Thank you, you are the only lecturer who explains this in a way where I can fully grasp it. You sir have a gift of making sense topics where other scholars have tremendous difficulty in teaching it to others. I listened to all your other lectures and really learned so much and in a clear sense from your teachings. I can't thank you enough, wish I had you as a teacher long ago, God love you,,,
Actually he didn't explained anything Everything for him that deny incarnation is a heresy, Aruis for him is heretic same is Nestoruis.. All the true believers that Jesus is a prophet from Allah is Heretic.. If there is 3 in 1 how can they manage to get along to manage the universe.. They must set in a table to discuss opinions If you know really what are you talking about, you should awear of what Allah said about whome misguide in purpose his creations And of you are not awear yet, you should stop and think frankly with your self about the doubts in your heart My Allah have mercy on us and guide us throw the right path
Our Bishop taught us as the following. Jesus Christ is 1 Person, who is made up of 2 Natures/'Kyane' (Human & Divine) who FUSED together (NOT mingled/mixed together). The reason we say this is because each Nature has its own Characteristics/'Qnome'. For example, the Divine Nature of Christ gave Jesus Christ the power to perform miracles with only using words, also it is the Divine Nature of Christ which is why he became the sacrificial lamb for humanity's sins. The Human Nature of Christ is to explain the human characteristics which he still expressed, anger in the temple, remorse for the death of Lazarus, his cry out to the Father while on the cross. To be honest this always made more sense to me, because if Jesus Christ dies, how can someone who is Divine die like Humans do, but instead I assume his Human Nature died but his Divine Nature is everlasting.
I'm late to the party but thank you so much for these videos. Good, concise explanations on an interesting themes and well-edited to keep all the meat.
As a Protestant I love and appreciate your teaching on this ancient heresy and pray that my brothers and sisters from the church of the east can watch and accept this. Blessed be Mary the mother of God.
Your knowledge of subject and video teaching presentation is amazing ! Although when presenting the historical information wish you had included the Dates of the period(s) in history such as the years your speaking about. Helps put it all in context over time.
@@Jerry_M_Joseph if you can read I never said she wasn’t. You made up a title that’s nowhere in the Bible. Give me a chapter and verse where I’m supposed to call Mary by that title. The Bible says her name is Mary so I’m calling her Mary.
Perhaps the nature of Emmanuel is beyond our ability to fully comprehend. Like Paul said, "the one who thinks they know something does not yet know as they ought". What if we wrestled with both perspectives as imperfect reflections of a reality that we can't fully know yet and like Israel (Jacob wrestling the angel) find we are overwhelmed by the power of God?
Exactly, why would anyone trust the interpretation of someone who believes in the scientific impossibility of evolution or even space and the round Earth, they're nuts.
Please Correct me if i am wrong. The most fundamental law of science is the law of cause and effect and it says that "For every material effect we see there is a cause that came before it, or was simultaneous to it, and that is greater than it" The universe is a material effect, so what caused it? If you don't know of a creator then you have to suggest a 'singularity. That is what is popular today, the big bang. But when you get to the bottom of this, the so called scientific community answers us saying that something popped into existence from 'nothing'. The idea that something popped into existence from nothing is simply not a scientific idea bcoz then u have to answer the question where the matter came from and how it created itself and that opposes the first law of thermodynamics which states that matter cannot be creatednordestroyed. The fact that the universe is material effect enables us to know us to know that there's a supernatural creator that caused the universe. You are at the spot of a person who was asked if a book with chapters and ink and colour had a writer. And the person answered simply saying that the book popped from absolutely nothing which makes us wonder if the person is delusional. DNA is called the book of life and it is too complex to justhave popped from nothing. So is the universe, the stars, the sun, puppies, horses, kittens, trees and u and me too complex to just have came from nothing'. if that is not enough proof for you there is still more. Life demands a supernatural life giver. The material world we have came to understand that there is a law of biogenesis. It simply states that "In this material, natural world, life comes from previously existing life of it'sown kind". People used to think that life can arise spontaneously from non living chemicals. Yet every biological experiment has shown us that it is biologically impossible. Life doesn't arise from non living chemicals. From where did life arise? The idea that there is no God suggests to us that there had to be a singularity without a cause which exploded and that explosion brought about design which we have never seen happen and eventually non-living chemicals gave rise to life. But that is biologically impossible. Now the big problem evolutionists have is that they are finding a huge gap in the fossil records, in other words, when archaeologists dig up bones of this dead animals, they don't find this transitional forms that help one animal transform into another. And if you don't have this bones, you can't prove evolution ever happened .
