Syro-Malabar Syrian Catholic Church in Keralam, India is an Eastern Church which shares the same liturgy of the Assyrian Church of the East and have so much in common.. as they date backs to the same Ancient Chaldean Church. Syro-Malabar Church uses the Qudhasha (Anaphora) of Mar Mari & Mar Addai, Mar Theodore and Mar Nestorius alternatively in accordance with the Liturgical seasons... Liked ur presentation as well.. Edit: When I said Ancient Chaldean Church, I just referred to the place and not any other later formed Church.. I mentioned the Church of the East/ Assyrian Church of the East herself as the mother Church.
@abimukesha8229 The expansion of The Church of The East in India as the tradition mentions Saint Thomas the Apostle preaching there as he left the land of the Assyrians will ofcourse have the same Anaphora, Liturgy and traditions even the language which is East Assyrian (East Syriac) and that is where the word Catholic came from because The Church of The East at its most glorious times of preaching had many peoples and ethnicities, the word Catholic which is Greek for Universal is Qatholiquee in Assyrian. As for what you mentioned as Ancient Chaldean Church, I apologize but that is not true because the Chaldean Church was established in 1551 as a Bishop name Youhanna Sulaqa left The Church of The East as he wanted to become a Patriarch and when that did not take place, he went and joined the Roman Church thus was born the Chaldean Church which in reality its members were all East Assyrians and that is why its liturgical language is still East Syriac even though over 500 years of separation changed its liturgy to mostly Arabic and today's Patriarch has messed up a lot of the traditions in his attempt to drive the church further away from its Eastern roots and further spread the schism among the same people, so there is no such a thing as an Ancient Chaldean Church. The is only the Ancient Church of The East (old calendar) which is incorrectly referred to as Nestorian and The Assyrian Church of The East (new calendar) which many faithful in India are part of. I sincerely hope that all the branches of The Church of The East can reunite except that the Chaldean Church is under Rome's jurisdiction and it does not have its independent opinion. The Church of The East was established in the first century A.D. Urhai (Greek Edessa) at the hands of Mar Addai (Thaddaeus), Mar Mari and in the lands of the Assyrians by Saint Thomas the Apostle and Mar Aggai. Its faithful have suffered and are still suffering from both Christians and non-Christians and this glorious church suffered injustice and persection for refusing to leave its Orthodox faith.
I’m from the Assyrian Church of East and it’s nice to see a video not bashing us as heretics for once .. We have been ostracised from the orthodox community over a centuries old falsehood. We believe Jesus is 100% God and 100% man from birth. No church has shed more blood than our church of martyrs show some Respect .
It is good to see this presented this way. The Church of the East has long been mischaracterized by the western churches. btw, the Church of the East did not leave, they were left by the Roman/Byzantine churches. They were excluded at a council they had not been invited to ...
Don’t be discouraged by the negative comments on AI voice. It takes hours to put together this 20 minute video. Using AI voice reduces your workload, it didn’t mar my enjoyment and enlightenment. Thanks so much!
Thanks Timothy for your kind words :). For me, the most important thing is to write a compelling script while ensuring factuality, the voice is secondary to me and as you mentioned the use of AI voice did save me a lot of time. That said, I might consider a hybrid option in the future since I believe the appeal of using the own voice is the sense of authenticity it projects to the audience.
This is one of the rarest times that I watch a video about The Church of The East which presents it properly for its place in Eastern Christianity and not in a distorted image. Looking forward to other parts which will hopefully shed more light on the accomplishment of The Church of The East which is truly The Church of Martyrs. One of the most important points to mention is that The Church of The East was not established following the teachings of Archbishop Nestorius because The Church of The East was established in the first century A.D. and Archbishop Nestorius lived in the 04th century A.D. but this title which was the result of Cyril's influence lead to the persecution of this Church until this day due to the false accusations.
While I’m not a member of the Assyrian church of the east I do respect the church for their contributions to spread of the gospels in Central Asia and east Asia while they may have a have faded from these places eventually others picked up their work centuries later so for that they must always be praised. Also for their dedication to the faith in face of persecution in Iraq and Syria is a true embodiment of the best of the faith. Plus Aramaic/Syriac is so cool
It is high time people got over the philosophical divisions left to us by Ephesus and Chalcedon. Jesus taught the gospel NOT philosophy. God bless all Christians especially those from the Middle East. Thank you beloved brethren for keeling the light if Jesus!
