Sad you went to the wrong from thr truth

@@idontknowname-rl8yb Monophysite “Christianity” isn’t the truth. You guys just like to pretend that you’re orthodox while condemning Chalcedon for the worst reasons and reject that St Cyril used a forgery to formulate miaphysitism

But that was kinda the point of religions, you know? That David's epic banter of appeal to power swayed you; meaning you was just there for the rides. So now closer to the Europeans, when will we hear your criticism of the Romans and their Catholicsm? No need to pound on what you already rejected.

My huge problems with David's arguments Will is an attribute of personhood not nature If it was a product of nature Then why do we all have different wills Even if we experience the same things we will still make different decisions and desire different things St Maximus' laughably terrible solution is the gnomic natural will distinction Natural will is desiring what is naturally proper for a person Gnomic will it is a mode (tropos, a manner, or way) of willing apropos to fallen humanity, in that it involves deliberation, either based on ignorance or sinful inclination. Because it is a tropos, it is associated with the individual, or hypostasis; as opposed to logos, a definition or part of nature. The Person of Christ is not a human hypostasis, but a divine hypostasis. Therefore, human hypostases after the Fall have a gnomic will along with their natural will. There is a huge problem with this which is that it leads to a supralapsarian Calvinistic view of will because it implies that Adam's nature was already inclined to do evil even before the fall because if humanity started having gnomic will after the fall then Adam's sin wouldn't be a result of a personal decision but a natural one which makes no sense because it means that god desired the fall of mankind and he caused it himself the moment he created adam as naturally inclined to do evil 2: the bible never says two wills in Christ It only makes a distinction between the will of the father and the son David assumes they are the same therefore two wills in Christ I actually don't disagree that they are the same But he assumes that two wills is the answer even though there are other answers For example john 6 38 Here Christ doesn't mean that his desire is in conflict with the father But that he doesn't have the authority to do his own will Philippians 2:6-9 New Living Translation 6 Though he was God,[a] he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. 7 Instead, he gave up his divine privileges[b]; he took the humble position of a slave[c] and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form,[d] 8 he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross. 9 Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names, Jesus took the role of a slave Therefore he doesn't have the authority to do his own will but that of the father which changes nothing because his will is the same as that of the father Philippians 2 8 doesn't say anything about two wills Being obedient to death requires ability to die which Christ had after the hypostatic Union The third passage is more interesting So let me explain something before i continue We don't say will is completely personal there are natural aspects as well but they don't function as a determining factor but as a contributing factor Which helps us understand the passage in the synoptics Here Christ asks the father to make the cup (which symbolizes his passion (pain) ) pass over him This is because he was talking about the natural human desire to not feel pain Christ obviously wanted to save us but he was talking about the element that was added to his will ie the natural inclination of the human nature I couldn't understand how the last passage suggests Two wills so i will ignore it Lastly and something i am sure David will talk about is that the personal view of will leads to three wills in god and conflict between the trinity members It doesn't it requires that there are three wills in number but not three in type Let me elaborate by asking questions What is Christ called in the prologue of john The logos What does that mean It means pronunciation and knowledge and in this context it means the speaking Mind of god What is Christ called in Colossian chapter 1 The visible image of the invisible god Colossians 1:15 New International Version The Supremacy of the Son of God 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. John 6:46 New International Version 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. John 14:9 New International Version 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? We see the person of the father through the person of the son because the son is the natural declaration of the father Just like thoughts are the natural declaration of the wise mind the thoughts can also manifest in written form and also in the form of a voice Which means we can see the will of the father through the will of the person of the son Metropolitan bishoy of damietta explained this in more detail The rest of the arguments are deliberate misrepresentations of miaphysite oriental Orthodox theology Oriental Orthodox says there is humanity and divinity in Christ St Cyril of Alexandria described it as a relationship between body and spirit (Ofcourse Jesus has a human spirit but that isn't the point) There is body and there is a spirit There is humanity and there's divinity But one can't separate body from spirit (one human nature) because they act as one Therefore they can only be distinguished through contemplation This avoids the chalcedonian error which treated Christ as an object in a lab that can be disceted studied and understood It leaves the unexplainable mystery as a mystery I can't believe you became eastern Orthodox just because you heard someone who doesn't even understand the basics of our theology this proves that you never actually studied it Do your own research don't be easily convinced

God bless!

Total misrepresentation of Miaphysitism. We don’t believe the natures mingle in the union.

My huge problems with David's arguments Will is an attribute of personhood not nature If it was a product of nature Then why do we all have different wills Even if we experience the same things we will still make different decisions and desire different things St Maximus' laughably terrible solution is the gnomic natural will distinction Natural will is desiring what is naturally proper for a person Gnomic will it is a mode (tropos, a manner, or way) of willing apropos to fallen humanity, in that it involves deliberation, either based on ignorance or sinful inclination. Because it is a tropos, it is associated with the individual, or hypostasis; as opposed to logos, a definition or part of nature. The Person of Christ is not a human hypostasis, but a divine hypostasis. Therefore, human hypostases after the Fall have a gnomic will along with their natural will. There is a huge problem with this which is that it leads to a supralapsarian Calvinistic view of will because it implies that Adam's nature was already inclined to do evil even before the fall because if humanity started having gnomic will after the fall then Adam's sin wouldn't be a result of a personal decision but a natural one which makes no sense because it means that god desired the fall of mankind and he caused it himself the moment he created adam as naturally inclined to do evil 2: the bible never says two wills in Christ It only makes a distinction between the will of the father and the son David assumes they are the same therefore two wills in Christ I actually don't disagree that they are the same But he assumes that two wills is the answer even though there are other answers For example john 6 38 Here Christ doesn't mean that his desire is in conflict with the father But that he doesn't have the authority to do his own will Philippians 2:6-9 New Living Translation 6 Though he was God,[a] he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. 7 Instead, he gave up his divine privileges[b]; he took the humble position of a slave[c] and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form,[d] 8 he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross. 9 Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names, Jesus took the role of a slave Therefore he doesn't have the authority to do his own will but that of the father which changes nothing because his will is the same as that of the father Philippians 2 8 doesn't say anything about two wills Being obedient to death requires ability to die which Christ had after the hypostatic Union The third passage is more interesting So let me explain something before i continue We don't say will is completely personal there are natural aspects as well but they don't function as a determining factor but as a contributing factor Which helps us understand the passage in the synoptics Here Christ asks the father to make the cup (which symbolizes his passion (pain) ) pass over him This is because he was talking about the natural human desire to not feel pain Christ obviously wanted to save us but he was talking about the element that was added to his will ie the natural inclination of the human nature I couldn't understand how the last passage suggests Two wills so i will ignore it Lastly and something i am sure David will talk about is that the personal view of will leads to three wills in god and conflict between the trinity members It doesn't it requires that there are three wills in number but not three in type Let me elaborate by asking questions What is Christ called in the prologue of john The logos What does that mean It means pronunciation and knowledge and in this context it means the speaking Mind of god What is Christ called in Colossian chapter 1 The visible image of the invisible god Colossians 1:15 New International Version The Supremacy of the Son of God 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. John 6:46 New International Version 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. John 14:9 New International Version 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? We see the person of the father through the person of the son because the son is the natural declaration of the father Just like thoughts are the natural declaration of the wise mind the thoughts can also manifest in written form and also in the form of a voice Which means we can see the will of the father through the will of the person of the son Metropolitan bishoy of damietta explained this in more detail The rest of the arguments are deliberate misrepresentations of miaphysite oriental Orthodox theology Oriental Orthodox says there is humanity and divinity in Christ St Cyril of Alexandria described it as a relationship between body and spirit (Ofcourse Jesus has a human spirit but that isn't the point) There is body and there is a spirit There is humanity and there's divinity But one can't separate body from spirit (one human nature) because they act as one Therefore they can only be distinguished through contemplation This avoids the chalcedonian error which treated Christ as an object in a lab that can be disceted studied and understood It leaves the unexplainable mystery as a mystery Here i am talking about the mind body problem how do feeling become what causes feelings is it the mind or the body how does The body translate the physical process of tasting into the feeling of tasting We don't know it's an unexplainable mystery which is why we can distinguish between both only in contemplation unlike my mind and your body which can be distinguished in activity and reality Which is why to us saying that there are two activities in Christ is heretical

