@@eve3363 Helena, later known as Flavia Julia Helena Augusta, mother of Constantine the Great, was credited after her death with having discovered the fragments of the Cross and the tomb in which Jesus was buried at Golgotha. . en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena,_mother_of_Constantine_I
@@eve3363 Helena ranks as an important figure in the history of Christianity. In her final years, she made a religious tour of Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem, during which she discovered the True Cross. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena,_mother_of_Constantine_I
I am an Armenian that grew up in the Armenian apostolic church but recently moved to a new state where there is only an Eastern Orthodox Church near me. I was shocked to learn that we were not in communion and was also struggling to understand what the difference was between the churches. This video was really helpful to me! I would love to know more about what happened at the council of Chalcedon. As a young adult your faith and lifestyle is inspiring to me ❤️
Thank you so much for sharing! And thank you for your kind words! Yes, Eastern Orthodox churches don’t give us communion until we officially renounce Monophysitism. At least, that was the case in Russia. So, first, we had to admit that we are Monophysites, which we are not, and then renounce it. And only then we are anointed again and we can take part in the Sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Or you can go to Ethiopian orthodox tewahdo church or Eritrean orthodox tewahdo church . ❤✝️ Today in Ethiopia, we commemorate the day when Saint Helena discovered the True Cross. It is a holly day
@@holasonawhat's so bad about renouncing it!? It's literally questioning the entire trinity and bringing in to the question the whole purpose of God's creation.. By the way I was not born Christian.. I was raised with Taoist philosophy and come to find the Lord around 2019 and have had many difficulties with Protestantism untill I discovered Orthodoxy a little over a year ago. Plus there's a church father quote that goes something like, don't be so concerned with being right that you divide yourselves up into pieces. What is the reason for schismaticising one's self from the church, where's the inherent reason for it, I see no reason to take the side of schismatics, they havnt raised a single point to explain why they thought schismaticising themselves was the best decision.. why is two natures wrong? Without saying this person said this or that, just give me your definition of why two natures united in one "person" but still with two distinct natures none the less, is somehow wrong and worth dividing the body of christ over. I have learned why Nestorius was later condemned after his continued intrigue into the human nature more. Nestorius was basically just the opposite of what the Orientals are doing.. embracing one nature more than the other.. when we have to acknowledge there are distinctively two natures.. what is so wrong about that? What am I getting wrong here?
Indian Orthodox(Oriental) here.I don't focus on theology a lot.Because theology divides Christ unites.Atleast all of us accept first 3 ecumenical councils that's enough☦️But in my opinion we have to abandon Indian/Eritrean/Arminian etc identity.Because church is not ethnic but universal.I know an American converted to Indian orthodox Church.So I think using Oriental Orthodox is better than using ethnic identity
Thank you for sharing! I absolutely agree with you! Church is not ethnic but universal. Very well said. I think it’s important for all Oriental Orthodox Christians to know that we are not what others say we are, but what our faith says we are.
I agree with you, that is all that really matters, and what the first three Ecumenical Councils accepted. After that, in my personal opinion, the churches started to overthink everything and try to over explain things. There has to be a space in our faith for Mystery. Not every aspect of our faith has to be put under the microscope. Much love!
thank you so much for explaining this ❤ I have met some hostile eastern christians that try hard to label me as monophysite. at a certain point, it seemed as if they wanted it to be true more than the reality lol. I didnt even know what it meant, I just knew they were wrong from the church services ive attended. breaking down this history is so valuable. thank you for this! to me it seems as nestorians back tracked from their roots and tried to plagiarize miaphysite theology, then leading smear campaigns against them. funny how their new converts make the same mistakes. I remember there is a video of a pastor asking an audience on the natures of Christ. when asked on a purely intuitive level, almost the entire room sided with Miaphysite theology. he happily entertained it before correcting them but I found it amusing & innocent to watch as an Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Christian. BTW Tewahedo literally means oneness of God for our Miaphysite theology. coincidentally its technically the same term as the islamic tawheed/ making oneness of God... aka monotheism.
Thank you so much for sharing! Your experience is so interesting! I also encountered many people who tried to label me as a Monophysite. I will make as many videos as I needed to show that Oriental Orthodox are not Monophysite.
@holasona To avoid being confused with Eutychians, the Oriental Orthodox Churches reject the label "monophysite". Coptic Metropolitan Bishop of Damiette declared it a misnomer to call them monophysites, for "they always confessed the continuity of existence of the two natures in the one incarnate nature of the Word of God. Imho that makes the entire experience less connecting with humanity as a whole, as if his two natures are always perfectly united rather than him actively uniting them on his mission while demonstrating to us with his accession to heaven.. One needs to put on the table Jesus's human intellect ---- Jesus’s divine intellect does not change. However, his human intellect, because he’s also fully man, he has a human intellect. His human intellect is created, it’s subject to time. And so it does change over time because that’s what time is, is a measure of change. And so Jesus’s human intellect does change over time. And we see this in the New Testament. Jimmy Akin: Saint Luke, for example, talks about how, as he grew up, Jesus grew in wisdom. And so he learned more things. I think it’s helpful to look at the passage in the catechism that talks about Christ’s soul and his human knowledge www.catholic.com/audio/caf/does-god-change-his-mind I find it most convincing to believe Mary's intercession is a large part of this story and thus showcased. However there is more to this conversation. www.catholic.com/qa/wedding-of-cana-what-if-the-wine-had-run-out I think the chosen actually does a good bit of justice to this scene, in that we also know by Mary asking for intercession, that by Mary setting things in motion, she is Condemning her son to death. She was told from the start that her son would die, and so her asking Jesus to start, sets that in motion. I think there's a lot to be said for this about self sacrifice for humanity. She was willing to suffer so that humanity could be redeemed in the end, just as Christ. So by Jesus saying his hour has not come, he gives Mary a choice, and Mary chooses obedience, sacrifice and suffering...for God, his will be done. She is the Queen of Heaven. Here is a great podcast by an Orthodox priest about it: www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/the_queen_stood_at_thy_right_hand
It is the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church that it has never accepted the pope as de jure leader of the entire church. All bishops are equal "as Peter", therefore every church under every bishop (consecrated in apostolic succession) is fully complete (the original meaning of catholic).
Great analysis!..You tried your best not to be subjective but fairly objective. Anyways, their difference was all political among the church fathers back then.
She literally says in the video that it's not "only" political and is in fact doctrinal.. you clearly didn't listen. She said she used to think it was only political..
