The Gospels Perspectives #short
1:15
The Coptic Pope #short
1:02
Жыл бұрын
Пікірлер
@BirukDaniel-q2n
@BirukDaniel-q2n 3 күн бұрын
Father are the follower of Eastern or coptic orthodox??
@Midas.T
@Midas.T 9 күн бұрын
Thank you.💗
@GovaniHady
@GovaniHady 11 күн бұрын
☦️❤️
@501stheavytrooper
@501stheavytrooper 16 күн бұрын
Beautiful
@truemanrep3267
@truemanrep3267 17 күн бұрын
he better read it all again
@Chmcd4rz
@Chmcd4rz 17 күн бұрын
Amen 🙏
@TharwatSafwat
@TharwatSafwat 19 күн бұрын
Gut gemacht ي قدس ابونا👏
@OverEasyEgg-n9s
@OverEasyEgg-n9s 21 күн бұрын
Amazing
@annalleyne5248
@annalleyne5248 23 күн бұрын
Amen
@codenametemplar
@codenametemplar 23 күн бұрын
Father, I am a catholic, and I wanted to say what a wonderful message. I pray for the day our churches can reunite. Godbless.
@mek14913
@mek14913 26 күн бұрын
Same in Ethiopian Orthodox
@misstheeighties
@misstheeighties 15 күн бұрын
Merry Christmas, my orthodox friends all over the world!😊🌠
@liju3651
@liju3651 Ай бұрын
Amen ❤
@athanasius373
@athanasius373 Ай бұрын
How does the coptic pope differ from the latin one?
@Userkaf_II
@Userkaf_II Ай бұрын
This man isn't Egyptian he is 100% Palestinian Arab in origin... guaranteed... 👍
@dr.banoub9233
@dr.banoub9233 16 күн бұрын
You are a Hotep afrocentrist. Black Africans still identify by their tribal primitive affiliations. Copts are the purest most direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians! Because of our long well established ancient xenophobic and ethnocentric past, we never mixed with Blacks or other non Egyptian invaders or settlers to any significant extent that would have affected our genetics.
@AlbenYanarac
@AlbenYanarac Ай бұрын
Amen 🙏 ❤
@TheodoreMacewko
@TheodoreMacewko Ай бұрын
Assuming certain things I tsar theodore IV and a direct decendent of tsar Nicholas 2. How do your chuch feel about bringing me to power over Russia and Ukraine and Belarus ECT?
@CAMHTablet
@CAMHTablet Ай бұрын
I'm not religious, but yeah Azlan is on the move and stuff
@elyprieto7440
@elyprieto7440 Ай бұрын
“Justice” = Infinite punishments for finite crimes There’s no hate like christian love; thank goodness such an evil god doesn’t exist. Even if IT did exist, I would not follow for the carelessness, idiocy, and arrogance it has shown. I’d be more compelled to follow Joe Pesci even if it showed it’s face to all the world tomorrow. Overwhelmingly, theists, but particularly christians, are LESS moral and less “christian” than any atheist humanists I know. With so many denominations and divisions, you all hate each other (and everyone, really) more than you love yourselves. I see atheist humanists doing the most charity work and volunteering for the needy. I see atheist humanists being more kind to their fellow humans. AND they do all they do, knowing that there is no ‘god’, and there’s nowhere ‘special’ they’ll go; they do good things for the sake of being good and securing the happiness and safety of as many people as they can. Actually read your bible instead of burning other books (horrifying acts both led by ‘god’ and by his subjects), then go ahead and determine what kind of morality a perfect deity should have displayed. Turns out it’s filled to the brim with human error. God is dead because it never lived, but humans still had the capacity to kill its’ image.
@charananekibalijaun8837
@charananekibalijaun8837 Ай бұрын
Idolatry according to God
@Christ_Is_King_12
@Christ_Is_King_12 Ай бұрын
Defy idolatry please
@charananekibalijaun8837
@charananekibalijaun8837 Ай бұрын
@Armenian_knight12 try the 10 commandments? It's clearly defined there.
@charananekibalijaun8837
@charananekibalijaun8837 Ай бұрын
@Armenian_knight12 your Armenian faith is based on the Nicene Creed, pure idolatry
@Christ_Is_King_12
@Christ_Is_King_12 Ай бұрын
@@charananekibalijaun8837 Idolatry is worshipping anything else but God. You can ressemble God in a picture, but i dont make that picture my God. Thats idolatry. And our church would never worship a picture, and if yes, shame on us. Now stop saying to everyone "you're committing idolatry"
@charananekibalijaun8837
@charananekibalijaun8837 Ай бұрын
@@Christ_Is_King_12 do you bow to statues and / or pictures or pray to them?
