Thank you for the video, very edifying for the viewer and proof that none of this controversy was "semantical" between the Dyophysite Nestorians and the Miaphysite Orthodox.
Thank you brother Thomasinos for your comment!! You’re absolutely right that the controversy wasn’t “semantics” but a true theological substantive difference!
Sure Eutychian Monophysitism has to do with the concept of the divinity of Christ “swallowing” the humanity of Christ and so what remains after the hypostatic union is only the divine nature. On the other hand, Miaphysitism is the doctrine that Christ’s one nature is fully divine and fully human (not merely divine like in eutychian Monophysitism). After the hypostatic union between the divinity and humanity of Christ, Christ has one nature from two natures that is fully divine and fully human.
@@copticfanaticcan it be said he has a new composite nature or that this nature preserves the mystery of the incarnation, that is, its not a new nature but a union of two, so united that it is said to be one nature even though they do not form a new nature? I believe in the second part, that saying "one nature" is to preserve the mystery but do you believe in the first part?
By dividing the Incarnate Logos into two, by Biblical definition they have created a Christ who sins: 1. Sirach 2:14 - “Woe to the duplicitous heart, and to the wicked lips, and to the hands that do evil, and to the SINNER who walks the earth by TWO ways” 2. James 1:8 - “he is a DOUBLE-minded man, UNSTABLE in all his ways.” 3. Mark 10:9 - “What God has joined together, let no man separate”
@@uchennanwogu2142 2 natures, 2 minds, 2 wills, 2 activities = 2 christs. You are choosing to adhere to so-called "fathers" who got STUCK at Chalcedon adhering to the double-minded Tome of Leo. Either continue to drink the Nestorian kool-aid or walk away from the duplicitous vomit.
One of my hang-ups: The four marks of the Church are One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. How does the OO Communion defend its position on being Catholic (Universal) when it has basically sat in a very locally confined geographical area for the last 1500 years? Why has it seemingly ignored the Great Commission, persecutions notwithstanding? How does it defend itself against the Romans when they say things like "You can find a Catholic church near you almost always." What does Universal mean and how does it apply to the OO Communion? How are branching and budding OO churches, like the Copts in America, supposed to contend with long established local traditions like Our Lady of Guadalupe? Thanks.
Thanks for your questions Gabriel and God bless you! 🙏❤️✝️ well the Early Church was called the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic and the Oriental Orthodox is the continuation of the Early Church whereas all other churches schismed and unfortunately fell into heresy. The objection you bring up about roman churches being found everywhere that’s an objection of numbers. Just because Romans have more numbers doesn’t mean they’re true. You could have the majority of the world follow a false religion. In the Old Testament the majority of the world was pagan and you only had a handful of people who were God’s chosen people. Now when it comes to the Virgin Mary apparitions have you searched about the 1968 Marian Apparition in Zeitoun, Egypt and the 2009 Al Warraq also in Egypt?
@@copticfanatic I have. I'm aware of Our Lady of Zeitoun. I'm not familiar with the 2009 event. I think She was genuine, but I'm very leery of basing my final decision on Marian apparitions because there are Catholic apparitions as well. I was always under the understanding that Christ's church should be visible (A city set on a hill should be manifest and all that). There's still the question of the Great Commission as well. Why isn't all of Africa OO? Why has the Anglican church run rampant throughout Africa while the ancient OO Communion hasn't really evangelized? Why have my people in America and Western Europe been deprived of Christ's true Church for 1500 years? They're hard questions to answer. I have just as many crticisms of the Byzantines and the Papists.
