Lord's Voice | Diakonia | Links | Baptism | Multimedia



Eschatological Dimensions of the Church
Athanasios Yevtic

The limits of the Church
Vlassios Phidas

Doxology, the Language of Orthodoxy
Constantine Scouteris

The Pastoral Dimension of Mixed Marriages
Rev. Dr. George Tsetsis

Orthodoxy and Inter-Religious Dialogue
George Martzelos

The First Icons of Christ and the Virgin
Leonid Uspensky

An Assessment of Theological Issues Today
Savas Agourides

The Procession of the Holy Spirit according to Gregory Palamas
M. A. Orphanos

The Problem of Pre-existence of Souls in St. Cyril of Alexandria
Dratsellas Constantine I.

Justin Martyr's Eschatology
L. W. Barnard

Symbols and Symbolism in the Orthodox Liturgy
Alexander Schmemann

Orthodox Principles in the Service of an Ecumenical Theological Education
Nikos A. Nissiotis

Gregory of Nyssa on the Nature of the Soul
John P. Cavarnos

The Christ of Revelation and the Christ of History
Vlassios I. Phidas

Membership of the Body of Christ: Sacraments of Initiation
Hieromonk Hilarion Alfeyef

The Problem of Pre-existence of Souls in St. Cyril of Alexandria *

Dratsellas Constantine I.

The idea of Pre-existence of Souls has always been a great and dif­ficult problem for every Religion and every philosophical System as it is connected with the origin of human Soul. It is for this reason that, when he examines the idea of soul separately from that of the body, man turns towards not only the future but also the past. Which was the origin of human Soul? Did it exist before its embodiment?

In Homer and Isiod we do not find any satisfactory answer to these questions. The above mentioned teaching of the Preexistence of Souls is to be found in the Greek Religion and Philosophy. In general, it is the ancient religious ideas and philosophical axioms which should be considered as the principles of the teaching of pre-existence of Souls. This doctrine was systematically developed by Plato: «παλαιός μέν οὖν ἔστι λόγος, οὗ μεμνήμεθα, ὥς εἰσιν ἐνθέδε ἀφικόμεναι ἐκεῖ καί πάλιν δεῦρο ἀφικνοῦται καί γίγνονται ἐκ τῶν τεθνεώτων » (1) .

Philo also accepted this idea of Preexistence probably under Platonic influence (2) .

In the Old Testament the teaching about a direct creation of the whole man - Body and Soul - by God (Gen. 1,26. 2,7. 5,1- 5,4) ex­cludes and rejects the idea of Pre-existence. Some phrases of the Old Testament are usually misinterpreted. The idea of preexistence is found in Talmud and Midrash .

The New Testament is opposed to this conception, Man is born as a whole, as a unity of body and Soul. A hint in the Gospel of St. John 9,2 simply expresses the opinion and the belief of the people of that time but our Lord refuses this idea. In later times we find the idea of pre- existence in the Gnostics of the 2nd century and in the Manichaeans of the 3d century.

Among the Christian Fathers and writers the teaching of Pre- existence of Souls was strongly supported by Origen. Thus he says: « ἐρῶ δε ὡς ρπός Ἕλληνας και μάλιστα Κέλσον,... ἤ εὐλογώτερον, ἑκάστην ψυχήν κατά τινας ἀπόρρητους λόγους ( λέγω δε ταῦτα νῦν κατά Πυθαγόραν καί Πλάτωνα καί Ἐμπεδοκλέα, οὕς πολλάκις ὠνόμασεν ὁ Κέλσος ) εἰσκρινομένην εἰς σώματι, κατ' ἀξίαν εἰσκρίνεσθαι καί κατά τά πρότερα ἤθη; Εἰκός οὖν καί ταύτην τήν ψυχήν, πολλῶν ( ἵνα μή συναρπάζειν δοκῶ, λέγων πάντων ) ἄνθρωπων ὠφελιμωτέραν τῷ βίῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπιδημοῦσαν, δεδεῆσθαι σώματος » (3) .

