this is the topic assigned to me by my professor, and by watching this it really helps me to understand the Council of Chalcedon more. Thank you, I'm going to report it later.
This was a great video. Nicely explained. So, could it be said that the co-excommunications of Dioscorus and Flavian IS the Chalcedonian Schism? I am still new to ecclesiological matters. The one thing I still don't understand, though, is: what, actually, is meant by nature? I'm of the opinion that it's not been well-defined enough to have arguments about it, or at least I have never found a sufficient explanation, and I been lookin'.
The oriental Orthodox churches(Coptic is one of them,the others being Armenian, Ethiopian,indian and Syriac) believe in miaphisitism not monophysitism and only accept the three councils upto the council or Ephesus.
In the words of Socrates, "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." The EO has shown a lack of virtue by resorting to lies, akin to the tactics of Satan. Why do you lie man? Eutychus did not proclaim the belief in the "One nature of the Word Incarnate God"; rather, it was St. Cyril who initially stated this belief, which is still held by the Miaphysites (OO). Eutyches, on the other hand, said that the human nature was absorbed and dissolved in the Divine nature as a drop of vinegar in the ocean. In this way, he denied the human nature of Christ. After being excommunicated by St. Dioscorus, Eutyches feigned repentance and acceptance of the true faith, leading St. Dioscorus to allow him to return on the condition that he would refute his heresy. Later on however, he again declared his corrupt belief and was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon held in 451 AD, and was also excommunicated by the OO. It is also important to note that Flavian was excommunicated due to his association with Nestorianism. True - Flavian faced severe mistreatment at the hands of Roman soldiers and ultimately died as a result. Similarly, after the conclusion of the Council of Chalcedon 451, St. Dioscorus faced severe physical abuse, including having his beard pulled and losing his teeth, before being sent into exile, where he eventually passed away. It is crucial to avoid engaging in slander, as you have done, and refrain from attributing the mistreatment of Flavian to St. Dioscorus. The maltreatment of those in exile was truly terrible (Flavian, St. Dioscorus...etc.,) and it is important to acknowledge that the maltreatment mentioned was carried out by Imperial Soldiers. The following Church fathers, predating the Council of Chalcedon (451), affirmed the belief in "The One nature of the Incarnate God" It is important to note that their dogma stands in stark contrast to the Tome championed by the EO, authored by Leo. It is also worth noting that the EO holds deep reverence for all the Church Fathers mentioned below, who bear witness to the doctrine of the one incarnate nature of Christ. (1) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Because, therefore, He is truly God and King according to nature, and because the One crucified has been called the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2:8), how could anyone hesitate to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God? Adore Him as ONE, without dividing Him into TWO after the union. [Letter 1] (2) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - The flesh is flesh and not Godhead, even though it became the flesh of God. Similarly, the Word is God and not flesh even if He made the flesh His very own in the economy. Given that we understand this, we do no harm to that concurrence into union when we say that it took place out of two natures. After the union has occurred, however, we do NOT divide the natures from one another, nor do we sever the one and indivisible into two sons, but we say that there is One Son, and as the holy Fathers have stated, “ONE incarnate nature of the Word.” [First Letter to Succensus 6.] (3) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Let them take account of this. When one speaks of a union, one does not signify the concurrence of a single factor but surely of two or more that are different from one another in nature. So, if we talk of a union, we confess it to be between flesh endowed with a rational soul and the Word; and those who speak of “two natures” understand it in this way. However, once we have confessed the union, the things that have been united are no longer separated from one another but are thereafter one Son; and ONE is His nature since the Word has been made flesh. [Letter to Eulogius] (4) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Surely, it is beyond dispute that the Only-Begotten, being by nature God became man by a genuine union, in a manner beyond explanation or understanding. For as soon as this union has taken place, there is A SINGLE nature presented to our minds, The incarnate nature of the Word Himself. [Against Nestorius 2.(Preface)]. (5) St. Ephrem the Syrian: - Blessed are you, O church, in whom even Isaiah rejoices in his prophecy: “Behold, a virgin will conceive and bring forth a child” whose name is a great mystery, whose explanation was revealed in the church. Two names were joined together and became ONE: “Emmanuel.” El is with you always, who joins you with his members. [Hymns on the nativity 25.5] (6) St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - To sum up the matter: there are two separate elements of which the Savior is composed (the invisible is not identical with the visible or the timeless with the temporal), but there are not two separate beings; emphatically not. Both elements are blended into ONE, the Divinity taking on Humanity, the Humanity receiving Divinity. [Letter 101.5- 6, to Cledonius.] (7) St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - He was, and He becomes. He was above time; He became subject to time. He was invisible; He becomes visible... What He was, He laid aside; what He was not, He assumed. He did not become two, but He allowed himself