That is what they are calling it the missing link and there is notjust one, they would have to be thousands and thousands of those transitional forms. The truth is, there aren't missing at all, they never existed in the first place. Now maybe you are saying, what about the proof? What about those science teachers that showed us the drawing of apes all haunched over then eventually straighten themselves up and becoming very man like? Well, remember those are just drawings, that's not proof. The real proof is in what we can find in the fossil record and that's what is missing, the actual proof. For instance, the amazing discovery of Lucy but now nearly all experts agree that Lucy was just the skeleton of a 3foot tall chimpanzee(Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis) or Nebraska man(Hesperopithecus Harold cookii) they created an entire skeleton with arms, legs, feet and even facial features when all they really had was one tooth which later was found to be the tooth of an extinctpig.Piltdown man (Eoanthropus dawsoni) The jaw bone turned out to belong to a modern ape. Neanderthal man(Homo Neanderthal census) whose famous skeleton found in France 50years ago was that of an old man who suffered from arthritis hardly scientific proof. If I can'tconvince you of how unscientific evolution is then maybe these experts can. The physical anthropologist and ananomist who wrote the forward to Darwin's origin of species 100th anniversary edition said," Evolution is unproved and unprovable, we believe it only bcoz the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable. Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955) British journalist and philosopher said,"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied will be one of the greatest jokes in history books ofthe future. A scientific method is based on the collection of data through observation andexperiment. "We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages" Charles Darwin. "We are condemned to live only for a few decades and that's too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on Richard Dawkins. The idea of evolution turns dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." And couldn't that simply be a good description of evolution......
Great information in your videos...Doing an awesome job of exposing evil, while giving good examples of how we should worship God (YHWH, Yahshua, And The Ruach) Thank you
Wow, thank you so much. Just noticed you did this 10 years ago! Well fortunately for me it's still here. I am working my way out of Calvinism and a friend said if you are a Calvinist you can slide into Nestorianism. What? I have to look that up and found you! So now I am going to look through your other videos.
@Ecclesia Bro Nonsense. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church are completely idolatrous and apostate. Both have corrupted the scriptures, the seminaries, our history, and our current world.
@@keithwhitlock726 that’s funny because st athanasius was the one who made the complete canon in the 4th century. I guess christ lied how the gates of hell won’t prevail in the church
@@darklord7069 Error lord. The Scriptures were readily available quickly after they were written. The Catholic and Greek church has done nothing but corrupt the text and it's history till this day.
@@keithwhitlock726 how is that even possible when hardly 5% of the population couldn’t read or write? You also fail to understand how there were councils like the council of Carthage on which to formulate standard canon. Finally, the idea of canon wasn’t a thing until the heretic marcion who formed the first canon and that is when the church decided to make a standard canon so that no one corrupts the scriptures. Your understanding of biblical canon has no merit
In fact, nobody ever practiced nostorianism as described by Cyril. About 150 years ago, the bazaar of heraclades became available again, which you can find online. In that nostorius in his own hand describes his own position. So in effect this is a heresy that never was
Main argument, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox-The Holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God, Theotokos, Mary, God Bearer vs Nestorianism, Christ Bearer. AD 431 Council of Ephesus. The Ephesians in the Bible.
You are somewhat correct. People don't have to emulate Jesus to be saved. Also, Theodore never taught what you are claiming, nor did he teach so called "Nestorianism." That was a strawman argument created by the Bishop of Alexandria for nothing other than political reasoning. He essentially didn't want the Bishopric based in Constantinople to be considered more "important" than his own, and needed a reason to knock him down.
I am fascinated by the Nestorian heresy because it is a heresy that survived all the way to today, within the Church of the East and later the Assyrian Church of The East. The Assyrian Church of the East is most likely misrepresented for actually being this Nestorian as Nestorianism. But likely less than that.
Mary indeed was the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ but not the mother of the person of the Father nor the mother of the person of the Holy Spirit. We need to be careful when we think of her as the Mother of God.
@@wattsobx because Mary was the mother of Jesus before he became divine a human being like all of us. God is Divine the one who made everything but to go to God we need to go through Jesus Christ.