In his famous work «De Principiis » Origen says: « τῶν ( δε ) λογικῶν τά ἁμαρτήσαντα καί διά τοῦτο ἐκπεσόντα τῆς ἐν ᾗ ἦσαν καταστάσεως κατά τήν ἀναλογίαν τῶν οἰκείων ἁμαρτημάτων τιμωρίας χάριν σώμασιν ἐνεβλήθη, καί καθαιρόμενα πάλιν ἀνάγονται ἐν ᾗ π ρότερων ἦσαν καταστάσει, παντελῶς τήν κακίαν ἀποτιθέμενα καί τά σώματα . Καί πάλιν ἐκ δευτέρου καί τρίτου καί πλεονάκις διαφόροις ἐμβάλλονται σώμασι προς τιμωρίαν . ( Εἰκός γάρ) διαφόρους κόσμους συστῆναί τε καί συνίστασθαι, τοῦτο μέν παρελθόντας τοῦτο δε μέλλοντας. Παρά τήν ἀπόπτωσιν καί τήν ψύξιν τήν ἀπό τοῦ ζῆν τῷ πνεύματι γέγονεν ἡ νῦν λεγομένη ψυχή, οὖσα καί δεκτική τῆς ἐπανόδου τῆς ἐφ' ὅπερ ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ » (4) .

The idea of Pre-existence of Souls was accepted and supported also by some other Fathers or ecclesiastical writers mainly followers of Origen 5 as e. g. by Didymus the Blind (5 ), Evagrius of Pontus (6), Nemesius of Emessa (7), Pierius of Alexandria (8) . St. Augustine was undecided (9) . Jerome accepted it in the beginning and Rufinus translated into Latin the work of Origen «De Principiis », in which the above mentioned doctri­ne was contained.

On the contrary, the theory of Preexistence was rejected and con­demned by other great Doctors of the Church as e. g. by Clement of Alexandria (10), Methodius of Olympus (11), Peter of Alexandria (12), Gregory of Nyssa (13), although he was a great admirer of Origen, by Gregory of Naziansus (14), Barsanufius (15), Leo A (16), Cyril of Jerusalem (17), Irenaeus (18), St. Augustine (19) who changed his ideas in his later works.

Finally the teaching of Pre- existence of Souls was condemned by the Emperor Justinian in his Decree (543) against Origen (20), by the Coun­cil of Constantinople (543) (21) and by the V Ecumenical Council (553 ) (22) .

The above mentioned doctrine of Pre-existence is usually presented in two forms: either existing in a bodiless state the soul is punished and sent by God to an earthly body because of its own sins done prior to its embodiment, or each soul was created at the beginning of the world and was sent to a body apart from any guilt.

Again, according to another possible distinction the souls existed by themselves as realities before their embodiment, or they existed eter­nally not as realities by themselves but only in the eternal Mind of God.

In this introduction I have tried to present as briefly as possible a development of the idea of Pre-existence. It would be interesting and useful to analyze and criticize the teaching and the ideas of all the Fa­thers and eccles. writers, of those who supported and of those who rejected the teaching of Pre-existence of Souls. This, however, would be out of the limited space of this short essay, which intends to examine and investigate the mentioned problem as it is presented only by St. Cyril of Alexandria in his works.

It is most interesting and important that we should know the tea­ching of St. Cyril of Alexandria with regard to our question because he was one of the most important Fathers and Doctors of the Church and because his influence on the formation of the Christian, doctrine was no doubt great.



In discussing this question, as in all his works, Cyril uses on the one hand the Holy Bible in the sense that he always refers to It and that his thought is clearly biblical, and on the other hand he uses human reason und syllogisms. Thus he says: «... we shall try to prove according to our ability by the subjoined considerations*. (Commentary on St. John's Gospel. E.T . by Members of the English Church, Oxford 1874, vol. I, p. 91. Vol. II, 1885) (23) .

For practical and systematic reasons I classify and divide St. Cyril's arguments into three sections: (1) Logical - Philosophical, 2) Dogmatical, and 3) Biblical Examples as I call them. It is impossible to examine all these arguments in detail in such a short time. That is why the only thing I can do is to make some comments on them and underline the conclusions.

A. Logical- philosophical arguments

The logical structure of most of them is strong. Cyril criticizes the opposite opinions in the light of the Bible and human reason, so that when he philosophizes he remains a biblical theologian and when he theologizes he proves himself a deep philosopher.

