Thank you for joining us for the 2024 Nisibis Symposium! 🙏✨ This year’s theme, “Christ Revealed: The Christology of the Assyrian Church of the East”, explores the deep theological insights of Mar Babai the Great and the Book of Union. Special thanks to His Holiness Mar Awa III, our esteemed speakers, and talented performers. 💬 Let us know your thoughts on the presentations and which section resonated with you most! Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe for more enriching content. 👉 Watch the full symposium and join the conversation! #NisibisSymposium2024 #AssyrianChurchOfTheEast #Christology #BookOfUnion
God bless you so much, so you can bless and bring healing to us from different protestant denominaton. God bring and Help us all to You, who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Kristus.
Can anyone please tell me when did Assyrian church accept Nicene creed and triune God? I heard somewhere that Assyrian church was not Trinitarian in early. Church history
To answer your question my brother there were two delegates at the council of Nicea , Saint Ephraim and Saint Jacob of Nisibis however the church synodically accepted the council of Nicea aswell as the creed at the synod of Issac in 410 which King yezegard allowed for the church of Christ to discuss matter pertinent to the faith amidst the persecution. The Acoe however was always a trinitarian church evidenced by early fathers such as St Ephrem on his hymns of faith. In regards to a dogmatic/synodical establishment of our trinitarian theology it is evident within the synod of Mar Aqaq in 486 which His holiness mentioned this synod discussed the formula of three qnome one divine nature
@@yakovmatityahuThere are some theories but they are just theories. Our fathers however notably Mar Timothy the first was one of the first Christian patriarchs to converse with a Muslim (Caliph Mahdi) on the basis of theological matters though.
Shlamalokh aziza in regards to your question I would answer it on the basis of Irregular procedures per the spiritual world of Isaac pg22 as Hilarion states and it was a miaphysite council meaning it had a inclination towards a more cyrillian christological paradigm. None of our fathers were present there aswell whereas within Nicea in 325 Mar Aprim and Mar Jacob of nisibis were present. Ephesus was also politically driven regarding both schools the school of Antioch and Alexandria. There was a staunch condemnation against Nestorius but this wasn’t the sole reason for our repudiation of this council
Hi Odisho, The Church of the East did not accept the council of Ephesus for multiple reasons. Firstly, they were not present at the council and were not invited, this council occurred in the Roman ‘oikumene’. The Church also viewed the council as an unjust affair, possibly done with political motivations. It also has issues with a Cyrillian interpretation of the Councils Christology, as such, it refused to anathematise Nestorius of Constantinople.
Cyril opened the council without the Antiochenes, and throughout the entire council, the Antiochenes did not participate in the council’s decisions, including the condemnation of Nestorius, who was condemned ‘in absentia’. The ACoE regard the Council of Ephesus as a ‘miaphysite’ council since the Antiochenes, who were dyophysite, did not participate in the council, and therefore invalidates the council. They also believe Nestorius never professed heresy. Consider this a supposition, but I don’t think the ACoE has a substantial issue with the theology of Ephesus-431,
If you guys truly believe in your Christology, that is, if you truly believe that there are 2 natures and qnume after the union, and that there are 2 operations with their respective wills, then you shouldn't be considering any other Christological confession to be orthodox. You should be attacking every other Christological position as Babai did in the Book of Union as that which inculcates people into heresy. Babai even wrote about the dispute between St Severus and Julian, making careful distinctions. He wasn't ignorant about what any Christological side said, he just disagreed with their presentation of the gospel as being a false gospel. This is the problem with the ecumenical movement, it pushes for the complacency and rewarding of ignorance. You had a very good questioner ask about how Constantinople 553 compromises the hypostatic properties of the humanity, which is a classical Nestorian AND Orthodox (Miaphysite) argument against 553, but the response they got was "I don't know, so let's just say it's a mystery."
We still acknowledge there is a difference in Christology between the ACOE and EO, and that proper dialogue is critical for full communion to be considered. The question regarding C2 553 was directed to Fr Doru who is a Romanian Orthodox priest. He also teaches Patristics at St Cyrils Coptic Orthodoox Seminary in Sydney.
@SimonSyd but the problem is that a difference in Christology necessitates that all deviating sides are heretical, since Christology is without doubt central and necessary to Orthodoxy according to all sides. That's a fair point about the question, and it just further shows that a "priest" who is ecumenical with both the Assyrian CoE and the Copts is trying to serve many masters without being properly formed on these issues to answer a pretty standard question as it regards the Theodorean critique of his religion.
@@dioscoros I think we both can find agreement on the importance of having an Orthodox Christology. The ACOE still stands in accordance with its traditional confession and church fathers. Many of the faithful might not be well informed nonetheless. This is something common across all communions however.
@SimonSyd most certainly. The attitude which our Coptic Orthodox Church harbors towards the ACoE shouldn't be exclusive to the ACoE, but to all of the denominations which we currently dialogue with, since the condemnation of ACoE Christology is a condemnation of all of those Dyophysite sects without discrimination. We're practically on the verge of falling under the consequences of Ephesus 431 with how we think about dialogues and agreements.
The Assyrian church has been attacked and misunderstood for years, the time has come for us to speak up and now we are told to be quiet and just stay in your corner? Its people like yourself we (all do respect), that wants to force us to do what is right according to what the Coptic church wants us to do and say and believe? You guys don’t even believe we are “Christians” and you want to impose your views. You guys always want to come out with the negative approach towards our church.