@mekdesab
@mekdesab Ай бұрын
Amen 🙏🏽
@hum0riys952
@hum0riys952 Ай бұрын
In Eastern Orthdox Church we have the same book: chasoslov (russian language). The sevenfold prayer is mentioned by King David: ps. 118:164. ☦️
@mohamedal-farooq6505
@mohamedal-farooq6505 Ай бұрын
I wish you were a muslim because of the beauty of your preaching But i hope one day you will become insha allah
@BasedAussie79
@BasedAussie79 Ай бұрын
He's a man of God so never going to happen.
@soonheaven
@soonheaven Ай бұрын
Need more videos like this about Coptic tradition for the benefit of those in the Church.
@WeAreCatholicFamily
@WeAreCatholicFamily Ай бұрын
kzbin.info/www/bejne/nqSTiGmAaK-Ymtksi=AEZgCqZ40LdF9Res
@rg1whiteywins598
@rg1whiteywins598 Ай бұрын
Thank you Father for this video. Very informative.
@mattsutman1154
@mattsutman1154 Ай бұрын
So it’s just ceremonial. Got it.
@InfinityVision77
@InfinityVision77 Ай бұрын
The Miaphysite Heresy Denies Both the Incarnation and the Work of Salvation It can be affirmed that the Miaphysite heresy denies both the real Incarnation and the work of salvation of Christ, as it undermines the theological foundation necessary for a proper understanding of the relationship between Christ’s two natures (divine and human) and their role in the economy of salvation. This denial arises from the fundamental confusion introduced by Miaphysitism, which distorts the doctrine of the hypostatic union, compromises the authenticity of Christ’s humanity, and renders a coherent soteriology impossible. 1. Denial of the Incarnation through the Miaphysite Doctrine The Incarnation in Orthodoxy is understood as the act by which the Person (Hypostasis) of the Son of God assumed a fully complete human nature, without confusion with His divinity, while remaining fully God. Miaphysitism compromises this fundamental truth by: a) Denying the real distinction between Christ’s natures • The Miaphysite doctrine affirms a single composite nature after the union of the two natures, implying a fusion of the divine and human. • This fusion causes Christ’s human nature to be absorbed or nullified by His divine nature, meaning that Christ’s humanity is no longer fully real. b) Undermining the authenticity of Christ’s humanity • If Christ’s humanity is not distinct, He ceases to be truly human and therefore cannot represent humanity. • St. Gregory the Theologian affirms: “What is not assumed is not healed.” Thus, if Christ’s humanity is not real and fully assumed, the work of salvation becomes impossible. Consequence: By introducing confusion between the divine and human, Miaphysitism nullifies the real act of the Incarnation, reducing it to a mere divine phenomenon devoid of its authentic human dimension. 2. Denial of the Work of Salvation through the Miaphysite Heresy Salvation in Orthodoxy is based on the fact that Christ is both fully God and fully man, and His salvific work derives from the perfect and unconfused union of His two natures. Miaphysitism undermines this principle by: a) Losing the authenticity of the sacrifice • For Christ’s sacrifice to be effective, He had to be fully human, truly suffering in His humanity, and fully God, so that His sacrifice had infinite value. • In Miaphysitism, if Christ’s human nature is absorbed by the divine, He cannot truly suffer and die as a man. His sacrifice becomes merely an appearance, nullifying the redemptive value of the Cross. b) Invalidating human obedience • Christ fulfilled the will of the Father through His human will, which was free and distinct, fully cooperating with His divine will. This forms the basis of reconciliation between God and humanity. • In Miaphysitism, if Christ’s human will is absorbed by His divine will, human obedience becomes illusory, and reconciliation is compromised. c) Nullifying real communion with God • In Orthodoxy, salvation is not merely deliverance from sin but also participation in divine life through uncreated grace. This is made possible because Christ, as God and man, made this communion accessible. • If Christ has a composite nature, there is no real distinction between the divine and the human, and humanity can no longer participate in God’s life in a real way. Salvation becomes a mere legal or symbolic change, not an ontological transformation. 3. Nullifying Theosis (Deification) In Orthodox theology, the ultimate goal of salvation is theosis: the real union of humanity with God through participation in His uncreated energies. Miaphysitism makes this process impossible by: • Denying uncreated grace: The confusion between Christ’s natures leads to grace being understood as created rather than uncreated, eliminating the possibility of direct communion with God. • Compromising human nature: If Christ’s humanity is absorbed into His divinity, humanity can no longer be deified because there is no real bridge between humanity and divinity. • Losing real participation: Without uncreated grace and a distinct human nature in Christ, humanity’s participation in divine life is reduced to external symbolism. Consequence: Without uncreated grace and a distinct human nature in Christ, theosis is nullified, and humanity is deprived of its ultimate purpose: real union with God. 4. Rejection of the Authentic Hypostatic Union Orthodoxy teaches that: • The two natures of Christ are united in a hypostatic union, each retaining its own attributes. • This union forms the basis of the entire economy of salvation. Miaphysitism, through the fusion of natures, destroys this hypostatic union, which: • Compromises the foundation of union: If Christ’s human nature is not distinct, He can no longer act as a Mediator between God and humanity. • Destroys theological balance: The work of salvation depends on the simultaneous action of Christ’s two natures in His unique Person. The confusion of natures introduces functional separation. 5. Conclusion: Denial of the Incarnation and Salvation Through the Miaphysite heresy, both the real Incarnation and the work of salvation are denied: 1. Denial of the Incarnation: The confusion of natures nullifies the authenticity of Christ’s humanity, turning the Incarnation into a purely divine phenomenon. 2. Denial of salvation: If Christ’s humanity is not real and distinct, His sacrifice on the Cross, obedience, and reconciliation with God are all compromised. 3. Nullification of theosis: Without uncreated grace and a distinct human nature, humanity cannot achieve real union with God and is deprived of its ultimate purpose. Thus, the Miaphysite heresy not only undermines Orthodox doctrine but nullifies the entire economy of salvation, reducing it to an incoherent theological vision incapable of reconciling humanity with God.
