Its still two separate natures...because of the union of the Son and The Holy spirit.. Even if the son is of One nature that is both human and divine you still need a separate divine nature because of the separate divine person of the holy spirit.
The difference between you guys and other orthodox and other Christians is you guys are racist ethnonationalist that only favors your own ethnic type ( big sin in the bible ) instead of spreading the gospel to all nations
@@SimpleMinded221 that's not true. If you have been to a parish that has been ethnocengric I'm sorry you had a bad experience. Your comment is filled with anger and frustration. I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and the parishes I've visited have bee nothing but welcoming.
8:15 Is kind of hard to grasp. So you don't say Jesus suffered in his human nature because human nature, on it's own, is lifeless; however, you do say he suffered in the flesh? Isn't "the flesh" also lifeless on it's own? Btw, we agree, natures don't act it's the person who has a nature that does. 8:40 Only Nestorians separate the Natures, Chalcedonians distinguish them. If you believe distinction implies separation, then Muslims are right and we believe in 3 Gods.
Distinguishing in thought or theory alone is OK for us in the miaphysite concept. The problem we have in chalcedonian concept is that it has been made dogma that each nature performs what is proper to it, as this is a violation of Ephesus I. Also for us, we refuse to go down the 2 nature resulting philosophical route of giving Christ 2 minds, 2 wills, 2 operations. For us, dividing Christ of His oneness of full divinity and full humanity would devastate the economy of salvation. We must be able to say and believe as the scripture has showed us that Emmanuel our God died in the flesh for us on the cross.
Fr. Gabriel Wissa, I belong to the Armenian Apostolic Church. I just want to mention how your video and explanation of how the Son of God is both Man and God is beautiful! May God bless you. Have a wonderful day.
I see no big differences with catholicism (I'm catholic) but a difference of terms, as the joint declaration of Pope Paul VI and Pope Shenouda showed. We catholics do believe that in Our Lord there is One Person, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Logos, the Eternal Word, consubstantial to the Father, who, without renounce to His divinity made Himself flesh, in all equal to us but in sin.
@@DeaconYeabkal When miaphysitism forms Christ doesn't share a nature with the two other persons of the Trinity anymore. Because of: Nature of the Father = 100% divine Nature of the Holy Spirit = 100% divine Nature of Jesus Christ = 100% divine & 100% human. It is a heresy
@@MegaTRUTH007 God is immortal, yes. But God, in His love for us, took a body which was capable of dying for us. Death could not contain the infinite God, who is immortal by nature, so God killed death in His saving work on the Cross
If Jesus is not human, He cannot die in the cross. If Jesus is not God, The dead of his humanity cannot bring salvation to us. God cannot and never die.
Its still two separate natures...because of the union of the Son and The Holy spirit.. Even if the son is of One nature that is both human and divine you still need a separate divine nature because of the separate divine person of the holy spirit.
@@Thetruthisnoteasy By "one Nature", we mean a real union. This does not involve mingling as of wheat and barely, nor confusion as of wine and water or milk and tea. Moreover, no change occurred as in the case of chemical reaction. For example carbon dioxide consists of carbon and oxygen, and the nature of both changes when they are combined; each loses its properties which distinguished it before the unity. In contrast, no change occurred in the Divine or Human nature as a result of their unity. Furthermore, unity between the two natures occurred without transmutation. Thus, neither did the Divine nature transmute to the human nature, nor did the human nature, transmute to the Divine nature. The Divine nature did not mix with the human nature nor mingle with it, but it was a unity that led to Oneness of Nature.
My understanding of the Christological difference between the Oriental Orthodox (OO) and Eastern Orthodox (EO) is this: OO believe that the incarnate Christ is 1 divine-human particular nature, and the divine and human properties are distinct from one another. EO believe that the incarnate Christ is 1 divine particular nature, and the divine and human general natures are distinct from one another. This difference is caused by two different philosophical presuppositions: OO presuppose a conceptual distinction between a particular nature and a general nature, due to the fact that a general nature is a conceptual grouping/compendium of particular natures. EO presuppose a real distinction between particular natures and general natures, while general natures only exist in particular natures EO nonetheless view them as being distinct in reality. Please let me know if I'm missing something.
Orthodox Church believes in a Christ as a hypostasis. A hypostasis that is composed of two separate natures, divine and human. Divine, of course without saying, has a primacy over the other, but ultimately they are dividedly united in Jesus. Jesus, as a hypostasis, is the one who has control over both of them. There is no general nature, there can be no general nature. What they call a general nature is complete fallacy because that implies natures somehow mixed between themselves without actually mixing forming a new nature that is not actually a nature but its just a general nature, and that train of thought is illogical to say the least. Also, this would imply that, if Jesus truly had a general nature, every single human thing He did/felt(for example: felt hungry, drank water, bleed, die etc.) can be attributed to his general nature that is consistent of divine nature as well. If that is the case, does that then mean that hunger, thirst, mortality etc. can be attributed to His Divine nature as its properties? EO doesn't believe and doesn't teach about general natures at all, nor it ever will. EO makes a distinction between Divine and human because there is drastic and real, not only conceptual, difference between them. God is immortal and humans are mortal. These two realities were united in Jesus and through Him humans were shown a way to salvation/divinity in small.
@@CarlFGauss-qn2cq we make the same distinction as well between his Divine and human attributes! we attribute the corresponding acts to each “nature” (really more of a substance, since an individual nature would imply a person), but won’t separate the Divinity and humanity into individual natures since that would be separating the Lord into two people in our eyes. now, how how do we categorize the miracle of walking on water?
Thank you, Abouna, for that clear and understandable explanation of Christ's Divinity and humanity. Your words echo the same teachings of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I hope that a one day we shall be one again.
@@whoisnext9837 As Israel rejected Yahweh, the time is coming when the church will reject her lord & savior Jesus Christ. At that time another savior the antichrist will come whom the churches will unite to accept ..but for those who love our lord ...He will appear the second time and save us.. Many false christs and prophets are already at work in all denominations , particularly the protestants. They are tearing apart the church... Many evil god haters are also presiding as priests in the orthodox and catholic churches ... These are all divisive .Thats why i said dont pray for unification...rather pray that our lord returns soon... Maranatha
@@joshuacherian6718who are you to be so sure? The Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch (Eastern Orthodox) and the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch (Oriental Orthodox) have been discussing reunification for decades.
Thank you Abouna. With all the opposing views (sometimes becoming quite hostile), it is helpful for someone, with the full love of God, to bring true light.
He didn't bring any light on the subject. On one hand he is saying there are two natures, on the other there is one, on the third he is using terms "human flesh" completely neglecting term human nature etc. That sounds to me eerily monophysitic. I think that he/they are trying to be too fancy and overcomplicate things just for the sake of the argument. Simple truth is that Jesus Christ was a God and a man, at the same time. Both of his natures constituted him as a hypostasis/person. Hypostasis always has a primacy over nature. To say that on one hand and in certain situations his Divine nature took over and on the other human is completely wrong.
Christian churches will never unite.. Over 2000 years the splits and divisions have only grown .. Infact the time is coming when the churches will deny Christ ...and then the false Christ will appear... But to those who love our Lord & Savior Jesus, hold the faith...He will come the second time and deliver us..
All three sides of the 5th Century Schism were trying to explain the Incarnation in a way that was compatible with Divine Immutability and Divine Impassability and I feel that was the problem. To me The Entire Bible is nothing but a long chronicle of how Mutable and Passible God Is.
I do not see the difference between duophysitism which the Catholic Church believes and miaphysitism as you have articulated it here in your video and ascribed to the teachings of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Does it mean you share the same communion? Are your theological beliefs here interchangeable?
Great video. I am a Lutheran layman who is studying the miaphysite position, and I see that it is very similar to the way in which Christ works miracles through his humanity in Lutheranism (communicatio idiomatum)
Jesus did miracles, not by his own divine attributes, but only from the Father through the Holy Spirit. The Gospel of John says this many times. That means he was emptied of his divine attributes, but with one exception: his identity. He kept his identity as the Logos (not sure that even qualifies as an attribute). That never changed when he became a man. This is why he was indeed God and man, not because he still had his attributes.
Ive been watching videos from as many early Christian churches i can find, EO, OO, calcedonian, jews, catholics etc but not one has led me to believe that Jesus isnt subordinate to the father. The excuse is if jesus wasnt god, god wouldn't have died for our salvation, but in a father son relationship, any father would see losing their only son as worse than losing their own life. So God giving up his only son is almost more significant than giving up himself. I still think jesus is divine and the logos, i just think since he proceeded or came from the father, its obvious the father came first and made jesus the logos with an intent of creation. Im looking for a better answer than ive found so far from real theologians...
Perhaps I need to study more in depth, but it seems to me that the belief that Jesus had only one composite divine/human nature necessarily implies that He does not have a truly (and only) human nature.
At the end of the day the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental and [most] Protestant Churches believe in the Holy Trinity and the Full Divinity and Full Humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ. How we understand Christ’s nature is the [very minor] issue of the ages.
Roman and EASTERN Catholscism anld Eastern Oriental believe that at the CONSECRATION IN ThE SACRED LITURGY; the cost and vine ACTUALLY BEGOME THE BODY AND BLOOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIS FOEVEREVER. THERE ARE A FEW POSTESTANT CHURCHES THAT HOLD IT IS ONLY FOR A SORT ABOUT OF TIME or they beieve that there NOT BE ANY REPCTION OF any host or vine they offer a sermoin and songs as their worshop so unstanding Christiì's nature and divinity is NOT a minor issue of the ages. If you cannot accept the Eucharist, than you do not accept THE true nature of Jesus Christ. .
My understanding is that YHWH only took on a human body to interact with us but not to become subject to weak flesh nature. He remained completely in Spirit power. So that we would also believe in puting on the whole Spirit of YHWH!. Extinguishing our flesh nature from having any dominion over us. His flesh body though did suffer for us on that cross, that's a FACT! 51years of research into ALL things religious, whether Abrahamic, or otherwise has leed me to this discernment.
This is an honest question that is brought to you related to Jhon 1:1c. Jehová Witnesses argue that The Sahidic Coptic manuscript translated the clause as “The Word was a god.” They are states that it makes Jesus not god, but a member o class of gods like Moses, Angels, Judges of Israel or even Satan. Any reason what Coptic manuscript translate that way?
the JW do many times act with violence towards the Holy Scriptures. They add words of men, to what God has said. Liars should not be trusted to say and proclaim what is found in the native language manuscripts.
A. LETTER TO TIMOTHY 2,5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus! Mattew 24:36 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows,neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. Mattew 23:8-10 8 But be not ye called teachers. for one is your Teacher, even Christ. 9 You are all brothers. And call no man father (Spiritual)upon the earth. for one is Father, which is in heaven.10 And be not ye called masters. for one is your Master, even Christ.... “YOU must not let people call you ‘leaders’-you have only one leader, Christ!” (Matthew 23:10, The New Testament) With these words, Jesus made it plain to his followers that no man on earth would be their leader. Their one Leader would be heavenly-Jesus Christ himself. Jesus holds this position by divine appointment.. Jehovah “raised him up from the dead and . . . made him head over all things to the congregation, which is his body.”-Ephesians 1:20-23. 2 Since Christ is “head over all things” with regard to the Christian congregation, he exercises his authority over all that takes place within the congregation. Nothing that occurs within the congregation escapes his notice. He closely observes the spiritual condition of each group of Christians, or congregation. This is clearly apparent in the revelation given to the apostle John at the end of the first century C.E. To seven congregations, Jesus stated five times that he knew their deeds, their strong points, and their weaknesses, and he gave counsel and encouragement accordingly. (Revelation 2:2, 9, 13, 19; 3:1,8,15,17) There is every reason to believe that Christ was equally familiar with the spiritual condition of other congregations in Asia Minor, Palestine, Syria, Babylonia, Greece, Italy, and elsewhere. (Acts 1:8) What of today? ua-cam.com/video/Oo9ytCWBYSw/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/K98ziVX7AHo/v-deo.html
Blessings everyone GREAT WATCH HERE FOR EVERYONE "NOTHING IS AS IT SEEMS"? BY PASTOR /PROFESSOR WALTER VEITH AND MARTIN SMITH YOU TUBE POWERFUL POWERFUL WATCH FROM SOUTH AFRICA ENJOY 💯🙏🏾😃❤️👍🏽
Watching this for my apologetics studies. You understand when we make a distinction it's because not doing so and stating His two natures are of one composite nature inherently implies imperfection and perfection are one in the same, right? That's a serious problem not just from Christological standpoint but also from a theological standpoint. We are clearly told repeatedly within Scripture how imperfect compared to Christ we are. Therefore this idea His dual natures are one singular composite nature makes next to no sense. A distinction must be made. You put far too much of an emphasis on the unity between the natures without taking a step back and looking at why while yes, they are unified in the one person. They are still distinct from each other. This is why diophysitism is crucial to understanding those two natures. I recently met a Coptic Ortho whom lives in Egypt and is incredibly confused on the matter. Myself and a fellow EO friend of mine have been not only trying to get her to understand what she believes because she's confused beyond belief but also what we believe. If you have the time to respond then I'd greatly appreciate it as I have many questions to potentially help not just myself but others around me understand why your church denies diophysitism. Thank you and God bless.