Hi Sona. What an amazing video! I see you have done some good work here! And it is absolutely essential that Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox talk nicely with each other without insults. There's more that unites us than divides. I myself am Eastern Orthodox. I see one thing that I would argue about in your video. I think you do not present correctly the meaning of the word "hypostasis", at least how we, Chalcedonians, understand it. It is not "substance", but a synonym of "person". Hypostasis and person are interchangeable terms. At least after the Cappadocian Fathers. The word substance (lat. substantia), even though it has the same etymology, has a different meaning, which is similar to "physis"- nature. Us, Chalcedonians, we use the words "substance" or "essence" (ουσία), as well as φύσις for "nature", and the words hypostasis (υπόστασις) and (more reluctantly, because it came from the Latin theology, as it literally means a "mask" in theatre) persona (πρόσωπον) for "person". Nature is something that is common, e.g. all of people share the same human nature. But the human nature of every single one of us found its unique expression in our own person. Therefore nature is something that is common, whereas person (hypostasis) is something that is unique, unrepeatable. Every person is unique. And Jesus Christ's person is the one of the Son of God, the Second person of the Holy Trinity. His two natures are united in His Divine Person (Hypostasis) of the Son of God. They are united in His person "unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably", according to the Chalcedonian όρος (definition). You aren't right in saying that Eastern Orthodoxy is the continuation of the Antiochian theological tradition. We share love for both, Alexandrian and Antiochian schools, balancing both extreme views into an equilibrated and in my opinion the only correct view of the Incarnate Logos. I would also appreciate if you talked about monothelitism and monoenergism. I am curious which side you are on.
Thank you for your comment and you kind words! Theodore of Mopsuestia - an Antiochene School theologian who was born after Cappadocian Fathers and after the First Council of Constantinople - taught that in Christ there are two natures, human and divine, and two corresponding hypostases which co-existed. He meant it as "subject", "essence", not "person", right? Or did he mean "two persons"?
@@holasona Theodore of Mopsuestia was a heretic, a Nestorian. That’s what they believed: they divided Christ into two separate hypostases (persons): Divine and human. We, Eastern Orthodox, believe in one hypostasis (person) of Christ. We say that the human nature is assumed into the hypostasis (person) of the Divine Logos and that He is one person, being truly God and truly man at once. The two natures (φύσεις) are united in one hypostasis without any confusion and didn’t suffer any changes after the union, but at the same time they can’t be divided nor separated from each other. That’s the true meaning of the Chalcedonian Christology. And we are totally faithful to Ephesus as well! We condemn Nestorianism! That’s me doing my best to explain our position. Still, your video was very insightful. I just hope you take my comment into consideration. God bless!
This is one of the most helpful narrations on the history of this topic I have seen. Despite attending seminary classes, this was one of my favorite summaries to watch on this very confusing topic! Your research and love of the subject really shows. Thanks for your effort in making this video. You have a gift!
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to Eulogius Some attack the exposition of faith which those from the East have made and ask, "For what reason did the Bishop of Alexandria endure or even praise those who say that there are two natures?" Those who hold the same teachings as Nestorius say that he thinks the same thing too, snatching to their side those who do not understand precision. But it is necessary to say the following to those who are accusing me, namely, that it is not necessary to flee and avoid everything which heretics say, for they confess many of the things which we confess. For example, when the Arians say that the Father is the creator and Lord of all, does it follow that we avoid such confessions? Thus also is the case of Nestorius even if he says there are two natures signifying the difference of the flesh and the Word of God, for the nature of the Word is one nature and the nature of his flesh is another, but Nestorius does not any longer confess the union as we do. For we, when asserting their union, confess one Christ, one Son, the one and same Lord, and finally we confess the one incarnate physis of God. It is possible to say something such as this about any ordinary man, for he is of different natures, both of the body, I say, and of the soul. Both reason and speculation know the difference, but when combined then we get one human physis. Hence knowing the difference of the natures is not cutting the one Christ into two. But since all the bishops from the East think that we, who are orthodox, follow the opinions of Apollinaris and think that a mixture or a confusion took place, for such are the words which they have used, as if the Word of God had changed over into the nature of flesh, and his flesh had turned into the nature of divinity, we have yielded to them, not so far as to divide into two the one Son, far from it, but only to confess that neither a mixture nor a confusion took place, but the flesh was flesh as taken from a woman, and the Word as begotten of the Father was the Word, yet the Christ, Son and Lord, is one according to the saying of John, "The Word was made flesh," and to prepare them to pay heed to the reading of the letter of our blessed father, Athanasius. Because in his time some were contending and saying that God the Word from his own nature fashioned a body for himself, he stoutly insisted to and fro that his body was not consubstantial to the Word. But if it is not consubstantial, then there is one nature and a completely other nature from which two the one and only Son is known to be. And let those accusing me not be ignorant of this, namely, that when there is mention of a union, it does not signify the coming together of one thing, but of either two or more which are also different from each other according to nature. If, then, we speak of a union we are confessing a union of flesh animated with a rational soul and the Word, and those who speak of two natures are thinking thus also. Yet once we confess the union, those things which have been united are no longer separate from each other, but then there is one Son, and his physis is one as the Word made flesh.
Thank you! This is one of the many quotes that confirm what I was saying in the video. We do not deny that Christ is both Man and God, so there are two natures that after incarnation were united in One New Composite Nature without mixture or confusion where Divinity and Humanity are equally present. As St. Cyril says in this letter, "we...confess one Christ, one Son, the one and same Lord, and finally we confess the one incarnate physis of God."
The modern Orthodox church seems stale in terms of being a missionary. I see no attempt of Armenians going to Muslims in Turkiye, Kurdistan, Iran, Azerbaijan, or to Dagestani and Chechen Muslims, nor do i see Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians or so on going to Turkiye, Albania, Kosovo or Bosnia, nor do I see Russia send missionaries to it's many Muslim and polytheist ethnic religious minorities in Siberia, Central Asia such as Kazakhstan or to Mongolia. Or Ethiopian Christians going to Sudan and Eritrea. The Orthodox church has a immense problem of lacking evangelization. I know they do because I don't see them converting Muslims to Christianity on mass ergo therefore i don't think they give to shits spreading the news of the gospel. I find that lack of zeel a big problem in the Orthodox Church. And I'm not a hypocrite in my accusation. I've successfully converted people to Christianity myself with the missionary zeal i accused the Orthodox as lacking.
Firstly, you converted people to your heretical nonsense religion, not Christianity. Secondly, your uninformed opinion is pretty much worthless, because if you actually did some research, you'd see all the publications by PEW and others which show that Orthodoxy is the fastest growing ecclesiastical body in the world right now. We also have a ton of missions happening across the world, but especially in the Americas and Africa.
"nor do i see Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians or so on going to Turkiye, Albania, Kosovo or Bosnia" Respectfully, I don't think you quite understand the situation in that part of the world, lol- to put it mildly.
