Basima raba for your video, thank you. It was the Assyrian Church of the East that through its many missionaries spread Christianity through out the world including India and China. Thanks Rabi qasha.
Thank you for the lecture. I converted to the Coptic Orthodox church during COVID. The circumstances that led to my discovery of Orthodoxy were such that I was only focused on ''Orthodox'', and I devoured any books, lectures and video that had the word orthodox in the title, for I was completely oblivious to the theological disagreements between the different churches, only finding out much later after baptism. Because of this ''confused'' background of mine, I still tend to listen to all Orthodox lectures regardless, and to be honest, at the end of each one I am only left with a feeling of being comforted and spiritually invigorated. May God have mercy on me.
This is a great breakdown to help our people better understand our church beliefs, when compared to our brethren from different denominations. The emphasis on commonality is key.
Thank you so much for your videos! I'm a western Christian (and lament many of the same things you brought up), but I have long had an appreciation for the Assyrian Church of the East ever since I discovered the Eastern Peshitta through textual criticism (and Shamasha Younan's website). Really appreciate you sharing things in English both here and on your blog. I try to correct errors and assumptions that people make about the Church of the East and "Nestorianism" having figured out what the ACOE really believes Christologically, and I agree that the devil is at work in the details here (or lack thereof sometimes when it comes to misunderstandings due to language barriers or politics as in the past). I also really appreciate your comments about the Torah/Auryata and agree that these things are an issue as we struggle with complacency in a lot of places. I look forward to learning more from your videos about both the ACOE and what we as Christians need to be doing and thinking about everywhere. Thanks so much again!
Thank you very much! I have a love of the Latin tradition, myself. It has a stark antiquity that is stunning. Shamasha Paul's website was the start for many. It's an awesome resource. Really, it's not a war within Christianity but one of humanity, especially Traditional Christianity, against modernism, the rejection of eternal meaning being forced upon human consciousness.
@@AssyrianFaith Amen, agreed! As a side note, I'm enjoying your comments about the Torah/will of God both here and in your commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. It has reminded me though about how many from the Messianic/Hebrew Roots movement frequented Shamasha Paul's forum, and the insistence they had on the observance of all the ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant. If there is good opportunity as you keep teaching, I would be interested to hear about why we don't keep kosher, traditional seventh day Sabbath, or the Feast Days of Lev 23 given the continued emphasis on the commandments in general that you are making. Unpacking it in relation to St. Peter's vision in Acts 10, the first council in Acts 15, St. Paul's comments about faith in opposition to "works of the Law", etc. as specifically taught in the ACOE would be very helpful!
That is a great video to get a first impression on the church of the east. It would be great to have more videos related to other topics as this church was separated from bizantine western world. Like harmatiology (original sin or ancestral sin), anthropology, soreriology, in particular view of atonement/redemption ( the most prominent images/concepts/metaphors - do the tend to be more legalistic like in the west or more ontological like in bizantine or something else, more substitutional or participatory or something else…) also interesting in how the early jewish background shaped the thought in relation to greek/ latin world. Blessings
Man I'm impressed with this guys hair line and thickness....it's SOLID.💪🏻 His hair reminds me of Eddie Munster........great show from 1954 "The Munsters"👍🏻
Thank you for making this point. I was thinking the same from the “byzantine” Church perspective, but I am sad to observe that no hierach from my country is even to a small degree informed of the Aramaic branch of Christianity. I doubt anything is going to happen officially . Such a shame and lack of knowledge of the tradition of the Fathers.
1600 years is enough. Our unity of faith requires humility and obedience to Our Lord's prayer to the Father that we be One so that the world might believe that the Father sent His Only begotten Son into the world.
"More than the Byzantine tradition we have a deep theology of icons." Man that's a bold claim! You mind pointing me toward some Assyriac theology books on icons?
Denominational splits are the construction of the adversary. Scripture demanded that we be of one mind. As an ex-protestant I believe that all these organizations calling themselves "the church" need to go back to Ekklesia... which was never an organization or building. In the time of the apostles "churches" were meetings of called ones. We as believers in Christ must realize that the none of the divisions (denominations) were founded by apostles. They only started appearing around 430 years after the last of the apostles died. 2 Cor 13 : 11 And now, brothers, peace be with you! Put yourselves in order, pay attention to my advice, be of one mind, live in shalom - and the God of love and shalom will be with you.
Rabbi, Has there been any progression with the ROC and ACOE in developing a christological agreement? Thank you for always shedding light on our blessed church and addressing misconceptions that have developed against our church over the centuries God bless
Shlama, Rabbi. You put great emphasis on Alaha’s commandments. How did the Sabbath day change to a Sunday? It’s not found in scriptures to change Alaha’s Hand Written Law. All the deciples honoured it and Mshekha. It seems that all the appointed times were changed too, like the Passover, Tabernacle. What is your understanding on this change?
The most basic explanation for your question is, no one changed "the Sabbath" necessarily. The early church chose to move to Sunday as it was the day Christ rose from the dead, the Sabbath was then observed on the Lords Day instead, also there is evidence of "Lords Day" gathering amongst the early church. It is also symbolic of the new covenant just as the change from circumcision to baptism.