He shall be born of a virgin..His name shall be EMMANUEL. GOD With Us. Mary is the Mother of God With Us EMMANUEL. Being born of a woman he got human nature and EMMANUEL God With Us he got divine nature.
That makes it sound as though Jesus became God in order to become a man. That is not true. The main question we should ask is how Jesus existed pre-incarnation, if the 2 natures are inseparable.
@@jesusheals3799 facts this is the issue: not if Jesus was divine and human but rather if he was always this way or only this way after the incarnation
So basically, the same thing happened to him that happened to Pelagius. Pelagius was never a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian; Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism were strawmen of what he actually taught (that we are all sinners by choice and inherit death from Adam rather than guilt). The Council of Ephesus was messed up in so many ways.
I'm not sure if he is referring to the Orthodox Church teaching. Rather, I think he is referring to orthodox in the sense of beeping faithful to Church teaching.
@Ecclesia Bro Your point being? We already know humans even inside the church can commit evil. Catholics and orthodox still are true in doctrine which is the only thing that matters. Orthodox and catholics are only seperated by pride.
@@arnoldmaglalang5522 Humans did not come from apes, it came from the evolution of primitive human species. The myth that humans evolved from apes is one of the most popularized and blatantly mistakes about evolution.
Why would we have to conform perfectly to divine will in order to saved simply because Jesus could and did ? Neither Nestorianism nor Orthodoxy teaches that salvation requires perfection (perfect obedience to God's will). So why apply a condition for salvation to Nestorianism that we don't apply to Orthodoxy. I'm not supporting Nestorianism. Just trying to understand.
Okay, I'm confused, how can you acknowledge Nesotrious was slandered but still think this is what Theodore taught? He was slandered by Justinian during the Three Chapter controversy same as Nestorius was by Cyril. If anything Nesotrius did in fact come closer to teaching what your saying then Theodore did. Most Christians we in the west call "Nestorian" don't believe anything like what was condemned at Ephesus. You're basically defining Nesotrianism as a from of Adoptionism and that wasn't taught by any of the Antiochians. Both Theodore ad Isaac of Nineveh taught Universal Salvation, so they certainly can't be accused of thinking Salvation was by Works. Calling Mary the Mother of God quasi deifies her and that is Idolatry. Ya know, the Cahlcedonian vs Nesotiran vs Miasphyte controversy is the one issue I never see anyone on RU-vid try to settle using Scripture, what does Scripture say about this issue? It certain never call Mary Theotokos.
The issue is that Scripture supports all three views. All the camps used Scripture. That meant that they needed to look at Scripture through the lens of the Church Fathers, just as they had done on other doctrines. The issue was that the Syriac Fathers had used different terminology in Syriac for nature and substance, and the old Fathers had not really settled these terms yet. The Scriptures name all three words: ousia (substance), hypostasis (person) and prosopon. The council of Chalcedon tried to settle the terminology but came off as Nestorian to the churches of Antioch and Alexandria, and thus the Schism was initiated. You cannot really talk about two wills of Christ without starting to hint towards two Christs, which is heresy. Somehow, the miaphysites consider monotheletism heresy while claiming the incarnate Logos had only one nature, which essentially means that they and the Chalcedonians have believed the same thing for 1600 years and just used different wordings for it all.
The Assyrian Church of the East is definitely not Nestorian. They honor Nestorius in their liturgy and they have often been labeled as Nestorian throughout church history but they aren't Nestorian in the proper sense of the term. A big part of the problem has to do with differences in language and the meaning of the terminology. The theological language used in the Roman Empire for christological formulations was primarily Greek. The Church of the East is Syriac. The Church of the East says that Jesus has two kyane, two qnome, but one prosopon. Kyane means "natures" while prosopon, a loanword from Greek, means "person". Qnome has often been understood outside the Church of the East to mean "persons", equivalent to the word hypostases "persons". If that's the case, it would sound a lot like Nestorianism. But the Church of the East understands the word qnome to mean "distinct sets of attributes", which is totally different and is completely orthodox. They still don't like to refer to Mary as the Theotokos ("God-bearer") because it's not part of their tradition and because it's open to being misunderstood. But they are fine with others using the term as long as it is understood properly. Scholars who deal with the Church of the East and Syriac studies in general don't use the term "Nestorian" to describe the Church of the East anymore because it isn't accurate.
