Dyophysite CONCEDES Two Sons in Christ | Two Natures REFUTED (Agen vs Joshy)

[@kidus_1010]

I raised this boy Agen since he was a wee lad. Glad to see him doing big things

[@ACReji]

😂

[@phanx0m924]

WHAAAAAT

[@Beshoy.40d]

funny.

[@ST-wc9ws]

💅🏻

[@dallacha12]

Wee lad is crazy work😭😭🙏

[@harkenmore]

Great discussion. May the Holy Fathers of Ephesus continue to intercede for us.

[@Awmanspider]

A great debate between both sides, it’s great to see apostolic orthodoxy and the truth be represented more often

[@Miaphysite_Carsin]

Happy this is one 40 mins long and not 2 hours 🗣️ keep it up

[@AlberGeorge]

Great video and debate, thanks for your work!

[@justyc3]

W vid unc. Saint Cyril pray for us 🙏🏻🗣️

[@yenenehw]

Below are Church Fathers prior to the Council of Chalcedon who affirmed their belief in the "One Incarnate Nature of Christ after the union," ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - So just as everything is spoken of the One person, *_for One Nature is recognized as existing after the union namely that of the Word Incarnate._* [Second Tome against Nestorius] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - The flesh is flesh and not Godhead, even though it became the flesh of God. 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"_* [1st Letter to Succensus 6] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Let them take account of this. When one speaks of a union, one does not signify the concurrence of a single factor but surely of two or more that are different from one another in nature. So, if we talk of a union, we confess it to be between flesh endowed with a rational soul and the Word; and those who speak of “two natures” understand it in this way. However, *_once we have confessed the union, the things that have been united are no longer separated from one another but are thereafter one Son; and One is His nature since the Word has been made flesh._* [Letter to Eulogius] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Surely, it is beyond dispute that the Only-Begotten, being by Nature God became man by a genuine union, in a manner beyond explanation or understanding. For as soon as this union has taken place, there is *_A single nature presented to our minds, the Incarnate Nature of The Word Himself._* [Against Nestorius 2.(Preface)] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Because, therefore, He is truly God and King according to nature, and because the One crucified has been called the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2:8), how could anyone hesitate to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God? *_Adore Him as one, without dividing Him into Two after the union._* [Letter 1] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - We confess that He is Son of God and God according to the Spirit, Son of Man according to the flesh, not Two Natures to that One Son, One Nature worshipped the other unworshipped, but *_One Nature of God the Word Incarnate worshipped with His flesh with One worship_* nor Two Sons, One, Very Son of God and worshipped, the other the man out of Mary not worshipped, made by grace son of God just as men too are. [St. Athanasius from his work upon the Incarnation of the Word: St. Cyril cited it in his books against Theodore] ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - *_We, however, knowing that the Son of God is one, do not separate His Divinity from His humanity by His human sufferings, nor because of His Divine actions do we estrange His divinity from His humanity._* [The Sixth Discourse of the Glaphuda (Letter 101)]. Leo, venerated by the EO, proclaimed at the Council of Chalcedon, "Christ is two: God and man, the One astonished us with miracles and the other received disgrace and suffering": a Divine nature performing its functions and a human nature carrying out its role. When we compare St. Cyril's account with the perspective of Leo a contradiction emerges. ✝St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Therefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts; *_but after the union, since the distinction into two is now done away with, we believe that there is one nature of the Son, since He is one Son._* [Letter 40, Response to St. Acacius of Melitene] ✝St. Theodotus of Ancyra: - *_For what has been united is no longer named two but one, if by concept you divide again and examine each according to itself. Surely then you undo the union: for it is impossible both to preserve the union and to examine each at the same time according to itself, but what was united came to be one indissolubly and no longer becomes two. But, I distinguish by rationalization only, he says - surely then you also undo the union with the same rationalization; for by what you might separate one from the other, by this you also sever the combination. Then why do you split the saving dispensation, thinking of two and canceling the union?