1. If the Soul existed before the formation of the body and decli­ning to evil has for punishment of its transgression the descent into flesh how does the Evangelist John (1,9) say that man is lighted on coming into the world? (Comment., op. cit. 1,91). To be lighted by God is a «honor and addition of fair gifts» (I,91) (24) . Therefore embodiment of the Soul is not punishment. This leads to the rejection of the idea of Pre~existence of Souls.

2. If, before its union with a body, the soul were a pure mind li­ving in bliss, how is it lighted on its entry into the world? Sin­ce it is lighted as St. John says, we have to accept that before its co­ming into the world the Soul was not lighted (I,9l) (25) . But if this real­ly happened, how was it a pure mind? These ideas contradict each other. Since St. John's Gospel is the truth, Pre-existence is rejected.

3. The Soul desires «no longer to transgress» (I,91) (26) . But where is this easier and more likely? Here on earth where the Soul has come into the turbid waters of sin? (1,92), or before its union with the earthly body when the Soul «existed with a greater aptness for virtue" and as a pure mind was "attached more property to the desire of good things"? (I, 91) (27) . The answer is self-evident. In this case, why was it sent by God to earth? God's Righteousness, Wisdom and Love are beyond doubt. Therefore the postulate of this argument is unacceptable. The idea of Pre-existence cannot be accepted.

4. If the Soul came into this world so that «it might learn by ex­perience the disgrace of its own lusts» (I, 92) and it might be saved in this way, one wonders whether «we should praise the Corrector God" (1, 92) because this was not «a mode of healing» (I,92) (28) . Shall we suppose that God did not know, or did not want or was not able to fulfill «the healing of men»? this is impossible.

5. If the Soul pre-existing sinned and. was for this reason "entangled with flesh", why does the «power of the Law» ( Epistl . 81, PG 77, 373) impose death as punishment on criminals and why does it allow «the ones who have committed no crimes to live» freely? (I, 92). The first should be let live longer in their bodies so they might be more hea­vily punished and the other should be free from their bodies by death if embodiment were a punishment. This argument expresses the reality of life. He who refuses it, refuses the reality, the truth. Embodiment, therefore, is not a punishment (I,92) (29) .

B. Dogmatical Arguments

These arguments are also based on the Holy Bible and human reason.

a) Old Testament

1. "God created the earth not in vain but to be inhabited" (Isaiah 45, 18). Two thoughts are possible here. Either it was God's will that the Souls should sin and fall so that being united to bodies they should inhabit the earth and thus fulfill God's Will, or the Will of God is really Holy and so the first condition of the argument cannot be accepted at all. As Cyril says, the first thought is «absurd» (I,97) (30) . Therefore the idea of pre-existence is to be rejected.

2. "God rejoiced in having consummated the world and took deli­ght in the sons of men", (Proverbs 8, 30-31). Here a question is to be as­ked. Where is the truth? Does God rejoice in creating or in punishing men? The Bible clearly speaks of the first and Cyril also affirms that «God exceedingly rejoices in the formation of man" (I,97) (31) . This leads to the refusal of the hypothesis of the creation-embodiment as puni­shment, therefore to the refusal of the idea of pre-existence.

3. "God made no death, but through envy of the evil death came into the world" (Wisdom 1, 13. 2, 24). Now, if the Body is given to the Soul as punishment, then Satan who redeems man from this punishment by death is the greatest benefactor of man. And God Who promises the Resurrection of the body is an enemy of man. In this case, why should we condemn the envy of the devil for the death and why should we glorify and thank God for this promise of the Resurrection? However, Cyril confirms that Satan «has procured corruption to our natures (I, 99) (32) . Therefore he is not our benefactor. And we thank God because "the body is not a mode of p unishment" (I, 99).

4. Isaiah the prophet says: «The dead shall arise and they who are in the tomb shall be raised» (26, 19). The Resurrection will take place « aecording to the Will of God» (I, 94) (33) . Therefore, the resurrection will not be a morally indifferent act of God. In Christian ethics there are no morally indifferent acts, because thus good and evil are put on the same level. This is impossible for the perfectly Holy God, and Cyril characterizes the words of Isaiah as "great and long-desired feasts" (J, 93) (34) because embodiment is not punishment.


b) New Testament

1. St. Paul says: «We all must appear before the judgment-Seat of Christ that every one may receive the things done in his body accor­ding to what he has done, whether it be good or bad» (2 Corinth. 5,10). It is only for things done in the body that a man receives punishment... and no mention is made of prior sins nor of any charge previous to his birth (35) . Therefore, since we are to he judged only for everything which is done in the body, we have not done any sin prior to the formation of the body (36) .

