In embracing Christianity, Ethiopia acknowledged the sacrificial system prescribed in the Law of Moses, which required offerings of animals for atonement of sins, was fulfilled by the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. While dispensing with many civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant, Ethiopia retained certain precepts like dietary restrictions and circumcision, considering them integral to our spiritual heritage. *_The biblical accounts of St. Paul's interactions with Timothy and Titus illuminate varying approaches to the observance of the Old Covenant within the Christian context._* Acts 16:1-3 states, "Paul also arrived at Derbe and at Lystra… a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer... Paul wanted this man to go with him, and he took him and circumcised him..." *_Why did Paul have Timothy get circumcised?_* Because, Timothy is a Jew Christian who was of the Old Covenant, and also because Paul is cognizant of the principle that physical circumcision does not impede the deeper spiritual circumcision of the heart through faith in Christ. Hence, Paul deemed physical circumcision acceptable for Christians who used to adhere to the Old Testament laws. *_Now watch about Titus -_* Galatians 2:1-3 states, "Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also... but not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." Titus, devoid of Jewish lineage and unfamiliar with the practices of the Old Testament, *_chose not to undergo circumcision and in response to Titus's decision, Paul commended him,_* affirming the validity of his choice. *_Ethiopian OOs embodies the spirit of Timothy -_* similar to Timothy, we embraced the Old Covenant laws outlined in the Old Testament of the Bible, accepted Christ as our savior, and upheld select traditions like circumcision and dietary restrictions (abstain from consuming pork), which align harmoniously with Christianity. *_The broader Christian community embody the spirit of Titus -_* similar to Titus, you’ve the liberty to decline circumcision and dietary restrictions, and consequently, we acknowledge that partaking in pork is not deemed a transgression. Upholding the teachings of Colossians 2:16-17 which states, "so let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ", we're ok with your habit of eating pork.
@@DANtheMANofSIPAWe as Ethiopians prefer in our own cultural context to do things like get circumcised or to avoid pork but we don’t impose that to our sister OO Churches not do we impose it on converts. As the Emperor Galawdewos said to the Catholics when they questioned us on this matter, we observe these things as a matter of culture not as a religious necessity..
@@DANtheMANofSIPA It is about personal choice my friend. The Apostle St. Timothy preferred to undergo physical circumcision by the Apostle St. Paul, while St. Titus chose not to. Both were accepted by God. Similarly, we prefer to maintaining a select part of Ceremonial Laws. Dietary choices, including the consumption of pigs, pigeons, or prawns are matters of personal preference and are acceptable by God. We believe dietary restrictions are beneficial to us. But again, you observe fasting practices, right? And during your fasting, abstaining from all consumptions of meat is compulsory, correct?
@@ikengaspirit3063 What are you smoking? I did say the sacrificial system prescribed in the Law of Moses, which required offerings of animals for atonement of sins, was fulfilled by the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. So what are you talking about? Besides, Messianic Jews don't adhere to the belief in Jesus Christ as God, equal to the Father. Conversely, we've embraced Christ as our God and Savior at a time when your ancestors were engrossed in the worship of celestial entities like the sun, the moon, and the stars. As for the matter of Christian physical circumcision, you should directed your objection towards St. Paul, who oversaw the circumcision of St. Timothy.
I'm still very new to this particular theology, which I admitted many times in the video. I did this podcast in order to spark conversations and hopefully hear the Miaphysite perspective fleshed out in detail. I'm very sympathetic and open to (what I understand of) the theology. and certainly it's a huge plus that the church hasn't been coopted by idiots on the alt-right like the other so-called "apostolic" denominations (EOC, RCC, etc)
@mryan510 I stopped watching at the 11-minute mark when he misrepresented us by attributing the Eutychian heresy to Oriental Orthodoxy. This is simply incorrect. Oriental Orthodoxy firmly rejects the heresy of Eutychianism, which claims that Christ's divine nature overwhelms or diminishes His human nature. Our belief, rooted in the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria, is in Miaphysitism: the understanding that Christ has one incarnate nature that is fully divine and fully human after the union. As St. Cyril explains, this incarnate nature is 'without confusion, change, division, or separation.' We affirm that Christ is one Son, fully God and fully man, as stated in his First Letter to Succensus: "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."
