Aletheia is Greek for "Truth" and it’s what we explore in our regular meetings. ALL are welcome to attend our presentations on topics of interest (including: apologetics, philosophy, science, morality, contemporary issues, Orthodoxy, etc.) where an open discussion is encouraged. We regularly have attendees from various backgrounds, including atheists, various Christian denominations, various religions, and agnostics. This allows for a rich and edifying discussions as we respectfully challenge each other's points of view.
We also have special events including debates, panels, and special guests during the year - to find out more check out our Facebook page (facebook.com/Aletheia.Apologetics) and view our presentations and recordings
Why are some people so preoccupied with these 'chrch Fathers'! Jude, Jesus half brother said way back in 55AD "THE FAITH WAS DELIVERED ONCE FOR ALL TIME TO THE SAINTS" ( Jude 3) That being the case nearly all the apostles in thier epistles WARNED the brothers that there would arise in the congregations, clever men who would corrupt the true teachings & draew away discples after themselves' Please read Acts 20:28-30. I ttim 4:1,2. 2 Peter 2:1-3. 1 John 4:1. Sadly most 'orthodox' teachings fulfill these warnings! Reply
If Christ had to open up the Scriptures for people to see the Messiah, then how could the Israelites in the Old Covenant be saved? I thought for the a long time that they had to have faith in a future messiah (even though it wasn’t as clear as it was for us) to be saved (and Scripture was sufficient in pointing them Christ). So without Christ opening up the Scriptures for them were they just destined for hell or saved in another way? This is a genuine question.
Marker 1:02:16 Also, they have the Holy Spirit dwelling in their hearts guiding, teaching and counseling them-revealing the truths of scripture and the events they experienced.
Interesting talk. I don't think you can do math though. If you are objectively looking at numbers of Christians at the time of Chalcedon, you should use statistics of communities from that period, not merely subtracting slavs from current EO totals, whilst maintaining your current totals. This is a misrepresentation. Also, you would need to include all Christian communities who remained in communion opposing the smaller non Chalcedonian communities. This essentially includes all of the Roman world stretching across Europe and North Africa
This isn’t how to navigate Chalcedon from an OO perspective. This is how to sympathize with the Chalcedonian position. Flavian wrote a letter to Leo several months after Chalcedon and doesn’t mention being beaten; St. Cyril is recorded to have reconciled with St. John Chrysostom and using Socrates as a source needs to be premised with the fact that he was very anti-Cyrillian (this is the guy who, in slander, loosely ties Cyril to Hypatia); Dioscorus deposed Flavian because he also pushed a 2 nature formula at the home synod of 448; saying the miaphysis formula is an Appolinarian forgery is from Chalcedonian sources over 100 years after Ephesus I dogmatized the one composite nature formula especially with the Theodotus homilies and Gregory Nazianzus letter to Cledonius; the ACOE venerate Theodore of Mopsuesta, Theodoret, and Nestorius so that’s a big problem for obvious reasons of dividing Christ (just go read their writings). Well Michael, you did say you will anger your own people😂! Hopefully this one doesn’t get put in front of the synod habiby. Honestly, this talk is a tragedy of ignorance because you rely too heavily on biased Chalcedonian sources.
“You search the scriptures because in them you think you have eternal life. But they testify of Me, but you do not come to me.” It’s all about the Lord Jesus. All glory to Him.
I think we take for granted this idea that the quotes Cyril has are Apollinarian forgeries. There is no proof other than a bunch of Chalcedonians in the sixth century claim so. It’s one of those things I’m beginning to believe is a false accusation.
Bless us Father John. I'm sure you may never see this but thank you for opening the Scriptures and handing down the Tradition, the Way. Yeshua Christos. Thank you for blessing us Father John.
Why omit "for our sins" from the 1 Corinthians 15 quote about Christ having died? There seems to be modernist Eastern Orthodox resistance to that truth of Christ's sacrifice.
@@bman5257 I've just listened to lots of online Eastern Orthodox who denigrate the Biblical truth of Christ's sacrifice, which naturally makes me sensitive to the omission of crucial words (no pun intended).
The revelation (uncovering) that comes from the Scripture through the anointing (1 John 2:27) that is within versus the creation of it on the outside through symbolisms and sacraments. So people who don’t get by revelation within, get it from the outside to the inside. It seems like!
The high priests of Organized religion went backstage, changed their garments from priestly robes, & came back wearing suits (bankers & industrialists) & white coats (scientists/researchers/doctors). Your new religion is Science. It's the same people.
One wonders why it should be so bewilderingly complicated. Imagine that you are a first century Jew who has not encountered the risen Christ: how are you going think about Christian claims that Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, was/is the Messiah? You are going to think that they are obviously mistaken and probably persecute them. It was thus inevitable that the Jews would reject Christ- at least those who had not encountered the risen lord.