2. Again St. Paul says: "Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God" (Rom. 12,1). If a body is given as punishment to a soul for previous sins, it cannot be presented as a sacrifice to God, be­cause "how will that be acceptable through which we receive our sen­tences?" (I, 96) (37) . To be offered to God is the greatest honor to man. Therefore the body cannot be considered as punishment .

3. Here we hear St. Paul again: "death reigned from Adam to Mo­ses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression" {Rom. 5,14). If bodies are given to all men as punishment for sins which were done before embodiment, then all men are guilty of such sins. Paul, however, speaks of people "who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression willingly and personally" (I, 96). Why and how does St. Paul speak of such people, if all men are punished, therefore, guilty of previous sins? and " where are they at all?" (I, 94) (38) . Undoubtedly St. Paul is right. This means that the idea of the body as punishment is to be rejected.

4. If the body were given to soul as punishment for its previous sins, it was sin which brought the nature of human body into this world (I, 98). But according to St. Paul, it was also sin which brought death; " death entered by sin" (Rom. 5,12). Therefore, as Cyril says, "sin clearly appears arming itself against itself by undoing the beginning by what follows" (I, 98) (39) . How, then, shall its Kingdom stand? Sin denies it­self. This leads to the conclusion that the body was not given as pu­nishment.

5. One of the basic Christian dogmas is that through Jesus Christ men receive remission of sins. Now, if embodiment were a punishment for sins, men receiving remission of their sins in Christ, should "go forth out of their bodies and cast away that which is put on them as punish­ments" (I, 92) (40) . Otherwise men either do not receive remission in Christ, or they could and should have received remission before they came into this world, or finally their bodies are not given as punish­ment for sins. About the reality of remission in Christ there is no doubt at all. And yet men do not cast away their bodies. Therefore the bodies are not given for punishment.

6. If embodiment were punishment, how did our Saviour pro­fit us by abolishing death? (I, 93) (41) . Shall we suppose that the Lord did not profit us? This is rejected both by the Bible and by Cyril. Did our Lord profit us without our Resurrection? But the Resurrection is the hope and the new Reality in Christianity. The conclusion is self-evident. The Lord profits men by the resurrection of their bodies, which thus are honored by God and which therefore were not given for punishment.

7. If embodiment were a punishment, then the resurrection of the bodies is a renewal and a continuation of that punishment and a buil­ding up of what hurts us ( I. 93) (42) . And because after the resurrection the union of bodies and souls will be eternal, the punishment will also be eternal. But, as Cyril says, mature has from Christ the gift of Re­surrection renewing it unto joys ( I. 93) (43) . Therefore the bodies were not given as punishment to souls for their sins.


C. Biblical Examples

Here I examine some biblical examples through, which the atti­tude of God towards several people shows practically what logically and dogmatically Cyril has made clear.

a) Old Testament

1. God promised to Abraham that "his seed should be as the innu­merable multitude of the Stars" (Genes. 15,5). Did God wish Abraham's punishment? or did God bless him for his sins? The logical and biblical answer to both questions leads to the conclusion that the origin of bo­dies is free from all accusations » (I, 94) (44) .

2. Moses said to the Israelites: " Behold , ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude. The Lord God of your Fathers make you a thousand times so many more as ye are» ( Deuter . I, 10,11). If embo­diment were punishment the words of Moses would be a curse and not a blessing ( I. 93). But God promised His blessing because "embo­diment is not of the nature of punishment" (I, 94) (45) .

3. Why did God accept the prayer of Ann the wife of Elkana the King for a child, and why " did God give her the holy Samuel as her son" (I, Reg. 1,2), if, in order that this prayer might be fulfilled, one soul should have sinned previously and have been punished in order to come into this world? The answer is obvious. Embodiment is not punishment (I, 95) (46) .

4. Hezekiah asked God "to be honored with an increase of years and God promised to give him as a favor another fifteen years" (Is. 38,5). Cyril affirms that God accepted that prayer because "the promise from above was a gift and the addition of years a kindness (I, 95) (47) and therefore it was not punishment.

