Kristologi (del 1): Miaphysitism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- I dagens live avsnitt som är den första av tre så kommer vi tala om hur de orientaliska kyrkorna (Icke-Kalcedonier) ser på kristologin. Vi går även igenom dom olika begreppen och vad de betyder.
Vad fint namn (Abona) 😍
Välsignad högtid och åminnelse av Saint Dioscorus
Konverterar folk i sverige till oriental ortodoxi?
Kristi frid vare med dig!
Yes, det gör dem🙂
Ni måste en gång för alla förstå skillnaden mellan natur och person, för att förstå Dyophysitism, den Orthodoxa positionen, istället för att skapa en tredje kategori som "komposit"/"miaphysisitisk" natur som ingen annan än Kristus enligt er, har. Detta går direkt emot konceptet om Theosis. I personen Kristus finner vi två olika naturer, mänsklig och Gudomlig, därför kan vi kalla Heliga Maria för Guds moder, för hon födde en person, Kristus, och är källan till hans mänskliga natur. Vilken är källan för denna tredje "komposita" natur?
On the contrary, if we don’t have the ineffability of the one composite nature of God the Word Incarnate, theosis is impossible. If he did not make His divine nature one with His human nature, my human nature is not rehabilitated in Him. If He did not make His divine nature one with His human nature, I cannot partake of the divine nature. The Orthodox position is miaphysitism as expressed at the council of Ephesus I, and in St. Cyril’s writings such as his letters to Succensus I and II, Acacius, Eulogious, Valerian, and his book, That Christ is One. It is not a third new nature. It is one composite nature without mingling confusion alteration or division. Actually, if you argue that one composite nature creates a new nature with either the humanity or divinity changed or diminished, St. Cyril states specifically to your very argument that you “are speaking rubbish” in his second letter to Succensus. Go read them for the sake of your salvation.
@@MinaDKSBMSB That is simply false to say, as well as quite absurd. I take it you're not really familiar with the Chalcedonian definition and the reasoning behind Dyophysitism together with Dyothelitism. The two natures of Christ, his divine and his human nature are united in the Person of Christ, without mixing, confusion, affecting each other, but exist as two distinct and different natuers and wills in one Hypostasis and Person of Christ. They weren't joined in to one nature in order to give rise to a third option(Again, who does he share this nature with, who is it from?), wich was my original objection. That, is the Orthodox position, that we can be redeemed and deified in and through Christ, as he is both fully and perfectly God as well as fully and perfectly human.
Another problem is quoting st Cyril of Alexandria to support your miaphysitism, as I would strongly disagree with him being a miaphysite, rather than a dyophisite. Here is a great book concerning that topic that does a deep study on st Cyrils use of the different terms and most importantly their subsequent meaning and interpretation:
www.scribd.com/doc/250751188/VigChr-Supp-096-Hans-Van-Loon-The-Dyophysite-Christology-of-Cyril-of-Alexandria-2009
The argument of st Cyril that you quote, only makes sense if you understand that he, at times, uses hypostasis and nature/physis interchangably. To say that the two nature joined to one nature(a composite nature), despite claiming they didn't mix, without confusion, etc. you still have the problem that this results in a nature that is unlike any other, wich is why I talked about the third nature, or third option. Now this, is truly a problem in regards to Theosis.
For Christ to truly share our full humanity he must have become fully human, having a human soul, a human will and human flesh, albeit perfect and sinless in every aspect. At the same time, for us to be able to deify, he must retain his Divinity fully, being Perfect God from Perfect God(God the Father), who again, he receives his divinity from. This can only be achieved by Him taking on full humanity in the Person of Christ, ie. dyophysitism and dyothelitism. This is the mystery of the Hypostatic Union, so I don't know how you can deny it's ineffability if you can clearly see it in miaphysitism. I once again pointed to the source of Christ's each nature, God the Father for his Divine nature and The Holy Theotokos Mary for his Human and created nature, what is the source for the third option wich you hold on to?
Also, I have to say, this last sentence stating "Go read them for the sake of your salvation" I have to say I find very strange and arrogant,downright awful, as if you imply that the other side somehow has steered into such heresy that they ultimately are denying themselves salvation. If perfection, both theological and moral, is what is truly required to be saved, I don't think just about anyone could be. Though I strongly disagree with your position, I certainly don't hope for you to be damned and judged because of it, as I believe at the end of the day the heart is what will be judged and is the one supposed to lead you to truth. If anything, us having the full truth only means we can be judged more strictly and harshly, and rightly so.
*Edit: Spelling
@@uroszivkovic9988 in your position, you believe the Word performs miracles but the man accepts insults and injury correct? This is taken directly from the Tome of Leo. You also believe in the Orthodoxy of Theodoret of Cyrus correct? He is the one who opposed St. Cyril at every corner and stated "Christ did not suffer. The man assumed of us by God suffered." His so-called confession at Chalcedon was to state "I have always been Orthodox and my fathers were always Orthodox." His fathers were Diodore and Theodore, the fathers of Nestorianism. If you see that the Word did not suffer in the flesh,, did not accept insult and injury, did not perform miracles as one composite nature, then you still believe in a great chasm between God and man, and you stumble at the crucifixion of the Lord of Glory. Theosis is impossible with this broken framework of salvation. Add to this that you held the letter of Ibas to be Orthodox which stated St. Cyril repented, that Theodore of Mopsuesta was Orthodox, and that Ibas did not envy Christ because he can become God just as much as he. In what world would the Holy Spirit accept these contradictions, changes, and lies? Chalcedon stated that Christ is "in two" natures and this directly violated the 12 anathemas of St. Cyril, especially anathema 3. To state that St. Cyril interchanged hypostasis and person, is utter ignorance to put it bluntly. You would believe in a union of persons in anathema 3 of St. Cyril, and thus, you'd be accusing the holy fathers of Ephesus I of Nestorianism. Do you believe in a union of persons? What united in the hypostatic union? Anathema 3 states it is a union according to nature. God forbid it would heretically say a union of persons, as your position seems to believe given your words and definitions in your comment. Finally, I indeed seek your salvation because I do not accept the heresy of religious pluralism. There was only one ark of Noah, as there is only one Church. I am no one to sit on the judgment seat of our Lord. But I will point to the place where our salvation is, as this is my duty to you.
Hej, detta var den första avsnittet av tre. Vi har presenterat vår syn på kristologi och förklarat begreppen. Du får gärna titta om avsnittet men också följa oss för att se vidare på nästkommande avsnitt som kommer behandla "det historiska". Kanalen och avsnitten är till för att lära de orientaliska kyrkomedlemmarna om vad kyrkans kristologiska lära, avsnitten är inte för debatt. Välkommen att följa och lyssna. Guds frid.
Kristi frid vare med dig!
Vi kommer att gå igenom denna invändning i sista avsnittet, genom Kristi nåd. För kort svar: Jag skulle säga att det är den Kalcedoniska kyrkan som inte kan särskilja på begreppen Hypostasis från Person, och Väsen från Natur. Mer om detta kommer som sagt senare i avsnitten.