Thank you for your thoughtful message! First, there is merit to both 'dyophysite' and 'miaphysite' understandings of the nature of Christ. One cannot deny that, based on outlook, an Orthodox confession of faith can be made with either emphasis as the operative one. I wonder if your stress on the 'not mixing' of perfection and imperfection was actually of any concern to the Church fathers. The fathers of the Church are clear that is because of Christ's very real contact with us that corruption and death are rooted out. This of course is expressed most succinctly in St. Gregory the Theologian's maxim, "That which is not assumed is not healed and that which is united to God is saved" Letter to Cledonius. Another example of this is throughout St. Athanasius' Against the Arians. Take this quote for example, "For therefore did He assume the body originate and human, that having renewed it as its Framer, He might deify it in Himself, and thus might introduce us all into the kingdom of heaven after His likeness. For man had not been deified if joined to a creature, or unless the Son were very God; nor had man been brought into the Father’s presence, unless He had been His natural and true Word who had put on the body. And as we had not been delivered from sin and the curse, unless it had been by nature human flesh, which the Word put on (for we should have had nothing common with what was foreign), so also the man had not been deified, unless the Word who became flesh had been by nature from the Father and true and proper to Him. For therefore the union was of this kind, that He might unite what is man by nature to Him who is in the nature of the Godhead, and his salvation and deification might be sure." St. Athanasius, Against the Arians, Book 2, Chapter 21, Tract 70 Or from his work on the Nicene Creed: "For then it is said of Him, as also that He hungered, and thirsted, and asked where Lazarus lay, and suffered, and rose again. And as, when we hear of Him as Lord and God and true Light, we understand Him as being from the Father, so on hearing, ‘The Lord created,’ and ‘Servant,’ and ‘He suffered,’ we shall justly ascribe this, not to the Godhead, for it is irrelevant, but we must interpret it by that flesh which He bore for our sakes: for to it these things are proper, and this flesh was none other’s than the Word’s. And if we wish to know the object attained by this, we shall find it to be as follows: that the Word was made flesh in order to offer up this body for all, and that we partaking of His Spirit, might be deified, a gift which we could not otherwise have gained than by His clothing Himself in our created body, for hence we derive our name of “men of God” and “men in Christ.” But as we, by receiving the Spirit, do not lose our own proper substance, so the Lord, when made man for us, and bearing a body, was no less God; for He was not lessened by the envelopment of the body, but rather deified it and rendered it immortal." On The Nicene Definition, Chapter 2, Tract 14 With this in mind it makes perfect sense to affirm the one incarnate nature of the Logos where Divinity can enliven humanity once more in the hypostasis of The Logos. It is with this soteriological imperative that the non-chalcedonian churches felt that the confession 'in two natures' (as opposed to 'of two natures') could lead to an undermining of the foundation of humanity's salvation. St. Severus of Antioch (one of the key tradition bearers in the non-chalcedonian Churches) gives a poignant examples, "But he mingled the two, establishing that he is indivisibly one and the same Son and Word, who on our behalf unchangeably became man, speaking as befits God and humanly. Thus too it is often possible to see in his actions what belongs to the character of God and (what is) human mingled together. For how will anyone divide walking upon the water? For to run upon the sea is foreign to the human nature, but it is not proper to the divine nature to use bodily feet. Therefore that action is of the incarnate Word, to whom belongs at the same time divine character and humanity indivisibly." St. Severus of Antioch, Letter 1 to Sergius the Grammarian (in the excellent book, Christology after Chalcedon by Iain Torrance) Thus if one looks to the walking on water they see the united Christ, the God-man. It is not human to defy the laws of gravity and yet it is not of The Divine nature to walk with physical feet. This instance shows us the God-man as He is and is an exemplary expression of the one Incarnate Nature of the God-man. If you interested in further resources, the excellent work by Father Peter Farrington should surely be seen as a standard in the field: www.lulu.com/shop/father-peter-farrington/orthodox-christology/paperback/product-21775791.html The works of Fr. John Anthony Mcguckin will be of huge interest as well especially, "St. Cyril of Alexandria and The Christological Controversy". To start you might enjoy this talk of his at St. Vladimir's seminary: www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/svsvoices/our_common_father_saint_cyril May God bless your search for Him and may He continue to reveal Himself to you
worship only one God , the true almighty God the lord of jesus and the entire existance. why do you have to make justfication that will eventually mislead you? why do you make equality to god? if jesus is the son of god then god must be same nature as jesus. so, jesus was humanbeing who can neither benefit himself nor he could protect himself. be convinced jesus's message to worship the one and only exalted Allah who sent all the messangers with same mesaage worship me alone.
@@abdifitahabdallah3381 Einstein of 2021! Whenever i see someone use the word almighty i know its a muslim😂😂😂 I cannot worship a fairytale that teaches about where the sun sets (in a pool ) and how many muhammad can go to bed with and a black stone😂 and circulating 7 days and throwing rocks ona rock 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ pure paganism
Nothing heretical here. I really do not see what any Christian would find misleading ( that is something that would lead one away from the love of God ) from his understanding of who Christ is.
Markos pantopolos In the eyes of the Oriental Orthodox, are we still Orthodox? I have met with a couple of Coptic priests (part of why I watch these videos) and they claim we hold the same faith
I believe that there is a difference between what EO believe today vs what they concluded in Chalcedon. The question always becomes do we stick to the past or look towards the future and try to unite. I personally choose the latter option.
Coptic Orthodox Answers hello , father. Do u mean What the EO believed in chalcedon was wrong and that they have later on corrected their belief on our Lord Jesus Christ?
@Coptic Orthodox Answers Would you tell someone who is EO to convert to Oriental Orthodoxy, or, do you believe that we are sufficiently Orthodox? How do you view us in comparison to Roman Catholicism?
my you deny humanity jesus you he is divine denying yours, your faith is not but a humanity heresy apollinarian nestorio refuted, jesus not God the Father but the son of god but he does not accept they are two different natures, God not being a friend made man mine not but a son God's.
What about people who lived before Christ? How should a complex and confusing theory like this be understood somewhere in the Jungle without any explanation?
No offence, but rejection of the hypostatic union/two natures of Christ leads to a serious heresy, and it's the main heresy for which your Church have been disassociated, because in order for Jesus Christ to be fully human, he must have a complete human nature, including the human-soul, so rejection of the human nature, or the general distinction between the two natures, means either that Jesus Christ was not fully human, what leads to gnosticism, or that a human being is literally part of the Trinity/God, what leads to idolatry.
Markos pantopolos What Do u think about the ecumenical movement ? It takes place in every Christian denomination , in the OO EO catholic protestant etc.
That's 100% false. We anathemtize Nestorius and accept all the teachings of Ephesus and St. Cyril. We believe in the hypostatic union, communication of the attributes, "theopaschite" expressions, Theotokos, etc.
I personally believe they’re fully orthodox, but that chalcedon is still pretty bad, due to it accepting some nestorian figures. What they call the hypostatic union is what we call the One Incarnate Nature of the Word.
"Acceptance of Nestorian figures" was based on them anathematizing Nestorius and accepting Ephesus. The one incarnate nature expression is acceptable in Eastern Orthodoxy.
This all makes no sense.. I have a headache listening to this. Jesus himself said ‘By self I can do nothing’ He was only a man sent by God as a messenger
Why don't you continue the verse? He says, "the Son can do nothing of himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, BECAUSE WHATEVER THE FATHER DOES THE SON ALSO DOES" ( John 5:19) That's Jesus claiming to be God right there.... We believe in the Inseparable Operations, so every Divine action is done by the Holy Trinity, from the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit. If Christianity makes no sense to you, then that's a "you" problem. Does Mohammed going to heaven riding a flying donkey while everyone was asleep make sense to you?
@@bilzerzayd I've already read both and the Quran is not at all in continuity with the Holy Bible. As a matter of fact, it makes a bunch of silly mistakes like confusing Mary, the mother of Jesus, with Miriam, daughter of Amram, sister of Aaron and Moses. It says Solomon spoke to ants and died standing so his enslaved Jinns would keep working even after his death. What's even more absurd is that it says Alexandre the Great (Dhu al-Qarnayn),who was a homosexual Pagan, was actually a "Prophet" of God and that he followed a road that lead him to where the Sun sets in a muddy spring. Please, for your own benefit my brother in humanity, leave Islam and join an Orthodox Church.
@@Luis-kn4pm can you please organise the 13th meeting with a priest. They always seem to walk out or have tears in their eyes in the end because they know the truth and have a hard time covering it when someone exposes them.
@@gd.5528 and you worship a man. You believe a baby who came out of a womb is the allmighty. Why should god the creator limit himself and enter his creation to display himself in a such suffering manner? Are you serious?
Bless father! He is one incarnate nature out of two. The two natures out of which He subsists retain their dynamic presence and distinction. This is no different than the Christology of Cyril and the council of Ephesus
As ever the holy spirit is always forgotten and neglected. And where is this mentioned explicitly in the scripture? And what was God for the Jews before the human incarnation? Because for them it was simple: God is a single deity of a single nature, that's it.
The Holy Trinity... The Son became Incarnate. The Old Testament Jews worshipped the same God as us, and when Jesus came he fulfilled the laws of the Old Testament and fulfilled prophecies. Accept the Holy Trinity.
Imperfection equals perfection? 3 equals 1? Jesus is of same essence as God but have no answer to all that God knows? Top bible scholars discovered that the Bible have been corrupted by thousands of contradictions. If it's for the whole of humanity, God will make it simple to understand and not making it so confusing. Pray to only One God. No idols worshipping. No human worshipping. No Trinity.
Because it states 2 natures after the birth. To say Jesus has 2 natures is dangerous. Indeed Jesus had 1 nature that was 100% Divine and 100% Human, never seperating nor mingling ever. To seperate and say Jesus has 2 natures instead of 1 United nature can lead to heresies. We also see after chalcedon the chalcedonian churches had to have more councils to clear up thoughts on the chalcedonion christology, the Miaphysites did not.
@@TheWilly5514 you seem to be mistaken. You assume we say the Divine and Human nature mingles, this is a false belief. We directly say the Human and Divine nature United into 1 nature without mingling, nor separating for the twinkle of the eye. You saying we are monophysite is the same as us saying you’re Nestorian for saying 2 natures after the Birth.
@@tjdronex1113 You cannot know the difference between a Chalcedonian christology and a Nestorian christology. Chalcedony christology: Jesus has 2 natures 1 person (2 physite 1 Hypostasis ). Nestorian Christology: Jesus has 2 natures and 2 persons (2 physite 2 Hypostasis ). Nestorians teach that Jesus was born as an ordinary human who was 100% human. Jesus only had a divine nature after being baptized.
This is very confused. Surely the two natures are united in the hypostasis of the Logos? And why the pews, Father, I am sure St Cyril didn’t recommend those
That is exactly right. On the other hand he is saying that he is not monophysite but teaches of one special godly-human nature, that apparently only befits Christ.
I fail to see how this isn’t a conflation of the terms Person and Nature. Chalcedon states that the hypostatic union is united, so yes the divine and human nature are together walking on the water in the Person of Christ. But they remain distinct natures, similar to how the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Son for example.
@@TheCopticParabolanos well that’s my point though. The traditional understanding of Person is a specific instantiation of essence, as you’re saying. To say Christ had to have one nature because he is one Person seems to confuse nature and Person.
@@TheCopticParabolanos well i see now that you’re proposing nature means what I would define Person as. What would OO say the difference between nature and Person is?
@@Gruenders “Person” refers to the self-conscious identity of an entity. Christ is one, simple divine person (I.e. God the Word). Christ’s nature or hypostasis is theanthropic and compound, being a union out of two natures. So note: hypostasis =/= person in OO Christology
I have a doubt. Im chilean (latin american). Here there is no single oriental orthodox church, and I doubt that there is one coptic or other oriental orthodox. If I would discerned that coptic orthodoxy is my sincere belief, why I could do living in a country in what there is not a single church?
Dearest to Christ, God can certainly work in whichever context you are in. If there is any Orthodox Church near you, make contact and start with that. May God help you and be with you
Q for Coptic and Orientals. Would you say that miaphysitism is basically Christs two natures united in one person of Christ. Because what you do say is true, but word there united one physis (miaphysis) seems confusing. Does word physis mean hypostasis(person) or does it mean some new nature that was never there? Eastern Orthodox belief is that Christs two natures are united in one person of Christ. I would like to believe that you guys too believe that, but instead of word hypostasis(person) you use physis, which is fine because that is how Cyril used it.
The council of Ephesus I gave us our terminology in Christology. At Ephesus I it was asserted that Christ has one composite nature fully divine and fully human. This is found in the homilies of St. Theodotus of Ancyra (one of the Ephesus I presiders), and the anathemas/ letters to Nestorius by St. Cyril of Alexandria (the main presider). We also see this in the florilegium made dogma at Ephesus I such as St. Gregory the Theologian's letter to Cledonius which states the natures are made one by being compounded. Think of the one composite nature like the hot iron. It is one nature out of 2 while fully both but no longer in two each nature acting on its own like what we find in the Chalcedonian definition.
@@MinaDKSBMSB Okay, so there is one individual hot iron (or lets even say sword on fire). Sword cuts while fire burns. In this individual sword there are both natures. Proper work of fire is to burn, proper work of sword is to cut but together united in one hypostasis (although without a prosopon), that is sword on fire, both cuts and burns. This individual(hypostasis), sword on fire, is both sword and fire in essence but is united in one hypostasis sword on fire. I don't see how this is different than what Chalcedon taught. Btw I disagree that terminology was dogmatized because it Formula of Reunion Cyril has pointed out that he didn't dogmatize words but the meaning. Since in formula it says: "Miaphysis, or if you like miahypostasis" We would never say that there was a human person, since in flesh there was only one divine person that incarnated.
@@theeasternjourney it is both hypostasis and physis. Hypostasis is a particular nature according to St. Cyril and Ephesus I. Hypostasis is NOT person according to the Ephesus I definition. Also, when 2 things of the same category come together to make 1, this is where you get the Greek "henosis" or the feminine "mia". The 2 things of the same category come together to make 1 of the same category. The problem with the Chalcedonian definition of hypostasis is that they equated it with person or prosopon. In Ephesus I, 2 natures come together to make 1 composite nature. In Chalcedon, 2 natures join each other inside of 1 person container. At the molecular level, Chalcedon does not have a hot iron. They have the fire next to the iron inside an undefined container. For the Ephesus I position, our Lord doesn't merely turn on the humanity sometimes and turn on the divinity sometimes. God, who is divine, moves, grows, acts, thinks, suffers, dies, and rises in His humanity according to Ephesus I. According to Chalcedon the humanity is turned on to accept spitting and slapping while the divinity is on stand-by, and the divinity performs miracles while the humanity is on stand-by.
