I thought nobody will know The Truth of Oriental Orthodoxy, since we are small fractions ,yet the non-corrupted. But I am happy that the Deacon from Assyrian Church is sharing it. This is the Church which has survived all the persecutions , happened every century after Christs Crisifiction, and still suffering for the Truth. Note :Rome and Eastern Orthodox , always had their back by those influential emperors, I think thats why they're large and powerful.
The term “God died” means that Christ as a human and God died by his humanity while united with His divinity. It’s like iron that is glowing with fire and the blacksmith hammers it down. The iron bends but nothing happens to the fire. The same thing the human Christ dies but the divine Christ does not!
God bless you guys for this very informative I’ll have to rewatch like 10 times but it’s very nice knowing that I can go to the CoE with the knowledge that we are not heretical. May God use these talks to make His Church join together as one.
As a member of the Church of the East, I am fine with Mar Aprem's phraseology, "He mingled the natures like pigments and an image came into being of the God-man”. He is simply saying that the union of the natures is in the manifested personhood (image) of Christ. Really, I think the COE and OOC are just getting hung up on terminology rather than the practice of beliefs. The "difference" is based on the emphasis of a few words that were used fluidly until the 5th century. As far as Church Fathers, St. Gregory of Nyssa stated, "Christ then, existing in two natures and truly made known in them, has the person of his sonship as a single entity, yet bears in him-self the unconfusible and indivisible distinction between the Word and the ensouled flesh, through which the principle of the proper-ties is preserved integrally." Even St. Cyril said, "...for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressible union". He also is quoted as saying, "Your Perfection expounds the rationale of the salvific Passion most correctly and very learnedly when you assert that the Only Begotten Son of God, in so far as he is understood to be, and actually is, God, did not himself suffer [bodily things] in his own nature, but suffered rather in his earthly nature." In short, if God suffered, but not “in His own nature”, then in what nature did He suffer? Answer: His human nature. At the end of the day, all of this is truly technical mumbo jumbo, which doesn't impact the way we practice Christianity.
To help explain the fluidity of the term kyana (nature) in the early Syriac traditions, I would recommend that one reads "Aphrahat the Persian Sage and the Temple of God: A Study of Early Syriac Theological Anthropology" by Stephanie K. Skoyles Jarkins. This alone should provide enough info to understand that we (COE and OOC) can mutually respect each other's unique Christological expressions that were formulated as the definition of "kyana" only became more fixed in the east as time progressed. Again, however one expresses the union in Christ, it ultimately leads to the same conclusion (one person, Jesus Christ).
A few more comments... The term Yalda d'Alaha may have been used in Antioch, but I do not know of instances where it was used in Beth Nahrain. In either case, the term itself is okay, so long as the person using it and the audience hearing it understands that it is not literal (as we all agree that God is not formulated from a human, but the united personhood of Jesus Christ was in fact birthed by the blessed Mary). Even Nestorius stated this position. Also, by saying "the Lord whose nature transcends death", it simply means that the personhood of Christ (in his unity) is unique comparative to the typical human. That does not mean the divine died, but rather that his united personhood was uniquely resurrected. This phrase was ultimately meant to express that the personhood of Christ has greater significance than the personhood of your average Joe. The quote is actually a great example as to why the use of terms like kyana, qnoma and parsopa eventually grew to have more concrete definitions, as during the first few hundred years of Christianity they were applied inconsistently/interchangeably by Fathers in the East and West, leading to unnecessary misunderstandings.
I have a question for Oriental Orthodox scholars in this panel... I am Oriental Orthodox Ethiopia/Eritrea Tewhado Orthodox, but also, I watched Bishop Mar Mari's teachings on UA-cam sometimes. I liked his teachings for some reasons. But one day, a priest from Eastern Orthodox, I watched him bashing Mar Mari as a Nestorian and so on. I know from my forefather teachings also that Nestorianism is heretic in the eyes of Oriental Orthodox. My question is, what is your opinion on Bishop Mar Mari's teachings? ....GBU all!!
In the Orthodox (Oriental) Church we don't believe that the Church of the East or the Chalcedonians at large are churches, orthodox, or the like. We only believe these things about our sister Oriental Orthodox Churches like in Ethiopia.
