That's the short answer. The long answer is in the video. The slightly shorter answer is that the OO belief on the nature(s) of Jesus makes the Trinity even more complicated than it already is.
I had a dream with redeemed zoomer in it where he went down a hole in Minecraft where gnostics hid, they looked like the falmer in Skyrim. He died like twice and summoned the wither.
Zoomer, if you're running out of denominations, then you should make videos on "Why I'm not" other religions. Like, "Why I'm not a Muslim" "Why I'm not a Buddhist" "Why I'm not an atheist" "Why I'm not a Hindu"
@@joeyhardin5903 Exactly. What do y'all really expect him to say? A "Why I'm a Christian" video (assuming he hasnt done one, I dont remember) would be much better
@@MSK.ofAlexandria he is actually reportedly making a video on islam in the near future but I don't think it's going to be a 'why I am not' video, more likely just issues with the religion
0:32 From both that family tree and the denomination tier list, you've yet to do Why I'm Not on: Nazarene/Holiness Pietist Huguenot Swiss Reformed (You have done Dutch Reformed but not other Continental Reformed) Amish/Mennonite Moravian Assyrian Church of The East Church of Christ Seventh Day Adventist Quaker The rest you've called explicitly heretical. So you're not running out of denominations, just the major ones.
The Chalcedonian controversy has got to be the most rediculous pedantic thing I've ever heard... lately a lot of EO are basically treating OO the same as an EO church in temporary schism cause we're kind of realising it's a pointless difference between us. Especially in light of the persecution in Ethiopia really calling us to stand together.
a Copt here that Likes your videos ,we as Copts say that Jesus Christ is perfect human and perfect divine and these two NATURES (not two essences) are united together without mingling, nor confusion, nor alteration in one nature; the nature of God incarnate. . In the recent dialogues EO and OO reached the conclusion that we have the same faith. praying for the unity of the Church. GBU
As we say before we start communion in our Coptic Orthodox liturgies “He made It [the flesh] one with his divinity, without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration… Truly I believe that His divinity parted not from His humanity for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye.”
@@NoahPrivateIn a ancient apostolic hymn written by st Severus or dioscorus , in the hymn on Good Friday a verse from that is” holy mighty who through weakness, showed what is greater than power” this hymn is called Omonogenis. Translates to : O only begotten
God died in the flesh. The OO belief is that divinity is impassible. St. Cyril stated this multiple times while maintaining the belief in the one composite nature formula. The division of natures after the ineffable and paradoxical union is a huge problem for us. We know God’s blood saves us because of the one composite nature formula. Your fathers doubted when we wanted them to confirm that the holy immortal one died and was crucified. Go read the history of the trisagion controvery. Our faith is on God’s very blood.
"But who would be so misguided and stupid as to think that the divine nature of the Word had changed into something which formerly it was not? or that the flesh was changed by some kind of transformation into the nature of the Word himself? This is impossible. We say that there is one Son, and that he has one nature even when he is considered as having assumed flesh endowed with a rational soul. As I have already said, he has made the human element his own. And this is the way, not otherwise, that we must consider that the same one is at once God and man." - St Cyril of Alexandria, from On The Unity Of Christ, page 77
I love the church fathers but I can't say that all of their beliefs and writings are equal to the 66 book canon. I do not believe any Protestant would. In some sense however you define the divine nature and human nature of Jesus Christ, it would be saying that God died on the cross. Nature, essences, energies and all of that I do not really know. Beyond believing in the Immaculate Conception, there is nothing else that you have to believe about Mary. I love Mary. She was blessed and highly favored of God but she didn't remain a virgin after Jesus. She had other children and she's not a co mediator with Christ.
@@murrydixon5221 The Orthodox belief is that God died on the cross according to the flesh. St Mary was a pertual virgin, St Joseph had a previous marriage, this is were Jesus' brothers came from. No where in the Bible does it say St Mary had any other sons.
@@Corpoise0974 In our limited human understanding, in order for God to have died according to his flesh that would have to mean that his natures are capable of separating, right? I'll freely admit, I don't understand it. Matthew 1:25 for Joseph sleeping with her, whether or not they had children is not given. I just don't see why that means we would have to break apostolic unity over either one of these issues. I'm not willing to. Plenty enough room for both and we will find out one day.
@@murrydixon5221 The union never seperated. Jesus' soul seperated from His body the divinity remained united to both body and soul. His body was in the tomb and the soul decended into Hades.
@@Corpoise0974 What is your tradition? Is it an essential or non essential belief there? What would you say would be your go to resource on this topic?
I got to meet an OO priest while attending their group meeting on my campus (they invited the EO group). They are really nice and they like to have fun! It pains me we don't share communion.
Great Video RZ! The only thing I'd like to say is that when speaking about the OO belief in 1 composite nature of Christ, it's important to say that the OO church believes in One nature from Two natures, not just one simple nature (not saying you said that, but many may interpret it that way).
Could I get your opinion on Iglesia Nueva Vida in Colorado Springs? It's currently the Church I've been attending and participating in. I'm too early in my Christian study and journey to determine if it's fake or not. I don't truly know how or where to start and I'm fearful that my family and I might be at a fake Church. Any suggestions on how or where to start on how to check out the church?
It looks like its part of the new life churchs. They are just a regular evangelical non denominational church. I think new life tends to have the gospel. What makes you think its fake? If it feels off to you then try somewhere else.
Redeemed Zoomer, I have a question for you, as a Calvinist about Predestination: why does God not save everyone, if He can. I know he has no requirement to do so, and we are very fortunate that He even lets us live on Earth. But if He is ALL-loving, does that mean He must save ALL people? (
God created man and gave him the freedom to chose between good and evil. People who choose evil will not be saved. The only christian religion is the original christianity, orthodox christianity, if u study hustory u will know
@@esserman1603 this is why we are on a fallen state. You will not go to paradise only with a blind belief. Real belief is to make actions. Only if we are trying to become better in every way and make the world a better place we will save our selves
@@Cyprus_Is_Greek You have a chad username. But I dont see how you can have predestination (once again, where God chooses who to save and who to leave) and also believe that we can either choose Him or refuse Him.
Zoomer, you mentioned in one of your videos that the Presbyterian Church is run like a republic. In that sense, it can be considered the most "American" of the Protestant denominations. Can you make a video on how different types of Christianity align with different styles of government? So for example: Orthodox/Catholic = Absolute Monarchy Anglican/Lutheran = Constitutional Monarchy Presbyterian/Reformed = Republic Baptist/Congregationalist = Democracy
Can you do a update on how to join this server I would be easy if you put episodes 1-up. Or do a update because I make very decent church building on my flat world
Could you do a video on how modern day Israel is different than Old Testament Judaism? I get confused on what Paul means when he says all Israel will be saved. I’m not pro modern day Israel by any means. What does it mean when Jesus is supposed to descend into the mount of olives and it splits in two? Would love to see your take on it!
Ousia in Greek means essence. Physis means nature. Hypostasis means subsistence. Prosopon in means person. Chalcedonians usually use physis/nature to mean the same thing as ousia/essence, but Orientals use physis/nature in two different ways. When speaking of the Trinity, they mean the same thing as ousia, but when speaking of Christ, they use it the same way as hypostasis.