Nestorianism seems like the most reasonable explanation to me by far, and beyond that better accounts for the biblical data. Jesus uttered on the night before his death that he wished for the "cup" to be taken away from him. And yet, Jesus said "not as I will, but as you (God) will it." That doesn't appear to be something a Godman as explained here would say. That Jesus has two natures united by his perfect will, seems to fit another passage from the writings of the Apostle Paul, where he calls Christ the "second Adam." The purpose of human creation, according to Genesis is to bring the likeness or icon of God into the world, to rule it justly and with compassion. The first Adam sinned and fell away, no longer containing the perfect image of His Creator. Jesus, as the second Adam succeeded. Jesus is two natures in a single Person for precisely this reason: the will and personhood of Jesus the man perfectly molded to the eternal will and personhood of the Word of God. To take that further from biblical data alone is to distort or engage in mental gymnastics to get the bible to say what you want it to.
Nestorianism doesn't deny the deity of Jesus, it simply disagrees with the Oriental Orthodox belief that Jesus is two natures (human and divine) united in one, new nature (the God-man) today known as Monophysitism. It is far closer to the Chalcedonian definition of the two natures of Christ, but since the Council of Chalcedon was more about establishing agreement than intellectual rigor the Nestorian position disagrees on certain (albeit smaller) points. The first and most important is that there is a real and abiding distinction between Christ's two natures, which at first blush is quite similar to the Chalcedonian Creed. The (real) point of disagreement between Chalcedonian churches and Nestorian churches revolves around how those two eternally distinct but at the same eternally inseparable natures come together into the one Person of Jesus Christ.
He did, because he felt this could be misconstrued as the divine nature had a mother. We have to remember in his day most people were illiterate, and the remnants of paganism still clung to the popular conception of religion. He felt that as the clergy was to serve even the least of the church, the church's message should as far as possible be easy to comprehend without an extensive education afforded to only the wealthy few. There is not necessarily anything wrong with the term in his eyes, he simply feared it would be misunderstood by the larger community of Christians.
As a member of the Assyrian church of the east (Nestorius) I find this video to be poor when defining Nestorianism. This video does not even scratch the surface of Nestorianism. HOW CAN GOD BLEED? HOW CAN GOD DIE? GOD IS TOO PERFECT TO FEEL PAIN OR FOR PAIN TO BE INFLICTED ON HIM. Nearly every country has an Assyrian/Nestorius church, don’t just watch videos, come and talk to us so we can explain our faith to you. We sacrificed millions for this faith. Come are doors are open we will not turn you away. Let our differences unite us together and not push us apart. God Bless You All.
Frank there is no such this as nestorianism. We are Assyrian Christians that simply just defended his teachings. And now our church as been labeled as a nestorian church. This is false.
@@qasofugo2477 Yes, absolutely. It is recited every Sunday at Mass and at morning and evening prayers. The Assyrian Church was present at the time when the Nicene Creed was adopted in 325. Here is a link to Assyrian Church of the East Nicene Creed www.assyrianchurch.org.au/about-us/faith/creed-of-nicaea/
@@698eer thank you for the reply. Does the church recite including the Catholic addition..."...and the Son"? And my other question is: I deduce from your answer that the Assyrian church affirms that the Son is co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Is there any moment that the Son was not God in the Assyrian church's belief?
Sorry! Disregard the first question. I browsed to the link after I commented. I did see your church's Nicene creed does not include the Catholic addition.
I would have to admit if I were a Christian that the Nestorian position is more logical. The Church of the East more closely mirrors what the early Christain groups would have practiced. One would have to adopt the teachings of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria as the most authentic representative of the teachings of Jesus.
+Tarragon Mugwort is right. jesus could have sinned if he wanted to. Else you would be saying that Jesus had no free will, the thing God himself is so proud to have given all humans including Jesus. Else there it be no point in sending Jesus as a human if he is not human at all. You cannot call yourself a human if you do not have the free will(a choice), otherwise you would be a robot. Jesus himself admits it at the mount of olives that he has a will and god has one. Clearly Nestorianism makes more sens.
This is a false narrative. That these heresies were the “original” beliefs of wary Christianity. That is 100% not true. Imagine a building. And in that building there are 10,000 people. Of those 10,000 people, 9,000 agree to something. But they don’t openly explain there belief. Instead they just do what their belief tells them to do. Of those 1,000 that do not believe in what the 9,000 believe in, 500 of them believe in something else. But they, feeling differently, do openly explain why they are different… instead of just practicing said beliefs, they practice explaining why they are different. Well that’s exactly how it was/ the consensus was what the Catholic Church taught. Jesus was Gods word made fresh, hence God. This idea that Jesus was not God was only believed by a small percentage of Christian’s. And instead of having many sects, they were deemed heretics. So they wouldn’t spread false teachings.