@ReyWho You said "hopefully will change his christology to the biblical one in the future". . . . that shows that his teaching on Christology is completely different than OO then. Anyways, for me all this Christology, Theology, Mariam-logy and so on is above my pay raise. I would rather focus on how to cleanse from my sin and obey the word of God. To be honest, all these differences among traditional churches are political from the beginning of time.
@@Ortho_1_Christ I'm not sure if this 100% true but I read he was excommunicated. Anyways I'm on a journey right now by God's Grace and have been researching Oriental Orthodox and Eastern orthodox. I know your church jay, it's one in my area! I may someday come by for a service. God Bless.
1) Mar mari Is not OO he used to be part of Assyrian Church of east and ancient church of east and currently now in one independent church 2) i belong to Malankara jacobite syraic orthodox Church, one of the OO church from India and I can assure you that none of the Ethopian / Eritrean teaching and theology is not considered as heretical by any OO church or church father, even don't forget the fact that churches in OO has distinct pratice but all our churches are communion with one other I hope your doubt has been cleared thankfully ☦️ @@Ortho_1_Christ
St. Cyril of Alexandria had some disagreements with the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. He and his followers held to the concept of "miaphysitism," which emphasizes the union of Christ's divine and human natures into one nature, while the Council of Chalcedon affirmed the "dyophysite" position, stating that Christ had two distinct natures, divine and human, united in one person. These theological differences led to divisions within the church, with those who followed Cyril's teachings forming what is now known as the Oriental Orthodox Church.
Neither contradicts the other actually, because in miaphysitism Jesus is still fully God and fully human, same as the Chalcedonian definition. Council of Ephesus and Council of Chalcedon were targeting two different heresies, which is why Chalcedon emphasizes the separateness of the natures. Ephesus emphasizes the unity of the natures. Both agree that Jesus' natures are separate but unified.
When it comes to Hebrews 2:9... 1) In Greek, the variant χωρις θεου ("apart from God") is found in Codex Ruber, minuscule 1739, and at least one manuscript of the Latin Vulgate. That same variant χωρις θεου, shows up frequently in patristic writings, include those of Origen, Ambrose, and Fulgentius. Even Bart Ehrman argues that “apart from God" is what the author originally wrote! 2) You are assuming Aprem/Ephraim wrote everything that was written in his name. We all know that was not always the case in history, as "understudies" often wrote using the names of their teachers. 3) Even Sebastian Brock will acknowledge that many of the early Syriac father's writings were amended by later scribes. 4) My understanding is that a number of 5th-6th century SOC produced copies of the Peshitto have evidence that someone much later came in and scratched off the text of Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9 (which both likely previously had the COE reading in them), replacing the words to read like the they are known in the SOC today. 5) Aside from minor scribal errors (like missing a letter in a word), there are at least 29 variants between the New Testament SOC Peshitto and the COE Peshitta. The only two that have any theological significance are Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9, so it would make no sense for the other 27 instances to have been changed by the COE.
St Cyril is a saint and recognized as such in the eastern and the oriental orthodox churches. All the world agreed to Cyril’s outcome in the council of Ephesus 431 AD way before council of Chalcedon of 451. In council of Ephesus st Cyril and the world agreed on one nature of the incarnate logos ( Miaphysitism) so why the SCHISM in orthodoxy in Chalcedon in 451????
If only us Orthodox would stop picking at things (ie in the past) and do all we can to accept and work with others who may not be as thought at the same level on certain topics. In other words, allow others to have different opinions on certain difficult topics so long as does not insult Christ or His mother St Mary in any way....rather stop trying to work everything out and just accept Christ is fully man and fully God....and leave it at that....such topics as Christology can and do cause divisions unecessarily when with the help of some time and loving support from others would have sorted most problems out already in the past instead of cuting people off using Councils. Sadly this did not happen and numerous divisions exists in the body of Christ due to this.
this is the chalcedonian creed: We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
It's heresy from the founder of all heresies. Ephesus 431 condemns the idea that the parts remain 2 after the union, especially saying that they remain 2 natures. There is no duality after the union, just as there is no duality after the union of body and soul into the nature of 1 man.