Another thing you should know is that although orthodox Christians usually use hypostasis and person interchangeably, Nestorians say that a person, rather than being a hypostasis with certain qualities (like rationality), is another category. They say that there are two hypostases or subsistences in the one person of Christ, which are united only on the level of person. The idea that Nestorians teach two persons is a caricature, and it has led to some people holding to Nestorianism because they think that they've avoided it by believing in only one person of Christ. This caricature is why people don't see the Assyrian Church of the East as Nestorian, even though this is what they teach.
Could you talk about what you think the 2 witnesses mean in the book of revelation and could you talk about what you think other things in the book of revalation mean 😊❤
@redeemedzoomer, you should do a video comparing different Bible translations and evaluating how the scripture has been translated and handed down through the years
May God guard your faith and keep it strong. I know you accept Nicea and have the faith of Nicea. edit: I was mistaken please forgive. Nestorius wrote: "I commend the distinction of the natures according to the concepts of humanity and divinity, and the combination of these into one person." (Second Letter to Cyril)
@@CoolLampShade Chaldean Catholics were a big portion of the Assyrian Church of the East that joined Rome. They are allowed to keep their Nestorian Christology, and they even call Nestorious a saint.
You know as a former Jehovah's Witness I was wondering if you could make, a video about your opinion on that. And trust me when I say, the rabbit hole is crazy.
This video touches on something I think we can all agree is a bit aggravating, or confusing (for a lack of better words) in the Christian belief. Probably the only pet peeve I have with ‘denominations’ and ‘differences in sacrament.’ Right off the bat in this video we’re talking about one denomination understating Jesus has 2 natures; one fully divine and one fully human, and the other understanding Jesus to possess only 1 nature, both 100% divine and 100% human. These type of… disagreements, appear everywhere across Christian denominations. As an exaggerated example, Mormonism believes the holy trinity is three separate divine beings, all under god’s authority… they still believe Jesus is ultimately THE god, and god the father is ultimately THE god as well, and the Holy Spirit… as a Christian who understands the trinity, it just looks like they all rearrange few ideas, and still give the same amount of glory to each figure of the trinity as every other denomination. Because they’re all still god. I can say this for every other denomination, (again, from MY understanding) which are just very small plays on words/ideas that all mean and give god the same thing. Our obedience and glory. In these separate denominations it is not like there is a change in scripture… (Or perhaps it is a difference in fundamental interpretation, which could begin with the small change?) Regardless, to me these examples included in the video and the one I included all glorify god, and understand Jesus as god, and understand the Holy Spirit as god/apart of god, and god the father as the same. That’s all that matters. Wether you say Jesus is 100% divine and human, or 100% divine and 100% human. I’d actually really appreciate it if one of you Christian scholars could explain to me; how these small differences in denominations… really make a difference (for a lack of better words) in the ultimate end goal which is to glorify God. But it sounds just as importantly; to understand Him. Which evidently may be impossible. Joking, but looking at all the different faiths. I admire that we try. Perhaps knowing where to pray to and how to interpret scripture is the goal of all this. But I just believe in Jesus as god, and god the father, as god, and their holy spirit as present in which I can talk through to/with the divine. To save me frustration and worry; if this is all a really specific side of Christianity (differentiating denominations and such) that I shouldn’t worry about it, and it’s more of a thing for scholars/nerds (I mean that in the most respectful way possible) of the Christian faith) thank you whenever reads all this and god bless the rest of your day. Even if this comment can make you feel less alone in your beleif, or if you’re excited to teach me, a novice the truth. Edit: [interpretation] Whichever one Jesus started (I believe it is catholic/orthodox) should just be the one to follow in my opinion. The further we stray from tradition, the more corrupted the beliefs become. Just like Adam and Eve and their children.
This is not an experience everyone has had, I guess, but I have. Have you ever heard someone say something about you--especially if they say it with absolute confidence--and they're completely wrong? Even if it's not anything bad about you, but it's simply not true about you? That can make you feel really bad about yourself--or them--or both. Now I know God is not petty like we humans can so often be, but it's still kind of the same thing--especially when God had given us the Bible to tell us about Himself. This is why heresy is so bad, even if the people promoting heresies think they're telling the truth. As for Mormonism, I think there's a couple things you're missing. First, the Bible is VERY insistent that there is only one God. Mormonism's trinity is three gods. Secondly, God is immutable (Malachi 3:6). Mormons, however, believe that God was once a man like us, but who became a god. Therefore, we too can become gods if we do everything right. When you take these two ideas and put them together, you get the doctrine that there is a huge number of gods, each ruling his own planet. This expansion of the number of gods goes back infinitely because Mormons believe matter has always existed, and the gods just fashion this pre-existent matter into new planets for new gods to rule over. Mormons will not admit this to you, but there's a way for you to check it out. Mormons believe that there was once a conference of the gods on a star or planet called Kolob. Research Kolob, and you'll find that I'm telling you the truth.
They say that christ had two qnome and the trinity had 3 qnome. Qnome can only be understood as hypostasis in their tradition, thus they cant believe in a hypostatic union.
@@meina0614not really true. Qnome would be more referring to the concrete reality but even that might be a bad translation. That’s the issue with each language having its own definitions. Nature is kyana and persopa is person. They would say Christ has two kyane ( natures) two qnome ( realities both human and divine) and one persopa ( person). This isn’t something that was made up by the church of the east. Similar line of thinking has existed since the very beginning in the antiochian school where many theologians of the church of the east came from or drew inspiration from. This is in fact in line with the chalcedonian view hence why the churn of the east accepted the teachings of Chalcedon when it came to the nature of Christ 1500 years ago.
@@MNN1991 hypostasis means concrete reality in christian theology, though. Unless the COE can demonstrate that it is different then there doesnt seem to be a point to using words without proper definitions. Furthermore, many syriac churches would dispute the fact that the COE inherited the antiochian tradition or actually understood it as they believe.
@@deutschermichel5807 no nestorius rejected ephesus but accepted chalcedon but never repented. Should tell you something about how clueless chalcedonians are.
Why would you be concerned about confusion in the trinity, when the trinity is inherently confusing? (demonstration: the son is god, the father is god, the son is not the father; therefore god is not god)
Zoomer can you make a video on how Christians should approach anti-semitism? I've seen a lot of pagans and anti-Christian groups use anti-semitism to try to knock Christianity by calling it a "Jewish religion", but at the same time there is a lot of works from the early fathers like St. John Chrysostom and Augustine that seem to be anti-semitic, along with the blood curse in the Gospels.
That just sounds like larpers. Jews like all other humans are born with sin and need Christ to be saved. I know many Jews that accept Christ including the earliest apostles (well I don’t ‘know’ them per say but still) Nothing wrong if Christianity is a ‘Jewish faith’ anyways. It doesn’t matter if it’s a Pacific Ocean red strawberry faith. What matters is what Christianity is about and that’s Jesus Christ.
Sure seems like there are a lot of theological arguments that we can't really know the answer to and ultimately the correct answer doesn't matter because the only difference is some nerd can put a feather in their cap.
