It seems like in this debate the oriental orthodox side does not have specific enough terminology for concrete identity (personhood). It seems like they reduce personhood to their nature and that’s why what they are saying sounds so confusing to Eastern Orthodox ears
Eastern Orthodox are Nestorians.. Just like Catholics.. and both churches have a history of ultraviolence and debauchery.. It is evident that these churches don't understand the nature of Christ because of their dark history.. In contrast, the Orientals remained peaceful and spiritual over thousands of years.. the Oriental Orthodox understand the true nature of Christ..
For the OO, the Council of Chalcedon is political. They also said it was influenced by Emperor Marcian and his wife, Empress Pulcheria, and by Pope Leo the Great's legates to attack Dioscorus of Alexandria. They also said the Chalcedonian Council is a Nestorian Council, which teaches two natures after union. It is not political because Emperor Marcian prepared an ecumenical council like his predecessors. as Emperor Constantine prepared the Council of Nicea. They also said that the Council was influenced by Paschinus and Licentius, the two legates of Leo; that is not true. If that is true, Nestorians can also say that the Council of Ephesus was influenced by Cyril of Alexandria. That is not really a good argument. They also said the Council of Chalcedon attacked Dioscorus by sending him to exile on the island of Gangra. We should not forget that Dioscorus did the same thing against Saint Flavianus of Constantinople, Ibas of Edessa, and Theodoret of Cyrus during the 449 Robbery Synod, which is accepted by OO as an Ecumenical Council. Eutychius, Dioscorus, and other pro-Eutychius figures beat Flavian up for condemning the teaching of Eutychius during the 448 Synod of Constantinople. Dioscorus didn't give a chance for Flavian of Constantinople, Ibas of Edessa, or Theodoret of Cyrus to say anything. Dioscorus removed the anthema of Eutychius. After he sent Flavian of Constantinople to exile, he ordained an Alexandrian guy whose name was Anatolius as a successor of Flavian for the holy see of Constantinople. The Council of Chalcedon reaffirmed the Anathema of Eutychius. That is not a good argument. The Council of Chalcedon is not a Nestorian Council because the Council did not teach that the Virgin Mary is not a Mother of God. The council teaches that Christ has two natures (physis) but is one person (hypostasis). One subsistence(prosopon). Nestorius said different things. You can see the teaching of the Assyrian Church of the East, which venerates him as a saint. They say that Jesus has two natures (physis) in Syriac, and Kyane has two persons (hypothesis) in Syriac. Jesus is one external person (subsistence, prosopon) in Syriac parsupa. Nestorians believe Christ has one will, like the OO, but Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Christ had two wills, which are his divine will and his human will. So the Council of Chalcedonians is not a Nestorian council.
In Chalcedon the emperors also intended for the assembly to approve a theological formula that would unify the Eastern Church under the ultimate authority of the bishop of Constantinople. On October 10, the bishops rejected the idea of formulating a definition almost unanimously. However, the commissioners demanded it. On October 22, a draft statement intended for council adoption was brought to the conference by the bishops from the east. Deacon Asclepiades read the document to the council shortly after the meeting got underway. To your surprise, this text only included Dioscorus's "from two natures" rather than the Antiochenes' "two natures after the union" or the Tome of Leo's "in two natures." John of Germanicia expressed opposition to its acceptance as the reading came to an end. To force it through, Anatolius now stood up. He asked the council, "Do you find the definition satisfactory?" Bishops responded that it was satisfactory right away, with the exception of Roman legatesa and a few orientals. This is how history will proceed until, at last, the government and the Rom have forced all of your bishops(?) to accept a single-person leo idea of the notion of ‘in two natures'. Even if they write "From Two Natures" to be taken as a dogma, consider how they accept the leo idea. For this reason, we argue that it is contradictory to accept Chalcedon while denying papal infallibility. Because they consider a single person's opinion as a creed, by rejecting the council draft. I'll now ask you two questions. 1) What is the reason behind the bishops' unwillingness to define dogma? 2) Would they really leave their draft in favour of one person's concept, even if they were forced to formulate?
This is the reason the council is referred to as "the council of dogs" in our tradition.
@@tDEC2052 this argument doesn't make to me but maybe i'm misunderstanding something, a council ratifying a formulation by one person does not make the person infallible, but the council, 1) it and important matter and the Bishops wanted to be precise, these things take time, I don't see how hesitance on accepting earlier proposals is problematic. 2) yes if the persons concept is a better formulation. this happens to be the last youtube video i'll watch before i'll block youtube for a while as i find it wastes my time, sorry i won't be able to respond to any reply you may have, hopefully my response will at least be productive in some way, God bless.
@@buffcommie942 As you point out, my brother, the assembly does not immediately proceed to ratify a single-person Leo idea. But first, they request to prepare a draft, which they reject and lead me to ask, "Why?" However, you decided not to respond. And, after being pressured by the government, they draft a dogma that, as I put it, says, "Of two natures." Even if everyone in the assembly agrees with the draft, but the government uses the Leo idea as the final doctrine. Why did they create the draft in the first place if it could not be considered as a dogma? What type of response does you EO have for this? Do you believe it would not be an issue if the assembly's consensus was rejected and one person's idea was adopted due to the king's influence? Or are you a supporter of papal infallibility? For what reason do they ask them to draft something that shouldn't be taken as dogma? I understand that Rome plays with them through government.
@@tDEC2052 A draft like the one you mention usually is made by one or a few people. Btw if we use the term nature the way you occasionally (?) use it, "from two natures" can be "Nestorian".
Monophysite monks of the time were saying "those who cut Christ in two we will cut in two". And so they did... they spilled blood of the Orthodox monks over the heresy of monophysitism. That is what happened in those days. . Terminology is of no importance. What is important is substance behind the words. Attempts to reconcile on the grounds of "terminological misunderstandings" are insult to the faithful Orthodox and those martyred defending it.
Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, the holy Hieromartyr Proterios, inside the Patriarchal Church, while fully dressed in his patriarchal vestments, on February 28, 457AD slaughtered by Monophysite followers of Timotheos Ailouros and Petros Mouggou. Orthodox Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople, was brutally treated, kicked, and beaten by the agents of Dioscorus, and even by Dioscorus himself. He was then imprisoned and soon exiled, but died in the hands of his guards from the effect of his injuries three days after his deposition. On Aug 11, 449AD he was regarded as a martyr. etc.
@@nathnaeltsegaw7263 Showing off that good-old fashioned piety and meekness eh. On a less cheeky note, you provided no justification but just an insult. Meanwhile actual documented murders took place by your spiritual forefathers. What did have you to say about that? Nothing, you have no leg to stand on.
@@johnnyd2383 Are you aware that the first description you listed of Proterios's death comes from a historian writing over a century after the events in question, and it contradicts the earlier written account that claims Proterius was murdered by Roman Legionaries stationed in Alexandria at the time? I don't know which account is historically accurate, but I find it good practice to trust earlier accounts of historical events. On the second point about Flavian, this is also disputed. I believe there's evidence that he was writing letters months after Ephesus II. That would seem to contradict the idea that he died soon after, no? It's also true that at Chalcedon, this supposed beating of Flavian is not brought up as a charge against Dioscorus. That's kind funny don't you think? I'd think evidence of his beating someone to death would be a great point to bring against someone you're trying to depose.
oo Paul says the Tomb of Leo and COuncil of Chalcedon are not sufficient enough. he says nestorians took cover under them. does he know that some arians take cover in the COuncil of Nicea which oos accept? So one can then argue by the same logic the Council of Nicea also wasnt sufficient . uc how ridiculous this is?
In certain ways, none of the early councils were "sufficient," which is why there had to be later councils for further clarification. But that in no way invalidates them, it just means that they were incomplete.
Just like the 1990 agreements are “insufficient”? Or are we merely straining at gnats in the mystery of the incarnation? Because I don’t see the difference here
@@minasoliman David already addressed those 90’s agreements. They’re useless since they were bishops, but church representatives and they’re inconclusive
@@darklord7069 but as white makes right says, it doesn’t invalidate them; and please, don’t use David as a source if you’re pinning him against bishops and clergy who studied the issue more than him. He doesn’t speak for EOs.
I am just starting to listen this debate and thank you for making it available. I hope that these intellectuals will also come to discuss the concept of hypostatic union in the historical concept and how it was able to clarify what the miaphysism concept could not. Thank you and may the Lord Jesus bless you all
It's unfortunate how bad the audio on your side was everyone else sounded clear and smooth but the glitches were very distracting and took so much away from the context
Indeed. I get very tired of calls for union with both the Orientals and the Roman Catholics. We are divided for very good reasons. If they want to be united with us, they are free to become Orthodox.
But the thing is that people will never convert if you don't talk or debate with them. You can't expect them to submit without doing anything on your part. You have to show them that you care about what they think, even if you disagree, and that you love them in charity.
@@vituzui9070 Indeed and we have. Heresy is not merely being wrong, it's knowing that you're wrong and insisting in the error. For what reason? Ego, pride, status, power, sex or money (thinking of cult leaders especially for the last two but it also applies generally). We care about what they think to correct them AND their blaspheming (whether knowingly or unknowingly). It's up to them to accept the truth but guess what, they don't. Even if they concede defeat in some debates and on particular points in particular, they keep using the same arguments that they know don't hold water. And we can see it in action in these TH-cam debates, just look at Erick Ybarra (RC) or Muslim preachers like Shabir Ali.
TherealChadWhite lol... i could 'feel the zeal' through the screen at several points within this debate, but it would be frustrating to try and separate the divine hypostasis from it properties for the discernment of the audience whilst the opposite debater continues to see them as 1 in the same thing. Im only 32 minutes btw 😂 but im hooked ... Christ Is Risen!
Brother, 1 Timothy 3: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh... received up into glory." If Christ is forever incarnated, then "Christ is One", says St. Cyril of Alexandria. The following was taken from the Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril concerning the Eucharist (please read carefully): "Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath; that this is the Life-giving Body that Your Only-Begotten Son, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ took from our Lady, the Lady of us all, the holy Theotokos, Saint Mary. *He made it One with his Divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration*... Truly, I believe that His divinity parted not from His humanity for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye..." 1) Let us stop pretending that we can wrap our minds around this great Mystery of the Incarnation. 2) It is unwise to be scandalising the Copts with these futile debates when their theology is perfectly sound. 3) Christ in Heaven with His resurrected flesh is One Incarnate Nature.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese So the Liturgies of Sts. Basil, Gregory and Cyril are monophysitic? Let's follow your line of reasoning: you say they are, therefore they are; yet, you yourself remain unable to articulate why they are.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese From two natures vs Of two Natures... I see. I listed those particular Saints because those are the Liturgies the Copts use; and I cited above exactly where in their Liturgy PROVES that they cannot be monophysite. After these many discussions and reading blogs and watching debates, I am yet to hear anyone clearly articulate when exactly the Oriental Orthodox Christians deviated from what they had always believed. So if they are indeed monophysite, then they were always monophysite.
I'd say it all stems from a language misunderstanding. Someone correct me if I'm wrong though if I remember right in Coptic there aren't separate words for nature and person, they use the same word for both concepts which led to people conflating them both. So when the councils proclaimed the two natures of Christ, they misunderstood it as Nestorianism.
If they are saying the same thing, then one should take the side of the one that accepts the council that had FIVE HUNDRED bishops. Saint Ignatius of Antioch says we must not follow schismatics, and if a portion of the church was willing to leave over an alleged “same” belief, then they are in the wrong and deserve to be anathematized
@@avriel6903 Are you arguing that not accepting Chalcedon was identical to leaving the church? From my understanding OO simply did not accept Chalcedon and the Chacedonions anathematized them for it.
Correct me of I'm wrong, but it seems as if EO defines hypostasis as the person who has the natures, nature means a collection of properties shared by all things of a certain kind in which those properties are instantiated. OO defines hypostasis as nature, referring to the set which contains the properties. So when OO says Christ had two hypostasis, they mean two natures instead of two persons, but when EE says Christ is one hypostasis (meaning person) it sounds to OO like Monophysitism.
That's why OO confuse nature and person from my perspective. They also changed the creed by stating "And the third day He arose again, according to His will instead of the scriptures". It's monophysitism.
- *30 differences between COPTIC & EOTC* - Purpose: This was written to educate and give Ethiopian believers a BETTER understanding of the origin of their faith, history and tradition and answer why the EOTC is quite different from other orthodoxies. This should not to be interpreted in the wrong way, unity is important but so is transparency. Author: As an Ethiopian Orthodox servant and having attended several Coptic liturgies, and from theological research on both churches, I can tell you we the EOTC have SO MANY differences. ✅ ALL ITEMS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED! *Dogma Differences* 1. We believe that Saint Mary was born without original sin 2. We believe that Saint Mary has NO fallen nature no sin or nature to sin after birth as well *Jewish Practices* Matt 5:17 - “I did not come to abolish the Law” 1. We have Ark Processions year-round 2. We abstain from all unclean food (Halal, pork, shrimp, crab, etc) 3. We do no enter church if we are unclean (men and women) 4. We wear all white shawls (Netelas) as a symbol of Christ’s Resurrection and spiritual purity 5. We have a shoeless entry (not just during communion) 6. We abstain from any modern instruments (piano, guitar, etc) 7. We have 81 books in the Bible (Coptics have 74) 8. We go of Halachic Jewish Time (Fasting entry and exits are based of our sun and star movements (Twilight) and our hours are reversed (12=6, 9=3) 9. We observe Friday evening and Saturday as the Sabbath (in addition to Sunday) 10. Women after giving birth have to wait 40 days or 80 days to enter church. ( Lev 12) *EOTC Belief System* 1. We abstain from any fish on fasting days (It is a meat - 1 Cor 15:39) 2. We eat starting at 3pm on fasting days 3. We fast 292 days of the year (including Tsige & Pagume Fast) 4. Women are not allowed to wear pants only ankle length dresses (Deut 22:5) 5. We never imprint (wear) icons of saints on clergical or any other clothes 6. We have a 2 or more priest liturgy system (Coptics have 1) 7. We close curtains during significant moments 8. To be a Deacon you must be a unmarried virgin 9. We have 14 liturgies (Coptics have 3) 10. We celebrate all 33 feasts for Saint Mary and all 18 feasts of Jesus with millions in attendance year round 11. We have Hymnaries (Mahlet) 4-10 hours short version and 24-48 hours long on Epiphany and Horologions (Sa’tat) 12. We perform year- round Subae’s (7 days of no food or water) 13. Believers have (Full Body - Holy Water) services year round for healing and forgiveness of sin 14. We do not eat bread inside church 15. Only men can pour Holy Water 16. The Holy Trinity Icon is always depicted (Coptics use mostly Jesus and the 4 creatures of the Gospel) 17. We have to fast 18 hours to take communion (3 days of no intercourse) 18. We prohibit any use of contraceptives or birth control (Genesis 38:6-11) *Explanation:* While we didn’t establish a church prior to Coptics, Ethiopia was and is historically known as the First Christian Kingdom and Civilization (Reference: Prophecy Psalms 72: 9-10 along with multiple Church sources shows that one of the three wise man has been confirmed Ethiopian, Acts 8 shows Christianity teaching existed in Ethiopia and Aksum Kingdom predates back to BC showing traces of Christianity prior to Armenian Church). And so while we the EOTC are labeled “oriental” with our sister churches, we are the only orthodox nation who incorporate 4000 year old Jewish customs (Judeo-Christianity) and Jewish forms of worship and tradition into our faith. The reason for this is because we were the only Orthodox country to convert from Christianity’s former faith so we hold very sacred information or the “original link” that drives our Christian faith to be more conservative or allows us to have more divine levels of worship (Ark Processions year round, Hymnaries (Mahlet), (Horologions (Sa’tat), Subae (7 days of no food or water), Year round Full Body Holy Water Services, all white clothing, shoeless entry, restraining from unclean meat and 292 days of fasting to name a few all makes our orthodoxy unique different and special in every way compared to all other oriental and eastern orthodoxies but most importantly and evidently seen is our love of Saint Mary. Ethiopia is in fact called the Land of Mary. Thank you have a nice day. Blessings in Christ Sources: 1. EOTC Sunday School Department Immaculate Conception - eotcmk.org/e/the-birth-of-the-blessed-virgin-mary-2/ 2. M/r RODAS th-cam.com/video/1i7DUmLkR_83/w-d-xo.html. 3. MAHBER KIDUSAN th-cam.com/video/73ybOkqsM1I/w-d-xo.html 4. Dersane Gabriel Tahsas Ch. 21-22 5. Ethiopia’s 4000 year history m.th-cam.com/video/pd1J_527Cxk/w-d-xo.html 6. Lika Likawnt Ezra - Promised Land Saint Mary th-cam.com/video/V8vBa78tvMI/w-d-xo.html 7. Holy Synod’s published document titled “The Doctrine and Foreign Relations of the EOTC” 8. No Fish on Fasting Day (EOTC) th-cam.com/video/l1Q2CvMebtQ/w-d-xo.html 9. Fetha Negest 10. Mesafe Kebur 11. Kebra Negest 12. The Didache Ch 6
This is stupid. Alexandria is an Apostolic See & we’re in communion with them. The items you listed aren’t even dogmatically defined. Why are you trying to cause schism? There’s non dogmatic differences between different rites in Orthodoxy. Regardless it’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not an “Ethiopian” or “Coptic” Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
@@kaleabbdagne6641 Theology is the comparing and contrasting and reasoning why behind faiths/rites, this is all that I wrote. Do not bring your assumptions and feelings into a thread.
