I am Eastern Orthodox. I think , much like the Oriental Orthodox Church and their formulation of Christology (Miaphysitism) the issues are very nuanced and difficult to sort through with our historical separation being what time has beared out. I concur with His Beatitude that our areas of agreement should be a starting point for us to have dialogue so that we may hopefully unite all of the Eastern apostolic sees one day, but we must clearly understand and agree to what exactly Holy Orthodoxy is and what the Church has believed all along so as to avoid this confusion moving forward. The faith is once and for all delivered unto the saints and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. With the recent talks the Assyrians have had with the Russian Orthodox Church and Patriarch Kirill in particular , I am very hopeful this will be possible. Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, both now and ever and unto ages of ages! May God have mercy on us all 🙏🏻 Christus Victor! ☦️
I am a Coptic Orthodox theology student, so I respect and obey the historic teachings of my own church on this matter. Nevertheless, I enjoyed His Beautitude’s presentation and appreciate his capacity for nuance and Christian charity.
Hosana! I am finally hearing someone say the full Truth. This church of Christ is where i belong. I will study here as a Son from the content that i can. Thank you for offering the Truth as Word. Ahmennn
Thank you so much for going so deeply into these issues and debates. I very much pray that clarification can be made about both Nestorius and the so called "Nestorianism" in relation to the Church of the East on a much grander scale so that you may be unified not only with the Coptic, Ethiopian, West Syriac, etc. but also with the Holy Orthodox Churches of Russia, Greek Jerusalem, Greek Antioch, etc. Rome is a much more complicated story, but all of the Orthodox Churches of the East have been divided for far too long over far too little in comparison to the rest of Christendom, and so I agree with His Beatitude's concluding opinion on the matter. PS - I am not a part of the Assyrian Church of the East but have always had a special interest in your church, with an appreciation for the beauty of your heritage (liturgical, and also the Peshitta, etc.) May all faithful, Apostolic Christians be united in these last days!
10:41 This is where the trouble begins, from an Orthodox perspective. "God was in the man." No. He didn't dwell "in a man." God became man. Fully. Anyway, just saying, from an Orthodox perspective, this is where the Nestorian explanations go off the rails. Thank you for the clear presentation. Very helpful in clarifying the differences.
Please speak more humbly. He is not speaking of God simply dwelling in a separately existing man. This is Antiochian language, as well as language found in the Syriac tradition. We also historically use the symbolism of the flesh of Christ being a ‘temple’ or a ‘garment’ taken on by the Word, so the flesh is the flesh of God the Word.
@@Giwargis-w7v Well, then please pardon me. I only meant to give an honest comment, not to cause offense. Again, coming from an Orthodox perspective, words such as "garment of flesh" or "putting on flesh" are familiar. But to say God was "in a man" is alien. The problem, it seems, is that a man is more than just flesh -- more than just a body. He is composite --- body and soul, and all that goes with it. We believe and confess that our Lord took on all of human nature -- not merely the body. He possessed a human soul, with a human will, etc. That is why, to Orthodox ears, to say "God was in a man" is very different from saying "God became man." Again, pardon me. I mean no offense. I'm not casting any judgment on you. I am thankful for the clear presentation in this video. I'm simply expressing, for whatever it is worth, why the language is jarring and off the mark from an Orthodox point of view.
@@sparkomatic No pardon needed, I appreciate your desire for an honest conversation, I am not offended in any way. Many Church fathers refer to the flesh of Christ as “man” or “the man”. Unpacking this is important, and knowing what they mean theologically is as well. We believe the same as you in this regard, God the Word took on flesh from St. Mary, and in her womb, was Christ, who is The Word Incarnate. If your fear of the language here is because you suspect we believe God the Word dwelled in a Man, separately existing, then please rest assured, we anathematise such a doctrine and always have, it is alien to us. Each tradition utilises different language and Christological terms, I say, let us observe the Assyrian Church of the East according to their terms and definitions, and do the same for the Orthodox and so on, it’s only fair. God bless and keep you safe, may we walk in the path of our Lord Jesus Christ always.
These are very interesting videos by His Beatitude Mar Meelis Zaia. .... How can I obtain that whole speech by Nestorius and others resources on the Christology of the Assyrian Church of the East? Can someone please reply regarding this. Thank you!
