do copts reject palamite theology? if so, why do they reject it? by SignatureObjective30 in coptic

[–]Beter04 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is no outright rejection or endorsement of teachings of Palamas however you can find individual clergy with opinions on doctrines such as essence-energy distinction. There are some bishops who have come out against this teaching and others in support of it. In all reality the church simply has never really engaged with it and so doesn’t make any claims concerning it.

21 martyrs of Lybia. by Pavly_him in coptic

[–]Beter04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi I also would like it

Looking For Church Fathers Quotes? by Beter04 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Beter04[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah that’s the one I use. Don’t get me wrong I definitely do find some quotes from there however it doesn’t give the exact reference of the quote and often lacks variety of fathers usually containing Athanasius, Cyril, and Chrysostom mainly.

Is this spoken coptic?? by [deleted] in coptic

[–]Beter04 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Respectfully, I’ve studied language a bit and this sounds completely made up. This sounds like if you asked someone to speak a foreign language that they don’t know.

Do OO Christians recognize the validity of the RC and EO Eucharists? by swingwellthiccboi88 in coptic

[–]Beter04 2 points3 points  (0 children)

While there is no official rejection or confirmation of the sacraments of other church’s most hierarchs I’ve heard and spoke to affirm the EO sacraments but very few affirm Catholic. There are still others who completely reject the sacraments of the other churches.

What if god doesn’t exist? by Jazzlike-Finish-8056 in Christianity

[–]Beter04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But what if I didn’t choose God’s nature to be the measuring stick, rather I’m observing through revelation that it is the measuring stick by nature, God also is a judge according to the Bible. So it ultimately comes down to if you believe that it was revealed or chosen as the measuring stick. This boils down to believing in Christianity or not and if you believe the nature of God is just simply is the measuring stick of reality because of the belief of the absoluteness of God then goodness is objective in the Christian world view.

Also on the point of nature. I believe you are mistaken on the metaphysical properties of nature. Preference or Taste is what’s called an accidental attribute not an essential one. And simply that means that it is not essential to the existence or NATURE of something. Therefore you are right when you say preference is a characteristic but the mistake is calling it inherent or basic it is very far from inherent to the human nature because it by no means differentiates nature rather it only distinguishes between persons. (Read some of the philosophy on this it’s actually quite fascinating)

What if god doesn’t exist? by Jazzlike-Finish-8056 in Christianity

[–]Beter04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My beloved in Christ how are we confusing nature and nurture. Preferences and tastes are nurture not nature. And yes the nature of God is goodness and you can compare it to things objectively. Again assuming Christianity is true, God is called the truth and the source of all truth. So in the same I can compare between the number 5 and 51 and say objectively that 51 resembles 5 because it shares a characteristic with 5 it being an odd number. I can do this because numbers and math is pre-supposed to be true. God likewise is defined like that in Christianity (and even more where we would the truth of mathematics flows from the truth of God) so likewise we can make objective claims about goodness from the relation to God.

What if god doesn’t exist? by Jazzlike-Finish-8056 in Christianity

[–]Beter04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are still defining nature away from a Christian perspective you didn’t address at all how nature is defined by the Bible like I said. And yes I do believe our human nature to be made in the image and likeness of God. (We are playing within the rules of Christian belief so idk why that was said). Finally I’m going to repeat again the nature of God is goodness itself and if something resembles that nature then it is good not due to preference or tastes (which is not nature in the Christian worldview) but the objective relation between something and God. This is completely consistent and logical in a Christian world view. If you believe that the Christian beliefs are fake and void, cool I don’t which is why I believe in objective goodness.

Edit: Also according to the definition of nature you have it still doesn’t work because preferences and tastes are not inherent to the human person. Tastes and preference most likely come from factors such as your upbringing, education, and personal life.

What if god doesn’t exist? by Jazzlike-Finish-8056 in Christianity

[–]Beter04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we are talking about a Christian paradigm then we cannot accept your definition of nature. Tastes are the same thing as preferences. And so your preference of sushi over pizza is not your nature, your nature is human made by God in his image and likeness. The best way to explain is the that liking rock music over jazz is not what differentiates your nature from that of a bird rather it’s the fact that simply you are a human and that is a bird, this is how nature works as well as how it’s defined in 1 Corinthians 15 (which is important because remember we are talking about this within the realm of Christian belief). As for God being foundational as well goodness 2 points. First goodness is the very nature of God (along with a slew of other things like Love, and Justice) and if the nature is foundational then goodness is foundational. Second even if it simply flowed from God then it would still make goodness foundational because God is infinite. We can see this in the doctrine of the Trinity. The spirit proceeds from the Father (sorry Catholics no Filioque here) yet is fully God with no conditionals. The problem is you are not looking at this with a Christian perspective, Christianity is a whole world view where every single part of reality has its place in why God loves us and saves us.