@@GabrielWithoutWingsmy best answer to your questions would be that they’re sort of like the problem of evil. “If God is real why do bad things happen?”. You asked why the Americas and Western Europe have been deprived of Christ’s true Church for 1500 years and the answer to that question would be because of the actions of those who presided over Chalcedon. Wicked men have led many astray as scripture had already warned us would happen. For the first 4 centuries, one could’ve argued that the entirety of the world was deprived of the Church as Christians were under heavy persecution and were often in hiding in a world of pagans (As OOs now and historically are surrounded by a sea of Muhammadanism) It wouldn’t be right to say they ignored the great commission. Nevertheless, it’s not like OO Churches have been totally nonexistent in these areas of the world and we are still the 3rd largest communion of Christianity in the world so we’re not some unknown sect. One of the tragedies of the modern times is that people are usually ignorant of the differences in the apostolic churches and just assume they’re basically the same. Throughout history God has used His saints like Empress St. Theodora to protect and preserve His Church in times of great persecution. And in these times we are seeing a massive increase in OO growth and we are just beginning to see more evangelization and apologetics both online and irl and I predict we will continue to see God’s Church stand firm and grow as we near the end times.
@@GabrielWithoutWings St Paul in his epistles says that the good news was preached to the whole world (Col 1:23). Also, we have evidence that Coptic monks went as far as Ireland (evidence of Minas flask and coptic rites in their manuscripts, the Faddan More Psalter). Finally, St Paul also tells us that God is written in our conscience (Romans 2:15). Deprivation of "Oriental Orthodoxy" is not a deprivation of God. Naaman in the OT knew nothing about God but continued worshipping God after being healed by Elisha (2 Kings 5:17). Our job is to keep and preserve the faith once and for all deposited to the saints (Jude 3) and share this with the world to the best of our ability and as guided by the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that we claim to sit on the judgement seat and condemn to hell all those who did not have the complete truth or even were fed errant teaching. We know God is Just and Merciful.
@@GabrielWithoutWings Not to mention of course the prolific writings of the Alexandrian fathers St Clement, Origen the Scholar, St. Athanasius, and St Cyril to name a few written in the universal Greek language. Anyone who's anyone in Christology would surely be aware of and referencing these fathers.
Lol relax. There's more chance of you getting raped by an Alien on Mars than you going to hell. You should ask yourself why you believe that hell is a real place first, then start looking at the history of how hell became part of Christianity. Google and TH-cam are free. Go do some research. Take care.
*Brother, I encourage you to explore the provided links below, where you'll discover an eight-part defense of Oriental Orthodoxy by the Lion's Den brothers, which extensively references the early church fathers.* th-cam.com/video/VlSqTTsGneQ/w-d-xo.html *Additionally, please peruse the links below, where you will encounter Agen of the Apostolic Orthodoxy offering a splendid elucidation of the Oriental Orthodox Christology.* th-cam.com/video/SH5Y2nUYR5c/w-d-xo.html ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - So just as everything is spoken of the One person, *_for One Nature is recognized as existing after the union namely that of the Word Incarnate._* [Second Tome against Nestorius] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - *_After the union has occurred, however, we do not divide the Natures from one another, nor do we sever the One and Indivisible into two Sons, but we say that there is One Son, and as the holy Fathers have stated, "One Incarnate Nature of The Word"_* [1st Letter to Succensus 6] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - *_Once we have confessed the union, the things that have been united are no longer separated from one another but are thereafter one Son; and One is His nature since the Word has been made flesh._* [Letter to Eulogius] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - God became man by a genuine union, in a manner beyond explanation or understanding. *_For as soon as this union has taken place, there is a single nature presented to our minds, the Incarnate Nature of The Word Himself._* [Against Nestorius 2.