@@alexanderjdivic4784 dying for your faith as a martyr in a region known for a warzone doesn't sway me. I see my deathbed being a islamist sword through my gullet. Can you say you have the same vigor to spread the gospel? May you be anathemized for this lack of faith. This part of the world sees Christians picking up guns not gospels. Or even waging war against other Orthodox countries. My reason to rebuke and condemn the self centerness heresy stands. Orthodox Christians have no concerns for the souls of others beyond their ethnic group.
@@alexanderjdivic4784 i say the Eastern Orthodox lack zeal to die for their faith and they don't reach souls beyond their own ethnicity. That's my accusation. When war happens and persecution occurs the Orthodox give into nationalism and guns not love and gospels. As I speak from observation and experience. I pray I become a martyr and proselytizer, While may you be anathemized for your lack of faith.
@@alexanderjdivic4784 let me put it simple. Orthodox Christians do jack shit for proselytization and martrydom. But love ethno nationalism and war. If I don't die for the Christian faith than I have failed. And if I don't proselytize than doubly so.
Instead of trying to score points, can we focus on helping each other find salvation? Too often, everyone speaks but no one listens, and sometimes it feels intentional. Does it really matter if you're "factually correct" if you lack compassion for your brothers? Christ didn't die and rise for us to get caught up in divisions or proving who’s right.
While i understand your frustration, hasn’t the history of Christianity since Paul been nothing but arguments over just about every major tenet. Seems to me like this bickering is perfectly in line with the history and nature of the Church, and given that there seems to be one and only one way to the Truth, it isnt going away any time soon.
I see where you're coming from, but it's really important not to overlook how theology matters. It can have a big impact on how we understand salvation. Different beliefs about theology can change how we think about what it means to be saved and how we connect with God. So, theology isn't just something to debate; it actually affects how we live our faith and view salvation.
Thank you for your comment! I think that's our duty to help each other - not only Orthodox Christians, but all Christians - find salvation. It is also our duty to speak the truth about who we are, and not let others define who we are.
I'm Eastern Orthodox and I think we should reunite with Orientals.. however, saying that the 3rd & 4th councils fully contradict? Just doesn't make sense. And indirectly makes it seem like EO are Nestorians.. we are not Nestorius believed in two Persons in Christ. We believe one person two naturez. And I accept u all are miaphysite not monophysite those who say u all are wrong for sureee. We fully agree that Jesus was always fully man & fully God. Just cauee he hungered & was transfigured did not make Him less God or less man at any point he was always since the incarnation both. Anyways I pray we do reunite even if it comes in times of trouble. May the Lord God be with you and your family!
brother its rare to see an honest E.O like you that doesn't misrepresent us god bless you. i do agree the 3rd and 4th councils fully contradict and what is funny is the 5th council goes and contradicts the 4th council as well proving more and more Chalcedon was not a holy council. i hope our churches find a way to find communion with each other.
@@habeshalad1728 yes i hope our churches unite as well and ur right it's sad. Tho i disagree with ur understanding of the councils I pray you are united to Christ. It's about sanctification & transfiguration not councils itself
@@jordanmessengerforchrist it's okay if we disagree😁 you are right at the end of the day it's about our salvation. that's why I belive atleast we the e.o and o.o need to stop debating and instead have conversations non stop for our lord's church to unite 1 day 🙏
Thank you for sharing! I definitely don’t believe that EO are Nestorians, but I believe that Nestorianism ruined the relationships between the three ecumenical sees of Roman Empire. Thank you for acknowledging that we are not Monophysites, followers of Eutyches. It is also my biggest dream to see both Orthodox Churches reunited!
as an orthodox Christian and theologian i consider pre Chalcedonian churches orthodox and its a pity that we all Greeks Slavs Romanians Ethiopians Coptic etc we are not in communion set aside the eclisiological reasons
Perhaps, you may take offence in the following, and I am by no means an expert on this, but miaphysitism, after being scrutinized, either goes to monophysitis(one nature, thus one will and energy), or diaphysitism(two preserved natures with their proper will and energy, thus two wills and two energies). The Coptic Church, in my view, stubbornly refuse to declare herself being faulty on the terminology. When pressed, you'd deny that Christ has one nature, which is a fusion of the Divine essence and human essence(for it would be an essential union, and not hypostatic). And will confess that the natures are preserved and are two. From which wpuld follow two wills and two energies. Yet, refuse to commit to the diaphysite formula. What doesn't make sense is maintaining "single nature(MIAphysitism)", but then say it isn't "one nature(MONOphysitism)", but also reject "two natures(DIAphysitism)".
Thank you for sharing this video. I am always interested in learning more about this topic and about the Church. I found this video to be helpful and enjoy your other videos as well.
Very big strawman of what eastern orthodox believe in that last section. also I like how did didn’t mention that ephesus 2 restored eutyches back as bishop after he was disposed. Also you didn’t mention that dioscoros monks killed a St flavian at that same council.
Hi! I am talking about Eutyches and his teaching during the Second Council or Ephesus and the Coincil of Chalcedon in my next video that will come out it next week. He was a very controversial figure and, according to the many sources I went through, several times changed his beliefs throughout his life. And I will mention the controversy around Flavian’s death in my third video on this topic. The fact that I didn’t mention these events doesn’t mean I am hiding them, the video was just already way too long.
Ephesus II restored Eutychus because he gave an Orthodox confession. Prior to this at Constantinople 448 he stated that Christ is consubstantial with St. Mary, but indeed hesitated to state he was consubstantial with us. Also his confession of faith to Leo of Rome written after Conatantinople 448 is orthodox and is available for all to read. Flavian was not killed at Ephesus II contrary to unfortunate myth. He wrote a letter several months after Ephesus II to Leo still in existence. He states that at Ephesus II, the soldiers of the Emperor restrained him. It is believed by some that Pulcheria had Flavian killed in order to facilitate the power grab by Anatolous that would bolster Constantinople's see. Pulcheria was the Empress who broke her vow of virginity and also had Chrysaphius killed after the death of her brother.
Ephesus II restored Eutyches upon a confession of faith and repentance, and he changed his beliefs quite a lot of times. Furthermore, your own council of Chalcedon contradicts you on who killed Flavian. And scholars now lean toward a conspiracy that it might be Anastasius in collaboration with Leo who murdered Flavian. In Chalcedon, your own Father claims Dioscorus killed him, others of them claim St Barsouma killed him, others say his monks killed him, and others say the parabolas killed him. So who killed him? This is all your own incoherent accusations.
@@Miaphysite3 Oh so eutychies can change his view and repent but you can't say the same thing about Ibas? Also who killed him is not the point who was killed by those who sided with discoros that is a fact.