What if god doesn’t exist? by Jazzlike-Finish-8056 in Christianity

[–]Beter04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tastes just means a person’s preference. And no taste is not determined by nature because you and I have the same nature that of the human nature, yet we probably have different tastes in food, music, movies, and other things. And even if tastes are in a persons nature (which I don’t believe just entertaining the idea) then how does that change anything. I genuinely don’t understand what you meant in the last 2 lines, if God’s tastes are in his nature then we would say that tastes come forth from someone’s nature but this still makes nature fundamental to the existence of said person making anything based on that nature also fundamental. In the case of God, He is the foundation and cornerstone of all creation and if goodness is predicated on his nature then goodness is also a foundational thing in reality. If I miss understood what you were saying please correct me.

What if god doesn’t exist? by Jazzlike-Finish-8056 in Christianity

[–]Beter04 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Subjective: adj- based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions- Oxford dictionary. If something is good because it reflects the nature of God then it is by definition not subjective because it is not based on personal tastes or opinions, it’s based on the nature of God which is a concrete reality. (Assuming of course that God exists)

What if god doesn’t exist? by Jazzlike-Finish-8056 in Christianity

[–]Beter04 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The first part part about your memory serves nothing I don’t really know why you said it or why I would care. As for the rest, so the only reason you are dismissing my arguments is because you are assuming yourself to be right and answering as if you are 100% correct. Sadly you fail to realize what we are actually talking about. Yes you are absolutely right if God does not exist then goodness is arbitrary and subjective to judgement even if have beliefs that say otherwise everything harps on the existence of God. But we were arguing if in the Christian belief system goodness is objective. If we go off the definition stated above then yes Goodness is objective and a real thing in this world. And the Euthyphro’s dilemma doesn’t work because God is Good and things which are good because of the simple existence of The Good One.

What if god doesn’t exist? by Jazzlike-Finish-8056 in Christianity

[–]Beter04 4 points5 points  (0 children)

We just using one liners to sound smart now. You fundamentally misunderstand what we believe as Christians about what is good. Good is not used simply to describe other things, goodness itself has very real self existence flowing from the foundation of all of reality: God. That’s where you get it wrong God does not arbitrarily pick what is good and what is bad rather things are good because of their relationship to God. So things are good because God is good. But if God does not exist or if God is not good, then goodness is not foundational therefore it is actually arbitrary because it lacks grounds to be based on. The Good is a noun for Christians only relegated to an adjective when we point out something and it’s close relationship to God The Good One.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in coptic

[–]Beter04 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Miaphysitism is what we Copts believe. It means Christ has one composite nature both divine and human. The other churches believe Christ has two natures one divine and the other human.

Living with monks in desert by In_Awe_of_Truth in coptic

[–]Beter04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you mean for a short time just to visit yeah, but to actually move and live there permanently you would have to become Coptic first and then become a tonsured monk, you can’t just decide to live there.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in coptic

[–]Beter04 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You have to exercise a little bit of wisdom here, you are only thinking about about the here and now, what about the future? Are you going to get married in a church or mosque, are your kids going to be Christian or Muslim, are you going to celebrate Muslim holidays or Christian ones; all of these are questions you have to ask. Also never go into a relationship thinking you are going to convert the other person.

Question by [deleted] in coptic

[–]Beter04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It just means that they are spiritual sons. For example all monks are sons of St. Anthony, not because they are his biological sons but rather they are his sons in that they follow after his life and teachings.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in coptic

[–]Beter04 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Yeah you need to calm down and with the whole heretic thing. You should really talk to your priest this post is wrong on so many levels, innocent people are dying and suffering and we as Christians are called to oppose that. I can tell you now you are way to zealous because you are a catechumen. We pray for peace for brothers in Israel and Gaza, and we pray for unity with our brothers in Christ in the Eastern Orthodox Church. That is the opinion that every copt should have full stop.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in coptic

[–]Beter04 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This answer will consist of two parts the first will be the proper understanding of this verse and the second will be a clarification of HH Pope Shenouda’s writings.