Redeemed Zoomer I hope you see this. I’m joining the Reconquista. I used to be an evangelical non-denominational but I’m working on being confirmed in the Anglican Church (ACNA).
@@redeemedzoomer6053 hey RZ, I'm a Catholic and a big fan of this channel. It helped me learn a lot about Reformed theology and go beyond all the strawmen that are commonly thrown around in Catholic circles. Could you please make a video on the Reformed perspective on original sin, and how it differs from the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox perspectives. Original sin is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, and often misunderstood, so a video on this subject would be pretty cool I think. God bless
@@redeemedzoomer6053So in other words, you believe Jesus are 2 beings, a God being and a human beings at the same time, His Godbeing is not humanbeing, His humanbeing is not Godbeing, you cannot say Jesus a Human is the same with Jesus the God, or Jesus as Human was not God, so however you have 2 Jesus, right? Isn't it nestorian teaching? 🤔
@@redeemedzoomer6053anyway, i think it's all right, it's just matter of perspective and terminology. I think miaphysite is focus on Jesus as HimSelf, when diophysite is more about how Jesus lives or works in/within 2 natures. That's my opinion/analysis. Is it right? 🤔
I am spreading the word about this corrupt Catholic school, Raimondi College, in Hong Kong. The discipline master, S.K. Wong, is in the pockets of a rich girls family, and is allowing her to disrespect the Catholic faith and Christians as a whole, and threaten students who practice their faith. There are more incidents of this occurring in the school, I am asking everyone to contact their local Catholic priest and Bishop and spread the word of this corrupt school, and pray for the students and non-corrupt school officials. God Bless✝
The archbishop of Alexandria was the first called Pope in 232, whereas the bishop of Rome was first called Pope in the 9th century. Pope simply means father. The Coptic Pope of Alexandria is considered first among equals of the Oriental Orthodox Church
@@BasedOrthodox007 The first person called as pope was Victor I in 189-199 Pope Victor I (died 199) was a Roman African prelate of the Catholic =Apostolic Orthodox-Missionary,Ecumenical Church who served as Bishop of Rome in the late second century. The dates of his tenure are uncertain, but one source states he became pope in 189 and gives the year of his death as 199.[ He was born in the Roman Province of Africa-probably in Leptis Magna (or Tripolitania). He was later considered a saint. His feast day is celebrated on 28 July as "St Victor I, Pope and Martyr". He was of Berber origin.
@@dpwXXIPolskaPolak Please provide a source to prove that Pope Victor was the first bishop of Rome to be called Pope. Edit: not saying you are wrong, I'm just genuinely curious
@redeemedzoomer make a video on why sanctification is synergistic. Some people in the discord are calling synergistic sanctification a Romish doctrine 😂
The churches established by St. Thomas are actually divided among a bunch of different denominations now. They were originally part of the Church of the East, but as the CoE declined, they were kind of left on their own. The Portuguese eventually showed up in India (as they have basically everywhere during the age of Exploration) and tried to unite them with the RCC. Some of the St. Thomas Christians adopted the Western Syrian rite and joined with the Oriental Orthodox, others joined with the Catholics, while others remained with the Church of the East. Others became Protestant. However, it gets even more complicated than that at least according to the Wikipedia article. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Thomas_Christians
@@danshakuimo Yea the Portugues were looking for the realm of Prester John. They actually believed in "the book of marvels and travels" by Sir John Mandeville. I think the presence of Protestants and Catholics in India was mainly brought by the English. Most of the Orthodox people are Keralites.
@@Procopius464 The Protestants were due to the British but I'm pretty sure most of the Catholics were due to the Portuguese. The famous Coonan Cross Oath was sworn by the Indians who refused to become Catholic and this happened under Portuguese pressure. I think these guys were the ones that became Oriental Orthodox. I think at this point Portugal already found Ethiopia and thought it was Prester John's kingdom though.
@@danshakuimo Well, the Portugues had a big influence in Goa, and you still have people there who are a result of Portugues and Indian marriages. But, as weird as it may seem, Anglo-Indians are also generally Roman Catholic. I don't know why that is, but I have never met one who was not. I think it might have something to do with the Catholic English men stationed in India being less able to bring wives for themselves from the homeland, but that's just my speculation.
I have nothing but respect for the Oriental Orthodox. They are all that's left of most of the original indigenous Middle Eastern cultures. The rest were just turned into rootless Arabs, who aren't actually real Arabs, but think they are because the actual Arabs destroyed their original cultural identities. The cultural identities and practices that go along with OO are both a great strength and (possible) weakness. I say it's a strength, because they have strong communities and mostly do not change their practices. They are less vulnerable to external pressures. I say it's a bit of a weakness, because if you are a complete outsider you have to also try to assimilate into their culture, or at least share in it. Not everyone will be able to do that.
I think you'd find a very different character from oriental orthodox if you meet let's say Ethiopian orthodox. I wouldn't say they're awful but there's a long history of them persecuting protestant Christians and both sects of Christianity are basically enemies to eachother its disappointing. I might try to appreciate their doctrine But generally, character wise I wouldn't call them humble or kind. They're usually very aggressive.
you are not oriental orthodox because that is such a small denomination that on practice only exists in Armenia, Ethiopia and Egypt, a westerner claiming to be one is 99% chance of being just professional LARPing
That's not true. I'm Eastern Orthodox, but since there are no Oriental Orthodox churches near where I live, the Oriental Orthodox people who live near me attend my church. There are Copts, Eritreans, and Malankarans who attend my church. However, there was one woman who actually converted from OO to EO in my church. She did not belong to any of the ethnic groups that are traditionally OO. She was a redhead--and a redhead from northwestern European heritage--not an Arab redhead. (Yes, redheaded Arabs do exist, if you didn't know it.) She had converted to the Coptic Church while she was living in California. While there probably aren't a huge number of Westerners who've converted to the OO Church, they certainly do exist.
Lol I live in California and we have all of those and even the Malankara church here. And plus if you wanted to LARP Eastern Orthodox or Tradcath is more fun to LARP as. It's definitely more than 1% chance they are telling the truth imo.
If your running out of denoms to make episodes of why you’re not in it, you have yet to do episodes of why you’re not in the Bible PresbyterIan Church, RPCNA, CREC, and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
Hi lads I'm a British Methodist and I would like to know the objection to woman pastors. I wouldn't say I come from a liberal background but we have a female pastor at our church and she is great - I don't exactly know what's wrong with it. I'd also like to hear why Calvinists believe in predestination. God bless you all
As an Orthodox person I love my Oriental Orthodox brothers and I feel as though the Eastern Orthodox church and the Oriental Orthodox Church will become one Church by the end of this century. We've already had three official dialogues a bunch of unofficial dialogues. Basically every person on both sides wants us to be a one church again it's just some of the higher-ups still feel like there's a very big difference between our two definitions of Jesus Christ and the fact that if we accept the uncal sidonians we would have to put away the amantha that happened during some of the councils which would be basically saying that the council is wrong which they can't be wrong because they were divined we inspired so there's a lot in the way but a lot has been done to build the bridge between Orthodox and non-california churches. And yes I'm going to use that because that's what they officially call themselves during our dialogues
Did you know that pope Francis is trying to unify the Catholic church with the eastern Orthodox church? Maybe us Catholic and our Eastern and Orthodox brothers and sisters are ganna be reunified if God wills God bless you brother or sister in Christ and may have a blessed day 🙏🙏🙏🇻🇦🫶☦️
I looked into the quote of Cyril (one incarnate nature of the Word of God) and he uses the word physis. However, the defintion of Chalcedon didn't yet define physis and ousia as synonyms, so it is possible Cyril used physis here to refer to one "mode of existence" i.e. one person or hypostasis.