(Preface)] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - We confess that He is the son of God, God according to the Spirit, son of Man according to the flesh, *_not two natures to that one Son,_* one nature worshipped the other unworshipped, *_but One Nature of God the Word Incarnate worshipped with His flesh with One worship..._* [St. Athanasius from his work upon the Incarnation of the Word: St. Cyril cited it in his books against Theodore] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Because, therefore, He is truly God and King according to nature, and because the One crucified has been called the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2:8), how could anyone hesitate to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God? *_Adore Him as one, without dividing Him into Two after the union. [Letter 1]_* ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Therefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts; *_but after the union, since the distinction into two is now done away with, we confess that there is one nature of the Son, since He is one Son._* [Letter 40, Response to St. Acacius of Melitene] ✝St. Theodotus of Ancyra: - *_The magi presented myrrh as incense to the One who appeared as God, without dividing the nature of His essence, without creating divisions through mere imaginations._* They offered incense to the One they knew to be God through the miracle, judging Him worthy of divine honor. [Homily 1 at the Council of Ephesus] ✝St. Theodotus of Ancyra: - It is necessary to have the understanding in agreement with the Word, saying that Christ is one, the same God and human. Therefore, understand and think of one. *_But if you say one and think of two, you have the understanding warring against your words._* So, do not say two, which is distinguished by some difference. For if the Word is one in expression, do not cut it with the understanding. But if you cut with the thoughts, you deny the union. *_Therefore, do not bring the Word down to differences in nature, which God united in the highest miracle._* Believe in the miracle, and do not investigate what happens with reasoning. ✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: And, if I am to speak concisely, the Savior is made of elements (natures) which are distinct from one another, for the invisible is not the same with the visible, nor the timeless with that which is subject to time, yet He is not two Persons, God forbid! *_For both Natures are One by the combination (unity), the Divinity being made Man, and the Manhood deified or however one should express it._* [To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius. (Ep. CI.) Letter 101.5-6] ✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - He was, and He becomes. He was above time; He became subject to time. He was invisible; He becomes visible... What He was, He laid aside; what He was not, He assumed. He did not become two, but He allowed himself to become A unity (one nature) composed of two elements (natures). For that which assumed and that which was assumed combine (united) into A Divine being. *_The two natures compound (unit) into a unit (one nature); and there are not two sons, for we must make no mistake about the commixture of the natures._* [Oration 37.2.2] ✝St. Basil the great: - *_In all these cases we do not mention two, God apart and man apart for He was One, but in thought we take into account the nature of each._* Peter had not two in his mind when he said, "Christ has suffered for us in the flesh." [The extant works of St. Basil - Dogmatic] ✝St. Hilary of Poitiers: - *_The Only-begotten God chose to become man of His own will, God was born to take us into Himself, God had assumed our weakness and chose to suffer of His own will, suffered to justify us, God chose to die of His own will and died to avenge us... We have Christ working in Himself the very things which God works in Him, for it was Christ who died, stripping from Himself His flesh and it was none other who raised Christ from the dead but Christ Himself, since God died through the flesh_* [Book IX On the Trinity]. ✝St. Theodotus of Ancyra: - The Jews did not crucify a mere man, nor did they imprison only the visible nature. Rather, they directed their audacity towards the God present in it, *_familiarizing the passions of the united nature._* So let no Jew boast of crucifying a mere man... The Only-Begotten God has made the sufferings of the one crucified His own... *_the Jew, by crucifying what appears, is judged, stretching his audacity towards the Word of God Himself._* [Homily 2 at the Council of Ephesus] *_Now compare the above two (St. Hilary & St. Theodotus) with Leo, the Bishop of Rome (EO)who stated at the Council of Chalcedon, "Christ is two: God and man, Christ the God astonished us with miracles and Christ the man received dishonor and suffering."_* ✝St. Ephrem the Syrian: - *_Though your nature is One, its interpretations are many. There are narratives exalted, intermediate, and lowly._* [Hymns on Faith 10:3] ✝St. Gregory of Nyssa: - *_So how could the unity be separated into a duality (two nature), since no numerical distinction can be made?_* [Letter to St. Theophilus of Alexandria] God keep you
@@copticfanatic I'm a convert from the Salvation Army (yes, it's Protestant denomination), a splinter of Methodism. I now attend a Coptic Church in Sydney Australia.