1. The Bazaar of Heracleides (this is Nestorius explaining what he means, there’s a free PDF online) 2. The Christology of Mar Babai the Great. (It’s a good book that I believe is a PDF version of explanation of his book) 3. One of the best books is called “the book of Union” by Mar Babai the great. This book is like 200+ dollars and is on Amazon, maybe contact an Assyrian church on how to get this book cheaper, ask if there’s a PDF version that can be emailed, or just buy it if you don’t care.
Please discuss how Assyrians view Formula of Union 433 where Cyril and Theodoret agree that one nature and two natures are both orthodox. Also regarding Pope John Paul II and Catholicos Mar Dinkha IV who both mutually removed the anathemas in 1994.
O Bishop! You forgot to mention St. Cyril lovingly wrote to nestorius 3x and when nestorius wrote back (all documented online) he did not confess the Apostolic Faith to clarify his ideas. Nestorius also had another chance to declare an Orthodox confession in the Ephesus 1 but he refused to show up.
@@findlife7838 a lot of terminology and understanding in different languages, language barriers so I wouldn’t say Cyril is preeminent in Christology, a lot was going on back then (heresies, politics, persecutions,etc) and for a long time. Cyril was even accused of Apollinarianism he accepts a rational soul (psyche) and rejects the expressions such as ‘indwelling’ ‘ conjunction’ or ‘close participation’ he made use of the expression physis and hypostasis without any distinction to signify ‘nature’ as well as ‘person’. Not indicating the theological importance of the soul of Christ. So for Cyril the incarnate Word was one physis, one hypostasis and one prosopon. He employed the example of body and soul to explain the christological union and accepted the mia physis formula of Apollinarias thinking that it originated from St. Athanasius. There is a lot to learn but going on forums and trying to call out an Apostolic Church established by Christ and its priesthood isn’t a way to understanding and definitely not what Christ taught as he washed His disciples feet.
O Bishop! St. Cyril taught in his 1st and 2nd Letters to Succenus: The natures are only distinguished in ‘In Theoria alone’ (conceptually and even this St. Cyril explains can be contemplated too far).
O Bishop! Take Arius as another example. Is it a shameful that the Holy See of Alexandria admits the errors and rooted out the heresy of Arius? Definitely not! It’s rather an honour of great praise to rebuke and correct error. O Bishop! We do not believe in the infallibility of any father no matter what school they are from.
It seems the Assyrian Church has no concept of personhood and because of this there is no way they can explain the union of humanity and divinity in Christ without positing 2 subjects
O Bishop! It is not a shame to do the right thing but an honour of praise. We do not consider Origen a saint even though he was a great theologian and teacher. We simply say he was a “teacher” but is not a Saint. Do the right and same thing with Diodore, Theodoret and Nestorius. Consider them teachers but not Saints. You have great Fathers like St. Ignatius, St. Ephraim, St. John Chysostom, St. Jacob of Sarug, St. Philixinos, St. Severus Patriarch of Antioch. Will you persist in shame or will you choose honour of praise?
@@AryaXVII This is the problem with people nowadays. They throw the word heresy out as if it doesn’t mean anything. It has lost its actual value and they think they’re being smart by saying it
@@Isho_s acoe always gets these attacks and its so sad honestly.. our people have died for Christ and our church. We dont divide Christ nor do we reject theotokos we just say mother of Christ our Lord. We should be uniting not bashing others.
@@Assyriaa Truly. The bishops and leaders of the churches are having respectful dialogue, and this needs to be reflected more in the members of the churches as well
I mean no disrespect. But this video makes me feel so blessed to have the Orthodox Faith. The issue here is clearly a flawed conflation of nature vs person. Christ is One Divine Person in two natures, God from all eternity as the Logos of the Father, and man in His incarnation, talking to Himself a human nature. God died, as in, the One Divine Person of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ tasted death in the human nature that He took on. God in His Divinity of course cannot die. That’s the entire point, the Eternal One conquered the mortality we inherited from Adam. Our ancestors offered the blood of sheep and goats because of the life in that blood, but only Divine Blood has Eternal Life in it. That’s the True Faith.