In my opinion, the Nestorian doctrine sounds reasonable while the Alexandrian / western doctrine sounds more philosophical than reasonable.The west needed a goddess - Mary and a mysterious god on earth through whom men could petition to God. Christianity in Kerala, India , was founded by St . Thomas, but we in Kerala don't know what St. Thomas taught about Jesus's teachings. The Kerala Church was Nestorian until the 15 th century. The Portuguese Archbishop Menezes changed the traditional faith to Vaticanish.
Hi james, thanks for your comment. At the time of Portuguese intervention, there was already a schism in the church of the east in mesopotamia, where a significant portions of the CotE returned to full communion with the Catholic church (thus formed the Chaldean Catholic Church). This set a precedent for the Indian churches to follow suit.
Wonderful video on this very important First of Four Tearing apart Seamless Robe of Christ in 451 and 1054 and 1517 and Vatican II However may I suggest you should have begun showing current successors of each breakaway Church ? So many now have Websites such as Nestorian Mar Awa III who gave Christmas Address video with a Tree showing no Star see Church of Saint Maryam at Urmia Azerbaijan /Iran The Magi Church or Crib showing Madonna and Child Mar Emmanuel has many videos on TH-cam
Good except you need to stop using that voice - I assume it is an computer voice that is narrating. Whatever it is, there are several very distracting mis-pronunciations of proper nouns. It gives the impression the speaker does not know what he is talking about.
The assumption is made that St. Cyril was wrong in calling out Nestorius' doctrines as heretical. I wouldn't be hasty in making that judgement. And if you read his letter to Nestorius, he was quite gentle, unlike the bad guy this video makes him out to be.
Hi Philip thanks for your comment. I don't hold any assumption about St Cyril, he is after all venerated as a saint. My video merely points out that Cyril was the main driver behind Nestorius's anathema at the council of Ephesus due to their dispute of the term of Theotokos.
Hi :). Nestorius's teaching was anathematized (condemned) in the council of Ephesus but whether he was personally excommunicated (in the Catholic sense of the word) remains uncertain. This video is not about refuting the decisions of the ecumenical councils (being a chalcedonian myself) but to tell the story of how the church of the east began.
What Will That Kingdom Be Like? Although this kingdom was the central theme of Jesus' life he did not originate the idea. The concept of this kingdom permeated Old Testament prophecy. The prophets foresaw a kingdom of health, with harmony between man and his fellow. They foresaw a kingdom of peace, with total economic security. Isaiah spoke of all these promises: They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain (11:6-9); they shall beat their swords into plowshares (2:4); mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands (65:21, 22). The prophets foresaw a kingdom with harmony between man and animal; natural enemies of the earth will dwell together in complete peace and harmony; and formerly harmful creatures will no longer be hurtful or dangerous. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea (Isa 11:6-9). They foresaw a kingdom of peace with harmony amongst men and no more war: And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more (Isa 2:4). They foresaw a kingdom of total economic security; mankind will reap the rewards of their labor and live in security without fear of loss: they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.... mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands (Isa 65:21-22). The New Testament apostles foresaw a kingdom in which even death would be done away; there shall be no more death (Rev 21:4). And the best part is that these were not idle dreams. They were not wishful thinking. They spoke of living verities for one simple reason-they knew what they were talking about for they had been witnesses. The Apostle Peter said: For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto you do well that you take heed (2Pet 1:16-19). And the Apostle Paul, when speaking of himself, wrote: I knew a man in Christ...caught up to the third heaven (2Cor 12:2). In the next verse he calls this third heaven paradise. These Biblical writers could speak with such authority, with such sureness, for one simple reason; and to most of their kingdom prophecies the reason for their positiveness is appended: For the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken it! Who Will That Kingdom Be For? It will be for the righteous (Mat 13:43)! That kingdom will be for the Christian (Acts 16:31)! The kingdom will be for the Jew (Ezek 16:55)! The kingdom will be for the pagan of Sodom and Gomorrah (Mat 10:15)! The kingdom will be for the heathen of Tyre and Sidon (Mat 11:22)! In fact the kingdom will be for ALL people! "Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment" (John 5:28-29 RSV). ALL who are in their tombs will be raised to life-the Jew and the Arab; the Christian and the Atheist; the Catholic and the Protestant; the saint and the sinner; the priest and the master of voodoo-ALL! But that seems impossible! The Bible clearly says: "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Yes! One must be a Christian to be saved. One must believe in Christ to live forever in that kingdom. Yet the Bible just as clearly states that the men of Sodom and of Gomorrah, of Tyre and of Sidon, will be there. Can both be true? Yes! Both are true because both are in the Bible. And the Bible is true! The harmony between these seemingly conflicting concepts is in a simple statement of the will of God concerning man by the Apostle Paul: "God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (1Tim 2:3-6)