@InfinityVision77
@InfinityVision77 Ай бұрын
Miaphysite Heresy, Grace, and Its Consequences on Salvation and Theosis The Miaphysite heresy, through its doctrine of a single composite nature, undermines the entire Orthodox understanding of Christ’s hypostatic union and has profound implications for the doctrine of grace. In Orthodox theology, grace is understood as the uncreated energy of God, through which humanity participates in the divine life without becoming ontologically identical to God. However, the Miaphysite perspective on grace, and its implications, severely distort this understanding and jeopardize the entire economy of salvation and the possibility of theosis (deification). 1. Grace in Chalcedonian Orthodox Theology In Orthodox teaching: • Grace is uncreated, emanating from God’s very being, yet distinct from His essence. It is the divine energy through which humanity has access to God’s life. • Through grace, humanity is called to theosis (deification), which is union with God at the level of His uncreated energies while maintaining the distinction between Creator and creature. • Uncreated grace is intrinsically tied to Christ’s two natures: through His divine nature, He transmits grace, and through His human nature, He opens the path for humanity to receive it. 2. Grace in the Miaphysite Perspective The Miaphysite doctrine of a single composite nature does not provide a coherent framework for the proper understanding of uncreated grace. While the Coptic Church teaches that grace is a gift from God to humanity, it is unclear whether: • Grace is understood as uncreated, or whether it is reduced to a mere created gift. • Their understanding of grace maintains the necessary distinction between God and creation, as is fundamental in Orthodox theology. The Central Issue: • If Christ’s composite nature fuses the divine and human, the divine energy transmitted by Christ risks being perceived as contaminated or limited by this fusion. Consequently, grace could be understood as a created manifestation rather than an uncreated energy. 3. Consequences of the Miaphysite Heresy on Grace a) Denial of the Distinction Between Uncreated and Created Grace • By confusing the divine and human natures, Miaphysitism may lead to a view in which grace is a result of the composite nature, rather than a distinct uncreated energy of God. • If grace is reduced to a created gift, it loses its ontological divine character, becoming incapable of mediating direct participation in God’s life. b) Undermining Theosis (Deification) • In Orthodox theology, deification is possible because humanity participates in God’s uncreated grace, while maintaining the ontological distinction between creature and Creator. • If grace is understood as created, theosis becomes impossible, as humanity would no longer be able to achieve true communion with God. Instead, humanity’s relationship with God would be reduced to a moral or legal framework, rather than an ontological union. c) Limiting the Salvific Work of Christ • If the grace transmitted by Christ is not uncreated, the salvific work of Christ is fundamentally limited. In this case: • Christ ceases to act as a true bridge between God and humanity. • His work is reduced to a symbolic demonstration of divine love, rather than an ontological restoration of human nature. 4. The Coptic Church’s Perspective on Grace and Its Implications The Coptic Church, insofar as it remains influenced by Miaphysitism, faces the following theological issues concerning grace: • Doctrinal Ambiguity: In the absence of a clear distinction between the composite nature and divine operations, grace risks being understood as a product of the composite nature, rather than a divine uncreated energy. • Christological Incoherence: If Christ’s natures are fused, the transmission of uncreated grace becomes problematic, as His human nature is diluted and cannot authentically function as a receptor of divine grace. • Anthropological Error: Without uncreated grace, humanity is no longer called to real union with God but reduced to a symbolic or ethical relationship. 5. Consequences on Salvation a) Limiting the Possibility of Salvation • If grace is created, humanity is no longer united with God but remains ontologically separate from Him. • The work of salvation becomes external and symbolic, leaving humanity unchanged. b) Loss of Direct Communion with God • In Orthodoxy, uncreated grace is the means by which humanity experiences God’s real presence. In Miaphysite theology, this uncreated grace is either absent or distorted, reducing communion with God to an indirect relationship. c) Annulling Theosis • If uncreated grace is denied, theosis becomes impossible. Humanity can no longer participate in divine life and remains static, incapable of fulfilling its ultimate purpose. 6. Conclusion: Denial of Uncreated Grace and the Implications of Miaphysitism The Miaphysite heresy, through its confusion of Christ’s natures, introduces a flawed or erroneous doctrine of grace. This has the following severe theological consequences: 1. Denial of uncreated grace reduces humanity’s participation in God to a symbolic level, nullifies the possibility of theosis, and undermines the economy of salvation. 2. Ontological confusion between Christ’s human and divine natures causes grace to be seen as created, contradicting the Orthodox understanding of true communion with God. 3. Annulling theosis is the gravest consequence, as humanity is deprived of its ultimate purpose: real and direct union with God through uncreated grace. Thus, the Miaphysite doctrine of grace undermines the entire Orthodox vision of salvation, theosis, and humanity’s relationship with God, making it incompatible with the revealed truth.