Not sure what’s difficult to understand? Jesus Christ is the Word of God/Logos taken on human flesh and that flesh died on the cross and was resurrected. Yes 2 nature union 1 person. When man dies his flesh dies but soul lives on and will take on new body just like Christ did. Theodore of Mopsuestia preferred Christotokos. According to him, the Blessed Virgin Mary is Theotokos and Anthropotokos: one by nature, and the other by relation. She is truly Theotokos, because God is in the man whom she brought forth; she is truly Anthropotokos because the human nature is taken from her; but the Word did not originate from her. Theodore was careful to uphold the transcendence of the divinity against the Arians and the Apollinarians. Keep in mind heresies brought all this up and COE defended against the many heresies like Photinians and Manichaeans. COE started using mainly Christotokos to avoid all confusion, that’s the main reason but they do believe and teach that Mary is the Theotokos and Anthropotokos: one by nature , and the other by union. And when we say Christotokos upholding the Nicene Creed it is indicative of both the divinity and the humanity.
@@Bet_David Shlama, by any chance do you have a discord? I have some questions regarding the teachings of Mar Babai the great such as “the word” vs “Christ. Also, the book of Union by Mar Babai is expensive 220-250 dollars, do you have a PDF?
@@AryaXVII Shlamalokh, I don’t have discord and don’t have book of union but will be ordering one God willing soon. There is pdf Malankara Library, Christology of Mar Bawai the Great it’s about 240 pages from Oriental institute of religious study India. Hope that helps.
I am Eastern Orthodox. I think , much like the Oriental Orthodox Church and their formulation of Christology (Miaphysitism) the issues are very nuanced and difficult to sort through with our historical separation being what time has beared out.
I concur with His Beatitude that our areas of agreement should be a starting point for us to have dialogue so that we may hopefully unite all of the Eastern apostolic sees one day, but we must clearly understand and agree to what exactly Holy Orthodoxy is and what the Church has believed all along so as to avoid this confusion moving forward. The faith is once and for all delivered unto the saints and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. With the recent talks the Assyrians have had with the Russian Orthodox Church and Patriarch Kirill in particular , I am very hopeful this will be possible.
Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, both now and ever and unto ages of ages!
May God have mercy on us all 🙏🏻
Christus Victor! ☦️
I am a Coptic Orthodox theology student, so I respect and obey the historic teachings of my own church on this matter. Nevertheless, I enjoyed His Beautitude’s presentation and appreciate his capacity for nuance and Christian charity.
Hosana! I am finally hearing someone say the full Truth. This church of Christ is where i belong. I will study here as a Son from the content that i can. Thank you for offering the Truth as Word. Ahmennn
An enlightening talk from Mar Meelis Zaia. Thank you, Mar.
Thank you so much for going so deeply into these issues and debates. I very much pray that clarification can be made about both Nestorius and the so called "Nestorianism" in relation to the Church of the East on a much grander scale so that you may be unified not only with the Coptic, Ethiopian, West Syriac, etc. but also with the Holy Orthodox Churches of Russia, Greek Jerusalem, Greek Antioch, etc. Rome is a much more complicated story, but all of the Orthodox Churches of the East have been divided for far too long over far too little in comparison to the rest of Christendom, and so I agree with His Beatitude's concluding opinion on the matter.
PS - I am not a part of the Assyrian Church of the East but have always had a special interest in your church, with an appreciation for the beauty of your heritage (liturgical, and also the Peshitta, etc.) May all faithful, Apostolic Christians be united in these last days!
Beautiful post brother
Amen 🙏
Thank You GOD Bless You 🙏
I’m not orthodox or catholic, but I’m looking into it. I’m thankful that The Assyrian Church of the East doesn’t have Idols in their churches
10:41 This is where the trouble begins, from an Orthodox perspective. "God was in the man." No. He didn't dwell "in a man." God became man. Fully. Anyway, just saying, from an Orthodox perspective, this is where the Nestorian explanations go off the rails. Thank you for the clear presentation. Very helpful in clarifying the differences.
Please speak more humbly. He is not speaking of God simply dwelling in a separately existing man. This is Antiochian language, as well as language found in the Syriac tradition. We also historically use the symbolism of the flesh of Christ being a ‘temple’ or a ‘garment’ taken on by the Word, so the flesh is the flesh of God the Word.