5. Why did God rescue the wise Daniel from the cruelty of the Lions (Dan. 6), and deliver the young men of Israel from the flames (Dan. 3)? In Cyril's words, God did all these in kindness for them and was glorified because of them (I, 95). Did God deliver them from the lions and the flames in order to put them, in another heavier punish­ment? Cyril rejects this because "the dwelling in the flesh is not of the nature of punishment" (I, 96) (48) .

6. Why did God save Noah from destruction on account of his faith? (Genes. 7,1)- The good and faithful should have been free from their bodies - bonds in order to get free from their punishment. And the unbelievers should have lived longer in their bodies that they might be punished longer (I, 98). But God being righteous "punishes the un­godly with the death of the body and gladdens again the righteous with life together with the body" (I, 98) (49) because life in body is not punish­ment.


b) New Testament

1. When the Disciples asked our Lord concerning one born-blind: "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that lie was born blind"? Jesus Christ answered: "Verily, I say to you, neither has this man sin­ned nor his parents" (John, 9, 1-3). Through His answer our Lord de­nies any sin to this man, done by him before his birth and which, could be considered as the cause of this blindness, i . e. his punishment. Thus Christ "refutes the doctrine of the Jews who considered the fact of being born blind as punishment for sins done by a man before his birth, or done in the womb of his mother or even by his parents": (II, 2; see also: R. H. Lightfoot, St. John's Gospel, Oxford 1956, p. 202). Christ also "overthrows the sill nonsense of the others, who say that souls sin before their existence in their bodies" (II, 2) (50) .

2. If the descent of the soul into the body were punishment from God to the soul, why did Christ raise Lazarus, whom He loved, from the dead? (John, 11, 38). Here there are three possibilities. Either Chri­st did not raise Lazarus, or Christ did not love him or He really loved and raised Kim and the reunion of Lazarus's soul and body was not a puni­shment. The first and second hypotheses are rejected by the Gospel by necessity we have to accept the third solution. The resurrection of Lazarus was an expression of particular love for him and "honor" (I, 98) (51) and shows that embodiment is not punishment but honor.



For Cyril the idea of Pre-existence is "most exceedingly absurd" (I. 91) (52) because it is obviously contrary to the Holy Scriptures, to the teaching of most of the great Fathers, to the doctrine of the Church which "following the God - inspired Bible rejects the Pre-existence" (Epist. 81, PG 77, 373) (53) . This teaching is also contrary to human reason. Finally the idea of Pre- existence of souls is contrary to the Nature of the Perfect, Righteous, Wise , Omnipotent and Holy God.



* The second part of this essay was delivered a Communication at the International Patristic Conference, Oxford 1967.

(1) Φαίδων 70, ed. Joannes Burnet, Oxonii, 1958.

(2) Τ rebelas, Δογματική τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, vol . Ι, Athens 1959, p . 483.

(3) Κατά Κέλσου 1,32 ( Β . Ε . Π . =Library of the Greek Fathers, ed. by Apostoliki Diakonia of the Church of Greece, vol. 9,92-93.

(4) Περί Ἀρχῶν 2,84 Β . Ε . Π ., vol. 16,311.

(5) Ὑπομνήματα εἰς τό περί Ἀρχῶν Ὠριγένους, in Ρ G 39 (as it mentioned in Socrates' Hist . Eccl. 4,25).

(6) See his works in: PG 40, 1214- 1296.

(7) Περί φύσεως τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, Ρ G 40, 508-518. He accepts the Platonic idea of Preexistence but rejects the newplatonic trichotomy .

(8) Photius ( Bibl . Cod . 1 19) mentions a book of Pierius of 12 Speeches with the Origenian teaching of Pre-existence, PG 103,400.

(9) Ε p . 7, Ρ L 33,58. 32, 590-4.

(10) Ὁ Θεός ἡμᾶς ἐποίησεν οὐ προόντας . Στρωματεῖς 8 ( Fragm . omissum ), Ρ G 9, 9.

(11) Περί τῶν γεννητῶν (this work isidentified with the Speech about the Martyrs). Fragments are mentioned by Photius in his Bibl. Cod. 235, Ρ G 103, 1137-1148.