@@jperez7893 What you are hinting at is 'Consensus Fallacy'... just because there's more numbers doesn't mean the position is right.. Orthodoxy is perserved based on the holistic view of the councils and teaching we are consistent with previous councils. If this is the case; one must acknowledge that Ephesus 431 and St. Cyril affirmed Miaphysitism. So; whatever council decision's that come forth after this which changes drastically away from the previous decision becomes a heterodox position. This is what EO cries against RC on the basis they aren't consistent. But again, EO (Constantinople) historically was just a vestige of Rome to begin with.
@@LTK.777 Not taking a side or anything but this "he wont debate Dyer!!!1"-thing is sort of a meme at this point. Sam is not dodging a debate as far as I know and while he deserves credit I would not say that Jay is some flawless demigod that can nail anyone at any time either.
Does Jay Dyer have some blessing from EO church to do talk about theology? Some on his videos seem to be little odd. I mean his beheavior is sometimes totally non orthodox.
As a copt, thank you for this; learning a lot
Same
@@anthonypaz8336same 😅
I thought nobody will know The Truth of Oriental Orthodoxy, since we are small fractions ,yet the non-corrupted. But I am happy that the Deacon from Assyrian Church is sharing it. This is the Church which has survived all the persecutions , happened every century after Christs Crisifiction, and still suffering for the Truth. Note :Rome and Eastern Orthodox , always had their back by those influential emperors, I think thats why they're large and powerful.
Thank you for this treasure of knowledge!
Appreciate the discussion! As I'm trying to learn more and sort some of these things out, this is very helpful!
Very important discussion. Thank you for all your efforts and Sam Shamoun clarifying summarising many points. 🙏🏻
I'm stoked to have found this channel!
The term “God died” means that Christ as a human and God died by his humanity while united with His divinity. It’s like iron that is glowing with fire and the blacksmith hammers it down. The iron bends but nothing happens to the fire. The same thing the human Christ dies but the divine Christ does not!
God bless you guys for this very informative I’ll have to rewatch like 10 times but it’s very nice knowing that I can go to the CoE with the knowledge that we are not heretical. May God use these talks to make His Church join together as one.
Awesome
I appreciate Sam clarifying things for us simpletons
Explained just perfectly
As a member of the Church of the East, I am fine with Mar Aprem's phraseology, "He mingled the natures like pigments and an image came into being of the God-man”. He is simply saying that the union of the natures is in the manifested personhood (image) of Christ. Really, I think the COE and OOC are just getting hung up on terminology rather than the practice of beliefs. The "difference" is based on the emphasis of a few words that were used fluidly until the 5th century.
As far as Church Fathers, St. Gregory of Nyssa stated, "Christ then, existing in two natures and truly made known in them, has the person of his sonship as a single entity, yet bears in him-self the unconfusible and indivisible distinction between the Word and the ensouled flesh, through which the principle of the proper-ties is preserved integrally."
Even St. Cyril said, "...for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressible union". He also is quoted as saying, "Your Perfection expounds the rationale of the salvific Passion most correctly and very learnedly when you assert that the Only Begotten Son of God, in so far as he is understood to be, and actually is, God, did not himself suffer [bodily things] in his own nature, but suffered rather in his earthly nature."
In short, if God suffered, but not “in His own nature”, then in what nature did He suffer? Answer: His human nature.
At the end of the day, all of this is truly technical mumbo jumbo, which doesn't impact the way we practice Christianity.
To help explain the fluidity of the term kyana (nature) in the early Syriac traditions, I would recommend that one reads "Aphrahat the Persian Sage and the Temple of God: A Study of Early Syriac Theological Anthropology" by Stephanie K. Skoyles Jarkins.
This alone should provide enough info to understand that we (COE and OOC) can mutually respect each other's unique Christological expressions that were formulated as the definition of "kyana" only became more fixed in the east as time progressed. Again, however one expresses the union in Christ, it ultimately leads to the same conclusion (one person, Jesus Christ).
It is due to God that I found this video. Amen ✝️☦️
I’ve watched this like 3 times
could you date when each of these were each recorded please for references corresponding to sam's live shows ect
A few more comments...
