+Tim Armstrong // Hey Tim. Sorry if that sounded negative. I am actually very much in favor or using certain simple, concrete examples for younger folks. I always tell my students 'you have to tell children simple statements they can understand; the problem is when they still think this way when they're adults'. So my little snark here about 100%, etc. was more that we shouldn't let our thinking on it remain merely at that level. If I were teaching it I would not go with a math formula, though--at least not personally. That makes it sound like a logical deduction or simply a foolish illogical conclusion. I tend to go more with the two teachings of scripture: God had to come down to save, yet he had to be like us in every way to be our substitute. In the early church they tend to go more with this central focus: both are taught and both are necessary, so we simply affirm both and try not to explain it in great detail. I also like to say this is one of the doctrines where we don't get to see the "inside of it". We are describing the witness of scripture, not our personally experience, so our language will always feel weak.

I'm not very familiar with Old Testament but the reason God didn't discover Himself as being 3 in 1, is that in those times people weren't capable of understanding. Humanity was still struggling with polytheism. You know how hard was for God to keep His chosen people to worship one God. If He would try to explain the dogma to the Jewish people, they would probably worship 3 gods. Read also in the Gospel how Jesus presents each Person of the Holy Trinity. He is pretty vague (when He said that He is son of God the Jewish priests were horrified) and it needed another 300 years of Christianity to have a clear dogma about the Holy Trinity.

Hey there! Sorry I missed the email. It likely came during one of the crazy seasons of life that I've had lately! Thankfully, I'm al back now! I think (speaking only personally, not based on research) there are some connections between Islam and Nestorianism, but the ideas are refracted through a lot of various ideas and popular language in that day. Shoot me another email and I'd love to chat about this if I can help'1

Thank you so much Dr. Reeves It's indeed a pleasure having your response. It will be great to share some information and exchange the motives and whys for this research. Thank you Best Regards Peter Here is my email address follows: peterlombardibr@gmail.com

Dear Dr. Reeves, The most reliable Islamic sources and most acceptable by the majority of the scholars of the Islamic world agreed and have a major consensus regarding the the story of " Waraqa Ibn Nawfal " the paternal uncle of Mohammad's first wife. I don't want to extend too much on the Islamic sources which is a different subject itself but can assure the stories are questionable from right there from the beginning but please allow me to demonstrate my thoughts quoting the most reliable source of authority of the Islamic world: Narrated 'Aisha: Sahih Bukhari volume 4, Book 55, Number 605: "..The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Nawfal ( who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospel in Arabic ) Waraqa asked (the Prophet), "What do you see?" When he told him, Waraqa said, "That is the same angel whom Allah sent to the Prophet) Moses. Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly." In some Islamic sources some stories tend to change with no form of reliable authenticity from a biographical perspective, that's the reason why had to quote directly from the Islamic sources to avoid hysteria from muslims. After the council decisions of Heresy, Nestorious had to go away deeper and find some comfort to start his mission. In some Islamic books the stories can be different regarding " Waraqa " who was a Christian Monk in the first place living in 6th Century Arabia well settled and with the purpose to evangelise the pagan arabs from Makka. On the other hand it's the story quoted above. The Hadith mentions that Waraqa used to read the Bible in Arabic Language but my sources don't point an existent bible in the 6th Century been already translated fully and completed in Arabic Language. My conclusion was simply that some of the Nestorious followers knew Greek and Latin and they were translating themselves biblical passages and reciting into the pagan arabs. There is no conclusive evidence from the Islamic sources pointing in fact that " Waraqa " was a " Nestorian " but following the route of Nestorious himself indicates the probability is " almost "accurate. I personally think Waraqa was undoubtably Nestorian though his actions and their views on the divinity of Christ. Ironically the first person to " recognised " signs of Prophethood in Mohammad was a Christian Heretic. Thank you Dr. Reeves Regards Peter

+Ryan Reeves...I know a lot of evangelicals don't like using the term "Mary the Mother of God," because the Catholic church has used that over the centuries to elevate her unbiblically to "Queen of Heaven." Plus, since God is not limited to the Son, but also the Father & the Holy Spirit, & they are indivisible, the term "Mother of God" almost sounds like Mary gave birth to the Father & the Holy Spirit too. Would the term "Mother of God the Son" have been a more precise term? Thanks!

+BornAgainRN: Sorry to barge in but I think the answer would be NO. When you specify "God the Son", most of the Catholic and Orthodox Christians would think at the Second Person of the Holy Trinity (and not Jesus). Calling Mother of God with the name "Mother of God the Son" you actually call Her as the Mother of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity which brings Her at the same level as God The Father. When we say Mother of God we focus at the godly nature of Jesus (where Jesus is true God and true man). So for me, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, would be a blasphemy to call Mother of God with the name "Mother of God the Son".