(12) Περί τοῦ μηδέ προϋπάρχειν τήν ψυχήν, μηδέ άμαρτήσασαν τοῦτο εἰς σῶμα βληθῆναι . (Two fragments are mentioned by Leontius of Byzantium of Byzantium in his work: Κατά Νεστοριανῶν καί Εὐτυχιανῶν 1,1. Ρ G 86, 1273-1316).

(13) Περί κατασκευῆς ἀνθρώπου, 28, 44, 229-232.

(14) Λόγος 37,15, Ρ G 36, 300.

(15) Διδασκαλία τοῦ Ἁγίου Βαρσανουφίου περί τῶν Ὠριγένους, Εὐαγρίου καί Διδύ­μου φρονημάτων, Ρ G 86, 891-902.

(16) Ε p . 15,10, Ρ L 54, 684-5.

(17) Κατήχησις 4,19, Ρ G 33, 480.

(18) Adv . Haer . 33 ; 3, Ρ G 7, 832.

(19) See PL, 32, 590.

(20) Εἰ τις λέγει ἤ ἔχει, προϋπάρχειν τάς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ψυχάς, οἵα πρώην νόας οὔσας καί ἁγίας δυνάμεις, κόρον δέ λαβούσας τῆς θείας θεωρίας καί πρός τό χεῖρον τραπείσας καί διά τοῦτο ἀποφυγείσας μέν τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀγάπης, ἐντεῦθεν ψυχάς ὀνομασθείσας, καί τιμωρίας χάριν εἰς σώματα καταπεμφθεῖσας, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω . a' Anathema from Justian' s Decree (543). Καρμίρη Ι., Τά Δογματικά καί Συμβολικά Μνημεῖα τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολ . Ἐκκλησίας 2, vol . I ., Α thens 1960,184,198. Μ ansi J ., Sacrorum Concilirium vova et amplissima Collectio . Florentiae et Venetiis 17570 98, Parisiis 1899- 1927, IX, 533. J . Harduin, Acta Conciliorum, Parisiis, 1715, ff . III, 280-281.

(21) Καρμίρη, ο p . c . 184.

(22) Εἰ τις τήν μυθώδη προΰπαρξιν τῶν ψυχῶν καί τήν ταύτη ἑπομένην τερατώδη ἀποκατάστασιν πρεσβεύει, ανάθεμα ἔστω . ( Canon a' of the the V Ecumenical Council ). Καρμίρη, ο p . c. IX, 396-400. Harduin, op. c., 284-288.

(23) Διά τῶν ὑπεζευγμένων ἐννοιῶν κατά τό ἐγχωροῦν ἡμῖν ἀποδεῖξαι πειρασόμεθα, Ρ G 133.

(24) Τιμή, οἶμαι, τό πρᾶγμά ἐστι καί χαρισμάτων προσθήκη λαμπρῶν, Ρ G 73,133.

(25) Ἀνάγκη λέγειν ἔρημον εἶναι φωτός πρίν ἐλθεῖν . εἰ δέ τοῦτο, πῶς ἦν ἔτι νοῦς καθαρός; Ρ G 73,133.

(26) Μηκέτι βούλεσθαι, πλημμελεῖν ἀπαιτεῖσθαι, Ρ G 73,136.

(27) Μᾶλλον ὑπῆρχεν ἑτοιμότερος εἰς ἀρετήν, Ρ G 73, 136.

(28) Οὐκ ἄν τις ἐπαινέσαι τόν σωφρονιστήν . τρόπος γάρ θεραπείας ἐκεῖνο μᾶλλον ἤ τοῦτο, Ρ G 73,136.

(29) Οὐκ ἄρα τιμωρίας τρόπος ἡ σάρκωσις, Ρ G 73,137.

(30) Ἀλλά τοῦτο ἄτοπον, PG 73, 144.

(31) Τῇ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κατασκευή λίαν ἐφήδεται ὁ Θεός, Ρ G 73,144.

(32) Προξενήσας τοῖς σώμασι τήν φθοράν, Ρ G 73,145,

(33) Τήν τῶν σωμάτων ἀνάστασιν ἔσεσθαι λέγων κατά βούλησιν Θεοῦ, Ρ G 73,137.

(34) Μεγάλην ἡμῖν καί τριπόθητον ἑορτήν, Ρ G 73,137.