The term Yalda d'Alaha may have been used in Antioch, but I do not know of instances where it was used in Beth Nahrain. In either case, the term itself is okay, so long as the person using it and the audience hearing it understands that it is not literal (as we all agree that God is not formulated from a human, but the united personhood of Jesus Christ was in fact birthed by the blessed Mary). Even Nestorius stated this position.
Also, by saying "the Lord whose nature transcends death", it simply means that the personhood of Christ (in his unity) is unique comparative to the typical human. That does not mean the divine died, but rather that his united personhood was uniquely resurrected. This phrase was ultimately meant to express that the personhood of Christ has greater significance than the personhood of your average Joe.
The quote is actually a great example as to why the use of terms like kyana, qnoma and parsopa eventually grew to have more concrete definitions, as during the first few hundred years of Christianity they were applied inconsistently/interchangeably by Fathers in the East and West, leading to unnecessary misunderstandings.
Do you think that you can make these podcasts so that i can listen to these on UA-cam music? Its just easier to listen to long form videos on that app
Where can I get the slides?
Wasn't Theodoret dead before Chalcedon? I believe he died in 428 AD
Where could I get these slides?
Nate is this you???
I have a question for Oriental Orthodox scholars in this panel... I am Oriental Orthodox Ethiopia/Eritrea Tewhado Orthodox, but also, I watched Bishop Mar Mari's teachings on UA-cam sometimes. I liked his teachings for some reasons. But one day, a priest from Eastern Orthodox, I watched him bashing Mar Mari as a Nestorian and so on. I know from my forefather teachings also that Nestorianism is heretic in the eyes of Oriental Orthodox. My question is, what is your opinion on Bishop Mar Mari's teachings? ....GBU all!!
In the Orthodox (Oriental) Church we don't believe that the Church of the East or the Chalcedonians at large are churches, orthodox, or the like. We only believe these things about our sister Oriental Orthodox Churches like in Ethiopia.
They are heretical because they dont belive that our holy mother virgin marry is not Mother Of GOD and this is heritical
@ReyWho You said "hopefully will change his christology to the biblical one in the future". . . . that shows that his teaching on Christology is completely different than OO then. Anyways, for me all this Christology, Theology, Mariam-logy and so on is above my pay raise. I would rather focus on how to cleanse from my sin and obey the word of God. To be honest, all these differences among traditional churches are political from the beginning of time.
@@Ortho_1_Christ I'm not sure if this 100% true but I read he was excommunicated. Anyways I'm on a journey right now by God's Grace and have been researching Oriental Orthodox and Eastern orthodox. I know your church jay, it's one in my area! I may someday come by for a service. God Bless.
1) Mar mari Is not OO he used to be part of Assyrian Church of east and ancient church of east and currently now in one independent church
2) i belong to Malankara jacobite syraic orthodox Church, one of the OO church from India and I can assure you that none of the Ethopian / Eritrean teaching and theology is not considered as heretical by any OO church or church father, even don't forget the fact that churches in OO has distinct pratice but all our churches are communion with one other
I hope your doubt has been cleared thankfully ☦️
@@Ortho_1_Christ
Can we please have a link to the presentation document?
@dioscoros can you please share this document with me (I mean the slide)
St. Cyril of Alexandria had some disagreements with the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. He and his followers held to the concept of "miaphysitism," which emphasizes the union of Christ's divine and human natures into one nature, while the Council of Chalcedon affirmed the "dyophysite" position, stating that Christ had two distinct natures, divine and human, united in one person. These theological differences led to divisions within the church, with those who followed Cyril's teachings forming what is now known as the Oriental Orthodox Church.
He was already passed away
7 years before Chalcedon
@@leiyeuktsui8449 I know but what i’m trying to say is that his teachingcontradict which Chalcedon
@@jacobbaradaeus6250 yes
Neither contradicts the other actually, because in miaphysitism Jesus is still fully God and fully human, same as the Chalcedonian definition. Council of Ephesus and Council of Chalcedon were targeting two different heresies, which is why Chalcedon emphasizes the separateness of the natures. Ephesus emphasizes the unity of the natures. Both agree that Jesus' natures are separate but unified.
@@kmj2000 prove your point
What should a Roman Catholic do that has been persuaded?