good point but we don't believe in the cancellation of the natures

Great! To understand why our fathers rejected the Council of Chalcedon, I recommend reading books such as: 1) The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined (V C Samuel) 2) The Christology of Severus of Antioch Article: 1) THE_ONE_INCARNATE_NATURE_OF_THE_WORD Our fathers, St. Cyril and St. Dioscorus stated that divine nature and human nature are united without confusion or change, in an indivisible union. What does union mean? What does without confusion or change, in an indivisible union mean? That means both divinity and humanity exist. How can one say union, if there is only one? “ …. two natures come together with one another, without confusion or change, in an indivisible union. The flesh is flesh and not Godhead, even though it became the flesh of God; and similarly, the Word is God and not flesh even if he made the flesh his very own in the economy. Given that we understand this, we do no harm to that concurrence into union when we say that it took place out of two natures. After the union has occurred, however, we do not divide the natures from one another, nor do we sever the one and indivisible into two sons, but we say that there is One Son, and as the holy Fathers have stated: One Incarnate Nature of The Word.” We oriental orthodox Christians aren’t Monophysites. It is a name that is given to us by our accusers. We are Miaphysites. We believe that our Lord and God Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human. One nature doesn’t mean simply one. One nature doesn’t mean only divine, or only human. One also means composite as our father Cyril of Alexandria stated. “The ineffable and unspeakable union has revealed to us the Son’s Single, but as I have said, Incarnate nature. For singleness is not predicated truly only of beings simple by nature, but also of beings brought together in composition, such as Man, who is compounded of body and soul. For these elements are heterogenous and are in nature mutually dissimilar; but united they make the single nature of Man ...” [ Saint Cyril of Alexandria: Second Letter to Succensus, in Ebeid and Wickham: A collection of unpublished Syriac letters of Cyril of Alexandria, p 40ϭ] When we say one nature, we mean one composite nature. We believe that our Lord and God Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human.

MONO- or MIA-? A discussion of the terminology Nowadays it's not that rare to see people discussing the difference between two terms, which supposed to be synonyms: "monophysites" and "miaphysites". Today we're going to explain that the second one cannot exists in frame of the Greek language. Attention! This text is neither to consider any kind of theological problematic not to offend anyone's feelings. So to say, we're diving into the waters of pure philology. *** Sometimes people begin the conversation with analysing so-called "mia physis" and "mono physis" (just like that, written in any language, except of Greek). However, this makes no sense in the first place. As there's no such a word as "μόνο" in ancient Greek, it was only used as a prefix. The vocabulary of modern Greek includes this word, although it is an adverb, not an adjective. We do find the word «μόνος» in the ancient language, which means "one/ the only/ lonely". There's also «μόνον» , which is neuter singular of the same word, sometimes this form works as an adverb too. (We should remind here that ancient and modern Greek have grammatical genders, cases and numbers, so as German does e.g.) That's why it's grammatically incorrect to say «μόνο φύσις». This word group cannot exist due to the rule of concordance of genders! The word "φύσις" is feminine, so an adjective with it would look like "μόνη". The cardinal numeral "one" in ancient Greek also happens to be masculine, feminine and neuter, but these forms are formed from various stems - "εἷς, μία, ἕν". It is this word that is most often used in all phrases when something is single. It has no special meaning of "integrity of two" as opposed to "oneness". For example, it is used in combination with "One Lord, one faith, one Baptism" (Eph. 4:5): «εἷς κύριος μία πίστις ἓν βάπτισμα». Baptism is just one, the only one. And faith is the only one, as well as God. They don't consist of any components, therefore "one nature" should be translated as «μία φύσις» We understood, that the only way to say "one nature" is «μία φύσις», not «μόνο φύσις». Nonetheless in Greek we say «μονοφυσιτισμός» (monophysitism), not «μιαφυσιτισμός» (miaphystitism). Why is that? The answer is also quite simple. If we're to construct a compound, we have to use the stem «μον-». This doesn't seem too strange, if we will take in consideration that "εἷς, μία, ἕν" has no common stem and, accordingly, the same formant for word formation cannot be "extracted" from these three words. We should put an emphasis on this point one more time: the word "μιαφυσιτισμός" does not exist within Greek. Greek words just cannot be formed like that. There is a "monograph", but there's no "miagraph", we can write a "monogram", and not a "heinogram". Although the "one God" is "εἷς God" (as in EF. 4:6: "εἷς Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ πάντων"), but our faith is still "μονοθεϊσμός" ("monotheism"), not "heisteism".

​@@girmayberhe6127so,u s mono :).

​@@girmayberhe6127it genuinely seems to me that you belive the same thing as eastern orthodix but word it differently

Miaphysitism is like painting a shit blue. Still shit just a little different

Glory to God. Where do we find such texts? May our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on us all

This is a good example of how Byzantines lie and makeup stories. There is 0 evidence this happened and no one has mentioned it in Church history or even the Council itself nor the emperor.

Lol that supposed miracle has been debunked already. The only mentions of it come 800 to 1000 years after Chalcedon. There are earlier more historically reliable accounts of Oriental Orthodox bishops receiving visions of Christ cursing Chalcedon which made them vehemently reject it. This supposed miracle is entirely Chalcedonian propaganda don’t rely on it if you want to convince Orthodox to leave the flock.

@@kidus_1010this is the worse form of cope ever. Satan can deceive. And the monophysites were deceived.

Were did you find this your wrong my brother in christ i am from ethiopian orthodox church but my fathers never teach such a thing we belive that christ is fully human and fully God without mixture but please dig in before you speak because both the orential and eastern said that one of them didnt and would you pray and ask jesus about this topic what his opinion is please i am beging you i hate the century of 451-2023 and i fill so sad that i only can ask the lord only about this topic what does he say what is his opinion and i hope you will humble your self and pray for the unity of his church let his will be done not our will Amen

There is only One Nature in reality. The Two Natures are only in contemplation, after the Union there is only 'One Incarnate Nature' [ From Two] This is the Orthodox faith.

Have you first really understood the difference between OO and EO in the nature of our Lord and God Jesus Christ?

