This is not actually from the fifth ecumenical council. What is quoted in this video is from nine articles included in a letter to patriarch Menas (AD 543), which was also accepted at a local synod in Constantinople (AD 544). But these are separate from the council in AD 553. The council was not even about Origen. For example, Tanner writes: "Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council.", Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils.
@@apostolicislam What is ambiguous? The video and the description claims that Gregory of Nyssa is a heretic "in light of the ecumenical council." But the video quotes the 9th condemnation of Origen from Justinian which originates from a letter to Menas (AD 543), and not from the ecumenical council (which was held in AD 553). Richard Price in 'The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553' (p. 271) writes: "Two distinct sets of anathemas of Origenism issued by Justinian survive. One of them [the one you quoted from] was part of the condemnation of 543." The second set (15 condemnations) were not part of the ecumenical council either, they are thought to be issues before the opening of the council (see p. 271-272), and thus don't carry the authority of an ecumenical council. But also, notably, these 15 condemnations don't include the equivalent of the 9th condemnation which you quoted. The scholarly consensus (especially after Diekamp) on this issue is that the fifth ecumenical council did not include or confirm either the 9 condemnations from Justinian, nor the 15 condemnations of AD 553. The reason for this is as Richard Price writes: "The acts [of the council] contain no such canons and no discussion of Origenism and, since the numbering of the sessions is continuous and corresponds to that cited at the ecumenical council of 680-1, they appear to be complete. Moreover, the letter from Justinian that was read out at the opening of the council (Acts I. 7) makes no reference to the Origenist controversy; nor does the long summary of the work of the council read out at the beginning of the eighth session (Acts VIII. 4)." For additional information supporting this consensus, see Daley, 'The Hope of the Early Church: A handbook of Patristic eschatology', p. 189; Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition.
You realise the Saints are not infallible 😂 We reject alot of what Augustine said but he’s still a saints, your holy book says God deceived, we don’t have to accept whatever Gregory says as infallible
Sir I have a question and I hope you will answer it. Jews say that don't don't believe in prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) because he changed Sabbath...laws.... They can't eat camels but Muslims can ., So how to answer it
Sabbath laws for the children of Israel. Islam is for all of Mankind so the specific laws for the children of Israel have been abrogated by Islam because Islam is a universal religion and not an ethnic religion unlike Judaism
But according to allah it is. Doesn't he say that the ARAB were given a messenger so that they have no excuse? Doesn't he also say that the Quran is revealed in Arabic so that the ARAB might understand? So how is that for the whole world if it's only one language? 2. Doesn't the Quran say that Jesus is a mercy for all of Mankind? Why then is Christianity (which allah affirmed is the true message of Jesus) not for the entire world? This also raises a contradiction coz the Quran says that the Jews, Christians and "believers" have their own laws and should follow them as they were revealed. He also says that if he intended he would have made them all Muslims but he didn't. So why didn't he if islam is for the entire world? Repent Abdul and believe in who your god says is Lord Jesus Christ (surah 9 31)
Origen believed all human souls will be "saved" because the Logos restores human nature but that's the error; thinking restoring the nature therefore all "saved". All humans will be restored but its their sin that torments them, pure ignorance on orthodox eschatology. Literally a Muslim version of a fedora soy atheist.
I see desperate tears of a polytheist. Whatever gnostic or other mythical tendencies Origen had, it doesn't change the fact his doctrines are still condemned in the Synodikon, attesting to the statement further. Gregory's doctrine itself is going against the clear words of Christ and a denial of that is a heresy too.
@@apostolicislam"The great adversary must himself at last find what has been done is just and salutary" this is enough to reject your delusion that St. Gregory of Nyssa preached some form of universalism, without lies islam dies
@@kataklysm_ It seems like hovering on the OS server has given you a serious mental health issues. If you *****carefully***** watch and listen to the video, you'll notice he we went over it and your objection doesn't affect the conclusion we presented.
@@apostolicislam again with the muslim brain rot, the objection stands, when you read the chapter, its blatant that St. Gregory of Nyssa doesn't propagate universalism as you accuse him of "He Who is at once the just, and good, and wise one, used His device, in which there was deception, for the salvation of him who had perished, and thus not only conferred benefit on the lost one, but on him, too, who had wrought our ruin. For from this approximation of death to life, of darkness to light, of corruption to incorruption, there is effected an obliteration of what is worse, and a passing away of it into nothing, ****while benefit is conferred on him who is freed from those evils****."
This is not actually from the fifth ecumenical council. What is quoted in this video is from nine articles included in a letter to patriarch Menas (AD 543), which was also accepted at a local synod in Constantinople (AD 544). But these are separate from the council in AD 553. The council was not even about Origen. For example, Tanner writes: "Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council.", Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils.
Wonderful reply to the errors here.