@chaseyung1037 pretty sure I prefaced the entire video by saying that I was very likely misrepresenting their theology and looked forward to corrections on where/how I was wrong.
We oriental orthodox believe in one composite fully human and fully divine nature without mixture and alteration fully man and fully Divine we do not say two nature b/c as the eastern orthodox say when Jesus walks on water that was his Divine nature when he was crucified it was his human nature, but we say when God walks on water it was his human/divine nature. As saint Cyril of Alexandria taught which in the bible Matthew 19:5 says "and said, ‘For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be ONE flesh’?" the word "ONE" in this passage is Mia in Greek. And that is the term st Cyril used And at last you butchered our position. Just adding The term "tewahedo" is Mia, just affirming they follow the miaphysite christology. There is nothing called Amharic church lol, just the Ethiopian orthodox Tewahedo church but in 2022 the church is divided into two the Tigrayan orthodox tewahedo church and ethiopian orthodox tewahedo church.
Thank you for your reply! Yes, I feared that I had inherited an inaccurate or overly simplistic understanding of Oriental Orthodoxy, so I welcome any constructive criticism of anything I got wrong in the video. If I get enough traction or interest, I may end up doing a follow up stream where I invite actual members of Oriental churches to present their position, as I have only been studying their theology for a few weeks now and there is a heck of a lot I don't know.
Well said brother. To add a few point ---- While dispensing with many civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant, Ethiopia retained certain precepts like dietary restrictions and circumcision, considering them integral to our spiritual heritage. *_The biblical accounts of St. Paul's interactions with Timothy and Titus illuminate varying approaches to the observance of the Old Covenant within the Christian context._* Acts 16:1-3 states, "Paul also arrived at Derbe and at Lystra… a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer... Paul wanted this man to go with him, and he took him and circumcised him..." *_Why did Paul have Timothy get circumcised?_* Because, Timothy is a Jew Christian who was of the Old Covenant, and also because Paul is cognizant of the principle that physical circumcision does not impede the deeper spiritual circumcision of the heart through faith in Christ. Hence, Paul deemed physical circumcision acceptable for Christians who used to adhere to the Old Testament laws. *_Now watch about Titus -_* Galatians 2:1-3 states, "Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also... but not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." Titus, devoid of Jewish lineage and unfamiliar with the practices of the Old Testament, *_chose not to undergo circumcision and in response to Titus's decision, Paul commended him,_* affirming the validity of his choice. *_Ethiopian OOs embodies the spirit of Timothy -_* similar to Timothy, we embraced the Old Covenant laws outlined in the Old Testament of the Bible, accepted Christ as our savior, and upheld select traditions like circumcision and dietary restrictions (abstain from consuming pork), which align harmoniously with Christianity. *_The broader Christian community embody the spirit of Titus -_* similar to Titus, you’ve the liberty to decline circumcision and dietary restrictions, and consequently, we acknowledge that partaking in pork is not deemed a transgression. Upholding the teachings of Colossians 2:16-17 which states, "so let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ", we're ok with your habit of eating pork.
