Really??? Do all of you (Dyer, yourself, all the others) think you are saved by theology? Do you think that “owning one another” on slips of the tongue is theosis? Having an imperfect grasp of the terms applied to christology is not the sum and summit of Christian life.
St Justin Popovich, Lossky, Staniloae, St John of Damascus, St Gregory the Theologian, St Maximus in no particular order (though I've heard it recommended that one should start with Lossky and Staniloae)
I’m not well versed in Christology but I’m quite well versed in western philosophy in general. I think Jay’s arguments against Radical Materialism and Naive Empiricism are excellent actually. Very sound. But it has always struck me as off-putting when he debates theology. He’s quick to anger and that has always been an indication to me that someone is either uncomfortable with their own mastery of the subject or too emotionally attached to a specific view to have honestly explored other views. That process requires humility and leads to a much more familiar relationship with the material on the whole. This was a very insightful critique of Jay. He ought to watch it himself. It would improve his work in this area if he was honest in his desire to master the material.
St. John Damascene and Fr. Dumitru Staniloae are just the tip of the iceberg. You didn't even get into St. Gregory Palamas and many other Byzantines explicitly saying divine-human person...but I thought Dyer was an expert in Byzantine theology thanks to Fr. John Meyendorff's superb reference book?
@@StJames37 You clearly have no idea what person/hypostasis means according to the Holy Fathers, and derive your meaning of it from Internet gurus and the secondary scholarship of the heretical Parisian school and secular academics. St. Justinian and the 5th Council agree with us, you just aren't reading them properly because you've been deceived by said secondary scholarship. Until Dyer and his acolytes cease in their obstinate distortion of the Church Fathers and Councils, they can't be considered "fellow Orthodox".
@@StJames37 1. Pope St. Leo the Great: “For this wondrous child-bearing of the Holy Virgin produced in her offspring one person which was truly human and truly Divine (vere humanam vereque divinam unam personam), because neither substance (utraque substantia) so retained their properties that there could be any division of persons in them; nor was the creature taken into partnership with its Creator in such a way that the One was the in-dweller, and the other the dwelling; but so that the one nature was blended with the other. And although the nature which is taken is one, and that which takes is another, yet these two diverse natures come together into such close union that it is one and the same Son who says both that, as true Man, He is less than the Father (John 14:28), and that, as true God, He is equal with the Father (John 10:30).” [1] 2. St. John of Damascus: a. “So, the Logos became flesh, not changing the nature nor only seeming to appear in the economy, but, being one hypostasis of the hypostases of divinity, also became one hypostasis of the hypostases of humanity (μία τῶν τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος ὑποστάσεων), hypostatizing in his hypostasis flesh animated by a rational and intellectual soul from the unwedded Virgin, and by this being called man.” [2]. b. “Hence, Christ is God and Man, without beginning and having beginning, one and the same hypostasis, visible and invisible, created and uncreated, limited and unlimited, passible and impassible, the Son of God and the Son of the Virgin, that is, the Son of Man, without a mother from the Father, without a father from the Mother, eternal and new, undepictable and in the form of a slave and the form of a human, the most beautiful of the sons of men (Ps. 44:3). All this constitutes and distinguishes the hypostasis of Christ God, and He is referred to by all [of these properties] together and by each separately”. [3]. 3. Monk Nicetas Seides (12th century): “Miracles and sufferings, according to the well-known image of a sword red-hot in the fire, belong to the same theandric/divine-human hypostasis (θεανδρικῆς ὑποστάσεως). For it acts both Divinely and humanly” [4]. 