(35) Ἐπί μόνοις τοῖς διά τοῦ σώματος ἤ κολάζεται τις ἤ ὅν τῆς δεούσης ἀξιοῦται τιμῆς, μνήμη δέ οὐδεμία προγενεστέρων ἁμαρτημάτων, ἀλλ' οὐδέ πρεσβύτερον τῆς γενέ­σεω ς ἔγκλημα ζητηθήσεται, Ρ G 73,141. See also : Ε p . 81, Ρ G 77, 373.

(36) Εἰ ἐπί μόνοις κρινόμεθα τοῖς διά τοῦ σώματος, οὐκ ἔχομεν προγενεστέραν τοῦ σώματος ἁμαρτίαν Ε p . 81, Ρ G 77,373.

(37) Κατά τίνα τρόπον εὐάρεστον ἔσται τό δι' οὗ κατακεκρίμεθα ; Ρ G 73,14,

(38) Ποῦ ὅλως οἱ μή ἁμαρτήσαντες, εἰ δίκην πταισμάτων ἡ σάρκωσις ; Ρ G 73,141.

(39) Αὐτή τοιγαροῦν καθ' ἑαυτῆς ἡ ἁμαρτία λοιπόν ἐξοπλίζουσα φαίνεται λύουσα τοῖς ὑστέροις τά πρότερα , Ρ G 73, 145.

(40) Πῶς οὐκ ἔδει τους πιστεύοντας εἰς Χριστόν ... παραχρῆμα σωμάτων ἐξέρχεσθαι καί τό λόγῳ τιμωρίας περιτεθέν ἀποβάλλειν ; Ρ G 73,130.

(41) Πῶς ἡμᾶς ὠφέλησε καταργήσας τόν θάνατον ὁ Σωτήρ ; Ρ G 73,137.

(42) Ἀνανέωσις τιμωρίας τό πρᾶγμα φαίνεται, Ρ G 73,137.

(43) Ὡς δῶρον ἡ φύσις ἀνανεοῦν εἰς εὐθυμίαν τήν ἀνάστασιν ἔχει παρά Χριστοῦ, Ρ G 73,137.

(44) Ἁπάσης κατηγορίας ἤ τῶν σωμάτων ἀπήλλακται γένεσις, Ρ G 73,137.

(45) Οὐκ ἄρα τιμωρίας ἔχει λόγον ἡ σάρκωσις, Ρ G 73,140.

(46) Πώς δέ ὅλως καί υἱόν αὐτῇ ἐδίδου Θεός, εἴπερ ἔδει πάντως ἁμαρτῆσαι ψυχήν ; Ρ G 73,140.

(47) Δῶρον ἄνωθεν ἡ ὑπόσχεσις ἦν και ἡ προσθήκη χάρις, Ρ G 73,140.

(48) Οὐκ ἄρα τρόπος τιμωρίας ἐστι τό ἐνοικεῖν τῇ σαρκί, Ρ G 73,141.

(49) Δίκαιος ὢν θανάτω μέν τῷ τῆς σαρκός κολάζει τόν παράνομον, ζωῇ δέ πάλιν τῇ μετά σώματος εὐφραίνει τόν δίκαιον, Ρ G 73,144.

(50) Καταστρέφει τῆς τῶν ἑτέρων ἀβελτηρίας τούς ἄθλους, οἱ καί πρό σώματος ἁμαρτεῖν λέγουσι τάς ψυχάς, Ρ G 63,141.

(51) Ἀλλ' ἔπρατττεν ὠφελῶν και ὡς φίλον ἐτίμα τον τεθνεῶτα Χριστός, Ρ G 73,141 .

(52) Λίαν ἐστίν ἀτοπώτατον ὑπάρχειν μέν οἴεσθαι τήν ψυχήν, ἐκ προγενεστέρων δέ ἁμαρτημάτων εἰς τά ἐκ γῆς καταπέμπεσθαι σώματα νομίζειν αυτήν, Ρ G 73,133.

(53) Ἡ Ἐκκλησία ταῖς θεονπνεύστοις ἑπομένη Γραφαῖς οὐκ οἶδε τῶν σωμάτων προϋπάρχουσαν τήν ψυχήν ἀλλ' οὐδέ προαμαρτήσασαν πρό αὐτῶν, Ρ G 77,373 .

For receiving news, offerings and in general any actions regarding the Organization please fill in the next fields. For protection of data see here.

{ technical support        contact