@@BarbaPamino Actually numerous works of St. Cyril annihilates the doctrine of two nature post incarnation. Read a few below. ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - So just as everything is spoken of the One person, for *_One Nature is recognized as existing after the union namely that of the Word Incarnate._* [Second Tome against Nestorius] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - 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"_* [1st Letter to Succensus 6] ✝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] ✝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)] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Because, therefore, He is truly God and King according to nature, and because the One crucified has been called the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2:8), how could anyone hesitate to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God? *_Adore Him as one, without dividing Him into Two after the union._* [Letter 1] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - We confess that He is Son of God and God according to the Spirit, Son of Man according to the flesh, not Two Natures to that One Son, One Nature worshipped the other unworshipped, but *_One Nature of God the Word Incarnate worshipped with His flesh with One worship_* nor Two Sons, One, Very Son of God and worshipped, the other the man out of Mary not worshipped, made by grace son of God just as men too are. [St. Athanasius from his work upon the Incarnation of the Word: St. Cyril cited it in his books against Theodore] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - We, however, knowing that the Son of God is one, *_do not separate His Divinity from His humanity by His human sufferings, nor because of His Divine actions do we estrange His divinity from His humanity._* [The Sixth Discourse of the Glaphuda (Letter 101)]. Leo, venerated by the EO, proclaimed at the Council of Chalcedon, "Christ is two: God and man, the One astonished us with miracles and the other received disgrace and suffering": a Divine nature performing its functions and a human nature carrying out its role. When we compare St. Cyril's account with the perspective of Leo a contradiction emerges. ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Therefore, we say that *_the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts; but after the union, since the distinction into two is now done away with, we believe that there is one nature of the Son, since He is one Son._* [Letter 40, Response to St. Acacius of Melitene] ✝St. Ephrem the Syrian: - *_Though your nature is One, its interpretations are many. There are narratives exalted, intermediate, and lowly._* [Hymns on Faith 10:3] ✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: And, if I am to speak concisely, the Savior is made of elements (natures) which are distinct from one another, for the invisible is not the same with the visible, nor the timeless with that which is subject to time, yet He is not two Persons, God forbid! *_For both Natures are One by the combination (unity), the Divinity being made Man, and the Manhood deified or however one should express it._* [To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius. (Ep. CI.) Letter 101.5-6] ✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - He was, and He becomes. He was above time; He became subject to time. He was invisible; He becomes visible... What He was, He laid aside; what He was not, He assumed. He did not become two, but He allowed himself to become A unity (one nature) composed of two elements (natures). For that which assumed and that which was assumed combine (united) into A Divine being. *_The two natures compound (unit) into A unit (One nature); and there are not two sons, for we must make no mistake about the commixture of the natures._* [Oration 37.2.2] ✝St. Gregory of Nyssa: - *_So how could the unity be separated into a duality (two nature), since no numerical distinction can be made?_* [Letter to St. Theophilus of Alexandria] ✝St. Basil the great: - In all these cases we do not mention two, God apart and man apart for He was One, but in thought we take into account the nature of each. Peter had not two in his mind when he said, "Christ has suffered for us in the flesh." [The extant works of St. Basil - Dogmatic] ✝St. Hilary of Poitiers: - *_Thus, God was born to take us into Himself, suffered to justify us, and died to avenge us…, the Only-begotten God chose to become man of His own will... God had assumed our weakness... God chose to suffer of His own will... God chose to die of His own will…. since God died through the flesh._* [Book IX On the Trinity]. Leo (EO) expressed that Christ the man was born, assumed our weakness, suffered, and died. Even though God does not experience suffering and acts such as birth, suffering, death, and weakness are intrinsic to the flesh, St. Hilary attributed them to God, recognizing that the flesh of Jesus Christ is none other than the flesh of God within the One Incarnate Nature of The Word, emphasizing the properties of the flesh have become the properties of Divinity, and likewise, the properties of Divinity have become the properties of the flesh.
@@BarbaPaminoHave you not read my comments? I'm Ethiopian; Greek is not a necessity for me. It is not my intention to boast, but our roots precede those of the Greeks. Your comment may have been deleted? Well, it is possible that your comments are founded on deceit, falsehoods and defamatory remarks, tactics that you guys have been known to employ In the past. The EO is shaken to its core, it is your doing.
very low IQ reply. I do not expect this video to "convince" anyone nor do I intend it to. If you actually watched the video you would know that I was merely pointing out some interesting facts about Jay Dyer and the big name EO apologists and their difficulty engaging with critiques made by the OOs. As well as describing how certain aspects of these churches' history and anthropology make them less likely to be coopted by pseudo-trads in the West.
The mainstream EO church is heavily influenced by prots and Roman Catholics. To understand what life would have traditionally been like you have to look and the old calanderist Greeks and traditionalist Russian churches. Another interesting thing is that the push for sex positivity in Christianity always gets tied to justifying male sexual pleasure.