_* [Acts of the Council of Ephesus - Homily 1 of St. Theodotus of Ancyra] ✝St. Ephrem the Syrian: - *_Though your nature is One,_* its interpretations are many. There are narratives exalted, intermediate, and lowly. [Hymns on Faith 10:3] ✝St. Ephrem the Syrian: - Glorious is the Wise One Who allied and joined Divinity with humanity, one from the height and the other from the depth. *_He mingled (united) the Natures like pigments and an image (One Nature) came into being: the God-Man._* [Hymns on Incarnation 8:2]. The concept presented by St. Ephrem, wherein the two natures unite to form the One he referred to as the God-Man, stands in direct opposition to the belief held by Leo's (EO) concept that maintains the two natures unite but then remain distinct and separate after the union within one person referred to as God and Man. ✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: And, if I am to speak concisely, the Savior is made of elements (natures) which are distinct from one another, for the invisible is not the same with the visible, nor the timeless with that which is subject to time, yet He is not two Persons, God forbid! *_For both Natures are One by the combination (unity), the Divinity being made Man, and the Manhood deified or however one should express it._* [To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius. (Ep. CI.) Letter 101.5-6] ✝St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - He was, and He becomes. He was above time; He became subject to time. He was invisible; He becomes visible... What He was, He laid aside; what He was not, He assumed. *_He did not become two, but He allowed himself to become A unity (one nature) composed of two elements (natures)._* For that which assumed and that which was assumed combine (united) into A Divine being. *_The two natures compound (unit) into A unit (One nature); and there are not two sons, for we must make no mistake about the commixture of the natures._* [Oration 37.2.2] ✝St. Gregory of Nyssa: - *_So how could the unity be separated into a duality (two nature), since no numerical distinction can be made?_* [Letter to St. Theophilus of Alexandria] ✝St. Basil the great: - In all these cases we do not mention two, God apart and man apart for *_He was One, but in thought we take into account the nature of each. Peter had not two in his mind when he said, "Christ has suffered for us in the flesh."_* [The extant works of St. Basil - Dogmatic] ✝St. Basil the great: - Amen Amen Amen. I believe, I believe, and confess to the last breath...that this is the life-giving Flesh that your only- begotten Son, our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, took from our Lady... *_He made it One with His Divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration._* [Liturgy of St. Basil the great] St. Basil stands in direct opposition to the belief held by Leo (EO) who at the council of Chalcedon stated, Christ is two: God and man. ✝St. Hilary of Poitiers: - *_Thus, God was born to take us into Himself, suffered to justify us, and died to avenge us…, the Only-begotten God chose to become man of His own will... God had assumed our weakness... God chose to suffer of His own will... God chose to die of His own will…. since God died through the flesh._* [Book IX On the Trinity]. Leo (EO) expressed that Christ the man was born, assumed our weakness, suffered, and died. Even though God does not experience suffering and acts such as birth, suffering, death, and weakness are intrinsic to the flesh, St. Hilary attributed them to God, recognizing that the flesh of Jesus Christ is none other than the flesh of God within the One Incarnate Nature of The Word, emphasizing the properties of the flesh have become the properties of Divinity, and likewise, the properties of Divinity have become the properties of the flesh. ✝St. Hilary of Poitiers: - *_We have Christ working in Himself the very things which God works in Him, for it was Christ who died, stripping from Himself His flesh… it was none other who raised Christ from the dead but Christ Himself._* [Book IX On the Trinity]. Leo (EO) on the other hand presents a division within Christ depicting one aspect of Christ performing awe-inspiring miracles such as raising the dead while another aspect endures suffering and humiliation.