If you read St. Cyril’s third anathema (make sure you look at the Greek), which was read and made dogma at Ephesus I, Cyril equates Hypostasis and physis. If hypostasis was equated to person in the third anathema, you would be saying that St. Cyril is stating a union of persons which would be Nestorianism.
@@michaelg4919 you’re grossly incorrect in this conclusion. Chalcedon states that there is one hypostasis IN TWO natures, each nature properly “performing what is proper to it.” This is a violation of St. Cyril’s third anathema. Chalcedon in this definition equate hypostasis with person, unlike St. Cyril who equates hypostasis with nature in the context of the third anathema. If in the third anathema you have a hypostatic union according to nature (physis), and Chalcedon states that Christ performs IN TWO natures, Chalcedon is dividing Christ and falls under the Ecumenical judgement of the third anathema (not to mention the rest of Ephesus I). I encourage you to read St. Cyril’s letters to Eulogius, Succensus, and Acacius which were written after the formula of reunion. Go and count how many times St. Cyril states “miaphysis”.
How can a person's nature be so independent from essence? If you affect the essence you are changing the nature. Jesus having a divine nature means he cannot have a nature identical to our own, and talking about essence doesn't solve that. Ergo, Jesus's nature was truly human, but not identical with God that Father, YHWH.
So in other words, you believe Jesus are 2 beings, a God being and a human beings at the same time, His Godbeing is not humanbeing, His humanbeing is not Godbeing, you cannot say Jesus a Human is the same with Jesus the God, or Jesus as Human was not God, so however you have 2 Jesus, right? Isn't it nestorian teaching? 🤔
@@aiko-aini in the council of Chalcedon the non-Chalcedonians accused the Chalcedonians that their teachings sound nestorian and the Chalcedonians accused the non-Chalcedonians that their teaching sound Eutychian (Monophysites) then the fight started :D and because of this quarrel the history of my country changed dramatically (FYI Iam OO Copt )
@@CopticPrince-hh2yiawesome .. i think it's all right just matter of perspective and terminology. I think miaphysite is focus on Jesus as HimSelf, when diophysite is more about how Jesus lives or works in/within 2 natures. What is your thinking about my opinion?
@@aiko-aini the more i read about this issue the more i got confused as i see no major difference if there is any. according to 1990 agreement between the OO and the EO they state in the 7th statement in the agreement that both of them have the same faith about this issue in some sense . Source :firstthoughtsofgod.com/tag/miaphysite/ then they fought again :D LOL because in this agreement the EO used "Orthodox" term for themselves but referred to OO as "Oriental Orthodox" and this implied that EO was on the right pass but OO was not and then repent back. I think the whole quarrel was political and about Ego from the very start.
![A Day To Remember: Feedback [OFFICIAL VIDEO]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iXVnysmQ4e0/mqdefault.jpg)
It’s because you’re Presbyterian
W answer
more like because he is already orthodox in doctrine and tradition, so why become orthodox in tradition only?
That's the short answer. The long answer is in the video. The slightly shorter answer is that the OO belief on the nature(s) of Jesus makes the Trinity even more complicated than it already is.
@@michaelg4919Cringe
@@FromElsewhearit’s a joke
I had a dream with redeemed zoomer in it where he went down a hole in Minecraft where gnostics hid, they looked like the falmer in Skyrim. He died like twice and summoned the wither.
The gnostics looking like falmer is funny af
People: dreams have meaning
The dreams:
Prophet?
@@igorlopes7589 All dreams have meaning
@@NoizzedThey think they have the real truth, but are ironically blind. Actually fitting.
Zoomer, if you're running out of denominations, then you should make videos on "Why I'm not" other religions.
Like, "Why I'm not a Muslim"
"Why I'm not a Buddhist"
"Why I'm not an atheist"
"Why I'm not a Hindu"
Don't forget the Jews and the Sikhs. I wonder if there could be a reason RZ is avoiding the Jews?
1. because they're false
2. because they're false
3. because they're false
4. because they're false
@@joeyhardin5903 Exactly. What do y'all really expect him to say? A "Why I'm a Christian" video (assuming he hasnt done one, I dont remember) would be much better
@@MSK.ofAlexandria he is actually reportedly making a video on islam in the near future but I don't think it's going to be a 'why I am not' video, more likely just issues with the religion
@@joeyhardin5903 That video is gonna be hours long. Hes gonna have to edit the crap out of that.
14,45 “Okay I think these pillagers are Miaphysites”
I swear, I was just wondering this. Dude God is having you put things out right as I’m asking them. Perfect timing as always
"Whatever is not assumed is not redeemed."
----St. Gregory Nazianzus, 101st Letter
I know right
0:32
From both that family tree and the denomination tier list, you've yet to do Why I'm Not on:
Nazarene/Holiness
Pietist
Huguenot
Swiss Reformed (You have done Dutch Reformed but not other Continental Reformed)
Amish/Mennonite
Moravian
Assyrian Church of The East
Church of Christ
Seventh Day Adventist
Quaker
The rest you've called explicitly heretical. So you're not running out of denominations, just the major ones.
Quaker baptists and mennonites are all pretty much under the same thing
SDA's are wild bro
Isnʼt Zoomer basically a Huguenot?
@@deutschermichel5807 No, he's a Presbyterian. Different regional branches of Calvinism.
I really wanna see the SDA one but based on his other video I don’t think he’s well educated on them, that’s probably a large reason why
The Chalcedonian controversy has got to be the most rediculous pedantic thing I've ever heard... lately a lot of EO are basically treating OO the same as an EO church in temporary schism cause we're kind of realising it's a pointless difference between us. Especially in light of the persecution in Ethiopia really calling us to stand together.
a Copt here that Likes your videos ,we as Copts say that Jesus Christ is perfect human and perfect divine and these two NATURES (not two essences) are united together without mingling, nor confusion, nor alteration in one nature; the nature of God incarnate.
. In the recent dialogues EO and OO reached the conclusion that we have the same faith.
praying for the unity of the Church.
GBU
As we say before we start communion in our Coptic Orthodox liturgies “He made It [the flesh] one with his divinity, without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration… Truly I believe that His divinity parted not from His humanity for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye.”
So that implies His divinity died alongside His humanity. Sounds silly when you think about it.
@@NoahPrivateIn a ancient apostolic hymn written by st Severus or dioscorus , in the hymn on Good Friday a verse from that is” holy mighty who through weakness, showed what is greater than power” this hymn is called Omonogenis. Translates to : O only begotten
@@NoahPrivateand why does that sound silly
@@NoahPrivateno
Death is separation of body and soul
The lord's divinity remained in union with both
God died in the flesh. The OO belief is that divinity is impassible. St. Cyril stated this multiple times while maintaining the belief in the one composite nature formula. The division of natures after the ineffable and paradoxical union is a huge problem for us. We know God’s blood saves us because of the one composite nature formula. Your fathers doubted when we wanted them to confirm that the holy immortal one died and was crucified. Go read the history of the trisagion controvery. Our faith is on God’s very blood.