He actually was accepted by a LOT of Jews. In fact, many Palestinians today have DNA that shows they are from that region for at least since the Canaanites. Which would indicate their ancestors were Jews who converted to Christ and their faith was more important than their "jewishness"
@@bellingdogthis makes no sense. Christ was the fulfilment of their Jewishness. Converting to Christ as a method of moving away from their Judaism would have made no sense to them
@@nathanjohnwade2289 That's the lie of the monophysytes to justify their heresies. Chalcedonians have condemned nestorianism, that's an insult to claim they are nestorians, nestorians don't agree and are not in communion, they believe two persons, dio/mia is two essences, not two person . diophysis is miaphysis in essence, as Chelcedon 2 affirms, it is just detailed in Chalcedon - the meaning of miaphysis, the term dio is later introduces to contrast with mono. Those that don't accept chalcedon don't affirm miaphysis in fullness and are this way in communion with monophysites ! So you are either dio or mono, mia is another name for dio, as Chalcedon 2 clarifies it ! Including the sixth council, that affirms St Cyril again, reaffirming miaphysis includes the essences, that don't mingle and are two , not one ! Those that don't believe the essence don't believe the Trinity , and lie being miaphysites, if they believe the essence as part of the miaphysite definition, they must affirm two essences otherwise they are monophysites !
Miaphysites are often labelled Monophysites by Chalchedonians, a label that they reject, basing their theology on the formula of Cyril of Alexandria that spoke of mia (one) physis, not of a mone (lone) physis. this is directly from wikipedia and the basic thing anyone should know. For an explanation please watch the video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JLCzWmg0RSE.html
The History, Theology, and Spirituality of the Coptic Orthodox Church (w/ Fr. Anthony Mourad) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--GKS8g39qdE.html
We are not Monophysite If you call us Monophysite so you give us the right to call you nestorian!! We are not We are Miaphysite Read and learn what our pop Cyril said
All Oriental Orthodox Churches reject Nestorianism, was denounced in the Council of Ephesus(431AD). The rift between the OO and EO is that the former find elements of Nestorianism in Chalcedon while EO affirms not Nestorianism but the dual natures of Christ in Chalcedon. OO uses 3 fingers in making the sign of the Cross. Trinity. EO uses 2 fingers in making the sign of the Cross. Dual Nature of Christ.
If atheism is the default position, that means that naive naturalism is the default philosophy. This is that everything 'just is'. There is no reliable causality...that's a Christian theist legacy, there's no purpose in life...even if you make one up, there is no purpose...that's a Christian theist legacy. There is no point in studying the universe...it 'just is'. Rational curiosity is a Christian theist legacy. All you are left with is a dumb collection of deteminist molecules not sure of what they are or what they are doing, unable to entertain real awe, beauty or genuine discussion, as everything is just determined molecules.
I’m sorry I don’t choose to believe in something or disbelieve in something I find to have a more positive or negative outcome. I believe in things that can be proven or demonstrated. I don’t rely on comforting fictions.
If you can compare the Holy One of Israel to the trinity gods of the heathen, you are engaging in making your own gods from your own heart. God already said He alone is God with no trinities of any other number of gods beside Him. Why do you presume to make polytheistic gods in your own image? Why can you not believe Him?
False dichotomy after false dichotomy fill this forum and were it not for the foundation of Christ and the following of the teachings of the apostles and the prophets found in the scriptures, this is what the world would be left with in regards to the church.
Yes it is. When a claim is made without sufficient evidence to support that claim the default position is disbelief. It’s the same thing in court the court has to prove guilt you don’t have to prove innocence that’s the default position. The claim is that a god exist I don’t believe that claim because of a lack of evidence. If someone told me there are no such thing as a god. That’s another claim I would also disbelieve that claim as well until sufficient evidence supports that claim. How is this so hard to understand???
This was painful to watch. So first they won't agree on the definition of atheism. Those arguing for the question define atheism as non belief. Pretty simple until those arguing against the question throw out that definition and try to substitute their own. By turning atheism into anti-theism you change the whole debate. Well, this is a philosophy debate so we use the precise definitions of the words, not some random popular definition. An atheist is not anti-theist. Atheist is clearly the default position, both sides agree on that, they only disagree on what the word atheist means. After that they ramble off into a bunch of subjects and never actually address the question and all of them turn out looking like buffoons.
Hilarious, should we have a debate next on whether the disbelief in leprechauns is the default position? Disbelief is the default position to any and every unsubstantiated and/or extraordinary claim.
Expert Opinion, your wording confuses me, Atheism is only a disbelief in deities, not an absence of any belief. In which, I agree, if there are atheists out there claiming with absolute certainty that gods do not exist, they do have the burden of proof to validate that claim. Still, this has nothing to do with the debate itself. The question is, "Is atheism the default position?" Not "Is certainty or uncertainty the default claim to knowledge on the position of a deity's existence?" Perhaps, the opposition against atheism being the default position should have reworded the question beforehand because as the question stands it isn't conjectured.
Expert Opinion, all of those subsets are in agreement, they all disbelieve in deities. The default position is disbelief, which in the case of deities is atheism.
good reinforcement of humility. the sermon was really planned well and stuck to the main points. my preferred type of preaching. im surprised this doesn't have more exposure. is this Catholic church? in your question service - you fail to use a definition of pride to help answer your questions. Ephesians 2:8 and 9 say:we are saved by grace, through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God lest anyone should boast. everything we have is from God. so prideful patriotism is sinful prideful fanatics sinful Mohammed ali's pride in being the best - sin. when all thanks is given tp the LORD, it is righteous. thankful to be in a great country thankful the LORD let my team win thankful God statistically made me the greatest. but even in Ali's case, he would have to presume the LORD never made anyone greater. Which he simply could not do. There surely could have been a God made, better pugilist. Pride is us forgetting that God is #1 and all we have is from Him amd Him alone. redefine pride to your congregation, and use your definition to answer their questions.. make sure yiur definition is derived from inspired word.