[@eliasAbouda-z4s]

He most definitely did teach the Filioque. I recommend you watch Dwong's videos showing that all church fathers east and west taught the Filioque. Abosolutely no one can be an Orthodox after watching his videos 😁

[@pequenosorientais]

Based Agen

[@eliasAbouda-z4s]

St Cyril nost definitely did teach the Filoque. I recommend you watch Dwong's videos showing that all church fathers east and west taught the Filioque. Abosolutely no one can be an Orthodox after watching his videos

[@Scholasticae]

My glorious king Joshy

[@cela.24k]

🤣

[@dynamic9016]

The more I learn, the less I know..I can't decide who won this debate cause i have alot to learn still about this subject..Thanks much for this video.m

[@apo.7898]

An example of what a 'collection of names' really is. Liam, Amina, Hiroshi, Sofia, Mateo, Anya, Giovanni, Zara, Omar, Klara, Ravi, Lucia, Yuki, Maxim, Sven, Evelyn, Fatima, Carlos, Tariq, Lena. That's a collection of names. And of course the collection of names DOES NOT TALK.

[@shiningdiamond5046]

25:55Its cyrills position that son of man was a name that was accidental to becoming man "They who have their faith in Christ undefiled, and approved by right votes of all men, will say that God the Word Himself out of God the Father descended into emptiness, taking servant's form and, making His own the Body which was born of the Virgin, was made as we and called Son of Man. He is indeed God according to the Spirit, yet the Same Man according to the flesh" scholia on the incarnation

[@hackbounties114]

The one subsistence is the hypostasis (second person of the Godhead).

[@DoomkingBalerdroch]

That's not even the contention. Remember hypostasis doesn't mean person for us and since you don't have a distinction between person and hypostasis making them to mean the same thing you have the problem of your christology changing Christ's divine hypostasis into a human hypostasis. Composite within his divinity instead of being simple in his divinity since his divine hypostasis is also a human/created hypostasis which is change and alteration to the particular divinity hence you have a tritium quid

[@Hydecake]

Joshy slammed

[@apo.7898]

The hypocrite says 'I'm not trying to do a gotcha' while trying to do exactly that.

[@eliasAbouda-z4s]

He most defibitely did teach the Filioque. I recommend you watch Dwong's videos showing that all church fathers east and west taught the Filioque. Abosolutely no one can be an Orthodox after watching his videos

[@the_massoud]

🔥

[@IM.o.s.e.s.I]

@ 9:40 Joshy literally says that a particular is a primary substance, yet at 20:45 he mocks Agen for saying primary substance of the flesh.... Ok, so is He a particular of human nature or not?

[@Ia23872]

Amazing debate, thanks for this.

[@Ty9001]

I’ll be honest actually a Catholic here but Joshy lost very badly I thought Agen had some solid points

[@apo.7898]

He is a good manipulator.

[@apo.7898]

E.g. the nature cannot make propositions. Humanity and Divinity are not individual realities etc. Sometimes he offers two options, one leads to his view the other to a parody of 'Nestorianism'. Consider a question like 'Do you believe the earth is a square or a cube?"

[@Cbisseh]

🎉🎉

[@CyrillicMiaphysite]

❤️

[@Jaiwiqik]

My beautiful king 😍

[@QuinnFisher-j6y]

We almost to a thousand views yalla

[@Forexx030]

Brother ur good, u should debate David Erhan or Ubi Petrus

[@kidus_1010]

David Erhan is scared to debate

[@Miaphysite3]

They are evading any OO, it has been a year now since they have been invited for any time.

[@Forexx030]

@@Miaphysite3 i see, im btw also Eritrean🙏🏽

[@Miaphysite3]

@@Forexx030 Eritrean Tewahedo?

[@JudoMateo]

@@Forexx030Igzeeo Marane Christos.

[@merhawitewolde981]

Repent and come to the preserved teaching of Oriental Orthodoxy

[@slaughter2517]

😂😂😂😂

[@MrTerkoizzz]

I will not worship Ra

[@HMFOG]

Youre extremely ignorant.​@@MrTerkoizzz

[@pikoujimbok]

hi agen and beard and robel how are you guys doing

[@apo.7898]

"Individual that's of the same category as the two elements" = word salad or "a place where the union occurs" = of course not And you ask someone to choose between the two. The answer is neither. Keep your salad for yourself. THE HUMANITY AND THE DIVINITY ARE NOT INDIVIDUAL REALITIES.