4. Deacon John Staurakios (12th-13th centuries); Discourse on the martyrdom of virgin-martyr Theodosia of Constantinople: “But if you, emperor, who are mortal and decay every day like a cloak, who are alive today and tomorrow already departed, want your image to be treated with respect and honored as royal image, is it not much more appropriate to honor, dignify and kiss the Divine image of the theandric/divine-human hypostasis (θεανδρικῆς ὑποστάσεως) of the eternal God the Word, Who for our sake became a temporary man in order to deify man?" [5] 5. St. Gregory Palamas: a. “The pre-eternal and uncircumscribed and almighty Word is now born according to the flesh, without home, without shelter, without dwelling, and placed as a babe in the manger, seen by men’s eyes, touched by their hands, and wrapped in layers of swaddling bands. He is not a spiritual creature coming into being after previously not existing; nor flesh which is brought to birth but will soon perish; nor flesh and mind united to form a rational creature, but God and flesh mingled unconfusedly by the divine Mind to form the existence of one theandric/divine-human hypostasis (μιᾶς θεανδρικῆς ὑποστάσεως ὕπαρξιν)” [6]. b. "After a long time, a container was found fit for this Divine adoption and grace, which will finally serve God's will; a vessel appeared, worthy of the hypostatic union of the Divine and human natures, not only placing our nature highly, but also correcting the whole race of this nature. This was the Virgin - the Divine Maiden and the Mother of God; which is why the archangel Gabriel called Her "Full of Grace" as a truly chosen one from the elect and a flawless vessel, undefiled and worthy to contain the theandric/divine-human hypostasis (θεανδρικῆς ὑποστάσεως) and sustain it”. [7]. 6. St. Justin (Popovich) “The God-man is so exclusively new and unique that in reality the Truth came through Him (John 1:17) and through Him remained in our human world. All that is before Him and without Him cannot contain Truth, for only the Divine-human Hypostasis (Богочовечанска Ипостас) is Truth: "I am the truth" (John 14:6), and there is no Truth for man except the God-Man, for there is no man without the God-Man. [8]. ____________________________ [1] St. Leo the Great. Sermo in Nativitatem. 3.1 // PL 54: 200. English translation from: www.newadvent.org/fathers/360323.htm [2] St. John Damascene. Against the Nestorian heresy, 2 // PG 95: 190. [3] St. John Damascene. О свойствах двух природ во Едином Христе Господе нашем, а попутно и о двух волях и действиях и одной ипостаси, 2 // Творения. М., 1997: 83 [4] Nicetas Seides. Oratio contra Eustratium Nicaensem, 48 // Ἐπιστημονικὴ Ἐπετηρὶς Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς. 1976.Vol. 19. Σ. 35-82 [5] S. Kotzabassi. Das hagiographische Dossier der heiligen Theodosia von Konstantinopel // Byzantinisches Archiv. 2009. Vol. 21: 84-98. [6] St. Gregory Palamas. Homily 58, on the Holy Nativity of the Lord. [7] St. Gregory Palamas, Homily 57. [8] St. Justin (Popovich). Православная Церковь и экуменизм, 2.6.5. M., 2005: 187
@@breburdax4132 the usage of the term isn’t the contention. Rather, what *they mean in *their usage of said terms, and how that then fits holistically within the concepts and categories utilized in their metaphysics. - They weren’t scholastics.
@@jonathanhill2737 - Incorrect. St John of Damascus says almost all heresies stem from the inability to distinguish NATURE vs PERSON, showing your error very clearly in what you have written. Btw, it's not Jay who came up with that Christology, but the Holy Fathers.
Evolution is false. All created things have an appropriating pre existing logos. Evolution also makes death to be god, since it is survival of the fittest. It is quite backwards.
@@brandwijkgg we can look at examples of viruses and bacteria when addressing survival of the fittest. Do they mutate? Of course. This could be said to be a type of evolution and I have no problem with that. Do viruses ever become bacteria? No. Do viruses ever even become *different* viruses? No. When looking at the different strains of Covid- for example- you know it's *still* Covid. It's still itself.
@@jonathanhill2737 Survival of the fittest means how well an organism is adapted to the environment to survive, right? You are talking about variation in properties in viruses. Variation of properties is the production of novelty, especially where there was previously no variation. The accumulation of small changes is a basis of evolution. A virus is a very small organism (smaller than a bacterium) that cannot reproduce independently. It is spread through the air, through food or touch. It needs a living host to reproduce. I think you are comparing two different organisms.
Inb4 the Dyerite drones start coping by positing a distinction between the Divine person/subject "in itself" on the one hand and a composite "material hypostasis" on the other: this (non-)distinction is absolutely nowhere to be found among the Saints and Fathers of the Church, but has its origin in the personalist teachings of Bathrellos, Metropolitan John of Pergamon and earlier exponents of the modernist Paris School, whom they see as indisputable referents. Whether Dyer and his crew can be excused of being obstinate heretics due to their semiliteracy and lack of understanding of primary sources, only God knows.