to become a UNITY composed of two elements. For that which assumed and that which was assumed combine into a Divine being. THE TWO NATURES COALESCE INTO A UNIT; and there are not two sons, for we must make no mistake about the commixture of the natures. [Oration 37.2.2] (8) St. Basil the great: - Amen Amen Amen. I believe, I believe, and confess to the last breath...that this is the life-giving Flesh that your only- begotten Son, our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, took from our Lady... He made it ONE with His Divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration. [Liturgy of St. Basil the great] (9) St. Hilary of Poitiers: - Anyone who fails to see Christ Jesus as at once truly God and truly human is blind to his own life. . . . By the union of the two natures He is ONE ENTITY comprising both natures; but in such a way that in either capacity He lacked nothing of the other, so that He did not cease to be God by being born as man or fail to be man by remaining God. [Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity] (10) St. Hilary of Poitiers: - We have Christ working in Himself the very things which God works in Him, for it was Christ who died, stripping from Himself His flesh…it was none other who raised Christ from the dead but Christ Himself…[Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. St. Hilary's profound statement unequivocally upholds the concept of the one incarnate nature of Christ. He deliberately avoids suggesting that Christ the man died and Christ the God raised Christ the man. Instead, St. Hilary emphasizes that Christ Himself experienced death and subsequently raised Himself from the dead. With this magnificent sentence, St. Hilary firmly rejects any notion of dividing Christ's natures after their union, leaving no room for such division in his affirmation of the inseparable unity of Christ's one nature. (11) St. Hilary of Poitiers: - The Only-begotten God chose to become man of His own will... God chose to suffer of His own will....[Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. In this context, St. Hilary did not state "Christ the man chose to suffer," but rather he proclaimed, "God chose to suffer." It is widely understood that God does not experience suffering; however, St. Hilary attributed suffering to God. Theologically, it is easier to comprehend St. Hilary's statement if we embrace the concept that, the united natures are no longer divided affirming the existence of one Son with one nature and following the union, all the actions of Christ were attributed to Him as a whole and not solely to His Divine nature or His human nature independently. In Jesus Christ, the properties of the flesh have become the properties of Divinity, and likewise, the properties of Divinity have become the properties of the flesh. Therefore, even though suffering is inherent to the flesh, St. Hilary attributed it to God because the flesh of Jesus Christ is the flesh of God the Son. (12) St. Hilary of Poitiers states: - Since God had assumed our weakness. God chose to die of His own will….[Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. In this context as well, St. Hilary ascribes weakness and death to God. He does not state that it was Christ the man who took on our weakness and chose to die. It is important to note that God does not possess weakness, and God is immortal, devoid of death. Weakness and death are attributes that pertain to created beings. However, St. Hilary boldly declares that "God assumed our weakness and God willingly chose to experience death." Once more, from a theological perspective, it is easier to comprehend St. Hilary's statement if we embrace the concept that, the united natures are no longer divided affirming the existence of one Son with one nature and following the union, all the actions of Christ were attributed to Him as a whole and not solely to His Divine nature or His human nature independently. Thus, despite weakness and death being innate to the flesh, St. Hilary attributed these characteristics to God because the flesh of Jesus Christ is the flesh of God the Son. (13) St. Hilary of Poitiers states: -Thus, God was born to take us into Himself, suffered to justify us, and died to avenge us…, since God died through the flesh. [the same Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. In this instance, St. Hilary did not express the notion that Christ the man was born, suffered, and died. Instead, he asserted that it was God who was born, suffered, and died. Hence, although the acts of being born, suffering, and dying are intrinsic to flesh, St. Hilary attributed them to God, recognizing that the flesh of Jesus Christ is none other than the flesh of God the Son.
The Catholic Church through these Councils (Isaw at least the other 2) also proves that she is the bride of Christ. I asked once more born again a what if. They are this Sola Scriptura yet they make use of our Dogma - The Trinity. So, why? Are their pastor incompetent to create their own explanation about how can one God be of three person? Now after seeing this, I just had the thought: What if they creat their own councils? Man, they are thousands of separated sect. Imagine how messy things would be. Pastor would create thei different versions and might not be united because they are not to begin with. All of them belong to or founded by different people. They themselves will try their best to win against the other.
i don't get one nature of dioscorus belif , is that humanity or divinity only? if you say that he had said " divinity " copts still has holy Eucharistic bread and they believed that is a flesh . and if one nature is " humanity " how copt still called Jesus as a Son of God and Mary as a mother of God ?. chalcedon had been influenced by competition of bishops hierarchy internally and with emperor authority externally .
God Almighty created the universe, stars, galaxies, animals and plants. Councils declared Jesus as god but did not tell which asteroid, animal or plant Jesus created??