I’m catholic and love it. i feel like we should all just follow the ways of Jesus together and be more like him.
These. Clean stated explanations are very helpful for pondering denominations. Thank you!
"But who would be so misguided and stupid as to think that the divine nature of the Word had changed into something which formerly it was not? or that the flesh was changed by some kind of transformation into the nature of the Word himself? This is impossible. We say that there is one Son, and that he has one nature even when he is considered as having assumed flesh endowed with a rational soul. As I have already said, he has made the human element his own. And this is the way, not otherwise, that we must consider that the same one is at once God and man."
- St Cyril of Alexandria, from On The Unity Of Christ, page 77
I love the church fathers but I can't say that all of their beliefs and writings are equal to the 66 book canon. I do not believe any Protestant would. In some sense however you define the divine nature and human nature of Jesus Christ, it would be saying that God died on the cross. Nature, essences, energies and all of that I do not really know.
Beyond believing in the Immaculate Conception, there is nothing else that you have to believe about Mary. I love Mary. She was blessed and highly favored of God but she didn't remain a virgin after Jesus. She had other children and she's not a co mediator with Christ.
@@murrydixon5221 The Orthodox belief is that God died on the cross according to the flesh.
St Mary was a pertual virgin, St Joseph had a previous marriage, this is were Jesus' brothers came from. No where in the Bible does it say St Mary had any other sons.
@@Corpoise0974 In our limited human understanding, in order for God to have died according to his flesh that would have to mean that his natures are capable of separating, right? I'll freely admit, I don't understand it.
Matthew 1:25 for Joseph sleeping with her, whether or not they had children is not given.
I just don't see why that means we would have to break apostolic unity over either one of these issues. I'm not willing to. Plenty enough room for both and we will find out one day.
@@murrydixon5221 The union never seperated. Jesus' soul seperated from His body the divinity remained united to both body and soul. His body was in the tomb and the soul decended into Hades.
@@Corpoise0974 What is your tradition? Is it an essential or non essential belief there? What would you say would be your go to resource on this topic?
Christ is King! 🙏✝️
I got to meet an OO priest while attending their group meeting on my campus (they invited the EO group). They are really nice and they like to have fun! It pains me we don't share communion.
Great Video RZ! The only thing I'd like to say is that when speaking about the OO belief in 1 composite nature of Christ, it's important to say that the OO church believes in One nature from Two natures, not just one simple nature (not saying you said that, but many may interpret it that way).
So basically ur problem is that oriental orthodoxy is not wrong at every aspect but it makes things complicated ?
Hey Zoomer, thanks for the video. I was wondering if you could share what program you use to make your music. Thanks!
shoutout to the OGs of the 5min version
Could I get your opinion on Iglesia Nueva Vida in Colorado Springs? It's currently the Church I've been attending and participating in. I'm too early in my Christian study and journey to determine if it's fake or not. I don't truly know how or where to start and I'm fearful that my family and I might be at a fake Church. Any suggestions on how or where to start on how to check out the church?
It looks like its part of the new life churchs. They are just a regular evangelical non denominational church. I think new life tends to have the gospel.
What makes you think its fake? If it feels off to you then try somewhere else.
Redeemed Zoomer, I have a question for you, as a Calvinist about Predestination: why does God not save everyone, if He can. I know he has no requirement to do so, and we are very fortunate that He even lets us live on Earth. But if He is ALL-loving, does that mean He must save ALL people? (
God created man and gave him the freedom to chose between good and evil. People who choose evil will not be saved. The only christian religion is the original christianity, orthodox christianity, if u study hustory u will know
@@Cyprus_Is_Greek Everyone chose evil though in the garden of Eden though. Adam id the federal head of all humans.
@@esserman1603 this is why we are on a fallen state. You will not go to paradise only with a blind belief. Real belief is to make actions. Only if we are trying to become better in every way and make the world a better place we will save our selves
@@Cyprus_Is_Greek You have a chad username. But I dont see how you can have predestination (once again, where God chooses who to save and who to leave) and also believe that we can either choose Him or refuse Him.
Read Roman’s 9
Congrats for 400k !
Is your music available anywhere?
+15 minutes to the video let’s gooo
Heck yeah!
13:51 was that a dig at me ya kalb
You call your self a Christian and you cuss blame-lessely
Zoomer, you mentioned in one of your videos that the Presbyterian Church is run like a republic. In that sense, it can be considered the most "American" of the Protestant denominations. Can you make a video on how different types of Christianity align with different styles of government? So for example:
Orthodox/Catholic = Absolute Monarchy
Anglican/Lutheran = Constitutional Monarchy
Presbyterian/Reformed = Republic
Baptist/Congregationalist = Democracy
Can you do a update on how to join this server I would be easy if you put episodes 1-up. Or do a update because I make very decent church building on my flat world
Can you make a video explaining the differences between Non-denominational and Baptist?
Could you do a video on how modern day Israel is different than Old Testament Judaism? I get confused on what Paul means when he says all Israel will be saved. I’m not pro modern day Israel by any means. What does it mean when Jesus is supposed to descend into the mount of olives and it splits in two? Would love to see your take on it!
Do you have any opinion of the Disciples of Christ denomination?
Can you make a video on Arminianism? I’m Arminianin and would be curious to know what you think about it. Thanks!
What happened to the original?
So is light a particle or a wave?
how do i join your minecraft server
5:42 how can one nature have two essences, if nature and essence are synonyms (they both refer to "ousia" in greek)?
Ousia in Greek means essence.
Physis means nature.
Hypostasis means subsistence.
Prosopon in means person.
Chalcedonians usually use physis/nature to mean the same thing as ousia/essence, but Orientals use physis/nature in two different ways. When speaking of the Trinity, they mean the same thing as ousia, but when speaking of Christ, they use it the same way as hypostasis.
Another thing you should know is that although orthodox Christians usually use hypostasis and person interchangeably, Nestorians say that a person, rather than being a hypostasis with certain qualities (like rationality), is another category. They say that there are two hypostases or subsistences in the one person of Christ, which are united only on the level of person. The idea that Nestorians teach two persons is a caricature, and it has led to some people holding to Nestorianism because they think that they've avoided it by believing in only one person of Christ. This caricature is why people don't see the Assyrian Church of the East as Nestorian, even though this is what they teach.
@@catfinity8799 thanks for your comments, God bless you
Fantastic video!
Your church is looking great.
Could you talk about what you think the 2 witnesses mean in the book of revelation and could you talk about what you think other things in the book of revalation mean 😊❤
@redeemedzoomer, you should do a video comparing different Bible translations and evaluating how the scripture has been translated and handed down through the years
You still got the Assyrians
May God guard your faith and keep it strong. I know you accept Nicea and have the faith of Nicea. edit: I was mistaken please forgive. Nestorius wrote: "I commend the distinction of the natures according to the concepts of humanity and divinity, and the combination of these into one person." (Second Letter to Cyril)
I really like your videos as a Chaldean catholic, maybe you should talk about Chaldean catholicism
Can you tell more about this Chaldean Church? Is it an autocephalous Church?