It is good Fr Dumitru uses both words - person and hypostasis - to make his point. In order to cope with his (and St John's) words, they will need to invoke the made up distinctions invented by Bathrellos, but rooted in Latin scholasticism. In any case, there is no difference between hypostasis and person in the Eastern Fathers. None other than "approved theologian" Jean-Claude Larchet has decisively refuted such a notion!
And as was recently shown, Fr Dumitru calls Christ a human subject as well! Person/hypostasis/subject, Fr Dumitru exhausted all words in applying them to Christ. The only cope that is left is to say there is some kind of 'misinterpretation' of Fr Dumitru's words, and that he means something totally different by those trio of words when he applies them to the divinity as when he applies them to the humanity.
@@jamesb0gginsw0rth63 I think this is a big point of contention here, that when they use divine and apply divine they mean it and apply it in a drastically different way than when they use human and apply human
You aren't in a position to call anyone a heretic. You're not a Theologian. You are not an Elder. Nor a Bishop. All this internet orhtodoxy for the most part are lay people learning about the Church through the study of Theology. A Theology that isn'/wasn't scholastically understood by 90% of the history of the faithful. Find a parish. Find a spiritual Father. Pray. Confess. Commune. Worry not about those that defend Jay Dyer online.
who is the divine-human hypostasis? the logos, the word of the father,jesus christ!!!! Understand???? why does mary is called theothokos? she is the mother of the son of god, what is the troparion of the anunciation? Today is the beginning of our salvation, / the revelation of the eternal mystery! / The Son of God becomes the Son of the Virgin / as Gabriel announces the coming of Grace. / Together with him let us cry to the Theotokos: / Hail, O Full of Grace, / the Lord is with You! UNDERSTAND ?????
the sole subject is the second person of the godhead, the logos, of course he asumed human nature with all that humanity implies : body, soul, mind( nous) so he enter in a new mode of being( the Logos, the word of God the Father) becoming and asuming fully human nature, but there is is no human subject there. The personhood is that of the Logos, wich possess human body, soul, mind, nous!!! UNDERSTAND???? so of coure Divine- human!!!!
Yes! Exactly. So to say that Christ has one divine hypostasis is not wrong. I don’t know what the guy in this video is getting at…? Dyer was only rejecting the idea that there was both a divine and human person (dual person) in Christ.
@@lkae4 he is a human person. But you must remember that humanity is one of his two natures. It doesn’t mean that he is two persons, a human person and a divine person. He is one person, one subject, one hypostasis: the Logos. And it is under this hypostasis that the human and divine natures are unified (‘hypostasic union’).
"Christ is not a human person" lolll. What kind of heresy is that? I mean for a person seen as a champion of orthodoxy, making these kind of statements, is truly disturbing. Dyer is truly a heretic.
Jay is definitely just explicating what is evident in St. John of Damascus “on the orthodox faith” tho. Have you read that work all the way through carefully?? It’s important to get the Nature/person distinction right. It’s ok to say christ is a “human person” in the sense that the human NATURE of Christ is hypostatic ally United to the ONE person of Christ. But you cannot teach that there are two PERSONS present. I think you guys are confusing the language. ONE person and TWO natures. So both human and divine natures find their grounding in the ONE person of Christ. So you guys either are getting confused by the language or being dishonest. If you read John of Damascus “on the orthodox faith” you’ll see this laid out in painful Clarity
@@alexanderderus2087 the only ones who don't understand St. John of Damascus, confuse language and are dishonest are Dyer and his acolytes and their constant attempts to gaslight people and backpedal when they get called out for blatantly heretical statements as the ones shown in this video, and many others. Typical cultish behavior.
@@breburdax4132 hrm. Genuinely interested in the heretical things he has said! I listen to and read lots of orthodox content and haven’t seen him (besides sometimes being rude) say anything heretical. Any examples of heretical ideas He holds to?
