judge

Certainly the concept of the trinity comes acroos differently in greek than it does in Aramaic.

The council of Ephesus was held around the concept that Mary was the "mother of god" IIUC.
Nestorius was condemned at this council becasue he did not believe Mary was the "mother of god" but rather tha mother of Christ.
The reason Nestorius could not adhere to this idea was that he had been trained by Theodore and came to understand the trinity using Aramaic words and concepts.
I think I have this right but this link might help

Orthodox_Freethinker

Nestorius was condemned because he believed the divine nature and human nature of Christ to be two distinct persons.

Malachi151

I have just been reading the works of Clement of Alexandria, very interesting. Shows clearly the Greek influence on the early church.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02101.htm

Thanks for the other info as well.

Toto

Some Greek influence on the early Christian church may be the result of Greek / Hellenistic influence on Judaism. It's hard to separate.

Answerer

I read before that the reincarnation theory made by Greeks philosophers influenced some prominent christian thinkers and caused some controvesy among the christian community during the 3rd century. Although it was eventually ruled out as heretic by the decision of the Second Council of Constantinople, some forms of beliefs in reincarnation still persists among the Christians, most notably the Gnostics, up til today.

guy_683930

So we have to chew on Jesus' flesh in order to have life? It seems more likely it is used metaphorically. Plus, the term used in John 6:53 is "esthio". The eucharist would only be his flesh literally if transubstantiation were true.

judge

Ok ...but wasn't the Council of Ephesus held around the proposition that Mary was the "mother of god" , theotokos.
If the answer is yes then this does show the influence of the greek language upon the Church.

Anyone understanding the Aramaic tern "qnoma" (for which there is no greek equivalrnt) would never agree with the preposterous statement that Mary is the "mother of god".

Thus some men who claim to be the real followers of Christ condemn and damn other men who claim to be the real followers of Christ on the basis that they have a slightly incorrect understanding of Christology.

Amazing :rolling: The "true" beleivers condemn other believers because they don't use the correct wording. Amazing. Somehow we imagine Christ would have heartily agreed.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Yes, exactly.

Yes, according to a Protestant who doesn't understand the Eucharist. Wait...Protestants are supposed to be "Biblical literalists". :down:

Please support this claim.

"John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo� is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago� might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo� when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?� (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal."
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the...#eucharist-IIc

John 6:54-55, and the
Meaning of the Verb “to Eat� Flesh
By Robert Sungenis
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/trogo.html :wave:

Consubstantiation
The doctrine that the substance of the body and blood of Jesus coexists with the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist.

Orthodox_Freethinker

It shows the influence of logic upon the Church. If the Virgin Mary gave birth to God incarnate then she is the Mother of God.

guy_683930

Sorry, my mistake. The term was "phago", not "esthio".

Phago is used metaphorically: 1 Corinthians 10.1-4
"For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;and did all eat (phago) the same spiritual food; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ." This verse, considering the Pauline influence on GJohn, makes me seriously question the literality of GJohn's literal use of eating flesh.

Only if you consider in GJohn 6 and GJohn 13 to be literal. Otherwise, considering the term used also is "phago", it could also be metaphorical. Plus, this could be another one of those things I mentioned earlier (in another section - see Evolution of the Gospels) about the writers of the gospels writing things for Jesus to say that the Jews will misunderstand so it gives them a reason for them to turn on him, advancing the story to the point of his crucifixion.

Flesh is not used always literally in the NT or in GJohn. For example:
Galatians 5.24: "And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts thereof. " Have they LITERALLY crucified their flesh? No.
1 Corinthians 15.39: "For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. " Was this supposed to be taken literally? If it was, Paul was dead wrong.
John 1.13: "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. " Does flesh actually have will apart from men? It makes me think this is not literal.
John 6.51: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Is bread literally flesh? Nope.
John 8.15: "Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. " Once again, not literal.

I noticed in looking at the GJohn how a duality of flesh and spirit appears (like in 3.6), much like Paul and the gnostics of the 2nd century. That's probably why GJohn's earliest attestation is from gnostics, rather than literalists (see here).

This relies on Aristotelian substance theory. Outside of the Aristotelian cosmos (geocentric with celestial spheres), how does it make sense?