Find a church and speak to a priest! And pray of course.
Find an oriental church near you, and inquire/talk with a priest. They will help you.
What do Orientals recommend when there's no Church nearby, you do realize most of America is not within an hour of an oriental church, right?
One nature(hypostasis/physis) ❤
How do I join the discord?
When it comes to Hebrews 2:9...
1) In Greek, the variant χωρις θεου ("apart from God") is found in Codex Ruber, minuscule 1739, and at least one manuscript of the Latin Vulgate.
That same variant χωρις θεου, shows up frequently in patristic writings, include those of Origen, Ambrose, and Fulgentius.
Even Bart Ehrman argues that “apart from God" is what the author originally wrote!
2) You are assuming Aprem/Ephraim wrote everything that was written in his name. We all know that was not always the case in history, as "understudies" often wrote using the names of their teachers.
3) Even Sebastian Brock will acknowledge that many of the early Syriac father's writings were amended by later scribes.
4) My understanding is that a number of 5th-6th century SOC produced copies of the Peshitto have evidence that someone much later came in and scratched off the text of Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9 (which both likely previously had the COE reading in them), replacing the words to read like the they are known in the SOC today.
5) Aside from minor scribal errors (like missing a letter in a word), there are at least 29 variants between the New Testament SOC Peshitto and the COE Peshitta. The only two that have any theological significance are Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9, so it would make no sense for the other 27 instances to have been changed by the COE.
Why does Sam need to debate him ??.. He is an apostolic Christian
St Cyril is a saint and recognized as such in the eastern and the oriental orthodox churches. All the world agreed to Cyril’s outcome in the council of Ephesus 431 AD way before council of Chalcedon of 451. In council of Ephesus st Cyril and the world agreed on one nature of the incarnate logos ( Miaphysitism) so why the SCHISM in orthodoxy in Chalcedon in 451????
If only us Orthodox would stop picking at things (ie in the past) and do all we can to accept and work with others who may not be as thought at the same level on certain topics. In other words, allow others to have different opinions on certain difficult topics so long as does not insult Christ or His mother St Mary in any way....rather stop trying to work everything out and just accept Christ is fully man and fully God....and leave it at that....such topics as Christology can and do cause divisions unecessarily when with the help of some time and loving support from others would have sorted most problems out already in the past instead of cuting people off using Councils. Sadly this did not happen and numerous divisions exists in the body of Christ due to this.
this is the chalcedonian creed: We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
It's heresy from the founder of all heresies. Ephesus 431 condemns the idea that the parts remain 2 after the union, especially saying that they remain 2 natures. There is no duality after the union, just as there is no duality after the union of body and soul into the nature of 1 man.
@@dioscoros Jesus is the caretaker of His Father’s vineyard. Which has bought forth greater fruit?
@@jperez7893 the Orthodox. The Chalcedonians are divided amongst themselves into many ever fragmenting groups.
@@jperez7893 What you are hinting at is 'Consensus Fallacy'... just because there's more numbers doesn't mean the position is right.. Orthodoxy is perserved based on the holistic view of the councils and teaching we are consistent with previous councils. If this is the case; one must acknowledge that Ephesus 431 and St. Cyril affirmed Miaphysitism. So; whatever council decision's that come forth after this which changes drastically away from the previous decision becomes a heterodox position. This is what EO cries against RC on the basis they aren't consistent. But again, EO (Constantinople) historically was just a vestige of Rome to begin with.
lol Sam doesn't dare to debate Jay Dyer on this lol I wonder why lol
Debate what? Jay won't debate Orientals and Sam isn't Oriental Orthodox himself.
@@LTK.777Yeah
@@LTK.777 Not taking a side or anything but this "he wont debate Dyer!!!1"-thing is sort of a meme at this point. Sam is not dodging a debate as far as I know and while he deserves credit I would not say that Jay is some flawless demigod that can nail anyone at any time either.
@@LTK.777 to be fair I don't think he is well versed in that topic
Does Jay Dyer have some blessing from EO church to do talk about theology? Some on his videos seem to be little odd. I mean his beheavior is sometimes totally non orthodox.
Sam technically is a nestorian. That's the Assyrian Church of the East.