@@eotceotc What you listed were differences between each other’s rites that aren’t dogmatically defined… why go around copt pasting it to “one up” another rite which doesn’t even make sense? Some of them are self-owns cause no one allows the depiction of the Holy Trinity entirely since depiction of the Father is not allowed. None of the early church fathers allow it nor had it ever been done. The 3 men painted together is of when Christ and the two angels visited Abraham.
I have a question for Paul Ibrahim. At the 19:00 minute (approximately) it sounded like you said that two hypostasis were joined into one Christ. Not trying to put any words in your mouth, but are you saying there are two persons(hypotheses) in the one Christ?
@@TJackson736 Hypostasis is a Concrete Hypostasis, it is an Hyparxis (Existence). Both Substance/Essence/Ousia and Hypostasis Exist, but Hypostasis exist as something Concrete like "Paul" or "Peter" meanwhile Ousia is what encompasses Paul, Peter, James etc due to their Commonality which then gives us: Humanity, and Humanity, like Trinity, is an Ousia. Trinity exist as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Humanity exist as Peter, Paul, Timothy, James etc. So Humanity aka the Human Ousia is the Compendium of Hypostases. Now concerning what they said, there is One Divine Ousia aka the Godhead (Trinity), and this Trinity exist as Father who is Unbegotten (Divine Hypostasis), Son who is Begotten from The Father eternally Eterbakl(Divine Hypostasis) and Holy Spirit who proceeds from The Father eternally (Divine Hypostasis). Three Divine Hypostases which are DISTINCT according to the Particularity of each Hypostasis aka Fatherhood, Sonship and Sanctification, but bound by Unity through The Common Ousia. To Summarize this, Saint Severus The Great of Antioch wrote in Homily 125: We say that ousia and hypostasis are concepts which indicate the existence of existing things. Ousia discloses that the subject is and exists and hypostasis says that it subsists. With regard to the Trinity, the ousia is the Godhead: Father, Son, and Spirit are God without diminution or gradation. With regard to the hypostases, in each case a particularity is expressed of the godness of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Thus for the Father the non-begotten applies; at the same time, however, the begetting is in reference to the Son; for the Son being begotten of the Father, independently of time, and for the Spirit the proceeding from the Father. The particularities remain fixed and unalterable; they characterise without mingling each of the hypostases and do not divide the common ousia. (Severus of Antioch, Homily 125)
Syriac and antiochian are two different things, because syriac refers to the non chalcedonians in antioch while antiochian refers to the orthodox in antioch which is larger than syria
The problem with this debate is that now at this moment we have reduced Christ to a set of metaphysical definitions. Inasmuch as I understand and have in the past debated these terminological differences, I must agree with Fr. McGuckin who said that these debates are “bunk”, nonsense. Time and again both traditions have believed the full integrity of humanity and full integrity of divinity with all their properties including wills and energies in Christ without mingling, confusion, division, separation. Whether you call it out of two hypostases (self and non-self subsistences) or in two natures where the humanity was “hypostasized” by the divinity, it’s the same thing. What is happening here is both sides willing to do or say whatever it takes to make the “other side” sound scandalous and wrong for the sake of their own tradition, when in fact no one was wrong save trying to figure out one another apart from the mutual killings and backstabbings in the name of Chalcedon/non-Chalcedon that existed.
This is not the case. Fr McGuckin and other Byzantines have been giving slack to the Orthodox because the more scholarship investigates the historical and doctrinal matters of the 5th-8th centuries, the more they find out that the Oriental Orthodox position is vindicated. Right now, the Byzantines are in panic mode because it is manifestly evident that Chalcedon is fundamentally and indisputably Theodorean. It is most definitely not "the same," because even when you account for the differences in how certain terminologies are defined (of which there are very few discrepancies), the E"O" position should've admitted from the very beginning that a non self-subsistent human hypostasis was joined to the self-subsistent hypostasis of the Word. The idea of modern ecumenism tries to use napkin Christology to equate the Orthodox and the Byzantines, but in doing so it reduces the substance of theology so far that there is no real reason to condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia. Also, if what you were saying was true, what do you make of the post-Henotikon era? If you recall, the dire situation of the Henotikon was much like the Formula of Reunion in 433. St Cyril wanted the Antiochenes to naturally come to drop Theodore over time, but then ongoing problems of Theodoreanism necessitated a subsequent condemnation of it. Likewise, Emperor Zeno's Henotikon was utilized by the Church in such a way that the in-name-only "chalcedonians" (who cannot properly be considered chalcedonians due to being in communion with people who anathematized what would be considered an "ecumenical council") would eventually come to reject Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo naturally. Unfortunately, heretics such as Macedonius II of Constantinople rendered the Church to have to excommunicate anyone who doesn't explicitly condemn Chalcedon.
There's truth of the matter on who and what Christ is. That truth matters a lot, at least to Christians. To say these debates are bunk seem apathetic, or uncritical to say the least. In the highest precision possible for man's mind, we should express who and what He is in truth, in reality, as He really is, as He revealed to us. It's akin to saying "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" and someone argues that it should be "In the end the Demiurge created the Order and the Chaos" and then saying that, if the two mean something close enough, then the wording, the definitions and everything else, shouldn't matter that much and any debate on it is "bunk". No, not at all. God is worshiped in Spirit and in Truth. We should not entertain relativism. There's absolute truth to the matter, which we shouldn't ignore. Every Christian, as much as God has allowed each one of us to grow in the faith, should concern himself with Christology and Trinitarian theology, as these are the highest doctrines in Christianity. Not everyone is endowed with intellect such that they can understand intellectual intricacies to such depths, but it doesn't mean the simple-minded Christians should ignore who and what Christ is altogether; or how God is a Holy Trinity. Each should try to understand those to the best of their ability and if they cannot go much further in their understanding, then they should remain humble and listen; the same way if I don't understand icons, I shouldn't tell an icon writer that "arguing how to write icons is meaningless"; or should tell a hymnologist "arguing about the compositions of hymns of worship is meaningless". No, these things matter and are meaningful. I think many laymen think their apathy, or unserious and uncritical approach, toward high doctrine should somehow be the normative attitude of the entire Church and we shouldn't care about doctrinal precision to the best ability and capacity of man's mind.
@@yavorangelov1601 you seem to ignore a large part of my post where clearly both traditions profess the full humanity and full divinity without mingling, confusion, separation, or division. Beyond that is terminology that both sides have patristic backing for. Hence why this is bunk. No one is introducing new terminology like your Demiurge chaos example. So your issues are a red herring. A good example of how terminological debates are antithetical to Christian unity is the Tome of Athanasius to the Antiochians. It’s worth reading, even for the simple minded. The issue here is not ignorance of the simple minded, but people who fish out reasons to condemn the other side that has no merit.
@@minasoliman that contradicts positions of Saints and theologians, which clearly identified difference in concept, rather than mere semantic difference. I think you're just misrepresenting the actual state of the issue and in doing so go against much more capable, and Holy, men than us. I'd side with the Fathers, who clearly saw issues with non-Chalcedonians. I trust their analysis of what the other side is saying and what it leads to more, than yours. You're free to draw your own conclusions and make your own analysis, but I don't find your case convincing, nor even probable in the slightest. How could one arrive at this being a mere semantic disagreement, rather than conceptual, is beyond me. And your insistence that it's out of stubborn desire to find fault with others is a huge blow against many Holy men, and many good people. It's really astounding how far one can go to justify himself, or his position. If they convey the same meaning, but with different words: then they should reformulate their wording and accept Chalcedon. So then there's the issue of disobeying authority, and how to properly word the doctrine, which isn't that grave, but is an issue nevertheless. If they convey different meaning, thus use different wording, then there's a deep issue of having to do with the most important article of faith: Christology, in that they concevie of Him differently, than the Church. Either way, there's an issue and they need to humble themselves and submit to authority.
The issue at hand is that David harbors a preconceived notion about Orientals, and when confronted with the perspectives of the other side, he refuses to acknowledge them. Paul has consistently argued that the hypostasis of Christ is both created in His humanity and uncreated in His divinity. Despite this, David poses a misleading dichotomy, asking whether the hypostasis is created or uncreated, indicating he came with the intent to discredit the opposing view rather than engage in a genuine discussion. This approach has been frustrating and disappointing. Just listen to him starting at 37:27
Good work, David. The Oriental position just seems dumb to me. Just bad metaphysics. Not differentiating between a thing's properties and the thing in itself? He lost the debate at that point, as far as I'm concerned.
@winta kiros Length of practice is not an argument for validity or correctness. Else is Islam correct? Buddhism, Hinduism? Just because they've been practiced for a long time doesn't mean it's the truth, wouldn't the devil rejoice at such an unfounded argument.
''Not differentiating between a thing's properties and the thing in itself?'' - - - Bro, unless it is in abstract, how a thing property can be found without the thing? And also, how can you find something itself without its property? That is why if there is hypostasis, the presence of nature, and if there is nature, the presence of hypostasis is necessary.
I truly feel like I need a higher IQ to understand this conversation in its fullness. Ultimately, I can’t tell a difference between each side. It’s sounds like both side are using different words but stating the same message.
ok the oo Paul said Christ's human hypostasis cannot exist on it's own. Pls someone ask them the following. If Christ were to hypothetically become deincarnate or separate His Divinity from His humanity again, what would happen to His human body? would it disappear? would it be reabsorbed into the Divine essence from whence it came which wld be full blown monophysitism? why if the human body has the DNA of the Virgin Mary would it completly disappear if the Divinity and humanity hypothetically seperated again? If they say yes itd disappear this wld also imply that Christ did not truly take the DNA from His Mother but merely somehow had His Divine Substance and/or Energies traanform into His body inside her womb, thus God forbid making her a mere vessel like some protestants claim.
It is far overdue to begin to tackle this problem sideways. Perhaps the question of God’s effect on physical matter once it is exalted should be addressed. I have a lot of experience in this realm from debating Mormons. I learned from Chesterton that it can be useful to compare a lesser (alleged) heresy with a far greater one. In this context, ATOMS. It is also useful to bring up Mormonism’s antipode on matter: Albeginsism. To paraphrase Chesterton, “They Disagree with one another twice as much as either does with the Patriarchs”. One radically over-exalts the spiritual status of The Atom, the other radically degrades the spiritual status of The Atom. They are actually useful in the Chalcedon debate because they give us a spectrum of absolute heresy on the Atom to measure against, as you simply cannot be more extreme in hyper-materialism and hyper anti-materialism than these two. This can help us determine WHICH position on the potential for exultation of physical matter in the Resurrection is most BALANCED, ergo, MOST Orthodox, most “Right Thinking”. An important question, I think, is does exalted physical matter still have some kind of chemistry? We literally can’t rationally imagine how entropy works without the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but REPEALING that law is the WHOLE POINT of the Resurrection. The second law has a very skinny police enforcer, and his weapon of choice is a sharp farming tool. The Second Law IS Death, and Christ repeals it by turning it against itself. But the important question to Chalcedon is what does the Atom and chemistry LOOK like in a Resurrected body? “We do not know, it is a mystery”, is literally true, but the importance of Hypostasis and defining it, suggests that there is at least one slightly knowable aspect of the effect of Resurrection on matter; it is not even a tenth of a percent of the Whole, Wonderful Truth behind the phenomenon, but not Zero. Since it IS potentially knowable, however tiny, it inevitably affects official dogma. We can’t ask what could replace chemistry while keeping atoms, that would be a mystery beyond our knowledge in this world, but Maybe we should ask, “MUST chemistry be replaced?” Is chemistry inherently entropic and therefore MUST be replaced? Or does God simply tweak chemistry to continue working without getting too cold or hot? The Shroud suggests that the moment of resurrection has peculiar chemical effects on the body’s immediate surroundings. That seems like evidence, to me, that a paradoxical chemistry of some sort continues, but not SOMETHING Else entirely. If it was something else entirely, the Resurrection would not have had any effect on the cloth. So, which view on Christ’s physical bodily substance most closely matches an exalted chemistry? That position will be most Orthodox.
Christ’s human hypostasis can’t exist on its own simply because it would no longer be Christ. The meaning of Christ is “anointed one or messiah”. Your hypocritical question is invalid because it doesn’t meet the fundamental biblical meaning of the messiah. Playing the “what if” game does no good to the conversation.