@@alexanderderus2087 Sure! Aside from his false Christology (denying that Christ is unqualifiedly, and not just in a secondary or relative sense, a divine-human person, as proved in this video), he also teaches the following heresies: 1) contra the Fathers (especially St. Maximus in his Ambigua), from the Trinity of Persons he derives the bizarre notion that God is "One and Many, or One and Multiple" 2) that there are real, ontological distinctions in God between essence and energies, a distinction which entails multiple beings (that's what ontological means). Against this, the Palamite Fathers teach a conceptual (kat'epinoian) distinction or, in St. Gennadios Scholarios' case, a formal distinction. 3) if you go to his introduction video about John Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology, around the 18:50 mark he affirms the following: "person takes on the role of subject, agent or personal cause in the sense of an inner consciousness, more than an instantiation of nature" To affirm three consciousnesses (minds) in God is tritheism, plain and simple. One can easily see that Dyer's personal crusade against "absolute divine simplicity", inspired by Farrell and the Protestantized Parisian school (against the many Fathers that affirm that God is not just simple in a relative sense, but "absolutely simple") has led him right to polytheistic (at best, henotheistic) conclusions. In addition to these dogmatic heresies, there's evidence of his distorted Biblical exegesis leading to some depraved moral teachings, such as his view that Song of Songs endorses oral sodomy (as foreplay only, he says). Such a carnal mind cannot be a reliable teacher in theological matters.
@@breburdax4132 Why dont you join his discord and tell him this on one of the times he opens his discord up for debate? I'm sure he'll want to be corrected.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
Really??? Do all of you (Dyer, yourself, all the others) think you are saved by theology? Do you think that “owning one another” on slips of the tongue is theosis? Having an imperfect grasp of the terms applied to christology is not the sum and summit of Christian life.
St mary of Egypt never read one page of scripture
Real
Not sinful to edify. I’d want my misconceptions and misunderstandings corrected.
I am Orthodox, but I am continually unimpressed by Jay.
This is great thanks for doing this, Dyer is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Make more vids regularly please, it’s good stuff! Keep refuting jay haha
Which church fathers should a beginner to Eastern Orthodoxy start with, coming from oriental orthodox?
@Emil Suric Thank you
@@mothmanprophet11 which material of st. symeon should one start with?
St Justin Popovich, Lossky, Staniloae, St John of Damascus, St Gregory the Theologian, St Maximus in no particular order (though I've heard it recommended that one should start with Lossky and Staniloae)
@@johnketema8880 St. Gregory the Theologian is great! Especially when he teaches miaphysis.
Stick to the Oriental Orthodox Fathers.
I’m not well versed in Christology but I’m quite well versed in western philosophy in general. I think Jay’s arguments against Radical Materialism and Naive Empiricism are excellent actually. Very sound. But it has always struck me as off-putting when he debates theology. He’s quick to anger and that has always been an indication to me that someone is either uncomfortable with their own mastery of the subject or too emotionally attached to a specific view to have honestly explored other views. That process requires humility and leads to a much more familiar relationship with the material on the whole. This was a very insightful critique of Jay. He ought to watch it himself. It would improve his work in this area if he was honest in his desire to master the material.
Where is that St. John of Damascus quote from?
St. John Damascene and Fr. Dumitru Staniloae are just the tip of the iceberg. You didn't even get into St. Gregory Palamas and many other Byzantines explicitly saying divine-human person...but I thought Dyer was an expert in Byzantine theology thanks to Fr. John Meyendorff's superb reference book?
@@StJames37 You clearly have no idea what person/hypostasis means according to the Holy Fathers, and derive your meaning of it from Internet gurus and the secondary scholarship of the heretical Parisian school and secular academics. St. Justinian and the 5th Council agree with us, you just aren't reading them properly because you've been deceived by said secondary scholarship. Until Dyer and his acolytes cease in their obstinate distortion of the Church Fathers and Councils, they can't be considered "fellow Orthodox".
@@StJames37 1. Pope St. Leo the Great:
“For this wondrous child-bearing of the Holy Virgin produced in her offspring one person which was truly human and truly Divine (vere humanam vereque divinam unam personam), because neither substance (utraque substantia) so retained their properties that there could be any division of persons in them; nor was the creature taken into partnership with its Creator in such a way that the One was the in-dweller, and the other the dwelling; but so that the one nature was blended with the other. And although the nature which is taken is one, and that which takes is another, yet these two diverse natures come together into such close union that it is one and the same Son who says both that, as true Man, He is less than the Father (John 14:28), and that, as true God, He is equal with the Father (John 10:30).” [1]
2. St. John of Damascus:
a. “So, the Logos became flesh, not changing the nature nor only seeming to appear in the economy, but, being one hypostasis of the hypostases of divinity, also became one hypostasis of the hypostases of humanity (μία τῶν τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος ὑποστάσεων), hypostatizing in his hypostasis flesh animated by a rational and intellectual soul from the unwedded Virgin, and by this being called man.” [2].
b. “Hence, Christ is God and Man, without beginning and having beginning, one and the same hypostasis, visible and invisible, created and uncreated, limited and unlimited, passible and impassible, the Son of God and the Son of the Virgin, that is, the Son of Man, without a mother from the Father, without a father from the Mother, eternal and new, undepictable and in the form of a slave and the form of a human, the most beautiful of the sons of men (Ps. 44:3). All this constitutes and distinguishes the hypostasis of Christ God, and He is referred to by all [of these properties] together and by each separately”. [3].