It is a shame that unbelievers will Not even take the time to learn that Jesus did in Fact walk this earth and Die and was Resurrected for the Salvation of the Souls Of all people that Believe, Shows how much they Value their Souls and that of the ones the claim to Love.!AMEN
My goodness as a Coptic Orthodox Dioscorus proclaimed Divine and Man in a composite 1 nature not what Eutyches preached it was simply language issues + Dioscorus wasn’t aggressive as far as I know but still a great video
Do not be deceived brother --- In the words of Socrates, "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." The EO has shown a lack of virtue by resorting to lies, akin to the tactics of Satan. Eutychus did not proclaim the belief in the "One nature of the Word Incarnate God"; rather, it was St. Cyril who initially stated this belief, which is still held by the Miaphysites (OO). Eutyches, on the other hand, said that the human nature was absorbed and dissolved in the Divine nature as a drop of vinegar in the ocean. In this way, he denied the human nature of Christ. After being excommunicated by St. Dioscorus, Eutyches feigned repentance and acceptance of the true faith, leading St. Dioscorus to allow him to return on the condition that he would refute his heresy. Later on however, he again declared his corrupt belief and was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon held in 451 AD, and was also excommunicated by the OO. It is also important to note that Flavian was excommunicated due to his association with Nestorianism. True - Flavian faced severe mistreatment at the hands of Roman soldiers and ultimately died as a result. Similarly, after the conclusion of the Council of Chalcedon 451, St. Dioscorus faced severe physical abuse, including having his beard pulled and losing his teeth, before being sent into exile, where he eventually passed away. It is crucial to avoid engaging in slander, as you have done, and refrain from attributing the mistreatment of Flavian to St. Dioscorus. The maltreatment of those in exile was truly terrible (Flavian, St. Dioscorus...etc.,) and it is important to acknowledge that the maltreatment mentioned was carried out by Imperial Soldiers. The following Church fathers, predating the Council of Chalcedon (451), affirmed the belief in "The One nature of the Incarnate God" It is important to note that their dogma stands in stark contrast to the Tome championed by the EO, authored by Leo. It is also worth noting that the EO holds deep reverence for all the Church Fathers mentioned below, who bear witness to the doctrine of the one incarnate nature of Christ. (1) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Because, therefore, He is truly God and King according to nature, and because the One crucified has been called the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2:8), how could anyone hesitate to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God? Adore Him as ONE, without dividing Him into TWO after the union. [Letter 1] (2) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - The flesh is flesh and not Godhead, even though it became the flesh of God. Similarly, the Word is God and not flesh even if He made the flesh His very own in the economy. Given that we understand this, we do no harm to that concurrence into union when we say that it took place out of two natures. After the union has occurred, however, we do NOT divide the natures from one another, nor do we sever the one and indivisible into two sons, but we say that there is One Son, and as the holy Fathers have stated, “ONE incarnate nature of the Word.” [First Letter to Succensus 6.] (3) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Let them take account of this. When one speaks of a union, one does not signify the concurrence of a single factor but surely of two or more that are different from one another in nature. So, if we talk of a union, we confess it to be between flesh endowed with a rational soul and the Word; and those who speak of “two natures” understand it in this way. However, once we have confessed the union, the things that have been united are no longer separated from one another but are thereafter one Son; and ONE is His nature since the Word has been made flesh. [Letter to Eulogius] (4) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Surely, it is beyond dispute that the Only-Begotten, being by nature God became man by a genuine union, in a manner beyond explanation or understanding. For as soon as this union has taken place, there is A SINGLE nature presented to our minds, The incarnate nature of the Word Himself. [Against Nestorius 2.(Preface)]. (5) St. Ephrem the Syrian: - Blessed are you, O church, in whom even Isaiah rejoices in his prophecy: “Behold, a virgin will conceive and bring forth a child” whose name is a great mystery, whose explanation was revealed in the church. Two names were joined together and became ONE: “Emmanuel.” El is with you always, who joins you with his members. [Hymns on the nativity 25.5] (6) St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - To sum up the matter: there are two separate elements of which the Savior is composed (the invisible is not identical with the visible or the timeless with the temporal), but there are not two separate beings; emphatically not. Both elements are blended into ONE, the Divinity taking on Humanity, the Humanity receiving Divinity. [Letter 101.5- 6, to Cledonius.] (7) St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - He was, and He becomes. He was above time; He became subject to time. He was invisible; He becomes visible... What He was, He laid aside; what He was not, He assumed. He did not become two, but He allowed himself to become a UNITY composed of two elements. For that which assumed and that which was assumed combine into a Divine being. THE TWO NATURES COALESCE INTO A UNIT; and there are not two sons, for we must make no mistake about the commixture of the natures. [Oration 37.2.2] (8) St. Basil the great: - Amen Amen Amen. I believe, I believe, and confess to the last breath...that this is the life-giving Flesh that your only- begotten Son, our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, took from our Lady... He made it ONE with His Divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration. [Liturgy of St. Basil the great] (9) St. Hilary of Poitiers: - Anyone who fails to see Christ Jesus as at once truly God and truly human is blind to his own life. . . . By the union of the two natures He is ONE ENTITY comprising both natures; but in such a way that in either capacity He lacked nothing of the other, so that He did not cease to be God by being born as man or fail to be man by remaining God. [Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity] (10) St. Hilary of Poitiers: - We have Christ working in Himself the very things which God works in Him, for it was Christ who died, stripping from Himself His flesh…it was none other who raised Christ from the dead but Christ Himself…[Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. St. Hilary's profound statement unequivocally upholds the concept of the one incarnate nature of Christ. He deliberately avoids suggesting that Christ the man died and Christ the God raised Christ the man. Instead, St. Hilary emphasizes that Christ Himself experienced death and subsequently raised Himself from the dead. With this magnificent sentence, St. Hilary firmly rejects any notion of dividing Christ's natures after their union, leaving no room for such division in his affirmation of the inseparable unity of Christ's one nature. (11) St. Hilary of Poitiers: - The Only-begotten God chose to become man of His own will... God chose to suffer of His own will....[Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. In this context, St. Hilary did not state "Christ the man chose to suffer," but rather he proclaimed, "God chose to suffer." It is widely understood that God does not experience suffering; however, St. Hilary attributed suffering to God. Theologically, it is easier to comprehend St. Hilary's statement if we embrace the concept that, the united natures are no longer divided affirming the existence of one Son with one nature and following the union, all the actions of Christ were attributed to Him as a whole and not solely to His Divine nature or His human nature independently. In Jesus Christ, the properties of the flesh have become the properties of Divinity, and likewise, the properties of Divinity have become the properties of the flesh. Therefore, even though suffering is inherent to the flesh, St. Hilary attributed it to God because the flesh of Jesus Christ is the flesh of God the Son. (12) St. Hilary of Poitiers states: - Since God had assumed our weakness. God chose to die of His own will….[Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. In this context as well, St. Hilary ascribes weakness and death to God. He does not state that it was Christ the man who took on our weakness and chose to die. It is important to note that God does not possess weakness, and God is immortal, devoid of death. Weakness and death are attributes that pertain to created beings. However, St. Hilary boldly declares that "God assumed our weakness and God willingly chose to experience death." Once more, from a theological perspective, it is easier to comprehend St. Hilary's statement if we embrace the concept that, the united natures are no longer divided affirming the existence of one Son with one nature and following the union, all the actions of Christ were attributed to Him as a whole and not solely to His Divine nature or His human nature independently. Thus, despite weakness and death being innate to the flesh, St. Hilary attributed these characteristics to God because the flesh of Jesus Christ is the flesh of God the Son. (13) St. Hilary of Poitiers states: -Thus, God was born to take us into Himself, suffered to justify us, and died to avenge us…, since God died through the flesh. [the same Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. In this instance, St. Hilary did not express the notion that Christ the man was born, suffered, and died. Instead, he asserted that it was God who was born, suffered, and died. Hence, although the acts of being born, suffering, and dying are intrinsic to flesh, St. Hilary attributed them to God, recognizing that the flesh of Jesus Christ is none other than the flesh of God the Son.
Jesus did not have two natures while on earth. If we say he didn't know the day or hour of his return in his human nature only, that is a Nestorian understanding and is not correct. Rather, he was a man with the spiritual identity of the Divine Logos. He did miracles, not by his own power, but the Holy Spirit in him. To say he had two complete natures is Nestorian.
Nestorius taught that Jesus was two separate persons, Chalcedonians say two natures in one person. If you say Jesus has one nature, he logically either has a human nature or a divine nature, but clearly he has both, therefore Jesus has to have two natures. Unless you want to say he has one composite nature, but that is basically just 2 natures.
@@SanctusTheology No. I would say he had one nature, human. BUT, he had the identity of the Logos. If he had two natures intermingled, that would contradict Chalcedon (actually Chalcedon gave us a paradox). Rather Scripture shows us he was a man, who had the Holy Spirit given without measure. Still, he didn't know the day or hour of his return even then and he couldn't just pop over to his divine side and find out. He was not pretending to be a baby, he was a baby. So he had one nature.
@@Mike65809 That’s heresy because Jesus is fully man and Fully God, so you undermining the divinity of Jesus by your view. I actually argue in another video, that Jesus knew the day or hour, he just didn’t declare it. So don’t use mark 13:32. it won’t help you.
@@SanctusTheology It's not heresy. You are relying on declarations of men, and not what the Word of God actually teaches. Jesus did not know the day or hour and he was clear. If he did, why not tell the disciples? Look at what the Word actually says about him and how Chalcedon, which gave us a paradoxical description, having it both ways, is allowing for Nestorian understanding of his nature. It all sounds so intellectual but is not scriptural. Notice that he learned wisdom, he grew in favor with God, he learned obedience from what he suffered, he was tempted in all ways like us. When on trial, he said he could have asked his Father for legions of angels, not using his own power. If he had used his power, he would have glorified himself, which he couldn't do. He had to be the perfect man, totally dependent on the Father. He learned to trust his Father from coming out the womb, while on his mother's breast (see Ps. 22). I guess it depends on how you define divinity. God is God, not just because of his power, but also because of his identity. Jesus always did the works of his Father by the Father in him. Amen?
Thanks for this educational video ❤
Thanks!
Comment Feedback!
You made the council of Chalcedon more crystal clear than a lot of other videos. Thank you for making this video, and great work!👍
Thank you , i appreciate the feedback!
Please make more of these videos explaining the Councils! They were amazing and very informative. God Bless!
This channel has great potential
this is the topic assigned to me by my professor, and by watching this it really helps me to understand the Council of Chalcedon more. Thank you, I'm going to report it later.
That means a lot, im glad my content was able to help you in your education! 🙏
This was a great video. Nicely explained. So, could it be said that the co-excommunications of Dioscorus and Flavian IS the Chalcedonian Schism? I am still new to ecclesiological matters.
The one thing I still don't understand, though, is: what, actually, is meant by nature? I'm of the opinion that it's not been well-defined enough to have arguments about it, or at least I have never found a sufficient explanation, and I been lookin'.