Thank you for joining us for the 2024 Nisibis Symposium! 🙏✨
This year’s theme, “Christ Revealed: The Christology of the Assyrian Church of the East”, explores the deep theological insights of Mar Babai the Great and the Book of Union. Special thanks to His Holiness Mar Awa III, our esteemed speakers, and talented performers.
💬 Let us know your thoughts on the presentations and which section resonated with you most! Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe for more enriching content.
👉 Watch the full symposium and join the conversation!
#NisibisSymposium2024 #AssyrianChurchOfTheEast #Christology #BookOfUnion
God bless you so much, so you can bless and bring healing to us from different protestant denominaton.
God bring and Help us all to You, who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Kristus.
Can anyone please tell me when did Assyrian church accept Nicene creed and triune God? I heard somewhere that Assyrian church was not Trinitarian in early. Church history
To answer your question my brother there were two delegates at the council of Nicea , Saint Ephraim and Saint Jacob of Nisibis however the church synodically accepted the council of Nicea aswell as the creed at the synod of Issac in 410 which King yezegard allowed for the church of Christ to discuss matter pertinent to the faith amidst the persecution. The Acoe however was always a trinitarian church evidenced by early fathers such as St Ephrem on his hymns of faith. In regards to a dogmatic/synodical establishment of our trinitarian theology it is evident within the synod of Mar Aqaq in 486 which His holiness mentioned this synod discussed the formula of three qnome one divine nature
@@IbnAtTayibb ohk but where does this rumour originate from, that the Church of East gave birth to Islam?
@@yakovmatityahuThere are some theories but they are just theories. Our fathers however notably Mar Timothy the first was one of the first Christian patriarchs to converse with a Muslim (Caliph Mahdi) on the basis of theological matters though.
@@IbnAtTayibb ohk Thanks
Question, why doesn’t the Assyrian church of the East accept there council of Ephesus?
Shlamalokh aziza in regards to your question I would answer it on the basis of Irregular procedures per the spiritual world of Isaac pg22 as Hilarion states and it was a miaphysite council meaning it had a inclination towards a more cyrillian christological paradigm. None of our fathers were present there aswell whereas within Nicea in 325 Mar Aprim and Mar Jacob of nisibis were present. Ephesus was also politically driven regarding both schools the school of Antioch and Alexandria. There was a staunch condemnation against Nestorius but this wasn’t the sole reason for our repudiation of this council
Hi Odisho,
The Church of the East did not accept the council of Ephesus for multiple reasons.
Firstly, they were not present at the council and were not invited, this council occurred in the Roman ‘oikumene’.
The Church also viewed the council as an unjust affair, possibly done with political motivations.
It also has issues with a Cyrillian interpretation of the Councils Christology, as such, it refused to anathematise Nestorius of Constantinople.
Cyril opened the council without the Antiochenes, and throughout the entire council, the Antiochenes did not participate in the council’s decisions, including the condemnation of Nestorius, who was condemned ‘in absentia’.
The ACoE regard the Council of Ephesus as a ‘miaphysite’ council since the Antiochenes, who were dyophysite, did not participate in the council, and therefore invalidates the council. They also believe Nestorius never professed heresy.
Consider this a supposition, but I don’t think the ACoE has a substantial issue with the theology of Ephesus-431,
If you guys truly believe in your Christology, that is, if you truly believe that there are 2 natures and qnume after the union, and that there are 2 operations with their respective wills, then you shouldn't be considering any other Christological confession to be orthodox. You should be attacking every other Christological position as Babai did in the Book of Union as that which inculcates people into heresy. Babai even wrote about the dispute between St Severus and Julian, making careful distinctions. He wasn't ignorant about what any Christological side said, he just disagreed with their presentation of the gospel as being a false gospel. This is the problem with the ecumenical movement, it pushes for the complacency and rewarding of ignorance. You had a very good questioner ask about how Constantinople 553 compromises the hypostatic properties of the humanity, which is a classical Nestorian AND Orthodox (Miaphysite) argument against 553, but the response they got was "I don't know, so let's just say it's a mystery."
We still acknowledge there is a difference in Christology between the ACOE and EO, and that proper dialogue is critical for full communion to be considered.
The question regarding C2 553 was directed to Fr Doru who is a Romanian Orthodox priest. He also teaches Patristics at St Cyrils Coptic Orthodoox Seminary in Sydney.
@SimonSyd but the problem is that a difference in Christology necessitates that all deviating sides are heretical, since Christology is without doubt central and necessary to Orthodoxy according to all sides.
That's a fair point about the question, and it just further shows that a "priest" who is ecumenical with both the Assyrian CoE and the Copts is trying to serve many masters without being properly formed on these issues to answer a pretty standard question as it regards the Theodorean critique of his religion.
@@dioscoros I think we both can find agreement on the importance of having an Orthodox Christology. The ACOE still stands in accordance with its traditional confession and church fathers. Many of the faithful might not be well informed nonetheless. This is something common across all communions however.
@SimonSyd most certainly. The attitude which our Coptic Orthodox Church harbors towards the ACoE shouldn't be exclusive to the ACoE, but to all of the denominations which we currently dialogue with, since the condemnation of ACoE Christology is a condemnation of all of those Dyophysite sects without discrimination. We're practically on the verge of falling under the consequences of Ephesus 431 with how we think about dialogues and agreements.
The Assyrian church has been attacked and misunderstood for years, the time has come for us to speak up and now we are told to be quiet and just stay in your corner? Its people like yourself we (all do respect), that wants to force us to do what is right according to what the Coptic church wants us to do and say and believe? You guys don’t even believe we are “Christians” and you want to impose your views. You guys always want to come out with the negative approach towards our church.