Council of Chalcedon

Рет қаралды 147,672

Күн бұрын

Ryan M. Reeves (PhD Cambridge) is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Twitter: / ryanmreeves Instagram: / ryreeves4
Website: www.gordonconwell.edu/academic...
For the entire course on 'Church History: Reformation to Modern', see the playlist: • Renaissance & Modern H...

Пікірлер: 46

@nikostheater 7 жыл бұрын

Very good. I have to add though that a schism happened after Chalcedon between the Orthodox Church and the churches that became the Coptic, Armenian, Malankara, Ethiopian churches.

@russellnichols5746 7 жыл бұрын

Dr. Reeves, Thank you for the clear and concise explanation of the first century's church. Your research and understanding of ancient "church" doctrine coupled with your contemporary deliver style transmits complicated Ideas into everyday language. I have a much better understanding of the formation of the Catholic church. Thank you for the time you've spent and sharing it with the world.

@Julius386 8 жыл бұрын

Your icon for Nestorius is actually St. Nektarios. The two are separated by about 1500 years. One is a saint, one is a heretic.

@RyanReevesM 8 жыл бұрын

+Brandon Danevicius // Nice catch (unintentional, of course). :)

@JohnO318 7 жыл бұрын

Brandon Danevicius ... other than that, everything is accurate. Lol

@JohnO318 7 жыл бұрын

Ryan Reeves ... other than that, everything is accurate. Lol

@weirdschool 8 жыл бұрын

I'd love to hear you do a lecture on St. Gregory Palamas & Barlaam

@chiron14pl 5 жыл бұрын

I was disappointed to not hear anything about the Christian paths that left the church as a result of the Council of Chalcedon. These non-Chalcedonian Christians are actually more numerous than we in the West are aware of. They are the Coptic church in Egypt, the Ethiopian and Eritrean churches, a variety of Syriac churches, the Church of the East in Iraq, and even the indigenous St. Thomas Christians in India. In other words you've ignored Christianity in the Middle East, unless you have a video I haven't seen on that topic.

@bestoud 5 жыл бұрын

I like your lectures so much but I don't know how you ignored the facts of oppression that happened to Dioscorus in that council.. and also That a lot of orthodox Church (like Alexandria and Syrian ...) do not accept that council and considered it not approved by the Church.

@PaintingPastor 6 жыл бұрын

Eutychianism bumper sticker: "Dilution is the Solution to Pollution."

@sfappetrupavelandrei 7 жыл бұрын

@Ryan Reeves: As a theological historian, what is your input on these 2 videos: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ibZ_hNZ-veCZep8.html and kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mLCTiLp9rZrPnJs.html ? For me it is a little confusing because from the Oriental Orthodox point of view things are, historical, not exactly as we (Eastern Orthodox and Catholics) present it.

@benson0509 8 жыл бұрын

As a professor of Historical Theology, I would love to know your opinion on Cardinal Newman's statement: "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." Just FYI, I'm part of the Anglican tradition.

@RyanReevesM 8 жыл бұрын

I find that Newman of course is writing things apologetically and from the vantage of a world that had lost its history. I do not find this same amnesia to history present in the early Protestant tradition or for centuries thereafter. So what Newman is pointing to is a particular reading of history (his own that led him to become Catholic) and he was speaking this to a those who felt it was just a silly conversion. In a way, then, it's more autobiographical than a factor of real, substantive history. There are plenty of world-class historians who are themselves Protestant or of no particular faith.