This is true. By mainstream I understand you to mean the way it is presented here in the West, which is not how Russians and Greeks traditionally behaved
I think you’re misdirected. You’ve presented a Third Worldist pastiche of faith and society. You need to remember that we were like them once. So that the changes we experienced are not inherent but exogenous. It’s elite driven and top down and always has been. This means that it most likely needs to be displaced by politics and power, not ethos and faith. And if that is the case I do not understand the shitting on anti liberal political organization in the West. Obviously western tradition is dead but it is up to us to rebuilding by preserving and amplifying what tradition remains within our denominations and learning from others who have kept their tradition. Father Turbo Quails of the Serbian Orthodox Church is a good leader in this regard.
the issue is that the "trad" movement in the west is only interested in taking us back to an older version of liberalism. The reason Ethiopia is less corrupted by liberal thinking than western OR eastern Europe is because of differential philosophical paths the two regions took at least as far back as the early modern period. The so-called "enlightenment" never occurred in Africa, perhaps uniquely among all the continents. By the time our woes DID show up there due to colonialism, they had been so defanged that even African leftist movements like the "Derg" were short lived, unstable failures that failed to do anything to shake the bedrock of traditional culture and faith of the Amharic and Tigrinya peoples. Basically, if your "trad" movement fetishizes a 1950s suburban life with postindustrial gender roles and an individualistic nuclear family, you've already lost the battle and are really no better than your ideological opponents.
You don't know nothing about Oriental Ortodox belifs. You just talking out of the blue. You have to first invite the scholars to understand the matters.
Glory to Saint Dioscorus, Glory to Saint Severus, Glory to Saint Samuel the Confessor. Pray for us!
Oriental Orthodoxy is the best☦️❤️
In embracing Christianity, Ethiopia acknowledged the sacrificial system prescribed in the Law of Moses, which required offerings of animals for atonement of sins, was fulfilled by the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. While dispensing with many civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant, Ethiopia retained certain precepts like dietary restrictions and circumcision, considering them integral to our spiritual heritage.
*_The biblical accounts of St. Paul's interactions with Timothy and Titus illuminate varying approaches to the observance of the Old Covenant within the Christian context._* Acts 16:1-3 states, "Paul also arrived at Derbe and at Lystra… a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer... Paul wanted this man to go with him, and he took him and circumcised him..." *_Why did Paul have Timothy get circumcised?_* Because, Timothy is a Jew Christian who was of the Old Covenant, and also because Paul is cognizant of the principle that physical circumcision does not impede the deeper spiritual circumcision of the heart through faith in Christ. Hence, Paul deemed physical circumcision acceptable for Christians who used to adhere to the Old Testament laws.
*_Now watch about Titus -_* Galatians 2:1-3 states, "Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also... but not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." Titus, devoid of Jewish lineage and unfamiliar with the practices of the Old Testament, *_chose not to undergo circumcision and in response to Titus's decision, Paul commended him,_* affirming the validity of his choice.
*_Ethiopian OOs embodies the spirit of Timothy -_* similar to Timothy, we embraced the Old Covenant laws outlined in the Old Testament of the Bible, accepted Christ as our savior, and upheld select traditions like circumcision and dietary restrictions (abstain from consuming pork), which align harmoniously with Christianity.
*_The broader Christian community embody the spirit of Titus -_* similar to Titus, you’ve the liberty to decline circumcision and dietary restrictions, and consequently, we acknowledge that partaking in pork is not deemed a transgression. Upholding the teachings of Colossians 2:16-17 which states, "so let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ", we're ok with your habit of eating pork.
So would you say its preferred to follow the ceremonial laws that the Ethopians do like the dietary rules but its okay for Gentile Christians not to?
@@DANtheMANofSIPAWe as Ethiopians prefer in our own cultural context to do things like get circumcised or to avoid pork but we don’t impose that to our sister OO Churches not do we impose it on converts. As the Emperor Galawdewos said to the Catholics when they questioned us on this matter, we observe these things as a matter of culture not as a religious necessity..
@@DANtheMANofSIPA It is about personal choice my friend. The Apostle St. Timothy preferred to undergo physical circumcision by the Apostle St. Paul, while St. Titus chose not to. Both were accepted by God. Similarly, we prefer to maintaining a select part of Ceremonial Laws.