Be very careful of believing the theology of what is being taught on this channel. What do you know about him? Speak to your confession father first.

L

Have u really read the pre Chalcedonian fathers who condemned 2 natures after the union? And do you even know what the holy Orthodox Church mean by the “one incarnate nature of God the Word incarnate” as quoted by St Cyril or do you just take the words of the cursed council of Chalcedon that accused us, Orthodox of believing in solely one nature of Christ, meaning the divine nature absorbed the human nature? Are you willing to commune with the heretic Chalcedonians, dividers of Christ that accepted the cursed tome of Leo? And communed with Rome for centuries although Rome confessed the bishop of Rome to be the head of the Church and that they confessed Filioque? Are you leaving the unaltered Orthodoxy to those who persecuted Christians in Egypt and Syria? Are you leaving Holy Orthodoxy to those who made a new contrary confession to the Ephesus fathers? Are you leaving holy Orthodoxy to those who confess 2 natures after the union (which has been Anathematised by the universal Church before Chalcedon)? Are you leaving holy Orthodoxy to those who lie about our faith like their so called “saint” John of Damascus who wrote against us and accused us of being “Monophysites”? Are you leaving the true Alexandrian Church that was the Champion of the first 3 ecumenical councils? Are you leaving Orthodoxy because of some random guys on KZfaq told you contrary to holy Orthodoxy? Are you leaving holy Orthodoxy to be with those who accuse us of all evil things? I’d suggest you to rethink your decisions brother.

To understand why our fathers rejected the Council of Chalcedon, I recommend reading books such as: 1) The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined (V C Samuel) 2) The Christology of Severus of Antioch Article: 1) THE_ONE_INCARNATE_NATURE_OF_THE_WORD Our fathers St. Cyril and St. Dioscorus stated that divine nature and human nature are united without confusion or change, in an indivisible union. What does union mean? What does without confusion or change, in an indivisible union mean? That means both divinity and humanity exist. How can one say union, if there is only one? “ …. two natures come together with one another, without confusion or change, in an indivisible union. The flesh is flesh and not Godhead, even though it became the flesh of God; and similarly, the Word is God and not flesh even if he made the flesh his very own in the economy. Given that we understand this, we do no harm to that concurrence into union when we say that it took place out of two natures. After the union has occurred, however, we do not divide the natures from one another, nor do we sever the one and indivisible into two sons, but we say that there is One Son, and as the holy Fathers have stated: One Incarnate Nature of The Word.” We oriental orthodox Christians aren’t Monophysites. It is a name which is given to us by our accusers. We are Miaphysites. We believe that our Lord and God Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human. One nature doesn’t mean simply one. One nature doesn’t mean only divine, or only human. One also means composite as our father Cyril of Alexandria stated. “The ineffable and unspeakable union has revealed to us the Son’s Single, but as I have said, Incarnate nature. For singleness is not predicated truly only of beings simple by nature, but also of beings brought together in composition, such as Man, who is compounded of body and soul. For these elements are heterogenous and are in nature mutually dissimilar; but united they make the single nature of Man ...” [ Saint Cyril of Alexandria: Second Letter to Succensus, in Ebeid and Wickham: A collection of unpublished Syriac letters of Cyril of Alexandria, p 40ϭ] When we say one nature, we mean one composite nature. We believe that our Lord and God Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human.

My huge problems with David's arguments Will is an attribute of personhood not nature If it was a product of nature Then why do we all have different wills Even if we experience the same things we will still make different decisions and desire different things St Maximus' laughably terrible solution is the gnomic natural will distinction Natural will is desiring what is naturally proper for a person Gnomic will it is a mode (tropos, a manner, or way) of willing apropos to fallen humanity, in that it involves deliberation, either based on ignorance or sinful inclination. Because it is a tropos, it is associated with the individual, or hypostasis; as opposed to logos, a definition or part of nature. The Person of Christ is not a human hypostasis, but a divine hypostasis. Therefore, human hypostases after the Fall have a gnomic will along with their natural will. There is a huge problem with this which is that it leads to a supralapsarian Calvinistic view of will because it implies that Adam's nature was already inclined to do evil even before the fall because if humanity started having gnomic will after the fall then Adam's sin wouldn't be a result of a personal decision but a natural one which makes no sense because it means that god desired the fall of mankind and he caused it himself the moment he created adam as naturally inclined to do evil 2: the bible never says two wills in Christ It only makes a distinction between the will of the father and the son David assumes they are the same therefore two wills in Christ I actually don't disagree that they are the same But he assumes that two wills is the answer even though there are other answers For example john 6 38 Here Christ doesn't mean that his desire is in conflict with the father But that he doesn't have the authority to do his own will Philippians 2:6-9 New Living Translation 6 Though he was God,[a] he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. 7 Instead, he gave up his divine privileges[b]; he took the humble position of a slave[c] and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form,[d] 8 he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross. 9 Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names, Jesus took the role of a slave Therefore he doesn't have the authority to do his own will but that of the father which changes nothing because his will is the same as that of the father Philippians 2 8 doesn't say anything about two wills Being obedient to death requires ability to die which Christ had after the hypostatic Union The third passage is more interesting So let me explain something before i continue We don't say will is completely personal there are natural aspects as well but they don't function as a determining factor but as a contributing factor Which helps us understand the passage in the synoptics Here Christ asks the father to make the cup (which symbolizes his passion (pain) ) pass over him This is because he was talking about the natural human desire to not feel pain Christ obviously wanted to save us but he was talking about the element that was added to his will ie the natural inclination of the human nature I couldn't understand how the last passage suggests Two wills so i will ignore it Lastly and something i am sure David will talk about is that the personal view of will leads to three wills in god and conflict between the trinity members It doesn't it requires that there are three wills in number but not three in type Let me elaborate by asking questions What is Christ called in the prologue of john The logos What does that mean It means pronunciation and knowledge and in this context it means the speaking Mind of god What is Christ called in Colossian chapter 1 The visible image of the invisible god Colossians 1:15 New International Version The Supremacy of the Son of God 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. John 6:46 New International Version 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. John 14:9 New International Version 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? We see the person of the father through the person of the son because the son is the natural declaration of the father Just like thoughts are the natural declaration of the wise mind the thoughts can also manifest in written form and also in the form of a voice Which means we can see the will of the father through the will of the person of the son Metropolitan bishoy of damietta explained this in more detail The rest of the arguments are deliberate misrepresentations of miaphysite oriental Orthodox theology Oriental Orthodox says there is humanity and divinity in Christ St Cyril of Alexandria described it as a relationship between body and spirit (Ofcourse Jesus has a human spirit but that isn't the point) There is body and there is a spirit There is humanity and there's divinity But one can't separate body from spirit (one human nature) because they act as one Therefore they can only be distinguished through contemplation This avoids the chalcedonian error which treated Christ as an object in a lab that can be disceted studied and understood It leaves the unexplainable mystery as a mystery Here i am talking about the mind body problem how do feeling become what causes feelings is it the mind or the body how does The body translate the physical process of tasting into the feeling of tasting We don't know it's an unexplainable mystery which is why we can distinguish between both only in contemplation unlike my mind and your body which can be distinguished in activity and reality Which is why to us saying that there are two activities in Christ is heretical

​our father is YHWH.