The Trinity is 1. The Angle of Lord (the Father), 2. the Word of God( the Som) & 3. the spirit of God. The second person of the Trinity the Word God and took flesh and blood of humanity from his mother Mariam and He became Christ, Emanul, Savior Jesus etc! He is fully God Fully Human! The two nature humanity and divinity became one person! He still has all his the nature of the word God that was uncreated eternal and the moment of his conception he acquired his human nature! His new Nature can’t be separated nor intermingled but united! One example union between metal iron and fire 🔥, assume the metal and fire from eternal union! Now we can see both the metal and the fire United but the metal and fire not mixed not mingled, not only we can see the metal and the flames but we can feel the power of the metal it can be touched but the metal also has power that will burn 🔥 us! Mow the question you should ask yourself like this fire and metal united for eternity and the union begins the moment the spirit of the Word goes through Mariam! Now just like the flame 🔥 and metal United begins the moment the flame touches the metal and can not be separated one another nor mixed one another so Christ divine and human nature united during birth, childhood, Crucifixion and Rising from the death, and from what we understand about Eastern Orthodox Christianity the Christ divine and human nature were sometimes separated sometimes together! How is that possible? Until the third Ecumenical Council at 451 AD both Catholic Christians and Eastern Orthodox Christians were not only we are all one Religion in one church but we were all in agreement In all Christians theology, teaching, traditions, Bible Liturgy Etc! All of sudden we told you we don’t another ecumenical council to avoid Arianism and Nestorian teaching and you guys called us orthodox Christians(back then it were meant to call us all school or unwillingness for change) ! The funny part was we were correct you introduced Arianism and Nestorian ideology and after 110 years later you guys called another ecumenical council to fix your mistakes but for 100 years Roman and Eastern Orthodox prosecuted our church fathers and every Christians from 🇦🇲 Syria 🇸🇾 Egypt 🇪🇬 India 🇮🇳 Ethiopia 🇪🇹 and Eritrea 🇪🇷 ! Again you invited us another council to fix your previous mistakes without acknowledging the hundred years prosecution and without recognizing our Saints whom you were personally for their deaths but never even condemned or asked apology from all those Bishops who were responsible introducing heretics when you invited us the fifth ecumenically council what do you expect? We never had any misunderstanding nor theological problems after the third ecumenical so of course we don’t want to be in another ecumenical to avoid Roman heretics teaching followed by proscriptions so we were okay with both Roman Catholic and Eastern/Catholic Orthodox churches as long as they accept the three ecumenical councils!
Really great video... but as a Catholic I cannot understand why you refer to Our Lady as a saint? She is the immaculate conception... beyond sainthood which is reserved for ordinary people who by their will in cooperation with God’s grace attain sainthood!... The Mother Of God is beyond that and to refer to her as saint totally undermines who She is in Her creation... Yes Jesus is God... begotten not created... Mary was created by God as the Mother of the redeemer and so was preserved from original sin... in creation She “The Woman” is the ultimate in God’s Creation!.. All of God’s Divine attributes are imbued in Her Soul... “Full Of Grace” I understand there are slight differences in our beliefs but this is one you ought to give your full attention... God Bless and I love your video :)
Markos pantopolos All Grace comes from God through Mary.... Death entered this world through woman (Eve) Life (Jesus) re-entered this world through Woman, The “Woman” (Mary) Grace continues to flow through Mary as intended by God... She is the Arc that carried God The Son (Life) to us and continues to do so... no man nor angel will ever comprehend what God has done through Mary... She is not one of the saints who by merit and God’s grace attained sanctity/sainthood... Mary was born without original sin.... She Is The Mother of God and that is the highest honor ...
My friend we know and believe that Saint Mary is the Mother of God (Theotokos) but, what you actually saying is wrong biblically. St. Mary herself addressed Christ as her SAVIOUR Luke 1 (KJV) - 47: And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Aron Gebreslasie Yes... of course! Everything and everyone has been created and redeemed through Jesus and for Jesus... He is The Lord... He is the cause of all causes... and the very cause of Mary’s being is through Him and because of Him... Even before the creation of Man, Jesus death on the Criss had merited for the Angels!... so yes! All things were and are in Jesus, for Jesus, redeemed, made possible through Him and Mary had a unique and vital roll to play in this far beyond that of the saints! Infinitely so... When Jesus referred to Her from the cross saying “Woman” behold thy son. He was undermining Her... He was recalling scripture, She is “The Woman” mentioned in Genesis.... He was referring to Her as The Woman, Her role, Her FIAT, to God undone everything Satan set out to do through Even... She did this in Full cooperation with Her Will and The Father’s.... never wavering... All this was given from God through all that Jesus had achieved for us on the cross even before His Sacrifice... so to refer to Mary as one of the saints undermines Her and I feel a horrible sense in my heart when She, The Holy Mother of God is refer’d to as such.... having said that, it is beautiful that you acknowledge Mary... Considering so many blaspheme against Her.... God bless you in your calling and your work and thanks for these wonderful videos
This issue was not as large a concern for the oriental communion because the tenets of Chalcedon had to be balanced with follow-up counsels in the Eastern Orthodox Communion. We do believe in one united will and one united activity (the better translation for energeia) but not because there is only a human or only a Divine will in Christ. Oriental Orthodox Christians would not consider themselves monothelites or mono-energists
@@CopticOrthodoxAnswers Let me guess. You would consider yourselves a miothelites and mioenergites? What is funny is that you are ultimately saying yeah... Jesus was a God and a man but he had one united, special nature. That is a monophysitism. Just because that one special nature has properties of both human and Divine doesn't exclude the fact that you are preaching one nature, which is the literal definition of monophysitism.
@@CarlFGauss-qn2cq You seem to be mistaken. Monphysitism states Jesus had 1 nature that was ONLY divine, with the humanity being swallowed up. This is heresy. Miaphysitism states Jesus is 1 UNITED nature that is 100% Divine and 100% Human, never mixing nor seperating for a twinkle of the eye. Saying both Monophysitism and Miaphysitism is the equivalent of me saying Nestorianism and Diophysitism is the same as both talk of 2 natures after the birth.
peter walked on water by the power bestowed upon him by the Lord Jesus. it was not in his nature. but Lord Jesus walked on water by his own power,not by a grace bestowed upon him
@@biblicalfacts3409 Totally agree, but maybe not the best argument. Someone can easily say hey if Peter can walk on water in human nature, the same thing applies with Jesus, right?
Do Coptics believe Jesus has two wills like Eastern Orthodox and Catholics do? I discussed these with a Coptic and he argued no, but to me it is clear Christ had two wills.
We believe he has 1 will. Each nature has its own will, but after the Birth both Natures united into 1 Nature (Don't be mistaken, we do not say monophysitism, Jesus is 100% Divine and 100% Human) which means the singular will.
@@tjdronex1113 We believe Christ had 2 wills according to the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III). His human will submitted itself to the divine will. This is how Jesus can say that his will not be done. How do you explain the Agony in the Garden?
@@LoveLove-jk9kz Matthew 26:39 states “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” Jesus is surrendering/submitting His will to the Father - it’s only 1 will. We as Miaphysites would say that the Logos Incarnate is speaking to His Father. We would not say that the human nature alone is speaking. Going further, when Jesus died on the cross, he humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death. Was this the will of man? If so, then we say that no man can save man. If it was the divinity, then how would God obey God? Speaking of 2 wills is dangerous as I said, how can one will be in operation without the other? (Look at Jesus walking on water, his divinity has no physical legs, and his humanity cannot walk on water) thus we say that the two natures United together without altering eachtoher, without mingling nor changing. Both formed the will of the God Incarnate.
@@tjdronex1113 I understand the position, submitting to the divine will would make it one will. But as Jesus’ prayer shows human nature would automatically cringe from death, and if the human will were to decide alone, it would naturally act to preserve the human nature. Because God cannot contradict himself this is why we say 2 wills. Although, yes Jesus human will always submit to the divine will. The Sixth Council actually mentioned that speaking of 1 will is dangerous and leads to issues about the interior life of the Trinity because to claim a single personal will in Christ implied three personal wills in the Trinity. Which it mentioned was “absurd and truly profane”.
I understand the importance of asserting Jesus as one person, not two, and that for this reason we cannot attribute words or actions to His divine nature or human nature lest we split Him up as if He isn’t one person. HOWEVER, how are we to reconcile this with, say, the fact that Jesus was tempted in all points as we are and yet without sin but God cannot be tempted? If we simply say we cannot separate the natures therefore God was tempted, we contradict the Apostle James who says God cannot tempt anyone nor can He be tempted with evil. At least in this case, mustn’t His natures be separated to resolve this? Because the same logic that gets us to “God died on the cross.” equally gets us to “God was tempted.” Any thoughts?
You have to make the distinction between falling into temptation versus overcoming temptation. Here is St. Mark the ascetic (disciple of St. John Chrysostom): “Believe, therefore, in accordance with what Scripture says, **that he came in the flesh, not that flesh came; that he grew weary in the flesh, not that flesh grew weary; that he suffered in the flesh, not that flesh suffered; that he died in the flesh, not that flesh died; that he was crucified in the flesh, not that flesh was crucified; that he rose in the flesh, not that flesh arose; that he was taken into heaven in the flesh, not that flesh was taken into heaven; that he healed in the flesh, not that flesh healed; that he was seated at the right hand of God in the flesh, not that flesh was seated. ** And, in general, whenever Holy Scripture speaks about him bodily, **__you cannot show that it is speaking about the flesh as one part of the whole, but rather united”__** (St. Mark the Monk, Counsels on the Spiritual life, Tim Vivian & Augustine Casiday) “I may believe that you too are capable of understanding **__Christ’s nature__** ” (St. Mark the Monk, Counsels on the Spiritual life, Tim Vivian & Augustine Casiday)
@@MinaDKSBMSB So then Christ was tempted in the flesh, not that the flesh was tempted, right? Doesn’t that still separate the natures? Surely the divine nature was not tempted nor died. Wasn’t the death of Christ the separation of His human soul from His human body? Or was it something else. Don’t these and others still point a distinction between human and divine natures?
@@littlefishbigmountain For us to overcome temptation, God has to be tempted in the flesh. "Who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin" Hebrews 4:15. This is how St. Paul is able to teach us that we do all things in Christ. Also, there may be a misconception on your part on the death of Christ on the cross. Yes, His human soul parted from His human body. But His divinity NEVER left His human body or His human soul while they were separated.
@@MinaDKSBMSB Yes, “God was tempted in the flesh” in that the second person of the Godhead, the Logos, was incarnate and took on impersonal human nature, such that by Communicatio Idiomatum we can say that God was tempted in the flesh, but not that the divine nature was tempted nor was the divine person (the Logos) tempted in Himself in either His divine nature or His human nature but was only externally tempted (the temptation presented itself to Him, so in that sense He was tempted, but He was not tempted in the sense of internally experiencing a pull towards giving in to some act of the flesh as if He might ever actually cave to the pressure. So although we can say that God (incarnate person, the Logos) was tempted (although not internally) in the flesh, the Logos is the person not the nature. This is a question of natures rather than person, so rather than using Communicatio Idiomatum to show that both natures refer to the same subject in Christ because there is only one, in this case we’re asking about the natures so you appeal to the person instead of the natures. We both agree by principle of Communicatio Idiomatum that God was tempted in the flesh (not that the flesh was tempted) in the person of Christ Jesus, but because God was tempted (externally) does that mean that God Himself was tempted outside of the human nature? Did temptation ever touch the divine nature? And we also know that God can never die, so the Logos could not have possibly experienced death in the divine nature, but at the incarnation when He took on humanity He became capable of experiencing death because of His humanity and did willingly lay His life down and experienced human death, preceding the harrowing of Hades. Speaking of His death, where did I give the impression that His divinity left His body?
@@littlefishbigmountain this is so close to Orthodoxy for us, but we have St. Cyril saying otherwise. Take a look at this written interaction between Succensus and St. Cyril after the Formula of reunion. First is Succensus' letter to St. Cyril, and after is St. Cyril’s response: Letter 2 of Succensus (introduction given by Mor Elias): After Succensus received this letter and confirmed through it those who were troubled, he wrote another letter to Saint Cyril, asking for a solution to the difficulties by which those Cilicians wanted to destroy the doctrine according to which Christ is proclaimed one nature of the Word incarnate after the union. Concerning the fourth or final difficulty, which your doctrine rightly contends must be shown to proclaim that Christ is two natures united after the union, he wrote the following: **"Another fourth problem is joined to them, by which they want to show that Christ suffered in human nature and hence conclude that Christ is two natures indivisibly after the union. We have also sent this problem to your Holiness together with others, for many of ours are burdened by it and are being questioned and are questioning about it, doubting the things contained in it to be orthodoxly said. The problem literally reads as follows: For he who says that the Lord suffered in a bare nature makes the passion irrational and involuntary. But if someone says that he suffered with a soul endowed with a mind, so that the passion is voluntary, there is nothing to prevent him from saying that he suffered in human nature. But if this is true, how can we not concede that two natures subsist inseparably after the union? So that if someone says, 'Therefore Christ suffered for us in the flesh,' he says nothing else but 'Therefore Christ, having suffered for us, suffered in our nature.' Therefore, these things seem to be very close to the correct faith, insofar as those corruptors have received certain just causes, and building upon the previous assumptions, as I said, they want to show that Christ is two natures after the union. However, they add 'indivisibly.' Of these things, whatever is approved and explored in your doctrine, we commit to it."** -Succensus to Cyril St Cyril responds saying: > This objection is yet another attack on those who say that **there is one incarnate nature of the Son**. They want to show that the idea is foolish and so **they keep on arguing at every turn **__that two natures endured__****. They have forgotten, **however, that it is only those things that are usually distinguished at more than a merely theoretical level** which split apart from one another in differentiated separateness and radical distinction. Let us once more take the example of an ordinary man. We recognize two natures in him; for there is one nature of the soul and another of the body, but we divide them only at a theoretical level, and by subtle speculation, or rather we accept the distinction only in our mental intuitions, and we do not set the natures apart nor do we grant that they have a radical separateness, but we understand them to belong to one man. This is why **__the two are no longer two__**, but through both of them **the one living creature is rendered complete**. - St Cyril, Second Letter to Succensus
Baseless controversy ! ... Bible mentioned thousands time that divinity only belongs to God alone . Jesus Christ or Moses or Abraham all are nothing but only Human .
Jesus is God Incarnate. He is the Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, light out of light, true God out of True God. I recommend you read the Nicean Creed.