St. Dioscoros and the bishops with him didn't invent the Miaphysite Christology, they were taught by St. Cyril. Miaphysitism isn't just the Christology of St. Cyril, but also the Cappadocian fathers and other saints believed and taught it. The irony is that some fanatics especially in Eastern Orthodox venerate these fathers, accept the council of Ephesus and yet consider us as heretics.
Thank you for your comment! Yes, you are correct, the teaching was not invented by St. Cyril. It has been the teaching of the church since the first Coincil of Nicaea.
diaphysite: 2 natures, 1 person. if i do not remember wrong i read monophysites claimed the physical nature disappeared absorbsed by the divine nature and morphed into a different type of hybrid as if Christ had no bodily nature anymore; miaphysite as far as i've heard somehow claimed a similar idea that the bodily nature was enveloped by the divine and dissapeared; nestorianism was the idea that Christ is not God but a different person, according to what was written by Nestorius he taught Christ was not the Son of God so not from the Holy Trinity but someone else and only a human (2 different persons, not just 2 natures, not God incarnate through Mary), he did not consider the Messiah to be God Himself and claimed that virgin Mary was not mother of God and non-chalcedonians were upset and tried as much as they could to reject the idea of Christ obtaining a human nature
I have no boldness to call anyone a heretic, and I lack the wisdom and understanding to deliberate on this matter, but I must defer to holy elders such as St Paisios of Mt Athos, who is no mere fanatic. To be sure, those present at Chalcedon had no easy time solving the disagreement, which is why they went to the relics of the holy Great Martyr Euphemia. If you don't know about the miracle that took place, please go read about it.
@@davidgravy2007 know your true value and preciousness even if people would not acknowledge. be careful. wishing you the best, peace, health, wellbeing, blessings and all good. btw, nice beard.
What’s your take on the narrative that the word nature was used in a different way by chalceadon and going forward as opposed to how the word was traditionally used by the nicean churches ?
Think about the Yin and the Yang symbol and its meaning to you. Think about it and think about Jesus being both human and divine. As above, so below. As to the left, so to the right, and all diagonal directions with all directions spinning connected as one with the Father in Heaven and Me here on Earth. My Father and I are one.
John 10: 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
25:04 We Eastern Orthodox do NOT believe that Jesus Christ was a man and God at different times. 24:22 You're saying that you're not defending one side and attacking the other while doing exactly this.
Leo of Rome says "The Word performs what belongs to the Word, and flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. The one performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence"
How do they not profess two sons in the Chalcedonian tradition? They state that the Word performs certain things but the man performs others. Why at Chalcedon did they declare Theodoret orthodox who stated blasphemies against Ephesus I and St. Cyril such as “Christ did not suffer. The man assumed of us by God suffered”? Why at Chalcedon did they declare Theodore of Mopsuesta orthodox by adhering to the letter of Ibas (stating it was orthodox), and uncanonically reinstating Theodoret who’s confession at Chalcedon was “I have always been orthodox and my fathers were always orthodox” (one of his fathers was Theodore)? The Chalcedonian position leads to two sons and a quaternity or tetrad because of these glaring errors.
Thank you for your comment. 1. Eastern Orthodox Church does believe that Jesus was suffering as a Man - His Human Nature was suffering only - and that He was performing miracles as God - His Divine Nature was performing miracles. EO also believe that He died only as a Man, since Divine Nature in Him could not die. I cam give you numerous quote from EO Holy Fathers that support this belief. 2.I am sorry if that sounded to you as an attack. That was not my intention. I love all Eastern Orthodox Christians and all EO churches. They are part of my upbringing and my faith. But, I have been lovingly blamed my whole life of being a heretic by Eastern Christians, and I wanted to show in this video a different historical perspective on the events of three councils I mentioned, because without really understanding what happened during these councils, it is impossible to understand how and why we got divided. If our ultimate goal is the reunion, then we have to be able to talk about this uncomfortable topics.
@@holasona Thank you for your comment too. 1. Eastern Orthodoxy believes that Christ is one (divine) person with divine and human natures. You said that we believe his human nature suffered on the cross. What you say about us sounds Nestorian to me. Nature doesn't exist without a person, it's abstract. Nature doesn't suffer, it's the person who suffers in his nature. When He is suffering on the cross, the person Jesus Christ is suffering not his human nature. After assuming human nature, the person of Jesus Christ became capable of suffering. "EO also believe that He died only as a Man, since Divine Nature in Him could not die." - Again, we believe that the person of Jesus Christ died, that's why we say that God died for us. "I cam give you numerous quote from EO Holy Fathers that support this belief." - You either are quote-mining EO Holy Fathers or you don't understand them properly. 2. You presented a case against what (I believe) Christ taught, that is an attack on our case. I believe that you don't have bad intensions and hatred, but you still presented (what I believe to be) heresy as truth. I believe (and you probably believe this too) that if we want to reunite, this reunion must happen in truth, in Orthodoxy.
I want to add something to this debate. I don't have theological preparation but we Eastern Orthodox state in a prayer as far as I remember that when Christ died Hell could not contain Him because He was God. So I don't understand why so much separation. I mean God doesn't die, but nor do we die die, we just leave the body and our soul goes to another place? Like Sona said in a comment, so much overthinking 🤷♀️
Thank you for the wonderful explanation! ❤✝️ Today in Ethiopia, we commemorate the day when Saint Helena discovered the True Cross. 🇪🇹
Hello. What does that mean? "Discover the true cross"?
@@eve3363 Helena, later known as Flavia Julia Helena Augusta, mother of Constantine the Great, was credited after her death with having discovered the fragments of the Cross and the tomb in which Jesus was buried at Golgotha. .
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena,_mother_of_Constantine_I
@@eve3363
Helena ranks as an important figure in the history of Christianity. In her final years, she made a religious tour of Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem, during which she discovered the True Cross.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena,_mother_of_Constantine_I
@@eve3363maybe discover is the wrong word. We believe st helena found the cross jesus was crucified upon after it had been hidden by hews.
@@bernadera2142Oh wow ok. Thanks for the explanation
I am an Armenian that grew up in the Armenian apostolic church but recently moved to a new state where there is only an Eastern Orthodox Church near me. I was shocked to learn that we were not in communion and was also struggling to understand what the difference was between the churches. This video was really helpful to me! I would love to know more about what happened at the council of Chalcedon. As a young adult your faith and lifestyle is inspiring to me ❤️
Go to a Coptic Church.