They say the exact same thing about the eastern orthodix church, I think we need to both have humility and understand the healing the fractures in the body of christ takes precedence

Monophysite heretics in the beginnings were talking about one nature of Christ - divine, while His human nature was consumed by the divine... they were saying that His human nature was like a "drop of the water in an entire sea". Then they realized their error and developed their false doctrine further saying that two natures were amalgamated creating third kind of nature, neither divine nor human and based on that evolution of their heresy, they started to call themselves Miaphysites. It is the same difference... "mia" means ONE just as "mono" means ONE. In either case, they are heretics.

​@johnnyd2383 please do research before making assertions like this. Miaphysitism is the belief of Saint Cyril and all of the Alexandrian school of thought, it was literally the miaphysites that wrote the most works against monophysitism. Chalcedon affirms anti cyrilian documents such as the letter of Ibas and redefines the chridtology of Ephesus. Whether or not you think is justified, sure discuss this, but to say Miaphysitism was from the eutychian heresy or is just another form of monophisitism is either sophism or ignorance. Brother please I wish you the best in your journey to Christ and I've probably spoken out of ignorance more time than I count myself and I needa stop. Much love ❤

@@Cbisseh Typical heretical BS in desperate attempt to legitimize heresy is to lie about Orthodox fathers allegedly endorsing their heresy. We hear something similar from Latin heretics as well. Nice try... but... St. Cyril was Orthodox all the way and Orthodox Church for a reason anathemized heresy of Monophysitism/Miaphysitism back at the 4th Council. Fact that you allegedly accept dual nature of the Christ, but for "unknown" reason do not want to accept 4th Ecumenical Council speaks volumes. You are liars, your father is liar and we have nothing to do with you. Repent before it is too late, confess Orthodox Faith, we will Baptize you and you will be on the way of salvation.

Actual question. Possibly stupid. Please don't yell at me. If the miaphysite position is that of union of the two natures, how does that union not cause change in the divine essence?

@@wjckc79 i think we might be pre inclined to think that it does have to? Dude Im no expert in Christology. But there was one thing I couldnt ignore thats why I am choosing orientals. Examine the 3rd 4th and 5th council. The copts led by Cyril, who was heralded by all, were the ones leading the charge against Nestorianism. You don't think the copts knew what they were talking about? In the 4th council, they reinstated Ibas to his position, who was previously deposed by the coptics because they found him to be Nestorian. But in the 5th council, it was agreed that the writing of Ibas and his colleagues were indeed heretical. They decided to banish the writings, but not so far to blast the writers themselves. This was an ecumenical council. So... They essentially agreed that the coptics were right to begin with, and sought a resolution that satisfied previous agreements. You see the issue here? This is general knowledge from even non coptic sources. Is the Holy Spirit who guides all acts, both YES AND NO?

Stay where you are in the holy Oriental Orthodox church. The overly complicated argument presented here only causes unnecessary confusion. There were several serious theological issues with Chalcedon, which the 5th council cleaned up, thank God... Do not let KZfaq personalities that you know NOTHING about shake your faith or your rich Orthodox Christian heritage.

@@Troy-Moses one problem is that I can’t really find any Oriental Orthodox resources online that talk on any deep level about theology. I’d love to hear both sides but it’s just that one presents solid sounding arguments that I can’t really find refutations for. If you have any recommendations that would be greatly appreciated. This is a matter that constantly eats away at me. In an ideal world I wouldn’t need to worry about this and both churches would unite but I’m realizing more and more everyday how impossible that would be. Also if the 5th council cleared up issues of Chalcedon, why wouldn’t the OO churches accept the 5th council?

@@kidus_1010 From my experience, every nonjudgmental person is slow to speak; and every judgemental person seems to never stop... The OO agrees with the EO on all councils except Chalcedon; and this is because Chalcedon reinstated three Nestorians that bitterly persecuted/ridiculed St. Cyril. Thanks to the 5th Council that revised Chalcedon, both churches are fully Orthodox. I will try to find a video or two that explains it from another point of view, but in the mean time, pray! and do not put your trust in folks that can make convincing arguments, yet you know nothing about them.

@@kidus_1010 Greetings in Christ... The main questions should be: Where is the proof that the Oriental Orthodox ever changed what they received and had always believed prior to Chalcedon? Is it the Two Natures *OF* Christ (OO), or the Two Natures *IN* Christ (EO)? 1. From a Coptic Orthodox priest: "Chalcedonian and Coptic Orthodox; history, similarities, and differences" *Holy Transfiguration American Coptic Orthodox Church 2. Here is another view beginning at the 1:09:50 minute mark: "History of the Church (1st-5th Century) | Full-length Documentary" *Theology Academy 3. The Oriental Orthodox has never deviated from this. Compare to the Tome of Leo: "12 Anathemas, by Saint Cyril of Alexandria" *CatholicSaints 4. Have you ever read/listened to this book? "That Christ is One, by St. Cyril of Alexandria" *TruthBeTold7 5. This may seem abrasive, but reasonably addresses the false accusations against Oriental Orthodoxy: "Oriental Orthodoxy : the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" *Polish Miaphysite 6. From a bishop: "The Two Families of Orthodoxy" *British Orthodox Church 7. Half way through this video gets to the point (34:39 - Do you affirm the Chalcedonian Definition?): "The History, Theology, and Spirituality of the Coptic Orthodox Church (w/ Fr. Anthony Mourad)" *Gospel Simplicity Pray...

@@Troy-Moses Thank you. I really appreciate you for taking the time to list these out for me. I’ll be sure to thoroughly look into all of them and educate myself further.

Not true though the Armenians will never betray their faith

They have been refusing reconciliation ever since Roman era, they even invited Muslim rulers rather than being ruled by Constantinople.

"mia" means ONE just as "mono" means ONE. In either case, they are heretics.

50 million is only the Ethiopians. They are around 100 million including Coptic, Arman, syrian, Eritrean, and indian

Please give me an exact quote where the Council of Chalcedon adopted dogmatically three chapters.

@@disgustingcyclops6423 That is the logic of a Protestant, a Muslim rather. The burden is on you to provide precedence of which council has ever endorsed heresies. The mere fact that you employed such a rebuttal shows that you are being dishonest... What a shame...

@@Troy-Moses dont cry and calm down, Monophysite.

@@disgustingcyclops6423 ah yes now the EO has to make fun of the person to validate their claim

@@Joshua_Burdono mmm

Pride....

@@user-jv3mm6vt6esays the EO

Miaphysitism falls under Monophysitism.

@@drini9087 by your definition only? Dude... Just the concept alone speaks of stark differences Its.not.one or the other... Its both-and... This idea is supported time and time again... Including the concept of works and faith. God is not limited by our puny capacity. But more and more sources appear to support both early churches that they believed that Jeuss was both 2 yet 1, 1 but 2 Just like the Trinity And if you refute, you can just as well refute trinity

The heart of miaphysitism is that its OF TWO NATURES

@@drini9087is miaphysitism the same as julianism or eutychianism? Would it be okay to group EO with nestorians because they confess two natures?

the Ethiopian church is a judaized church which is clear apostasy and heresy at the same time. You circumcise like the jews, not eat pork like the jews WHILE also not accepting the canonical order of the Holy Bible and have nothing else that just resembles the Sacred Scripture

Tewhado is Ethiopian term. You are Oriental like Coptic, Syrian, Armenian.