By the seventh day being a day of rest the eighth day was also sanctified as God beginning to work. Circumcision also occurred on the eighth day as a symbol of the new birth.
Greetings, could you explain, which Kind of canon the assyira church used? How many books are inspired for the church? Ist the septuagint Part of the old Testament? And whats about the new Testament? Thank you
Could you address some of the points made by Orthodox Shahada in the 2 videos he did on the Assyrian Church of the East and the Marganitha? As someone who attends the Church of the East, I would like to know how to address these kinds of accusations.
Curious as to why you believe the RCC is not part of the Orthodox churches (EO,OO,COE). There is definitely more bureaucracy, but can't one argue that the early eccumenical councils also "dictated" to churches as harshly as catholics do today?
Thanks for the comment! My point, which I hope came across, was that a commonality exists among EO, OO, and CoE that is like varieties of a species, cultural variations. My point was not to judge either the RCC or Protestant Christianity, which both have tremendous virtues, both worship using modern liturgies. To discuss Christian unity at the level I do in this video, restricts that unity to those that are also united in their differences. We all function the same way. RCC and Protestant churches do not. This is not a condemnation but an observation about the divisions on the level of the EO, OO, and ACoE. I think if we need the orthodox unified if every the RCC and Protestant Christianity will be considered.
Following the philosophy of the Fathers, there is the world of truth and the world of happenings (hwaya). How can one be said to err or not err in the latter? Drawing an icon of God the Word incarnate, it is important that one depicts Christ, worshipful and divine. While I believe that the Fathers preached the truth, I do not believe that there is some magic mechanism whereby they are unable to misread or misunderstand other human beings. There is the truth that the fathers enshrined then there are the facts with which they worked. Can the Church err? No. Can Churchmen make mistakes about facts? Of course. The Nicene Creed, or any other, is not made true by the human mechanism but because the image matches the imaged.
@@AssyrianFaith But Chalcedon was an official action of the Church received for 1600 years. If it's condemnation of the Orientals and Copts was in error I'm not sure what it means to say that the Church does not err. The anathemas and definitions are found in the same un-erring documents of the council. I've also never bought the idea that one can simply lay all blame at the feet of erring men to exonerate the Church, because the Church has no instantiation apart from its members.
@@Catholic-Perennialist Christ is the instantiation of the Church. Erring about what a heretic believed is different than proclaiming a false faith. Also, I reject the paradigmatic basis of the question whether the fathers, much less the human material of the Church, erred. It's another version of a straw man argument. We never said that the Church does not err. Note the verb used, err, meaning to be mistaken or incorrect. Applied to scripture, it would be a blasphemously devilish setup for those not sharp enough to dismiss a bad question. The Church, like the human words of Scripture, or the life of a saint depicts Christ, WHO is the way, the truth, and the life. In all my time with Greek and Syriac bible manuscripts, I have yet to meet one that did not err. Does the Bible depict the one who is the Truth? The Church is the covenant community who, from Sinai, through the Cross and Empty Tomb, down to this day incarnates Christ in its members. Does God use flawed material, fragile clay?
@@priestephraim I'm not talking about scripture erring. I'm simply drawing a conclusion from the premise of this video that an ecumenical council of the Orthodox Church can err concerning its condemnation of other Christians. If this cannot be understood as the Church erring then I must also conclude that the Church cannot be found on earth.
@@Catholic-Perennialist Of course any human being can make mistakes. Setting up a belief system that makes humans unable to err is a delusion. In Classic Christian literature (first millennium), I have never seen anyone argue for a mechanism by which the human capacity to make mistakes is disconnected somehow. I mention Scripture because the principle also applies here. Nothing in the faith exists that would prevent Moses from failing a biology exam or miscalculating long division. There was no magic spell-check to prevent him from misplacing a letter as he wrote. Nor was his knowledge of the facts here on earth free from human perspective, which includes a capacity to err. However, he received a divine revelation of Truth, not of earthly facts, but of eternal Truth. And if this can be said about Moses, the foundation of the faith in the promised Messiah to the Covenant Community at Sinai (ʿedāh/ʿedtā), then all those events fulfilling God's covenant with his people (Messiah and his death, resurrection, and coming back) also are revealed in human terms. Such human terms are but the matrix upon which the Truth is impressed, like how neither the board of an icon nor the paint are Christ, but the image depicted thereupon certainly is. On Earth? The Church exists on earth relatively and conditionally: "Let thy will be done upon Earth as it is in Heaven." Obviously, the Church exists as our human manifestation in space and time of that participation in the eternal and true Church, which is Christ Fully God and Fully man, along with all those many saints forming shoots of the one true vine. I really don't get the 'erring' language though. Seems very strange and troublesome.
Man...tempting me to make a video to reply to this. Basically, Anglicans have a top-down Church. I base my assertions upon the idea that you are baptized into a tradition, and are its heir. We do not have a magisterium but shepherds who, as judges, keep custody over a Sacred Tradition. They are not legislators, but as judges.
@@AssyrianFaithplease do a video on this. its a topic that must be addressed. what happens when these judges are corrupt or even heretical? what of the schisms?