@@copticfanatic4:14 i would disagree (i am Coptic btw) the reason why i think this way is because of appolinaris's heresy apollinaris said that Jesus doesn't have a human mind because he thought that leads to a nestorian view( i know Nestorius wasn't born yet but bare with me) this is wrong because 1: it contradicts the scriptures Luke 2:52 New International Version 52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. Here Jesus aquires human knowledge our lord also stated that he didn't know the hour simply because this is incomprehensible to a human mind but he knows it through his divinity If Jesus can think and learn like humans then he must have had a human mind 2: if Jesus only assumed human flesh then he only redeemed our bodies which changes nothing because those bodies will be changed anyways (some translations like nlt say transformed) 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 ESV Mystery and Victory 50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and wthis mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: So Jesus had a human mind but that doesn't solve the issue because that would mean Nestorius was correct So how to avoid this heresy? We do this by properly defining mind. Mind is the thing we use to experience the world around us so mind refers to mental capabilities and experiences Mind is the thing conscious agents use to precive. human minds can't experience colurs the same way animals do. human minds are limited to precieve everything within a spatial temporal framework unlike the mind of God (space and time were created by the big bang) human minds produce different experiences than those of other beings (human minds and human bodies are designed to compliment each other therefore they both contribute to the human experience) like animals and angels So essentially the mind can be compared to eyeglasses (like a fancy pair of eyeglasses and a pair of broken ones) Jesus sees everything through both minds and has two experiences the human and divine Therefore i disagree with your statement nature isn't hypostasis it's the lens through which the conscious agent experiences things and understand them (mental capabilities and and subjective experiences)
What is seen is one thing, ( one hypnosis). What is theories ( in mental conception) is the how one union consists of two different things, divine and flesh. Calcedon.
Well the differanciation beetwen IN two natures and OF two natures is less than conclusive.. Maybe this is because I don't understand some notions, but I think that both party use the same words such as hypostasis in order to mean two different things. But I am not an expert. A more conclusive case against the melkite side would be to analyse the fifth ecumenical council, and the three chapter controversy, that seems to condemn Chalcedonian authors. But once again, I am in no way a church history expert.
Lovely! You Should have compared and contrasted Nestorius expression of in two natures after the union with the Chalcedon creed, to reveal wholly the adopting of his Christology by Chalcedon.
Can I have more infos about this. Nestorius died the year of Chalcedon. I keep reading that he had accepted it, but without any form of proof whatsoever.
This amazing apologetic teaching of orthox fathers. Greeting from Ethiopian Orthodox tewahedo church.😊
I'm Coptic Orthodox from Mexico, I was looking a chanel like this. God bless you brother 🙏🏻🖐🏻
Thank you brother. The Oriental Orthodox position is much simpler and clearer than the confusion that ensued at Chalcedon and its subsequent councils.
Absolutely brother! And thank you for your support and God bless you! ❤️🙏✝️
May Almighty God bless you.
Thank you for the video, very edifying for the viewer and proof that none of this controversy was "semantical" between the Dyophysite Nestorians and the Miaphysite Orthodox.
Thank you brother Thomasinos for your comment!! You’re absolutely right that the controversy wasn’t “semantics” but a true theological substantive difference!
Could you explain the difference between Miaphysitism and Monophysitism?
Sure Eutychian Monophysitism has to do with the concept of the divinity of Christ “swallowing” the humanity of Christ and so what remains after the hypostatic union is only the divine nature. On the other hand, Miaphysitism is the doctrine that Christ’s one nature is fully divine and fully human (not merely divine like in eutychian Monophysitism). After the hypostatic union between the divinity and humanity of Christ, Christ has one nature from two natures that is fully divine and fully human.
@@copticfanatic Thanks, I understand now. Western sources usually conflate the two doctrines.
@@copticfanaticcan it be said he has a new composite nature or that this nature preserves the mystery of the incarnation, that is, its not a new nature but a union of two, so united that it is said to be one nature even though they do not form a new nature?
