Understanding Christology Books

[Anonymous No.19240393]

>Christ truly suffered
>Christ had prelapsarian human nature since He has no original sin
Any books going into depth on this question? How does /lit/ explain this?
Also, any books explaining why Christ did not laugh?

[Anonymous No.19240579]

>>19240393
>Christ had prelapsarian human nature
Heresy and blasphemy go away. /Lit/ is an orthodox board.

[Anonymous No.19240692]

>>19240393
sergei bulgakov give a very interesting/understandable christology in terms of divine humanity

[Anonymous No.19240779]

>>19240393
>Also, any books explaining why Christ did not laugh?
Sauce on this?

[Anonymous No.19241164]

>>19240393
>>19240779
I'm sure Christ did laugh in His time on Earth. Christ was both fully man and fully God and humour and laughter is a key part of the human experience.
The Gospels aren't the life of Christ. It doesn't detail literally everything He did. Just what is important for our Salvation.

[Anonymous No.19241321]

>>19241164
Depends on whether laughter is considered sin, I believe OP or another anon referenced some priest who said laughter is a post fall human characteristic or something and thus Christ wouldn't've laughed.

[Anonymous No.19241326]

>>19241321
Last thread I mean.

[Anonymous No.19241499]

>>19240393
better question: why did Mary suffer if she was without sinless?

[Anonymous No.19241630]

>>19241499
It does not follow that because a person is without sin, that a person will not suffer.

Thus Christ, who was without sin, clearly suffered in the garden of Gethsemane, when He sweated drops of blood. Luke 22:44.

[Anonymous No.19243250]

>>19240393
I'm gonna post this again; Christ's human nature was not prelapsarian. All Christology fails immediately, and we are all still dead in our sins, if Christ's human nature was not prone to sin.

Prelapsarian humanity is like a different species of animal from ourselves; to say that Christ's human nature was prelapsarian is the same as saying that he was actually a lobster, and that he died for the sins of the lobsters. In other words it is a ridiculous heresy.

Christ resisted the sin inherent in his human nature, through the power of his Divine nature, you absolute mong.
>Catholic mariology.
>Not even once.

And get back to your containment board.

[Anonymous No.19243335]

>>19243250
Nope. He was the "second Adam," which implies prelapsarian. 1 Cor 15:45.

He undertook and succeeded in the trial which Adam failed. Now, through baptism, we are incorporated into Christ. "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body." I Cor 12:13; see also Eph 5:30. And *that* is how we are saved.

You Christology is all messed up.

[Anonymous No.19244490]

>>19241499
Because she is a creation and had original sin, easy enough question.

[Anonymous No.19244543]

>>19243250
>sin inherent in his human nature
Human nature is not a subject, sin is pertaining to hypostasis and will, not nature, since sin requires action by a person. The natures in Christ do not act, it is Christ Himself who acts.
You are either Nestorian or Arian if you say that Christ had postlapsarian human nature.
And you are monoenergist too, because if Christ's human nature is fallen like ours, then the only reason Christ does not involuntarily think fallen thoughts is because there is no human mind in there which can think them, so the only real energy in Christ is divine.
>is the same as saying that he was actually a lobster
Prelapsarian refers to the mode of being of the human nature, not a "different" human nature. Adam did not become something else substantially when he fell, it was the mode of being of his nature and everything pertaining to it that changed. If it is a different human nature, then Christ after the resurrection is no longer human.

[Anonymous No.19244552]

>>19240692
>sergei bulgakov
Wasn't he a universalist heretic?

[Anonymous No.19244558]

>>19241164
>laughter is a key part of the human experience
How do you know this though without seeing what natural and original humanity looked like? You can mistakenly say that lust is a key part of human experience because every human you have ever seen with your eyes experienced it.

[Anonymous No.19244588]

>>19243250
>sin inherent in his human nature
What? He had original sin? Because He committed no sin.

[Anonymous No.19244780]

>>19240393
>Also, any books explaining why Christ did not laugh?

Christ also did never get confused by what He saw. This I think would preclude laughter as we know it, but not smiling or display of joy. He saw reality as is because Christ's human faculties including the nous were fully deified, and this is what we perceive reality by. He would never mistake for example a figure in the shadows for a real person, etc and get scared or startled by a shadow or unexpected turn of phrase.

Monks and ascetics speak against needless laughter all the time.
>In laughter, let him not bare his teeth; let his face bow down in reverent shame.
Philokalia. There's other similar passages too about not baring the teeth, i.e. opening your mouth wide to laugh or display joy. So this would refute the bugman too.