Despite your advertent effort trying to explain this long-standing, centennial 'mystery' within the faith of Christianity, I would still rather find it more of a convolute-worded rhetoric than anything else based on a just, well-thought of, satisfactory reason. You can't just blur the distinct line among the creator, the created, and the purpose of creation.
I don't understand why people struggle with this idea. you can have two natures, dependent on the words we use, and we are using human, fallen words to describe a god who is unlimited. if you say 'god cannot be born man' is limiting God, you are saying inherently that God is limited. If you say that God cannot create a person with two natures, again you are saying 'no god you must be bound to the ideas of our limited human understanding of the logic contained WITHIN your creation and not be outside of it'. It doesn't require a genius to understand, it really doesn't. in fact I can tell a child the story of hercules and they instantly understand it "so he's human and also a god?" 'yes' "cool". so simple even a child can understand that you can be more than one thing. You yourself are more than one thing. What is complicated about this?
@@GallumA Using the example of Hercules doesn't work in this case because Hercules claims he is only a god/deity, not a creator. if you say you are the creator at the same time also a product of your own creation, then the logic is a mess, and a true Creator God, if there is one, will not make such a disastrous mess that even kids will know they are different from their mother who gives them life.
Dumb. Christ human nature did not exist before the incarnation of the eternal Logos. The Divine and Human natures unites in Jesus Christ into one after the Eternal Logos became flesh.
Ah yes, consider the religion that states Jesus is a prophet 600 years after Christians have been saying Jesus is God Incarnate. Why should I trust a man born 600 years after Jesus over the 12 Disciples who ate, slept and talked with Jesus who were martyred for saying Jesus is God?
Too bad for me and the rest of humanity that none of us have a composite nature. If only it had been the case that Jesus has a human nature, like us, then maybe humanity might be saved in him. But since he uniquely has a divine-human nature, then only the other divine-humans (of which there are none), are saved in him.
We are healed (saved) because He took on our dead and corrupt human nature and He put life in it by His Divine nature. If He only had human nature, He would not be God and be incapable of saving.
@@CopticOrthodoxAnswers If it is true that he has one, composite nature, then he did not really "take on our dead and corrupt human nature", because humans don't have a composite nature. Rather, humans have a human nature. His _own_ nature is divine, and he also took upon himself (in his one Person) a second nature, human. Two natures, one Person. For this reason, he can both be "one of us" according to that nature he assumed, and yet God, and so man may be healed in him.
Too bad for you and the rest of human persons because no one is a Divine-human Person. If only God the Word took on a human person, like us, maybe all human persons might be saved in him. But since he uniquely is a Divine-human Person, then only the other Divine-human Persons (of which there are none), are saved in Him. (This is where your logic will take you)
Yeah, that's about right. If it is true that the Person Jesus has a divine-human nature, unlike us, who all share a human nature, then us humans are without hope, because he is not one of us. If Jesus was made man, as the Scriptures and the Creed teach, then he does have a human nature. To "have a nature" is a description of what one _is_ , the category of being to which one belongs. If he is a human, then he has a human nature. If he is God, then he has a divine nature. If he is a demigod, then he has a divine-human nature.
@@paul11magdy What do you mean by "took on a human person"? Would that be like some form of possession? ...as though he were wearing a human form like a glove? That's a pretty wierd conception of things. And to be clear, no, that would also not be salvific, because if the Word of God had merely "taken on a human person" in such a way, then he would not _be_ a human person. By the way, this whole mia- / mono- thing seems to me like a semantic game, as a way to try to avoid assigning a discrete number to that which can easily be counted. For example, I am easily able to count the number of Persons of the Godhead as being three in number. Despite all Three Persons being one in substance, I don't try to come up with some wierd terminology, like, 'they are a triplicate', or some such nonsensical sophistry. They are three in Person. Simple. Likewise, I can count that the one Person, Christ, the Word of God has two natures. So, if the miaphysites are able to count like anyone else, using their fingers, would they say Christ has one, or two, natures? Which is it, one or two? If they cannot, or will not, answer such a simple question directly, is it right to assume they just using the prefix "mia-" as a clever way to avoid answering a simple question? A composite is _one_ thing formed out of two or more things.
There were christian arabs before islam. Its well documented in islamic sources. There is also a word for god or diety in arabic, and that is "إله"(ilah). Its even in the popular islamic saying of "la ilah ila allah"(there is no god but allah) Its a generic word for a god because much of the arab world was pagan. The arabs probably used that word in conjunction with the arabic words for father to describe God. Its like the word "theos" in greek which is the generic word for god or goddess. However our ancient christian fathers used Theos to describe God. Hope this helped, God bless all of you.
The Son of God is God because He was the almighty God. He could make all his work even before the birth of the world ("the world has not known you"). After that He could get rid of his then useless power to become like a normal man: the Son. Therefore the Son is at the same time God and Man. No Trinity exists because no "third divine Person" exists. In the Trinity doctrine in order to put a face to the Holy Spirit, even an omnipotent GOD has been INVENTED: the LORD WHO GIVES LIFE ! The alleged "Lord": 1. doesn't talk to the Father in the gospels, 2. doesn't talk the Son in the gospels, 3 He doesn't speak at all: no one ever heard ONE SINGLE WORD from him. 4 is ignored by the Bible (no "Lord who gives life" can be found) 5. is forgotten by Jesus: " My Father works now, so I work." 6. is again forgotten by Jesus : "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" 7. is again forgotten by Jesus : "...I am going to my Father who is greater than I am." 8. is again forgotten by Jesus: " You neither know me nor my Father." 9. is again forgotten by Jesus. " I and my Father are one." 10. is again forgotten by Jesus: " On that day you will know that I am in my Father, you are in me, and I am in you." 11. Jesus crystal clearly states that God is NOT THREE BUT TWO PERSONS: "I am not ALONE because the Father is with me" 12. is again forgotten by Jesus: "...I have not yet ascended to my Father." 13. is again forgotten by Jesus: "I am not ALONE, but I and the Father who sent me are one." 14. is again forgotten by Jesus: "The Father has not left me ALONE because I always do what pleases Him." 15. You cannot pray to Him, just to the Father and to the Son: "Whatever you ask the Father in my name, he will give you.". 16. is again forgotten by Jesus, when He states that ONLY THE FATHER knows the future: "...only the Father knows" 17. is again forgotten by Jesus when He states that "God is a spirit", Jesus should say "God and the Holy Spirit are TWO Spirits". 18. is again forgotten by Jesus when He states that "no one ever saw God", what happens with the "Lord", can He be seen ? 19. the Lord is brutally ignored in the sharing of the property : "the Father had given all things into His hands " 20. allegebly the Lord cannot give you ANYTHING: "whatever you ask of the Father in my name, He will give it to you." 21. the " phantom Lord" also DOES NOT JUDGE: "The Father judges no man, but has turned over all judgment to the Son." 22 the "phantom Lord" does NOT SIT in heaven: " ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power... " 23 the "Holy angels" will be with Jesus, but not the "phantom Lord" "When the Son of man comes WITH HIS HOLY ANGELS, He shall sit upon the throne of His glory." The "Lord" is thus only AN INVENTION! Indeed many christians still believe that the Holy Spirit is a kind of "MAGICAL DUST" falling down the sky, which gives them awesome abilities! Well, the HOLY SPIRIT is neither a magical fluid, nor the invented "Lord": He is the FATHER WHO IS IN THE FORM OF A SPIRIT, because "God is a spirit" means "the Father is a spirit" and is called "the Holy Spirit". In other words, Jesus has the Father who is a spirit and calls Him sometimes "Father", sometimes "Spirit"(Holy), according to circumstances, and this leads to confusion. Thus, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is SYNONYM of blasphemy against the Father ("...but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."). No one has been forgotten there: just TWO blasphemies are possible! Jesus also directly confirms that the HOLY SPIRIT inside Him IS THE FATHER: “The words I say to you, I say not on my own but from the FATHER who DWELLS IN ME.” In a smart way you can skip the whole difficult "Comforter paragraph" to directly see who is inside the apostles: the "Spirit of your Father", i.e. once again the Father who is a spirit: no "third God" exists. Here ua-cam.com/video/fHw7e4Xhp4w/v-deo.html you can find 20 verses of the gospels that don't make any sense when interpreted according to the Trinity theory and that make perfectly sense instead with a "DUALITARIAN" interpretation.
Hello Nowhere are we told “two natures” “fully God” Jesus is the Messiah The Son of God The Son of David The Son of man The man God has chosen to be his anointed king The man God will judge the world through The man God raised from the dead Jesus will return and rule the nations with believers in the kingdom of God on the earth Jesus has a God There is no triune god in scripture Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. - Acts 3 13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him. 14 But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted unto you, 15 and killed the Prince of life; whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. Notice Jesus is NOT the God of Abraham
One of the perks of being orthodox is that you don't have to craft sneaky answers to simple questions like a heretic might do. For example, an orthodox person can answer a question of number with a number, one, two, etc.
What am I if I believe YHWH is the Father. That He alone is God. Yeshua is a man that has God as his actual father. God created or begot Christ in Mary.
??? Sorry friend, but that is equaling God to Zeus and Christ to Hercules. It also makes Mary not a virgin, and contradicts the prophecy that Messiah will be born of a virgin. And Christ pre-existed His birth. ,,In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." John 1:1 ,,Before Abraham was, I AM." John 8:58
@@X22-p4t what!? Of course Mary is a virgin. God put a baby in the womb...not by intercourse. The verse doesn't say before Abraham was I was alive. I am Messiah could be there. What is the context? I know that Jesus did not pre exist because he has a genealogy and that would make a lie if he didn't have it beginning. Plus any verse that seems to imply he pre-existed is never clear so I know if he did pre-exist he would have went around and told everyone.
@@mr.e1220 ,,Jesus has a genealogy." ??? Listen, if God becomes man, and if He is born of a virgin, He is going to have human ancestors through His mother. That is ancestors Jesus has. And adoptive ancestors through His adoptive father Joseph. His human genealogy doesn't destroy His eternity at all. ,,I am the Messiah could be there." No, friend, it is pretty clear. Jesus said ,,Before Abraham was, I AM!" and I AM is title by which God revealed Himself to Moses! ,,What is the context?" What is the context? The context is that Jews are asking Jesus did He saw Abraham. ,,Any verse that implies His pre-existence is unclear." This verse is pretty clear to me. ,,In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANYTHING MADE THAT WAS MADE!" John 1:1-3 ,,God put the baby in the womb...not by intercourse." You said you believe God is actual father of Jesus. You might not be talking about intercourse, but everyone who heard you would think you are talking about intercourse.
@@X22-p4t Jesus did not say Before Abraham was, YAHWEH! Even the man healed from being born blind when asked who was the man that was healed, said "I Am". Same exact words. Jesus was saying he is The Christ Whowas the plan of God for man’s redemption long before Abraham lived. So he was 'before' Abraham in that sense.Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one-the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”
Great video. I hope Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox can unite into One Church soon
Consider it done
Its still two separate natures...because of the union of the Son and The Holy spirit..
Even if the son is of One nature that is both human and divine you still need a separate divine nature because of the separate divine person of the holy spirit.
@Saliem Semere We are oriental
The difference between you guys and other orthodox and other Christians is you guys are racist ethnonationalist that only favors your own ethnic type ( big sin in the bible ) instead of spreading the gospel to all nations
@@SimpleMinded221 that's not true. If you have been to a parish that has been ethnocengric I'm sorry you had a bad experience. Your comment is filled with anger and frustration. I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and the parishes I've visited have bee nothing but welcoming.
8:15 Is kind of hard to grasp.
So you don't say Jesus suffered in his human nature because human nature, on it's own, is lifeless; however, you do say he suffered in the flesh? Isn't "the flesh" also lifeless on it's own? Btw, we agree, natures don't act it's the person who has a nature that does.
8:40 Only Nestorians separate the Natures, Chalcedonians distinguish them. If you believe distinction implies separation, then Muslims are right and we believe in 3 Gods.
Distinguishing in thought or theory alone is OK for us in the miaphysite concept. The problem we have in chalcedonian concept is that it has been made dogma that each nature performs what is proper to it, as this is a violation of Ephesus I. Also for us, we refuse to go down the 2 nature resulting philosophical route of giving Christ 2 minds, 2 wills, 2 operations. For us, dividing Christ of His oneness of full divinity and full humanity would devastate the economy of salvation. We must be able to say and believe as the scripture has showed us that Emmanuel our God died in the flesh for us on the cross.
the first or early christians and oriental orthodox view of christology is same.
Thanks Father. I am from Ethiopian oriental orthodox church.
Fr. Gabriel Wissa, I belong to the Armenian Apostolic Church. I just want to mention how your video and explanation of how the Son of God is both Man and God is beautiful! May God bless you. Have a wonderful day.
Thank you from Eritrean orthodox church.
I see no big differences with catholicism (I'm catholic) but a difference of terms, as the joint declaration of Pope Paul VI and Pope Shenouda showed. We catholics do believe that in Our Lord there is One Person, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Logos, the Eternal Word, consubstantial to the Father, who, without renounce to His divinity made Himself flesh, in all equal to us but in sin.
Agree
Catholics and eastern orthodox are dyophysite whereas oriental orthodox churches are miaphisite
@@onetruth3050 modified dyophysitism. That is Christ is in two natures without change or confusion in one hypostasis.
@@Tsalagi978yes, such is the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic position
Jesus is the only saviour! (i am an Indonesian)
and orthodoxy is where you find the true christ
@@yeetyeetyeet234 Spesifically chalcedonian Orthodox.
@@DeaconYeabkal When miaphysitism forms Christ doesn't share a nature with the two other persons of the Trinity anymore.
Because of:
Nature of the Father = 100% divine
Nature of the Holy Spirit = 100% divine
Nature of Jesus Christ = 100% divine & 100% human.
It is a heresy
@@science_is_fake_and_gay2710If that's the case they did a horrible job evangelizing. No one knows who they are.
If Jesus is not human, He doesn't save US.
If Jesus is not God, He doesn't SAVE us.
Can God die ?
@@MegaTRUTH007 On the cross of Christ, God suffers and dies in His own flesh, in an effable and mysterious way
@@TheCopticParabolanos , God is immortal so who exactly died for you ?