What is that? I’m a Roman Catholic, and I’ve heard of Greek Catholics but never Chaldean.
@@deutschermichel5807
No, they're autonomous, so under the Pope
@@CoolLampShade
Chaldean Catholics were a big portion of the Assyrian Church of the East that joined Rome. They are allowed to keep their Nestorian Christology, and they even call Nestorious a saint.
your actually kinda correct java script is a web development language
You know as a former Jehovah's Witness I was wondering if you could make, a video about your opinion on that. And trust me when I say, the rabbit hole is crazy.
U can do other specific denominations like Adventists LDS, etc.
Every video he uploads feels like I'm watching an AI, bro is such an NPC.💀
W video tho, keep up the good work.
Still haven't seen a Moravian denomination video. Or Holiness/Nazarene.
You should do a Kingdomcraft episode of why you are not a King James Onlyist/ why you read X Bible translation
I feel like I just got a crashcourse in the modern church meta
This video touches on something I think we can all agree is a bit aggravating, or confusing (for a lack of better words) in the Christian belief. Probably the only pet peeve I have with ‘denominations’ and ‘differences in sacrament.’
Right off the bat in this video we’re talking about one denomination understating Jesus has 2 natures; one fully divine and one fully human, and the other understanding Jesus to possess only 1 nature, both 100% divine and 100% human.
These type of… disagreements, appear everywhere across Christian denominations. As an exaggerated example, Mormonism believes the holy trinity is three separate divine beings, all under god’s authority… they still believe Jesus is ultimately THE god, and god the father is ultimately THE god as well, and the Holy Spirit…
as a Christian who understands the trinity, it just looks like they all rearrange few ideas, and still give the same amount of glory to each figure of the trinity as every other denomination. Because they’re all still god.
I can say this for every other denomination, (again, from MY understanding) which are just very small plays on words/ideas that all mean and give god the same thing. Our obedience and glory. In these separate denominations it is not like there is a change in scripture… (Or perhaps it is a difference in fundamental interpretation, which could begin with the small change?)
Regardless, to me these examples included in the video and the one I included all glorify god, and understand Jesus as god, and understand the Holy Spirit as god/apart of god, and god the father as the same. That’s all that matters. Wether you say Jesus is 100% divine and human, or 100% divine and 100% human.
I’d actually really appreciate it if one of you Christian scholars could explain to me; how these small differences in denominations… really make a difference (for a lack of better words) in the ultimate end goal which is to glorify God. But it sounds just as importantly; to understand Him. Which evidently may be impossible. Joking, but looking at all the different faiths.
I admire that we try. Perhaps knowing where to pray to and how to interpret scripture is the goal of all this. But I just believe in Jesus as god, and god the father, as god, and their holy spirit as present in which I can talk through to/with the divine.
To save me frustration and worry; if this is all a really specific side of Christianity (differentiating denominations and such) that I shouldn’t worry about it, and it’s more of a thing for scholars/nerds (I mean that in the most respectful way possible) of the Christian faith) thank you whenever reads all this and god bless the rest of your day. Even if this comment can make you feel less alone in your beleif, or if you’re excited to teach me, a novice the truth.
Edit: [interpretation] Whichever one Jesus started (I believe it is catholic/orthodox) should just be the one to follow in my opinion. The further we stray from tradition, the more corrupted the beliefs become. Just like Adam and Eve and their children.
This is not an experience everyone has had, I guess, but I have. Have you ever heard someone say something about you--especially if they say it with absolute confidence--and they're completely wrong? Even if it's not anything bad about you, but it's simply not true about you? That can make you feel really bad about yourself--or them--or both. Now I know God is not petty like we humans can so often be, but it's still kind of the same thing--especially when God had given us the Bible to tell us about Himself. This is why heresy is so bad, even if the people promoting heresies think they're telling the truth.
As for Mormonism, I think there's a couple things you're missing. First, the Bible is VERY insistent that there is only one God. Mormonism's trinity is three gods. Secondly, God is immutable (Malachi 3:6). Mormons, however, believe that God was once a man like us, but who became a god. Therefore, we too can become gods if we do everything right. When you take these two ideas and put them together, you get the doctrine that there is a huge number of gods, each ruling his own planet. This expansion of the number of gods goes back infinitely because Mormons believe matter has always existed, and the gods just fashion this pre-existent matter into new planets for new gods to rule over. Mormons will not admit this to you, but there's a way for you to check it out. Mormons believe that there was once a conference of the gods on a star or planet called Kolob. Research Kolob, and you'll find that I'm telling you the truth.
Mormons do not believe in the Trinity. They say Jesus is the brother of Satan
What is KingdomCraft?
4:39 what about Calvinism?
criminally early. let's gooo
Interesting video.
Yeah, it's three times longer than before.
How about the Church of the East?
What if we say that Nestorianism is not real and Nestorius did not teach Nestorianism?
They say that christ had two qnome and the trinity had 3 qnome. Qnome can only be understood as hypostasis in their tradition, thus they cant believe in a hypostatic union.
Didn't Nestorius teach this heresy but later repented?
@@meina0614not really true. Qnome would be more referring to the concrete reality but even that might be a bad translation. That’s the issue with each language having its own definitions. Nature is kyana and persopa is person. They would say Christ has two kyane ( natures) two qnome ( realities both human and divine) and one persopa ( person). This isn’t something that was made up by the church of the east. Similar line of thinking has existed since the very beginning in the antiochian school where many theologians of the church of the east came from or drew inspiration from. This is in fact in line with the chalcedonian view hence why the churn of the east accepted the teachings of Chalcedon when it came to the nature of Christ 1500 years ago.
@@MNN1991 hypostasis means concrete reality in christian theology, though. Unless the COE can demonstrate that it is different then there doesnt seem to be a point to using words without proper definitions. Furthermore, many syriac churches would dispute the fact that the COE inherited the antiochian tradition or actually understood it as they believe.
@@deutschermichel5807 no nestorius rejected ephesus but accepted chalcedon but never repented. Should tell you something about how clueless chalcedonians are.
I wonder when we get a video on the Carlos situation.
Fr, carlos did nothing wrong 😂
@@Woolf729 No idea, I've just heard some stuff from Cardinals14, he's an acquaintance of mine.
@@Marc94230 I love cardinals lol he mods my discord server
Do a “Why I’m not restoration Christian (DoC and UCC)”!!! (We know why you’re not, but your explanation is the best part
I am miaphysite but 14:45 got me laughing
Also good video brother
You should do an episode of this on 2b2t
What happened to the first video?
It was only five minutes long.
@@JoWilliams-ud4eu Your reply does not answer the question.
The first video only had the first five minutes and was replaced with the longer one.
@@JoWilliams-ud4eu NOW you've answered the question. Thank you!