I believe in the second part, that saying "one nature" is to preserve the mystery but do you believe in the first part?
Much needed channel, glad to have someone discussing this topic.
We are with you brother!
Thank you so much brother! Please pray for me! ❤️🙏✝️
Yay, OO apologetics!
Armenian-Apostolic greetings! ✝
God bless you brother! Please pray for me! ✝️❤️🙏
Very informative, great intro to Chalcedon. Thank you!
Thank you very much for watching the video! Hope the video helped inform you a bit about Chalcedon!
By dividing the Incarnate Logos into two, by Biblical definition they have created a Christ who sins:
1. Sirach 2:14 - “Woe to the duplicitous heart, and to the wicked lips, and to the hands that do evil, and to the SINNER who walks the earth by TWO ways”
2. James 1:8 - “he is a DOUBLE-minded man, UNSTABLE in all his ways.”
3. Mark 10:9 - “What God has joined together, let no man separate”
these are so weak, Jesus has isn't contradicting himself, 2 natures
@@uchennanwogu2142 2 natures, 2 minds, 2 wills, 2 activities = 2 christs. You are choosing to adhere to so-called "fathers" who got STUCK at Chalcedon adhering to the double-minded Tome of Leo. Either continue to drink the Nestorian kool-aid or walk away from the duplicitous vomit.
One of my hang-ups:
The four marks of the Church are One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. How does the OO Communion defend its position on being Catholic (Universal) when it has basically sat in a very locally confined geographical area for the last 1500 years? Why has it seemingly ignored the Great Commission, persecutions notwithstanding? How does it defend itself against the Romans when they say things like "You can find a Catholic church near you almost always."
What does Universal mean and how does it apply to the OO Communion?
How are branching and budding OO churches, like the Copts in America, supposed to contend with long established local traditions like Our Lady of Guadalupe?
Thanks.
Thanks for your questions Gabriel and God bless you! 🙏❤️✝️ well the Early Church was called the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic and the Oriental Orthodox is the continuation of the Early Church whereas all other churches schismed and unfortunately fell into heresy. The objection you bring up about roman churches being found everywhere that’s an objection of numbers. Just because Romans have more numbers doesn’t mean they’re true. You could have the majority of the world follow a false religion. In the Old Testament the majority of the world was pagan and you only had a handful of people who were God’s chosen people. Now when it comes to the Virgin Mary apparitions have you searched about the 1968 Marian Apparition in Zeitoun, Egypt and the 2009 Al Warraq also in Egypt?
@@copticfanatic
I have. I'm aware of Our Lady of Zeitoun. I'm not familiar with the 2009 event. I think She was genuine, but I'm very leery of basing my final decision on Marian apparitions because there are Catholic apparitions as well.
I was always under the understanding that Christ's church should be visible (A city set on a hill should be manifest and all that). There's still the question of the Great Commission as well. Why isn't all of Africa OO? Why has the Anglican church run rampant throughout Africa while the ancient OO Communion hasn't really evangelized?
Why have my people in America and Western Europe been deprived of Christ's true Church for 1500 years?
They're hard questions to answer. I have just as many crticisms of the Byzantines and the Papists.
@@GabrielWithoutWingsmy best answer to your questions would be that they’re sort of like the problem of evil. “If God is real why do bad things happen?”. You asked why the Americas and Western Europe have been deprived of Christ’s true Church for 1500 years and the answer to that question would be because of the actions of those who presided over Chalcedon. Wicked men have led many astray as scripture had already warned us would happen. For the first 4 centuries, one could’ve argued that the entirety of the world was deprived of the Church as Christians were under heavy persecution and were often in hiding in a world of pagans (As OOs now and historically are surrounded by a sea of Muhammadanism) It wouldn’t be right to say they ignored the great commission.