8:50 How can you make the claim that he was misrepresented? We have the letters of Cyril, sayings of Nestorius, minutes of Ephesus, writings of Nestorius’ teachers Diodore and Theodore, writings of contemporary diophysites to Nestorius including Theodoret, Ibas, and Andreas, etc. This all started because Nestorius supported clergy in his church who literally anathematized those who declared Mary ti be the Mother of God. Nestorius propagated writings that went throughout the empire confusing people, most notably the monks in Egypt under Cyril’s diocese. Cyril had to have this dogmatic error from Nestorius corrected, as it is an insult to the economy of salvation to not recognize who Christ is correctly (that He is God the Word incarnate). The letters between Nestorius and Cyril consist of Cyril treating Nestorius with respect, giving him his honorary titles, calling him brother. The responses from Nestorius still exist and show us someone who was abrasive, exuded pride, and had no care for Cyril or the points he made. Continue on to the writings of the person who defended Nestorius the most, Theodoret of Cyrus, and you see the full blown error of diophysitism. Theodoret with all boldness against Cyril’s twelfth anathema states “Therefore God did not suffer. The man assume of us by God suffered.” This statement is the epitome of the Nestorian error. With all due respect, Nestorius was not misrepresented at all.
I don't remember the full argument, but it seems that the crux of their argument has to do with a confusion between Syriac and Greek, and Nestorius was using a word meaning to emphasize natures that was vaguer and translated as persons in Greek (it starts with a "q", I don't know exactly what it is). At least that's the argument I read. I'm not sure how true it is.
@samueljennings4809 Nestorius and Cyril both spoke in Greek. It's not only about words with Nestorius. It was the phrases as well. Stating that Christ did not suffer the man did, I can't call a 3 month old God, theotokos isn't a proper name for Mary, etc. These have major soteriological implications.
Hi motieyecare, thanks for your comment :). 1. "full blown error of diophysitism (dyophysitism)" Actually dyophysitism is the official position of all the chalcedonian churches, including catholic, orthodox, protestantism and (of course) church of the east. So I"m not entirely sure about the reason you mentioned dyphysitism as error. 2. Almost all of Nestorius’s recorded words survive only in the quotations of his chief rival, Cyril of Alexandria, because Nestorius’s original writings were destroyed by his enemies after his death. The book that I referenced extensively for this video (amzn.to/4iUXQ1t) recorded a much more detailed history about the theological (and political) feuds between Cyril and Nestorius, you may check this out. 3. Many of the theological disagreements at the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon are now viewed as misunderstandings stemming from nuanced Greek terminology. In recent times, there has been growing reconciliation between the Miaphysite Church, the Church of the East, and the Chalcedonian churches (primarily Catholic), which I believe is a very positive development.
@ correct. Diophysitism is the view of Nestorius held at Ephesus that was dogmatized at Chalcedon. I am of the church that holds to miaphysitism held by Ephesus and St. Cyril. Although I am naturally biased to support St. Cyril, after reading the various documents surrounding Ephesus, including those written by persons other than St. Cyril, this narrative that Nestorius was misrepresented seems like a cop out for people who adhered to Chalcedonianism who realize that it does not differ from Nestorianism. For example, Theodotus of Ancyra and Acacius of Miletene both came as friends to Nestorius to the council of Ephesus. After hearing Nestorius defend his views and make blasphemous statements, both of these realized the error of Nestorius and proceeded to condemn him. The writings of Theodoret and Andreas, who defended the Nestorian position for John of Antioch, are still available for us to see along with St. Cyril’s responses. Anyone alive today who believes in the great salvation that Christ gave us will quickly see the errors of Theodoret, Andreas, and Nestorius, and will see the great effort Cyril put into correcting their errors, looking at the Scriptures and prior patristic exegesis, and obtaining consensus of understanding from the other sees of Christendom. The error of Nestorius is clear to those who actually pick up and read the available documents, whether written by Cyril or not. But alas, nowadays people get their theology from a 5 minute video that references one book that seems authoritative.