@@Giwargis-w7v Well, then please pardon me. I only meant to give an honest comment, not to cause offense. Again, coming from an Orthodox perspective, words such as "garment of flesh" or "putting on flesh" are familiar. But to say God was "in a man" is alien. The problem, it seems, is that a man is more than just flesh -- more than just a body. He is composite --- body and soul, and all that goes with it. We believe and confess that our Lord took on all of human nature -- not merely the body. He possessed a human soul, with a human will, etc. That is why, to Orthodox ears, to say "God was in a man" is very different from saying "God became man." Again, pardon me. I mean no offense. I'm not casting any judgment on you. I am thankful for the clear presentation in this video. I'm simply expressing, for whatever it is worth, why the language is jarring and off the mark from an Orthodox point of view.
@@sparkomatic No pardon needed, I appreciate your desire for an honest conversation, I am not offended in any way. Many Church fathers refer to the flesh of Christ as “man” or “the man”. Unpacking this is important, and knowing what they mean theologically is as well. We believe the same as you in this regard, God the Word took on flesh from St. Mary, and in her womb, was Christ, who is The Word Incarnate. If your fear of the language here is because you suspect we believe God the Word dwelled in a Man, separately existing, then please rest assured, we anathematise such a doctrine and always have, it is alien to us. Each tradition utilises different language and Christological terms, I say, let us observe the Assyrian Church of the East according to their terms and definitions, and do the same for the Orthodox and so on, it’s only fair. God bless and keep you safe, may we walk in the path of our Lord Jesus Christ always.
@@Giwargis-w7v thank you
@@Giwargis-w7vdoes the Assyrian Church believe in deification of mankind that was caused by the incarnation of the Word?
Аминь Господь🙏🙏🙏
Beautifully put regarding the nostorian controversy!
These are very interesting videos by His Beatitude Mar Meelis Zaia. .... How can I obtain that whole speech by Nestorius and others resources on the Christology of the Assyrian Church of the East? Can someone please reply regarding this. Thank you!
1. The Bazaar of Heracleides (this is Nestorius explaining what he means, there’s a free PDF online)
2. The Christology of Mar Babai the Great. (It’s a good book that I believe is a PDF version of explanation of his book)
3. One of the best books is called “the book of Union” by Mar Babai the great. This book is like 200+ dollars and is on Amazon, maybe contact an Assyrian church on how to get this book cheaper, ask if there’s a PDF version that can be emailed, or just buy it if you don’t care.
Please discuss how Assyrians view Formula of Union 433 where Cyril and Theodoret agree that one nature and two natures are both orthodox. Also regarding Pope John Paul II and Catholicos Mar Dinkha IV who both mutually removed the anathemas in 1994.
How can I obtain these quotes and other literature on this Topic?
I have a question tho , did theodore teach 2 persons qashi?
O Bishop!
Heed and yield to our beloved saint and theologian St Severus of Antioch and joint the Syriac Orthodox Church.
Its that simple.
O Bishop!
You forgot to mention St. Cyril lovingly wrote to nestorius 3x and when nestorius wrote back (all documented online) he did not confess the Apostolic Faith to clarify his ideas.
Nestorius also had another chance to declare an Orthodox confession in the Ephesus 1 but he refused to show up.
So St. Cyril is the final word in all Christianity?
@@Bet_David St. Cyril is preeminent in the area of Christology.
@@findlife7838 a lot of terminology and understanding in different languages, language barriers so I wouldn’t say Cyril is preeminent in Christology, a lot was going on back then (heresies, politics, persecutions,etc) and for a long time. Cyril was even accused of Apollinarianism he accepts a rational soul (psyche) and rejects the expressions such as ‘indwelling’ ‘ conjunction’ or ‘close participation’ he made use of the expression physis and hypostasis without any distinction to signify ‘nature’ as well as ‘person’. Not indicating the theological importance of the soul of Christ. So for Cyril the incarnate Word was one physis, one hypostasis and one prosopon. He employed the example of body and soul to explain the christological union and accepted the mia physis formula of Apollinarias thinking that it originated from St. Athanasius.
There is a lot to learn but going on forums and trying to call out an Apostolic Church established by Christ and its priesthood isn’t a way to understanding and definitely not what Christ taught as he washed His disciples feet.