Thank you so much for sharing! And thank you for your kind words! Yes, Eastern Orthodox churches don’t give us communion until we officially renounce Monophysitism. At least, that was the case in Russia. So, first, we had to admit that we are Monophysites, which we are not, and then renounce it. And only then we are anointed again and we can take part in the Sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Or you can go to Ethiopian orthodox tewahdo church or Eritrean orthodox tewahdo church . ❤✝️ Today in Ethiopia, we commemorate the day when Saint Helena discovered the True Cross. It is a holly day
@@hagopwmyeremianwhy
@@holasonawhat's so bad about renouncing it!? It's literally questioning the entire trinity and bringing in to the question the whole purpose of God's creation..
By the way I was not born Christian.. I was raised with Taoist philosophy and come to find the Lord around 2019 and have had many difficulties with Protestantism untill I discovered Orthodoxy a little over a year ago.
Plus there's a church father quote that goes something like, don't be so concerned with being right that you divide yourselves up into pieces. What is the reason for schismaticising one's self from the church, where's the inherent reason for it, I see no reason to take the side of schismatics, they havnt raised a single point to explain why they thought schismaticising themselves was the best decision.. why is two natures wrong? Without saying this person said this or that, just give me your definition of why two natures united in one "person" but still with two distinct natures none the less, is somehow wrong and worth dividing the body of christ over.
I have learned why Nestorius was later condemned after his continued intrigue into the human nature more. Nestorius was basically just the opposite of what the Orientals are doing.. embracing one nature more than the other.. when we have to acknowledge there are distinctively two natures.. what is so wrong about that? What am I getting wrong here?
Indian Orthodox(Oriental) here.I don't focus on theology a lot.Because theology divides Christ unites.Atleast all of us accept first 3 ecumenical councils that's enough☦️But in my opinion we have to abandon Indian/Eritrean/Arminian etc identity.Because church is not ethnic but universal.I know an American converted to Indian orthodox Church.So I think using Oriental Orthodox is better than using ethnic identity
Thank you for sharing! I absolutely agree with you! Church is not ethnic but universal. Very well said. I think it’s important for all Oriental Orthodox Christians to know that we are not what others say we are, but what our faith says we are.
Russian orthodox here! I don’t understand all the different concepts but I do know fully God fully Man! Love you all
I agree with you, that is all that really matters, and what the first three Ecumenical Councils accepted. After that, in my personal opinion, the churches started to overthink everything and try to over explain things. There has to be a space in our faith for Mystery. Not every aspect of our faith has to be put under the microscope.
Much love!
@@holasona wonderfully said
Read the book, On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius the Apostolic, then read: The Nature of Christ by H.H Pope Shenouda III.
I would love to! Thank you for the recommendations!
great recommendation Pope Shenouda III
thank you so much for explaining this ❤ I have met some hostile eastern christians that try hard to label me as monophysite. at a certain point, it seemed as if they wanted it to be true more than the reality lol. I didnt even know what it meant, I just knew they were wrong from the church services ive attended. breaking down this history is so valuable. thank you for this!
to me it seems as nestorians back tracked from their roots and tried to plagiarize miaphysite theology, then leading smear campaigns against them. funny how their new converts make the same mistakes.
I remember there is a video of a pastor asking an audience on the natures of Christ. when asked on a purely intuitive level, almost the entire room sided with Miaphysite theology. he happily entertained it before correcting them but I found it amusing & innocent to watch as an Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Christian.
BTW Tewahedo literally means oneness of God for our Miaphysite theology. coincidentally its technically the same term as the islamic tawheed/ making oneness of God... aka monotheism.
Thank you so much for sharing! Your experience is so interesting! I also encountered many people who tried to label me as a Monophysite. I will make as many videos as I needed to show that Oriental Orthodox are not Monophysite.
@holasona To avoid being confused with Eutychians, the Oriental Orthodox Churches reject the label "monophysite". Coptic Metropolitan Bishop of Damiette declared it a misnomer to call them monophysites, for "they always confessed the continuity of existence of the two natures in the one incarnate nature of the Word of God.
Imho that makes the entire experience less connecting with humanity as a whole, as if his two natures are always perfectly united rather than him actively uniting them on his mission while demonstrating to us with his accession to heaven..
One needs to put on the table Jesus's human intellect ----
Jesus’s divine intellect does not change. However, his human intellect, because he’s also fully man, he has a human intellect. His human intellect is created, it’s subject to time. And so it does change over time because that’s what time is, is a measure of change. And so Jesus’s human intellect does change over time. And we see this in the New Testament.
Jimmy Akin:
Saint Luke, for example, talks about how, as he grew up, Jesus grew in wisdom. And so he learned more things. I think it’s helpful to look at the passage in the catechism that talks about Christ’s soul and his human knowledge
www.catholic.com/audio/caf/does-god-change-his-mind
I find it most convincing to believe Mary's intercession is a large part of this story and thus showcased. However there is more to this conversation.
www.catholic.com/qa/wedding-of-cana-what-if-the-wine-had-run-out
I think the chosen actually does a good bit of justice to this scene, in that we also know by Mary asking for intercession, that by Mary setting things in motion, she is Condemning her son to death. She was told from the start that her son would die, and so her asking Jesus to start, sets that in motion.
I think there's a lot to be said for this about self sacrifice for humanity. She was willing to suffer so that humanity could be redeemed in the end, just as Christ. So by Jesus saying his hour has not come, he gives Mary a choice, and Mary chooses obedience, sacrifice and suffering...for God, his will be done.
She is the Queen of Heaven. Here is a great podcast by an Orthodox priest about it:
www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/the_queen_stood_at_thy_right_hand
It is the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church that it has never accepted the pope as de jure leader of the entire church. All bishops are equal "as Peter", therefore every church under every bishop (consecrated in apostolic succession) is fully complete (the original meaning of catholic).
16:24, That is a mosaic of Theodora...
God bless you🙏 Today in Ethiopia it is holiday we are celebrating the cross
God bless you too! Thank you for sharing!
W video! Love from a eastern orthodox Armenian
Thank you for watching! 🙏
Excellent explanation of the history of the church councils. Thanks 🙏🏻
Thank you for your words of support! 🙏
Great analysis!..You tried your best not to be subjective but fairly objective. Anyways, their difference was all political among the church fathers back then.
She literally says in the video that it's not "only" political and is in fact doctrinal.. you clearly didn't listen. She said she used to think it was only political..
@@WaysOfTheJedis For her it can be both, but for me it was all politcal. It is just my opinion not b.c she said it so I have to agree with her.
Hi Sona. What an amazing video! I see you have done some good work here! And it is absolutely essential that Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox talk nicely with each other without insults. There's more that unites us than divides.