I cannot believe you have the audacity to actually ask that kind of question. Please repent, to ever ponder Christ "deincarnating"...Is this what Christ is leading you to think or is this coming from your father?
I and the father are one, and The father is greater than I Does not necessarily mean the two natures, I can be within the same one nature You can conclude this by understanding greater in the context of willing submission out of love. It’s permissive authority. Not the best arguments on both sides. I’m a little disappointed. Erhan brushing off the letter of ibas being read and accepted in the council and even being deemed heretical in the next council. This is not a minor matter. You can disagree on the elusive metaphysics. But it if the will of the Holy Spirit is needed for a holy council, God is not the God of confusion or inconsistencies. The Holy Spirit doesn’t seem to be present. This is a huge point not to be glazed over. Ethan needs to do better on this point. The gates of hell will not prevail against the church. There are only a few options 1) only one church is correct 2) neither churches needs to be entirely correct as the Holy Spirit is largely encompassing all Christian churches (only issue with this is that it implies that God allows the breaking down of his church, not to say it can’t be right or godly. god allows our broken ways many times such as remarrying in the Old Testament due to our dogged ways but it was never meant to be so. Similarly God can allow his church to be fractured. But even so, as a generalwhole, his church will still prevail) I shudder for the revelation when the time comes. The first will be last and the last will be first. And those in holy position will be held greatly accountable. I pray for those.
David I'm eastern orthodox and there is no article anywhere about this question: "Is Jesus' human nature part of the Trinity" What's the answer and could you settle this subject when I know you can. Thank you! 🤲🏼🙏🏼❤️☦︎
No, my brother, it's not that David is exceptionally skilled; rather, it's the weakness of the individual representing our side. He lacks energy and enthusiasm, and it seems as though he is there to learn from David rather than engage in a proper debate. I apologize for being blunt, but to be honest, he is an embarrassment to the OO faith in this context. When Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido debaters engage in debates conducted in Amharic (the Ethiopian language), they consistently come out on top against Eastern Orthodox debaters. I only wish that they could communicate in English, as they would have undoubtedly won the debate against David.
@@theonik6082 Yes, I do, but I struggle to translate the Amharic language into English in a coherent structure to effectively debate David. Additionally, I consider myself a lay person, leading a life that is not entirely devoted to holiness. I lack direct and uninterrupted access to God and the extensive knowledge of spiritual matters possessed by the holy hermits and monks of Ethiopia who live in caves, practicing a life of prayer, fasting, prostration, and contemplation of God - such practices are mandatory for them to effectively defend the faith. These individuals have dedicated their lives to faith, having memorized the Bible and the teachings of the church fathers in their entirety. By the grace of the Lord, they have been granted a deep understanding of spiritual matters, enabling them to eloquently defend our faith in a poetic manner. They continue to follow the same way of life as the desert fathers of the 2nd-4th century, such as St. Anthony, St. Moses the Ethiopian, St. Macarius, St. Pachomius, and others. It amuses me when I see Western individuals like David, who indulge in worldly comforts like eating burgers and sleeping on luxurious mattresses, who have not put in the effort to attain spiritual perfection, criticizing and speaking nonsense about the blessed Oriental Orthodox faith. You have yet to witness the wisdom and knowledge of the Ethiopian fathers. However, if you are interested, I can share with you a written defense of the faith.
@@yenenehw Well, you can't compare an apologist to a monk, just look at Holy Mt. Athos. Who are these OO monks debating, other monks or what? How about going to Athos and doing the same game? So many saints are produced there ❤️☦️
@@theonik6082 Indeed, the monks of Mount Athos lead lives of dedication, prayer, and asceticism, seeking spiritual enlightenment and union with God. Their commitment to a life of simplicity, solitude, and contemplation is admirable. Though their numbers are few, I am well aware of their way of life and virtue. I have always believed that the Lord works in mysterious ways, so I have never dared to disrespect them. However, the difference is that the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido hermits are numbered in thousands. Most of these hermits reside in deep deserts, and access to them is only possible by walking, which usually takes 2-3 days to reach them. Hardly anyone dares to cross the desert to see them, and some never encounter another human being for 10-20 years. They live in caves with only a single item of clothing and no shoes. Most of them never lay on the ground to sleep but instead take a nap while sitting on a stone - the beginners sleep on bare ground. The bread they consume is so bitter that I couldn't even swallow a bit, some instead eat an ounce of dried banana at sunset. Fasting is observed throughout the year. Mount Athos and its inhabitants, on the other hand, have dentists, medical doctors, cooks, and they do observe fasting, but they have a variety of food to choose from, clothing, washing machines, shoes, electricity, and they receive thousands of visitors each year, including people like yourself. Visitors are not bad, but to achieve that perfect union...??? There is no medical treatment available for the Ethiopians, even in the monasteries, if offered, the monks refuse it. When a monk falls ill, he relies on drinking holy water and bears the sickness patiently. I had the privilege of meeting a monk who kept a stone in his mouth for 30 years, only removing it when eating and taking communion. He followed in the footsteps of Abba Agathon of Sects. Additionally, I had the privilege of encountering a monk who practiced praying from dusk till dawn outdoors, completely naked (no clothing), immersed in water from knees down. He dedicated himself to such mortification and perfect prayer for 25 years. I lived among a group of three hermits for a month, and during that time, I desired to stay there and emulate their way of life. However, one of them advised me that it was not God's plan for me. He mentioned my relocation to the USA, educational achievements, the pursuit of wealth, and my subsequent downfall due to pride and involvement in sexual immorality brought about by the pursuit of money. He also spoke of my struggles, repentance, and eventual rise by the grace of God. Now that I am older, I see that his words have all come true. In Ethiopia, we have just over 800 monasteries and more than 200 dwelling places of hermits in the deep desert - even some of those places are known to God only. Have you read about St. Anthony, St. Macarius, St. Arsanius, and others? Our deep desert hermits emulate these saints in every aspect, from clothing and eating to prayer and meekness. They dislike having their virtues revealed in books and refuse to be filmed. Among them, some study scripture and the teachings of the church fathers, and it is these hermits who occasionally visit the city and refute the argument presented by zealous Catholic residents of the city who adhere to the same Leo-inspired two-nature Christology after the union of the EO. Based on the testimony of Athos, which I learned about through EO, I have concluded that the Ethiopian hermits live a much stricter and remarkable way of life compared to those on Mount Athos. My point is that there is a hidden world unknown to many in the West, a nation of desert saints concealed from those who adhere to the two-nature belief after the union.
In simple terms Eastern Orthodox believe Jesus Christ is One person with 2 nature's , Fully Human nature and fully God nature. The Oriental Orthodox believe Jesus is One person with One nature yet fully God and Fully man. Which would make him only God nature in a human vessel. Which is false because that would mean he didn't suffer temptation because Gods nature doesn't feel temptation to sin in the flesh. Jesus has to have Human nature to have the full experience of humanity to suffer and die for our sins and overcome temptation for us, as human nature and yet fully God too.
That's kinda funny in the description you say syriac coptic church vs orthodox? It's oriental vs eastern orthodox. Why would you drop the Eastern as if Eastern Is the only real orthodox
the problem is that eastern orthodox see oriental orthodox not so orthodox xD and the oriental orthodox see eastern orthodox as orthodox with heresies regarding chalcedon but mainly accept easterns baptism , and when great schism happened the eastern called themselves orthodox to diffrentiate themselves from the catholics xD this is why orthodox sometimes means chalcedonian type xD basically orientals were orthodox churches before even the easterns call themsleves as orthodox... the name came after the great schism to imply that eastern church are not with the catholic anymore. but for me both orientals and easterns are orthodox I agree with u
@user-pw1rr2vm8b no its not. Anyone one that knows our little differences knows we are both saying pretty much the same thing in different ways. I'm oriental but I wouldn't say eastern isn't real orthodox.
No the oriental orthodox are not the heretics. The easterns are the one that are heretics. I suggest u watch a video titled chalachadonial and coptic orthodox, fact, similarity and differences
@@etsubtamirat4623 - *30 differences between COPTIC & EOTC* - Purpose: This was written to educate and give Ethiopian believers a BETTER understanding of the origin of their faith, history and tradition and answer why the EOTC is quite different from other orthodoxies. This should not to be interpreted in the wrong way, unity is important but so is transparency. Author: As an Ethiopian Orthodox servant and having attended several Coptic liturgies, and from theological research on both churches, I can tell you we the EOTC have SO MANY differences. ✅ ALL ITEMS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED! *Dogma Differences* 1. We believe that Saint Mary was born without original sin 2. We believe that Saint Mary has NO fallen nature no sin or nature to sin after birth as well *Jewish Practices* Matt 5:17 - “I did not come to abolish the Law” 1. We have Ark Processions year-round 2. We abstain from all unclean food (Halal, pork, shrimp, crab, etc) 3. We do no enter church if we are unclean (men and women) 4. We wear all white shawls (Netelas) as a symbol of Christ’s Resurrection and spiritual purity 5. We have a shoeless entry (not just during communion) 6. We abstain from any modern instruments (piano, guitar, etc) 7. We have 81 books in the Bible (Coptics have 74) 8. We go of Halachic Jewish Time (Fasting entry and exits are based of our sun and star movements (Twilight) and our hours are reversed (12=6, 9=3) 9. We observe Friday evening and Saturday as the Sabbath (in addition to Sunday) 10. Women after giving birth have to wait 40 days or 80 days to enter church. ( Lev 12) *EOTC Belief System* 1. We abstain from any fish on fasting days (It is a meat - 1 Cor 15:39) 2. We eat starting at 3pm on fasting days 3. We fast 292 days of the year (including Tsige & Pagume Fast) 4. Women are not allowed to wear pants only ankle length dresses (Deut 22:5) 5. We never imprint (wear) icons of saints on clergical or any other clothes 6. We have a 2 or more priest liturgy system (Coptics have 1) 7. We close curtains during significant moments 8. To be a Deacon you must be a unmarried virgin 9. We have 14 liturgies (Coptics have 3) 10. We celebrate all 33 feasts for Saint Mary and all 18 feasts of Jesus with millions in attendance year round 11. We have Hymnaries (Mahlet) 4-10 hours short version and 24-48 hours long on Epiphany and Horologions (Sa’tat) 12. We perform year- round Subae’s (7 days of no food or water) 13. Believers have (Full Body - Holy Water) services year round for healing and forgiveness of sin 14. We do not eat bread inside church 15. Only men can pour Holy Water 16. The Holy Trinity Icon is always depicted (Coptics use mostly Jesus and the 4 creatures of the Gospel) 17. We have to fast 18 hours to take communion (3 days of no intercourse) 18. We prohibit any use of contraceptives or birth control (Genesis 38:6-11) *Explanation:* While we didn’t establish a church prior to Coptics, Ethiopia was and is historically known as the First Christian Kingdom and Civilization (Reference: Prophecy Psalms 72: 9-10 along with multiple Church sources shows that one of the three wise man has been confirmed Ethiopian, Acts 8 shows Christianity teaching existed in Ethiopia and Aksum Kingdom predates back to BC showing traces of Christianity prior to Armenian Church). And so while we the EOTC are labeled “oriental” with our sister churches, we are the only orthodox nation who incorporate 4000 year old Jewish customs (Judeo-Christianity) and Jewish forms of worship and tradition into our faith. The reason for this is because we were the only Orthodox country to convert from Christianity’s former faith so we hold very sacred information or the “original link” that drives our Christian faith to be more conservative or allows us to have more divine levels of worship (Ark Processions year round, Hymnaries (Mahlet), (Horologions (Sa’tat), Subae (7 days of no food or water), Year round Full Body Holy Water Services, all white clothing, shoeless entry, restraining from unclean meat and 292 days of fasting to name a few all makes our orthodoxy unique different and special in every way compared to all other oriental and eastern orthodoxies but most importantly and evidently seen is our love of Saint Mary. Ethiopia is in fact called the Land of Mary. Thank you have a nice day. Blessings in Christ Sources: 1. EOTC Sunday School Department Immaculate Conception - eotcmk.org/e/the-birth-of-the-blessed-virgin-mary-2/ 2. M/r RODAS th-cam.com/video/1i7DUmLkR_83/w-d-xo.html. 3. MAHBER KIDUSAN th-cam.com/video/73ybOkqsM1I/w-d-xo.html 4. Dersane Gabriel Tahsas Ch. 21-22 5. Ethiopia’s 4000 year history m.th-cam.com/video/pd1J_527Cxk/w-d-xo.html 6. Lika Likawnt Ezra - Promised Land Saint Mary th-cam.com/video/V8vBa78tvMI/w-d-xo.html 7. Holy Synod’s published document titled “The Doctrine and Foreign Relations of the EOTC” 8. No Fish on Fasting Day (EOTC) th-cam.com/video/l1Q2CvMebtQ/w-d-xo.html 9. Fetha Negest 10. Mesafe Kebur 11. Kebra Negest 12. The Didache Ch 6
@@eotceotc can u tell me the reason for the easter and oriential orthodox church split and any referance nooks i can read to help me better understand this Can u also tell me anything you know about Giragn Ahmed in Ethiopia and how it affected the church and Christians and any referance i should read about that
1 hypostasis from 2 hypostasis may also mean - from the person of the God the Father and the most Holy Theotokos. I think this language is used in other places and is not wrong depending on what you mean.
Orientals, how can you say it is one nature, but two hypostasis ? It is still one hypostasis in two natures, since differences of the natures not removed, how can it be one, it is one in what he does as individual means one hypostasis, but not one nature, it is the "nature" of Christ.
@JChrisTruth146 I understand what you mean, Chalcedon explicitly states and emphasizes the union of the two natures. How can you speak about two natures and one at the same time. We agree in his actions He is a complex "nature" both human and divine. But "nature" is in quotes. As to when comes to natures in sense of existence, we must affirm, that the flesh never became the God (the essence of Him) and God the Word never literally became the flesh, they didn't mix.. Flesh remains flesh, and God the Son remains God the Son (who is a man because in the flesh and connected/united to it) But they don't mix, as St. Cyril explains. So in sense of action they are mixed and manifest always together, but in sense of existence they are always united, but never mixed in essence. We believe they are separate in sense of substance only and in sense of contemplation in Spirit, as St. Cyril said, to the soul. The soul differentiates the divine nature from the flesh, but it never divides one from the other. If you believe natures (including their essences and existence) are always mixed in one, you risk to believe that the divine essence (The Son of God, the Word) literally became flesh and diminished to the point of flesh and mixed with it, thus you believe that God literally died on the cross. That is very bad, since God the Son is eternal and immortal, and it is His body and flesh that died on the cross, but Not Him as the divine nature(essence) and The Word. We worship God (the Son) not the flesh, (the way muslims claim) That's why he resurrected on the third day and ascended and rules the universe, in the flesh, without mixing with it, flesh is created, God is uncreated, full stop. And hypostasis, means the cause of the individuality and cause of action, the underlying nature beyond the flesh, which is divine the source of all action and individuality of Him. But how you believe in two natures, if you claim that after the incarnation they became one without continuing existing (in essence/substance) ? How can Christ be fully human and fully divine in his "nature" if their essences and their existences disappeared ? Where did the flesh go, and what happened to the divine Word (the Son of GOD) ? I want to ask did the Word ever incarnate, and if so, did God the Word died on the cross ?