3. Monk Nicetas Seides (12th century):
“Miracles and sufferings, according to the well-known image of a sword red-hot in the fire, belong to the same theandric/divine-human hypostasis (θεανδρικῆς ὑποστάσεως). For it acts both Divinely and humanly” [4].
4. Deacon John Staurakios (12th-13th centuries); Discourse on the martyrdom of virgin-martyr Theodosia of Constantinople:
“But if you, emperor, who are mortal and decay every day like a cloak, who are alive today and tomorrow already departed, want your image to be treated with respect and honored as royal image, is it not much more appropriate to honor, dignify and kiss the Divine image of the theandric/divine-human hypostasis (θεανδρικῆς ὑποστάσεως) of the eternal God the Word, Who for our sake became a temporary man in order to deify man?" [5]
5. St. Gregory Palamas:
a. “The pre-eternal and uncircumscribed and almighty Word is now born according to the flesh, without home, without shelter, without dwelling, and placed as a babe in the manger, seen by men’s eyes, touched by their hands, and wrapped in layers of swaddling bands. He is not a spiritual creature coming into being after previously not existing; nor flesh which is brought to birth but will soon perish; nor flesh and mind united to form a rational creature, but God and flesh mingled unconfusedly by the divine Mind to form the existence of one theandric/divine-human hypostasis (μιᾶς θεανδρικῆς ὑποστάσεως ὕπαρξιν)” [6].
b. "After a long time, a container was found fit for this Divine adoption and grace, which will finally serve God's will; a vessel appeared, worthy of the hypostatic union of the Divine and human natures, not only placing our nature highly, but also correcting the whole race of this nature. This was the Virgin - the Divine Maiden and the Mother of God; which is why the archangel Gabriel called Her "Full of Grace" as a truly chosen one from the elect and a flawless vessel, undefiled and worthy to contain the theandric/divine-human hypostasis (θεανδρικῆς ὑποστάσεως) and sustain it”. [7].
6. St. Justin (Popovich)
“The God-man is so exclusively new and unique that in reality the Truth came through Him (John 1:17) and through Him remained in our human world. All that is before Him and without Him cannot contain Truth, for only the Divine-human Hypostasis (Богочовечанска Ипостас) is Truth: "I am the truth" (John 14:6), and there is no Truth for man except the God-Man, for there is no man without the God-Man. [8].
____________________________
[1] St. Leo the Great. Sermo in Nativitatem. 3.1 // PL 54: 200. English translation from: www.newadvent.org/fathers/360323.htm
[2] St. John Damascene. Against the Nestorian heresy, 2 // PG 95: 190.
[3] St. John Damascene. О свойствах двух природ во Едином Христе Господе нашем, а попутно и о двух волях и действиях и одной ипостаси, 2 // Творения. М., 1997: 83
[4] Nicetas Seides. Oratio contra Eustratium Nicaensem, 48 // Ἐπιστημονικὴ Ἐπετηρὶς Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς. 1976.Vol. 19. Σ. 35-82
[5] S. Kotzabassi. Das hagiographische Dossier der heiligen Theodosia von Konstantinopel // Byzantinisches Archiv. 2009. Vol. 21: 84-98.
[6] St. Gregory Palamas. Homily 58, on the Holy Nativity of the Lord.
[7] St. Gregory Palamas, Homily 57.
[8] St. Justin (Popovich). Православная Церковь и экуменизм, 2.6.5. M., 2005: 187
@@breburdax4132 Okay, sure, the Fathers use theandric/composite language for Christ's person.
@@StJames37 Good you admit this! Now why do Dyer and his cult deny it?
@@breburdax4132 the usage of the term isn’t the contention. Rather, what *they mean in *their usage of said terms, and how that then fits holistically within the concepts and categories utilized in their metaphysics.
- They weren’t scholastics.