My huge problems with David's arguments Will is an attribute of personhood not nature If it was a product of nature Then why do we all have different wills Even if we experience the same things we will still make different decisions and desire different things St Maximus' laughably terrible solution is the gnomic natural will distinction Natural will is desiring what is naturally proper for a person Gnomic will it is a mode (tropos, a manner, or way) of willing apropos to fallen humanity, in that it involves deliberation, either based on ignorance or sinful inclination. Because it is a tropos, it is associated with the individual, or hypostasis; as opposed to logos, a definition or part of nature. The Person of Christ is not a human hypostasis, but a divine hypostasis. Therefore, human hypostases after the Fall have a gnomic will along with their natural will. There is a huge problem with this which is that it leads to a supralapsarian Calvinistic view of will because it implies that Adam's nature was already inclined to do evil even before the fall because if humanity started having gnomic will after the fall then Adam's sin wouldn't be a result of a personal decision but a natural one which makes no sense because it means that god desired the fall of mankind and he caused it himself the moment he created adam as naturally inclined to do evil 2: the bible never says two wills in Christ It only makes a distinction between the will of the father and the son David assumes they are the same therefore two wills in Christ I actually don't disagree that they are the same But he assumes that two wills is the answer even though there are other answers For example john 6 38 Here Christ doesn't mean that his desire is in conflict with the father But that he doesn't have the authority to do his own will Philippians 2:6-9 New Living Translation 6 Though he was God,[a] he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. 7 Instead, he gave up his divine privileges[b]; he took the humble position of a slave[c] and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form,[d] 8 he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross. 9 Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names, Jesus took the role of a slave Therefore he doesn't have the authority to do his own will but that of the father which changes nothing because his will is the same as that of the father Philippians 2 8 doesn't say anything about two wills Being obedient to death requires ability to die which Christ had after the hypostatic Union The third passage is more interesting So let me explain something before i continue We don't say will is completely personal there are natural aspects as well but they don't function as a determining factor but as a contributing factor Which helps us understand the passage in the synoptics Here Christ asks the father to make the cup (which symbolizes his passion (pain) ) pass over him This is because he was talking about the natural human desire to not feel pain Christ obviously wanted to save us but he was talking about the element that was added to his will ie the natural inclination of the human nature I couldn't understand how the last passage suggests Two wills so i will ignore it Lastly and something i am sure David will talk about is that the personal view of will leads to three wills in god and conflict between the trinity members It doesn't it requires that there are three wills in number but not three in type Let me elaborate by asking questions What is Christ called in the prologue of john The logos What does that mean It means pronunciation and knowledge and in this context it means the speaking Mind of god What is Christ called in Colossian chapter 1 The visible image of the invisible god Colossians 1:15 New International Version The Supremacy of the Son of God 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. John 6:46 New International Version 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. John 14:9 New International Version 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? We see the person of the father through the person of the son because the son is the natural declaration of the father Just like thoughts are the natural declaration of the wise mind the thoughts can also manifest in written form and also in the form of a voice Which means we can see the will of the father through the will of the person of the son Metropolitan bishoy of damietta explained this in more detail The rest of the arguments are deliberate misrepresentations of miaphysite oriental Orthodox theology Oriental Orthodox says there is humanity and divinity in Christ St Cyril of Alexandria described it as a relationship between body and spirit (Ofcourse Jesus has a human spirit but that isn't the point) There is body and there is a spirit There is humanity and there's divinity But one can't separate body from spirit (one human nature) because they act as one Therefore they can only be distinguished through contemplation This avoids the chalcedonian error which treated Christ as an object in a lab that can be disceted studied and understood It leaves the unexplainable mystery as a mystery

My huge problems with David's arguments Will is an attribute of personhood not nature If it was a product of nature Then why do we all have different wills Even if we experience the same things we will still make different decisions and desire different things St Maximus' laughably terrible solution is the gnomic natural will distinction Natural will is desiring what is naturally proper for a person Gnomic will it is a mode (tropos, a manner, or way) of willing apropos to fallen humanity, in that it involves deliberation, either based on ignorance or sinful inclination. Because it is a tropos, it is associated with the individual, or hypostasis; as opposed to logos, a definition or part of nature. The Person of Christ is not a human hypostasis, but a divine hypostasis. Therefore, human hypostases after the Fall have a gnomic will along with their natural will. There is a huge problem with this which is that it leads to a supralapsarian Calvinistic view of will because it implies that Adam's nature was already inclined to do evil even before the fall because if humanity started having gnomic will after the fall then Adam's sin wouldn't be a result of a personal decision but a natural one which makes no sense because it means that god desired the fall of mankind and he caused it himself the moment he created adam as naturally inclined to do evil 2: the bible never says two wills in Christ It only makes a distinction between the will of the father and the son David assumes they are the same therefore two wills in Christ I actually don't disagree that they are the same But he assumes that two wills is the answer even though there are other answers For example john 6 38 Here Christ doesn't mean that his desire is in conflict with the father But that he doesn't have the authority to do his own will Philippians 2:6-9 New Living Translation 6 Though he was God,[a] he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. 7 Instead, he gave up his divine privileges[b]; he took the humble position of a slave[c] and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form,[d] 8 he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross. 9 Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names, Jesus took the role of a slave Therefore he doesn't have the authority to do his own will but that of the father which changes nothing because his will is the same as that of the father Philippians 2 8 doesn't say anything about two wills Being obedient to death requires ability to die which Christ had after the hypostatic Union The third passage is more interesting So let me explain something before i continue We don't say will is completely personal there are natural aspects as well but they don't function as a determining factor but as a contributing factor Which helps us understand the passage in the synoptics Here Christ asks the father to make the cup (which symbolizes his passion (pain) ) pass over him This is because he was talking about the natural human desire to not feel pain Christ obviously wanted to save us but he was talking about the element that was added to his will ie the natural inclination of the human nature I couldn't understand how the last passage suggests Two wills so i will ignore it Lastly and something i am sure David will talk about is that the personal view of will leads to three wills in god and conflict between the trinity members It doesn't it requires that there are three wills in number but not three in type Let me elaborate by asking questions What is Christ called in the prologue of john The logos What does that mean It means pronunciation and knowledge and in this context it means the speaking Mind of god What is Christ called in Colossian chapter 1 The visible image of the invisible god Colossians 1:15 New International Version The Supremacy of the Son of God 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. John 6:46 New International Version 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. John 14:9 New International Version 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? We see the person of the father through the person of the son because the son is the natural declaration of the father Just like thoughts are the natural declaration of the wise mind the thoughts can also manifest in written form and also in the form of a voice Which means we can see the will of the father through the will of the person of the son Metropolitan bishoy of damietta explained this in more detail The rest of the arguments are deliberate misrepresentations of miaphysite oriental Orthodox theology Oriental Orthodox says there is humanity and divinity in Christ St Cyril of Alexandria described it as a relationship between body and spirit (Ofcourse Jesus has a human spirit but that isn't the point) There is body and there is a spirit There is humanity and there's divinity But one can't separate body from spirit (one human nature) because they act as one Therefore they can only be distinguished through contemplation This avoids the chalcedonian error which treated Christ as an object in a lab that can be disceted studied and understood It leaves the unexplainable mystery as a mystery Here i am talking about the mind body problem how do feeling become what causes feelings is it the mind or the body how does The body translate the physical process of tasting into the feeling of tasting We don't know it's an unexplainable mystery which is why we can distinguish between both only in contemplation unlike my mind and your body which can be distinguished in activity and reality Which is why to us saying that there are two activities in Christ is heretical

It's not this guy lies alot

He literallys knows considerably more about ot than you. Stop crying.