@JChrisTruth146 We don't believe divisions of natures, we believe union of the natures in one Person. All actions of Christ encompass both of them, and the source of all action (including functions of the flesh) is only one - the divine nature, or he has only one hypostasis, as I said before, and as the 6th council affirms. We believe one Person, and one Hypostasis (one source of will and one individuality). We don't believe ontological division, in sense of yin and young construct, we affirm the ability to distinguish the existence of both substances at the same time, the same way we feel the Spirit a man may have, that is not his flesh ! Do you affirm that if they are not mingled and altered but subsist - then their essences/substances don't mingle, but the divine remains divine/eternal and the created remains created - that the two essences/substances continue existing, in perfect union, as the soul within the body ? You said mystery, but you approve that saints, who are not in flesh, are visible in visions and wonders, similar to how St. George appeared in Ethiopia ?
@JChrisTruth146 By person, I meant a being. If something affects one it doesn't mean it affects the other, if the body dies it doesn't mean the Spirit dies too. If I cut your hand it won't change your Spirit, unless you change your faith - the substances don't change, neither holiness or wickedness are affected by how good or bad your physical health is ! The flesh/body doesn't make the Word (divine nature with its substance and personality). The Word (divine nature) united /merged to the flesh/body, injected soul/life in it, and has been providing for the existence of this unity/merge. We appeal to the divine Logos for the unity/merge to exist ! If God can't provide for the unity/merge, nobody can, who provides for it and how did it happen and how does it exist then ? But if God the Word needed to unite/merge to come into existence then there was nobody to unite to the already existing flesh/body and the union/merge never happened. It is self contradiction. But we believe the Spirit can be sensed as Spirit, but not flesh, and perceived too. If you affirm union of two substances without mingling and alteration what do you mean by "merge" and how is it different from union ?
@JChrisTruth146 Christ is united yes, not divided, this is what Chalcedon states yes. If you just put the opposite words in my mouth, then you misinterpret me and invent your own Chalcedon. But I never said He is divided. What I meant is that you used the fact that natures affect one another to suggest that none of the natures can cause for the union. We believe natures affect one another since they are merged/united, that speaks for itself - yes he feels the physical pain and all the rest that comes from the body and soul. But you misunderstood what I said. Christ , right now at this moment, is united/merged, not divided, in sense that the natures are united/merged without the substances mingling (as you agreed), this is what I said, but it was not this way before the incarnation. What I meant is that the divine nature is what maintains that union/merge and is the one that caused that union. That before the incarnation the divine nature (The Word) existed without being merged in flesh, and then by His will made a decision to unite/merge with the flesh from virgin Mary and united/merged with it without any division and became one being/person or one Christ. But what I meant is after the Word experienced death on the cross (but didn't die in his substance), but the body/flesh died (the soul of body died, the Word/divine nature died in the flesh, but not in his own substance - the Word is imperishable), on the Third Day after this the divine nature by His will united/merged with the dead body and rose it from the dead, and maintains the union/merge up until now. That the union itself exists because of the divine nature/the Word's will that is God's will. But you misunderstood it or just reversed it. Though, the substance of the Word never mingled and changed into the substance of the flesh , or vice versa. Thus, by contemplation, we sense the Spirit in the flesh as being substance of Spirit, but not substance of the flesh. You didn't answer, though, how the union may exist, if none of the natures is self-subsistent and can provide for the union (in sense can cause and maintain that union/merge), how Christ can exist as united then ? We agree it is the divine Logos with His divine/eternal substance that is self subsistent and injects soul/life in the body and keeps it merged/united to himself. This is what I meant.
@JChrisTruth146 I also want to point out, that the union comes from nature, when comes to the Trinity, because of the divine/eternal substance, but in case of Christ when we speak about union of two different substances, created (flesh/body) and uncreated (eternal Word), the union happens because of the merge, which means because of the two natures occupying the same spot in space geometrically. The created flesh , based on its nature, just like that, can't unite to the Word, unless the Word unites to the flesh geometrically like this, similar to how we need to dress a coat to make contact with it. And it happens not by remote contact, but by direct contact/union/merge. which means where is the Word, there is the body and vice versa, though we don't exclude contact with the Word by energies remotely, but it doesn't mean the Word is separate from the body, and just by its nature is how it is united to the body. - that is nonsense. If you claim that the divinity of Christ and humanity of Christ are one in a similar way, The Son (divinity) is One with the Father, then they are separate, because the substance of the Word(divinity) is eternal and not of the substance of the body (created). The Son is a separate person from the Father, but one with him because has the same substance as the Father - divine/eternal So union in Christ is not by substance/nature, it is by the will of the divine nature that is self-subsistent, but it is by location in space , merged like this, but still substances remain unchanged, it is the mystery, because it is two layers of reality existing at the same space (similar to body and soul in man), the eternal divine substance and the created bodily substance exist in union, at the same spot in space, as the soul and body in man, but none of them changes into the substance of the other, the Word remains the eternal substance, and the body remains created body substance, but they are united one within the other ! If you believe union is by nature but not by special location and union itself, that is your issue there ! If the Spirit leaves the body , it is death, and they are disunited, the soul remains soul the body remains body, whether united or not, one is Spirit, the other is flesh, the substance of one doesn't transform into the substance of the other , regardless if it is during life (when united) , or after death (when disunited / separated) .
I found there is total disregard to the politcal and imperial influence during the Chaledonian Council. what I am going to write is the historic facts from the documents about the Chaledonian council First point is the first council ephesus forbidden the use of new creed. which Chaledonian Council ignored by adding Leo's Tome so far no one from EO replied why Leo Tome is added if both churches and all fathers even during Chaledonian cluncil confessed the Cyril . Discorus was put off the council and was asked to sit in the nave of the church and after that in solidarity arrest, the condemnation of Dioscorus was with less than half of the bishops and assembly who attended the council. Empress Pulcheria and Marcian influenced every step of the council and famously she threatened Disocorus Empress Pulcheria (Marcian's wife) told Dioscorus "In my father's time, there was a man who was stubborn (referring to St. John Chrysostom) and you are aware of what was made of him", to which Dioscorus famously responded "And you may recall that your mother prayed at his tomb, as she was bleeding of sickness". Pulcheria is said to have slapped Dioscorus in the face, breaking some of his teeth, and ordered the guards to confine him. Even after all of that Disoscorus was condemned not of hirachy but of break of Canon law. One thing more is to me the main take int eh Chaledonian council is the circumstances and conduct it was done.
For the OO, the Council of Chalcedon is political. They also said it was influenced by Emperor Marcian and his wife, Empress Pulcheria, and by Pope Leo the Great's legates to attack Dioscorus of Alexandria. They also said the Chalcedonian Council is a Nestorian Council, which teaches two natures after union. It is not political because Emperor Marcian prepared an ecumenical council like his predecessors, as Emperor Constantine prepared the Council of Nicea. They also said that the Council was influenced by Paschinus and Licentius, the two legates of Leo; that is not true. If that is true, Nestorians can also say that the Council of Ephesus was influenced by Cyril of Alexandria. That is not really a good argument. They also said the Council of Chalcedon attacked Dioscorus by sending him to exile on the island of Gangra. We should not forget that Dioscorus did the same thing against Saint Flavianus of Constantinople, Ibas of Edessa, and Theodoret of Cyrus during the 449 Robbery Synod, which is accepted by OO as an Ecumenical Council. Eutychius, Dioscorus, and other pro-Eutychius figures beat Flavian up for condemning the teaching of Eutychius during the 448 Synod of Constantinople. Dioscorus didn't give a chance for Flavian of Constantinople, Ibas of Edessa, or Theodoret of Cyrus to say anything. Dioscorus removed the anthema of Eutychius. After he sent Flavian of Constantinople to exile, he ordained an Alexandrian guy whose name was Anatolius as a successor of Flavian for the holy see of Constantinople. The Council of Chalcedon reaffirmed the Anathema of Eutychius. That is not a good argument. The Council of Chalcedon is not a Nestorian Council because the Council did not teach that the Virgin Mary is not a Mother of God. The council teaches that Christ has two natures (physis) but is one person (hypostasis). One subsistence(prosopon). Nestorius said different things. You can see the teaching of the Assyrian Church of the East, which venerates him as a saint. They say that Jesus has two natures (physis) in Syriac, and Kyane has two persons (hypothesis) in Syriac. Jesus is one external person (subsistence, prosopon) in Syriac parsupa. Nestorians believe Christ has one will, like the OO, but Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Christ had two wills, which are his divine will and his human will. So the Council of Chalcedonians is not a Nestorian council.
Two men trying to define God with natural means. Smh God is a mystery that you can’t “fully” explain! Come together and stop fighting over moot points! There’s so much to agree and come together on!
@@johnnyd2383stop barking you dog you have no knowledge of our position all you do is parrot davids horrible arguments. Go learn your faith you disgrace to the eastern orthodox
Thats eutychianism that arose in Constantinople. EO are nothing more than slanderers at this point. They project their own insecurity and flaws against their opponents.
Oriental orthodox, mess terms, and have issues just put icons, to insult orthodoxy, hide behind symbols like this, imitating orthodoxy sick ! But essences they don't mix they maintain to maintain properties, they are just in union. Two existences come, but they don't mix.
For the OO, the Council of Chalcedon is political. They also said it was influenced by Emperor Marcian and his wife, Empress Pulcheria, and by Pope Leo the Great's legates to attack Dioscorus of Alexandria. They also said the Chalcedonian Council is a Nestorian Council, which teaches two natures after union. It is not political because Emperor Marcian prepared an ecumenical council like his predecessors. as Emperor Constantine prepared the Council of Nicea. They also said that the Council was influenced by Paschinus and Licentius, the two legates of Leo; that is not true. If that is true, Nestorians can also say that the Council of Ephesus was influenced by Cyril of Alexandria. That is not really a good argument. They also said the Council of Chalcedon attacked Dioscorus by sending him to exile on the island of Gangra. We should not forget that Dioscorus did the same thing against Saint Flavianus of Constantinople, Ibas of Edessa, and Theodoret of Cyrus during the 449 Robbery Synod, which is accepted by OO as an Ecumenical Council. Eutychius, Dioscorus, and other pro-Eutychius figures beat Flavian up for condemning the teaching of Eutychius during the 448 Synod of Constantinople. Dioscorus didn't give a chance for Flavian of Constantinople, Ibas of Edessa, or Theodoret of Cyrus to say anything. Dioscorus removed the anthema of Eutychius. After he sent Flavian of Constantinople to exile, he ordained an Alexandrian guy whose name was Anatolius as a successor of Flavian for the holy see of Constantinople. The Council of Chalcedon reaffirmed the Anathema of Eutychius. That is not a good argument. The Council of Chalcedon is not a Nestorian Council because the Council did not teach that the Virgin Mary is not a Mother of God. The council teaches that Christ has two natures (physis) but is one person (hypostasis). One subsistence(prosopon). Nestorius said different things. You can see the teaching of the Assyrian Church of the East, which venerates him as a saint. They say that Jesus has two natures (physis) in Syriac, and Kyane has two persons (hypothesis) in Syriac. Jesus is one external person (subsistence, prosopon) in Syriac parsupa. Nestorians believe Christ has one will, like the OO, but Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Christ had two wills, which are his divine will and his human will. So the Council of Chalcedonians is not a Nestorian council.
@user-pw1rr2vm8b When you [Oriental Orthodox] use the Argument that Will is property of Person which is false, your entire Argumentation comes crumbling down like House of Cards because this is the only way you can justify your miaphysite Christology.
I am Oriental Orthodox, I hope to one day see the churches united. God bless you.
@mathan3559 you were the ones who seperated yourselves very early on...
@@WaysOfTheJedis I do believe it was a translation error sir.
@@WaysOfTheJedis The result of one, that is.
@@mathan3559 weak argument it's not a translation error. Don't compromise the oriental orthodox faith.
@@cela.24k I'm not arguing.
The long awaited debate is finally here!
Thank you for this debate! So good.
Thank you, David. This was good stuff. May the Holy Spirit bless and keep you.
It seems like in this debate the oriental orthodox side does not have specific enough terminology for concrete identity (personhood). It seems like they reduce personhood to their nature and that’s why what they are saying sounds so confusing to Eastern Orthodox ears
Eastern Orthodox are Nestorians.. Just like Catholics.. and both churches have a history of ultraviolence and debauchery.. It is evident that these churches don't understand the nature of Christ because of their dark history..
In contrast, the Orientals remained peaceful and spiritual over thousands of years.. the Oriental Orthodox understand the true nature of Christ..
For the OO, the Council of Chalcedon is political. They also said it was influenced by Emperor Marcian and his wife, Empress Pulcheria, and by Pope Leo the Great's legates to attack Dioscorus of Alexandria. They also said the Chalcedonian Council is a Nestorian Council, which teaches two natures after union.
It is not political because Emperor Marcian prepared an ecumenical council like his predecessors. as Emperor Constantine prepared the Council of Nicea. They also said that the Council was influenced by Paschinus and Licentius, the two legates of Leo; that is not true. If that is true, Nestorians can also say that the Council of Ephesus was influenced by Cyril of Alexandria. That is not really a good argument. They also said the Council of Chalcedon attacked Dioscorus by sending him to exile on the island of Gangra. We should not forget that Dioscorus did the same thing against Saint Flavianus of Constantinople, Ibas of Edessa, and Theodoret of Cyrus during the 449 Robbery Synod, which is accepted by OO as an Ecumenical Council. Eutychius, Dioscorus, and other pro-Eutychius figures beat Flavian up for condemning the teaching of Eutychius during the 448 Synod of Constantinople. Dioscorus didn't give a chance for Flavian of Constantinople, Ibas of Edessa, or Theodoret of Cyrus to say anything. Dioscorus removed the anthema of Eutychius. After he sent Flavian of Constantinople to exile, he ordained an Alexandrian guy whose name was Anatolius as a successor of Flavian for the holy see of Constantinople. The Council of Chalcedon reaffirmed the Anathema of Eutychius. That is not a good argument. The Council of Chalcedon is not a Nestorian Council because the Council did not teach that the Virgin Mary is not a Mother of God. The council teaches that Christ has two natures (physis) but is one person (hypostasis). One subsistence(prosopon). Nestorius said different things. You can see the teaching of the Assyrian Church of the East, which venerates him as a saint. They say that Jesus has two natures (physis) in Syriac, and Kyane has two persons (hypothesis) in Syriac. Jesus is one external person (subsistence, prosopon) in Syriac parsupa. Nestorians believe Christ has one will, like the OO, but Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Christ had two wills, which are his divine will and his human will. So the Council of Chalcedonians is not a Nestorian council.