Nevertheless, it’s not like OO Churches have been totally nonexistent in these areas of the world and we are still the 3rd largest communion of Christianity in the world so we’re not some unknown sect. One of the tragedies of the modern times is that people are usually ignorant of the differences in the apostolic churches and just assume they’re basically the same.
Throughout history God has used His saints like Empress St. Theodora to protect and preserve His Church in times of great persecution.
And in these times we are seeing a massive increase in OO growth and we are just beginning to see more evangelization and apologetics both online and irl and I predict we will continue to see God’s Church stand firm and grow as we near the end times.
@@GabrielWithoutWings St Paul in his epistles says that the good news was preached to the whole world (Col 1:23). Also, we have evidence that Coptic monks went as far as Ireland (evidence of Minas flask and coptic rites in their manuscripts, the Faddan More Psalter). Finally, St Paul also tells us that God is written in our conscience (Romans 2:15). Deprivation of "Oriental Orthodoxy" is not a deprivation of God. Naaman in the OT knew nothing about God but continued worshipping God after being healed by Elisha (2 Kings 5:17). Our job is to keep and preserve the faith once and for all deposited to the saints (Jude 3) and share this with the world to the best of our ability and as guided by the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that we claim to sit on the judgement seat and condemn to hell all those who did not have the complete truth or even were fed errant teaching. We know God is Just and Merciful.
@@GabrielWithoutWings Not to mention of course the prolific writings of the Alexandrian fathers St Clement, Origen the Scholar, St. Athanasius, and St Cyril to name a few written in the universal Greek language. Anyone who's anyone in Christology would surely be aware of and referencing these fathers.
Babe wake up fanatic coptic dropped a new vid
God bless you and please pray for me 🙏✝️
Once the chalcedonians divided Christ dogmatically they just keep dividing amongst themselves without unity
im struggling so much with EO and OO im only 14 and have been looking for the truth for a year please help me im begging you i dont wanna go to hell
Lol relax. There's more chance of you getting raped by an Alien on Mars than you going to hell.
You should ask yourself why you believe that hell is a real place first, then start looking at the history of how hell became part of Christianity. Google and TH-cam are free. Go do some research. Take care.
Chill out bro. You won’t go to hell for that…
@@layannmadeleine3593 you will but i found the truth no salvation outside the catholic church
You have time just look into some apolegetic books like nature of christ (pope shenouda)
Or some scripture from John of Damascus and then decide
*Brother, I encourage you to explore the provided links below, where you'll discover an eight-part defense of Oriental Orthodoxy by the Lion's Den brothers, which extensively references the early church fathers.*
th-cam.com/video/VlSqTTsGneQ/w-d-xo.html
*Additionally, please peruse the links below, where you will encounter Agen of the Apostolic Orthodoxy offering a splendid elucidation of the Oriental Orthodox Christology.* th-cam.com/video/SH5Y2nUYR5c/w-d-xo.html
✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - So just as everything is spoken of the One person, *_for One Nature is recognized as existing after the union namely that of the Word Incarnate._* [Second Tome against Nestorius]
✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - *_After the union has occurred, however, we do not divide the Natures from one another, nor do we sever the One and Indivisible into two Sons, but we say that there is One Son, and as the holy Fathers have stated, "One Incarnate Nature of The Word"_* [1st Letter to Succensus 6]
✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - *_Once we have confessed the union, the things that have been united are no longer separated from one another but are thereafter one Son; and One is His nature since the Word has been made flesh._* [Letter to Eulogius]
✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - God became man by a genuine union, in a manner beyond explanation or understanding. *_For as soon as this union has taken place, there is a single nature presented to our minds, the Incarnate Nature of The Word Himself._* [Against Nestorius 2.(Preface)]
✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - We confess that He is the son of God, God according to the Spirit, son of Man according to the flesh, *_not two natures to that one Son,_* one nature worshipped the other unworshipped, *_but One Nature of God the Word Incarnate worshipped with His flesh with One worship..._* [St. Athanasius from his work upon the Incarnation of the Word: St. Cyril cited it in his books against Theodore]
✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Because, therefore, He is truly God and King according to nature, and because the One crucified has been called the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2:8), how could anyone hesitate to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God? *_Adore Him as one, without dividing Him into Two after the union. [Letter 1]_*
✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Therefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts; *_but after the union, since the distinction into two is now done away with, we confess that there is one nature of the Son, since He is one Son._* [Letter 40, Response to St. Acacius of Melitene]
✝St. Theodotus of Ancyra: - *_The magi presented myrrh as incense to the One who appeared as God, without dividing the nature of His essence, without creating divisions through mere imaginations._* They offered incense to the One they knew to be God through the miracle, judging Him worthy of divine honor. [Homily 1 at the Council of Ephesus]
✝St. Theodotus of Ancyra: - It is necessary to have the understanding in agreement with the Word, saying that Christ is one, the same God and human. Therefore, understand and think of one. *_But if you say one and think of two, you have the understanding warring against your words._* So, do not say two, which is distinguished by some difference. For if the Word is one in expression, do not cut it with the understanding. But if you cut with the thoughts, you deny the union. *_Therefore, do not bring the Word down to differences in nature, which God united in the highest miracle._* Believe in the miracle, and do not investigate what happens with reasoning.
✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: And, if I am to speak concisely, the Savior is made of elements (natures) which are distinct from one another, for the invisible is not the same with the visible, nor the timeless with that which is subject to time, yet He is not two Persons, God forbid! *_For both Natures are One by the combination (unity), the Divinity being made Man, and the Manhood deified or however one should express it._* [To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius. (Ep. CI.) Letter 101.5-6]
✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - He was, and He becomes. He was above time; He became subject to time. He was invisible; He becomes visible... What He was, He laid aside; what He was not, He assumed. He did not become two, but He allowed himself to become A unity (one nature) composed of two elements (natures). For that which assumed and that which was assumed combine (united) into A Divine being. *_The two natures compound (unit) into a unit (one nature); and there are not two sons, for we must make no mistake about the commixture of the natures._* [Oration 37.2.2]
✝St. Basil the great: - *_In all these cases we do not mention two, God apart and man apart for He was One, but in thought we take into account the nature of each._* Peter had not two in his mind when he said, "Christ has suffered for us in the flesh." [The extant works of St. Basil - Dogmatic]
✝St. Hilary of Poitiers: - *_The Only-begotten God chose to become man of His own will, God was born to take us into Himself, God had assumed our weakness and chose to suffer of His own will, suffered to justify us, God chose to die of His own will and died to avenge us... We have Christ working in Himself the very things which God works in Him, for it was Christ who died, stripping from Himself His flesh and it was none other who raised Christ from the dead but Christ Himself, since God died through the flesh_* [Book IX On the Trinity].
✝St. Theodotus of Ancyra: - The Jews did not crucify a mere man, nor did they imprison only the visible nature. Rather, they directed their audacity towards the God present in it, *_familiarizing the passions of the united nature._* So let no Jew boast of crucifying a mere man... The Only-Begotten God has made the sufferings of the one crucified His own... *_the Jew, by crucifying what appears, is judged, stretching his audacity towards the Word of God Himself._* [Homily 2 at the Council of Ephesus]
*_Now compare the above two (St. Hilary & St. Theodotus) with Leo, the Bishop of Rome (EO)who stated at the Council of Chalcedon, "Christ is two: God and man, Christ the God astonished us with miracles and Christ the man received dishonor and suffering."_*
✝St. Ephrem the Syrian: - *_Though your nature is One, its interpretations are many. There are narratives exalted, intermediate, and lowly._* [Hymns on Faith 10:3]
✝St. Gregory of Nyssa: - *_So how could the unity be separated into a duality (two nature), since no numerical distinction can be made?_* [Letter to St. Theophilus of Alexandria]
God keep you
Keep up exposing the truth.