I don't disagree, the Nicene Creed was primarily a response to the Alexandrian controversy, with the Alexandrian bishop playing a leading role. However, my main point is that the Council of Nicaea was the last significant ecumenical council where all bishops across the Christendom reached universal consensus on its formulation.
you are incorrect. the pope always held the presidency. hosius was the personal apostolic roman legate of the the bishop of rome, and president of the ecumenical council of nicea. no ecumenical council is valid without the final confirmation of the bishop of rome.
@@flaneur-of-time lol. don't get you history from youtubers or memes. constantine called for the council and bankrolled it and was the financier to get the council convened. his name was attached to it because it was convened under his auspices but he had no part in the debates nor its confirmation. ecumenical councils have and always will be under the final confirmation of the bishop of rome. constantinople was initially convened as a synod or provincial council until it was elevated as an ecumenical council by the bishop of rome.
Please do inform me where you get your source from, all my readings point towards emperor Constantine as the one presided over the Nicene meeting at least for the opening session. As an unbaptized, Constantine obviously didn't play a leading role in the formulation of the Nicene Creed, but neither did the Roman bishop of the time. Just a quick search could confirm what I said, here is a Britannica link: www.britannica.com/event/First-Council-of-Nicaea-325 Excerpt:First Council of Nicaea, (325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey). It was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. He hoped a general council of the church would solve the problem created in the Eastern church by Arianism, a heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being. Pope Sylvester I did not attend the council but was represented by legates
Nestorius divided Christ into two hypostasies: it's heresy. The ACOE believes Christ owes the fact of being "a man" to a distinct human subsistence apart from the Word. They have associated a fourth person with the Trinity who would be resurrected alongside Christ.
Yes dividing Christ into two hypostases (persons) is indeed a heresy to us Chalcedonian, but I think that's not the official position of the church of the east. They did talk about a kind of distinction between the divine and human natures of Christ but not to the extent of dividing Him into two separate hypostases. Just to illustrate a bit more, saying that Christ has only one nature (monophysitism) is a heresy, but saying that Christ has two different aspects, one divine and one human, that are united in one nature (miaphysitism)? probably not as per the latest development in reconciliation ...web.archive.org/web/20200214123730/www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19730510_copti_en.html
@flaneur-of-time The ACOE does believe Christ is two hypostasies they venerate Nestorius and follow his teachings. When they say two natures they also mean two hypostasies. They do not agree with Chalcedonian position.
we don't believe that the human nature has a distinct human subsistence, we profess two hypostases (qnomē) because anything that exists in reality is a hypostasis (qnomā), as opposed to abstracts (secondary substances; kyānā/kyānē).
@juicyshawarma I don't accept Chalcedon either, my church has a different opinion. Natures are a commonality between hypostases so a natures cannot exist in abstract distinct to a hypostasis. Rather. According to incarnation it was not of generalities, by hypostasis which Jesus is composed. There is one nature out of two. If we numerate two after the union, Jesus is then divided into a duality. Jesus is one primary substance.
Syro-Malabar Syrian Catholic Church in Keralam, India is an Eastern Church which shares the same liturgy of the Assyrian Church of the East and have so much in common.. as they date backs to the same Ancient Chaldean Church.
Syro-Malabar Church uses the Qudhasha (Anaphora) of Mar Mari & Mar Addai, Mar Theodore and Mar Nestorius alternatively in accordance with the Liturgical seasons...
Liked ur presentation as well..
Edit: When I said Ancient Chaldean Church, I just referred to the place and not any other later formed Church.. I mentioned the Church of the East/ Assyrian Church of the East herself as the mother Church.