Thought the Papal legates were Vincent and Vito (Nicaea).
In Chalcedon the emperors also intended for the assembly to approve a theological formula that would unify the Eastern Church under the ultimate authority of the bishop of Constantinople. On October 10, the bishops rejected the idea of formulating a definition almost unanimously. However, the commissioners demanded it. On October 22, a draft statement intended for council adoption was brought to the conference by the bishops from the east. Deacon Asclepiades read the document to the council shortly after the meeting got underway. To your surprise, this text only included Dioscorus's "from two natures" rather than the Antiochenes' "two natures after the union" or the Tome of Leo's "in two natures." John of Germanicia expressed opposition to its acceptance as the reading came to an end. To force it through, Anatolius now stood up. He asked the council, "Do you find the definition satisfactory?" Bishops responded that it was satisfactory right away, with the exception of Roman legatesa and a few orientals.
This is how history will proceed until, at last, the government and the Rom have forced all of your bishops(?) to accept a single-person leo idea of the notion of ‘in two natures'. Even if they write "From Two Natures" to be taken as a dogma, consider how they accept the leo idea. For this reason, we argue that it is contradictory to accept Chalcedon while denying papal infallibility. Because they consider a single person's opinion as a creed, by rejecting the council draft. I'll now ask you two questions.
1) What is the reason behind the bishops' unwillingness to define dogma?
2) Would they really leave their draft in favour of one person's concept, even if they were forced to formulate?
This is the reason the council is referred to as "the council of dogs" in our tradition.
@@tDEC2052 this argument doesn't make to me but maybe i'm misunderstanding something, a council ratifying a formulation by one person does not make the person infallible, but the council, 1) it and important matter and the Bishops wanted to be precise, these things take time, I don't see how hesitance on accepting earlier proposals is problematic. 2) yes if the persons concept is a better formulation. this happens to be the last youtube video i'll watch before i'll block youtube for a while as i find it wastes my time, sorry i won't be able to respond to any reply you may have, hopefully my response will at least be productive in some way, God bless.
@@buffcommie942
As you point out, my brother, the assembly does not immediately proceed to ratify a single-person Leo idea. But first, they request to prepare a draft, which they reject and lead me to ask, "Why?" However, you decided not to respond. And, after being pressured by the government, they draft a dogma that, as I put it, says, "Of two natures." Even if everyone in the assembly agrees with the draft, but the government uses the Leo idea as the final doctrine.
Why did they create the draft in the first place if it could not be considered as a dogma? What type of response does you EO have for this?
Do you believe it would not be an issue if the assembly's consensus was rejected and one person's idea was adopted due to the king's influence? Or are you a supporter of papal infallibility? For what reason do they ask them to draft something that shouldn't be taken as dogma? I understand that Rome plays with them through government.
@@tDEC2052 A draft like the one you mention usually is made by one or a few people.
Btw if we use the term nature the way you occasionally (?) use it, "from two natures" can be "Nestorian".
Monophysite monks of the time were saying "those who cut Christ in two we will cut in two". And so they did... they spilled blood of the Orthodox monks over the heresy of monophysitism. That is what happened in those days.
.
Terminology is of no importance. What is important is substance behind the words. Attempts to reconcile on the grounds of "terminological misunderstandings" are insult to the faithful Orthodox and those martyred defending it.
Agreed, that is why we Ethiopians call Calcedon "council of dogs".
Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, the holy Hieromartyr Proterios, inside the Patriarchal Church, while fully dressed in his patriarchal vestments, on February 28, 457AD slaughtered by Monophysite followers of Timotheos Ailouros and Petros Mouggou.
Orthodox Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople, was brutally treated, kicked, and beaten by the agents of Dioscorus, and even by Dioscorus himself. He was then imprisoned and soon exiled, but died in the hands of his guards from the effect of his injuries three days after his deposition. On Aug 11, 449AD he was regarded as a martyr.
etc.
@@nathnaeltsegaw7263 Showing off that good-old fashioned piety and meekness eh.
On a less cheeky note, you provided no justification but just an insult. Meanwhile actual documented murders took place by your spiritual forefathers. What did have you to say about that? Nothing, you have no leg to stand on.
@@johnnyd2383 Are you aware that the first description you listed of Proterios's death comes from a historian writing over a century after the events in question, and it contradicts the earlier written account that claims Proterius was murdered by Roman Legionaries stationed in Alexandria at the time? I don't know which account is historically accurate, but I find it good practice to trust earlier accounts of historical events. On the second point about Flavian, this is also disputed. I believe there's evidence that he was writing letters months after Ephesus II. That would seem to contradict the idea that he died soon after, no? It's also true that at Chalcedon, this supposed beating of Flavian is not brought up as a charge against Dioscorus. That's kind funny don't you think? I'd think evidence of his beating someone to death would be a great point to bring against someone you're trying to depose.
@@johnnyd2383 false flavian wasnt beaten was dioscorus, he was beaten by a persian nestorian monk called barsumas and his followers,
oo Paul says the Tomb of Leo and COuncil of Chalcedon are not sufficient enough. he says nestorians took cover under them. does he know that some arians take cover in the COuncil of Nicea which oos accept? So one can then argue by the same logic the Council of Nicea also wasnt sufficient . uc how ridiculous this is?
In certain ways, none of the early councils were "sufficient," which is why there had to be later councils for further clarification. But that in no way invalidates them, it just means that they were incomplete.
The copts basic answer to anything from Chalecdon onwards "it Nestorian"
Just like the 1990 agreements are “insufficient”? Or are we merely straining at gnats in the mystery of the incarnation? Because I don’t see the difference here
@@minasoliman David already addressed those 90’s agreements. They’re useless since they were bishops, but church representatives and they’re inconclusive
@@darklord7069 but as white makes right says, it doesn’t invalidate them; and please, don’t use David as a source if you’re pinning him against bishops and clergy who studied the issue more than him. He doesn’t speak for EOs.
Bro you killed this debate!
Interesting debate. I'd like more videos on Oriental/Miaphysite/Monophysite Churches, from an Eastern Orthodox perspective.
@@ahmedozturk2723 we are not monophysits we are miaphysites
I've been watching this and I always find it so hilarious whenever you're responding to Paul but with the pfp
I am just starting to listen this debate and thank you for making it available. I hope that these intellectuals will also come to discuss the concept of hypostatic union in the historical concept and how it was able to clarify what the miaphysism concept could not. Thank you and may the Lord Jesus bless you all
Really great debate from both parties
It's unfortunate how bad the audio on your side was everyone else sounded clear and smooth but the glitches were very distracting and took so much away from the context
Point is it has been settled, only thing needed for union is bowing in submission. If you don't understand, then change your thinking.
Indeed. I get very tired of calls for union with both the Orientals and the Roman Catholics. We are divided for very good reasons. If they want to be united with us, they are free to become Orthodox.
@@whitemakesright2177 Exactly, unity in truth, not just for the sake of unity.
But the thing is that people will never convert if you don't talk or debate with them. You can't expect them to submit without doing anything on your part. You have to show them that you care about what they think, even if you disagree, and that you love them in charity.
@@vituzui9070 Indeed and we have. Heresy is not merely being wrong, it's knowing that you're wrong and insisting in the error. For what reason? Ego, pride, status, power, sex or money (thinking of cult leaders especially for the last two but it also applies generally).
We care about what they think to correct them AND their blaspheming (whether knowingly or unknowingly). It's up to them to accept the truth but guess what, they don't. Even if they concede defeat in some debates and on particular points in particular, they keep using the same arguments that they know don't hold water. And we can see it in action in these TH-cam debates, just look at Erick Ybarra (RC) or Muslim preachers like Shabir Ali.
I would like to see Oriental Orthodox vs Church of the East (ACOE or ACE).
Church of the East and Chalcedonians are actually closer on this matter. If one can call it 'close' lol...
TherealChadWhite lol... i could 'feel the zeal' through the screen at several points within this debate, but it would be frustrating to try and separate the divine hypostasis from it properties for the discernment of the audience whilst the opposite debater continues to see them as 1 in the same thing. Im only 32 minutes btw 😂 but im hooked ... Christ Is Risen!
Brother,
1 Timothy 3: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh... received up into glory."
If Christ is forever incarnated, then "Christ is One", says St. Cyril of Alexandria. The following was taken from the Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril concerning the Eucharist (please read carefully):
"Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath; that this is the Life-giving Body that Your Only-Begotten Son, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ took from our Lady, the Lady of us all, the holy Theotokos, Saint Mary. *He made it One with his Divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration*... Truly, I believe that His divinity parted not from His humanity for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye..."
1) Let us stop pretending that we can wrap our minds around this great Mystery of the Incarnation.
2) It is unwise to be scandalising the Copts with these futile debates when their theology is perfectly sound.
3) Christ in Heaven with His resurrected flesh is One Incarnate Nature.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese So the Liturgies of Sts. Basil, Gregory and Cyril are monophysitic? Let's follow your line of reasoning: you say they are, therefore they are; yet, you yourself remain unable to articulate why they are.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese From two natures vs Of two Natures... I see.
I listed those particular Saints because those are the Liturgies the Copts use; and I cited above exactly where in their Liturgy PROVES that they cannot be monophysite. After these many discussions and reading blogs and watching debates, I am yet to hear anyone clearly articulate when exactly the Oriental Orthodox Christians deviated from what they had always believed. So if they are indeed monophysite, then they were always monophysite.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Thank you... I will look into it.
I'm looking into oriental and eastern orthodox after leaving Protestantism. From my view both sides are saying the same thing lol
I'd say it all stems from a language misunderstanding. Someone correct me if I'm wrong though if I remember right in Coptic there aren't separate words for nature and person, they use the same word for both concepts which led to people conflating them both. So when the councils proclaimed the two natures of Christ, they misunderstood it as Nestorianism.
If they are saying the same thing, then one should take the side of the one that accepts the council that had FIVE HUNDRED bishops. Saint Ignatius of Antioch says we must not follow schismatics, and if a portion of the church was willing to leave over an alleged “same” belief, then they are in the wrong and deserve to be anathematized
@@avriel6903 Are you arguing that not accepting Chalcedon was identical to leaving the church? From my understanding OO simply did not accept Chalcedon and the Chacedonions anathematized them for it.
Correct me of I'm wrong, but it seems as if EO defines hypostasis as the person who has the natures, nature means a collection of properties shared by all things of a certain kind in which those properties are instantiated. OO defines hypostasis as nature, referring to the set which contains the properties. So when OO says Christ had two hypostasis, they mean two natures instead of two persons, but when EE says Christ is one hypostasis (meaning person) it sounds to OO like Monophysitism.
That's why OO confuse nature and person from my perspective. They also changed the creed by stating "And the third day He arose again,
according to His will instead of the scriptures". It's monophysitism.
@@FR_Orthodox we did not change the creed? what are you blabbing about? go to any OO church now, when we say the creed we never say he rose again?
@@markmesseha4518 According to the scriptures vs According to His will.
@@FR_Orthodox Its according to the scriptures!
@@ionictheist349 exactly! I am EO
Hello to all and God bless ☦️
- *30 differences between COPTIC & EOTC* -
Purpose: This was written to educate and give Ethiopian believers a BETTER understanding of the origin of their faith, history and tradition and answer why the EOTC is quite different from other orthodoxies. This should not to be interpreted in the wrong way, unity is important but so is transparency.
Author: As an Ethiopian Orthodox servant and having attended several Coptic liturgies, and from theological research on both churches, I can tell you we the EOTC have SO MANY differences.
✅ ALL ITEMS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED!
*Dogma Differences*
1. We believe that Saint Mary was born without original sin
2. We believe that Saint Mary has NO fallen nature no sin or nature to sin after birth as well
*Jewish Practices*
Matt 5:17 - “I did not come to abolish the Law”
1. We have Ark Processions year-round
2. We abstain from all unclean food (Halal, pork, shrimp, crab, etc)
3. We do no enter church if we are unclean (men and women)
4. We wear all white shawls (Netelas) as a symbol of Christ’s Resurrection and spiritual purity
5. We have a shoeless entry (not just during communion)
6. We abstain from any modern instruments (piano, guitar, etc)
7. We have 81 books in the Bible (Coptics have 74)
8. We go of Halachic Jewish Time (Fasting entry and exits are based of our sun and star movements (Twilight) and our hours are reversed (12=6, 9=3)
9. We observe Friday evening and Saturday as the Sabbath (in addition to Sunday)
10. Women after giving birth have to wait 40 days or 80 days to enter church. ( Lev 12)
*EOTC Belief System*
1. We abstain from any fish on fasting days (It is a meat - 1 Cor 15:39)
2. We eat starting at 3pm on fasting days
3. We fast 292 days of the year (including Tsige & Pagume Fast)
4. Women are not allowed to wear pants only ankle length dresses (Deut 22:5)
5. We never imprint (wear) icons of saints on clergical or any other clothes
6. We have a 2 or more priest liturgy system (Coptics have 1)
7. We close curtains during significant moments
8. To be a Deacon you must be a unmarried virgin
9. We have 14 liturgies (Coptics have 3)
10. We celebrate all 33 feasts for Saint Mary and all 18 feasts of Jesus with millions in attendance year round
11. We have Hymnaries (Mahlet) 4-10 hours short version and 24-48 hours long on Epiphany and Horologions (Sa’tat)
12. We perform year- round Subae’s (7 days of no food or water)
13. Believers have (Full Body - Holy Water) services year round for healing and forgiveness of sin
14. We do not eat bread inside church
15. Only men can pour Holy Water
16. The Holy Trinity Icon is always depicted (Coptics use mostly Jesus and the 4 creatures of the Gospel)
17. We have to fast 18 hours to take communion (3 days of no intercourse)
18. We prohibit any use of contraceptives or birth control (Genesis 38:6-11)
*Explanation:*
While we didn’t establish a church prior to Coptics, Ethiopia was and is historically known as the First Christian Kingdom and Civilization (Reference: Prophecy Psalms 72: 9-10 along with multiple Church sources shows that one of the three wise man has been confirmed Ethiopian, Acts 8 shows Christianity teaching existed in Ethiopia and Aksum Kingdom predates back to BC showing traces of Christianity prior to Armenian Church). And so while we the EOTC are labeled “oriental” with our sister churches, we are the only orthodox nation who incorporate 4000 year old Jewish customs (Judeo-Christianity) and Jewish forms of worship and tradition into our faith. The reason for this is because we were the only Orthodox country to convert from Christianity’s former faith so we hold very sacred information or the “original link” that drives our Christian faith to be more conservative or allows us to have more divine levels of worship (Ark Processions year round, Hymnaries (Mahlet), (Horologions (Sa’tat), Subae (7 days of no food or water), Year round Full Body Holy Water Services, all white clothing, shoeless entry, restraining from unclean meat and 292 days of fasting to name a few all makes our orthodoxy unique different and special in every way compared to all other oriental and eastern orthodoxies but most importantly and evidently seen is our love of Saint Mary. Ethiopia is in fact called the Land of Mary.