This was great, thank you. I have one comment though, around 5:40 you begin to describe our ontological humanity. You made a claim that we are given this "being" from God, "mediated through billions of years of evolution..." How are you reconciling the creation account given in Genesis, and a cosmology that is billions of years?
Agreed. That comment came way out of nowhere. Are we continually evolving into something that, in time (“billions of years”), won’t have any connection or relationship to Christ?
@@jacobraji2442 Lol, but show us the error of Nestorius christology; other than saying that the Holy Spirit leading the council is the one who decided it. Catholics acknowledge councils can error in facts, but not in cannon in creed. Orientals justify Nestorius condemnation by saying Cyril condemned dyophositism. As long as you are an orthobro, you have no justification against the condemnation of Nestorius, because the false christology that is attributed to him, is in error. Did the Holy Spirit lead an error against Nestorius?
@@AryaXVII Nestorius wasn't a nestorian (as nestorianism is defined in the council)- the council condemned nestorianism correctly (there is only one person of Christ not 2 Christs), but Nestorius himself did not hold this view and most likely should not have been exiled for what he didn't hold to.
I think part of the problem with your presentation, which was pretty good, is that the Aramaic view of nature and what nature is is a little bit different than the Greek view. View. So the Aramaic view is is that things can have their own nature, not just part of a class. So you have two red apples? They're both part of the class of red apples and therefore they have the nature of red apples. But the two apples are not identical, so each Apple can have its own nature. That nature is specific to that Apple. So this actually applies to Theodore's discussions on part of this as well as some other things. Calling Mary, the Theo tocos is considered to be kind of a fallacy since while Jesus is God, he is not the Trinity, and he is not eternally begotten of the mother. So she is a vessel and a handmaiden but she is not the source of God, so in one of the catechisms it says this would make her the mother of the father in Jesus would be her grandson, not her son
If you can’t accept the scholarly consensus, then that’s on you. There’s even scholarly work on Cyril being involved in bribery. Unless you are a Catholic or oriental orthodoxy; you have no justification to accept Ephesus and Cyril. The Catholics say councils can error in facts, but not cannon and creed; and the orientals say Cyril condemned dyophositism. As far as I see it, you being an orthodox, who believes councils can’t error whatsoever; you lack justification for the corruption that took place against Nestorius.
Does a father have to approve of everything his son does to accept him? God loves all people and accepts them unconditionally, but that does not mean he approves of what they do. The fire of Hell burns with God’s love.
Dr Ramon, sorry to say you need to re think of what are you saying. Saint Nestor is far from heresy. when you take oblation is it God's body and Blood?
In order to defend Nestorius this guy slandered the church father Cyril of Alexandria and called him a crack?!! 0:53 This is ridiculous. Cyril is considered a saint by the Catholic and Coptic orthodox churches. So to reduce the issue by calling st.Cyril a crack and not further elaborate on the matter is very unscientific way of presenting things. Thumb down for this video
That is Theotokos Christotokos (Nestorianism) is that she is only mother too human Jesus and God thr Son is likely an another person that came upon him and they together formed Christ
@@DefenderOfChrist_ That’s not what that is, the scholarly consensus is that Nestorius is not a Nestorian. Christokos, which Nestorius makes clear what it is in his letter to Saint John of Antioch; makes known the union of both the natures. The name Christ means anointed one, but the Antioch formula took Christ name to “denote” God-Man. However, he’s God-man because there is an inseparable union of the natures. So when Nestorius would bring forth “Christokos”, it was an alternative middle ground between those who professed “mother of man” and “mother of god”. Christ = the inseparable union of natures Christokos = the blessed virgin is the mother of god the word with an inseparable union of the divine nature. He himself has denied that there is 2 persons in Christ; it’s all in the surviving fragments and book that we have of him today that’s been preserved. If christokos truly means to only bear the humanity of Christ, or only focuses on the man part of Jesus; then what the hell is anthropotokos for? Anthropotokos (man-bearer).
where did you get the idea that we have to be perfect models of christ to be saved? God has no begining and no ending and no mother except in paganism. mary was the mother of the MAN Jesus. she also needed a savior. "when the blind lead the blind they will both fall into the pit" "come out of her my children or share in her affliction"
At this moment I think; God decides if a man is sinless - not man (a calvinistic view). Jesus was sinless because God made him be sinless. I think nestorianism is right; Maria is not mother of God and Jesus is not schizo when he talks to his=our Father. I think he was given his fate and divinity from God. I think he was in complete co-understanding with God. The deeming human behaviour in those councils just shows how evil people are. God should be let to decide - not councils ex-communicating..../We think that humans have so much power in choices but we dont.