Church of the East texts describe Christ as one divine person, two existing natures, divine and human. My summation of the teaching: Who is he? God the Son incarnate=Jesus Christ What is he? Truly God and Truly Man. Natures, even qnome, cannot 'do'; they do not have agency. A qnoma is that by which one has agency. My will to respond and type right now is the will of my person (parsupa), but that I have a will is because I am an existence (qnoma) of human nature (kyana). In Christ there can be only one subject. That is the teaching.
but if he had two qnoma, wouldn’t that mean he had two existences or wills? or just one existence and will in the hypostasis? thank you for answering these
@@blade7506 For both divine and human natures, qnoma (existence) is the existence of a willing intellect. A divine willing intellect is a divine nature. A human willing intellect is a human nature. So Christ has at the level of qnoma two wills according to two natures, but one will at the level of person. According to 'what' he is, Christ has two wills. According to 'who' he is Christ has one will. Another way to say this is that Christ's human will always submits to his divine will and so there is only once active will in Christ. Maximus and Babai are congruent on this point.
I've heard that The Church of the East offers the Lord's Supper with Holy Leaven to anyone who is baptized and has made a good confession to the priest, regardless of fellowship with other Churches or 'christian' communities. Is this true, or must one convert in order to partake, as in RCC, EO, OO churches?
The Church of the east offers communion to anyone who is baptised and upholds the apostolic faith which is Catholic and Orthodox and all their branches, God bless
@@Mygoalwogel I assume we only offer it to our Catholic and Orthodox brethren, i know we don’t offer it to protestants who perceive it as symbolic but I wouldn’t be too sure about Protestant branches that believe the True presence of christ is present in the Eucharist
Father, in Syriac Orthodox, one nature refers that, the human and divine nature of Christ are not seperated. So both natures unite as the St.Severious proved. Thats not being monophysite, which is a wrong understanding, it's miaphysite.
Shlama akhony. The biggest issue or politics 2day with ACOE is with their brothers the Chaldean Catholic church. I know they r under Rome but this is where our issues 2day start apart from the western church. As we r from 1 church b4 our split which our ppl hav either been Assyrian or Chaldean. When we r talking in our churches 2day its always Chaldean church or Assyrian church of the east. Never Syriac orthodox
Thats the problem: "what was born of Mary" was an divine person, no one is mother of an nature, our mother are not mothers of our body only (because soul is infused by God), they are mother of a person, what was born of Mary was a divine person that had 2 natures united without mixture. "What died on the cross"? A person! Not a thing (or nature)! He has human and divine natures, being a divine person! So there is only one kind of question: WHO was born of Mary, and Who was killed on the cross? The only answer is: God incarnate. Thats why Mary is Theotokos, and thats why we can say without a blush that God was crucified for us! The same way that we can say that God spoke with the apostles in the gospels. So the way you formulate those questions is as inapropriate as your own example of the husband and the chicken.
The 7 Ecumenical councils decided definitely on the question of Christ’s nature! If you deny the grace that the All-Holy Spirit expressed through the 7 Ecumenical councils - expressing and clarifying the truth - then you are a Protestant!
Wait, councils 'decide' the question of Christ's nature? Councils are a human event that hopes to guard a mystery (Trinity, Incarnation, etc) by rejecting false simplifications (Arianism, etc). The point of my video is that councils, like everything human, are meant to be studied and understood critically (not cynically) so as to properly understand what is helpful and what is problematic in them. They are not the truth in itself. That is Christ, who is God from God, eternally with the Father, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Of course, Ecumenical Councils need to be taken seriously, and should never be dismissed or treated to cynicism. That is also wrong as they are human and material bedrock of Christian unity. Also, "Christ's nature" implies only one nature, but that's not what the 7 councils stated.
If you do not take the ecumenical councils as led by the Holy Spirit, and if they can go astray, by what metric can we have a justification of any beliefs? Or are we just subject to academic critiques and critiques of critiques until the cows come home? The reason the church exists is so that a normative authority can have a objective ruling on truth. Without such an authority we are left with knowledge being an impossibility, much like protestants.
Councils are certainly led by the Holy Spirit. But they are not mechanically possessed such as to be free from human reality. Discernment, really a proper intention, is needed in any approach to the sacred. Certainly, I do not advocate mocking or belittling the fathers. If there was an argument that sought the destruction of the other, even a little bit, rather than the salvation of the opponent, then there was human sinfulness at work. This does not preclude the Spirit working in the Church. But it also does not preclude thinking through our faith, with faith and love. The fathers lived in a fallen world much like us and I increasingly believe that what divided fathers such as Theodore, Cyril, Nestorius, or Severus was not a lack of truth, but the limitations of human capacity to express divine things in human tongue combined with circumstances that did not encourage fruitful dialogue but hard decisions. Note that I am not saying that they all said the same thing or we shouldn't read them rigorously. Au contraire, I am advocating for vigorous reading of the fathers, teasing out the philosophical and theological structures.