Thank you have a nice day.
Blessings in Christ
Sources:
1. EOTC Sunday School Department Immaculate Conception - eotcmk.org/e/the-birth-of-the-blessed-virgin-mary-2/
2. M/r RODAS
th-cam.com/video/1i7DUmLkR_83/w-d-xo.html.
3. MAHBER KIDUSAN
th-cam.com/video/73ybOkqsM1I/w-d-xo.html
4. Dersane Gabriel Tahsas Ch. 21-22
5. Ethiopia’s 4000 year history
m.th-cam.com/video/pd1J_527Cxk/w-d-xo.html
6. Lika Likawnt Ezra - Promised Land Saint Mary
th-cam.com/video/V8vBa78tvMI/w-d-xo.html
7. Holy Synod’s published document titled “The Doctrine and Foreign Relations of the EOTC”
8. No Fish on Fasting Day (EOTC)
th-cam.com/video/l1Q2CvMebtQ/w-d-xo.html
9. Fetha Negest
10. Mesafe Kebur
11. Kebra Negest
12. The Didache Ch 6
This is stupid. Alexandria is an Apostolic See & we’re in communion with them. The items you listed aren’t even dogmatically defined. Why are you trying to cause schism? There’s non dogmatic differences between different rites in Orthodoxy. Regardless it’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not an “Ethiopian” or “Coptic” Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Actually some of what you said is also wrong.
@@kaleabbdagne6641
Everything was verified.
@@kaleabbdagne6641
Theology is the comparing and contrasting and reasoning why behind faiths/rites, this is all that I wrote. Do not bring your assumptions and feelings into a thread.
@@eotceotc What you listed were differences between each other’s rites that aren’t dogmatically defined… why go around copt pasting it to “one up” another rite which doesn’t even make sense? Some of them are self-owns cause no one allows the depiction of the Holy Trinity entirely since depiction of the Father is not allowed. None of the early church fathers allow it nor had it ever been done. The 3 men painted together is of when Christ and the two angels visited Abraham.
I have a question for Paul Ibrahim. At the 19:00 minute (approximately) it sounded like you said that two hypostasis were joined into one Christ. Not trying to put any words in your mouth, but are you saying there are two persons(hypotheses) in the one Christ?
For the OOs, hypostasis doesn't necessarily mean person.
No, 1 person of Christ
@@whitemakesright2177 what does it mean then?
@@TJackson736 Hypostasis is a Concrete Hypostasis, it is an Hyparxis (Existence). Both Substance/Essence/Ousia and Hypostasis Exist, but Hypostasis exist as something Concrete like "Paul" or "Peter" meanwhile Ousia is what encompasses Paul, Peter, James etc due to their Commonality which then gives us: Humanity, and Humanity, like Trinity, is an Ousia. Trinity exist as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Humanity exist as Peter, Paul, Timothy, James etc. So Humanity aka the Human Ousia is the Compendium of Hypostases. Now concerning what they said, there is One Divine Ousia aka the Godhead (Trinity), and this Trinity exist as Father who is Unbegotten (Divine Hypostasis), Son who is Begotten from The Father eternally Eterbakl(Divine Hypostasis) and Holy Spirit who proceeds from The Father eternally (Divine Hypostasis). Three Divine Hypostases which are DISTINCT according to the Particularity of each Hypostasis aka Fatherhood, Sonship and Sanctification, but bound by Unity through The Common Ousia. To Summarize this, Saint Severus The Great of Antioch wrote in Homily 125:
We say that ousia and hypostasis are concepts which indicate the existence of existing things. Ousia discloses that the subject is and exists and hypostasis says that it subsists. With regard to the Trinity, the ousia is the Godhead: Father, Son, and Spirit are God without diminution or gradation. With regard to the hypostases, in each case a particularity is expressed of the godness of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Thus for the Father the non-begotten applies; at the same time, however, the begetting is in reference to the Son; for the Son being begotten of the Father, independently of time, and for the Spirit the proceeding from the Father. The particularities remain fixed and unalterable; they characterise
without mingling each of the hypostases and do not divide the common ousia.
(Severus of Antioch, Homily 125)
So Syriac is Oriental but Antiochian is Eastern? Antiochians arent considered Syriac? Isnt Antioch in Syria?
Syriac and antiochian are two different things, because syriac refers to the non chalcedonians in antioch while antiochian refers to the orthodox in antioch which is larger than syria
@@mariorizkallah5383 Ah. Thanks for the clarification.
Antioch (Antakya) is in Turkey.
Why does he run to Theodoret as if Chad didn't already clarify that's not what Dyophysites teach?
The problem with this debate is that now at this moment we have reduced Christ to a set of metaphysical definitions. Inasmuch as I understand and have in the past debated these terminological differences, I must agree with Fr. McGuckin who said that these debates are “bunk”, nonsense. Time and again both traditions have believed the full integrity of humanity and full integrity of divinity with all their properties including wills and energies in Christ without mingling, confusion, division, separation. Whether you call it out of two hypostases (self and non-self subsistences) or in two natures where the humanity was “hypostasized” by the divinity, it’s the same thing. What is happening here is both sides willing to do or say whatever it takes to make the “other side” sound scandalous and wrong for the sake of their own tradition, when in fact no one was wrong save trying to figure out one another apart from the mutual killings and backstabbings in the name of Chalcedon/non-Chalcedon that existed.
This is not the case. Fr McGuckin and other Byzantines have been giving slack to the Orthodox because the more scholarship investigates the historical and doctrinal matters of the 5th-8th centuries, the more they find out that the Oriental Orthodox position is vindicated. Right now, the Byzantines are in panic mode because it is manifestly evident that Chalcedon is fundamentally and indisputably Theodorean.
It is most definitely not "the same," because even when you account for the differences in how certain terminologies are defined (of which there are very few discrepancies), the E"O" position should've admitted from the very beginning that a non self-subsistent human hypostasis was joined to the self-subsistent hypostasis of the Word. The idea of modern ecumenism tries to use napkin Christology to equate the Orthodox and the Byzantines, but in doing so it reduces the substance of theology so far that there is no real reason to condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia.
Also, if what you were saying was true, what do you make of the post-Henotikon era? If you recall, the dire situation of the Henotikon was much like the Formula of Reunion in 433. St Cyril wanted the Antiochenes to naturally come to drop Theodore over time, but then ongoing problems of Theodoreanism necessitated a subsequent condemnation of it. Likewise, Emperor Zeno's Henotikon was utilized by the Church in such a way that the in-name-only "chalcedonians" (who cannot properly be considered chalcedonians due to being in communion with people who anathematized what would be considered an "ecumenical council") would eventually come to reject Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo naturally. Unfortunately, heretics such as Macedonius II of Constantinople rendered the Church to have to excommunicate anyone who doesn't explicitly condemn Chalcedon.
Agreed
There's truth of the matter on who and what Christ is. That truth matters a lot, at least to Christians. To say these debates are bunk seem apathetic, or uncritical to say the least. In the highest precision possible for man's mind, we should express who and what He is in truth, in reality, as He really is, as He revealed to us.
It's akin to saying "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" and someone argues that it should be "In the end the Demiurge created the Order and the Chaos" and then saying that, if the two mean something close enough, then the wording, the definitions and everything else, shouldn't matter that much and any debate on it is "bunk". No, not at all.
God is worshiped in Spirit and in Truth. We should not entertain relativism. There's absolute truth to the matter, which we shouldn't ignore. Every Christian, as much as God has allowed each one of us to grow in the faith, should concern himself with Christology and Trinitarian theology, as these are the highest doctrines in Christianity. Not everyone is endowed with intellect such that they can understand intellectual intricacies to such depths, but it doesn't mean the simple-minded Christians should ignore who and what Christ is altogether; or how God is a Holy Trinity. Each should try to understand those to the best of their ability and if they cannot go much further in their understanding, then they should remain humble and listen; the same way if I don't understand icons, I shouldn't tell an icon writer that "arguing how to write icons is meaningless"; or should tell a hymnologist "arguing about the compositions of hymns of worship is meaningless". No, these things matter and are meaningful.
I think many laymen think their apathy, or unserious and uncritical approach, toward high doctrine should somehow be the normative attitude of the entire Church and we shouldn't care about doctrinal precision to the best ability and capacity of man's mind.
@@yavorangelov1601 you seem to ignore a large part of my post where clearly both traditions profess the full humanity and full divinity without mingling, confusion, separation, or division. Beyond that is terminology that both sides have patristic backing for. Hence why this is bunk. No one is introducing new terminology like your Demiurge chaos example. So your issues are a red herring. A good example of how terminological debates are antithetical to Christian unity is the Tome of Athanasius to the Antiochians. It’s worth reading, even for the simple minded. The issue here is not ignorance of the simple minded, but people who fish out reasons to condemn the other side that has no merit.
@@minasoliman that contradicts positions of Saints and theologians, which clearly identified difference in concept, rather than mere semantic difference.
I think you're just misrepresenting the actual state of the issue and in doing so go against much more capable, and Holy, men than us.
I'd side with the Fathers, who clearly saw issues with non-Chalcedonians. I trust their analysis of what the other side is saying and what it leads to more, than yours. You're free to draw your own conclusions and make your own analysis, but I don't find your case convincing, nor even probable in the slightest.
How could one arrive at this being a mere semantic disagreement, rather than conceptual, is beyond me. And your insistence that it's out of stubborn desire to find fault with others is a huge blow against many Holy men, and many good people. It's really astounding how far one can go to justify himself, or his position.
If they convey the same meaning, but with different words: then they should reformulate their wording and accept Chalcedon. So then there's the issue of disobeying authority, and how to properly word the doctrine, which isn't that grave, but is an issue nevertheless.
If they convey different meaning, thus use different wording, then there's a deep issue of having to do with the most important article of faith: Christology, in that they concevie of Him differently, than the Church.
Either way, there's an issue and they need to humble themselves and submit to authority.
This is gonna be the first debate in the history of youtube.
The issue at hand is that David harbors a preconceived notion about Orientals, and when confronted with the perspectives of the other side, he refuses to acknowledge them. Paul has consistently argued that the hypostasis of Christ is both created in His humanity and uncreated in His divinity. Despite this, David poses a misleading dichotomy, asking whether the hypostasis is created or uncreated, indicating he came with the intent to discredit the opposing view rather than engage in a genuine discussion. This approach has been frustrating and disappointing. Just listen to him starting at 37:27
Good work, David. The Oriental position just seems dumb to me. Just bad metaphysics. Not differentiating between a thing's properties and the thing in itself? He lost the debate at that point, as far as I'm concerned.
@AA XX you sound gay to me
@winta kiros Length of practice is not an argument for validity or correctness. Else is Islam correct? Buddhism, Hinduism? Just because they've been practiced for a long time doesn't mean it's the truth, wouldn't the devil rejoice at such an unfounded argument.
''Not differentiating between a thing's properties and the thing in itself?'' - - - Bro, unless it is in abstract, how a thing property can be found without the thing? And also, how can you find something itself without its property? That is why if there is hypostasis, the presence of nature, and if there is nature, the presence of hypostasis is necessary.
All your strength in is your union.
All your danger is in discord.
Therefore be at peace henceforward,
And as brothers live together...
I truly feel like I need a higher IQ to understand this conversation in its fullness. Ultimately, I can’t tell a difference between each side. It’s sounds like both side are using different words but stating the same message.
ok the oo Paul said Christ's human hypostasis cannot exist on it's own. Pls someone ask them the following. If Christ were to hypothetically become deincarnate or separate His Divinity from His humanity again, what would happen to His human body? would it disappear? would it be reabsorbed into the Divine essence from whence it came which wld be full blown monophysitism? why if the human body has the DNA of the Virgin Mary would it completly disappear if the Divinity and humanity hypothetically seperated again? If they say yes itd disappear this wld also imply that Christ did not truly take the DNA from His Mother but merely somehow had His Divine Substance and/or Energies traanform into His body inside her womb, thus God forbid making her a mere vessel like some protestants claim.
It is far overdue to begin to tackle this problem sideways.
Perhaps the question of God’s effect on physical matter once it is exalted should be addressed. I have a lot of experience in this realm from debating Mormons. I learned from Chesterton that it can be useful to compare a lesser (alleged) heresy with a far greater one. In this context, ATOMS. It is also useful to bring up Mormonism’s antipode on matter: Albeginsism. To paraphrase Chesterton, “They Disagree with one another twice as much as either does with the Patriarchs”. One radically over-exalts the spiritual status of The Atom, the other radically degrades the spiritual status of The Atom. They are actually useful in the Chalcedon debate because they give us a spectrum of absolute heresy on the Atom to measure against, as you simply cannot be more extreme in hyper-materialism and hyper anti-materialism than these two. This can help us determine WHICH position on the potential for exultation of physical matter in the Resurrection is most BALANCED, ergo, MOST Orthodox, most “Right Thinking”.
An important question, I think, is does exalted physical matter still have some kind of chemistry? We literally can’t rationally imagine how entropy works without the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but REPEALING that law is the WHOLE POINT of the Resurrection. The second law has a very skinny police enforcer, and his weapon of choice is a sharp farming tool. The Second Law IS Death, and Christ repeals it by turning it against itself. But the important question to Chalcedon is what does the Atom and chemistry LOOK like in a Resurrected body?
“We do not know, it is a mystery”, is literally true, but the importance of Hypostasis and defining it, suggests that there is at least one slightly knowable aspect of the effect of Resurrection on matter; it is not even a tenth of a percent of the Whole, Wonderful Truth behind the phenomenon, but not Zero. Since it IS potentially knowable, however tiny, it inevitably affects official dogma.
We can’t ask what could replace chemistry while keeping atoms, that would be a mystery beyond our knowledge in this world, but Maybe we should ask, “MUST chemistry be replaced?” Is chemistry inherently entropic and therefore MUST be replaced? Or does God simply tweak chemistry to continue working without getting too cold or hot? The Shroud suggests that the moment of resurrection has peculiar chemical effects on the body’s immediate surroundings. That seems like evidence, to me, that a paradoxical chemistry of some sort continues, but not SOMETHING Else entirely. If it was something else entirely, the Resurrection would not have had any effect on the cloth.
So, which view on Christ’s physical bodily substance most closely matches an exalted chemistry? That position will be most Orthodox.
Christ’s human hypostasis can’t exist on its own simply because it would no longer be Christ. The meaning of Christ is “anointed one or messiah”. Your hypocritical question is invalid because it doesn’t meet the fundamental biblical meaning of the messiah. Playing the “what if” game does no good to the conversation.
I cannot believe you have the audacity to actually ask that kind of question. Please repent, to ever ponder Christ "deincarnating"...Is this what Christ is leading you to think or is this coming from your father?