@@aLadNamedNathan you are welcome
Why would you be concerned about confusion in the trinity, when the trinity is inherently confusing? (demonstration: the son is god, the father is god, the son is not the father; therefore god is not god)
Zoomer can you make a video on how Christians should approach anti-semitism? I've seen a lot of pagans and anti-Christian groups use anti-semitism to try to knock Christianity by calling it a "Jewish religion", but at the same time there is a lot of works from the early fathers like St. John Chrysostom and Augustine that seem to be anti-semitic, along with the blood curse in the Gospels.
That just sounds like larpers. Jews like all other humans are born with sin and need Christ to be saved. I know many Jews that accept Christ including the earliest apostles (well I don’t ‘know’ them per say but still)
Nothing wrong if Christianity is a ‘Jewish faith’ anyways. It doesn’t matter if it’s a Pacific Ocean red strawberry faith. What matters is what Christianity is about and that’s Jesus Christ.
Sure seems like there are a lot of theological arguments that we can't really know the answer to and ultimately the correct answer doesn't matter because the only difference is some nerd can put a feather in their cap.
Denomination Name Tierlist?!?! 😃😂(please)
Redeemed Zoomer I hope you see this. I’m joining the Reconquista. I used to be an evangelical non-denominational but I’m working on being confirmed in the Anglican Church (ACNA).
0:32 do why your not Assembly of God first
I already did "why I'm not Pentecostal"
@@redeemedzoomer6053 hey RZ, I'm a Catholic and a big fan of this channel. It helped me learn a lot about Reformed theology and go beyond all the strawmen that are commonly thrown around in Catholic circles. Could you please make a video on the Reformed perspective on original sin, and how it differs from the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox perspectives. Original sin is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, and often misunderstood, so a video on this subject would be pretty cool I think. God bless
Do a video of why you are not quacker, restorationist, etc
do one Why I'm not Calvinist - KingdomCraft
but I am
Only the quick peeps will remember the 5min one haha
Do the Church of the East to. Its the only apostolic church you haven’t done yet.
Fixed how? What needed fixed?
the previous upload cut off too short
It was only the first five minutes
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Ah okay.
@@redeemedzoomer6053So in other words, you believe Jesus are 2 beings, a God being and a human beings at the same time, His Godbeing is not humanbeing, His humanbeing is not Godbeing, you cannot say Jesus a Human is the same with Jesus the God, or Jesus as Human was not God, so however you have 2 Jesus, right? Isn't it nestorian teaching? 🤔
@@redeemedzoomer6053anyway, i think it's all right, it's just matter of perspective and terminology. I think miaphysite is focus on Jesus as HimSelf, when diophysite is more about how Jesus lives or works in/within 2 natures. That's my opinion/analysis. Is it right? 🤔
Your evolution????
0:35 d o w h y y o u r n o t m o r a v i a n
I am spreading the word about this corrupt Catholic school, Raimondi College, in Hong Kong. The discipline master, S.K. Wong, is in the pockets of a rich girls family, and is allowing her to disrespect the Catholic faith and Christians as a whole, and threaten students who practice their faith. There are more incidents of this occurring in the school, I am asking everyone to contact their local Catholic priest and Bishop and spread the word of this corrupt school, and pray for the students and non-corrupt school officials. God Bless✝
I wanna join this server but I don’t have Minecraft and I wanna build a secret underground cave city after I saw the comment after the gnostics
Lol. "I have a strong view of theosis"
Also he: "I love Karl Barth for his strong distinction between God and his creation".
If these are the arguments why not to be Oriental Orthodox. Then thsts actually amazing as an Oriental Orthodox myself.
I’m joyous I converted to Oriental Orthodoxy, it’s the True Church
That's more like it.
Dont the coptics also have a pope?
The archbishop of Alexandria was the first called Pope in 232, whereas the bishop of Rome was first called Pope in the 9th century. Pope simply means father. The Coptic Pope of Alexandria is considered first among equals of the Oriental Orthodox Church
@@BasedOrthodox007what are you sources for the Alexandrian pope being the first about equals
@@BasedOrthodox007 The first person called as pope was Victor I in 189-199 Pope Victor I (died 199) was a Roman African prelate of the Catholic =Apostolic Orthodox-Missionary,Ecumenical Church who served as Bishop of Rome in the late second century. The dates of his tenure are uncertain, but one source states he became pope in 189 and gives the year of his death as 199.[ He was born in the Roman Province of Africa-probably in Leptis Magna (or Tripolitania). He was later considered a saint. His feast day is celebrated on 28 July as "St Victor I, Pope and Martyr". He was of Berber origin.
He VictorI was the 14 bishop off Rome after Saint Peter The Apostle and the first who used the name papa-papas..papias-pope.
@@dpwXXIPolskaPolak
Please provide a source to prove that Pope Victor was the first bishop of Rome to be called Pope.
Edit: not saying you are wrong, I'm just genuinely curious
@redeemedzoomer make a video on why sanctification is synergistic. Some people in the discord are calling synergistic sanctification a Romish doctrine 😂
Oriental Orthodox includes Egyptian, Syrian, Ethiopian, and Armenian. The Indian Orthodox was established by the Apostle Thomas.
The churches established by St. Thomas are actually divided among a bunch of different denominations now. They were originally part of the Church of the East, but as the CoE declined, they were kind of left on their own.
The Portuguese eventually showed up in India (as they have basically everywhere during the age of Exploration) and tried to unite them with the RCC. Some of the St. Thomas Christians adopted the Western Syrian rite and joined with the Oriental Orthodox, others joined with the Catholics, while others remained with the Church of the East. Others became Protestant. However, it gets even more complicated than that at least according to the Wikipedia article.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Thomas_Christians
@@danshakuimo Yea the Portugues were looking for the realm of Prester John. They actually believed in "the book of marvels and travels" by Sir John Mandeville. I think the presence of Protestants and Catholics in India was mainly brought by the English. Most of the Orthodox people are Keralites.
@@Procopius464 The Protestants were due to the British but I'm pretty sure most of the Catholics were due to the Portuguese. The famous Coonan Cross Oath was sworn by the Indians who refused to become Catholic and this happened under Portuguese pressure. I think these guys were the ones that became Oriental Orthodox.
I think at this point Portugal already found Ethiopia and thought it was Prester John's kingdom though.
@@danshakuimo Well, the Portugues had a big influence in Goa, and you still have people there who are a result of Portugues and Indian marriages. But, as weird as it may seem, Anglo-Indians are also generally Roman Catholic. I don't know why that is, but I have never met one who was not. I think it might have something to do with the Catholic English men stationed in India being less able to bring wives for themselves from the homeland, but that's just my speculation.
He did it! Its fixed
Guys can someone explain why is this guy getting so much hate? I'm a bit new here.
I have nothing but respect for the Oriental Orthodox. They are all that's left of most of the original indigenous Middle Eastern cultures. The rest were just turned into rootless Arabs, who aren't actually real Arabs, but think they are because the actual Arabs destroyed their original cultural identities. The cultural identities and practices that go along with OO are both a great strength and (possible) weakness. I say it's a strength, because they have strong communities and mostly do not change their practices. They are less vulnerable to external pressures. I say it's a bit of a weakness, because if you are a complete outsider you have to also try to assimilate into their culture, or at least share in it. Not everyone will be able to do that.