@@AssyrianFaith Father bless, I’m responding this this comment because of its recommendation to read vigorously the fathers. I am Coptic Orthodox. I want nothing but relief that we all are Orthodox believing in the same thing. As I do indeed believe this of the Chalcedonian Orthodox, I also seek it in the Assyrian Church. I also have a great respect for ancient liturgical traditions. And thus I do love the fact that you quote areas in your liturgy that does affirm an Orthodox understanding of Christ. I do have a confusion on to how you place actions of Christian/Judaic behavior before identity of the Messiah, or as Christ asked the apostles “Who” do you say that I am? I think they’re both equally important. The Who is the structure of faith, and the actions and behavior is the function of faith, and any engineer will attest, structure and function is complimentary. I find that at the very least, St. Paul places an equal emphasis on both, and condemns any Judaizing tendencies (this is clear at least in the epistle to the Galatians) is a denial of Jesus as Christ, as Messiah. More so, in the same vein, I am reading the the documents and proceedings of the Council of Ephesus 431, and I plan to read research about Mar Babai (and St. Isaac the Syrian). I have already read other things that give me pause, particularly of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia themselves and of Catholicos Timothy who condemned John Dalyatha. These things that give me pause is what exactly the Assyrian Church teaches. While I certainly stand with the Assyrian Church in empathy to the sufferings and persecutions she endured, as it echoes what my mother Coptic Church has endured, and as a result lead to the theological ignorance of some of my clergy that can be forgiven, I still stand with caution as I am reading these words that lead me to not be at ease with Nestorian terminology. Surely I am much more at ease with Chalcedonian theology, as I recognize my Miaphysite faith in it. So I am stuck between two ends, wrestling with this issue. On one end, I recognize the Apostolicity of the Assyrian Church, and grace in her church that the Lord willed to give. On the other end, I also am ambivalent on some of the saints she venerates, and this is partially due to the fact that a lot more research, dialogue, and translation needs to be done. I pray the Lord offers us a solution to my wrestling, which I am a sure I’m not alone in it. Christ is risen!
The Church of the East confesses, and has always confessed, that the Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal Son and Word of God, and there was never even for a single moment a time when He wasn't God. So the Church of the East believes and has always believed that the Holy Mother Mary did carry God in her womb. It's the term itself "Theotokos" we don't use because it's not in our liturgical vocabulary and never was. If we were to start using it, it'll cause confusion due to the implication that she is was the source of His divinity. There may even be a risk of division due to many who would reject the use of strange and foreign word that's not of our tradition, especially since we're only just recovering from a major loss of tradition due to persecution.
No, you’re referring to Christokos vs Theotokos Every church called us heretical for not “professing theotokos”, BUT we never denied theotokos, we had a problem with the linguistics of theotokos. If by theotokos you mean Holy Mother Mary gave birth to Christ who is God, and she bore God because Christ is God; then we profess theotokos in that sense. However, we believe theotokos can stir confusion, such as people taking it as Holy Mother Mary CREATING the divine nature, existing before the Godhead, and possibly even giving birth to the entirety of the Godhead since theotokos never makes clear which person of the holy Trinity. We profess christokos in virtue that we make clear we are referring to the 2nd person of the holy Trinity, and she didn’t exist before the Godhead, or existed before Christ, since Christ who is fully man and fully God PRE-EXISTED eternally with the father and Holy Spirit since he is eternally begotten from the father, the father being the source of the Godhead. We DO NOT profess christokos in the sense that we divide the kyana (natures) of Christ, or that Holy Mother Mary only gives birth to just the human nature and the divine nature comes at a later time like we have been accused of. WE REACH THE SAME CONCLUSION OF EASTERN ORTHODOXY, however everyone has bashed us and refused to understand what we mean since our path may be different, but our conclusion is the same.
The 41 min mark is almost blaspemous. Jesus and Paul didn't accept those doctrines because they were in the oral torah (which Jesus condemned in Matthew 15, Mt 23, and elsewhere). They simply accepted what was true from these sources.
Thank you for your insight. I am an ex- Muslim who became Christian. Prayers to all who speak about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
☦✝🙏☦♥
Horrible! Christ is not Lord!
@@hassanmirza2392Last i checked, he is
Basima raba for your video, thank you. It was the Assyrian Church of the East that through its many missionaries spread Christianity through out the world including India and China. Thanks Rabi qasha.
Thank you for the lecture. I converted to the Coptic Orthodox church during COVID. The circumstances that led to my discovery of Orthodoxy were such that I was only focused on ''Orthodox'', and I devoured any books, lectures and video that had the word orthodox in the title, for I was completely oblivious to the theological disagreements between the different churches, only finding out much later after baptism. Because of this ''confused'' background of mine, I still tend to listen to all Orthodox lectures regardless, and to be honest, at the end of each one I am only left with a feeling of being comforted and spiritually invigorated.
May God have mercy on me.
This is a great breakdown to help our people better understand our church beliefs, when compared to our brethren from different denominations. The emphasis on commonality is key.
Thank you so much for your videos! I'm a western Christian (and lament many of the same things you brought up), but I have long had an appreciation for the Assyrian Church of the East ever since I discovered the Eastern Peshitta through textual criticism (and Shamasha Younan's website). Really appreciate you sharing things in English both here and on your blog. I try to correct errors and assumptions that people make about the Church of the East and "Nestorianism" having figured out what the ACOE really believes Christologically, and I agree that the devil is at work in the details here (or lack thereof sometimes when it comes to misunderstandings due to language barriers or politics as in the past). I also really appreciate your comments about the Torah/Auryata and agree that these things are an issue as we struggle with complacency in a lot of places.