@@MegaTRUTH007 God is immortal, yes. But God, in His love for us, took a body which was capable of dying for us. Death could not contain the infinite God, who is immortal by nature, so God killed death in His saving work on the Cross
If Jesus is not human, He cannot die in the cross.
If Jesus is not God, The dead of his humanity cannot bring salvation to us.
God cannot and never die.
Very informative and a better understanding of our faith. Thank you father and God bless🙌
It's clear father. Thank you so much✝️❤ I Believe by one nature Jesus Christ 💒
Its still two separate natures...because of the union of the Son and The Holy spirit..
Even if the son is of One nature that is both human and divine you still need a separate divine nature because of the separate divine person of the holy spirit.
This is so confused. The Fathers talk about Union of two natures in the Hypostasis of the Logos
@@Thetruthisnoteasy
By "one Nature", we mean a real union. This does not involve mingling as of wheat and barely, nor confusion as of wine and water or milk and tea. Moreover, no change occurred as in the case of chemical reaction. For example carbon dioxide consists of carbon and oxygen, and the nature of both changes when they are combined; each loses its properties which distinguished it before the unity. In contrast, no change occurred in the Divine or Human nature as a result of their unity.
Furthermore, unity between the two natures occurred without transmutation.
Thus, neither did the Divine nature transmute to the human nature, nor did the human nature, transmute to the Divine nature. The Divine nature did not mix with the human nature nor mingle with it, but it was a unity that led to Oneness of Nature.
Jesus is fully God and fully man
My understanding of the Christological difference between the Oriental Orthodox (OO) and Eastern Orthodox (EO) is this:
OO believe that the incarnate Christ is 1 divine-human particular nature, and the divine and human properties are distinct from one another.
EO believe that the incarnate Christ is 1 divine particular nature, and the divine and human general natures are distinct from one another.
This difference is caused by two different philosophical presuppositions:
OO presuppose a conceptual distinction between a particular nature and a general nature, due to the fact that a general nature is a conceptual grouping/compendium of particular natures.
EO presuppose a real distinction between particular natures and general natures, while general natures only exist in particular natures EO nonetheless view them as being distinct in reality.
Please let me know if I'm missing something.
Orthodox Church believes in a Christ as a hypostasis. A hypostasis that is composed of two separate natures, divine and human. Divine, of course without saying, has a primacy over the other, but ultimately they are dividedly united in Jesus. Jesus, as a hypostasis, is the one who has control over both of them. There is no general nature, there can be no general nature. What they call a general nature is complete fallacy because that implies natures somehow mixed between themselves without actually mixing forming a new nature that is not actually a nature but its just a general nature, and that train of thought is illogical to say the least. Also, this would imply that, if Jesus truly had a general nature, every single human thing He did/felt(for example: felt hungry, drank water, bleed, die etc.) can be attributed to his general nature that is consistent of divine nature as well. If that is the case, does that then mean that hunger, thirst, mortality etc. can be attributed to His Divine nature as its properties?
EO doesn't believe and doesn't teach about general natures at all, nor it ever will. EO makes a distinction between Divine and human because there is drastic and real, not only conceptual, difference between them. God is immortal and humans are mortal. These two realities were united in Jesus and through Him humans were shown a way to salvation/divinity in small.
@@CarlFGauss-qn2cq we make the same distinction as well between his Divine and human attributes! we attribute the corresponding acts to each “nature” (really more of a substance, since an individual nature would imply a person), but won’t separate the Divinity and humanity into individual natures since that would be separating the Lord into two people in our eyes. now, how how do we categorize the miracle of walking on water?
Was gonna correct you on the EO line but looks like it’s already been done
Thank you, Abouna, for that clear and understandable explanation of Christ's Divinity and humanity. Your words echo the same teachings of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I hope that a one day we shall be one again.
They will never unite... Save your prayers.
@@joshuacherian6718 Why do you say that?
@@whoisnext9837 As Israel rejected Yahweh, the time is coming when the church will reject her lord & savior Jesus Christ. At that time another savior the antichrist will come whom the churches will unite to accept ..but for those who love our lord ...He will appear the second time and save us.. Many false christs and prophets are already at work in all denominations , particularly the protestants. They are tearing apart the church... Many evil god haters are also presiding as priests in the orthodox and catholic churches ... These are all divisive .Thats why i said dont pray for unification...rather pray that our lord returns soon... Maranatha
@@whoisnext9837
Because they have a Sasuke pfp. Jk, lol
@@joshuacherian6718who are you to be so sure? The Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch (Eastern Orthodox) and the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch (Oriental Orthodox) have been discussing reunification for decades.
All Orthodox are “one body” we disagree and fight in our fallen humanity! God Bless ALL Orthodox!
🙏🌺☦️🌺🙏
Good job abouna
Amen. Praise be to God for his wonderful different Christian churches on Earth.
Thank you Abouna. With all the opposing views (sometimes becoming quite hostile), it is helpful for someone, with the full love of God, to bring true light.
He didn't bring any light on the subject. On one hand he is saying there are two natures, on the other there is one, on the third he is using terms "human flesh" completely neglecting term human nature etc. That sounds to me eerily monophysitic. I think that he/they are trying to be too fancy and overcomplicate things just for the sake of the argument. Simple truth is that Jesus Christ was a God and a man, at the same time. Both of his natures constituted him as a hypostasis/person. Hypostasis always has a primacy over nature. To say that on one hand and in certain situations his Divine nature took over and on the other human is completely wrong.
@@CarlFGauss-qn2cq what’s the difference between what you said in the end of your text and what he’s saying in the video
@@CarlFGauss-qn2cqWatch again
Christian churches will never unite.. Over 2000 years the splits and divisions have only grown .. Infact the time is coming when the churches will deny Christ ...and then the false Christ will appear... But to those who love our Lord & Savior Jesus, hold the faith...He will come the second time and deliver us..
All three sides of the 5th Century Schism were trying to explain the Incarnation in a way that was compatible with Divine Immutability and Divine Impassability and I feel that was the problem. To me The Entire Bible is nothing but a long chronicle of how Mutable and Passible God Is.
3:24. Isn't that a false dichotomy?
Explain?
Amazing video. God bless you.
I do not see the difference between duophysitism which the Catholic Church believes and miaphysitism as you have articulated it here in your video and ascribed to the teachings of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Does it mean you share the same communion? Are your theological beliefs here interchangeable?
Great video. I am a Lutheran layman who is studying the miaphysite position, and I see that it is very similar to the way in which Christ works miracles through his humanity in Lutheranism (communicatio idiomatum)
Jesus did miracles, not by his own divine attributes, but only from the Father through the Holy Spirit. The Gospel of John says this many times. That means he was emptied of his divine attributes, but with one exception: his identity. He kept his identity as the Logos (not sure that even qualifies as an attribute). That never changed when he became a man. This is why he was indeed God and man, not because he still had his attributes.
Ive been watching videos from as many early Christian churches i can find, EO, OO, calcedonian, jews, catholics etc but not one has led me to believe that Jesus isnt subordinate to the father. The excuse is if jesus wasnt god, god wouldn't have died for our salvation, but in a father son relationship, any father would see losing their only son as worse than losing their own life. So God giving up his only son is almost more significant than giving up himself.
I still think jesus is divine and the logos, i just think since he proceeded or came from the father, its obvious the father came first and made jesus the logos with an intent of creation.
Im looking for a better answer than ive found so far from real theologians...
Perhaps I need to study more in depth, but it seems to me that the belief that Jesus had only one composite divine/human nature necessarily implies that He does not have a truly (and only) human nature.
If you are Orthodox why that you make a sign of a cross is like Roman Catholic did..
Are you saying that God's Divinity cannot exist without his humanity?
At the end of the day the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental and [most] Protestant Churches believe in the Holy Trinity and the Full Divinity and Full Humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ. How we understand Christ’s nature is the [very minor] issue of the ages.
Roman and EASTERN Catholscism anld Eastern Oriental believe that at the CONSECRATION IN ThE SACRED LITURGY; the cost and vine ACTUALLY BEGOME THE BODY AND BLOOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIS FOEVEREVER. THERE ARE A FEW POSTESTANT CHURCHES THAT HOLD IT IS ONLY FOR A SORT ABOUT OF TIME or they beieve that there NOT BE ANY REPCTION OF any host or vine they offer a sermoin and songs as their worshop so unstanding Christiì's nature and divinity is NOT a minor issue of the ages. If you cannot accept the Eucharist, than you do not accept THE true nature of Jesus Christ. .
Catholic church is not a church but abomination in every single sense.
My understanding is that YHWH only took on a human body to interact with us but not to become subject to weak flesh nature. He remained completely in Spirit power. So that we would also believe in puting on the whole Spirit of YHWH!. Extinguishing our flesh nature from having any dominion over us. His flesh body though did suffer for us on that cross, that's a FACT! 51years of research into ALL things religious, whether Abrahamic, or otherwise has leed me to this discernment.
This is an honest question that is brought to you related to Jhon 1:1c. Jehová Witnesses argue that The Sahidic Coptic manuscript translated the clause as “The Word was a god.” They are states that it makes Jesus not god, but a member o class of gods like Moses, Angels, Judges of Israel or even Satan. Any reason what Coptic manuscript translate that way?
the JW do many times act with violence towards the Holy Scriptures. They add words of men, to what God has said. Liars should not be trusted to say and proclaim what is found in the native language manuscripts.
Thank you for explaining the nature of Christ.
A. LETTER TO TIMOTHY 2,5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus!
Mattew 24:36
36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows,neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.
Mattew 23:8-10
8 But be not ye called teachers. for one is your Teacher, even Christ. 9 You are all brothers. And call no man father (Spiritual)upon the earth. for one is Father, which is in heaven.10 And be not ye called masters. for one is your Master, even Christ....
“YOU must not let people call you ‘leaders’-you have only one leader, Christ!” (Matthew 23:10, The New Testament) With these words, Jesus made it plain to his followers that no man on earth would be their leader. Their one Leader would be heavenly-Jesus Christ himself. Jesus holds this position by divine appointment..
Jehovah “raised him up from the dead and . . . made him head over all things to the congregation, which is his body.”-Ephesians 1:20-23.
2 Since Christ is “head over all things” with regard to the Christian congregation, he exercises his authority over all that takes place within the congregation. Nothing that occurs within the congregation escapes his notice. He closely observes the spiritual condition of each group of Christians, or congregation. This is clearly apparent in the revelation given to the apostle John at the end of the first century C.E. To seven congregations, Jesus stated five times that he knew their deeds, their strong points, and their weaknesses, and he gave counsel and encouragement accordingly. (Revelation 2:2, 9, 13, 19; 3:1,8,15,17) There is every reason to believe that Christ was equally familiar with the spiritual condition of other congregations in Asia Minor, Palestine, Syria, Babylonia, Greece, Italy, and elsewhere. (Acts 1:8) What of today?
ua-cam.com/video/Oo9ytCWBYSw/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/K98ziVX7AHo/v-deo.html
Blessings everyone GREAT WATCH HERE FOR EVERYONE "NOTHING IS AS IT SEEMS"? BY PASTOR /PROFESSOR WALTER VEITH AND MARTIN SMITH YOU TUBE POWERFUL POWERFUL WATCH FROM SOUTH AFRICA ENJOY 💯🙏🏾😃❤️👍🏽
Watching this for my apologetics studies. You understand when we make a distinction it's because not doing so and stating His two natures are of one composite nature inherently implies imperfection and perfection are one in the same, right? That's a serious problem not just from Christological standpoint but also from a theological standpoint. We are clearly told repeatedly within Scripture how imperfect compared to Christ we are. Therefore this idea His dual natures are one singular composite nature makes next to no sense. A distinction must be made. You put far too much of an emphasis on the unity between the natures without taking a step back and looking at why while yes, they are unified in the one person. They are still distinct from each other. This is why diophysitism is crucial to understanding those two natures. I recently met a Coptic Ortho whom lives in Egypt and is incredibly confused on the matter. Myself and a fellow EO friend of mine have been not only trying to get her to understand what she believes because she's confused beyond belief but also what we believe. If you have the time to respond then I'd greatly appreciate it as I have many questions to potentially help not just myself but others around me understand why your church denies diophysitism. Thank you and God bless.
Thank you for your thoughtful message!
First, there is merit to both 'dyophysite' and 'miaphysite' understandings of the nature of Christ. One cannot deny that, based on outlook, an Orthodox confession of faith can be made with either emphasis as the operative one.
I wonder if your stress on the 'not mixing' of perfection and imperfection was actually of any concern to the Church fathers. The fathers of the Church are clear that is because of Christ's very real contact with us that corruption and death are rooted out. This of course is expressed most succinctly in St. Gregory the Theologian's maxim, "That which is not assumed is not healed and that which is united to God is saved" Letter to Cledonius. Another example of this is throughout St. Athanasius' Against the Arians. Take this quote for example,
"For therefore did He assume the body originate and human, that having renewed it as its Framer, He might deify it in Himself, and thus might introduce us all into the kingdom of heaven after His likeness. For man had not been deified if joined to a creature, or unless the Son were very God; nor had man been brought into the Father’s presence, unless He had been His natural and true Word who had put on the body. And as we had not been delivered from sin and the curse, unless it had been by nature human flesh, which the Word put on (for we should have had nothing common with what was foreign), so also the man had not been deified, unless the Word who became flesh had been by nature from the Father and true and proper to Him. For therefore the union was of this kind, that He might unite what is man by nature to Him who is in the nature of the Godhead, and his salvation and deification might be sure." St. Athanasius, Against the Arians, Book 2, Chapter 21, Tract 70
Or from his work on the Nicene Creed:
"For then it is said of Him, as also that He hungered, and thirsted, and asked where Lazarus lay, and suffered, and rose again. And as, when we hear of Him as Lord and God and true Light, we understand Him as being from the Father, so on hearing, ‘The Lord created,’ and ‘Servant,’ and ‘He suffered,’ we shall justly ascribe this, not to the Godhead, for it is irrelevant, but we must interpret it by that flesh which He bore for our sakes: for to it these things are proper, and this flesh was none other’s than the Word’s. And if we wish to know the object attained by this, we shall find it to be as follows: that the Word was made flesh in order to offer up this body for all, and that we partaking of His Spirit, might be deified, a gift which we could not otherwise have gained than by His clothing Himself in our created body, for hence we derive our name of “men of God” and “men in Christ.” But as we, by receiving the Spirit, do not lose our own proper substance, so the Lord, when made man for us, and bearing a body, was no less God; for He was not lessened by the envelopment of the body, but rather deified it and rendered it immortal." On The Nicene Definition, Chapter 2, Tract 14
With this in mind it makes perfect sense to affirm the one incarnate nature of the Logos where Divinity can enliven humanity once more in the hypostasis of The Logos. It is with this soteriological imperative that the non-chalcedonian churches felt that the confession 'in two natures' (as opposed to 'of two natures') could lead to an undermining of the foundation of humanity's salvation. St. Severus of Antioch (one of the key tradition bearers in the non-chalcedonian Churches) gives a poignant examples,
"But he mingled the two, establishing that he is indivisibly one and the same Son and Word, who on our behalf unchangeably became man, speaking as befits God and humanly. Thus too it is often possible to see in his actions what belongs to the character of God and (what is) human mingled together. For how will anyone divide walking upon the water? For to run upon the sea is foreign to the human nature, but it is not proper to the divine nature to use bodily feet. Therefore that action is of the incarnate Word, to whom belongs at the same time divine character and humanity indivisibly." St. Severus of Antioch, Letter 1 to Sergius the Grammarian (in the excellent book, Christology after Chalcedon by Iain Torrance)
Thus if one looks to the walking on water they see the united Christ, the God-man. It is not human to defy the laws of gravity and yet it is not of The Divine nature to walk with physical feet. This instance shows us the God-man as He is and is an exemplary expression of the one Incarnate Nature of the God-man.