@shaabankaranja7
@shaabankaranja7 Ай бұрын
Thank you for this
@hum0riys952
@hum0riys952 Ай бұрын
Christ is risen☦️
@InfinityVision77
@InfinityVision77 Ай бұрын
The Consequences of the Miaphysite Heresy Regarding Christ as Hypostasis with Two Natures, Two Wills, and Two Energies The Miaphysite heresy, through its doctrine of a single composite nature, undermines the entire Orthodox teaching about Christ as the unique divine Hypostasis with two natures (divine and human), two wills, and two energies. This error not only distorts the true understanding of the hypostatic union but also has grave implications for the entire economy of salvation and humanity’s participation in divine life. 1. Denial of the Two Natures of Christ Orthodoxy teaches that Christ, as a unique Person, has two natures: divine and human. These natures: • Coexist without confusion, without mixture, without separation, and without division. • Remain distinct, each retaining its essential properties. Miaphysitism denies this distinction by asserting a single composite nature, which: • Merges the natures, leading to confusion between Christ’s divinity and humanity. • Effectively cancels the human nature, which becomes absorbed into the divine. In this view, Christ’s humanity is no longer fully real but merely a manifestation of the divine. Theological Consequence: • If the natures are not preserved as distinct, Christ’s humanity ceases to be like ours, rendering the entire work of salvation ineffective. Christ could no longer act as our representative before God because He would not be truly human. 2. Denial of the Two Wills of Christ Orthodoxy, as defined by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (681), teaches that: • Christ has two wills: one divine and one human, corresponding to His two natures. • The two wills are united in the divine Hypostasis of the Word, with the human will perfectly submitted to and cooperating with the divine will. Miaphysitism, by fusing the two natures into one, tends to: • Deny the existence of a distinct human will, allowing the divine will to dominate entirely. • Reject the true freedom of Christ’s human will, portraying Him as incapable of living an authentic human life. Theological Consequence: • If Christ lacks a true human will, He did not genuinely obey God as a man. Thus, Christ failed to fulfill humanity’s calling to obey God, nullifying the value of His sacrifice. • Furthermore, this creates a distorted understanding of the hypostatic union, suggesting that Christ’s humanity was not fully free but merely a passive instrument of His divinity. 3. Denial of the Two Energies of Christ Orthodoxy teaches that: • Christ has two energies (energeiai): one divine and one human, corresponding to His two natures. • The divine and human energies collaborate within the single divine Hypostasis of the Word. Miaphysitism, by confusing the natures, tends to deny the existence of a distinct human energy, presenting Christ’s actions as either exclusively divine or an indistinct mixture. This leads to: • A denial of the active role of Christ’s humanity in salvation. • A distortion of the understanding of Christ’s theandric (divine-human) activity. Theological Consequence: • If Christ did not act in a truly human way, His earthly life cannot serve as a genuine model for Christian life. • The assumed humanity of Christ becomes irrelevant, and humanity’s participation in salvation is limited to a purely spiritual dimension, without any real, physical, or human component. 4. Distortion of the Hypostatic Union In Orthodox theology: • The hypostatic union is the act by which the Person (Hypostasis) of the Son of God unites the divine and human natures perfectly and inseparably. • The unique Person of the Word is the subject of both natures, preserving their distinction. Miaphysitism, by merging the natures, introduces: • A functional separation between Christ’s divinity and humanity, even while claiming they are united in a single composite nature. • An ambiguous hypostasis, no longer clearly that of the divine Word but a result of the fusion of natures. Theological Consequence: • The hypostatic union is replaced by a natural fusion, making Christ’s Person no longer clearly God-Man but a hybrid entity. • Christ is no longer a single Person acting through two distinct natures but a composite nature that undermines the entire teaching about the relationship between God and man. 5. Undermining the Economy of Salvation The Miaphysite heresy directly attacks the economy of salvation because: • If Christ does not have a complete human nature distinct from His divinity, He did not truly assume the human condition, meaning it was not healed. • If there are no distinct wills, Christ’s human will could not have freely chosen obedience to God, nullifying the crucial role of human freedom in salvation. • If there are no distinct energies, Christ’s human actions (e.g., suffering, prayer, and death) lose their real soteriological value. Soteriological Consequence: Christ becomes a pseudo-man, incapable of representing humanity before God. In this context, humanity’s participation in divine life is annulled. 6. Conclusion The Miaphysite heresy fundamentally distorts the entire Orthodox understanding of Christ: • By denying the natures, it destroys the balance between divinity and humanity. • By denying the wills, it compromises the human freedom assumed by Christ. • By denying the energies, it limits the active role of humanity in salvation. • By distorting the hypostatic union, it undermines the unity of Christ’s Person. This heresy not only introduces doctrinal confusion but also nullifies the entire economy of salvation, reducing it to an illusory process where humanity is neither truly assumed nor truly saved. Miaphysitism, therefore, represents a fundamental deviation from the Orthodox truth about Christ, true God and true man.