@@buffcommie942 really? he failed exactly as you failed in school

Exactly, plus Chacedon canonised three entire chapters of heresies that had to be cleaned up in the 5th council.

@@Troy-Moses stop lying to ppl.

@@Kauahdhdhd That is a FACT! Your "theologians" still cannot justify the "Three Chapters" of Nestorianism praised by Chalcedon as "orthodox". How is it that you do not know this?

@@Troy-Moses You seem to have your councils and historical timeline completely mixed up. The "three chapters" is a term referring to: The term "three chapters" was coined long after Chalcedon, to refer to the three things on the Chalcedonian side that the Miaphysites opposed the most, considering them a "smoking gun" that proved the Chalcedonians to be crypto-Nestorians. These three things were repudiated at the FIFTH Ecumenical Council in 553 AD, by the Chalcedonian side, as a last-ditch attempt to seek reconciliation with the Miaphysites over a hundred years after Chalcedon. Chalcedon did not "accept" the three chapters. It merely failed to condemn them, largely because no one expected them to become the heart of a controversy - that happened years later.

​@@Kauahdhdhd Like many Calcedonians, you too are ignorant of this fact. Bishops (Ibas of Edessa, Theodoret of Cyrus, Theodore of Mopsuestia) that were excommunicated in Ephesus 431 in support of Nestorius, were unilaterally reinstated by Pope Leo without dispute in Chalcedon 451. Sadly, along with them being reinstated, their "Three Chapters" of heresies which undermined the previous council came along with them. This is the most scandalous event in all of church history, and you don't have to be a "theologian" or scholar to see it. Please be honest when reading the below quotes... Concerning the chapter from the heretic Ibas of Edessa that was added to Chalcedon, that council wrote in its Acts: At the Council of Chalcedon the Patriarch Maximus of Antioch and the Roman legates declared: *_“Having read his letter again, we declare that he is orthodox."_* But at Constantinople 553, here is what was said in The Acts: _"In the third place the letter which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, was brought forward for examination, and we found that it, too, should be read. When it was read immediately its impiety was manifest to all. And it was right to make the condemnation and anathematism of the aforesaid Three Chapters, as even to this time there had been some question on the subject. But because the defenders of these impious ones, Theodore and Nestorius, were scheming in some way or other to confirm these persons and their impiety, and were saving that this impious letter, which praised and defended Theodore and Nestorius and their impiety, _*_had been received by the holy Council of Chalcedon we thought it necessary to shew that the holy synod was free of the impiety which was contained in that letter,_*_ that it might be clear that they who say such things do not do so with the favour of this holy council, but that through its name they may confirm their own impiety"_ Edit: If it were not for the 5th council Eastern Orthodoxy would be Nestorian; so when you dig deeper you will see that only Oriental Orthodoxy at no time deviated from the Faith.

well said

Human nature is one in species, not in number

@@jonathans3580 false Human natures are equal but numerically distinct Which means that the wills they produce should be numerically distinct but equal in content Now sure not all natures are 100 percent equal but this doesn't challenge my position in anyway Perhaps I needed to explain this in more detail so here you are If will was natural we would expect 3 things 1consistency in will among persons 2 a change in nature should correspond to a change in will 3 there should be a property or operation done by the nature that produces the particular Desire Let's take the desire not to feel pain as an example This desire is consistent and the absence of certain noiceptors corresponds with absence of the desire And we can explain the rare exceptions By appealing to natural abnormalities and natural processes that we can observe Common sense suggests a natural origin of this desire But the desire to communicate meets none of these conditions It is inconsistent even under the same circumstances and with the same information provided to the subjects Change in nature doesn't correspond to change in will (losing your ability to communicate doesn't determine whether or not you would desire communication ) And we can't point towards a natural property or process that causes people to communicate Common sense suggests a personal origin of this Desire

​@@kiroshakir7935 How does this not lead to Three Gods?

@@bradspitt3896 because by definition the Trinity is three persons with one nature And If my model of will was correct (will has both natural and personal aspects) then you would be a modalist if you only confess the natural And my model wouldn't lead to tritheism (in the comment I was only concerned with explaining how their wills can be equal in content even though they come from different sources ) Someone like maximus the confessor might object By saying that human hypostases aren't the same as divine ones But I already explained why his model of gnomic will failed to avoid supralapsarianism even if you modify it To make gnomic will an essential element in human willing (meaning that it always existed ) Because the question then would be Why did god create Adam with a personal will that sins instead of a natural one that doesn't If you say because free will Wouldn't that mean God doesn't have free will

We use leavened bread 🤓

Orthodox

We called ourselves Orthodox because we called you guys Melkites or Romans.

We always called ourselves Orthodox. We have letters from the likes of St Severus, Gregory of Tatev and many that referred to our Church as Orthodox and we called the heretic persecutors of Orthodoxy, Chalcedonians, Melkites or Romans

@@Loyler_1-1”heretical” that’s why the Monophysites said that the synod of Constantinople was unjust to eutyches even though dioscorus eventually excommunicated him because of how the council of Chalcedon had it correct condemning him 😂😂😂

@@darklord7069 eutchyes, a heretic, also he wasn’t a theologian was only unexcommunicated by Pope St Dioscorus because he confessed to be Orthodox and then later on he was excommunicated because of his heresy

You're assuming union means a union of opposites. That's not what union means. Like a hermaphrodite. Think of it as together without tension. Uncreated and created is straight contradiction.

@@bradspitt3896the church fathers, such as St. Gregory of Nyssa, speak of the union of soul and flesh into the one nature of humanity. St. Gregory says that in the one compound nature of man, you have both immaterial soul and material flesh. Here you have two contradictory properties in one nature as defined by St. Gregory. How would you respond to this? Would you say that St. Gregory is in error?

@@MinaDKSBMSB Your asserting it's a contradiction.

@@bradspitt3896 created and uncreated are contradictory but material and immaterial are not contradictory?

@@MinaDKSBMSB We don't say it's one nature. The nature belongs to the hypostasis.

What did you think of the video : )

@@Damascene749 my thoughts are clear first there has to be unity among Christians. Each churches should respect others and their theology and work together. Rather than call each other as heretics . Stand and see when others are killed . Just like these you tubers who speak about eastern orthodox guys who got killed in earthquake and do not mention about others .

@@crossedfalcon23 muh ecumenism bad.

@@crossedfalcon23 nah I disagree. We can be friendly and respectful, but there can be no unity.

​@@crossedfalcon23oriental orthodox attitude is much better than stubborn eastern orthodox. I am EO but i would like to convert to OO

We are not allowed to inter-commune not even pray, with heretics. If what you say is so then that's the pan-heresy of ecumenism and such Bishops should be seen as subversive and hostile to the faith.