If you interested in further resources, the excellent work by Father Peter Farrington should surely be seen as a standard in the field: www.lulu.com/shop/father-peter-farrington/orthodox-christology/paperback/product-21775791.html
The works of Fr. John Anthony Mcguckin will be of huge interest as well especially, "St. Cyril of Alexandria and The Christological Controversy". To start you might enjoy this talk of his at St. Vladimir's seminary: www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/svsvoices/our_common_father_saint_cyril
May God bless your search for Him and may He continue to reveal Himself to you
worship only one God , the true almighty God the lord of jesus and the entire existance. why do you have to make justfication that will eventually mislead you? why do you make equality to god? if jesus is the son of god then god must be same nature as jesus. so, jesus was humanbeing who can neither benefit himself nor he could protect himself. be convinced jesus's message to worship the one and only exalted Allah who sent all the messangers with same mesaage worship me alone.
@@abdifitahabdallah3381 Einstein of 2021! Whenever i see someone use the word almighty i know its a muslim😂😂😂
I cannot worship a fairytale that teaches about where the sun sets (in a pool ) and how many muhammad can go to bed with and a black stone😂 and circulating 7 days and throwing rocks ona rock 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ pure paganism
@@abdifitahabdallah3381your heresy doesn’t belong here
So how many Gods?
Why is he talking so fast
I appreciate your understanding.
thank you for explaining!
Nothing heretical here. I really do not see what any Christian would find misleading ( that is something that would lead one away from the love of God ) from his understanding of who Christ is.
Two natures morphing into one is not heretical enough for you? Than you are not a Christian my man.
Who can I get in touch with to be able to go to Coptic church ?
Just find a Coptic church near you, when they are open walk in, and after the service talk with the priest. God bless.
What nature died in the cross?
Human
So is that the same belief as Catholics and Eastern Orthodox or are there subtle differences?
Orientals reject Chalcedeon.
What is your view of us Eastern Orthodox, father?
Markos pantopolos
In the eyes of the Oriental Orthodox, are we still Orthodox? I have met with a couple of Coptic priests (part of why I watch these videos) and they claim we hold the same faith
I believe that there is a difference between what EO believe today vs what they concluded in Chalcedon. The question always becomes do we stick to the past or look towards the future and try to unite. I personally choose the latter option.
Coptic Orthodox Answers hello , father. Do u mean What the EO believed in chalcedon was wrong and that they have later on corrected their belief on our Lord Jesus Christ?
I have read a statement from Fr. John Meyendorff admitting this, yes... do they all admit it? I doubt it...
@Coptic Orthodox Answers
Would you tell someone who is EO to convert to Oriental Orthodoxy, or, do you believe that we are sufficiently Orthodox?
How do you view us in comparison to Roman Catholicism?
It's clear father thank you so much
my you deny humanity jesus you he is divine denying yours, your faith is not but a humanity heresy apollinarian nestorio refuted, jesus not God the Father but the son of god but he does not accept they are two different natures, God not being a friend made man mine not but a son God's.
We do not deny Jesus's humanity -- what are you saying?
What about people who lived before Christ? How should a complex and confusing theory like this be understood somewhere in the Jungle without any explanation?
Thank you Abounas !!
No offence, but rejection of the hypostatic union/two natures of Christ leads to a serious heresy, and it's the main heresy for which your Church have been disassociated, because in order for Jesus Christ to be fully human, he must have a complete human nature, including the human-soul, so rejection of the human nature, or the general distinction between the two natures, means either that Jesus Christ was not fully human, what leads to gnosticism, or that a human being is literally part of the Trinity/God, what leads to idolatry.
Very helpful , VERY INFORMATIVE
Excellent video!
🙏❤☦
Except Cyril Of Alexandria Was The Work Of Truman Capote
Hello father. Do you think that the EO is orthodox? St Severus and St dioscorus didnt accept the chalcedon formula of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thanks !
Markos pantopolos What Do u think about the ecumenical movement ? It takes place in every Christian denomination , in the OO EO catholic protestant etc.
Markos pantopolos What’s the heresy of the Eastern Orthodox?
That's 100% false. We anathemtize Nestorius and accept all the teachings of Ephesus and St. Cyril. We believe in the hypostatic union, communication of the attributes, "theopaschite" expressions, Theotokos, etc.
I personally believe they’re fully orthodox, but that chalcedon is still pretty bad, due to it accepting some nestorian figures. What they call the hypostatic union is what we call the One Incarnate Nature of the Word.
"Acceptance of Nestorian figures" was based on them anathematizing Nestorius and accepting Ephesus. The one incarnate nature expression is acceptable in Eastern Orthodoxy.
This all makes no sense..
I have a headache listening to this.
Jesus himself said ‘By self I can do nothing’
He was only a man sent by God as a messenger
Why don't you continue the verse? He says, "the Son can do nothing of himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, BECAUSE WHATEVER THE FATHER DOES THE SON ALSO DOES" ( John 5:19) That's Jesus claiming to be God right there....
We believe in the Inseparable Operations, so every Divine action is done by the Holy Trinity, from the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit.
If Christianity makes no sense to you, then that's a "you" problem. Does Mohammed going to heaven riding a flying donkey while everyone was asleep make sense to you?
@@Luis-kn4pm why don’t you continue to read the whole bible and read the final revelation The Quran and finish off the continuation of Gods message
@@bilzerzayd I've already read both and the Quran is not at all in continuity with the Holy Bible.
As a matter of fact, it makes a bunch of silly mistakes like confusing Mary, the mother of Jesus, with Miriam, daughter of Amram, sister of Aaron and Moses.
It says Solomon spoke to ants and died standing so his enslaved Jinns would keep working even after his death.
What's even more absurd is that it says Alexandre the Great (Dhu al-Qarnayn),who was a homosexual Pagan, was actually a "Prophet" of God and that he followed a road that lead him to where the Sun sets in a muddy spring.
Please, for your own benefit my brother in humanity, leave Islam and join an Orthodox Church.
@@Luis-kn4pm can you please organise the 13th meeting with a priest.
They always seem to walk out or have tears in their eyes in the end because they know the truth and have a hard time covering it when someone exposes them.
@@bilzerzayd What are you even talking about?
This seems so obvious and easy to affirm. Why doesn’t everyone believe this?
Complicated. But a very good explanation.
Yes indeed how can god ask for a such complex concept? This can’t be it
@@karimelprince10 you Muslims are so weird
@@gd.5528 and you worship a man. You believe a baby who came out of a womb is the allmighty. Why should god the creator limit himself and enter his creation to display himself in a such suffering manner? Are you serious?
Father you began by saying that Christ is one Person of or in two natures. To then say that He is one nature is confusing
Bless father! He is one incarnate nature out of two. The two natures out of which He subsists retain their dynamic presence and distinction. This is no different than the Christology of Cyril and the council of Ephesus
from two natures two one nature. it didn't reject one nature. the two natures become one nature.
@@ibsaabera217 Exactly. That is monophysitism at its core.
As ever the holy spirit is always forgotten and neglected. And where is this mentioned explicitly in the scripture? And what was God for the Jews before the human incarnation? Because for them it was simple: God is a single deity of a single nature, that's it.
The Holy Trinity... The Son became Incarnate. The Old Testament Jews worshipped the same God as us, and when Jesus came he fulfilled the laws of the Old Testament and fulfilled prophecies. Accept the Holy Trinity.
Imperfection equals perfection? 3 equals 1? Jesus is of same essence as God but have no answer to all that God knows? Top bible scholars discovered that the Bible have been corrupted by thousands of contradictions. If it's for the whole of humanity, God will make it simple to understand and not making it so confusing. Pray to only One God. No idols worshipping. No human worshipping. No Trinity.
Wow... that was so not factual. Also Christianity is not the product of the Bible. The Bible is the product of Christianity.
I am ethiopia orthodox church that is great explanation about jesus christ nature
God bless you
Why coptic do not accept calcedon christology ?
because it is different or opposite from ephesus council.
Because it states 2 natures after the birth.
To say Jesus has 2 natures is dangerous. Indeed Jesus had 1 nature that was 100% Divine and 100% Human, never seperating nor mingling ever. To seperate and say Jesus has 2 natures instead of 1 United nature can lead to heresies.
We also see after chalcedon the chalcedonian churches had to have more councils to clear up thoughts on the chalcedonion christology, the Miaphysites did not.
@@tjdronex1113 Your theology is monofisit. Its false belief that human nature can be divene nature. Its same to you say that human can be a God.
@@TheWilly5514 you seem to be mistaken. You assume we say the Divine and Human nature mingles, this is a false belief. We directly say the Human and Divine nature United into 1 nature without mingling, nor separating for the twinkle of the eye.
You saying we are monophysite is the same as us saying you’re Nestorian for saying 2 natures after the Birth.
@@tjdronex1113 You cannot know the difference between a Chalcedonian christology and a Nestorian christology.
Chalcedony christology: Jesus has 2 natures 1 person (2 physite 1 Hypostasis ).
Nestorian Christology: Jesus has 2 natures and 2 persons (2 physite 2 Hypostasis ).
Nestorians teach that Jesus was born as an ordinary human who was 100% human. Jesus only had a divine nature after being baptized.
This is very confused. Surely the two natures are united in the hypostasis of the Logos? And why the pews, Father, I am sure St Cyril didn’t recommend those
That is exactly right. On the other hand he is saying that he is not monophysite but teaches of one special godly-human nature, that apparently only befits Christ.
I fail to see how this isn’t a conflation of the terms Person and Nature. Chalcedon states that the hypostatic union is united, so yes the divine and human nature are together walking on the water in the Person of Christ. But they remain distinct natures, similar to how the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Son for example.
“Nature” in the OO tradition doesn’t mean “person,” but rather “existent” or “concrete individuation.” Happy to answer any questions you might have
@@TheCopticParabolanos well that’s my point though. The traditional understanding of Person is a specific instantiation of essence, as you’re saying. To say Christ had to have one nature because he is one Person seems to confuse nature and Person.
@@TheCopticParabolanos well i see now that you’re proposing nature means what I would define Person as. What would OO say the difference between nature and Person is?
@@Gruenders “Person” refers to the self-conscious identity of an entity. Christ is one, simple divine person (I.e. God the Word). Christ’s nature or hypostasis is theanthropic and compound, being a union out of two natures. So note: hypostasis =/= person in OO Christology
@@Gruenders we can say that Christ is one nature out of two natures, but we would never say that He is one person out of two persons.
I have a doubt. Im chilean (latin american). Here there is no single oriental orthodox church, and I doubt that there is one coptic or other oriental orthodox. If I would discerned that coptic orthodoxy is my sincere belief, why I could do living in a country in what there is not a single church?
Dearest to Christ, God can certainly work in whichever context you are in. If there is any Orthodox Church near you, make contact and start with that.
May God help you and be with you
The Syriac Orthodox Church has a strong presence in South America. They are in union with us. See if they have a church near you.
Q for Coptic and Orientals. Would you say that miaphysitism is basically Christs two natures united in one person of Christ. Because what you do say is true, but word there united one physis (miaphysis) seems confusing. Does word physis mean hypostasis(person) or does it mean some new nature that was never there?
Eastern Orthodox belief is that Christs two natures are united in one person of Christ. I would like to believe that you guys too believe that, but instead of word hypostasis(person) you use physis, which is fine because that is how Cyril used it.
The council of Ephesus I gave us our terminology in Christology. At Ephesus I it was asserted that Christ has one composite nature fully divine and fully human. This is found in the homilies of St. Theodotus of Ancyra (one of the Ephesus I presiders), and the anathemas/ letters to Nestorius by St. Cyril of Alexandria (the main presider). We also see this in the florilegium made dogma at Ephesus I such as St. Gregory the Theologian's letter to Cledonius which states the natures are made one by being compounded. Think of the one composite nature like the hot iron. It is one nature out of 2 while fully both but no longer in two each nature acting on its own like what we find in the Chalcedonian definition.
@@MinaDKSBMSB Okay, so there is one individual hot iron (or lets even say sword on fire). Sword cuts while fire burns. In this individual sword there are both natures. Proper work of fire is to burn, proper work of sword is to cut but together united in one hypostasis (although without a prosopon), that is sword on fire, both cuts and burns.
This individual(hypostasis), sword on fire, is both sword and fire in essence but is united in one hypostasis sword on fire. I don't see how this is different than what Chalcedon taught.
Btw I disagree that terminology was dogmatized because it Formula of Reunion Cyril has pointed out that he didn't dogmatize words but the meaning. Since in formula it says:
"Miaphysis, or if you like miahypostasis"
We would never say that there was a human person, since in flesh there was only one divine person that incarnated.