@InfinityVision77
@InfinityVision77 Ай бұрын
Theological Argument: How the Miaphysite Heresy Introduces Two Hypostases Even While Speaking of One Nature The Miaphysite heresy, through its doctrine of a “single composite nature” in Christ, implicitly introduces two distinct hypostases, despite its claim that Christ possesses a single nature. This error arises from a fundamental confusion between nature and hypostasis and from the inability to coherently articulate the hypostatic union. Below, I will demonstrate how Miaphysitism, while attempting to preserve the unity of Christ, ends up fracturing the reality of the single Person of the Son of God. 1. The Miaphysite Confusion Between Nature and Hypostasis In Orthodox theology, hypostasis (person) is the one who possesses and unites the divine and human natures in Christ. The two natures coexist in the unique hypostasis of the Word of God, without mixture, confusion, separation, or division. By contrast: • Miaphysitism asserts a “single composite nature” after the union, but this “nature” tends to be understood as synonymous with the person of Christ. • This transforms what should be the relationship between hypostasis and natures into a relationship between two entities merged into one “composite nature.” This confusion has two major consequences: 1. Denial of the Preexistent Divine Hypostasis of the Word: If the “composite nature” becomes the basis of union, the divine hypostasis of the Word ceases to be the source of the union, being replaced by this new entity. 2. Creation of a “Second Hypostasis”: This “composite nature” functions, in reality, as a new hypostasis, separate from the preexistent divine hypostasis. 2. The Doubling of Hypostases: Two Implicit Hypostases While Miaphysitism explicitly rejects the idea of two hypostases, its doctrinal structure implicitly entails this doubling: 1. The Preexistent Divine Hypostasis: Miaphysites acknowledge the hypostasis of the Son of God before the Incarnation, but this Person is eclipsed by the notion of the “composite nature.” Instead of remaining the unifying hypostasis, the Person of the Son is marginalized by the new entity resulting from the union. 2. A “New Hypostasis” Resulting from the Composite Nature: • If the composite nature is the product of the union, it effectively becomes a new entity with its own distinct functionality. This functions as a separate hypostasis, even though Miaphysites refer to it as a “nature.” • Thus, the preexistent divine hypostasis and the “composite nature” coexist in a way that introduces a functional separation between the two. 3. The Lack of Hypostatic Coherence in Miaphysitism Chalcedonian Orthodoxy teaches that Christ is a single Person who acts through the two natures according to their properties: • Divinity acts divinely, unaffected by humanity. • Humanity acts humanly, without being absorbed by divinity. In Miaphysitism, this synergy is lost because: • The composite nature replaces the hypostasis. This creates a center of action distinct from the preexistent hypostasis of the Word. • Humanity and divinity no longer coexist authentically but are fused into an ambiguous entity that fails to respect the fundamental distinctions of the natures. As a result, Christ’s actions appear either divine or human, but not simultaneously through a single hypostasis. This functional incoherence leads to what can be interpreted as two distinct hypostases: one divine (the preexistent hypostasis of the Word) and one resulting from the “composite nature.” 4. The Tension with the Doctrine of Hypostatic Union The Orthodox doctrine of hypostatic union maintains that: • The two natures (divine and human) are united in the Person of the Word without confusion, while remaining distinct. • The divine hypostasis of the Word is the one who assumes the human nature, without this assumption resulting in any change to the divine Person. Miaphysitism, however: • Compromises the Person of the Word, making it dependent on the composite nature. This implies a subordination of the preexistent divine hypostasis to the process of union. • Implicitly produces a second hypostasis, as the “composite nature” functions de facto as a separate subject of operation. 5. Soteriological Consequences The implicit hypostatic doubling in Miaphysitism undermines the foundation of salvation: • Christ is no longer a single Person representing humanity before God. If there are two hypostases, the assumed humanity is no longer fully united with divinity. • If the “composite nature” acts as a separate hypostasis, this introduces a rupture between God and humanity, nullifying the efficacy of the Cross. St. Gregory the Theologian states: “What is not assumed is not healed.” If the divine hypostasis is not the one who assumes humanity, salvation becomes impossible. 6. Conclusion: Two Implicit Hypostases in Miaphysitism Although Miaphysitism speaks of a “single nature,” by confusing nature and hypostasis, it indirectly introduces two hypostases: 1. The preexistent divine hypostasis of the Word, marginalized. 2. A functional hypostasis of the “composite nature,” which operates as a separate entity. This hypostatic fracture is incompatible with the Chalcedonian definition and with Orthodox teaching. Miaphysitism ultimately denies both the unity of Christ’s Person and the distinction of His natures, rendering its doctrine unacceptable theologically and soteriologically.