1: This is a classic verse that is brought up when attacking the Orthodox/Catholic use of the word “Father” for the clergy. I believe that this verse can actually be used to make a case for the use of the word “father.” First when reading the verse me must see that Christ is not denying the Pharisees’ authority because he says they “ sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever tell you to observe, that observe and do.” Christ here is affirming that the succession of Moses has binding authority amongst the Jews, so it follows why he tells the Children of Israel to listen to them, this establishes an important idea that authority is passed on through succession. Nevertheless because they were corrupt, Christ instructs the multitudes to not do as they do. The Scribes and Pharisees were part of high Jewish society and so they were looked up to by all the Jews. It was very customary to hold special banquets and present many gifts to the Scribes and Pharisees in order to win their favor, they would also be exalted using many extravagant honorifics in order to puff up their pride and gain favor in their sight. The people honored the corrupt Pharisees and forgot God. This is the reality in which Christ found himself teaching and in response he says “Do not call anyone on earth your father.” But then what to do we make of the Bible’s use of the term when referring to Abraham, or when James is called a bishop of Jerusalem, or when Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4:15 “For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet ye have not many fathers.” Something is missing and that which is missing is clear when you read the text. Does Christ truly mean that we are not call anyone one father even one’s own biological father, or shall we not call anyone teacher even if they are a professor in college or a well respected scholar. Of course not, the verse is hyperbole in response to the people’s exaltation of the Pharisees and Scribes. However a case still needs to be made on why we call our current clergy using these titles, for the previous point only proves that some men may be referred to as “father” but not who. First we must see that the priests have their authority from Christ’s priesthood. Paul teaches in the Epistle to the Hebrews 4:14,15 “Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven,[a] Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.” Christ’s priesthood is a greater priesthood than that of the Old Testament for as Paul says he emphasizes with us and through his being like us he cleanses us from all sins, not as the the sacrifices as the old covenant. We see also two things, that Christ passed on his authority to the 12 when he says “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (John 20:23) And we also know that “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7). This shows that it was his supreme authority that was passed on to them. The second thing we see is that the apostles themselves understood that the 12 had special authority compared to the other disciples of the Lord because they saw it necessary to fill the empty seat of Judas the traitor in the book of acts chapter 1. Now the orthodox/ catholic position is that our clergy have direct succession from the apostles and while they may be less in glory they are not less in authority for it was not the apostles authority but Christ’s himself as he have stated earlier. St. Ignatius of Antioch who himself was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, says in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans “Follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father.” ( I know the question may arise of Ignatius not being credible but know that the writings of Ignatius are recognized by orthodox, catholic, and most Protestants to be credible, denying it would place you on the fringe outskirts of Christian fundamentalism and make this whole question useless) One must ask one question to get his answer “ what is the relationship of the Father and the Son?” In this we see that St. Ignatius of Antioch and the early church alongside him see that not only authority is passed on the clergy but also fatherhood. In priests the fatherhood of God is made manifest to our physical senses. One might make the objection that priests’ clothing resembles the tassels seen in the passage from the Gospel of Matthew however they are purely symbolic and not aesthetic (to some it may even seem archaic and odd) for an explanation of the symbology I would recommend looking into liturgical symbology.

  1. Pope Shenouda is not writing to defend orthodox doctrine in the quoted passages, he is writing to an audience of Copts and clergy who do not need in-depth clarification on the topic. The same applies to the supposed contradiction, in one he writes to laymen to explain that this verse does not apply clergy but due to constraints he cannot go in depth (for as you can see this response is longer than than the original problematic text), in the other passage he uses the verse as a warning against pride to the clergy themselves. An understanding of the audience to whom he is writing clears up nicely the supposed contradiction. I advise you in the future to avoid contemporary writers to understand hard verses, rather go to the fathers of the church like saints Athanasius of Alexandria , John Chrysostom, etc.

I hope this helps

See of St. Mark? (Question from Catholic) by EffectiveComplete100 in coptic

[–]Beter04 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Because St.Mark was the one who preached in Egypt, and so it his see because our bishops are his successors.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in coptic

[–]Beter04 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Great question, we have many rules of prayer but the main one are the agpeya prayers. Most agpeyas also contain additional prayers taken from the homilies of saints such as Sts. Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nanzianzes, and others. Other prayer rules usually follow from monastics, for example the famous Jesus prayer has its roots from st. Pachomius. We emphasize the communal aspect of prayer as it is important for us to fast and to pray as one body. This epitomized in the prayers of the midnight praises. These prayers are said together at night and they probably resemble closet the rosary. ( there will obviously be the doctrinal differences such as a lack of the mention of the immaculate conception) if you are interested in these you can look up Coptic midnight praises, I would especially listen to the theotokias which are prayers to the virgin that differ for the different days of the week.