@@theeasternjourney it is both hypostasis and physis. Hypostasis is a particular nature according to St. Cyril and Ephesus I. Hypostasis is NOT person according to the Ephesus I definition. Also, when 2 things of the same category come together to make 1, this is where you get the Greek "henosis" or the feminine "mia". The 2 things of the same category come together to make 1 of the same category. The problem with the Chalcedonian definition of hypostasis is that they equated it with person or prosopon. In Ephesus I, 2 natures come together to make 1 composite nature. In Chalcedon, 2 natures join each other inside of 1 person container. At the molecular level, Chalcedon does not have a hot iron. They have the fire next to the iron inside an undefined container. For the Ephesus I position, our Lord doesn't merely turn on the humanity sometimes and turn on the divinity sometimes. God, who is divine, moves, grows, acts, thinks, suffers, dies, and rises in His humanity according to Ephesus I. According to Chalcedon the humanity is turned on to accept spitting and slapping while the divinity is on stand-by, and the divinity performs miracles while the humanity is on stand-by.
The Trinity is 1. The Angle of Lord (the Father), 2. the Word of God( the Som) & 3. the spirit of God. The second person of the Trinity the Word God and took flesh and blood of humanity from his mother Mariam and He became Christ, Emanul, Savior Jesus etc! He is fully God Fully Human! The two nature humanity and divinity became one person! He still has all his the nature of the word God that was uncreated eternal and the moment of his conception he acquired his human nature! His new Nature can’t be separated nor intermingled but united! One example union between metal iron and fire 🔥, assume the metal and fire from eternal union! Now we can see both the metal and the fire United but the metal and fire not mixed not mingled, not only we can see the metal and the flames but we can feel the power of the metal it can be touched but the metal also has power that will burn 🔥 us! Mow the question you should ask yourself like this fire and metal united for eternity and the union begins the moment the spirit of the Word goes through Mariam! Now just like the flame 🔥 and metal United begins the moment the flame touches the metal and can not be separated one another nor mixed one another so Christ divine and human nature united during birth, childhood, Crucifixion and Rising from the death, and from what we understand about Eastern Orthodox Christianity the Christ divine and human nature were sometimes separated sometimes together! How is that possible? Until the third Ecumenical Council at 451 AD both Catholic Christians and Eastern Orthodox Christians were not only we are all one Religion in one church but we were all in agreement In all Christians theology, teaching, traditions, Bible Liturgy Etc! All of sudden we told you we don’t another ecumenical council to avoid Arianism and Nestorian teaching and you guys called us orthodox Christians(back then it were meant to call us all school or unwillingness for change) ! The funny part was we were correct you introduced Arianism and Nestorian ideology and after 110 years later you guys called another ecumenical council to fix your mistakes but for 100 years Roman and Eastern Orthodox prosecuted our church fathers and every Christians from 🇦🇲 Syria 🇸🇾 Egypt 🇪🇬 India 🇮🇳 Ethiopia 🇪🇹 and Eritrea 🇪🇷 ! Again you invited us another council to fix your previous mistakes without acknowledging the hundred years prosecution and without recognizing our Saints whom you were personally for their deaths but never even condemned or asked apology from all those Bishops who were responsible introducing heretics when you invited us the fifth ecumenically council what do you expect? We never had any misunderstanding nor theological problems after the third ecumenical so of course we don’t want to be in another ecumenical to avoid Roman heretics teaching followed by proscriptions so we were okay with both Roman Catholic and Eastern/Catholic Orthodox churches as long as they accept the three ecumenical councils!
Really great video... but as a Catholic I cannot understand why you refer to Our Lady as a saint? She is the immaculate conception... beyond sainthood which is reserved for ordinary people who by their will in cooperation with God’s grace attain sainthood!... The Mother Of God is beyond that and to refer to her as saint totally undermines who She is in Her creation... Yes Jesus is God... begotten not created... Mary was created by God as the Mother of the redeemer and so was preserved from original sin... in creation She “The Woman” is the ultimate in God’s Creation!.. All of God’s Divine attributes are imbued in Her Soul... “Full Of Grace” I understand there are slight differences in our beliefs but this is one you ought to give your full attention... God Bless and I love your video :)
Markos pantopolos All Grace comes from God through Mary.... Death entered this world through woman (Eve)
Life (Jesus) re-entered this world through Woman, The “Woman” (Mary) Grace continues to flow through Mary as intended by God... She is the Arc that carried God The Son (Life) to us and continues to do so... no man nor angel will ever comprehend what God has done through Mary... She is not one of the saints who by merit and God’s grace attained sanctity/sainthood... Mary was born without original sin.... She Is The Mother of God and that is the highest honor ...
My friend we know and believe that Saint Mary is the Mother of God (Theotokos) but, what you actually saying is wrong biblically. St. Mary herself addressed Christ as her SAVIOUR Luke 1 (KJV) - 47: And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Aron Gebreslasie Yes... of course! Everything and everyone has been created and redeemed through Jesus and for Jesus... He is The Lord... He is the cause of all causes... and the very cause of Mary’s being is through Him and because of Him... Even before the creation of Man, Jesus death on the Criss had merited for the Angels!... so yes! All things were and are in Jesus, for Jesus, redeemed, made possible through Him and Mary had a unique and vital roll to play in this far beyond that of the saints! Infinitely so... When Jesus referred to Her from the cross saying “Woman” behold thy son. He was undermining Her... He was recalling scripture, She is “The Woman” mentioned in Genesis.... He was referring to Her as The Woman, Her role, Her FIAT, to God undone everything Satan set out to do through Even... She did this in Full cooperation with Her Will and The Father’s.... never wavering... All this was given from God through all that Jesus had achieved for us on the cross even before His Sacrifice... so to refer to Mary as one of the saints undermines Her and I feel a horrible sense in my heart when She, The Holy Mother of God is refer’d to as such.... having said that, it is beautiful that you acknowledge Mary... Considering so many blaspheme against Her.... God bless you in your calling and your work and thanks for these wonderful videos
It sounds strange but she is called a Saint in the Catholic Church as well. There are many churches called St Mary's, names after her.
Does oriental church beleive in one will one energy of christ.
This issue was not as large a concern for the oriental communion because the tenets of Chalcedon had to be balanced with follow-up counsels in the Eastern Orthodox Communion. We do believe in one united will and one united activity (the better translation for energeia) but not because there is only a human or only a Divine will in Christ. Oriental Orthodox Christians would not consider themselves monothelites or mono-energists
@@CopticOrthodoxAnswers ok, thanksl
@@CopticOrthodoxAnswers Let me guess. You would consider yourselves a miothelites and mioenergites? What is funny is that you are ultimately saying yeah... Jesus was a God and a man but he had one united, special nature. That is a monophysitism. Just because that one special nature has properties of both human and Divine doesn't exclude the fact that you are preaching one nature, which is the literal definition of monophysitism.
@@CarlFGauss-qn2cq You seem to be mistaken. Monphysitism states Jesus had 1 nature that was ONLY divine, with the humanity being swallowed up. This is heresy. Miaphysitism states Jesus is 1 UNITED nature that is 100% Divine and 100% Human, never mixing nor seperating for a twinkle of the eye.
Saying both Monophysitism and Miaphysitism is the equivalent of me saying Nestorianism and Diophysitism is the same as both talk of 2 natures after the birth.
How Peter walk on water (Matthew 14:29)? He has no divine nature, just human...
peter walked on water by the power bestowed upon him by the Lord Jesus. it was not in his nature. but Lord Jesus walked on water by his own power,not by a grace bestowed upon him
@@biblicalfacts3409 Totally agree, but maybe not the best argument. Someone can easily say hey if Peter can walk on water in human nature, the same thing applies with Jesus, right?
@@carjunaka then ask them to show you who empowered Jesus ti walk on water?
@@biblicalfacts3409 Muslims say God empowered Him. They say Just like Peter was a man empowered by Jesus.. Jesus was a man empowered by God.
Jesus allowed Peter to walk in water.
Do Coptics believe Jesus has two wills like Eastern Orthodox and Catholics do? I discussed these with a Coptic and he argued no, but to me it is clear Christ had two wills.
two wills meaning his human will and the one divine will
We believe he has 1 will.
Each nature has its own will, but after the Birth both Natures united into 1 Nature (Don't be mistaken, we do not say monophysitism, Jesus is 100% Divine and 100% Human) which means the singular will.
@@tjdronex1113 We believe Christ had 2 wills according to the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III). His human will submitted itself to the divine will. This is how Jesus can say that his will not be done. How do you explain the Agony in the Garden?
@@LoveLove-jk9kz Matthew 26:39 states “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”
Jesus is surrendering/submitting His will to the Father - it’s only 1 will.
We as Miaphysites would say that the Logos Incarnate is speaking to His Father. We would not say that the human nature alone is speaking.
Going further, when Jesus died on the cross, he humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death. Was this the will of man? If so, then we say that no man can save man. If it was the divinity, then how would God obey God?
Speaking of 2 wills is dangerous as I said, how can one will be in operation without the other? (Look at Jesus walking on water, his divinity has no physical legs, and his humanity cannot walk on water) thus we say that the two natures United together without altering eachtoher, without mingling nor changing. Both formed the will of the God Incarnate.
@@tjdronex1113 I understand the position, submitting to the divine will would make it one will. But as Jesus’ prayer shows human nature would automatically cringe from death, and if the human will were to decide alone, it would naturally act to preserve the human nature. Because God cannot contradict himself this is why we say 2 wills. Although, yes Jesus human will always submit to the divine will.
The Sixth Council actually mentioned that speaking of 1 will is dangerous and leads to issues about the interior life of the Trinity because to claim a single personal will in Christ implied three personal wills in the Trinity. Which it mentioned was “absurd and truly profane”.
I understand the importance of asserting Jesus as one person, not two, and that for this reason we cannot attribute words or actions to His divine nature or human nature lest we split Him up as if He isn’t one person.
HOWEVER, how are we to reconcile this with, say, the fact that Jesus was tempted in all points as we are and yet without sin but God cannot be tempted? If we simply say we cannot separate the natures therefore God was tempted, we contradict the Apostle James who says God cannot tempt anyone nor can He be tempted with evil. At least in this case, mustn’t His natures be separated to resolve this? Because the same logic that gets us to “God died on the cross.” equally gets us to “God was tempted.”
Any thoughts?
You have to make the distinction between falling into temptation versus overcoming temptation. Here is St. Mark the ascetic (disciple of St. John Chrysostom):
“Believe, therefore, in accordance with what Scripture says, **that he came in the flesh, not that flesh came; that he grew weary in the flesh, not that flesh grew weary; that he suffered in the flesh, not that flesh suffered; that he died in the flesh, not that flesh died; that he was crucified in the flesh, not that flesh was crucified; that he rose in the flesh, not that flesh arose; that he was taken into heaven in the flesh, not that flesh was taken into heaven; that he healed in the flesh, not that flesh healed; that he was seated at the right hand of God in the flesh, not that flesh was seated. ** And, in general, whenever Holy Scripture speaks about him bodily, **__you cannot show that it is speaking about the flesh as one part of the whole, but rather united”__**
(St. Mark the Monk, Counsels on the Spiritual life, Tim Vivian & Augustine Casiday)
“I may believe that you too are capable of understanding **__Christ’s nature__** ”
(St. Mark the Monk, Counsels on the Spiritual life, Tim Vivian & Augustine Casiday)
@@MinaDKSBMSB
So then Christ was tempted in the flesh, not that the flesh was tempted, right? Doesn’t that still separate the natures? Surely the divine nature was not tempted nor died. Wasn’t the death of Christ the separation of His human soul from His human body? Or was it something else. Don’t these and others still point a distinction between human and divine natures?
@@littlefishbigmountain For us to overcome temptation, God has to be tempted in the flesh. "Who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin" Hebrews 4:15. This is how St. Paul is able to teach us that we do all things in Christ. Also, there may be a misconception on your part on the death of Christ on the cross. Yes, His human soul parted from His human body. But His divinity NEVER left His human body or His human soul while they were separated.
@@MinaDKSBMSB
Yes, “God was tempted in the flesh” in that the second person of the Godhead, the Logos, was incarnate and took on impersonal human nature, such that by Communicatio Idiomatum we can say that God was tempted in the flesh, but not that the divine nature was tempted nor was the divine person (the Logos) tempted in Himself in either His divine nature or His human nature but was only externally tempted (the temptation presented itself to Him, so in that sense He was tempted, but He was not tempted in the sense of internally experiencing a pull towards giving in to some act of the flesh as if He might ever actually cave to the pressure.
So although we can say that God (incarnate person, the Logos) was tempted (although not internally) in the flesh, the Logos is the person not the nature. This is a question of natures rather than person, so rather than using Communicatio Idiomatum to show that both natures refer to the same subject in Christ because there is only one, in this case we’re asking about the natures so you appeal to the person instead of the natures. We both agree by principle of Communicatio Idiomatum that God was tempted in the flesh (not that the flesh was tempted) in the person of Christ Jesus, but because God was tempted (externally) does that mean that God Himself was tempted outside of the human nature? Did temptation ever touch the divine nature? And we also know that God can never die, so the Logos could not have possibly experienced death in the divine nature, but at the incarnation when He took on humanity He became capable of experiencing death because of His humanity and did willingly lay His life down and experienced human death, preceding the harrowing of Hades.
Speaking of His death, where did I give the impression that His divinity left His body?