I just saw your comment and honestly thats insane. “Deincarnating”? Meaning denying the creed and denying our salvation. Miaphysite alone makes sense
I and the father are one, and
The father is greater than I
Does not necessarily mean the two natures, I can be within the same one nature
You can conclude this by understanding greater in the context of willing submission out of love. It’s permissive authority.
Not the best arguments on both sides. I’m a little disappointed. Erhan brushing off the letter of ibas being read and accepted in the council and even being deemed heretical in the next council. This is not a minor matter.
You can disagree on the elusive metaphysics. But it if the will of the Holy Spirit is needed for a holy council, God is not the God of confusion or inconsistencies. The Holy Spirit doesn’t seem to be present. This is a huge point not to be glazed over. Ethan needs to do better on this point.
The gates of hell will not prevail against the church. There are only a few options
1) only one church is correct
2) neither churches needs to be entirely correct as the Holy Spirit is largely encompassing all Christian churches (only issue with this is that it implies that God allows the breaking down of his church, not to say it can’t be right or godly. god allows our broken ways many times such as remarrying in the Old Testament due to our dogged ways but it was never meant to be so. Similarly God can allow his church to be fractured. But even so, as a generalwhole, his church will still prevail)
I shudder for the revelation when the time comes. The first will be last and the last will be first. And those in holy position will be held greatly accountable. I pray for those.
David I'm eastern orthodox and there is no article anywhere about this question:
"Is Jesus' human nature part of the Trinity"
What's the answer and could you settle this subject when I know you can. Thank you!
🤲🏼🙏🏼❤️☦︎
Sound quality was so bad i could not listen to it. Very interesting topic thought. There are not these really. Too bad the quality is too bad.
1:29 "very important people" ? Such as? (btw, where is the chat replay for this?)
I can’t be the only person who was going a bit crazy from the subdeacons up-speak
One thing is for sure David is brilliant but I’m still oriental orthodox
No, my brother, it's not that David is exceptionally skilled; rather, it's the weakness of the individual representing our side. He lacks energy and enthusiasm, and it seems as though he is there to learn from David rather than engage in a proper debate. I apologize for being blunt, but to be honest, he is an embarrassment to the OO faith in this context. When Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido debaters engage in debates conducted in Amharic (the Ethiopian language), they consistently come out on top against Eastern Orthodox debaters. I only wish that they could communicate in English, as they would have undoubtedly won the debate against David.
@@yenenehwdo you speak it
@@theonik6082 Yes, I do, but I struggle to translate the Amharic language into English in a coherent structure to effectively debate David. Additionally, I consider myself a lay person, leading a life that is not entirely devoted to holiness. I lack direct and uninterrupted access to God and the extensive knowledge of spiritual matters possessed by the holy hermits and monks of Ethiopia who live in caves, practicing a life of prayer, fasting, prostration, and contemplation of God - such practices are mandatory for them to effectively defend the faith. These individuals have dedicated their lives to faith, having memorized the Bible and the teachings of the church fathers in their entirety. By the grace of the Lord, they have been granted a deep understanding of spiritual matters, enabling them to eloquently defend our faith in a poetic manner. They continue to follow the same way of life as the desert fathers of the 2nd-4th century, such as St. Anthony, St. Moses the Ethiopian, St. Macarius, St. Pachomius, and others.
It amuses me when I see Western individuals like David, who indulge in worldly comforts like eating burgers and sleeping on luxurious mattresses, who have not put in the effort to attain spiritual perfection, criticizing and speaking nonsense about the blessed Oriental Orthodox faith. You have yet to witness the wisdom and knowledge of the Ethiopian fathers. However, if you are interested, I can share with you a written defense of the faith.
@@yenenehw Well, you can't compare an apologist to a monk, just look at Holy Mt. Athos. Who are these OO monks debating, other monks or what? How about going to Athos and doing the same game? So many saints are produced there ❤️☦️
@@theonik6082 Indeed, the monks of Mount Athos lead lives of dedication, prayer, and asceticism, seeking spiritual enlightenment and union with God. Their commitment to a life of simplicity, solitude, and contemplation is admirable. Though their numbers are few, I am well aware of their way of life and virtue. I have always believed that the Lord works in mysterious ways, so I have never dared to disrespect them.
However, the difference is that the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido hermits are numbered in thousands. Most of these hermits reside in deep deserts, and access to them is only possible by walking, which usually takes 2-3 days to reach them. Hardly anyone dares to cross the desert to see them, and some never encounter another human being for 10-20 years. They live in caves with only a single item of clothing and no shoes. Most of them never lay on the ground to sleep but instead take a nap while sitting on a stone - the beginners sleep on bare ground. The bread they consume is so bitter that I couldn't even swallow a bit, some instead eat an ounce of dried banana at sunset. Fasting is observed throughout the year. Mount Athos and its inhabitants, on the other hand, have dentists, medical doctors, cooks, and they do observe fasting, but they have a variety of food to choose from, clothing, washing machines, shoes, electricity, and they receive thousands of visitors each year, including people like yourself. Visitors are not bad, but to achieve that perfect union...??? There is no medical treatment available for the Ethiopians, even in the monasteries, if offered, the monks refuse it. When a monk falls ill, he relies on drinking holy water and bears the sickness patiently.
I had the privilege of meeting a monk who kept a stone in his mouth for 30 years, only removing it when eating and taking communion. He followed in the footsteps of Abba Agathon of Sects. Additionally, I had the privilege of encountering a monk who practiced praying from dusk till dawn outdoors, completely naked (no clothing), immersed in water from knees down. He dedicated himself to such mortification and perfect prayer for 25 years.
I lived among a group of three hermits for a month, and during that time, I desired to stay there and emulate their way of life. However, one of them advised me that it was not God's plan for me. He mentioned my relocation to the USA, educational achievements, the pursuit of wealth, and my subsequent downfall due to pride and involvement in sexual immorality brought about by the pursuit of money. He also spoke of my struggles, repentance, and eventual rise by the grace of God. Now that I am older, I see that his words have all come true.
In Ethiopia, we have just over 800 monasteries and more than 200 dwelling places of hermits in the deep desert - even some of those places are known to God only. Have you read about St. Anthony, St. Macarius, St. Arsanius, and others? Our deep desert hermits emulate these saints in every aspect, from clothing and eating to prayer and meekness. They dislike having their virtues revealed in books and refuse to be filmed. Among them, some study scripture and the teachings of the church fathers, and it is these hermits who occasionally visit the city and refute the argument presented by zealous Catholic residents of the city who adhere to the same Leo-inspired two-nature Christology after the union of the EO.
Based on the testimony of Athos, which I learned about through EO, I have concluded that the Ethiopian hermits live a much stricter and remarkable way of life compared to those on Mount Athos. My point is that there is a hidden world unknown to many in the West, a nation of desert saints concealed from those who adhere to the two-nature belief after the union.
What do u call about human we had sole and human body
In simple terms Eastern Orthodox believe Jesus Christ is One person with 2 nature's , Fully Human nature and fully God nature. The Oriental Orthodox believe Jesus is One person with One nature yet fully God and Fully man. Which would make him only God nature in a human vessel. Which is false because that would mean he didn't suffer temptation because Gods nature doesn't feel temptation to sin in the flesh. Jesus has to have Human nature to have the full experience of humanity to suffer and die for our sins and overcome temptation for us, as human nature and yet fully God too.
Subdeacon Daniel is a breath of fresh air!
David is awesome even tho I’m non chalcedon
Thanks for your honest and kind words, bro!
The Eastern orthodox representative is very aggressive and ridiculous. On the other hand, the Oriental Orthodox counterparts are wise and peaceful
your comment = fail
@@JayDyer Hey jay I love your videos but respectfully his moment = no fails
your replay = fails.
saying that, much love to you brother!
EO converts are mostly maladjusted types (in the Anglo context.)
This is a debate not tea time with your girlfriend
Outwardly they are like sheep but inside they are ravenous wolves
2:16:10 bookmark
Too much debate but no reunification talks.
Why would there be silly reunification talks?
@@WinkThatCouture Coming together is necessary because the body of Christ is One!
@@HS-pz3sq the Church already is One, there are those who remain divided and outside of it
Individual ≠ Individualized
They love trying to hit you with gotcha questions
That's kinda funny in the description you say syriac coptic church vs orthodox? It's oriental vs eastern orthodox. Why would you drop the Eastern as if Eastern Is the only real orthodox
the problem is that eastern orthodox see oriental orthodox not so orthodox xD and the oriental orthodox see eastern orthodox as orthodox with heresies regarding chalcedon but mainly accept easterns baptism , and when great schism happened the eastern called themselves orthodox to diffrentiate themselves from the catholics xD this is why orthodox sometimes means chalcedonian type xD basically orientals were orthodox churches before even the easterns call themsleves as orthodox... the name came after the great schism to imply that eastern church are not with the catholic anymore.
but for me both orientals and easterns are orthodox I agree with u
Because it is
@user-pw1rr2vm8b no its not. Anyone one that knows our little differences knows we are both saying pretty much the same thing in different ways. I'm oriental but I wouldn't say eastern isn't real orthodox.
@@medicalstudent8440Do OO say that EOC has valid sacraments
I think we have no difference
Simple when Jesus sleep is he sleep or didn't
So are the Oriental Orthodox heretical? Will there type of teaching affect the average Jesus loving & God fearing OO’s into damnation?
No the oriental orthodox are not the heretics. The easterns are the one that are heretics.
I suggest u watch a video titled chalachadonial and coptic orthodox, fact, similarity and differences
@@etsubtamirat4623
- *30 differences between COPTIC & EOTC* -
Purpose: This was written to educate and give Ethiopian believers a BETTER understanding of the origin of their faith, history and tradition and answer why the EOTC is quite different from other orthodoxies. This should not to be interpreted in the wrong way, unity is important but so is transparency.
Author: As an Ethiopian Orthodox servant and having attended several Coptic liturgies, and from theological research on both churches, I can tell you we the EOTC have SO MANY differences.
✅ ALL ITEMS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED!
*Dogma Differences*
1. We believe that Saint Mary was born without original sin
2. We believe that Saint Mary has NO fallen nature no sin or nature to sin after birth as well
*Jewish Practices*
Matt 5:17 - “I did not come to abolish the Law”
1. We have Ark Processions year-round
2. We abstain from all unclean food (Halal, pork, shrimp, crab, etc)
3. We do no enter church if we are unclean (men and women)
4. We wear all white shawls (Netelas) as a symbol of Christ’s Resurrection and spiritual purity
5. We have a shoeless entry (not just during communion)
6. We abstain from any modern instruments (piano, guitar, etc)
7. We have 81 books in the Bible (Coptics have 74)
8. We go of Halachic Jewish Time (Fasting entry and exits are based of our sun and star movements (Twilight) and our hours are reversed (12=6, 9=3)
9. We observe Friday evening and Saturday as the Sabbath (in addition to Sunday)
10. Women after giving birth have to wait 40 days or 80 days to enter church. ( Lev 12)
*EOTC Belief System*
1. We abstain from any fish on fasting days (It is a meat - 1 Cor 15:39)
2. We eat starting at 3pm on fasting days
3. We fast 292 days of the year (including Tsige & Pagume Fast)
4. Women are not allowed to wear pants only ankle length dresses (Deut 22:5)
5. We never imprint (wear) icons of saints on clergical or any other clothes
6. We have a 2 or more priest liturgy system (Coptics have 1)
7. We close curtains during significant moments
8. To be a Deacon you must be a unmarried virgin
9. We have 14 liturgies (Coptics have 3)
10. We celebrate all 33 feasts for Saint Mary and all 18 feasts of Jesus with millions in attendance year round
11. We have Hymnaries (Mahlet) 4-10 hours short version and 24-48 hours long on Epiphany and Horologions (Sa’tat)
12. We perform year- round Subae’s (7 days of no food or water)
13. Believers have (Full Body - Holy Water) services year round for healing and forgiveness of sin
14. We do not eat bread inside church
15. Only men can pour Holy Water
16. The Holy Trinity Icon is always depicted (Coptics use mostly Jesus and the 4 creatures of the Gospel)
17. We have to fast 18 hours to take communion (3 days of no intercourse)
18. We prohibit any use of contraceptives or birth control (Genesis 38:6-11)
*Explanation:*
While we didn’t establish a church prior to Coptics, Ethiopia was and is historically known as the First Christian Kingdom and Civilization (Reference: Prophecy Psalms 72: 9-10 along with multiple Church sources shows that one of the three wise man has been confirmed Ethiopian, Acts 8 shows Christianity teaching existed in Ethiopia and Aksum Kingdom predates back to BC showing traces of Christianity prior to Armenian Church). And so while we the EOTC are labeled “oriental” with our sister churches, we are the only orthodox nation who incorporate 4000 year old Jewish customs (Judeo-Christianity) and Jewish forms of worship and tradition into our faith. The reason for this is because we were the only Orthodox country to convert from Christianity’s former faith so we hold very sacred information or the “original link” that drives our Christian faith to be more conservative or allows us to have more divine levels of worship (Ark Processions year round, Hymnaries (Mahlet), (Horologions (Sa’tat), Subae (7 days of no food or water), Year round Full Body Holy Water Services, all white clothing, shoeless entry, restraining from unclean meat and 292 days of fasting to name a few all makes our orthodoxy unique different and special in every way compared to all other oriental and eastern orthodoxies but most importantly and evidently seen is our love of Saint Mary. Ethiopia is in fact called the Land of Mary.
Thank you have a nice day.
Blessings in Christ
Sources:
1. EOTC Sunday School Department Immaculate Conception - eotcmk.org/e/the-birth-of-the-blessed-virgin-mary-2/
2. M/r RODAS
th-cam.com/video/1i7DUmLkR_83/w-d-xo.html.
3. MAHBER KIDUSAN
th-cam.com/video/73ybOkqsM1I/w-d-xo.html
4. Dersane Gabriel Tahsas Ch. 21-22
5. Ethiopia’s 4000 year history
m.th-cam.com/video/pd1J_527Cxk/w-d-xo.html
6. Lika Likawnt Ezra - Promised Land Saint Mary
th-cam.com/video/V8vBa78tvMI/w-d-xo.html
7. Holy Synod’s published document titled “The Doctrine and Foreign Relations of the EOTC”
8. No Fish on Fasting Day (EOTC)
th-cam.com/video/l1Q2CvMebtQ/w-d-xo.html
9. Fetha Negest
10. Mesafe Kebur
11. Kebra Negest
12. The Didache Ch 6
@@eotceotc whoaaaa thank u thank u. You are well verses in this subjuct
I hope it is alright if i ask u questions after i look all of this over
@@etsubtamirat4623 Yes ask any questions.
@@eotceotc can u tell me the reason for the easter and oriential orthodox church split and any referance nooks i can read to help me better understand this
Can u also tell me anything you know about Giragn Ahmed in Ethiopia and how it affected the church and Christians and any referance i should read about that
To Daniel, stop doing this you have no training leave it to me
1 hypostasis from 2 hypostasis may also mean - from the person of the God the Father and the most Holy Theotokos. I think this language is used in other places and is not wrong depending on what you mean.