Is it correct to say that Christ is a human person insofar as human nature has been enhypostasized within the single person of Christ?
Yes
@@jonathanhill2737 how many persons in Christ? Dimwit.
@@nathancurtis9779 there are no persons *in* Christ.
Jesus Christ is a single person, or hypostasis, that is divine & human.
@@jonathanhill2737 - Incorrect. St John of Damascus says almost all heresies stem from the inability to distinguish NATURE vs PERSON, showing your error very clearly in what you have written.
Btw, it's not Jay who came up with that Christology, but the Holy Fathers.
@@karlbeyleveld3399 I'm curious to know how you came to that conclusion
Could you do a dedicated video on Justification from an Orthodox perspective and the support for the Orthodox position?
I think it would be a good follow up to your previous video.
Well, there it is...
Off topic- is a belief in evolution and Orthodoxy compatible ? How does the former impact concepts like original sin and Jesus's redemptive cause ?
Evolution is false. All created things have an appropriating pre existing logos.
Evolution also makes death to be god, since it is survival of the fittest. It is quite backwards.
@@jonathanhill2737
How would you define survival of the fittest?
@@brandwijkgg we can look at examples of viruses and bacteria when addressing survival of the fittest. Do they mutate? Of course. This could be said to be a type of evolution and I have no problem with that. Do viruses ever become bacteria? No. Do viruses ever even become *different* viruses? No. When looking at the different strains of Covid- for example- you know it's *still* Covid. It's still itself.
@@jonathanhill2737 Survival of the fittest means how well an organism is adapted to the environment to survive, right? You are talking about variation in properties in viruses. Variation of properties is the production of novelty, especially where there was previously no variation. The accumulation of small changes is a basis of evolution. A virus is a very small organism (smaller than a bacterium) that cannot reproduce independently. It is spread through the air, through food or touch. It needs a living host to reproduce. I think you are comparing two different organisms.
@@brandwijkgg Sorry, do viruses not mutate to better adapt? How are these concepts not exactly the same?
Inb4 the Dyerite drones start coping by positing a distinction between the Divine person/subject "in itself" on the one hand and a composite "material hypostasis" on the other: this (non-)distinction is absolutely nowhere to be found among the Saints and Fathers of the Church, but has its origin in the personalist teachings of Bathrellos, Metropolitan John of Pergamon and earlier exponents of the modernist Paris School, whom they see as indisputable referents. Whether Dyer and his crew can be excused of being obstinate heretics due to their semiliteracy and lack of understanding of primary sources, only God knows.
It is good Fr Dumitru uses both words - person and hypostasis - to make his point. In order to cope with his (and St John's) words, they will need to invoke the made up distinctions invented by Bathrellos, but rooted in Latin scholasticism. In any case, there is no difference between hypostasis and person in the Eastern Fathers. None other than "approved theologian" Jean-Claude Larchet has decisively refuted such a notion!
And as was recently shown, Fr Dumitru calls Christ a human subject as well! Person/hypostasis/subject, Fr Dumitru exhausted all words in applying them to Christ. The only cope that is left is to say there is some kind of 'misinterpretation' of Fr Dumitru's words, and that he means something totally different by those trio of words when he applies them to the divinity as when he applies them to the humanity.
@@jamesb0gginsw0rth63 I think this is a big point of contention here, that when they use divine and apply divine they mean it and apply it in a drastically different way than when they use human and apply human
You aren't in a position to call anyone a heretic. You're not a Theologian. You are not an Elder. Nor a Bishop.
All this internet orhtodoxy for the most part are lay people learning about the Church through the study of Theology.
A Theology that isn'/wasn't scholastically understood by 90% of the history of the faithful.
Find a parish. Find a spiritual Father. Pray. Confess. Commune. Worry not about those that defend Jay Dyer online.
who is the divine-human hypostasis? the logos, the word of the father,jesus christ!!!! Understand???? why does mary is called theothokos? she is the mother of the son of god, what is the troparion of the anunciation? Today is the beginning of our salvation, / the revelation of the eternal mystery! / The Son of God becomes the Son of the Virgin / as Gabriel announces the coming of Grace. / Together with him let us cry to the Theotokos: / Hail, O Full of Grace, / the Lord is with You!