W video !
fax
The oriental Orthodox churches(Coptic is one of them,the others being Armenian, Ethiopian,indian and Syriac) believe in miaphisitism not monophysitism and only accept the three councils upto the council or Ephesus.
Hey, what's the name of the choir song in the background? I love your videos and the effort you put is very evident! Thanks
Thanks for the support , it’s called kyrie ellieson and it’s a gregorian chant
Thanks for the video
In the words of Socrates, "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." The EO has shown a lack of virtue by resorting to lies, akin to the tactics of Satan. Why do you lie man? Eutychus did not proclaim the belief in the "One nature of the Word Incarnate God"; rather, it was St. Cyril who initially stated this belief, which is still held by the Miaphysites (OO). Eutyches, on the other hand, said that the human nature was absorbed and dissolved in the Divine nature as a drop of vinegar in the ocean. In this way, he denied the human nature of Christ. After being excommunicated by St. Dioscorus, Eutyches feigned repentance and acceptance of the true faith, leading St. Dioscorus to allow him to return on the condition that he would refute his heresy. Later on however, he again declared his corrupt belief and was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon held in 451 AD, and was also excommunicated by the OO. It is also important to note that Flavian was excommunicated due to his association with Nestorianism. True - Flavian faced severe mistreatment at the hands of Roman soldiers and ultimately died as a result. Similarly, after the conclusion of the Council of Chalcedon 451, St. Dioscorus faced severe physical abuse, including having his beard pulled and losing his teeth, before being sent into exile, where he eventually passed away. It is crucial to avoid engaging in slander, as you have done, and refrain from attributing the mistreatment of Flavian to St. Dioscorus. The maltreatment of those in exile was truly terrible (Flavian, St. Dioscorus...etc.,) and it is important to acknowledge that the maltreatment mentioned was carried out by Imperial Soldiers.
The following Church fathers, predating the Council of Chalcedon (451), affirmed the belief in "The One nature of the Incarnate God" It is important to note that their dogma stands in stark contrast to the Tome championed by the EO, authored by Leo. It is also worth noting that the EO holds deep reverence for all the Church Fathers mentioned below, who bear witness to the doctrine of the one incarnate nature of Christ.
(1) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Because, therefore, He is truly God and King according to nature, and because the One crucified has been called the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2:8), how could anyone hesitate to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God? Adore Him as ONE, without dividing Him into TWO after the union. [Letter 1]
(2) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - The flesh is flesh and not Godhead, even though it became the flesh of God. Similarly, the Word is God and not flesh even if He made the flesh His very own in the economy. Given that we understand this, we do no harm to that concurrence into union when we say that it took place out of two natures. After the union has occurred, however, we do NOT divide the natures from one another, nor do we sever the one and indivisible into two sons, but we say that there is One Son, and as the holy Fathers have stated, “ONE incarnate nature of the Word.” [First Letter to Succensus 6.]
(3) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Let them take account of this. When one speaks of a union, one does not signify the concurrence of a single factor but surely of two or more that are different from one another in nature. So, if we talk of a union, we confess it to be between flesh endowed with a rational soul and the Word; and those who speak of “two natures” understand it in this way. However, once we have confessed the union, the things that have been united are no longer separated from one another but are thereafter one Son; and ONE is His nature since the Word has been made flesh. [Letter to Eulogius]
(4) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Surely, it is beyond dispute that the Only-Begotten, being by nature God became man by a genuine union, in a manner beyond explanation or understanding. For as soon as this union has taken place, there is A SINGLE nature presented to our minds, The incarnate nature of the Word Himself. [Against Nestorius 2.(Preface)].
(5) St. Ephrem the Syrian: - Blessed are you, O church, in whom even Isaiah rejoices in his prophecy: “Behold, a virgin will conceive and bring forth a child” whose name is a great mystery, whose explanation was revealed in the church. Two names were joined together and became ONE: “Emmanuel.” El is with you always, who joins you with his members. [Hymns on the nativity 25.5]
(6) St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - To sum up the matter: there are two separate elements of which the Savior is composed (the invisible is not identical with the visible or the timeless with the temporal), but there are not two separate beings; emphatically not. Both elements are blended into ONE, the Divinity taking on Humanity, the Humanity receiving Divinity. [Letter 101.5- 6, to Cledonius.]