@danielcruz8457 7 жыл бұрын

I love these videos and have learned a lot so thank you for your great work. On the councils you seem to emphasize what the Bishops and the Pope were attempting to do theologically but deemphasize what they saw themselves doing authoritatively. This is more what Newman is pointing out. Pope Leo and the Bishops did not see themselves as simply gathering to form a worldwide consensus that a Christian "should" accept. Pope Leo saw himself as representing the chair of Peter as Peter speaking through him and the Bishops as the successors of the apostles whereby they have gathered universally to authoritatively declare what a Christian "Must" accept. The theology certainly relates to how Christ saved but there is also another level of understanding that to reject the canons of the council meant you were outside of the Church in which salvation comes so to reject the Church meant rejecting salvation as well. I think Newman is not pointing to the theology alone but rather the incompatibility of Luther rejecting the authority of the Church with the entirety of it's history. How these great bishops of the Church and councils saw themselves and the degree of authority they saw themselves as having you have downplayed in the videos but I would like to hear more comment on.

@1962brennan 7 жыл бұрын

I am an atheist who loves history . I get it but much of this seems too much inside baseball for me . 50% man... 80% god I cant get myself worked up over but I have seen most of the series and have been impressed with the honest, well presented , history you have presented , Frankly I was expecting less. lol

@Jesusandbible 5 жыл бұрын

Ryan, will you please try to solve the history surrounding who was killing who, in the great Christian riots just after Constantine became emperor, and before the Nicene Creed, when "Christians were killing Christians" over doctrine. I have a feeling it looks like another St Bartholomew's Day type massacre, and it was partly pacifist Christians who said Constantine was therefore a phoney who were being killed, and this fact has been largely suppressed and erased from history.

@MariaMaria-hv4py 7 жыл бұрын

Dr. Reeves, First i want to thank you for this video and i really like the fact that you are objective when you do these doumentaries. Secondly, I couldn't help myself not to ask you this, why aren't you a Catholic? I wish I will hear your response Dr. Thank you again for what you are doing. God bless you.

@normanmcdermid1951 6 ай бұрын

Was it the Catholic church who created the term....Godhead?????????

@georgeyassa 7 жыл бұрын

I don't appreciate how you completely ignore the negative things that happen in this Council how Dioscorus was not excommunicated on his theology how this was the first major Schism in the Christian world how the East begin to persecute Oriental Orthodox Christians and even kill many Oriental Orthodox Christians if you will speak about the council please give a chance to all sides and all points of view I highly recommend reading Halcedon Reexamined

@georgeyassa 7 жыл бұрын

Chalcedon Reexamined

@DavidFuller2036 6 ай бұрын

Who came up with the presumption that :"God had to personally come down to save? That is the error, and why none of the doctrines proposed by men aline with all scripture. JAHOVA sent His only begotten SON. IS THAT NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU?

@blueskyrable 7 жыл бұрын

So, the '100% God and 100% human' is invented and unbiblical? From the video, I am not even clear if the council decision is based purely on consensus with or without biblical basis

@RyanReevesM 7 жыл бұрын

What I am trying to describe in the video is that it is both. The consensus was based on the reading of the Bible and it rejected other views (also claiming to be on the Bible). The consensus is what the creed comes from, so to speak. Thanks! :)

@Jesusandbible 5 жыл бұрын

If Oriental Orthodoxy is "right" link us to a full line of your "real" bishops since Chalcedon, that are obviously not the Eastern Orthodox ones. Cannot do it? So that means you cannot claim to have "apostolic succession".

@christinajuniel8879 7 жыл бұрын

Created Religion.

@antonioarganda2122 6 жыл бұрын

what Christine is also saying is is that Christianity is only valid if you gut it of historical content. Essentially, the cartoon version of Christianity.

@jasonmgavitt2357 7 жыл бұрын

do an episode on the trinity and how it is a pagan symbol adopted by first century pagans who had converted to christianity to some degree.i dont believe the cross or the trinity have anything to do with true christianity.a true christian worships one god,hence monotheism.the trinity is a triad of three gods and the cross is the symbol for it.you can make up all the fancy words you want to describe the trinity but in the end its a triad an should have nothing to fucking do with any monotheistic religion.mainstream christianity that uses crosses and trinity doctrines disgust the shit out of me.ive given up on monotheism because of this issue and how bullshit most christian religions are.they are all fake and steeped in many faiths.it is not its own thing.islam has more qualities of monotheism than christianity does.