I look forward to learning more from your videos about both the ACOE and what we as Christians need to be doing and thinking about everywhere. Thanks so much again!
Thank you very much! I have a love of the Latin tradition, myself. It has a stark antiquity that is stunning. Shamasha Paul's website was the start for many. It's an awesome resource. Really, it's not a war within Christianity but one of humanity, especially Traditional Christianity, against modernism, the rejection of eternal meaning being forced upon human consciousness.
@@AssyrianFaith Amen, agreed! As a side note, I'm enjoying your comments about the Torah/will of God both here and in your commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. It has reminded me though about how many from the Messianic/Hebrew Roots movement frequented Shamasha Paul's forum, and the insistence they had on the observance of all the ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant. If there is good opportunity as you keep teaching, I would be interested to hear about why we don't keep kosher, traditional seventh day Sabbath, or the Feast Days of Lev 23 given the continued emphasis on the commandments in general that you are making. Unpacking it in relation to St. Peter's vision in Acts 10, the first council in Acts 15, St. Paul's comments about faith in opposition to "works of the Law", etc. as specifically taught in the ACOE would be very helpful!
Thank you so much Qasheesha! 👍
a fellow Syro-Malabar Catholic 🙏
It's a pleasure
God bless your efforts Rabi… very thorough
thank U for the sharing your knowledge. May the Holy Trinity keep the Orthodox Churches United...
Only if everyone spoke this way to one another, unity would be reality. We have one faith it’s so sad that the small things is what divided us
I’m a Coptic Orthodox. I am glad HH Mor Ignatius II has started brotherly dialogues with the ACotE.
Do you have any sources for this?
@@John12457 I’ve heard this mostly by word of mouth from some Syriac friends. Nothing too official, though
@@TheCopticParabolanos oh I see, have they told you what it’s about specifically? Communion?
@@John12457 I doubt it’s about reestablishing communion. Probably just fraternal cooperation. Are you a member of the ACotE?
@@John12457 God bless brother
I appreciate your teaching. I am a Latin Rite Catholic.
That is a great video to get a first impression on the church of the east. It would be great to have more videos related to other topics as this church was separated from bizantine western world.
Like harmatiology (original sin or ancestral sin), anthropology, soreriology, in particular view of atonement/redemption ( the most prominent images/concepts/metaphors - do the tend to be more legalistic like in the west or more ontological like in bizantine or something else, more substitutional or participatory or something else…) also interesting in how the early jewish background shaped the thought in relation to greek/ latin world.
Blessings
Man I'm impressed with this guys hair line and thickness....it's SOLID.💪🏻
His hair reminds me of Eddie Munster........great show from 1954 "The Munsters"👍🏻
Thank you for making this point. I was thinking the same from the “byzantine” Church perspective, but I am sad to observe that no hierach from my country is even to a small degree informed of the Aramaic branch of Christianity. I doubt anything is going to happen officially . Such a shame and lack of knowledge of the tradition of the Fathers.
What country are you in?
@@AssyrianFaith Romania.
It was the great separation that kept all truth, because no one group could deviate too far before it would be exposed by the others...
1600 years is enough. Our unity of faith requires humility and obedience to Our Lord's prayer to the Father that we be One so that the world might believe that the Father sent His Only begotten Son into the world.
Armenian solidarity 🇦🇲❤️
"More than the Byzantine tradition we have a deep theology of icons." Man that's a bold claim! You mind pointing me toward some Assyriac theology books on icons?
Amen
Shma Ashur, I am the Lord your God I am One; Thus saith the Lord our God Hashem.
Denominational splits are the construction of the adversary. Scripture demanded that we be of one mind. As an ex-protestant I believe that all these organizations calling themselves "the church" need to go back to Ekklesia... which was never an organization or building. In the time of the apostles "churches" were meetings of called ones.
We as believers in Christ must realize that the none of the divisions (denominations) were founded by apostles. They only started appearing around 430 years after the last of the apostles died.
2 Cor 13 : 11 And now, brothers, peace be with you! Put yourselves in order, pay attention to my advice, be of one mind, live in shalom - and the God of love and shalom will be with you.
Rabbi,
Has there been any progression with the ROC and ACOE in developing a christological agreement?
Thank you for always shedding light on our blessed church and addressing misconceptions that have developed against our church over the centuries
God bless
mospat.ru/en/news/45894/
Do you have the essence-energies distinction?
Thats what I wanna know
That's exclusively a Byzantine idea. It's not known in the Coptic or Latin Churches.
Shlama, Rabbi. You put great emphasis on Alaha’s commandments. How did the Sabbath day change to a Sunday? It’s not found in scriptures to change Alaha’s Hand Written Law. All the deciples honoured it and Mshekha. It seems that all the appointed times were changed too, like the Passover, Tabernacle. What is your understanding on this change?
I recommend reading Epistle of Barnabas written to the Church around 70 -100 A.D.