(7) St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - He was, and He becomes. He was above time; He became subject to time. He was invisible; He becomes visible... What He was, He laid aside; what He was not, He assumed. He did not become two, but He allowed himself to become a UNITY composed of two elements. For that which assumed and that which was assumed combine into a Divine being. THE TWO NATURES COALESCE INTO A UNIT; and there are not two sons, for we must make no mistake about the commixture of the natures. [Oration 37.2.2]
(8) St. Basil the great: - Amen Amen Amen. I believe, I believe, and confess to the last breath...that this is the life-giving Flesh that your only- begotten Son, our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, took from our Lady... He made it ONE with His Divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration. [Liturgy of St. Basil the great]
(9) St. Hilary of Poitiers: - Anyone who fails to see Christ Jesus as at once truly God and truly human is blind to his own life. . . . By the union of the two natures He is ONE ENTITY comprising both natures; but in such a way that in either capacity He lacked nothing of the other, so that He did not cease to be God by being born as man or fail to be man by remaining God. [Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]
(10) St. Hilary of Poitiers: - We have Christ working in Himself the very things which God works in Him, for it was Christ who died, stripping from Himself His flesh…it was none other who raised Christ from the dead but Christ Himself…[Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. St. Hilary's profound statement unequivocally upholds the concept of the one incarnate nature of Christ. He deliberately avoids suggesting that Christ the man died and Christ the God raised Christ the man. Instead, St. Hilary emphasizes that Christ Himself experienced death and subsequently raised Himself from the dead. With this magnificent sentence, St. Hilary firmly rejects any notion of dividing Christ's natures after their union, leaving no room for such division in his affirmation of the inseparable unity of Christ's one nature.
(11) St. Hilary of Poitiers: - The Only-begotten God chose to become man of His own will... God chose to suffer of His own will....[Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. In this context, St. Hilary did not state "Christ the man chose to suffer," but rather he proclaimed, "God chose to suffer." It is widely understood that God does not experience suffering; however, St. Hilary attributed suffering to God. Theologically, it is easier to comprehend St. Hilary's statement if we embrace the concept that, the united natures are no longer divided affirming the existence of one Son with one nature and following the union, all the actions of Christ were attributed to Him as a whole and not solely to His Divine nature or His human nature independently. In Jesus Christ, the properties of the flesh have become the properties of Divinity, and likewise, the properties of Divinity have become the properties of the flesh. Therefore, even though suffering is inherent to the flesh, St. Hilary attributed it to God because the flesh of Jesus Christ is the flesh of God the Son.
(12) St. Hilary of Poitiers states: - Since God had assumed our weakness. God chose to die of His own will….[Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. In this context as well, St. Hilary ascribes weakness and death to God. He does not state that it was Christ the man who took on our weakness and chose to die. It is important to note that God does not possess weakness, and God is immortal, devoid of death. Weakness and death are attributes that pertain to created beings. However, St. Hilary boldly declares that "God assumed our weakness and God willingly chose to experience death." Once more, from a theological perspective, it is easier to comprehend St. Hilary's statement if we embrace the concept that, the united natures are no longer divided affirming the existence of one Son with one nature and following the union, all the actions of Christ were attributed to Him as a whole and not solely to His Divine nature or His human nature independently. Thus, despite weakness and death being innate to the flesh, St. Hilary attributed these characteristics to God because the flesh of Jesus Christ is the flesh of God the Son.
(13) St. Hilary of Poitiers states: -Thus, God was born to take us into Himself, suffered to justify us, and died to avenge us…, since God died through the flesh. [the same Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. In this instance, St. Hilary did not express the notion that Christ the man was born, suffered, and died. Instead, he asserted that it was God who was born, suffered, and died. Hence, although the acts of being born, suffering, and dying are intrinsic to flesh, St. Hilary attributed them to God, recognizing that the flesh of Jesus Christ is none other than the flesh of God the Son.
The Catholic Church through these Councils (Isaw at least the other 2) also proves that she is the bride of Christ. I asked once more born again a what if. They are this Sola Scriptura yet they make use of our Dogma - The Trinity. So, why? Are their pastor incompetent to create their own explanation about how can one God be of three person? Now after seeing this, I just had the thought: What if they creat their own councils? Man, they are thousands of separated sect. Imagine how messy things would be. Pastor would create thei different versions and might not be united because they are not to begin with. All of them belong to or founded by different people. They themselves will try their best to win against the other.
Who was the father of Adam?
Adam was not born but formed by God.
i don't get one nature of dioscorus belif , is that humanity or divinity only?
if you say that he had said " divinity " copts still has holy Eucharistic bread and they believed that is a flesh .
and if one nature is " humanity " how copt still called Jesus as a Son of God and Mary as a mother of God ?.
chalcedon had been influenced by competition of bishops hierarchy internally and with emperor authority externally .
Bros underrated 💀
bros a W 🤝🤝
@@SanctusTheology keep in this content
w
God Almighty created the universe, stars, galaxies, animals and plants. Councils declared Jesus as god but did not tell which asteroid, animal or plant Jesus created??
Councils consisting of humans were deciding the nature of Jesus. What God Almighty said they were not accepting.
It is a shame that unbelievers will Not even take the time to learn that Jesus did in Fact walk this earth and Die and was Resurrected for the Salvation of the Souls
Of all people that Believe, Shows how much they Value their Souls and that of the ones the claim to Love.!AMEN
Arguing about bs and killing people over it, when they are a bunch of know-nothing pagans.