Dietary choices, including the consumption of pigs, pigeons, or prawns are matters of personal preference and are acceptable by God. We believe dietary restrictions are beneficial to us. But again, you observe fasting practices, right? And during your fasting, abstaining from all consumptions of meat is compulsory, correct?
Well, they're wrong cuz Christ is the final and true sacrifice.
Y'all sound like Messiahniac Jews.
@@ikengaspirit3063 What are you smoking? I did say the sacrificial system prescribed in the Law of Moses, which required offerings of animals for atonement of sins, was fulfilled by the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. So what are you talking about?
Besides, Messianic Jews don't adhere to the belief in Jesus Christ as God, equal to the Father. Conversely, we've embraced Christ as our God and Savior at a time when your ancestors were engrossed in the worship of celestial entities like the sun, the moon, and the stars. As for the matter of Christian physical circumcision, you should directed your objection towards St. Paul, who oversaw the circumcision of St. Timothy.
Do you do open forum discussions?
I do, I might do an open panel this weekend
@@traditionalculturepreservationcool
Why did you do a podcast on Miaphysitism without knowing what it is? You made the case for Monophysitism.
I'm still very new to this particular theology, which I admitted many times in the video. I did this podcast in order to spark conversations and hopefully hear the Miaphysite perspective fleshed out in detail. I'm very sympathetic and open to (what I understand of) the theology. and certainly it's a huge plus that the church hasn't been coopted by idiots on the alt-right like the other so-called "apostolic" denominations (EOC, RCC, etc)
@mryan510
I stopped watching at the 11-minute mark when he misrepresented us by attributing the Eutychian heresy to Oriental Orthodoxy. This is simply incorrect. Oriental Orthodoxy firmly rejects the heresy of Eutychianism, which claims that Christ's divine nature overwhelms or diminishes His human nature.
Our belief, rooted in the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria, is in Miaphysitism: the understanding that Christ has one incarnate nature that is fully divine and fully human after the union. As St. Cyril explains, this incarnate nature is 'without confusion, change, division, or separation.' We affirm that Christ is one Son, fully God and fully man, as stated in his First Letter to Succensus:
"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."
@@traditionalculturepreservation if you don't know something about a topic, don't pretend to like you do.
@chaseyung1037 pretty sure I prefaced the entire video by saying that I was very likely misrepresenting their theology and looked forward to corrections on where/how I was wrong.
We oriental orthodox believe in one composite fully human and fully divine nature without mixture and alteration fully man and fully Divine we do not say two nature b/c as the eastern orthodox say when Jesus walks on water that was his Divine nature when he was crucified it was his human nature, but we say when God walks on water it was his human/divine nature.
As saint Cyril of Alexandria taught which in the bible Matthew 19:5 says "and said, ‘For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be ONE flesh’?" the word "ONE" in this passage is Mia in Greek. And that is the term st Cyril used
And at last you butchered our position.
Just adding
The term "tewahedo" is Mia, just affirming they follow the miaphysite christology. There is nothing called Amharic church lol, just the Ethiopian orthodox Tewahedo church but in 2022 the church is divided into two the Tigrayan orthodox tewahedo church and ethiopian orthodox tewahedo church.
Thank you for your reply! Yes, I feared that I had inherited an inaccurate or overly simplistic understanding of Oriental Orthodoxy, so I welcome any constructive criticism of anything I got wrong in the video. If I get enough traction or interest, I may end up doing a follow up stream where I invite actual members of Oriental churches to present their position, as I have only been studying their theology for a few weeks now and there is a heck of a lot I don't know.
Well said brother. To add a few point ---- While dispensing with many civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant, Ethiopia retained certain precepts like dietary restrictions and circumcision, considering them integral to our spiritual heritage.
