Oh, I don’t answer that, St. Athanasius has answered that.
This issue is St Athanasius was from “Alexandria” And as they say there “In a twinkle of an eye” the Incarnation occurred. Modern interpreters as you follow size on an almost complete absence of reference to Christs Soul and Human Nature in the Saints work and slight the reference which is there, in this they attempt to suggest a dualistic approach and attribute this to Augustine to also slight him and suggest heresy occurred through Augustine in the Western Church and further support this claim by the issue with the Protestants areas and Augustine interpretation. Then this is further affirmed by the dualism Athanasius fought with the Arian heresy.
Suffice to say this is where the confusion resides through John Romanides and his controversial speculation. Which you seem to conclude and call patristic Orthodox thinking in disregard of the fact that also the Coptic Church holds to the doctrine of Original Sin as does the West. Here the OO and CC are in documented agreement where the EO and OO are not. This also then leaves room for theology such as here, which suggests this dualistic approach and error. yet ironically their focus itself is on the dualistic approach which is supported by what the Saint did not say. Then as you see in your words has Jesus Christ as such things as “God dead” and “God a sinner” “Mary merely blessed only among women” and suggesting error here and there, there is no continuity from Creation/Fall/Incarnation. Which righty so Athanasius acknowledged at “Intimately connected”
However this somehow has a reverse effect than the Saint intended and that you are seeing the opposite of what the Saint saw in Jesus Christ and what in fact he combated with the Arian heresy, which is that Christ was not Divine as there are not very many statements with Athanasius on the human nature.
And this is the issue here since the tendency of such framework is to “assume”. I say this lead you to the such ideas that the logos worked out our salvation without our required cooperation and you have God confused in the hypostatic union leaning heavily on His human Nature. Since you have no continuity of the fall to the Incarnation. You thus assume that through the process of divinization you are no different than Mary and conclude this by the above and a vague idea of the transgression of the garden. Which is why you continue to struggle with “Death of the Flesh,.Death of the Soul” and the Apostle Paul, the Law which you automatically assume Augustine had wrong from a mistranslation of Romans 5:12.yet Augustine didn’t use 5:12 in City of God and still arrives at the same continuity from fall to incarnation. You have no answer for this and must rely on the very principle you deny to explain the fall. Which is why you have nothing to say here.
However suffice to say this is how you see Christ and Mary in this dualistic approach which has you contemplating God died, God was a sinner, and Mary was just any women no different just blessed only “among” women. This is false of the Saints own conceptuality in the larger picture of Christs Nature as we see in the Coptic Church today. This path takes what Athanasius states on the Soul of God and retranslates it to mean life which conceptual thinking then compares to our own divinization, which leads to further conflicted understanding. Most astonishing its then suggested the West developed doctrine while raising a claiming “new” anti Rome rouge theology up the flag pole, claiming its based based on the Early Church Fathers but a narrow “cherry picked” group which fits the theology, and a specific and you call this patristic and historic.
Anyway through various discussions on a few threads, this is what I am beginning to see, I don’t have the whole story “yet”, but I’m getting ahead of the rabbit on the track for sure.
However, point being look where this theology has you, its very telling in your thinking. Which isn’t to slight you, its concerning is all. It removes the “awe” of God and reduces Him to very human. Add to this misunderstanding of the original Creed/Trinity, which the EO automatically keeps focus on the first principle, and you have the Arian heresy all over again. And whats even more astonishing Athanasius in a subtle ay is used which seems to promote the thinking.
Course this is imho, but look where you are at. You have no continuity of theology based on what I’m starting to consider a dangerous one. Its clever, but its not bread, it is a “stone”. Course this stone has you here with fervor combating anything Western since its presupposed we are all heretics without mention. But the only heretical thinking has been where?
You believe that two people cant be spouses unless they are carnally active. That is not true.
No bread?