My goodness as a Coptic Orthodox Dioscorus proclaimed Divine and Man in a composite 1 nature not what Eutyches preached it was simply language issues + Dioscorus wasn’t aggressive as far as I know but still a great video
Do not be deceived brother --- In the words of Socrates, "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." The EO has shown a lack of virtue by resorting to lies, akin to the tactics of Satan. Eutychus did not proclaim the belief in the "One nature of the Word Incarnate God"; rather, it was St. Cyril who initially stated this belief, which is still held by the Miaphysites (OO). Eutyches, on the other hand, said that the human nature was absorbed and dissolved in the Divine nature as a drop of vinegar in the ocean. In this way, he denied the human nature of Christ. After being excommunicated by St. Dioscorus, Eutyches feigned repentance and acceptance of the true faith, leading St. Dioscorus to allow him to return on the condition that he would refute his heresy. Later on however, he again declared his corrupt belief and was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon held in 451 AD, and was also excommunicated by the OO. It is also important to note that Flavian was excommunicated due to his association with Nestorianism. True - Flavian faced severe mistreatment at the hands of Roman soldiers and ultimately died as a result. Similarly, after the conclusion of the Council of Chalcedon 451, St. Dioscorus faced severe physical abuse, including having his beard pulled and losing his teeth, before being sent into exile, where he eventually passed away. It is crucial to avoid engaging in slander, as you have done, and refrain from attributing the mistreatment of Flavian to St. Dioscorus. The maltreatment of those in exile was truly terrible (Flavian, St. Dioscorus...etc.,) and it is important to acknowledge that the maltreatment mentioned was carried out by Imperial Soldiers.
The following Church fathers, predating the Council of Chalcedon (451), affirmed the belief in "The One nature of the Incarnate God" It is important to note that their dogma stands in stark contrast to the Tome championed by the EO, authored by Leo. It is also worth noting that the EO holds deep reverence for all the Church Fathers mentioned below, who bear witness to the doctrine of the one incarnate nature of Christ.
(1) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Because, therefore, He is truly God and King according to nature, and because the One crucified has been called the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2:8), how could anyone hesitate to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God? Adore Him as ONE, without dividing Him into TWO after the union. [Letter 1]
(2) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - The flesh is flesh and not Godhead, even though it became the flesh of God. Similarly, the Word is God and not flesh even if He made the flesh His very own in the economy. Given that we understand this, we do no harm to that concurrence into union when we say that it took place out of two natures. After the union has occurred, however, we do NOT divide the natures from one another, nor do we sever the one and indivisible into two sons, but we say that there is One Son, and as the holy Fathers have stated, “ONE incarnate nature of the Word.” [First Letter to Succensus 6.]
(3) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Let them take account of this. When one speaks of a union, one does not signify the concurrence of a single factor but surely of two or more that are different from one another in nature. So, if we talk of a union, we confess it to be between flesh endowed with a rational soul and the Word; and those who speak of “two natures” understand it in this way. However, once we have confessed the union, the things that have been united are no longer separated from one another but are thereafter one Son; and ONE is His nature since the Word has been made flesh. [Letter to Eulogius]
(4) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Surely, it is beyond dispute that the Only-Begotten, being by nature God became man by a genuine union, in a manner beyond explanation or understanding. For as soon as this union has taken place, there is A SINGLE nature presented to our minds, The incarnate nature of the Word Himself. [Against Nestorius 2.(Preface)].
(5) St. Ephrem the Syrian: - Blessed are you, O church, in whom even Isaiah rejoices in his prophecy: “Behold, a virgin will conceive and bring forth a child” whose name is a great mystery, whose explanation was revealed in the church. Two names were joined together and became ONE: “Emmanuel.” El is with you always, who joins you with his members. [Hymns on the nativity 25.5]
(6) St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - To sum up the matter: there are two separate elements of which the Savior is composed (the invisible is not identical with the visible or the timeless with the temporal), but there are not two separate beings; emphatically not. Both elements are blended into ONE, the Divinity taking on Humanity, the Humanity receiving Divinity. [Letter 101.5- 6, to Cledonius.]
(7) St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - He was, and He becomes. He was above time; He became subject to time. He was invisible; He becomes visible... What He was, He laid aside; what He was not, He assumed. He did not become two, but He allowed himself to become a UNITY composed of two elements. For that which assumed and that which was assumed combine into a Divine being. THE TWO NATURES COALESCE INTO A UNIT; and there are not two sons, for we must make no mistake about the commixture of the natures. [Oration 37.2.2]
(8) St. Basil the great: - Amen Amen Amen. I believe, I believe, and confess to the last breath...that this is the life-giving Flesh that your only- begotten Son, our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, took from our Lady... He made it ONE with His Divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration. [Liturgy of St. Basil the great]
(9) St. Hilary of Poitiers: - Anyone who fails to see Christ Jesus as at once truly God and truly human is blind to his own life. . . . By the union of the two natures He is ONE ENTITY comprising both natures; but in such a way that in either capacity He lacked nothing of the other, so that He did not cease to be God by being born as man or fail to be man by remaining God. [Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]
(10) St. Hilary of Poitiers: - We have Christ working in Himself the very things which God works in Him, for it was Christ who died, stripping from Himself His flesh…it was none other who raised Christ from the dead but Christ Himself…[Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. St. Hilary's profound statement unequivocally upholds the concept of the one incarnate nature of Christ. He deliberately avoids suggesting that Christ the man died and Christ the God raised Christ the man. Instead, St. Hilary emphasizes that Christ Himself experienced death and subsequently raised Himself from the dead. With this magnificent sentence, St. Hilary firmly rejects any notion of dividing Christ's natures after their union, leaving no room for such division in his affirmation of the inseparable unity of Christ's one nature.