I myself am Eastern Orthodox. I see one thing that I would argue about in your video. I think you do not present correctly the meaning of the word "hypostasis", at least how we, Chalcedonians, understand it. It is not "substance", but a synonym of "person". Hypostasis and person are interchangeable terms. At least after the Cappadocian Fathers. The word substance (lat. substantia), even though it has the same etymology, has a different meaning, which is similar to "physis"- nature.
Us, Chalcedonians, we use the words "substance" or "essence" (ουσία), as well as φύσις for "nature", and the words hypostasis (υπόστασις) and (more reluctantly, because it came from the Latin theology, as it literally means a "mask" in theatre) persona (πρόσωπον) for "person".
Nature is something that is common, e.g. all of people share the same human nature. But the human nature of every single one of us found its unique expression in our own person. Therefore nature is something that is common, whereas person (hypostasis) is something that is unique, unrepeatable. Every person is unique. And Jesus Christ's person is the one of the Son of God, the Second person of the Holy Trinity. His two natures are united in His Divine Person (Hypostasis) of the Son of God. They are united in His person "unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably", according to the Chalcedonian όρος (definition). You aren't right in saying that Eastern Orthodoxy is the continuation of the Antiochian theological tradition. We share love for both, Alexandrian and Antiochian schools, balancing both extreme views into an equilibrated and in my opinion the only correct view of the Incarnate Logos.
I would also appreciate if you talked about monothelitism and monoenergism. I am curious which side you are on.
your religion is all made up
Thank you for your comment and you kind words! Theodore of Mopsuestia - an Antiochene School theologian who was born after Cappadocian Fathers and after the First Council of Constantinople - taught that in Christ there are two natures, human and divine, and two corresponding hypostases which co-existed. He meant it as "subject", "essence", not "person", right? Or did he mean "two persons"?
@@holasona Theodore of Mopsuestia was a heretic, a Nestorian. That’s what they believed: they divided Christ into two separate hypostases (persons): Divine and human. We, Eastern Orthodox, believe in one hypostasis (person) of Christ. We say that the human nature is assumed into the hypostasis (person) of the Divine Logos and that He is one person, being truly God and truly man at once. The two natures (φύσεις) are united in one hypostasis without any confusion and didn’t suffer any changes after the union, but at the same time they can’t be divided nor separated from each other. That’s the true meaning of the Chalcedonian Christology.
And we are totally faithful to Ephesus as well! We condemn Nestorianism!
That’s me doing my best to explain our position. Still, your video was very insightful. I just hope you take my comment into consideration. God bless!
Would love to do a collaboration with you on this topic, I am Syriac Orthodox, we are in agreement! 😊
Sounds great! You can contact me at @holasona_la on Instagram.
Sounds great! You can contact me at @holasona_la on Instagram.
This is one of the most helpful narrations on the history of this topic I have seen. Despite attending seminary classes, this was one of my favorite summaries to watch on this very confusing topic! Your research and love of the subject really shows. Thanks for your effort in making this video. You have a gift!
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to Eulogius
Some attack the exposition of faith which those from the East have made and ask, "For what reason did the Bishop of Alexandria endure or even praise those who say that there are two natures?" Those who hold the same teachings as Nestorius say that he thinks the same thing too, snatching to their side those who do not understand precision. But it is necessary to say the following to those who are accusing me, namely, that it is not necessary to flee and avoid everything which heretics say, for they confess many of the things which we confess. For example, when the Arians say that the Father is the creator and Lord of all, does it follow that we avoid such confessions? Thus also is the case of Nestorius even if he says there are two natures signifying the difference of the flesh and the Word of God, for the nature of the Word is one nature and the nature of his flesh is another, but Nestorius does not any longer confess the union as we do.
For we, when asserting their union, confess one Christ, one Son, the one and same Lord, and finally we confess the one incarnate physis of God. It is possible to say something such as this about any ordinary man, for he is of different natures, both of the body, I say, and of the soul. Both reason and speculation know the difference, but when combined then we get one human physis. Hence knowing the difference of the natures is not cutting the one Christ into two. But since all the bishops from the East think that we, who are orthodox, follow the opinions of Apollinaris and think that a mixture or a confusion took place, for such are the words which they have used, as if the Word of God had changed over into the nature of flesh, and his flesh had turned into the nature of divinity, we have yielded to them, not so far as to divide into two the one Son, far from it, but only to confess that neither a mixture nor a confusion took place, but the flesh was flesh as taken from a woman, and the Word as begotten of the Father was the Word, yet the Christ, Son and Lord, is one according to the saying of John, "The Word was made flesh," and to prepare them to pay heed to the reading of the letter of our blessed father, Athanasius.
Because in his time some were contending and saying that God the Word from his own nature fashioned a body for himself, he stoutly insisted to and fro that his body was not consubstantial to the Word. But if it is not consubstantial, then there is one nature and a completely other nature from which two the one and only Son is known to be. And let those accusing me not be ignorant of this, namely, that when there is mention of a union, it does not signify the coming together of one thing, but of either two or more which are also different from each other according to nature. If, then, we speak of a union we are confessing a union of flesh animated with a rational soul and the Word, and those who speak of two natures are thinking thus also. Yet once we confess the union, those things which have been united are no longer separate from each other, but then there is one Son, and his physis is one as the Word made flesh.
Thank you! This is one of the many quotes that confirm what I was saying in the video. We do not deny that Christ is both Man and God, so there are two natures that after incarnation were united in One New Composite Nature without mixture or confusion where Divinity and Humanity are equally present. As St. Cyril says in this letter, "we...confess one Christ, one Son, the one and same Lord, and finally we confess the one incarnate physis of God."
@@holasona St. Cyril is accepting of the Antiochian dyophysite expressions being compatible with his Miaphysite understanding.
The modern Orthodox church seems stale in terms of being a missionary. I see no attempt of Armenians going to Muslims in Turkiye, Kurdistan, Iran, Azerbaijan, or to Dagestani and Chechen Muslims, nor do i see Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians or so on going to Turkiye, Albania, Kosovo or Bosnia, nor do I see Russia send missionaries to it's many Muslim and polytheist ethnic religious minorities in Siberia, Central Asia such as Kazakhstan or to Mongolia. Or Ethiopian Christians going to Sudan and Eritrea.
The Orthodox church has a immense problem of lacking evangelization. I know they do because I don't see them converting Muslims to Christianity on mass ergo therefore i don't think they give to shits spreading the news of the gospel. I find that lack of zeel a big problem in the Orthodox Church.
And I'm not a hypocrite in my accusation. I've successfully converted people to Christianity myself with the missionary zeal i accused the Orthodox as lacking.