@@littlefishbigmountain this is so close to Orthodoxy for us, but we have St. Cyril saying otherwise. Take a look at this written interaction between Succensus and St. Cyril after the Formula of reunion. First is Succensus' letter to St. Cyril, and after is St. Cyril’s response:
Letter 2 of Succensus (introduction given by Mor Elias):
After Succensus received this letter and confirmed through it those who were troubled, he wrote another letter to Saint Cyril, asking for a solution to the difficulties by which those Cilicians wanted to destroy the doctrine according to which Christ is proclaimed one nature of the Word incarnate after the union. Concerning the fourth or final difficulty, which your doctrine rightly contends must be shown to proclaim that Christ is two natures united after the union, he wrote the following:
**"Another fourth problem is joined to them, by which they want to show that Christ suffered in human nature and hence conclude that Christ is two natures indivisibly after the union. We have also sent this problem to your Holiness together with others, for many of ours are burdened by it and are being questioned and are questioning about it, doubting the things contained in it to be orthodoxly said. The problem literally reads as follows: For he who says that the Lord suffered in a bare nature makes the passion irrational and involuntary. But if someone says that he suffered with a soul endowed with a mind, so that the passion is voluntary, there is nothing to prevent him from saying that he suffered in human nature. But if this is true, how can we not concede that two natures subsist inseparably after the union? So that if someone says, 'Therefore Christ suffered for us in the flesh,' he says nothing else but 'Therefore Christ, having suffered for us, suffered in our nature.' Therefore, these things seem to be very close to the correct faith, insofar as those corruptors have received certain just causes, and building upon the previous assumptions, as I said, they want to show that Christ is two natures after the union. However, they add 'indivisibly.' Of these things, whatever is approved and explored in your doctrine, we commit to it."**
-Succensus to Cyril
St Cyril responds saying:
> This objection is yet another attack on those who say that **there is one incarnate nature of the Son**. They want to show that the idea is foolish and so **they keep on arguing at every turn **__that two natures endured__****. They have forgotten, **however, that it is only those things that are usually distinguished at more than a merely theoretical level** which split apart from one another in differentiated separateness and radical distinction. Let us once more take the example of an ordinary man. We recognize two natures in him; for there is one nature of the soul and another of the body, but we divide them only at a theoretical level, and by subtle speculation, or rather we accept the distinction only in our mental intuitions, and we do not set the natures apart nor do we grant that they have a radical separateness, but we understand them to belong to one man. This is why **__the two are no longer two__**, but through both of them **the one living creature is rendered complete**.
- St Cyril, Second Letter to Succensus
Wonder if god knows absorbing memories experienced by your son is not the same as experiencing them yourself.
Baseless controversy ! ... Bible mentioned thousands time that divinity only belongs to God alone . Jesus Christ or Moses or Abraham all are nothing but only Human .
Jesus is God Incarnate. He is the Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, light out of light, true God out of True God.
I recommend you read the Nicean Creed.
Despite your advertent effort trying to explain this long-standing, centennial 'mystery' within the faith of Christianity, I would still rather find it more of a convolute-worded rhetoric than anything else based on a just, well-thought of, satisfactory reason. You can't just blur the distinct line among the creator, the created, and the purpose of creation.
I don't understand why people struggle with this idea. you can have two natures, dependent on the words we use, and we are using human, fallen words to describe a god who is unlimited. if you say 'god cannot be born man' is limiting God, you are saying inherently that God is limited. If you say that God cannot create a person with two natures, again you are saying 'no god you must be bound to the ideas of our limited human understanding of the logic contained WITHIN your creation and not be outside of it'. It doesn't require a genius to understand, it really doesn't. in fact I can tell a child the story of hercules and they instantly understand it "so he's human and also a god?" 'yes' "cool". so simple even a child can understand that you can be more than one thing. You yourself are more than one thing. What is complicated about this?
@@GallumA Using the example of Hercules doesn't work in this case because Hercules claims he is only a god/deity, not a creator. if you say you are the creator at the same time also a product of your own creation, then the logic is a mess, and a true Creator God, if there is one, will not make such a disastrous mess that even kids will know they are different from their mother who gives them life.
Miaphysitism: "composite, one nature both human and divine" It then means before His incarnation Christ has already his human nature?
Exactly what I was just thinking, such that it rejects the statement in John that the word became flesh.
Dumb. Christ human nature did not exist before the incarnation of the eternal Logos. The Divine and Human natures unites in Jesus Christ into one after the Eternal Logos became flesh.
@@nickmoser7785 That is a serious heresy my man.
What is the Oriental Orthodox, or particularly Coptic, view of Freemasonry?
@Markos pantopolos what do mean non-Christians pray. Coz u don't know how we pray.
Freemasonry is a demonic and false religious system
Consider Islam guys its very clear
Ah yes, consider the religion that states Jesus is a prophet 600 years after Christians have been saying Jesus is God Incarnate.
Why should I trust a man born 600 years after Jesus over the 12 Disciples who ate, slept and talked with Jesus who were martyred for saying Jesus is God?
The true God isn't clear for our limited human mind, Islam being clear is just another proof that it is just human made religion.
Too bad for me and the rest of humanity that none of us have a composite nature.
If only it had been the case that Jesus has a human nature, like us, then maybe humanity might be saved in him. But since he uniquely has a divine-human nature, then only the other divine-humans (of which there are none), are saved in him.
We are healed (saved) because He took on our dead and corrupt human nature and He put life in it by His Divine nature. If He only had human nature, He would not be God and be incapable of saving.
@@CopticOrthodoxAnswers If it is true that he has one, composite nature, then he did not really "take on our dead and corrupt human nature", because humans don't have a composite nature. Rather, humans have a human nature.
His _own_ nature is divine, and he also took upon himself (in his one Person) a second nature, human. Two natures, one Person. For this reason, he can both be "one of us" according to that nature he assumed, and yet God, and so man may be healed in him.
Too bad for you and the rest of human persons because no one is a Divine-human Person. If only God the Word took on a human person, like us, maybe all human persons might be saved in him. But since he uniquely is a Divine-human Person, then only the other Divine-human Persons (of which there are none), are saved in Him.
(This is where your logic will take you)
Yeah, that's about right. If it is true that the Person Jesus has a divine-human nature, unlike us, who all share a human nature, then us humans are without hope, because he is not one of us.
If Jesus was made man, as the Scriptures and the Creed teach, then he does have a human nature.
To "have a nature" is a description of what one _is_ , the category of being to which one belongs. If he is a human, then he has a human nature. If he is God, then he has a divine nature. If he is a demigod, then he has a divine-human nature.
@@paul11magdy What do you mean by "took on a human person"? Would that be like some form of possession? ...as though he were wearing a human form like a glove? That's a pretty wierd conception of things. And to be clear, no, that would also not be salvific, because if the Word of God had merely "taken on a human person" in such a way, then he would not _be_ a human person.
By the way, this whole mia- / mono- thing seems to me like a semantic game, as a way to try to avoid assigning a discrete number to that which can easily be counted. For example, I am easily able to count the number of Persons of the Godhead as being three in number. Despite all Three Persons being one in substance, I don't try to come up with some wierd terminology, like, 'they are a triplicate', or some such nonsensical sophistry. They are three in Person. Simple. Likewise, I can count that the one Person, Christ, the Word of God has two natures.
So, if the miaphysites are able to count like anyone else, using their fingers, would they say Christ has one, or two, natures? Which is it, one or two? If they cannot, or will not, answer such a simple question directly, is it right to assume they just using the prefix "mia-" as a clever way to avoid answering a simple question?
A composite is _one_ thing formed out of two or more things.
May I ask doubt . Why arabic Christans use the word allah ? When was you start use the word allah ? Why arab christians adopted the word allah?
@Markos pantopolos ; okay. Before Islamic formation , arb Christins use this word ?
@@joseph29993 well the language of Arabic made it to Egypt with Islam however the word Allah simply means God in Arabic or our God nothing more.
There were christian arabs before islam. Its well documented in islamic sources. There is also a word for god or diety in arabic, and that is "إله"(ilah). Its even in the popular islamic saying of "la ilah ila allah"(there is no god but allah) Its a generic word for a god because much of the arab world was pagan. The arabs probably used that word in conjunction with the arabic words for father to describe God. Its like the word "theos" in greek which is the generic word for god or goddess. However our ancient christian fathers used Theos to describe God.
Hope this helped, God bless all of you.
@@karas3248 in East Syriac we say Aalaha for God. So Holy God is Qandisha Aalaha.
I'm Syro-Malabar Catholic and we employ the East Syriac liturgy.
@@Melvin_Thoma That makes allot of sense since Quranic and Modern Arabic has significant Syriac Influence.
The Son of God is God because He was the almighty God. He could make all his work even before the birth of the world ("the world has not known you"). After that He could get rid of his then useless power to become like a normal man: the Son. Therefore the Son is at the same time God and Man.
No Trinity exists because no "third divine Person" exists. In the Trinity doctrine in order to put a face to the Holy Spirit, even an omnipotent GOD has been INVENTED: the LORD WHO GIVES LIFE !
The alleged "Lord":
1. doesn't talk to the Father in the gospels,
2. doesn't talk the Son in the gospels,
3 He doesn't speak at all: no one ever heard ONE SINGLE WORD from him.
4 is ignored by the Bible (no "Lord who gives life" can be found)
5. is forgotten by Jesus: " My Father works now, so I work."
6. is again forgotten by Jesus : "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
7. is again forgotten by Jesus : "...I am going to my Father who is greater than I am."
8. is again forgotten by Jesus: " You neither know me nor my Father."
9. is again forgotten by Jesus. " I and my Father are one."
10. is again forgotten by Jesus: " On that day you will know that I am in my Father, you are in me, and I am in you."
11. Jesus crystal clearly states that God is NOT THREE BUT TWO PERSONS: "I am not ALONE because the Father is with me"
12. is again forgotten by Jesus: "...I have not yet ascended to my Father."
13. is again forgotten by Jesus: "I am not ALONE, but I and the Father who sent me are one."
14. is again forgotten by Jesus: "The Father has not left me ALONE because I always do what pleases Him."
15. You cannot pray to Him, just to the Father and to the Son: "Whatever you ask the Father in my name, he will give you.".
16. is again forgotten by Jesus, when He states that ONLY THE FATHER knows the future: "...only the Father knows"
17. is again forgotten by Jesus when He states that "God is a spirit", Jesus should say "God and the Holy Spirit are TWO Spirits".
18. is again forgotten by Jesus when He states that "no one ever saw God", what happens with the "Lord", can He be seen ?
19. the Lord is brutally ignored in the sharing of the property : "the Father had given all things into His hands "
20. allegebly the Lord cannot give you ANYTHING: "whatever you ask of the Father in my name, He will give it to you."
21. the " phantom Lord" also DOES NOT JUDGE: "The Father judges no man, but has turned over all judgment to the Son."
22 the "phantom Lord" does NOT SIT in heaven: " ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power... "
23 the "Holy angels" will be with Jesus, but not the "phantom Lord" "When the Son of man comes WITH HIS HOLY ANGELS, He shall sit upon the throne of His glory."
The "Lord" is thus only AN INVENTION! Indeed many christians still believe that the Holy Spirit is a kind of "MAGICAL DUST" falling down the sky, which gives them awesome abilities!
Well, the HOLY SPIRIT is neither a magical fluid, nor the invented "Lord": He is the FATHER WHO IS IN THE FORM OF A SPIRIT, because "God is a spirit" means "the Father is a spirit" and is called "the Holy Spirit".
In other words, Jesus has the Father who is a spirit and calls Him sometimes "Father", sometimes "Spirit"(Holy), according to circumstances, and this leads to confusion. Thus, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is SYNONYM of blasphemy against the Father ("...but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."). No one has been forgotten there: just TWO blasphemies are possible!
Jesus also directly confirms that the HOLY SPIRIT inside Him IS THE FATHER: “The words I say to you, I say not on my own but from the FATHER who DWELLS IN ME.”
In a smart way you can skip the whole difficult "Comforter paragraph" to directly see who is inside the apostles: the "Spirit of your Father", i.e. once again the Father who is a spirit: no "third God" exists.
Here ua-cam.com/video/fHw7e4Xhp4w/v-deo.html you can find 20 verses of the gospels that don't make any sense when interpreted according to the Trinity theory and that make perfectly sense instead with a "DUALITARIAN" interpretation.
Hello
Nowhere are we told “two natures” “fully God”
Jesus is the Messiah
The Son of God
The Son of David
The Son of man
The man God has chosen to be his anointed king
The man God will judge the world through
The man God raised from the dead
Jesus will return and rule the nations with believers in the kingdom of God on the earth
Jesus has a God
There is no triune god in scripture
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
-
Acts 3
13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him.
14 But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted unto you,
15 and killed the Prince of life; whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
Notice Jesus is NOT the God of Abraham
One of the perks of being orthodox is that you don't have to craft sneaky answers to simple questions like a heretic might do. For example, an orthodox person can answer a question of number with a number, one, two, etc.
What am I if I believe YHWH is the Father. That He alone is God. Yeshua is a man that has God as his actual father. God created or begot Christ in Mary.
???
Sorry friend, but that is equaling God to Zeus and Christ to Hercules. It also makes Mary not a virgin, and contradicts the prophecy that Messiah will be born of a virgin.
And Christ pre-existed His birth.
,,In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."
John 1:1
,,Before Abraham was, I AM."
John 8:58
@@X22-p4t what!? Of course Mary is a virgin. God put a baby in the womb...not by intercourse. The verse doesn't say before Abraham was I was alive. I am Messiah could be there. What is the context? I know that Jesus did not pre exist because he has a genealogy and that would make a lie if he didn't have it beginning. Plus any verse that seems to imply he pre-existed is never clear so I know if he did pre-exist he would have went around and told everyone.
@@mr.e1220 ,,Jesus has a genealogy." ???
Listen, if God becomes man, and if He is born of a virgin, He is going to have human ancestors through His mother. That is ancestors Jesus has. And adoptive ancestors through His adoptive father Joseph. His human genealogy doesn't destroy His eternity at all.
,,I am the Messiah could be there." No, friend, it is pretty clear. Jesus said ,,Before Abraham was, I AM!" and I AM is title by which God revealed Himself to Moses!
,,What is the context?" What is the context? The context is that Jews are asking Jesus did He saw Abraham.
,,Any verse that implies His pre-existence is unclear."
This verse is pretty clear to me.
,,In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANYTHING MADE THAT WAS MADE!"
John 1:1-3
,,God put the baby in the womb...not by intercourse." You said you believe God is actual father of Jesus. You might not be talking about intercourse, but everyone who heard you would think you are talking about intercourse.
@Markos pantopolos It is not called Arianism, it is called Socinianism.
@@X22-p4t Jesus did not say Before Abraham was, YAHWEH! Even the man healed from being born blind when asked who was the man that was healed, said "I Am". Same exact words. Jesus was saying he is The Christ Whowas the plan of God for man’s redemption long before Abraham lived. So he was 'before' Abraham in that sense.Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one-the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”
Jesus says he isn’t god at Matt 19…