No we do not agree on Christology.

I think we agree substantially in practice, at least in modern times, but that the Chalcedonian definition ultimately is more correct in the sense that it is more consistent with the orthodox way of discussing the Trinity inherited from, e.g., the Cappadocian fathers. Semantics aren't mere semantics when they would introduce errors into other domains of theology if applied rigorously and consistently across the board. I should note, however, that some OO bodies have gone through phases in which they really were more monophysite than miaphysite, such as the Armenian Apostolic Church and (if I'm not mistaken) the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.

My huge problems with David's arguments Will is an attribute of personhood not nature If it was a product of nature Then why do we all have different wills Even if we experience the same things we will still make different decisions and desire different things St Maximus' laughably terrible solution is the gnomic natural will distinction Natural will is desiring what is naturally proper for a person Gnomic will it is a mode (tropos, a manner, or way) of willing apropos to fallen humanity, in that it involves deliberation, either based on ignorance or sinful inclination. Because it is a tropos, it is associated with the individual, or hypostasis; as opposed to logos, a definition or part of nature. The Person of Christ is not a human hypostasis, but a divine hypostasis. Therefore, human hypostases after the Fall have a gnomic will along with their natural will. There is a huge problem with this which is that it leads to a supralapsarian Calvinistic view of will because it implies that Adam's nature was already inclined to do evil even before the fall because if humanity started having gnomic will after the fall then Adam's sin wouldn't be a result of a personal decision but a natural one which makes no sense because it means that god desired the fall of mankind and he caused it himself the moment he created adam as naturally inclined to do evil 2: the bible never says two wills in Christ It only makes a distinction between the will of the father and the son David assumes they are the same therefore two wills in Christ I actually don't disagree that they are the same But he assumes that two wills is the answer even though there are other answers For example john 6 38 Here Christ doesn't mean that his desire is in conflict with the father But that he doesn't have the authority to do his own will Philippians 2:6-9 New Living Translation 6 Though he was God,[a] he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. 7 Instead, he gave up his divine privileges[b]; he took the humble position of a slave[c] and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form,[d] 8 he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross. 9 Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names, Jesus took the role of a slave Therefore he doesn't have the authority to do his own will but that of the father which changes nothing because his will is the same as that of the father Philippians 2 8 doesn't say anything about two wills Being obedient to death requires ability to die which Christ had after the hypostatic Union The third passage is more interesting So let me explain something before i continue We don't say will is completely personal there are natural aspects as well but they don't function as a determining factor but as a contributing factor Which helps us understand the passage in the synoptics Here Christ asks the father to make the cup (which symbolizes his passion (pain) ) pass over him This is because he was talking about the natural human desire to not feel pain Christ obviously wanted to save us but he was talking about the element that was added to his will ie the natural inclination of the human nature I couldn't understand how the last passage suggests Two wills so i will ignore it Lastly and something i am sure David will talk about is that the personal view of will leads to three wills in god and conflict between the trinity members It doesn't it requires that there are three wills in number but not three in type Let me elaborate by asking questions What is Christ called in the prologue of john The logos What does that mean It means pronunciation and knowledge and in this context it means the speaking Mind of god What is Christ called in Colossian chapter 1 The visible image of the invisible god Colossians 1:15 New International Version The Supremacy of the Son of God 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. John 6:46 New International Version 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. John 14:9 New International Version 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? We see the person of the father through the person of the son because the son is the natural declaration of the father Just like thoughts are the natural declaration of the wise mind the thoughts can also manifest in written form and also in the form of a voice Which means we can see the will of the father through the will of the person of the son Metropolitan bishoy of damietta explained this in more detail The rest of the arguments are deliberate misrepresentations of miaphysite oriental Orthodox theology Oriental Orthodox says there is humanity and divinity in Christ St Cyril of Alexandria described it as a relationship between body and spirit (Ofcourse Jesus has a human spirit but that isn't the point) There is body and there is a spirit There is humanity and there's divinity But one can't separate body from spirit (one human nature) because they act as one Therefore they can only be distinguished through contemplation This avoids the chalcedonian error which treated Christ as an object in a lab that can be disceted studied and understood It leaves the unexplainable mystery as a mystery Here i am talking about the mind body problem how do feeling become what causes feelings is it the mind or the body how does The body translate the physical process of tasting into the feeling of tasting We don't know it's an unexplainable mystery which is why we can distinguish between both only in contemplation unlike my mind and your body which can be distinguished in activity and reality Which is why to us saying that there are two activities in Christ is heretical

@@kiroshakir7935 Humans have different wills because our natures are numerically distinct; the divine persons have the same nature numerically, so they have the same will. Also, the analogy of body and soul is simply meant to show that just as a single human person subsists in body and soul, Christ subsists in divinity and humanity, without there being two persons. The analogy cannot be pushed in every respect, because body and soul are not perfect substances but parts of a whole, while divinity and humanity are in themselves complete and perfect substances. The only difference is that in the case of Christ, His humanity has a divine personality, since it subsists through the Word, and for this reason, there is one divine person in two natures, and two activities proper to each nature, while Christ remains one subject of activity (one operator).

@@jonathans3580 false Even if they are numerically different They should still produce the same will (in content) despite the wills being numerically different But they don't produce the same contents And stop lying to yourselves Cyril wasn't a dyophyiste This objection is yet another attack on those who say that there is one incarnate nature of the Son. They want to show that the idea is foolish and so they keep on arguing at every turn that two natures endured. They have forgotten, however, that it is only those things that are usually distinguished at more than a merely theoretical level which split apart from one another in differentiated separateness and radical distinction. Let us once more take the example of an ordinary man. We recognize two natures in him; for there is one nature of the soul and another of the body, but we divide them only at a theoretical level, and by subtle speculation, or rather we accept the distinction only in our mental intuitions, and we do not set the natures apart nor do we grant that they have a radical separateness, but we understand them to belong to one man. This is why the two are no longer two, but through both of them the one living creature is rendered complete." - St Cyril, Second Letter to Succensus "But being made one in nature, and not converted into flesh, he made his indwelling in such a way, as we may say that the soul of man does in his own body - St Cyril, Third Letter to Nestorius They also said the following: ‘If there is one incarnate nature of the Word then it absolutely follows that there must have been a mixture and confusion, with the human nature in him being diminished or ‘stolen away’ as it were.' Once again those who twist the truth are unaware that in fact there is but one incarnate nature of the Word." St Cyril, Second Letter to Succensus Yes Cyril was a misphysite Get over it And no the point of the analogy is to show how two natures can form a one nature without needing them to mix into each other

The Armenians are interesting when it comes to Chalcedon as they never attended it (too busy being martyred at Avarayr). I think if an Armenian and a Copt sat down and spoke about their Christology they wouldn't find too many differences at the end of the day, considering both use St Cyril as their source. St. Nerses Shnorhali was influential when it came to Armenian Christology - we say that Christ is 2 natures united in 1 person and 1 hypostases (hypostatic union), but after the union we cannot refer to the natures as being 2 since it does not capture the oneness of Christ fully, so Christ is referred to as being 1 incarnate and composite nature. As long as you submit that Christ is 1 person, 1 hypostasis and 1 nature (but this one nature is composite and from 2 natures without mixing) you have agreement amongst all Oriental Orthodox churches.