Well i will highly disagree with you , i hope you will come to Oriental Orthodoxy in future.
Ok,now is better
So much better
I think you'd find a very different character from oriental orthodox if you meet let's say Ethiopian orthodox. I wouldn't say they're awful but there's a long history of them persecuting protestant Christians and both sects of Christianity are basically enemies to eachother its disappointing. I might try to appreciate their doctrine But generally, character wise I wouldn't call them humble or kind. They're usually very aggressive.
That's absolutely true
lol coloniser tears, cry a river
01:51 Ben Shapiro, is that you?
you are not oriental orthodox because that is such a small denomination that on practice only exists in Armenia, Ethiopia and Egypt, a westerner claiming to be one is 99% chance of being just professional LARPing
That's not true. I'm Eastern Orthodox, but since there are no Oriental Orthodox churches near where I live, the Oriental Orthodox people who live near me attend my church. There are Copts, Eritreans, and Malankarans who attend my church. However, there was one woman who actually converted from OO to EO in my church. She did not belong to any of the ethnic groups that are traditionally OO. She was a redhead--and a redhead from northwestern European heritage--not an Arab redhead. (Yes, redheaded Arabs do exist, if you didn't know it.) She had converted to the Coptic Church while she was living in California. While there probably aren't a huge number of Westerners who've converted to the OO Church, they certainly do exist.
Immigrants exist in large number in the west
Lol I live in California and we have all of those and even the Malankara church here. And plus if you wanted to LARP Eastern Orthodox or Tradcath is more fun to LARP as. It's definitely more than 1% chance they are telling the truth imo.
There are 60-100 million of us all over the world. Get your head out your ass
Who’s gonna tell him immigrants exist
If your running out of denoms to make episodes of why you’re not in it, you have yet to do episodes of why you’re not in the Bible PresbyterIan Church, RPCNA, CREC, and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
The reason for many of those is geography such as the Scotland one
13:50 I disagree. Let college researchers and professors have their fun
Hi lads I'm a British Methodist and I would like to know the objection to woman pastors. I wouldn't say I come from a liberal background but we have a female pastor at our church and she is great - I don't exactly know what's wrong with it. I'd also like to hear why Calvinists believe in predestination. God bless you all
Hello, it's in the Bible and it's the way that it has been from the beginning. Men and women have different but equally important roles to play.
based malankara orthodox church
As an Orthodox person I love my Oriental Orthodox brothers and I feel as though the Eastern Orthodox church and the Oriental Orthodox Church will become one Church by the end of this century. We've already had three official dialogues a bunch of unofficial dialogues. Basically every person on both sides wants us to be a one church again it's just some of the higher-ups still feel like there's a very big difference between our two definitions of Jesus Christ and the fact that if we accept the uncal sidonians we would have to put away the amantha that happened during some of the councils which would be basically saying that the council is wrong which they can't be wrong because they were divined we inspired so there's a lot in the way but a lot has been done to build the bridge between Orthodox and non-california churches. And yes I'm going to use that because that's what they officially call themselves during our dialogues
Did you know that pope Francis is trying to unify the Catholic church with the eastern Orthodox church? Maybe us Catholic and our Eastern and Orthodox brothers and sisters are ganna be reunified if God wills God bless you brother or sister in Christ and may have a blessed day 🙏🙏🙏🇻🇦🫶☦️
The council of California? Missed that day in church history class.
Sorry to burst your bubble but this is an impossibility. Unless the EO admit that they were wrong the entire time, there will be no union.
Yeah once the Catholic Church corrects its Doctrine then maybe @@DavidelCientificoLoco
@@danshakuimomy phone messes up some words of items
Does Christ stating that man and woman becoming one flesh create confusion? Why aren’t you attacking Christ for his equivalent issue?
I looked into the quote of Cyril (one incarnate nature of the Word of God) and he uses the word physis. However, the defintion of Chalcedon didn't yet define physis and ousia as synonyms, so it is possible Cyril used physis here to refer to one "mode of existence" i.e. one person or hypostasis.
Physis as a term can be used to refer to either hypostasis or ousia depending on the context, although its usually used for hypostasis.
If you read St. Cyril’s third anathema (make sure you look at the Greek), which was read and made dogma at Ephesus I, Cyril equates Hypostasis and physis. If hypostasis was equated to person in the third anathema, you would be saying that St. Cyril is stating a union of persons which would be Nestorianism.
@@MinaDKSBMSB yes, thank you for clearing that up!
This means Cyril is totally in accordance with Chalcedon (and not a Miaphysite).
@@michaelg4919 you’re grossly incorrect in this conclusion. Chalcedon states that there is one hypostasis IN TWO natures, each nature properly “performing what is proper to it.” This is a violation of St. Cyril’s third anathema. Chalcedon in this definition equate hypostasis with person, unlike St. Cyril who equates hypostasis with nature in the context of the third anathema. If in the third anathema you have a hypostatic union according to nature (physis), and Chalcedon states that Christ performs IN TWO natures, Chalcedon is dividing Christ and falls under the Ecumenical judgement of the third anathema (not to mention the rest of Ephesus I). I encourage you to read St. Cyril’s letters to Eulogius, Succensus, and Acacius which were written after the formula of reunion. Go and count how many times St. Cyril states “miaphysis”.
How can a person's nature be so independent from essence? If you affect the essence you are changing the nature. Jesus having a divine nature means he cannot have a nature identical to our own, and talking about essence doesn't solve that. Ergo, Jesus's nature was truly human, but not identical with God that Father, YHWH.
Next up is Assyrian church of the East
Eastern catholic
Not my denomination
14:45 Haha
So in other words, you believe Jesus are 2 beings, a God being and a human beings at the same time, His Godbeing is not humanbeing, His humanbeing is not Godbeing, you cannot say Jesus a Human is the same with Jesus the God, or Jesus as Human was not God, so however you have 2 Jesus, right? Isn't it nestorian teaching? 🤔
congratulations you have reinvented the quarrel that had happened in council of Chalcedon again
@@CopticPrince-hh2yiso explain your answer if you have 😂
@@aiko-aini in the council of Chalcedon the non-Chalcedonians accused the Chalcedonians that their teachings sound nestorian and the Chalcedonians accused the non-Chalcedonians that their teaching sound Eutychian (Monophysites) then the fight started :D and because of this quarrel the history of my country changed dramatically (FYI Iam OO Copt )
@@CopticPrince-hh2yiawesome .. i think it's all right just matter of perspective and terminology. I think miaphysite is focus on Jesus as HimSelf, when diophysite is more about how Jesus lives or works in/within 2 natures. What is your thinking about my opinion?
@@aiko-aini the more i read about this issue the more i got confused as i see no major difference if there is any. according to 1990 agreement between the OO and the EO they state in the 7th statement in the agreement that both of them have the same faith about this issue in some sense .
Source :firstthoughtsofgod.com/tag/miaphysite/
then they fought again :D LOL because in this agreement the EO used "Orthodox" term for themselves but referred to OO as "Oriental Orthodox" and this implied that EO was on the right pass but OO was not and then repent back.
I think the whole quarrel was political and about Ego from the very start.
Why you arent Jehovah’s Witness would be funny