O Bishop!
St. Cyril taught in his 1st and 2nd Letters to Succenus:
The natures are only distinguished in ‘In Theoria alone’ (conceptually and even this St. Cyril explains can be contemplated too far).
👍🏻
O Bishop!
Take Arius as another example. Is it a shameful that the Holy See of Alexandria admits the errors and rooted out the heresy of Arius? Definitely not! It’s rather an honour of great praise to rebuke and correct error.
O Bishop! We do not believe in the infallibility of any father no matter what school they are from.
It seems the Assyrian Church has no concept of personhood and because of this there is no way they can explain the union of humanity and divinity in Christ without positing 2 subjects
O Bishop!
It is not a shame to do the right thing but an honour of praise.
We do not consider Origen a saint even though he was a great theologian and teacher. We simply say he was a “teacher” but is not a Saint.
Do the right and same thing with Diodore, Theodoret and Nestorius. Consider them teachers but not Saints.
You have great Fathers like St. Ignatius, St. Ephraim, St. John Chysostom, St. Jacob of Sarug, St. Philixinos, St. Severus Patriarch of Antioch.
Will you persist in shame or will you choose honour of praise?
even in english you're heretics
What’s heretical about what he said?
@@Isho_s there’s nothing heretical, dude is just a troll who didn’t watch the video. Since he wants to unrighteously judge, that’s his issue with God.
@@AryaXVII This is the problem with people nowadays. They throw the word heresy out as if it doesn’t mean anything. It has lost its actual value and they think they’re being smart by saying it
@@Isho_s acoe always gets these attacks and its so sad honestly.. our people have died for Christ and our church. We dont divide Christ nor do we reject theotokos we just say mother of Christ our Lord. We should be uniting not bashing others.
@@Assyriaa Truly. The bishops and leaders of the churches are having respectful dialogue, and this needs to be reflected more in the members of the churches as well
Saint Ignatius clearly also teaches the Divinity of Christ is calls Him Christ God in His writings
The Logos took a person? No the Logos is a Person.
I mean no disrespect. But this video makes me feel so blessed to have the Orthodox Faith. The issue here is clearly a flawed conflation of nature vs person. Christ is One Divine Person in two natures, God from all eternity as the Logos of the Father, and man in His incarnation, talking to Himself a human nature. God died, as in, the One Divine Person of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ tasted death in the human nature that He took on. God in His Divinity of course cannot die. That’s the entire point, the Eternal One conquered the mortality we inherited from Adam. Our ancestors offered the blood of sheep and goats because of the life in that blood, but only Divine Blood has Eternal Life in it. That’s the True Faith.
Not sure what’s difficult to understand? Jesus Christ is the Word of God/Logos taken on human flesh and that flesh died on the cross and was resurrected. Yes 2 nature union 1 person. When man dies his flesh dies but soul lives on and will take on new body just like Christ did.
Theodore of Mopsuestia preferred Christotokos. According to him, the Blessed Virgin Mary is Theotokos and Anthropotokos: one by nature, and the other by relation. She is truly Theotokos, because God is in the man whom she brought forth; she is truly Anthropotokos because the human nature is taken from her; but the Word did not originate from her. Theodore was careful to uphold the transcendence of the divinity against the Arians and the Apollinarians.
Keep in mind heresies brought all this up and COE defended against the many heresies like Photinians and Manichaeans.
COE started using mainly Christotokos to avoid all confusion, that’s the main reason but they do believe and teach that Mary is the Theotokos and Anthropotokos: one by nature , and the other by union. And when we say Christotokos upholding the Nicene Creed it is indicative of both the divinity and the humanity.
@@Bet_David Shlama, by any chance do you have a discord? I have some questions regarding the teachings of Mar Babai the great such as “the word” vs “Christ.
Also, the book of Union by Mar Babai is expensive 220-250 dollars, do you have a PDF?
@@AryaXVII Shlamalokh, I don’t have discord and don’t have book of union but will be ordering one God willing soon. There is pdf Malankara Library, Christology of Mar Bawai the Great it’s about 240 pages from Oriental institute of religious study India. Hope that helps.
@@Bet_David Thank you, I appreciate it. Godbless you
@@AryaXVII you’re welcome, God bless you.