@InfinityVision77
@InfinityVision77 Ай бұрын
A theologically advanced response on the heresy of Miaphysitism and its implications on the Hypostasis/Person of Christ requires a deep examination of the Christological foundations established by the Ecumenical Councils, especially the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon (451). Miaphysitism is considered a heresy not only because it alters the balance between Christ’s two natures, but also because it undermines the proper understanding of Christ’s Person through the confusion of nature and hypostasis. 1. Clarifying the relationship between hypostasis and nature In Orthodox theology: • Nature (ousia) refers to what Christ is: fully divine and fully human. • Hypostasis (prosopon) refers to who Christ is: the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the incarnate Word of God. The union of the two natures (divine and human) in Christ is realized at the level of the hypostasis, not the natures. The two natures coexist in the Person of Christ, retaining their own properties without mixture, confusion, separation, or division. This is the essence of the Chalcedonian dogmatic definition. 2. The Miaphysite confusion between nature and hypostasis Miaphysitism claims that in Christ there is a “single composite nature” (mia physis) after the union of the divine and human natures. While this “composite nature” is said to be both divine and human, this formulation: • Confuses nature with hypostasis: Miaphysites present this “single nature” as the unity of the historical Christ, effectively treating nature as synonymous with person. • Undermines the distinction between the two natures: By overemphasizing the unity, it leads to a fusion of the two natures, in which the divine tends to absorb the human. This confusion destroys the very reality of the hypostatic union and makes Christ no longer truly fully God and fully man, but a hybrid entity in which humanity is diminished or dissolved into divinity. 3. The consequences for Christ’s Hypostasis Miaphysitism introduces the following fundamental theological errors: 1. Denial of the preexistent divine Hypostasis of the Word: • If the two natures are fused into a single composite nature, the Hypostasis of the historical Christ is no longer the preexistent divine Person of the Word of God but becomes the product of the union of the natures. • This is a grave error, as it contradicts the very basis of the hypostatic union: the Person of the Word assumes human nature, not the other way around. • The Person (Hypostasis) of Christ becomes dependent on the union of the natures rather than being its cause. 2. Denial of the distinction between the two natures: • If the humanity and divinity are fused into one composite nature, Christ’s Hypostasis can no longer act distinctly through each nature but through a confused single nature. This diminishes His humanity and compromises His divinity. 3. Undermining salvation: • Orthodox theology teaches that Christ assumed a complete human nature to heal and save it. If Christ’s humanity is dissolved or absorbed into His divinity, then He is no longer truly human and cannot represent us before God. As St. Gregory the Theologian stated: “What is not assumed is not healed.” 4. Distortion of hypostatic synergy: • In Chalcedonian theology, the Hypostasis of Christ acts through each nature according to its properties (theandric action). Miaphysitism destroys this balance by presenting Christ’s actions as stemming from a single confused nature. 4. The difference between Miaphysitism and Orthodoxy • Chalcedonian Orthodoxy affirms that Christ is one Person (Hypostasis) with two distinct natures. • Miaphysitism reduces this Christological complexity to a single composite nature, which leads to the identification of hypostasis with nature-a grave theological error similar to Eutychianism. 5. Theological Conclusion Miaphysitism is a dangerous heresy because, through its confusion of nature and hypostasis, it indirectly denies the unique Person of Christ. Instead of recognizing that the divine Hypostasis of the Word is the one who unites and preserves the two natures, Miaphysitism fuses the natures and compromises the reality of Christ’s Person. This heresy is anathematized by the Orthodox Church because it endangers the very foundation of salvation: Christ, true God and true man, one of the Holy Trinity, died on the Cross to save all humanity. Without a correct understanding of His Hypostasis and natures, the economy of salvation is compromised, and the relationship between God and humanity becomes theologically untenable.