@abimukesha8229
The expansion of The Church of The East in India as the tradition mentions Saint Thomas the Apostle preaching there as he left the land of the Assyrians will ofcourse have the same Anaphora, Liturgy and traditions even the language which is East Assyrian (East Syriac) and that is where the word Catholic came from because The Church of The East at its most glorious times of preaching had many peoples and ethnicities, the word Catholic which is Greek for Universal is Qatholiquee in Assyrian. As for what you mentioned as Ancient Chaldean Church, I apologize but that is not true because the Chaldean Church was established in 1551 as a Bishop name Youhanna Sulaqa left The Church of The East as he wanted to become a Patriarch and when that did not take place, he went and joined the Roman Church thus was born the Chaldean Church which in reality its members were all East Assyrians and that is why its liturgical language is still East Syriac even though over 500 years of separation changed its liturgy to mostly Arabic and today's Patriarch has messed up a lot of the traditions in his attempt to drive the church further away from its Eastern roots and further spread the schism among the same people, so there is no such a thing as an Ancient Chaldean Church. The is only the Ancient Church of The East (old calendar) which is incorrectly referred to as Nestorian and The Assyrian Church of The East (new calendar) which many faithful in India are part of. I sincerely hope that all the branches of The Church of The East can reunite except that the Chaldean Church is under Rome's jurisdiction and it does not have its independent opinion.
The Church of The East was established in the first century A.D. Urhai (Greek Edessa) at the hands of Mar Addai (Thaddaeus), Mar Mari and in the lands of the Assyrians by Saint Thomas the Apostle and Mar Aggai. Its faithful have suffered and are still suffering from both Christians and non-Christians and this glorious church suffered injustice and persection for refusing to leave its Orthodox faith.
I’m from the Assyrian Church of East and it’s nice to see a video not bashing us as heretics for once .. We have been ostracised from the orthodox community over a centuries old falsehood. We believe Jesus is 100% God and 100% man from birth. No church has shed more blood than our church of martyrs show some
Respect .
Assyrian Christian from the church of the east here. Great video.
Hi. Nice to know you:)
@@flaneur-of-time are you Assyrian and a member of the church
And this is why it is so important to listen to what others are saying, not what you think they are saying.
It is good to see this presented this way. The Church of the East has long been mischaracterized by the western churches. btw, the Church of the East did not leave, they were left by the Roman/Byzantine churches. They were excluded at a council they had not been invited to ...
Don’t be discouraged by the negative comments on AI voice. It takes hours to put together this 20 minute video. Using AI voice reduces your workload, it didn’t mar my enjoyment and enlightenment. Thanks so much!
Thanks Timothy for your kind words :). For me, the most important thing is to write a compelling script while ensuring factuality, the voice is secondary to me and as you mentioned the use of AI voice did save me a lot of time. That said, I might consider a hybrid option in the future since I believe the appeal of using the own voice is the sense of authenticity it projects to the audience.
In the 12 Hundreds this was the largest branch of Christianity. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. Christianity is very universal.
Christianity is indeed missionary because of the great commission the church received since the beginning.
Our Lady, Mother of God, pray for us.
Important topic
Yes indeed, but it's also an intricate topic that needs to be treated carefull.
This is one of the rarest times that I watch a video about The Church of The East which presents it properly for its place in Eastern Christianity and not in a distorted image. Looking forward to other parts which will hopefully shed more light on the accomplishment of The Church of The East which is truly The Church of Martyrs. One of the most important points to mention is that The Church of The East was not established following the teachings of Archbishop Nestorius because The Church of The East was established in the first century A.D. and Archbishop Nestorius lived in the 04th century A.D. but this title which was the result of Cyril's influence lead to the persecution of this Church until this day due to the false accusations.
Thanks, the next video on the CotE won't be that soon though, as there are still a lot of reading and research to cover this topic.:).
While I’m not a member of the Assyrian church of the east I do respect the church for their contributions to spread of the gospels in Central Asia and east Asia while they may have a have faded from these places eventually others picked up their work centuries later so for that they must always be praised. Also for their dedication to the faith in face of persecution in Iraq and Syria is a true embodiment of the best of the faith. Plus Aramaic/Syriac is so cool
Thanks for your ecumenical spirit🕊, yes Syriac is cool
It is high time people got over the philosophical divisions left to us by Ephesus and Chalcedon. Jesus taught the gospel NOT philosophy. God bless all Christians especially those from the Middle East. Thank you beloved brethren for keeling the light if Jesus!
I agree. This video is just to tell a story of how the church of the east began.
Nestorius denied the Deity of Jesus Christ. It is not about pfilosophy.
@@GeorgeRaptis-GRHe didn't. Arius did. Nestorius had flawed Christology though.