[Anonymous No.19244914]

>>19244780
>let him not bare his teeth
>So this would refute the bugman too.
Based.
I can not even imagine Christ making a similar face. There is just something nonhuman about it.

[Anonymous No.19245216]

>>19244552
gotcha youre a larper
maybe just skip christology all together

[Anonymous No.19245271]

>>19245216
Why not answer the question, anon? I haven't read the guy because I have heard about his weird " sophiology" and also heard he has a "special" eschatology.

[Anonymous No.19245292]

>>19245271
Yep checks out. Larper.

[Anonymous No.19245311]

>>19240393
>Also, any books explaining why Christ did not laugh?
Any books explaining why Christ wasn’t described to be breathing when he clearly was in all the Gospels??

[Anonymous No.19245314]

>>19245292
>no answer
cringe.

[Anonymous No.19245330]

>>19245271
>Bulgakov argued that only the doctrine of the trinity enshrined in the creed and the doctrine of the incarnation stated in the definitions of the seven ecumenical councils enjoyed the status of the dogma binding upon all members of the Orthodox Church.
Ok, so seems like the average modernism. Nothing of value.

[Anonymous No.19245412]

>>19245311
He was though.
>Then looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, “Ephphatha,” that is, “Be opened.”
>And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation.”

[Anonymous No.19246794]

>>19243250
>sin inherent in his human nature

[Anonymous No.19246983]

>>19243250
>sin is inherent to human nature
uhh

[Anonymous No.19247301]

>>19240393
>did not laugh
This sound like a based behaviour

[Anonymous No.19247941]

>>19243335
>He was the second Adam
No, this is just a Catholic misconception. Mary was not conceived immaculately by St Anne, and neither did Mary have a prelapsarian nature, and neither was she the second Eve.

No wonder you make idols to saints; for you Christ isn't even human anymore.

>>19244543
>Different modes of human nature
This is a Platonic/Aristotelian way of speaking, not a Biblical one. The Bible never specifies anywhere that such fine distinctions should be made. In fact, you should probably read Scripture without consulting the philosophers altogether. In fact Paul even admonishes us to avoid the philosophers and their false doctrines; it was he who said "what concord hath Christ with Belial?"

Philosophers are only full of pride and darkness.

>Adam did not become something substantially else when he fell
Just read Genesis 3 and you will see that you are wrong, Adam's entire character went from good to evil. And no man has been good since (Mark 10:18).

[Anonymous No.19248009]

>>19247941
>Philosophers
St. Maximus the Confessor speaks this way and he is the basis for the VI ecumenical council's theology which refuted and condemned the monoenergist/monothelite heresy. Is this not Christian enough for you? Or you do you think "Logos" is originally a pagan philosopher god too?
>Adam's entire character went from good to evil.
Adam did not become non-human or an animal, he is not of a different nature after the fall, but of the same nature changed by his disobedience to exist in a different manner (prone to suffering, hunger, decay, involuntary fear of death, sinful inclinations, etc.).

[Anonymous No.19248025]

>>19247941
>>He was the second Adam
>Catholic ""misconception""
>the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
Yes, it is for sure Catholic, as in the faith given to the apostles and held universally by the Church. How is it a "misconception" though when it is explicit in Holy Scripture that Christ is the second and last Adam?

[Anonymous No.19248117]

>>19247941
>neither did Mary have a prelapsarian nature
Correct, she had postlapsarian nature but committed no personal sin, but this is not true of Christ.

[Anonymous No.19248191]

>>19248025
>>19248009
So what you mean is that Christ's prelapsarian nature is much like the transubstantial nature of the bread of the Eucharist?

What I'm getting a lot of here is that your philosophy is much the same as nothing. If you just dig down a layer, you can tell that prelapsarian nature is nothing other than postlapsarian nature. And that bread and wine remains bread and wine.

Don't you see what a shabby philosophy you're making? You would think by the way you speak that you've been taken up to the third heaven and remembered a good deal of the experience, but in fact you are not remembering or even thinking at all.

It would keep us all much more sane if we could just stop here and say that when Paul calls Jesus the last Adam, he is making use of rhetoric. Just like when Jesus says "I am the door" he does not mean that he is made of wood. Or when he says "I am the bread of life" he does not mean that he is made of bread.

I beg you to consider if the virtue of simplicity means anything to you.