It’s telling how he replied to the other comment but not this one.
Can you present your case as definitive without any ambiguity? Also, check out the reply to the other comment.
@@apostolicislam What is ambiguous? The video and the description claims that Gregory of Nyssa is a heretic "in light of the ecumenical council." But the video quotes the 9th condemnation of Origen from Justinian which originates from a letter to Menas (AD 543), and not from the ecumenical council (which was held in AD 553). Richard Price in 'The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553' (p. 271) writes: "Two distinct sets of anathemas of Origenism issued by Justinian survive. One of them [the one you quoted from] was part of the condemnation of 543." The second set (15 condemnations) were not part of the ecumenical council either, they are thought to be issues before the opening of the council (see p. 271-272), and thus don't carry the authority of an ecumenical council. But also, notably, these 15 condemnations don't include the equivalent of the 9th condemnation which you quoted.
The scholarly consensus (especially after Diekamp) on this issue is that the fifth ecumenical council did not include or confirm either the 9 condemnations from Justinian, nor the 15 condemnations of AD 553. The reason for this is as Richard Price writes: "The acts [of the council] contain no such canons and no discussion of Origenism and, since the numbering of the sessions is continuous and corresponds to that cited at the ecumenical council of 680-1, they appear to be complete. Moreover, the letter from Justinian that was read out at the opening of the council (Acts I. 7) makes no reference to the Origenist controversy; nor does the long summary of the work of the council read out at the beginning of the eighth session (Acts VIII. 4)."
For additional information supporting this consensus, see Daley, 'The Hope of the Early Church: A handbook of Patristic eschatology', p. 189; Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition.
@@apostolicislam brain rot confirmed
Why aren't you uploading?
opinion on mansur al hallaj?
What's the name of that opening nasheed?
It's not a nasheed it's christian orthodoc chanting.
It's not nasheed, it's orthodox chant, nasheeds doesn't sound like this
After that 😅
@@orthobro4806 What is the chant name my brother?
@@marchelomanchev5317 Do you know the name of the chant my friend?
You realise the Saints are not infallible 😂 We reject alot of what Augustine said but he’s still a saints, your holy book says God deceived, we don’t have to accept whatever Gregory says as infallible
Sir I have a question and I hope you will answer it.
Jews say that don't don't believe in prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) because he changed Sabbath...laws....
They can't eat camels but Muslims can
.,
So how to answer it
Sabbath laws for the children of Israel. Islam is for all of Mankind so the specific laws for the children of Israel have been abrogated by Islam because Islam is a universal religion and not an ethnic religion unlike Judaism
But according to allah it is. Doesn't he say that the ARAB were given a messenger so that they have no excuse? Doesn't he also say that the Quran is revealed in Arabic so that the ARAB might understand? So how is that for the whole world if it's only one language?
2. Doesn't the Quran say that Jesus is a mercy for all of Mankind? Why then is Christianity (which allah affirmed is the true message of Jesus) not for the entire world?
This also raises a contradiction coz the Quran says that the Jews, Christians and "believers" have their own laws and should follow them as they were revealed. He also says that if he intended he would have made them all Muslims but he didn't. So why didn't he if islam is for the entire world?
Repent Abdul and believe in who your god says is Lord Jesus Christ (surah 9 31)
Come home ☦️☦️☦️
Origen believed all human souls will be "saved" because the Logos restores human nature but that's the error; thinking restoring the nature therefore all "saved". All humans will be restored but its their sin that torments them, pure ignorance on orthodox eschatology. Literally a Muslim version of a fedora soy atheist.
Brain rot is mandatory to be muslim
I see desperate tears of a polytheist. Whatever gnostic or other mythical tendencies Origen had, it doesn't change the fact his doctrines are still condemned in the Synodikon, attesting to the statement further. Gregory's doctrine itself is going against the clear words of Christ and a denial of that is a heresy too.
@@apostolicislam"The great adversary must himself at last find what has been done is just and salutary" this is enough to reject your delusion that St. Gregory of Nyssa preached some form of universalism, without lies islam dies
@@kataklysm_ It seems like hovering on the OS server has given you a serious mental health issues. If you *****carefully***** watch and listen to the video, you'll notice he we went over it and your objection doesn't affect the conclusion we presented.
@@apostolicislam again with the muslim brain rot, the objection stands, when you read the chapter, its blatant that St. Gregory of Nyssa doesn't propagate universalism as you accuse him of
"He Who is at once the just, and good, and wise one, used His device, in which
there was deception, for the salvation of him who had perished, and thus not only conferred benefit
on the lost one, but on him, too, who had wrought our ruin. For from this approximation of death
to life, of darkness to light, of corruption to incorruption, there is effected an obliteration of what
is worse, and a passing away of it into nothing, ****while benefit is conferred on him who is freed from
those evils****."