@razaiqbal83
@razaiqbal83 Ай бұрын
Against the 10 commandments
@razaiqbal83
@razaiqbal83 Ай бұрын
Idols in the background
@razaiqbal83
@razaiqbal83 Ай бұрын
Pagan belief, he wasn’t born in Winter You’ve combined pagan European beliefs with the pure teachings
@apo.7898
@apo.7898 2 ай бұрын
Both mono- and mia- mean 'one'. Miaphysite is just a word that doesn't follow the rules for forming compound words in Greek and any difference in meaning is a result of a convention. As if someone said twocycle instead of bicycle.
@quindariousgooch88
@quindariousgooch88 2 ай бұрын
Amin
@temesgengebeyehu9215
@temesgengebeyehu9215 2 ай бұрын
please fast give me ans
@temesgengebeyehu9215
@temesgengebeyehu9215 2 ай бұрын
am frome orthodox tewahdo(ethiopian orthodox),what is the d b ethiopian and eygypt?
@VitutNekruista
@VitutNekruista 2 ай бұрын
Im in bad relations with my parents, but god bless them
@carinas_introverted_plans
@carinas_introverted_plans 2 ай бұрын
thank you Abouna for these educational and edifying videos
@right-q4o
@right-q4o 2 ай бұрын
Jesus teaches us that Allah is Satan and Muhammad a false prophet the antichrist
@Taii.A-z4h
@Taii.A-z4h 2 ай бұрын
Could I become a Coptic Catholic or Orthodox
@xinosaj
@xinosaj 2 ай бұрын
A few points: 1. Orthodox and Catholic Bibles overlap but do not match. Orthodox recognize more books than Catholics do. Orthodox-only books include 3 Maccabees (and sometimes 4 Maccabees, which seems to have a complicated relationship with Orthodox Bibles, sometimes being recognized, sometimes put in an appendix, and sometimes removed) and Psalm 151. 2. Catholic Bibles aren't translated from the Septuagint. They use the critical text, which is based mainly on the Hebrew with occasional corrections from the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, the ridiculous assertion in the Masoretic text that Goliath was 10 feet tall is corrected by the Septuagint's record that he was 7 feet tall. The Septuagint is obviously right in this instance. But 19 times out of 20, the Masoretic text is given more weight. 3. Protestants weren't heretical to mark the Deuterocanonical books as secondary to the canon. Athanasius reports that this was the standard opinion of the church in the mid-4th century, and Melito reported the same decades earlier. Athanasius reports that the church only recognized a few of the Deuterocanonical books (Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, and Tobit) as worthy of being read as devotional literature, and regarded the rest as frauds written by con men. This implies that the church considered Maccabees to be fraudulent works - Athanasius certainly knew of Maccabees, and his statement leaves little doubt that they were seen as fakes. (Google Athanasius Festal Epistle and read the whole thing to confirm this.) That said, the Deuterocanonical books are part of Bible history and it's a shame that popular Bibles like the NIV don't include them. Not including them in at least some editions indicates that a Bible version is just intended as a popular, dynamic equivalence Bible, and not for use as a scholarly translation. But newer Bibles from the open-source community, like the WEB and NET, as well as the ESV are including the full Orthodox list of Deuterocanonical books in the middle. Hopefully, a common English Bible is not far off.
@armendkumnova4028
@armendkumnova4028 3 ай бұрын
its same albanska
@justinward3218
@justinward3218 3 ай бұрын
Roman Catholic here. I hope we reunite soon! Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. Even we say that it is one hydrostatic union. To me it seems like the same thing said with different words.
@grizzlymac-tight
@grizzlymac-tight 3 ай бұрын
U christians see the trinity in any and everything. The jews who understand hebrew and are acholars in their own book never understood their book to preach a trinity. And the "US" u refer to is called the royal plural. It doesnt imply more than one. Not to mention that why do u even restrict it to 3 if we go by ur understanding of "US" being plural? Who says that plural is 3. Allah is 1... MUHAMMAD AND JESUS ARE HIS PROPHETS.... CREATIONS. JESUS IS A MAN... NOT GOD IN FLESH.