In my opinion, the Nestorian doctrine sounds reasonable while the Alexandrian / western doctrine sounds more philosophical than reasonable.The west needed a goddess - Mary and a mysterious god on earth through whom men could petition to God.
Christianity in Kerala, India , was founded by St . Thomas, but we in Kerala don't know what St. Thomas taught about Jesus's teachings. The Kerala Church was Nestorian until the 15 th century. The Portuguese Archbishop Menezes changed the traditional faith to Vaticanish.
Hi james, thanks for your comment. At the time of Portuguese intervention, there was already a schism in the church of the east in mesopotamia, where a significant portions of the CotE returned to full communion with the Catholic church (thus formed the Chaldean Catholic Church). This set a precedent for the Indian churches to follow suit.
The so call Vatican made Mary special, Nestorian made her a surrogate mother.
So the Nestorians turned Mary into a surrogate vessel.
Wonderful video on this very important First of Four Tearing apart Seamless Robe of Christ in 451 and 1054 and 1517 and Vatican II
However may I suggest you should have begun showing current successors of each breakaway Church ?
So many now have Websites such as Nestorian Mar Awa III who gave Christmas Address video with a Tree showing no Star
see Church of Saint Maryam at Urmia Azerbaijan /Iran The Magi Church
or Crib showing Madonna and Child
Mar Emmanuel has many videos on TH-cam
Good except you need to stop using that voice - I assume it is an computer voice that is narrating. Whatever it is, there are several very distracting mis-pronunciations of proper nouns. It gives the impression the speaker does not know what he is talking about.
Will consider to use my own voice for the next church of the east video, it's just easier to use voiceover nowadays
The assumption is made that St. Cyril was wrong in calling out Nestorius' doctrines as heretical. I wouldn't be hasty in making that judgement. And if you read his letter to Nestorius, he was quite gentle, unlike the bad guy this video makes him out to be.
Hi Philip thanks for your comment.
I don't hold any assumption about St Cyril, he is after all venerated as a saint. My video merely points out that Cyril was the main driver behind Nestorius's anathema at the council of Ephesus due to their dispute of the term of Theotokos.
Good video! Your own voice would indeed be better. ACOE member here also.
Thanks, and nice to know you brother.
Confusing! Nestorius was excommunicated from the Orthodox Church.
Hi :). Nestorius's teaching was anathematized (condemned) in the council of Ephesus but whether he was personally excommunicated (in the Catholic sense of the word) remains uncertain. This video is not about refuting the decisions of the ecumenical councils (being a chalcedonian myself) but to tell the story of how the church of the east began.
I am so tired of all the AI generated content. AI just can't pronounce anything of value correctly. By doing so, the information is devalued.
I did use a voiceover because it was easier and faster for narration, and I can't promise that I can pronounce those words better, lol
What Will That Kingdom Be Like?
Although this kingdom was the central theme of Jesus' life he did not originate the idea. The concept of this kingdom permeated Old Testament prophecy.
The prophets foresaw a kingdom of health, with harmony between man and his fellow. They foresaw a kingdom of peace, with total economic security. Isaiah spoke of all these promises: They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain (11:6-9); they shall beat their swords into plowshares (2:4); mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands (65:21, 22).
The prophets foresaw a kingdom with harmony between man and animal; natural enemies of the earth will dwell together in complete peace and harmony; and formerly harmful creatures will no longer be hurtful or dangerous.
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea (Isa 11:6-9).
They foresaw a kingdom of peace with harmony amongst men and no more war: And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more (Isa 2:4).
They foresaw a kingdom of total economic security; mankind will reap the rewards of their labor and live in security without fear of loss: they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.... mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands (Isa 65:21-22).
The New Testament apostles foresaw a kingdom in which even death would be done away; there shall be no more death (Rev 21:4). And the best part is that these were not idle dreams. They were not wishful thinking. They spoke of living verities for one simple reason-they knew what they were talking about for they had been witnesses. The Apostle Peter said: For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto you do well that you take heed (2Pet 1:16-19).
And the Apostle Paul, when speaking of himself, wrote: I knew a man in Christ...caught up to the third heaven (2Cor 12:2). In the next verse he calls this third heaven paradise. These Biblical writers could speak with such authority, with such sureness, for one simple reason; and to most of their kingdom prophecies the reason for their positiveness is appended: For the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken it!