[Anonymous No.19248497]

>>19248191
>Christ's prelapsarian nature is
Prelapsarian means without original sin in this context. Even prelapsarian is not properly applicable to Christ because there is no 'lapse' or fall for Him, He just took on in the incarnation the natural humanity as He created it from the very beginning, with also voluntarily assuming the ability to suffer and the blameless passions (hunger, sleepiness, ability to get physically tired) for the purpose of our salvation, that He may die on the cross for our sins. He did not assume any sin into Himself, because sin is something you do with your will, not something that subsists in yourself somewhere. In Christ there is no sin whatsoever because the human will of Christ was in perfect cooperation with His divine will. There was no conflict or separation even in death.
>much like the transubstantial nature of the bread of the Eucharist?
How did you think I was making any connection here? I'm genuinely confused and interested.

>What I'm getting a lot of here is that your philosophy is much the same as nothing.
It is not a philosophy, but an explanation of truth by St. Maximus which is just an elaboration of previous Christian fathers about Christ being truly human and consubstantial to both Adam before the fall and after the fall, because there is only one human nature, not many. I don't think you understand fully what you are arguing against. No sane Christian can disagree with these things, because to do so means that Adam was not human before the fall and that Christ's incarnation was not real.
There is a real historical person Adam who was created with human nature, this is what makes him human, as God created Him. If this is changed into something else, then Adam is no longer human. God does not do this, because He created things with an order and purpose to them. When Adam sinned, He did not become a different being like a dog or a bird, but remained a human who experienced the effects of the fall and passed it on to his offspring.
>And that bread and wine remains bread and wine.
We believe bread does not remain bread, but is changed into the real Body of Christ by the Father sending the Holy Spirit (and is thus no longer bread).

[Anonymous No.19248701]

>>19248497
>What is the Eucharist connection you're making?
That's simple; by saying that pre/postlapsarianism are different "modes" of the same "substance" this is like how the bread and wine are "changed" even though they are still manifestly bread.

In the real world, change only means manifest change, such as in the phrase "wood is changed into ash by fire." What you are describing is not this, therefore it is not change. Therefore I conclude that you have been beguiled by the language of Aristotle into believing that change can be anything else than change.

Now returning to the case of Adam, before the fall, Adam was God's immortal gardener, after the fall, Adam became a mortal farmer. Thus Adam was really changed, not merely a different mode of the same creature. This change is so deep that it is like the change from wood to ash.

Now if I am ash, so how does it benefit me that Christ is wood? It does not benefit me at all. Christ has merely saved himself if he is wood and I am ash.

Similarly, transubstantiation cannot be. It is a mere beguiling of Aristotle to believe that things are not as they manifestly are.

And this is how I'm making that connection

[Anonymous No.19249030]

>>19248701
>they are still manifestly bread
It is not bread because Christ's Body is not the bread we made by human hands and offered for the Eucharist, it is the same Body that died on the cross and rose from the dead. There is no bread there anymore after the Holy Spirit descends, only an appearance of it is left for us. These are not two modes of being of the same thing.
I did not use Aristotle's language of substance/accident like the Roman Catholics do, so I do not know what you are talking about. 'changed' is a literal translation of μεταβολή and is part of traditional Orthodox Christian prayer. Nothing to do with philosophy.

>manifestly
Fallen human eyes are unreliable as a way to tell what something really is, this is one of the problems induced from Adam's sin. A person could have seen Christ walking around and said He is 'manifestly' only a human (he cried and ate after all) and so argue that He cannot be the Logos. It is not a good argumentation.

>Thus Adam was really changed
Correct, Adam himself was changed in how he existed (he has other properties after the fall), but who Adam was (the first human created by God from the earth) did not change, neither did his nature get altered into something different (by 'nature' I mean 'what' Adam was, namely a human).
You are confusing 'how' something exists with 'what' it is. To say that there is a *concrete* 'prelapsarian nature' and a 'post-lapsarian nature' means that Adam was not properly human anymore after the fall, because God created him as a human. He did not lose his humanity, only his likeness to God. The change is extremely deep, but not something which rids Adam of his humanity. Christ assuming this same humanity is what saves us, and Him voluntarily choosing, even though He is without sin, to suffer and hunger and tire. Christ experiences true temptations because of this, so He destroys their power over humans and saves us if we participate in His death and resurrection by baptism.

[Anonymous No.19249263]

>>19249030
>Fallen human eyes are unreliable as a way to tell what something really is
I give up, Orthodoxy has clearly impacted your ability to process information.

>It is not good argumentation because Christ was manifestly human
Christ also manifestly rose from the dead, and it behooves you to consider this; for if fallen human eyes are false guides, then how are you certain that Christ rose from the dead? For if the Moslems are right and our eyes cannot discern truth or beauty or goodness, then you should become a Moslem, and admit that God is nothing more than a roving djinn, and that he confounded the eyes of the Apostles who saw Jesus upon the cross.

[Anonymous No.19249394]

>>19241321
God laughed in the old testament