Firstly, you converted people to your heretical nonsense religion, not Christianity. Secondly, your uninformed opinion is pretty much worthless, because if you actually did some research, you'd see all the publications by PEW and others which show that Orthodoxy is the fastest growing ecclesiastical body in the world right now. We also have a ton of missions happening across the world, but especially in the Americas and Africa.
"nor do i see Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians or so on going to Turkiye, Albania, Kosovo or Bosnia" Respectfully, I don't think you quite understand the situation in that part of the world, lol- to put it mildly.
@@alexanderjdivic4784 dying for your faith as a martyr in a region known for a warzone doesn't sway me. I see my deathbed being a islamist sword through my gullet. Can you say you have the same vigor to spread the gospel?
May you be anathemized for this lack of faith.
This part of the world sees Christians picking up guns not gospels. Or even waging war against other Orthodox countries. My reason to rebuke and condemn the self centerness heresy stands. Orthodox Christians have no concerns for the souls of others beyond their ethnic group.
@@alexanderjdivic4784 i say the Eastern Orthodox lack zeal to die for their faith and they don't reach souls beyond their own ethnicity. That's my accusation.
When war happens and persecution occurs the Orthodox give into nationalism and guns not love and gospels.
As I speak from observation and experience.
I pray I become a martyr and proselytizer,
While may you be anathemized for your lack of faith.
@@alexanderjdivic4784 let me put it simple. Orthodox Christians do jack shit for proselytization and martrydom. But love ethno nationalism and war.
If I don't die for the Christian faith than I have failed. And if I don't proselytize than doubly so.
Instead of trying to score points, can we focus on helping each other find salvation? Too often, everyone speaks but no one listens, and sometimes it feels intentional. Does it really matter if you're "factually correct" if you lack compassion for your brothers? Christ didn't die and rise for us to get caught up in divisions or proving who’s right.
While i understand your frustration, hasn’t the history of Christianity since Paul been nothing but arguments over just about every major tenet. Seems to me like this bickering is perfectly in line with the history and nature of the Church, and given that there seems to be one and only one way to the Truth, it isnt going away any time soon.
I see where you're coming from, but it's really important not to overlook how theology matters. It can have a big impact on how we understand salvation. Different beliefs about theology can change how we think about what it means to be saved and how we connect with God. So, theology isn't just something to debate; it actually affects how we live our faith and view salvation.
Thank you for your comment! I think that's our duty to help each other - not only Orthodox Christians, but all Christians - find salvation. It is also our duty to speak the truth about who we are, and not let others define who we are.
I'm Eastern Orthodox and I think we should reunite with Orientals.. however, saying that the 3rd & 4th councils fully contradict? Just doesn't make sense. And indirectly makes it seem like EO are Nestorians.. we are not Nestorius believed in two Persons in Christ. We believe one person two naturez. And I accept u all are miaphysite not monophysite those who say u all are wrong for sureee. We fully agree that Jesus was always fully man & fully God. Just cauee he hungered & was transfigured did not make Him less God or less man at any point he was always since the incarnation both. Anyways I pray we do reunite even if it comes in times of trouble. May the Lord God be with you and your family!
brother its rare to see an honest E.O like you that doesn't misrepresent us god bless you. i do agree the 3rd and 4th councils fully contradict and what is funny is the 5th council goes and contradicts the 4th council as well proving more and more Chalcedon was not a holy council. i hope our churches find a way to find communion with each other.
@@habeshalad1728 yes i hope our churches unite as well and ur right it's sad. Tho i disagree with ur understanding of the councils I pray you are united to Christ. It's about sanctification & transfiguration not councils itself
@@jordanmessengerforchrist it's okay if we disagree😁 you are right at the end of the day it's about our salvation. that's why I belive atleast we the e.o and o.o need to stop debating and instead have conversations non stop for our lord's church to unite 1 day 🙏
@@habeshalad1728 yess we should build one another up rather than put down
Thank you for sharing! I definitely don’t believe that EO are Nestorians, but I believe that Nestorianism ruined the relationships between the three ecumenical sees of Roman Empire. Thank you for acknowledging that we are not Monophysites, followers of Eutyches. It is also my biggest dream to see both Orthodox Churches reunited!
as an orthodox Christian and theologian i consider pre Chalcedonian churches orthodox and its a pity that we all Greeks Slavs Romanians Ethiopians Coptic etc we are not in communion set aside the eclisiological reasons
yes 👍👍👍👍
Perhaps, you may take offence in the following, and I am by no means an expert on this, but miaphysitism, after being scrutinized, either goes to monophysitis(one nature, thus one will and energy), or diaphysitism(two preserved natures with their proper will and energy, thus two wills and two energies).
The Coptic Church, in my view, stubbornly refuse to declare herself being faulty on the terminology. When pressed, you'd deny that Christ has one nature, which is a fusion of the Divine essence and human essence(for it would be an essential union, and not hypostatic). And will confess that the natures are preserved and are two. From which wpuld follow two wills and two energies. Yet, refuse to commit to the diaphysite formula.
What doesn't make sense is maintaining "single nature(MIAphysitism)", but then say it isn't "one nature(MONOphysitism)", but also reject "two natures(DIAphysitism)".
You've done a wonderful job sister.
Thank you kindly!
Thank you for this video! It had much I didn't know.
Thank you for watching! I am glad it was helpful!
Great video, Thank you Sona!
Thank you for your kind words! 🙏
All Christians should unite. It is mucho silly being divided. For Satan cant cast out Satan if his kingdom is divided.
Thank you for sharing this video. I am always interested in learning more about this topic and about the Church. I found this video to be helpful and enjoy your other videos as well.
Very big strawman of what eastern orthodox believe in that last section. also I like how did didn’t mention that ephesus 2 restored eutyches back as bishop after he was disposed. Also you didn’t mention that dioscoros monks killed a St flavian at that same council.
Hi! I am talking about Eutyches and his teaching during the Second Council or Ephesus and the Coincil of Chalcedon in my next video that will come out it next week. He was a very controversial figure and, according to the many sources I went through, several times changed his beliefs throughout his life. And I will mention the controversy around Flavian’s death in my third video on this topic. The fact that I didn’t mention these events doesn’t mean I am hiding them, the video was just already way too long.
Ephesus II restored Eutychus because he gave an Orthodox confession. Prior to this at Constantinople 448 he stated that Christ is consubstantial with St. Mary, but indeed hesitated to state he was consubstantial with us. Also his confession of faith to Leo of Rome written after Conatantinople 448 is orthodox and is available for all to read. Flavian was not killed at Ephesus II contrary to unfortunate myth. He wrote a letter several months after Ephesus II to Leo still in existence. He states that at Ephesus II, the soldiers of the Emperor restrained him. It is believed by some that Pulcheria had Flavian killed in order to facilitate the power grab by Anatolous that would bolster Constantinople's see. Pulcheria was the Empress who broke her vow of virginity and also had Chrysaphius killed after the death of her brother.