Who Will That Kingdom Be For?
It will be for the righteous (Mat 13:43)! That kingdom will be for the Christian (Acts 16:31)! The kingdom will be for the Jew (Ezek 16:55)! The kingdom will be for the pagan of Sodom and Gomorrah (Mat 10:15)! The kingdom will be for the heathen of Tyre and Sidon (Mat 11:22)! In fact the kingdom will be for ALL people! "Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment" (John 5:28-29 RSV).
ALL who are in their tombs will be raised to life-the Jew and the Arab; the Christian and the Atheist; the Catholic and the Protestant; the saint and the sinner; the priest and the master of voodoo-ALL! But that seems impossible! The Bible clearly says: "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
Yes! One must be a Christian to be saved. One must believe in Christ to live forever in that kingdom. Yet the Bible just as clearly states that the men of Sodom and of Gomorrah, of Tyre and of Sidon, will be there. Can both be true? Yes! Both are true because both are in the Bible. And the Bible is true!
The harmony between these seemingly conflicting concepts is in a simple statement of the will of God concerning man by the Apostle Paul: "God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (1Tim 2:3-6)
What you have written does resonates generally with Christian hope and speaks to God’s immeasurable mercy.😀
8:50 How can you make the claim that he was misrepresented? We have the letters of Cyril, sayings of Nestorius, minutes of Ephesus, writings of Nestorius’ teachers Diodore and Theodore, writings of contemporary diophysites to Nestorius including Theodoret, Ibas, and Andreas, etc. This all started because Nestorius supported clergy in his church who literally anathematized those who declared Mary ti be the Mother of God. Nestorius propagated writings that went throughout the empire confusing people, most notably the monks in Egypt under Cyril’s diocese. Cyril had to have this dogmatic error from Nestorius corrected, as it is an insult to the economy of salvation to not recognize who Christ is correctly (that He is God the Word incarnate). The letters between Nestorius and Cyril consist of Cyril treating Nestorius with respect, giving him his honorary titles, calling him brother. The responses from Nestorius still exist and show us someone who was abrasive, exuded pride, and had no care for Cyril or the points he made. Continue on to the writings of the person who defended Nestorius the most, Theodoret of Cyrus, and you see the full blown error of diophysitism. Theodoret with all boldness against Cyril’s twelfth anathema states “Therefore God did not suffer. The man assume of us by God suffered.” This statement is the epitome of the Nestorian error. With all due respect, Nestorius was not misrepresented at all.
I don't remember the full argument, but it seems that the crux of their argument has to do with a confusion between Syriac and Greek, and Nestorius was using a word meaning to emphasize natures that was vaguer and translated as persons in Greek (it starts with a "q", I don't know exactly what it is).
At least that's the argument I read. I'm not sure how true it is.
@samueljennings4809 Nestorius and Cyril both spoke in Greek. It's not only about words with Nestorius. It was the phrases as well. Stating that Christ did not suffer the man did, I can't call a 3 month old God, theotokos isn't a proper name for Mary, etc. These have major soteriological implications.
Hi motieyecare, thanks for your comment :).
1. "full blown error of diophysitism (dyophysitism)"
Actually dyophysitism is the official position of all the chalcedonian churches, including catholic, orthodox, protestantism and (of course) church of the east. So I"m not entirely sure about the reason you mentioned dyphysitism as error.
2. Almost all of Nestorius’s recorded words survive only in the quotations of his chief rival, Cyril of Alexandria, because Nestorius’s original writings were destroyed by his enemies after his death. The book that I referenced extensively for this video (amzn.to/4iUXQ1t) recorded a much more detailed history about the theological (and political) feuds between Cyril and Nestorius, you may check this out.
3. Many of the theological disagreements at the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon are now viewed as misunderstandings stemming from nuanced Greek terminology. In recent times, there has been growing reconciliation between the Miaphysite Church, the Church of the East, and the Chalcedonian churches (primarily Catholic), which I believe is a very positive development.