(11) St. Hilary of Poitiers: - The Only-begotten God chose to become man of His own will... God chose to suffer of His own will....[Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. In this context, St. Hilary did not state "Christ the man chose to suffer," but rather he proclaimed, "God chose to suffer." It is widely understood that God does not experience suffering; however, St. Hilary attributed suffering to God. Theologically, it is easier to comprehend St. Hilary's statement if we embrace the concept that, the united natures are no longer divided affirming the existence of one Son with one nature and following the union, all the actions of Christ were attributed to Him as a whole and not solely to His Divine nature or His human nature independently. In Jesus Christ, the properties of the flesh have become the properties of Divinity, and likewise, the properties of Divinity have become the properties of the flesh. Therefore, even though suffering is inherent to the flesh, St. Hilary attributed it to God because the flesh of Jesus Christ is the flesh of God the Son.
(12) St. Hilary of Poitiers states: - Since God had assumed our weakness. God chose to die of His own will….[Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. In this context as well, St. Hilary ascribes weakness and death to God. He does not state that it was Christ the man who took on our weakness and chose to die. It is important to note that God does not possess weakness, and God is immortal, devoid of death. Weakness and death are attributes that pertain to created beings. However, St. Hilary boldly declares that "God assumed our weakness and God willingly chose to experience death." Once more, from a theological perspective, it is easier to comprehend St. Hilary's statement if we embrace the concept that, the united natures are no longer divided affirming the existence of one Son with one nature and following the union, all the actions of Christ were attributed to Him as a whole and not solely to His Divine nature or His human nature independently. Thus, despite weakness and death being innate to the flesh, St. Hilary attributed these characteristics to God because the flesh of Jesus Christ is the flesh of God the Son.
(13) St. Hilary of Poitiers states: -Thus, God was born to take us into Himself, suffered to justify us, and died to avenge us…, since God died through the flesh. [the same Book IX of De Trinitate or On the Trinity]. In this instance, St. Hilary did not express the notion that Christ the man was born, suffered, and died. Instead, he asserted that it was God who was born, suffered, and died. Hence, although the acts of being born, suffering, and dying are intrinsic to flesh, St. Hilary attributed them to God, recognizing that the flesh of Jesus Christ is none other than the flesh of God the Son.
So basically this means all foundational beliefs of Christianity is man made and voted and decided by men rather than by God revelation.
Jesus established the church to teach doctrines that aren’t payed out in scripture. Just read acts 15.
@@SanctusTheology No non of your foundational doctrines came from him.
@@Yasiah22 Then you would have to reject scripture to believe that.
@@SanctusTheology no necessarily, Where is the original sin in the Bible?
@@Yasiah22 psalm 51:5
Completely inaccurate
Jesus did not have two natures while on earth. If we say he didn't know the day or hour of his return in his human nature only, that is a Nestorian understanding and is not correct. Rather, he was a man with the spiritual identity of the Divine Logos. He did miracles, not by his own power, but the Holy Spirit in him. To say he had two complete natures is Nestorian.
Nestorius taught that Jesus was two separate persons, Chalcedonians say two natures in one person. If you say Jesus has one nature, he logically either has a human nature or a divine nature, but clearly he has both, therefore Jesus has to have two natures. Unless you want to say he has one composite nature, but that is basically just 2 natures.
@@SanctusTheology No. I would say he had one nature, human. BUT, he had the identity of the Logos. If he had two natures intermingled, that would contradict Chalcedon (actually Chalcedon gave us a paradox). Rather Scripture shows us he was a man, who had the Holy Spirit given without measure. Still, he didn't know the day or hour of his return even then and he couldn't just pop over to his divine side and find out. He was not pretending to be a baby, he was a baby. So he had one nature.
@@Mike65809 That’s heresy because Jesus is fully man and Fully God, so you undermining the divinity of Jesus by your view. I actually argue in another video, that Jesus knew the day or hour, he just didn’t declare it. So don’t use mark 13:32. it won’t help you.
@@SanctusTheology It's not heresy. You are relying on declarations of men, and not what the Word of God actually teaches. Jesus did not know the day or hour and he was clear. If he did, why not tell the disciples? Look at what the Word actually says about him and how Chalcedon, which gave us a paradoxical description, having it both ways, is allowing for Nestorian understanding of his nature. It all sounds so intellectual but is not scriptural. Notice that he learned wisdom, he grew in favor with God, he learned obedience from what he suffered, he was tempted in all ways like us. When on trial, he said he could have asked his Father for legions of angels, not using his own power. If he had used his power, he would have glorified himself, which he couldn't do. He had to be the perfect man, totally dependent on the Father. He learned to trust his Father from coming out the womb, while on his mother's breast (see Ps. 22). I guess it depends on how you define divinity. God is God, not just because of his power, but also because of his identity. Jesus always did the works of his Father by the Father in him. Amen?
@@Mike65809 I already refuted this - th-cam.com/video/D5sUh90uHqA/w-d-xo.htmlsi=kLfsKIb6F4TdYb67