Ephesus II restored Eutyches upon a confession of faith and repentance, and he changed his beliefs quite a lot of times.
Furthermore, your own council of Chalcedon contradicts you on who killed Flavian. And scholars now lean toward a conspiracy that it might be Anastasius in collaboration with Leo who murdered Flavian.
In Chalcedon, your own Father claims Dioscorus killed him, others of them claim St Barsouma killed him, others say his monks killed him, and others say the parabolas killed him. So who killed him?
This is all your own incoherent accusations.
Flavian was not killed at Ephesus II, made up story
@@Miaphysite3 Oh so eutychies can change his view and repent but you can't say the same thing about Ibas? Also who killed him is not the point who was killed by those who sided with discoros that is a fact.
St. Dioscoros and the bishops with him didn't invent the Miaphysite Christology, they were taught by St. Cyril. Miaphysitism isn't just the Christology of St. Cyril, but also the Cappadocian fathers and other saints believed and taught it. The irony is that some fanatics especially in Eastern Orthodox venerate these fathers, accept the council of Ephesus and yet consider us as heretics.
Thank you for your comment! Yes, you are correct, the teaching was not invented by St. Cyril. It has been the teaching of the church since the first Coincil of Nicaea.
diaphysite: 2 natures, 1 person.
if i do not remember wrong i read monophysites claimed the physical nature disappeared absorbsed by the divine nature and morphed into a different type of hybrid as if Christ had no bodily nature anymore; miaphysite as far as i've heard somehow claimed a similar idea that the bodily nature was enveloped by the divine and dissapeared;
nestorianism was the idea that Christ is not God but a different person, according to what was written by Nestorius he taught Christ was not the Son of God so not from the Holy Trinity but someone else and only a human (2 different persons, not just 2 natures, not God incarnate through Mary), he did not consider the Messiah to be God Himself and claimed that virgin Mary was not mother of God and non-chalcedonians were upset and tried as much as they could to reject the idea of Christ obtaining a human nature
@@respectkindness-oj6xz Thank you for your comment!
I have no boldness to call anyone a heretic, and I lack the wisdom and understanding to deliberate on this matter, but I must defer to holy elders such as St Paisios of Mt Athos, who is no mere fanatic.
To be sure, those present at Chalcedon had no easy time solving the disagreement, which is why they went to the relics of the holy Great Martyr Euphemia. If you don't know about the miracle that took place, please go read about it.
@@davidgravy2007 know your true value and preciousness even if people would not acknowledge. be careful. wishing you the best, peace, health, wellbeing, blessings and all good. btw, nice beard.
What’s your take on the narrative that the word nature was used in a different way by chalceadon and going forward as opposed to how the word was traditionally used by the nicean churches ?
Think about the Yin and the Yang symbol and its meaning to you. Think about it and think about Jesus being both human and divine. As above, so below. As to the left, so to the right, and all diagonal directions with all directions spinning connected as one with the Father in Heaven and Me here on Earth. My Father and I are one.
John 10:
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Thank you
Thank you for watching!
THANKS!! 😁
Thank you for watching!
25:04 We Eastern Orthodox do NOT believe that Jesus Christ was a man and God at different times.
24:22 You're saying that you're not defending one side and attacking the other while doing exactly this.
Leo of Rome says "The Word performs what belongs to the Word, and flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. The one performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence"
How do they not profess two sons in the Chalcedonian tradition? They state that the Word performs certain things but the man performs others. Why at Chalcedon did they declare Theodoret orthodox who stated blasphemies against Ephesus I and St. Cyril such as “Christ did not suffer. The man assumed of us by God suffered”? Why at Chalcedon did they declare Theodore of Mopsuesta orthodox by adhering to the letter of Ibas (stating it was orthodox), and uncanonically reinstating Theodoret who’s confession at Chalcedon was “I have always been orthodox and my fathers were always orthodox” (one of his fathers was Theodore)? The Chalcedonian position leads to two sons and a quaternity or tetrad because of these glaring errors.
Thank you for your comment.
1. Eastern Orthodox Church does believe that Jesus was suffering as a Man - His Human Nature was suffering only - and that He was performing miracles as God - His Divine Nature was performing miracles. EO also believe that He died only as a Man, since Divine Nature in Him could not die. I cam give you numerous quote from EO Holy Fathers that support this belief.
2.I am sorry if that sounded to you as an attack. That was not my intention. I love all Eastern Orthodox Christians and all EO churches. They are part of my upbringing and my faith. But, I have been lovingly blamed my whole life of being a heretic by Eastern Christians, and I wanted to show in this video a different historical perspective on the events of three councils I mentioned, because without really understanding what happened during these councils, it is impossible to understand how and why we got divided. If our ultimate goal is the reunion, then we have to be able to talk about this uncomfortable topics.
@@holasona Thank you for your comment too.
1. Eastern Orthodoxy believes that Christ is one (divine) person with divine and human natures.
You said that we believe his human nature suffered on the cross.
What you say about us sounds Nestorian to me.
Nature doesn't exist without a person, it's abstract.
Nature doesn't suffer, it's the person who suffers in his nature.
When He is suffering on the cross, the person Jesus Christ is suffering not his human nature.
After assuming human nature, the person of Jesus Christ became capable of suffering.
"EO also believe that He died only as a Man, since Divine Nature in Him could not die." - Again, we believe that the person of Jesus Christ died, that's why we say that God died for us.
"I cam give you numerous quote from EO Holy Fathers that support this belief." - You either are quote-mining EO Holy Fathers or you don't understand them properly.
2. You presented a case against what (I believe) Christ taught, that is an attack on our case.
I believe that you don't have bad intensions and hatred, but you still presented (what I believe to be) heresy as truth.
I believe (and you probably believe this too) that if we want to reunite, this reunion must happen in truth, in Orthodoxy.
I want to add something to this debate. I don't have theological preparation but we Eastern Orthodox state in a prayer as far as I remember that when Christ died Hell could not contain Him because He was God. So I don't understand why so much separation. I mean God doesn't die, but nor do we die die, we just leave the body and our soul goes to another place? Like Sona said in a comment, so much overthinking 🤷♀️
I converted to Jehovah's Witnesses
You are on the road to perdition my beloved. May God reveal to you the true faith.
Bad decision. I mean. Really bad.
Were you previously oriental?
@@biniam_hailu What makes you think Jehovah's Witnesses are not the true faith?
@@BeALearnerAlways Why is it sad to worship Jehovah God?