UNDERSTAND ?????
the sole subject is the second person of the godhead, the logos, of course he asumed human nature with all that humanity implies : body, soul, mind( nous) so he enter in a new mode of being( the Logos, the word of God the Father) becoming and asuming fully human nature, but there is is no human subject there. The personhood is that of the Logos, wich possess human body, soul, mind, nous!!! UNDERSTAND???? so of coure Divine- human!!!!
Yes! Exactly. So to say that Christ has one divine hypostasis is not wrong. I don’t know what the guy in this video is getting at…?
Dyer was only rejecting the idea that there was both a divine and human person (dual person) in Christ.
If Christ isn't a human person, can He be truly man? Doesn't seem so.
@@lkae4 he is a human person. But you must remember that humanity is one of his two natures. It doesn’t mean that he is two persons, a human person and a divine person. He is one person, one subject, one hypostasis: the Logos. And it is under this hypostasis that the human and divine natures are unified (‘hypostasic union’).
@@josephmartin4343 Dyer said repeatedly that Christ is not a human person. Dyer is wrong. That's it.
@@lkae4 Christ is not just a “human person”. What about this can you not understand? I thought I laid this out clearly in my previous comment.
Is the discord still up or am I banned?
Who are you?
@@jonathanhill2737 Fold
@@jonathanhill2737 Guess I was banned?
is it joever for him?
I've seen his fans straight up ignore these contradictions.
@@ncpolley Mindless drones following their guru into the abyss
@@ncpolley Titus 3:10
What is joeever
@@TrollDemN00bs play on "over", but apparently it isn't lol
"Christ is not a human person" lolll. What kind of heresy is that? I mean for a person seen as a champion of orthodoxy, making these kind of statements, is truly disturbing. Dyer is truly a heretic.
Jay is definitely just explicating what is evident in St. John of Damascus “on the orthodox faith” tho. Have you read that work all the way through carefully?? It’s important to get the Nature/person distinction right. It’s ok to say christ is a “human person” in the sense that the human NATURE of Christ is hypostatic ally United to the ONE person of Christ. But you cannot teach that there are two PERSONS present. I think you guys are confusing the language. ONE person and TWO natures. So both human and divine natures find their grounding in the ONE person of Christ. So you guys either are getting confused by the language or being dishonest. If you read John of Damascus “on the orthodox faith” you’ll see this laid out in painful Clarity
@@alexanderderus2087 the only ones who don't understand St. John of Damascus, confuse language and are dishonest are Dyer and his acolytes and their constant attempts to gaslight people and backpedal when they get called out for blatantly heretical statements as the ones shown in this video, and many others. Typical cultish behavior.
@@breburdax4132 hrm. Genuinely interested in the heretical things he has said! I listen to and read lots of orthodox content and haven’t seen him (besides sometimes being rude) say anything heretical. Any examples of heretical ideas He holds to?
@@alexanderderus2087 Sure! Aside from his false Christology (denying that Christ is unqualifiedly, and not just in a secondary or relative sense, a divine-human person, as proved in this video), he also teaches the following heresies:
1) contra the Fathers (especially St. Maximus in his Ambigua), from the Trinity of Persons he derives the bizarre notion that God is "One and Many, or One and Multiple"
2) that there are real, ontological distinctions in God between essence and energies, a distinction which entails multiple beings (that's what ontological means). Against this, the Palamite Fathers teach a conceptual (kat'epinoian) distinction or, in St. Gennadios Scholarios' case, a formal distinction.
3) if you go to his introduction video about John Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology, around the 18:50 mark he affirms the following:
"person takes on the role of subject, agent or personal cause in the sense of an inner consciousness, more than an instantiation of nature"
To affirm three consciousnesses (minds) in God is tritheism, plain and simple. One can easily see that Dyer's personal crusade against "absolute divine simplicity", inspired by Farrell and the Protestantized Parisian school (against the many Fathers that affirm that God is not just simple in a relative sense, but "absolutely simple") has led him right to polytheistic (at best, henotheistic) conclusions.
In addition to these dogmatic heresies, there's evidence of his distorted Biblical exegesis leading to some depraved moral teachings, such as his view that Song of Songs endorses oral sodomy (as foreplay only, he says). Such a carnal mind cannot be a reliable teacher in theological matters.
@@breburdax4132 Why dont you join his discord and tell him this on one of the times he opens his discord up for debate? I'm sure he'll want to be corrected.
I think he is a narcissist
Very informative video, thank you. Can you make similar video refuting oriental orthodox arguments against us?