If I may suggest a title for the "Further Reading" list, John McGuckin's book 'Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy' is a very scholarly treatment of the subject.

Sorry if that sounds uninformed, I have once recently been getting into theology

according to islam,jesus was never crossed,and was brought up to the skies.

+D Wilk: His human nature died. But because His human nature was united with His godly nature in one Person (but in the same time having the 2 natures separated), the evil was absorbed be His godly nature. There is a word of Saint John the Chrysostom recited every Easter: "..[Hades] It seized a body, and Io! it discovered God; it seized earth, and, behold! it encountered heaven; it seized the visible, and was overcome by the invisible."

+D Wilk: I think your question is legitimate because Scripture actually says sin leads to death. However the old testament prophet Isaiah pointed out in chapter 53 that the Messiah (the "Arm of the LORD") would die carrying the sins of "God's people" and "us all" while himself being without sin. He would save the many by "pouring out his life unto death". This is THE passage about God's plan of salvation in Jesus.

Good typo catch (again). I'll add it to the list of edits. And I think it's a bit too premature to judge the discipleship of these people given that the lecture only discusses one set of controversies. It's not as if their entire lives were devoted to this. And besides, the context of discipleship is based of what you believe about Christ (God or not) and what you believe he came to do. The fact that there were four main doctrinal councils in the span of 450 years in order to deal with popular misunderstandings of God and salvation is not what I would call 'excessive' or based on something western. (I'll point out that all 4 of the councils took place in the East, too.) The Bible does talk about if Jesus is God and if he was 'like us in every way', and if he was the 'second Adam'. The point of the councils is to double down on just what scripture says and to reject people who are adding or taking things away.

Almost as if they purposefully adopt mutually exclusive axioms, so they can prove everything, and the opposite... Ohh wait!

pxengine it's not the like the council invented the triune nature of God. The Bible itself seems to teach that. Passages such as John 1:3 "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made", if Jesus is a creature then this passage is a lie. If Jesus is a created being then Revelation 5 shouldn't be in the Bible because all of creation is worshiping the Lamb and that shows deity and oneness with the Father as John 1:1 highlights. Also, Hebrews 1:6 shows all of the angels of God worshiping the Son and that would be blasphemy unless the passage is showing that the Father and the Son are one.

TheMaster100 the Bible teaches the triune nature of God. John 1:3 attributes creation through Christ and that puts him outside of creating beings. In fact, Arius was right then the Bible has to be wrong. Because, by Arius teaching Christ would have to somehow have been there and not there with the Father.

Well, A) it was more "this is what we've been taught", B) these weren't questions, but rather assertions, and C) people who defended orthodoxy did more than "it's a mystery, we can't give you an answer". There's five books of refutations on Marcionism by Tertullian, and Athanasius had been writing about the Incarnation since his deacon days.

The actual message Jesus delivered is that He is God and He came on Earth to save humanity. We, Christians, believe that all the other religions which may seem as an inspiration for Christ represent some remaining knowledge Adam had while being in Paradise and/or knowledge some people achieved by their own effort to understand their purpose in the world. But all these knowledges may have their own mistakes and Christ is the one who gave us the ultimate knowledge (complete and with no mistakes) and sent us the Holy Spirit to protect His Church from losing the Truth.

sfappetrupavelandrei i read something that said Jesus may have been an essene

And there are people who say Christ are some guy who went to India, etc. The thing is: what do you choose to believe? I choose to believe what the Church says about Him.

sfappetrupavelandrei it says Jesus grew up speaking to elders so to understand who he was we would need to look at the people of the time who may have been in the area and talked about similar things he talked about. there are actually astonishing amounts of records from that time in history. many details are known about a great many people including events they were at and the ways they reacted to specific situations. that part of the world was the key crossing for many global trade routes and the land of every historical empire. Jesus was likely influenced by many people of many different backgrounds from all walks of life. being the son of a carpenter probably worked with and met people from all different social castes. he probably had to learn to live among and around all of them. he could have travelled anywhere in the world from where he lived. could have served in the military or been a slave or got caught up in any sort of adventure imaginable. was most likely influenced by judeism, Hinduism, Greek religions, other paganism and had to compensate for everything he heard about and formed his identity from all of that.

+kelsin rolle // This is what you would expect from a faith based in the East and Africa for most of its early history. :)

ok . thank you. but this is hardly known in the westernized world . but i guess that just the way it is

Really? It is very odd for me to hear this as long as the Coptics separated from the Byzantine Roman Empire after the IV-th Ecumenical Council (V-th century) and the icons theology was discussed during VIII-IX centuries.

Sirapis Christos made in the image of Ptolemy l soter aka saviour given that title after he shave celucus necator one of his fellow dioduchi Kings after he was usurped ...