@ correct. Diophysitism is the view of Nestorius held at Ephesus that was dogmatized at Chalcedon. I am of the church that holds to miaphysitism held by Ephesus and St. Cyril. Although I am naturally biased to support St. Cyril, after reading the various documents surrounding Ephesus, including those written by persons other than St. Cyril, this narrative that Nestorius was misrepresented seems like a cop out for people who adhered to Chalcedonianism who realize that it does not differ from Nestorianism. For example, Theodotus of Ancyra and Acacius of Miletene both came as friends to Nestorius to the council of Ephesus. After hearing Nestorius defend his views and make blasphemous statements, both of these realized the error of Nestorius and proceeded to condemn him. The writings of Theodoret and Andreas, who defended the Nestorian position for John of Antioch, are still available for us to see along with St. Cyril’s responses. Anyone alive today who believes in the great salvation that Christ gave us will quickly see the errors of Theodoret, Andreas, and Nestorius, and will see the great effort Cyril put into correcting their errors, looking at the Scriptures and prior patristic exegesis, and obtaining consensus of understanding from the other sees of Christendom. The error of Nestorius is clear to those who actually pick up and read the available documents, whether written by Cyril or not. But alas, nowadays people get their theology from a 5 minute video that references one book that seems authoritative.
WELL SAID. The pseudo Chursches of Nestorians became MUSLIM!
Rome was never part of the 5 bishoprics that created the Nicene creed. Rome n other 2 tier bishoprics were observers.
I don't disagree, the Nicene Creed was primarily a response to the Alexandrian controversy, with the Alexandrian bishop playing a leading role. However, my main point is that the Council of Nicaea was the last significant ecumenical council where all bishops across the Christendom reached universal consensus on its formulation.
you are incorrect. the pope always held the presidency. hosius was the personal apostolic roman legate of the the bishop of rome, and president of the ecumenical council of nicea. no ecumenical council is valid without the final confirmation of the bishop of rome.
The Roman bishop that time did send his legate that's true, but it didn't chair the Nicene council, the emperor Constantine did
@@flaneur-of-time lol. don't get you history from youtubers or memes. constantine called for the council and bankrolled it and was the financier to get the council convened. his name was attached to it because it was convened under his auspices but he had no part in the debates nor its confirmation. ecumenical councils have and always will be under the final confirmation of the bishop of rome. constantinople was initially convened as a synod or provincial council until it was elevated as an ecumenical council by the bishop of rome.
Please do inform me where you get your source from, all my readings point towards emperor Constantine as the one presided over the Nicene meeting at least for the opening session. As an unbaptized, Constantine obviously didn't play a leading role in the formulation of the Nicene Creed, but neither did the Roman bishop of the time. Just a quick search could confirm what I said, here is a Britannica link: www.britannica.com/event/First-Council-of-Nicaea-325
Excerpt:First Council of Nicaea, (325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey). It was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. He hoped a general council of the church would solve the problem created in the Eastern church by Arianism, a heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being. Pope Sylvester I did not attend the council but was represented by legates
Nestorius divided Christ into two hypostasies: it's heresy. The ACOE believes Christ owes the fact of being "a man" to a distinct human subsistence apart from the Word. They have associated a fourth person with the Trinity who would be resurrected alongside Christ.
Yes dividing Christ into two hypostases (persons) is indeed a heresy to us Chalcedonian, but I think that's not the official position of the church of the east. They did talk about a kind of distinction between the divine and human natures of Christ but not to the extent of dividing Him into two separate hypostases. Just to illustrate a bit more, saying that Christ has only one nature (monophysitism) is a heresy, but saying that Christ has two different aspects, one divine and one human, that are united in one nature (miaphysitism)? probably not as per the latest development in reconciliation ...web.archive.org/web/20200214123730/www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19730510_copti_en.html
@flaneur-of-time The ACOE does believe Christ is two hypostasies they venerate Nestorius and follow his teachings. When they say two natures they also mean two hypostasies. They do not agree with Chalcedonian position.
we don't believe that the human nature has a distinct human subsistence, we profess two hypostases (qnomē) because anything that exists in reality is a hypostasis (qnomā), as opposed to abstracts (secondary substances; kyānā/kyānē).
@juicyshawarma I don't accept Chalcedon either, my church has a different opinion. Natures are a commonality between hypostases so a natures cannot exist in abstract distinct to a hypostasis. Rather. According to incarnation it was not of generalities, by hypostasis which Jesus is composed. There is one nature out of two. If we numerate two after the union, Jesus is then divided into a duality. Jesus is one primary substance.