Is that composite though, half human half Divine?
@@markschmitz5038 The divine person of the Word took on human nature, so we have a unity of natures in the person of Christ.
@@Vanhyo do you think that Christ was both fully human and simultaneously fully divine?
@@markschmitz5038 I am orthodox, not anti-chalcedonian, stop acting silly.
@@Vanhyo no you're a esl undergrad
David did pretty well in this debate
Orientals, how can you say it is one nature, but two hypostasis ?
It is still one hypostasis in two natures, since differences of the natures not removed, how can it be one, it is one in what he does as individual means one hypostasis, but not one nature, it is the "nature" of Christ.
@JChrisTruth146 I understand what you mean, Chalcedon explicitly states and emphasizes the union of the two natures. How can you speak about two natures and one at the same time. We agree in his actions He is a complex "nature" both human and divine. But "nature" is in quotes. As to when comes to natures in sense of existence, we must affirm, that the flesh never became the God (the essence of Him) and God the Word never literally became the flesh, they didn't mix..
Flesh remains flesh, and God the Son remains God the Son (who is a man because in the flesh and connected/united to it) But they don't mix, as St. Cyril explains.
So in sense of action they are mixed and manifest always together, but in sense of existence they are always united, but never mixed in essence. We believe they are separate in sense of substance only and in sense of contemplation in Spirit, as St. Cyril said, to the soul. The soul differentiates the divine nature from the flesh, but it never divides one from the other. If you believe natures (including their essences and existence) are always mixed in one, you risk to believe that the divine essence (The Son of God, the Word) literally became flesh and diminished to the point of flesh and mixed with it, thus you believe that God literally died on the cross. That is very bad, since God the Son is eternal and immortal, and it is His body and flesh that died on the cross, but Not Him as the divine nature(essence) and The Word. We worship God (the Son) not the flesh, (the way muslims claim) That's why he resurrected on the third day and ascended and rules the universe, in the flesh, without mixing with it, flesh is created, God is uncreated, full stop. And hypostasis, means the cause of the individuality and cause of action, the underlying nature beyond the flesh, which is divine the source of all action and individuality of Him. But how you believe in two natures, if you claim that after the incarnation they became one without continuing existing (in essence/substance) ?
How can Christ be fully human and fully divine in his "nature" if their essences and their existences disappeared ? Where did the flesh go, and what happened to the divine Word (the Son of GOD) ? I want to ask did the Word ever incarnate, and if so, did God the Word died on the cross ?
@JChrisTruth146 We don't believe divisions of natures, we believe union of the natures in one Person. All actions of Christ encompass both of them, and the source of all action (including functions of the flesh) is only one - the divine nature, or he has only one hypostasis, as I said before, and as the 6th council affirms. We believe one Person, and one Hypostasis (one source of will and one individuality). We don't believe ontological division, in sense of yin and young construct, we affirm the ability to distinguish the existence of both substances at the same time, the same way we feel the Spirit a man may have, that is not his flesh ! Do you affirm that if they are not mingled and altered but subsist - then their essences/substances don't mingle, but the divine remains divine/eternal and the created remains created - that the two essences/substances continue existing, in perfect union, as the soul within the body ?
You said mystery, but you approve that saints, who are not in flesh, are visible in visions and wonders, similar to how St. George appeared in Ethiopia ?
@JChrisTruth146 By person, I meant a being. If something affects one it doesn't mean it affects the other, if the body dies it doesn't mean the Spirit dies too. If I cut your hand it won't change your Spirit, unless you change your faith - the substances don't change, neither holiness or wickedness are affected by how good or bad your physical health is ! The flesh/body doesn't make the Word (divine nature with its substance and personality). The Word (divine nature) united /merged to the flesh/body, injected soul/life in it, and has been providing for the existence of this unity/merge. We appeal to the divine Logos for the unity/merge to exist !
If God can't provide for the unity/merge, nobody can, who provides for it and how did it happen and how does it exist then ?
But if God the Word needed to unite/merge to come into existence then there was nobody to unite to the already existing flesh/body and the union/merge never happened. It is self contradiction.
But we believe the Spirit can be sensed as Spirit, but not flesh, and perceived too.
If you affirm union of two substances without mingling and alteration what do you mean by "merge" and how is it different from union ?
@JChrisTruth146 Christ is united yes, not divided, this is what Chalcedon states yes. If you just put the opposite words in my mouth, then you misinterpret me and invent your own Chalcedon. But I never said He is divided. What I meant is that you used the fact that natures affect one another to suggest that none of the natures can cause for the union. We believe natures affect one another since they are merged/united, that speaks for itself - yes he feels the physical pain and all the rest that comes from the body and soul. But you misunderstood what I said.
Christ , right now at this moment, is united/merged, not divided, in sense that the natures are united/merged without the substances mingling (as you agreed), this is what I said, but it was not this way before the incarnation. What I meant is that the divine nature is what maintains that union/merge and is the one that caused that union. That before the incarnation the divine nature (The Word) existed without being merged in flesh, and then by His will made a decision to unite/merge with the flesh from virgin Mary and united/merged with it without any division and became one being/person or one Christ. But what I meant is after the Word experienced death on the cross (but didn't die in his substance), but the body/flesh died (the soul of body died, the Word/divine nature died in the flesh, but not in his own substance - the Word is imperishable), on the Third Day after this the divine nature by His will united/merged with the dead body and rose it from the dead, and maintains the union/merge up until now. That the union itself exists because of the divine nature/the Word's will that is God's will. But you misunderstood it or just reversed it.
Though, the substance of the Word never mingled and changed into the substance of the flesh , or vice versa.
Thus, by contemplation, we sense the Spirit in the flesh as being substance of Spirit, but not substance of the flesh.
You didn't answer, though, how the union may exist, if none of the natures is self-subsistent and can provide for the union (in sense can cause and maintain that union/merge), how Christ can exist as united then ?
We agree it is the divine Logos with His divine/eternal substance that is self subsistent and injects soul/life in the body and keeps it merged/united to himself. This is what I meant.
@JChrisTruth146 I also want to point out, that the union comes from nature, when comes to the Trinity, because of the divine/eternal substance, but in case of Christ when we speak about union of two different substances, created (flesh/body) and uncreated (eternal Word), the union happens because of the merge, which means because of the two natures occupying the same spot in space geometrically. The created flesh , based on its nature, just like that, can't unite to the Word, unless the Word unites to the flesh geometrically like this, similar to how we need to dress a coat to make contact with it. And it happens not by remote contact, but by direct contact/union/merge. which means where is the Word, there is the body and vice versa, though we don't exclude contact with the Word by energies remotely, but it doesn't mean the Word is separate from the body, and just by its nature is how it is united to the body. - that is nonsense. If you claim that the divinity of Christ and humanity of Christ are one in a similar way, The Son (divinity) is One with the Father, then they are separate, because the substance of the Word(divinity) is eternal and not of the substance of the body (created). The Son is a separate person from the Father, but one with him because has the same substance as the Father - divine/eternal So union in Christ is not by substance/nature, it is by the will of the divine nature that is self-subsistent, but it is by location in space , merged like this, but still substances remain unchanged, it is the mystery, because it is two layers of reality existing at the same space (similar to body and soul in man), the eternal divine substance and the created bodily substance exist in union, at the same spot in space, as the soul and body in man, but none of them changes into the substance of the other, the Word remains the eternal substance, and the body remains created body substance, but they are united one within the other ! If you believe union is by nature but not by special location and union itself, that is your issue there ! If the Spirit leaves the body , it is death, and they are disunited, the soul remains soul the body remains body, whether united or not, one is Spirit, the other is flesh, the substance of one doesn't transform into the substance of the other , regardless if it is during life (when united) , or after death (when disunited / separated) .
I found there is total disregard to the politcal and imperial influence during the Chaledonian Council. what I am going to write is the historic facts from the documents about the Chaledonian council First point is the first council ephesus forbidden the use of new creed.
which Chaledonian Council ignored by adding Leo's Tome so far no one from EO replied why Leo Tome is added if both churches and all fathers even during Chaledonian cluncil confessed the Cyril . Discorus was put off the council and was asked to sit in the nave of the church and after that in solidarity arrest, the condemnation of Dioscorus was with less than half of the bishops and assembly who attended the council. Empress Pulcheria and Marcian influenced every step of the council and famously she threatened Disocorus Empress Pulcheria (Marcian's wife) told Dioscorus "In my father's time, there was a man who was stubborn (referring to St. John Chrysostom) and you are aware of what was made of him", to which Dioscorus famously responded "And you may recall that your mother prayed at his tomb, as she was bleeding of sickness". Pulcheria is said to have slapped Dioscorus in the face, breaking some of his teeth, and ordered the guards to confine him. Even after all of that Disoscorus was condemned not of hirachy but of break of Canon law.
One thing more is to me the main take int eh Chaledonian council is the circumstances and conduct it was done.
What readings would you recommend on this topic.
Dioscorus had St flavian of constantinople murdered and threatened to burn dyophysite bishops alive and their families
For the OO, the Council of Chalcedon is political. They also said it was influenced by Emperor Marcian and his wife, Empress Pulcheria, and by Pope Leo the Great's legates to attack Dioscorus of Alexandria. They also said the Chalcedonian Council is a Nestorian Council, which teaches two natures after union.
It is not political because Emperor Marcian prepared an ecumenical council like his predecessors, as Emperor Constantine prepared the Council of Nicea. They also said that the Council was influenced by Paschinus and Licentius, the two legates of Leo; that is not true. If that is true, Nestorians can also say that the Council of Ephesus was influenced by Cyril of Alexandria. That is not really a good argument. They also said the Council of Chalcedon attacked Dioscorus by sending him to exile on the island of Gangra. We should not forget that Dioscorus did the same thing against Saint Flavianus of Constantinople, Ibas of Edessa, and Theodoret of Cyrus during the 449 Robbery Synod, which is accepted by OO as an Ecumenical Council. Eutychius, Dioscorus, and other pro-Eutychius figures beat Flavian up for condemning the teaching of Eutychius during the 448 Synod of Constantinople. Dioscorus didn't give a chance for Flavian of Constantinople, Ibas of Edessa, or Theodoret of Cyrus to say anything. Dioscorus removed the anthema of Eutychius. After he sent Flavian of Constantinople to exile, he ordained an Alexandrian guy whose name was Anatolius as a successor of Flavian for the holy see of Constantinople. The Council of Chalcedon reaffirmed the Anathema of Eutychius. That is not a good argument. The Council of Chalcedon is not a Nestorian Council because the Council did not teach that the Virgin Mary is not a Mother of God. The council teaches that Christ has two natures (physis) but is one person (hypostasis). One subsistence(prosopon). Nestorius said different things. You can see the teaching of the Assyrian Church of the East, which venerates him as a saint. They say that Jesus has two natures (physis) in Syriac, and Kyane has two persons (hypothesis) in Syriac. Jesus is one external person (subsistence, prosopon) in Syriac parsupa. Nestorians believe Christ has one will, like the OO, but Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Christ had two wills, which are his divine will and his human will. So the Council of Chalcedonians is not a Nestorian council.
@@ralphraymondsadlucapperez8235copy pasta garbage. If it wasnt nestorian then you wouldnt need two further councils to rectify it.
Two men trying to define God with natural means. Smh God is a mystery that you can’t “fully” explain! Come together and stop fighting over moot points! There’s so much to agree and come together on!
Are you suggesting that Lord's Bride should be defiled by uniting with the heretical Monophysites.?
@@johnnyd2383
Missing hysites. Represent our position correctly please.
@@sakogekchyan7366 Whose position.? I have represented Orthodox position.
@@johnnyd2383stop barking you dog you have no knowledge of our position all you do is parrot davids horrible arguments. Go learn your faith you disgrace to the eastern orthodox
@@johnnyd2383
We are no more monophysites than you are nestorians.
u a beast
Not a union. Its an absorbition.
Thats eutychianism that arose in Constantinople. EO are nothing more than slanderers at this point. They project their own insecurity and flaws against their opponents.
Oriental orthodox, mess terms, and have issues just put icons, to insult orthodoxy, hide behind symbols like this, imitating orthodoxy sick ! But essences they don't mix they maintain to maintain properties, they are just in union. Two existences come, but they don't mix.
A bit late but you’re actually an idiot. We never claim that they mix.
OO W
the opposite 😂
@@icxcnika2037nope daniel schooled David who was barking like a dog
Epic fedora
Eastern Orthodox Christology fails
How?
Let's debate this, I'll invite you to the server via Gmail
For the OO, the Council of Chalcedon is political. They also said it was influenced by Emperor Marcian and his wife, Empress Pulcheria, and by Pope Leo the Great's legates to attack Dioscorus of Alexandria. They also said the Chalcedonian Council is a Nestorian Council, which teaches two natures after union.
It is not political because Emperor Marcian prepared an ecumenical council like his predecessors. as Emperor Constantine prepared the Council of Nicea. They also said that the Council was influenced by Paschinus and Licentius, the two legates of Leo; that is not true. If that is true, Nestorians can also say that the Council of Ephesus was influenced by Cyril of Alexandria. That is not really a good argument. They also said the Council of Chalcedon attacked Dioscorus by sending him to exile on the island of Gangra. We should not forget that Dioscorus did the same thing against Saint Flavianus of Constantinople, Ibas of Edessa, and Theodoret of Cyrus during the 449 Robbery Synod, which is accepted by OO as an Ecumenical Council. Eutychius, Dioscorus, and other pro-Eutychius figures beat Flavian up for condemning the teaching of Eutychius during the 448 Synod of Constantinople. Dioscorus didn't give a chance for Flavian of Constantinople, Ibas of Edessa, or Theodoret of Cyrus to say anything. Dioscorus removed the anthema of Eutychius. After he sent Flavian of Constantinople to exile, he ordained an Alexandrian guy whose name was Anatolius as a successor of Flavian for the holy see of Constantinople. The Council of Chalcedon reaffirmed the Anathema of Eutychius. That is not a good argument. The Council of Chalcedon is not a Nestorian Council because the Council did not teach that the Virgin Mary is not a Mother of God. The council teaches that Christ has two natures (physis) but is one person (hypostasis). One subsistence(prosopon). Nestorius said different things. You can see the teaching of the Assyrian Church of the East, which venerates him as a saint. They say that Jesus has two natures (physis) in Syriac, and Kyane has two persons (hypothesis) in Syriac. Jesus is one external person (subsistence, prosopon) in Syriac parsupa. Nestorians believe Christ has one will, like the OO, but Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Christ had two wills, which are his divine will and his human will. So the Council of Chalcedonians is not a Nestorian council.
Your brain fails.
@user-pw1rr2vm8b When you [Oriental Orthodox] use the Argument that Will is property of Person which is false, your entire Argumentation comes crumbling down like House of Cards because this is the only way you can justify your miaphysite Christology.
When I see the easterners I see nestorius.
When I see oo I see cope