠن ي أل يعنى الحلول التام والكامل للروح القدس فى البشر.
What does the full and complete habitation in men of the Holy Ghost mean? Does it mean that the Holy Spirit dwells in us hypostatically and essentially as the fathers say? Or does it mean that He dwells in us by his gifts and his graces as His Eminence wants us to believe?
Finally, allow me to quote Dydimus the Blind in the introduction of his book on the Holy Spirit:
It is important to investigate all divine matters with reverence and zealous attention, but especially what is said about the Holy Spirit, particularly since blasphemy against him is without forgiveness, so much so that the punishment of the blasphemer extends not only throughout the entirety of this present age, but also into the age to come. It was the Savior himself who said that there would be no pardon for whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, either in this age or in the age to come [Mt 12.31-32; Mk 3.29]. Hence it is all the more important to investigate what the Scriptures report about him lest any error creep up, at least any error that comes through ignorance. It is normally expedient for a faithful and reverent man in control of his capacities to pass over the enormity of the present question in silence and not to subject a matter so full of danger to his own judgment.
my email is
[email protected]