The most basic explanation for your question is, no one changed "the Sabbath" necessarily. The early church chose to move to Sunday as it was the day Christ rose from the dead, the Sabbath was then observed on the Lords Day instead, also there is evidence of "Lords Day" gathering amongst the early church. It is also symbolic of the new covenant just as the change from circumcision to baptism.
By the seventh day being a day of rest the eighth day was also sanctified as God beginning to work. Circumcision also occurred on the eighth day as a symbol of the new birth.
Greetings, could you explain, which Kind of canon the assyira church used? How many books are inspired for the church? Ist the septuagint Part of the old Testament? And whats about the new Testament? Thank you
Could you address some of the points made by Orthodox Shahada in the 2 videos he did on the Assyrian Church of the East and the Marganitha?
As someone who attends the Church of the East, I would like to know how to address these kinds of accusations.
I would also like to see an attempted refutation of those two videos. They seemed air tight to me.
It would be good to see an Assyrian correction of the many misunderstandings repeated in those videos.
Curious as to why you believe the RCC is not part of the Orthodox churches (EO,OO,COE). There is definitely more bureaucracy, but can't one argue that the early eccumenical councils also "dictated" to churches as harshly as catholics do today?
Thanks for the comment! My point, which I hope came across, was that a commonality exists among EO, OO, and CoE that is like varieties of a species, cultural variations. My point was not to judge either the RCC or Protestant Christianity, which both have tremendous virtues, both worship using modern liturgies. To discuss Christian unity at the level I do in this video, restricts that unity to those that are also united in their differences. We all function the same way. RCC and Protestant churches do not. This is not a condemnation but an observation about the divisions on the level of the EO, OO, and ACoE. I think if we need the orthodox unified if every the RCC and Protestant Christianity will be considered.
Protestantism has no virtue it's the work of satan.
What this seems to reinforce is the fact that the Church can err in its pronouncements, particularly in its condemnations.
Following the philosophy of the Fathers, there is the world of truth and the world of happenings (hwaya). How can one be said to err or not err in the latter? Drawing an icon of God the Word incarnate, it is important that one depicts Christ, worshipful and divine. While I believe that the Fathers preached the truth, I do not believe that there is some magic mechanism whereby they are unable to misread or misunderstand other human beings. There is the truth that the fathers enshrined then there are the facts with which they worked. Can the Church err? No. Can Churchmen make mistakes about facts? Of course. The Nicene Creed, or any other, is not made true by the human mechanism but because the image matches the imaged.
@@AssyrianFaith But Chalcedon was an official action of the Church received for 1600 years. If it's condemnation of the Orientals and Copts was in error I'm not sure what it means to say that the Church does not err. The anathemas and definitions are found in the same un-erring documents of the council.
I've also never bought the idea that one can simply lay all blame at the feet of erring men to exonerate the Church, because the Church has no instantiation apart from its members.
@@Catholic-Perennialist Christ is the instantiation of the Church. Erring about what a heretic believed is different than proclaiming a false faith. Also, I reject the paradigmatic basis of the question whether the fathers, much less the human material of the Church, erred. It's another version of a straw man argument. We never said that the Church does not err. Note the verb used, err, meaning to be mistaken or incorrect. Applied to scripture, it would be a blasphemously devilish setup for those not sharp enough to dismiss a bad question. The Church, like the human words of Scripture, or the life of a saint depicts Christ, WHO is the way, the truth, and the life. In all my time with Greek and Syriac bible manuscripts, I have yet to meet one that did not err. Does the Bible depict the one who is the Truth? The Church is the covenant community who, from Sinai, through the Cross and Empty Tomb, down to this day incarnates Christ in its members. Does God use flawed material, fragile clay?
@@priestephraim I'm not talking about scripture erring. I'm simply drawing a conclusion from the premise of this video that an ecumenical council of the Orthodox Church can err concerning its condemnation of other Christians.
If this cannot be understood as the Church erring then I must also conclude that the Church cannot be found on earth.
@@Catholic-Perennialist Of course any human being can make mistakes. Setting up a belief system that makes humans unable to err is a delusion. In Classic Christian literature (first millennium), I have never seen anyone argue for a mechanism by which the human capacity to make mistakes is disconnected somehow. I mention Scripture because the principle also applies here. Nothing in the faith exists that would prevent Moses from failing a biology exam or miscalculating long division. There was no magic spell-check to prevent him from misplacing a letter as he wrote. Nor was his knowledge of the facts here on earth free from human perspective, which includes a capacity to err. However, he received a divine revelation of Truth, not of earthly facts, but of eternal Truth. And if this can be said about Moses, the foundation of the faith in the promised Messiah to the Covenant Community at Sinai (ʿedāh/ʿedtā), then all those events fulfilling God's covenant with his people (Messiah and his death, resurrection, and coming back) also are revealed in human terms. Such human terms are but the matrix upon which the Truth is impressed, like how neither the board of an icon nor the paint are Christ, but the image depicted thereupon certainly is. On Earth? The Church exists on earth relatively and conditionally: "Let thy will be done upon Earth as it is in Heaven." Obviously, the Church exists as our human manifestation in space and time of that participation in the eternal and true Church, which is Christ Fully God and Fully man, along with all those many saints forming shoots of the one true vine. I really don't get the 'erring' language though. Seems very strange and troublesome.