@worldyworld3171
@worldyworld3171 3 ай бұрын
👏 well done explaining it
@SeptimiusAfer240
@SeptimiusAfer240 3 ай бұрын
What do you know of the Jews you Muhammadan. Go kiss your rock and giggle Iblis whith your pebbles
@SeptimiusAfer240
@SeptimiusAfer240 3 ай бұрын
The Jewish Kabbalistic mysticism go much further that the Trinity with the Sephiroth
@SeptimiusAfer240
@SeptimiusAfer240 3 ай бұрын
On Jeremiah 23:5-6 : "God will call the King-Messiah by His Name, as it is said, 'This is the name by which he will be called: YHWH, our Righteousness.'" Midrash Rabba on Psalms, chapter 21
@SeptimiusAfer240
@SeptimiusAfer240 3 ай бұрын
"What is the name of the King-Messiah? Rabbi Abba Bar-Kahana said: 'YHWH is his name, as it is written: This is the name by which he will be called, YHWH, our Righteousness.'" Midrash Rabba on Lamentations, chapter 1, verse 16.
@abhachatterjee8296
@abhachatterjee8296 3 ай бұрын
I'm sorry but in early humanity people definitely did not live for hundreds of years. They had much shorter lifespans, not only does this make more logical sense (as they would have died more easily from diseases that didn't yet have cures) but it is also proven by historical records.
@Deaconpeter-o1o
@Deaconpeter-o1o 3 ай бұрын
I'm a Syriac catholic what's the difference between us
@Deaconpeter-o1o
@Deaconpeter-o1o 3 ай бұрын
Hmmmm
@johng5166
@johng5166 3 ай бұрын
Coptic is the forth font of the ancient written language of E-GYPT. Coptic means Ka-Ptah “the spirit of Ptah” originally, which eventually became the remaining Christians but originally all of E-GYPT was Coptic. The Coptic font was adopted by the Ptolemies because they could not read our glyphs (language) so they invented the 4th font Coptic which means “Like Ka-Ptah”. The originally Ka-Ptahic religion was Amunism before transitioning into Christianity and then later to Islam. All Egyptians are Coptic, they are all the children of the Spirit of Ptah.
@dr.banoub9233
@dr.banoub9233 21 күн бұрын
Since the Arab invasion, the term Copt has been restricted to mean only the Christians of Egypt. Furthermore, it was only Copts who preserved the last stage of the Egyptian language despite Muslims attacking the language since the time of the Fatimid Nero of Islam, Al Hakim bin Amr Allah! Copts are a strictly endogamous ethno-religious group, Copts marry other Copts thus making Copts the purest most direct descendants of the pharaohs.
@dr.banoub9233
@dr.banoub9233 21 күн бұрын
To be a true Copt, one must recognize the persecution, oppression and martyrdom under 1300 years of Islamic governments.
@johng5166
@johng5166 16 күн бұрын
@@dr.banoub9233 I tend to agree with what your saying Dr Abanoub, but in essence, all Egyptians are Ka-Ptah (Coptic/ The People of the Spirit of Ptah) even the Arabs too but they forgot they are Coptic. Yes Copts intermarried from within eachother and kept their Christian Orthodox heritage exactly like the Copts before them following Ammunism for more than 5,000 years. We can also argue that Egypt's diversity nature is vast changing how the Ka-Ptahs looked over the years. Ka-Ptahs are Africans who intermingeled with Hyksos, Libyans, Assyrians, Frasi, Nubian, Greeks, Roman, Ottomans, Mamlooks, and lastly Arabs Invaders over the course of 2500 years. Our colours and looks have changed as we evolved. Yes the Coptic Christians maintained the language as to how the Greeks have corrupted it and kept using it till our present day in the liturgy. Yes we still pray for the Nile waters to rise, Yes we still use incense like we did 5,000 years earlier, Yes we still do lots of things the Ammunismic way as we transitioned into Christianity but in essence we are all Ka-Ptah and we are all descendants of the Pharaohs.
@dr.banoub9233
@dr.banoub9233 16 күн бұрын
@@johng5166 Anthropologists, like C. Loring Brace, don’t share your opinion: *_"We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well."_* You’re entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. As a Copt, it is insulting to me to dump us in the same bucket as tribal Arabs, Muslims , Blacks, and other non Copts. Arabs, North Africans(Berbers),and Blacks identify by tribal affiliation, while Egyptians are humanity’s very first nationalists.
@johng5166
@johng5166 16 күн бұрын
@@dr.banoub9233 Sir, I do recognize the persecutions. I am well aware of the history of our church. This statement governs Christianity. It does not govern my identity as being a true Copt. I can understand where you are coming from, but "Coptic" in essence means Egyptian. Ka-Ptah (The People of the Spirit of Ptah) (Ka-Pt) it does not not mean Orthodox Christians. Yes we took care of the language, yes we helped Jean Francois decipher the glyphs, but Coptic is a Nationality and not a sect of Christianity. Our Church is Egyptian hence it's "Coptic" Orthodox Christian.