Thank you brother! the truth needs to be exposed! By the way have you always been OO?
@@copticfanatic I'm a convert from the Salvation Army (yes, it's Protestant denomination), a splinter of Methodism. I now attend a Coptic Church in Sydney Australia.
Finally an OO youtuber
Please pray for me and God bless you brother! 🙏❤️✝️
Rome = Mother of division. Thanks Leo!
Yes sir! That's true!
@@copticfanatic4:14 i would disagree (i am Coptic btw) the reason why i think this way is because of appolinaris's heresy apollinaris said that Jesus doesn't have a human mind because he thought that leads to a nestorian view( i know Nestorius wasn't born yet but bare with me) this is wrong because
1: it contradicts the scriptures Luke 2:52
New International Version
52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.
Here Jesus aquires human knowledge our lord also stated that he didn't know the hour simply because this is incomprehensible to a human mind but he knows it through his divinity
If Jesus can think and learn like humans then he must have had a human mind
2: if Jesus only assumed human flesh then he only redeemed our bodies which changes nothing because those bodies will be changed anyways (some translations like nlt say transformed)
1 Corinthians 15:50-54
ESV
Mystery and Victory
50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and wthis mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
So Jesus had a human mind but that doesn't solve the issue because that would mean Nestorius was correct
So how to avoid this heresy?
We do this by properly defining mind.
Mind is the thing we use to experience the world around us so mind refers to mental capabilities and experiences
Mind is the thing conscious agents use to precive.
human minds can't experience colurs the same way animals do.
human minds are limited to precieve everything within a spatial temporal framework unlike the mind of God (space and time were created by the big bang) human minds produce different experiences than those of other beings (human minds and human bodies are designed to compliment each other therefore they both contribute to the human experience) like animals and angels
So essentially the mind can be compared to eyeglasses (like a fancy pair of eyeglasses and a pair of broken ones) Jesus sees everything through both minds and has two experiences the human and divine
Therefore i disagree with your statement nature isn't hypostasis it's the lens through which the conscious agent experiences things and understand them (mental capabilities and and subjective experiences)
Thank you brother for the good explaining
Great video, Habibi! God reward you!
Thank you Habibi! May God reward you as well God bless! 🙏❤️✝️
What is seen is one thing, ( one hypnosis). What is theories ( in mental conception) is the how one union consists of two different things, divine and flesh. Calcedon.
Well the differanciation beetwen IN two natures and OF two natures is less than conclusive..
Maybe this is because I don't understand some notions, but I think that both party use the same words such as hypostasis in order to mean two different things.
But I am not an expert.
A more conclusive case against the melkite side would be to analyse the fifth ecumenical council, and the three chapter controversy, that seems to condemn Chalcedonian authors.
But once again, I am in no way a church history expert.
Were u on clubhouse
Yes I was!
Great video!
God bless you! ❤️🙏✝️
Lovely! You Should have compared and contrasted Nestorius expression of in two natures after the union with the Chalcedon creed, to reveal wholly the adopting of his Christology by Chalcedon.
Yes will do that in future videos! Thank you so much for your input! 🙏
Can I have more infos about this. Nestorius died the year of Chalcedon. I keep reading that he had accepted it, but without any form of proof whatsoever.
W
God bless you brother!!! ❤️🙏✝️
God bless you. Its coptic brother. Amazing lets destroy the chalcedonian heresy
God bless you brother Coptic!! Miss you and yes let’s destroy the Chalcedonian heresy bro! God bless you!! ❤️🙏✝️
W love this bro
Love you too brother! Please pray for me and thank you! God bless 🙏✝️
Massive W
God bless you brother!! Please pray for me! ❤️🙏✝️
W GUY
God bless you brother! ❤️🙏✝️
Fanatic Copetic.