What is the difference between what you're saying and the Anglican branch theory?
Man...tempting me to make a video to reply to this. Basically, Anglicans have a top-down Church. I base my assertions upon the idea that you are baptized into a tradition, and are its heir. We do not have a magisterium but shepherds who, as judges, keep custody over a Sacred Tradition. They are not legislators, but as judges.
@@AssyrianFaithplease do a video on this. its a topic that must be addressed. what happens when these judges are corrupt or even heretical? what of the schisms?
so does the Assyrian Church of the East affirm two natures one person like miaphysitism?
one-subject or two-subject… i’m confused
Church of the East texts describe Christ as one divine person, two existing natures, divine and human. My summation of the teaching: Who is he? God the Son incarnate=Jesus Christ What is he? Truly God and Truly Man. Natures, even qnome, cannot 'do'; they do not have agency. A qnoma is that by which one has agency. My will to respond and type right now is the will of my person (parsupa), but that I have a will is because I am an existence (qnoma) of human nature (kyana). In Christ there can be only one subject. That is the teaching.
@@AssyrianFaith so Jesus per the ACOE had two qnome and two kyane, one hypostasis and one parsopa?
but if he had two qnoma, wouldn’t that mean he had two existences or wills? or just one existence and will in the hypostasis? thank you for answering these
@@blade7506 For both divine and human natures, qnoma (existence) is the existence of a willing intellect. A divine willing intellect is a divine nature. A human willing intellect is a human nature. So Christ has at the level of qnoma two wills according to two natures, but one will at the level of person. According to 'what' he is, Christ has two wills. According to 'who' he is Christ has one will. Another way to say this is that Christ's human will always submits to his divine will and so there is only once active will in Christ. Maximus and Babai are congruent on this point.
I've heard that The Church of the East offers the Lord's Supper with Holy Leaven to anyone who is baptized and has made a good confession to the priest, regardless of fellowship with other Churches or 'christian' communities. Is this true, or must one convert in order to partake, as in RCC, EO, OO churches?
The Church of the east offers communion to anyone who is baptised and upholds the apostolic faith which is Catholic and Orthodox and all their branches, God bless
Thank you,@@attreeskhon6916. What about Anglicans and Lutherans who affirm that the true body and blood are distributed in the sacrament?
@@Mygoalwogel I assume we only offer it to our Catholic and Orthodox brethren, i know we don’t offer it to protestants who perceive it as symbolic but I wouldn’t be too sure about Protestant branches that believe the True presence of christ is present in the Eucharist
@@attreeskhon6916 Thanks. The peace of the Lord be with you.
@@Mygoalwogel and with you too brother
Father, in Syriac Orthodox, one nature refers that, the human and divine nature of Christ are not seperated. So both natures unite as the St.Severious proved.
Thats not being monophysite, which is a wrong understanding, it's miaphysite.
Shlama akhony.
The biggest issue or politics 2day with ACOE is with their brothers the Chaldean Catholic church. I know they r under Rome but this is where our issues 2day start apart from the western church. As we r from 1 church b4 our split which our ppl hav either been Assyrian or Chaldean. When we r talking in our churches 2day its always Chaldean church or Assyrian church of the east. Never Syriac orthodox
Thats the problem: "what was born of Mary" was an divine person, no one is mother of an nature, our mother are not mothers of our body only (because soul is infused by God), they are mother of a person, what was born of Mary was a divine person that had 2 natures united without mixture.
"What died on the cross"? A person! Not a thing (or nature)! He has human and divine natures, being a divine person! So there is only one kind of question: WHO was born of Mary, and Who was killed on the cross? The only answer is: God incarnate. Thats why Mary is Theotokos, and thats why we can say without a blush that God was crucified for us! The same way that we can say that God spoke with the apostles in the gospels.
So the way you formulate those questions is as inapropriate as your own example of the husband and the chicken.
The 7 Ecumenical councils decided definitely on the question of Christ’s nature! If you deny the grace that the All-Holy Spirit expressed through the 7 Ecumenical councils - expressing and clarifying the truth - then you are a Protestant!
Wait, councils 'decide' the question of Christ's nature? Councils are a human event that hopes to guard a mystery (Trinity, Incarnation, etc) by rejecting false simplifications (Arianism, etc). The point of my video is that councils, like everything human, are meant to be studied and understood critically (not cynically) so as to properly understand what is helpful and what is problematic in them. They are not the truth in itself. That is Christ, who is God from God, eternally with the Father, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Of course, Ecumenical Councils need to be taken seriously, and should never be dismissed or treated to cynicism. That is also wrong as they are human and material bedrock of Christian unity. Also, "Christ's nature" implies only one nature, but that's not what the 7 councils stated.
If you do not take the ecumenical councils as led by the Holy Spirit, and if they can go astray, by what metric can we have a justification of any beliefs? Or are we just subject to academic critiques and critiques of critiques until the cows come home? The reason the church exists is so that a normative authority can have a objective ruling on truth. Without such an authority we are left with knowledge being an impossibility, much like protestants.