*_The biblical accounts of St. Paul's interactions with Timothy and Titus illuminate varying approaches to the observance of the Old Covenant within the Christian context._* Acts 16:1-3 states, "Paul also arrived at Derbe and at Lystra… a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer... Paul wanted this man to go with him, and he took him and circumcised him..." *_Why did Paul have Timothy get circumcised?_* Because, Timothy is a Jew Christian who was of the Old Covenant, and also because Paul is cognizant of the principle that physical circumcision does not impede the deeper spiritual circumcision of the heart through faith in Christ. Hence, Paul deemed physical circumcision acceptable for Christians who used to adhere to the Old Testament laws.
*_Now watch about Titus -_* Galatians 2:1-3 states, "Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also... but not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." Titus, devoid of Jewish lineage and unfamiliar with the practices of the Old Testament, *_chose not to undergo circumcision and in response to Titus's decision, Paul commended him,_* affirming the validity of his choice.
*_Ethiopian OOs embodies the spirit of Timothy -_* similar to Timothy, we embraced the Old Covenant laws outlined in the Old Testament of the Bible, accepted Christ as our savior, and upheld select traditions like circumcision and dietary restrictions (abstain from consuming pork), which align harmoniously with Christianity.
*_The broader Christian community embody the spirit of Titus -_* similar to Titus, you’ve the liberty to decline circumcision and dietary restrictions, and consequently, we acknowledge that partaking in pork is not deemed a transgression. Upholding the teachings of Colossians 2:16-17 which states, "so let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ", we're ok with your habit of eating pork.
@@BarbaPamino Actually numerous works of St. Cyril annihilates the doctrine of two nature post incarnation. Read a few below.
✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - So just as everything is spoken of the One person, for *_One Nature is recognized as existing after the union namely that of the Word Incarnate._* [Second Tome against Nestorius]
✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - 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"_* [1st Letter to Succensus 6]
✝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]
✝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)]
✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Because, therefore, He is truly God and King according to nature, and because the One crucified has been called the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2:8), how could anyone hesitate to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God? *_Adore Him as one, without dividing Him into Two after the union._* [Letter 1]
✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - We confess that He is Son of God and God according to the Spirit, Son of Man according to the flesh, not Two Natures to that One Son, One Nature worshipped the other unworshipped, but *_One Nature of God the Word Incarnate worshipped with His flesh with One worship_* nor Two Sons, One, Very Son of God and worshipped, the other the man out of Mary not worshipped, made by grace son of God just as men too are. [St. Athanasius from his work upon the Incarnation of the Word: St. Cyril cited it in his books against Theodore]
✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - We, however, knowing that the Son of God is one, *_do not separate His Divinity from His humanity by His human sufferings, nor because of His Divine actions do we estrange His divinity from His humanity._* [The Sixth Discourse of the Glaphuda (Letter 101)]. Leo, venerated by the EO, proclaimed at the Council of Chalcedon, "Christ is two: God and man, the One astonished us with miracles and the other received disgrace and suffering": a Divine nature performing its functions and a human nature carrying out its role. When we compare St. Cyril's account with the perspective of Leo a contradiction emerges.
✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Therefore, we say that *_the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts; but after the union, since the distinction into two is now done away with, we believe that there is one nature of the Son, since He is one Son._* [Letter 40, Response to St. Acacius of Melitene]
✝St. Ephrem the Syrian: - *_Though your nature is One, its interpretations are many. There are narratives exalted, intermediate, and lowly._* [Hymns on Faith 10:3]
✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: And, if I am to speak concisely, the Savior is made of elements (natures) which are distinct from one another, for the invisible is not the same with the visible, nor the timeless with that which is subject to time, yet He is not two Persons, God forbid! *_For both Natures are One by the combination (unity), the Divinity being made Man, and the Manhood deified or however one should express it._* [To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius. (Ep. CI.) Letter 101.5-6]
✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - He was, and He becomes. He was above time; He became subject to time. He was invisible; He becomes visible... What He was, He laid aside; what He was not, He assumed. He did not become two, but He allowed himself to become A unity (one nature) composed of two elements (natures). For that which assumed and that which was assumed combine (united) into A Divine being. *_The two natures compound (unit) into A unit (One nature); and there are not two sons, for we must make no mistake about the commixture of the natures._* [Oration 37.2.2]
✝St. Gregory of Nyssa: - *_So how could the unity be separated into a duality (two nature), since no numerical distinction can be made?_* [Letter to St. Theophilus of Alexandria]
✝St. Basil the great: - In all these cases we do not mention two, God apart and man apart for He was One, but in thought we take into account the nature of each. Peter had not two in his mind when he said, "Christ has suffered for us in the flesh." [The extant works of St. Basil - Dogmatic]
✝St. Hilary of Poitiers: - *_Thus, God was born to take us into Himself, suffered to justify us, and died to avenge us…, the Only-begotten God chose to become man of His own will... God had assumed our weakness... God chose to suffer of His own will... God chose to die of His own will…. since God died through the flesh._* [Book IX On the Trinity]. Leo (EO) expressed that Christ the man was born, assumed our weakness, suffered, and died. Even though God does not experience suffering and acts such as birth, suffering, death, and weakness are intrinsic to the flesh, St. Hilary attributed them to God, recognizing that the flesh of Jesus Christ is none other than the flesh of God within the One Incarnate Nature of The Word, emphasizing the properties of the flesh have become the properties of Divinity, and likewise, the properties of Divinity have become the properties of the flesh.
@@BarbaPamino So? Excuse excuse excuse.
@@BarbaPaminoHave you not read my comments? I'm Ethiopian; Greek is not a necessity for me. It is not my intention to boast, but our roots precede those of the Greeks. Your comment may have been deleted? Well, it is possible that your comments are founded on deceit, falsehoods and defamatory remarks, tactics that you guys have been known to employ In the past. The EO is shaken to its core, it is your doing.
❤❤
Jay became Coptic after this video. 😏
very low IQ reply. I do not expect this video to "convince" anyone nor do I intend it to. If you actually watched the video you would know that I was merely pointing out some interesting facts about Jay Dyer and the big name EO apologists and their difficulty engaging with critiques made by the OOs. As well as describing how certain aspects of these churches' history and anthropology make them less likely to be coopted by pseudo-trads in the West.
@29:18 WoW! haha
The mainstream EO church is heavily influenced by prots and Roman Catholics. To understand what life would have traditionally been like you have to look and the old calanderist Greeks and traditionalist Russian churches. Another interesting thing is that the push for sex positivity in Christianity always gets tied to justifying male sexual pleasure.
This is true. By mainstream I understand you to mean the way it is presented here in the West, which is not how Russians and Greeks traditionally behaved
I think you’re misdirected. You’ve presented a Third Worldist pastiche of faith and society. You need to remember that we were like them once. So that the changes we experienced are not inherent but exogenous. It’s elite driven and top down and always has been. This means that it most likely needs to be displaced by politics and power, not ethos and faith. And if that is the case I do not understand the shitting on anti liberal political organization in the West.
Obviously western tradition is dead but it is up to us to rebuilding by preserving and amplifying what tradition remains within our denominations and learning from others who have kept their tradition.
Father Turbo Quails of the Serbian Orthodox Church is a good leader in this regard.
the issue is that the "trad" movement in the west is only interested in taking us back to an older version of liberalism. The reason Ethiopia is less corrupted by liberal thinking than western OR eastern Europe is because of differential philosophical paths the two regions took at least as far back as the early modern period. The so-called "enlightenment" never occurred in Africa, perhaps uniquely among all the continents. By the time our woes DID show up there due to colonialism, they had been so defanged that even African leftist movements like the "Derg" were short lived, unstable failures that failed to do anything to shake the bedrock of traditional culture and faith of the Amharic and Tigrinya peoples.
Basically, if your "trad" movement fetishizes a 1950s suburban life with postindustrial gender roles and an individualistic nuclear family, you've already lost the battle and are really no better than your ideological opponents.
The changes are inherent actually. Westerners are restless and inerently "progressives". Your elites reflect your culture
@15:57, is this on purpose, dude? They believe in full humanity..
You don't know nothing about Oriental Ortodox belifs. You just talking out of the blue. You have to first invite the scholars to understand the matters.
St. Flavian and St Leo the Great pray for us
What in the Ohio