@@haykloretsi7899 That's not exactly my conclusion after speaking with several Armenians. One of them showed me a quote of Nerses where he recognizes two wills (and so I guess two energies as well), which Copts would never accept. I was told that Armenian used "nature" in different meanings, a so-called Cyrillian meaning (coming in the end from Apollinaris of Laodicea), and also the meaning found in many Fathers (nature = essence, so if Christ has two essences, he has two distinct natures). St Cyrill uses different expressions and cannot be reduced to the "one nature" formula he thought was from Athanasius, so Cyrill is not more the basis of the OO than of the EO just because of one formula is being absolutized by the OO (the Fathers of Chalcedon used cyrillian texts to check the Tome of Leo, and would only accept it if it was in accordance with Cyrill).

@@theophan9530 My attempt wasn't to prove that the EO were wrong in their theology, if that is what it sounded like. I think both Churches have correct theology simply with different emphasis'. It wouldn't surprise me if St. Nerses used the term "2 wills". There was a point in history were Emperor Heraclius convinced the Armenian Patriarch to adopt monothelitism and there was brief unity. However this Patriarch was deposed and Armenia went back to its original stance. I'm not too sure on the Coptic interpretation of the wills of Christ, however I can say with certainty that if a Copt says "1 will" he is referring to '1 composite will', not in that Christ's will is distinct but in that his 2 wills are the same as thus act as '1 incarnate will'. I don't doubt that the Tome was checked in accordance with Cyril, however I do not blame the Alexandrians for not adopting it. From what I understanding, the Tome only spoke of a union in "persona" and didn't make mention of "hypostasis". Through an Alexandrian point of view, this would have been the same stance as the Antiochian's who at the time supported a '2 natures united in persona (prosopon), but not hypostasis'.

@@haykloretsi7899 I think you're trying hard to make things look "the same" despite the fact that Copts and Jacobites would never accept in anyway Chalcedon or Constantinople III. The only way to be sure you share the same faith with someone, is to adhere to the same doctrinal definitions and councils. "One composite will" is nonsense to the Orthodox (two distinct natural wills cannot make "one will"), "One composite nature" is nonsense to the Orthodox (and to Armenians I know, who reject this doctrine believed by Jacobites), for two distinct natures, the one created, the other uncreated, do not make "one nature", even "composite" (as if it were comparable to the soul and body of the human nature, which was created "composite"). We do not believe that "both" paradigms (if there are only two here? in my view there are more than two confessions involved, even though you certainly wish to make all anti-chalcedonian "one Church") can express "correct theology", or the Ecumenical Councils make no sense, and the Holy Fathers are morons (which I refuse to believe), and the Church of Christ is a mess over which the gates of Hell have visibly prevailed. At last, I think it a bit simplistic to believe the Alexandrians too uneducated and ill-advised to know that St Leo the Great used Latin "persona" as an equivalent for both Greek "prosopon" and "hypostasis" (which St Gregory the Theologian teaches can be used as equivalents, as long as we do not mean "prosopon" in a modalist sense), and that he does not speak of "two hypostases" whatsoever (which is what constitutes Nestorianism). The Greek bishops took five days to check the Tome and understood it right, I don't see what prevented the Alexandrians to do the same? In fact, monophysites reproach the use of the expression "in two natures" after the union, and this is especially why they refuse Chalcedon. If you think "in two natures" after the union is a theological heresy, you are a monophysite, if not, then you can accept Chalcedon without any problem, and you are closer to the Orthodox team. Both cannot be correct. May God bless you, I hope you see I'm trying to point out what seems to me nonsensical in your positon, not to be mean at all. Still I would like a video by David specifically on the Armenians, since Nerses has no problem, it seems, confessing two natural wills and energies, which are distinct after the union.

Or just Monophysite Church

@@Michael_the_Drunkard "Monophysite" is a theological term that's debatable by them. "Church" indicates they're part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, in short, part of the Orthodox catholic Church, which they're not. "Non-Chalcedonian" is accurate, non-debatable, and uncontroversial in nature.

or just heterodox

non-Chalcedonians would include the Nestorians (Church of the East) too

@@user-cr3pn7rk2v The "Church of the East" would be more accurately termed non-Ephesian or Nestorian, since they went with Nestorius' teaching over the Council of Ephesus.

For the Chalcedonians to repent of their heresy denounce their cursed councils and then they can be in communion with Holy Orthodoxy

​@@Loyler_1-1you're too funny

@@Loyler_1-1Saint Euphemia disagrees with you

That so-called miracle never happened it was innovated centuries after chalcedon ​@mariorizkallah5383

Its great to see EO showing their true colors by throwing the doctors of the church under the bus to defend their nonsensical dogma. Thank you for being transparent

@@meina0614 Nope. Just don't think we should sacrifice historical realities on the altar of hagiography. OOs have a problem if their raison d'etre and theological paradigm are shattered by acknowledging that one of their favorite saints wasn't a great guy.

@@ElasticGiraffe im sure most EO would love to hear you saying this about Cyril.

@@meina0614 Repeating what one of the most well known and beloved Orthodox priest-teachers in the English-speaking world, Fr. Thomas Hopko, said about Cyril's mob boss behavior? I'd point them to Fr. John McGuckin's scholarly work on Cyril for receipts.

You are confused because the speaker lying. Truth is always simple; and though it is deep, it is never so deep that it cannot be apprehended. Both the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox are fully orthodox.

@@Troy-Mosesno. Accept chalcedon

@@ducky1016 Greetings! This is probably the best place and time to get a clear answer on the following: The Council of Ephesus [#3] excommunicated Bishops Ibas of Edessa and Theodoret of Cyrus -- both Nestorian sympathisers. Those bishops were then reinstated in Chalcedon [#4], but were then re-excommunicated in Constantinople II [#5]. If the Councils are binding and are not subject to change, how could it be that both Ephesus and Chalcedon were revised back-to-back? And what is it about Chalcedon that attempted to revise one council, but itself ended up being revised? From my research, three entire chapters of their writings were later stricken from Chalcedon... So, the mere fact that their exact written theology was added to Chalcedon in the first place, is a major stumbling block for me. How can a council endorse three chapters of heresies?

@@Troy-Moses The acts of ecumenical councils aren't understood to be infallible or irreversible. That would pose many problems. The only real or imagined ecumenical council that was more of a kangaroo court than Ephesus I under Cyril and Memnon was Ephesus II under Dioscorus. Frankly, Justinian behaved abominably during the Three Chapters controversy to get them condemned after Chalcedon---an olive branch extended by a politically concerned, Julianist-sympathizing emperor with a pro-miaphysite empress to the anti-Chalcedonian faction within his empire. Its purpose was to wipe out the Antiochene Christological tradition so that Chalcedon could never be seen as a bridge between Antioch and Alexandria. Regardless of what one thinks of the ethics or decorum of any ecumenical council's proceedings or the canons they produced, it's the theology only that is dogmatically affirmed.

@@ElasticGiraffe I think you provided a reasonable answer, but that would justify why Anti-Chalcedonians never accepted it.