When you say that "he was given his fate and divinity from God" you're getting very close to the heresy of Adoptionism. The Father did not make Jesus sinless, because Jesus is fully divine and therefore sinless by definition. If you are Christian you believe that Jesus was with the Father in the Beginning and has always been God. To cite the Nicene Creed: "natum non factum". Born, not created. This is also why the Title of Theotokos (Godbearer/Mother of God) is christologically correct: Mary was Jesus mother. Jesus is fully God. Mary is the mother of God. This does not mean that she existed before God, it means that she gave birth to the Godman Jesus Christ. "These councils" were guided by the holy spirit to warn against and condemn heresies, so that many souls were saved.
when the clergy was burning people for having a different opinion, were they become more like Jesus, or less like Jesus? more perfect in god's eyes, or less perfect?
God has no mother. God is infinite. If Jesus is God and human, his Divinity has to be pre existent. But in my opinion from reading the Bible, Jesus is a man of God, not a man who is God.
You know how humanity has moved forward into 21st century, naturally the way of thinking in the year 400s vs 2018 will be so different. People nowadays think differently, so i have to say nestorianism is more logical, even arianism would present nowadays thinking. Holding athanasian thinking is good but as we can see many christians are perhaps not leaving but trying to bridge relevance of the Trinity doctrin. So some of us hold nestorian approach in a non nesto world... we love christianity but i think christianism spirituality needs to be relevance...
God has no mother for God was God before the world started before Mary existed before the Orthodox & Catholic Church ever existed. Our God and your God are totally different. If Jesus was 50% man 50% God, did God die for 3 day? Man go back to the scriptures and ask God to reveal the truth for you as you’re lost. The Assyrian Church of the East was the first church to put such teaching in place and it was the biggest evangelical church ever before the Catholics & Orthodox sneaked into it and started changing its people. You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.
No one believes that Jesus is 50% man 50% God. He's not a tshirt. He's 100% man and 100% God. God the Father did not die on the cross. The Son died went to raise the dead and came back to life. I recommend you to check out the scriptures specially St John 1 and St Luke 1.
I am sympathetic to Nestorianism so I will explain this as simply as possible. Explaining Nestoriaism using the word "nature" is misleading. Nestorianism simply means that in the body of Christ there were two persons - human Jesus Christ(the assumed man) and Word of God(God the Son), who by His good will and pleasure decided to enter the body of Jesus Christ. So in very simple words - there were two persons in one body, sometimes God spoke from that mouth, sometimes man. And according to Theodore of Mopsuestia God shared his glory with the human He assumed(decided to dwell in). So for God it is already degrading to say He suffered and died, especially when He didn't. It was another person, Jesus Christ who suffered and God the Son accepted this saying(suffering and dying) to be said of him as well. This is Communicatio Idiomatum - Sharing of Idioms(Just as "son of man who is in heaven", when he isn't. So God gave human Christ a chance to say that of himself too). Bible says that Christ improved, learned obedience and etc. For Theodore Christ had to be fully free as a human so that him conquering sin would be an example for us. God leading a sinless life is no big deal, so what? St. Cyril of Alexandria(even though he made many wrong things during his life) was quite correct to attack the doctrine on this issue: If Christ is a separate man, then we have fourth person to venerate apart from Trinity. :)
God and Man are two natures in Christ. Fullness of mystery of incarnation exists in the term Christ. Jesus is not God only or Man only. He is Christ who is fully God and fully human. Jesus have two births. One in the divinuty, in the beginning, before all ages from the father without a mother. Second as a human from the Holy Virgin Mary without a Father. Mary doesn't have any role in Divine origin of Jesus ( which happened in eternity before all ages and before creation of everything ). So it is improper to call Holy Virgin Mary as mother of God. God and Fully human. Mary doesn't have any role in Divine origin of Jesus ( which happened in eternity before all ages and before creation of everything ). So it is improper to call Holy Virgin Mary as mother of God. The Theology of the Church of the East has been stated briefly and clearly in the following “Hymn of Praise (TESHBOKHTA)” Composed by Mar Babai the Great in the sixth century A.D., a noted theologian of the Church One is Christ the Son of God, Worshiped by all in two natures; In His Godhead begotten of the Father, Without beginning before all time; In His humanity born of Mary, In the fullness of time, in a body united; Neither His Godhead is of the nature of the mother, Nor His humanity of the nature of the Father; The natures are preserved in their Qnumas, In one person of one Sonship. And as the Godhead is three substances in one nature, Likewise the Sonship of the Son is in two natures, one person. So the Holy Church has taught., Mary concieved Jesus not in a disunited way. His divinity and humanity were not seperated during incarnation. Mary concieved Jesus in an united nature. Term Christ is the biblical term used to addres the incarnated Jesus. So Mary is mother of Christ. Calling her Mother of God or Mother of Man is actually seperating the divinity and humanity of Jesus. Mother of Christ is the proper term for addressing Mary because it contains fullness of Truth of Incarnation. Jesus is Christ who is fully God and Fully Human. He is not God only or Man only.
Now here is a man who knows what he's talking about. How familiar are you with the Church of the East, my friend? You mentioned the two births of Christ. The Ethiopian Church has officially condemned the heresy of the Three Births which teaches that Christ was born again a third time in baptism. Do you know whether the Church of the East (or any other Church) has also condemned that heresy? As far as I'm aware, it developed in Ethiopia and never spread anywhere else.
@@Ggdivhjkjl Who is teaching about three births. Two births of Jesus are mentioned in Bible. One from father before all ages, before all creation. Second birth is from the Mary, as a man in time. Likewise each Christian is also twice born. But in an inverse manner of what happened to Jesus. We are Born into earthly life from our parents as a man. Then we are born into spiritual life through baptism.
This lecture is 'probably' wrong, because you generalized humans as sinners. All of them. Well, a newborn is sinless, and if dies immediately then receives salvation. Please, do not generalize.
father take away the cup from me the will of son differs from the father the son (divine and man) will to not die for sin of man the father will to give cup of death to jesus the son accept the will of father the nestorianism can explain the the man jesus dont want to die but the divine jesus want to die as the man jesus freely have will like devine jesus have will freely therefore there can be interpretation that its the man jesus pray to father not to die and devine jesus want to . the athanasious believe make christianity absurd as the divine and man jesus are in hypostatic union they have one will there cant be one time man jesus talk, another time devine jesus talk therefore the will of devine and man jesus not to die for mankind but it prefer to oblige the will of father. the Nestorianism the herecies seems rescue christianity but it also not because as it contradict the sentence too because the will of son is not to die at first here the son include the man jesus and devine jesus therefore nestorian christian cant say its not the will of devine jesus rather the will of man jesus.that means man jesus in prayer took control.
@@DefenderOfChrist_ You are both mistaken cause Nestorianism as written in the council of Ephesus states that Nestorianism isn't the separation of persons ie, there being 2 persons in Christ but rather that no one can say 2 natures in Christ after the union.
@@Yoseph-tr5bx Nestorianism is the separating between Jesus’ humanity and his divinity, and that basically Mary only gave birth to human Jesus and not God incarnated, and then God the Son came upon human Jesus so it is basically 2 different people. It is heresy.
@@DefenderOfChrist_ That is what is taught in protestant, catholicism and eastern orthodoxy but if you read the sessions of Ephesus and you will understand that St.Cyril defined nestorianism as saying two natures after the union and not only 2 persons of Christ. Why do you think the CoE mostly known as Nestorians (who are in communion with Rome) reject the council of Ephesus yet accept Chalcedon? It's because they understand the contradiction but the Catholic and EO don't.
A couple points, I think, need clarification. Okay. Jesus is Human and Divine. Ontologically one. Great! However, 8:03: God the Father "made" Him (Jesus) the God man? The whole point of the Nicene Creed is that the Father did not "make"Jesus--Jesus was "begotten not made". Jesus is not a created being. He is God. Then, 8:13. Jesus has a mission "from" the Father? Jesus takes orders from someone? Jesus has his own Mission.