Councils are certainly led by the Holy Spirit. But they are not mechanically possessed such as to be free from human reality. Discernment, really a proper intention, is needed in any approach to the sacred. Certainly, I do not advocate mocking or belittling the fathers. If there was an argument that sought the destruction of the other, even a little bit, rather than the salvation of the opponent, then there was human sinfulness at work. This does not preclude the Spirit working in the Church. But it also does not preclude thinking through our faith, with faith and love. The fathers lived in a fallen world much like us and I increasingly believe that what divided fathers such as Theodore, Cyril, Nestorius, or Severus was not a lack of truth, but the limitations of human capacity to express divine things in human tongue combined with circumstances that did not encourage fruitful dialogue but hard decisions. Note that I am not saying that they all said the same thing or we shouldn't read them rigorously. Au contraire, I am advocating for vigorous reading of the fathers, teasing out the philosophical and theological structures.
@@AssyrianFaith
Father bless, I’m responding this this comment because of its recommendation to read vigorously the fathers.
I am Coptic Orthodox. I want nothing but relief that we all are Orthodox believing in the same thing. As I do indeed believe this of the Chalcedonian Orthodox, I also seek it in the Assyrian Church.
I also have a great respect for ancient liturgical traditions. And thus I do love the fact that you quote areas in your liturgy that does affirm an Orthodox understanding of Christ.
I do have a confusion on to how you place actions of Christian/Judaic behavior before identity of the Messiah, or as Christ asked the apostles “Who” do you say that I am? I think they’re both equally important. The Who is the structure of faith, and the actions and behavior is the function of faith, and any engineer will attest, structure and function is complimentary. I find that at the very least, St. Paul places an equal emphasis on both, and condemns any Judaizing tendencies (this is clear at least in the epistle to the Galatians) is a denial of Jesus as Christ, as Messiah.
More so, in the same vein, I am reading the the documents and proceedings of the Council of Ephesus 431, and I plan to read research about Mar Babai (and St. Isaac the Syrian). I have already read other things that give me pause, particularly of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia themselves and of Catholicos Timothy who condemned John Dalyatha. These things that give me pause is what exactly the Assyrian Church teaches. While I certainly stand with the Assyrian Church in empathy to the sufferings and persecutions she endured, as it echoes what my mother Coptic Church has endured, and as a result lead to the theological ignorance of some of my clergy that can be forgiven, I still stand with caution as I am reading these words that lead me to not be at ease with Nestorian terminology. Surely I am much more at ease with Chalcedonian theology, as I recognize my Miaphysite faith in it.
So I am stuck between two ends, wrestling with this issue. On one end, I recognize the Apostolicity of the Assyrian Church, and grace in her church that the Lord willed to give. On the other end, I also am ambivalent on some of the saints she venerates, and this is partially due to the fact that a lot more research, dialogue, and translation needs to be done.
I pray the Lord offers us a solution to my wrestling, which I am a sure I’m not alone in it.
Christ is risen!
Do assyrian church of the east teach Mary is not a God bearer?
The Church of the East confesses, and has always confessed, that the Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal Son and Word of God, and there was never even for a single moment a time when He wasn't God. So the Church of the East believes and has always believed that the Holy Mother Mary did carry God in her womb. It's the term itself "Theotokos" we don't use because it's not in our liturgical vocabulary and never was. If we were to start using it, it'll cause confusion due to the implication that she is was the source of His divinity. There may even be a risk of division due to many who would reject the use of strange and foreign word that's not of our tradition, especially since we're only just recovering from a major loss of tradition due to persecution.
No, you’re referring to Christokos vs Theotokos
Every church called us heretical for not “professing theotokos”, BUT we never denied theotokos, we had a problem with the linguistics of theotokos.
If by theotokos you mean Holy Mother Mary gave birth to Christ who is God, and she bore God because Christ is God; then we profess theotokos in that sense.
However, we believe theotokos can stir confusion, such as people taking it as Holy Mother Mary CREATING the divine nature, existing before the Godhead, and possibly even giving birth to the entirety of the Godhead since theotokos never makes clear which person of the holy Trinity.
We profess christokos in virtue that we make clear we are referring to the 2nd person of the holy Trinity, and she didn’t exist before the Godhead, or existed before Christ, since Christ who is fully man and fully God PRE-EXISTED eternally with the father and Holy Spirit since he is eternally begotten from the father, the father being the source of the Godhead.
We DO NOT profess christokos in the sense that we divide the kyana (natures) of Christ, or that Holy Mother Mary only gives birth to just the human nature and the divine nature comes at a later time like we have been accused of.
WE REACH THE SAME CONCLUSION OF EASTERN ORTHODOXY, however everyone has bashed us and refused to understand what we mean since our path may be different, but our conclusion is the same.
Bookmark 18:10
Encounter is not union nor one church.
The 41 min mark is almost blaspemous. Jesus and Paul didn't accept those doctrines because they were in the oral torah (which Jesus condemned in Matthew 15, Mt 23, and elsewhere). They simply accepted what was true from these sources.
What's the "Assyrian church"? It's called the Church of the East. It's not an ethnic church.
“Assyrian church of the east”