[@apo.7898]

THE PERSON IS NOT A COLLECTION OF NAMES. HUMANITY AND DIVINITY ARE NOT INDIVIDUAL REALITIES. NATURE DOES NOT MAKE PROPOSITIONS.

[@Sophia-jc8yh]

Good job

[@imo6927]

Keep making this kinda stuff

[@Awmanspider]

37:55 concession occurs, Apostolic Orthodox W

[@እለአፅብሐ]

@Awmanspider Wouldn't this be a form of a strawman argument? After all, it’s acknowledged that there are indeed writings among early Chalcedonians that approach (or are indistinguishable from) Nestorianism-writings from which later Chalcedonians distanced themselves, particularly at the Second Council of Constantinople (553). It was here that the Chalcedonian Churches began moving away from the traditional mischaracterization of Dioscorians as Monophysites and sought to accommodate Miaphysitism. We should also remember there are writings among Dioscorians that approach Apollinarian and Eutychian positions, from which later fathers, like Severus of Antioch, distanced themselves and disavowed allegiance.

[@Awmanspider]

@@እለአፅብሐ no it would not be a strawman, considering they all hold Chalcedon, the writings of Leo (which were extremely Nestorian), the writings of Theodoret, and the letter of ibas to be inspired, the second council still rejected the miaphysis. As for the second claim, they still will claim that we are monophysites, if you check out Jay dyer or David erhan, they clearly say so. Moreover, I would love to see what followers of dioscorus held to either dogma, considering he condemned eutychus at chalcedon if he were to espouse heresy, and never held to apollonarism as well

[@cshbdinduv]

What’s Agen’s TikTok? (If he has one)

[@apushyez2411]

You should debate Jay Dyer on this. Also what do you say to the question what are you eating of when eating of the Eucharist as a miaphysite?

[@kidus_1010]

Bro Jay is too scared to debate any OO on any topic whatsoever. That’s why he always hides behind Erhan who is honestly arguably just as bad. We have an open invite to any of them to debate Agen or FanaticCoptic or Daniel Kakish but they block us and run away. To answer your question though we eat and drink the flesh and blood of God incarnate in the form of bread and wine in the Eucharist.

[@anthonyp6055]

We'll(I'd assume) they'd answer your eating the Incarnate Word, flesh and Deity together. "We, eating of the Word of the Father, and having the lintels of our hearts sealed with the blood of the New Testament, acknowledge the Grace given us from the Saviour, Who said, 'Behold I have given unto you to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy.'" - St. Athanasius The Great - (From Letter IV) "For this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the Divine Power and Essence. "Taste and see that the Lord is Christ," it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner; when now the soul nourishes itself, according to the truth-loving Plato." - St. Clement Of Alexandria - (From Stromata; Chapter X. The opinion of the Apostles on veiling the mysteries of the Faith.) "When then we were called to the kingdom of Heaven by Christ (for this and nought else, I deem, it pointeth to, that some entered into the land of promise), then the typical manna no longer belongeth to us (for not by the letter of Moses are we any longer nourished) but the Bread from Heaven, i. e., Christ, nourishing us unto Eternal Life, both through the supply of the Holy Ghost, and the participation of His Own Flesh, which infuseth into us the participation of God, and effaceth the deadness that cometh from the ancient curse" - St. Cyril Of Alexandria - (Commentary On The Bread Of Life)

[@Meatyyyy]

💯💯💯💯

[@Hydecake]

Joshy slammed gng

[@CopticZaza]

@@Hydecakenot at all lol Joshy makes numerous mistakes

[@Hydecake]

@@CopticZaza that doesn’t equal a loss “coptic”zaza read on logic pls

[@CyrillicMiaphysite]

May all of the Apostolic churches repent to the teachings of St. Cyrill

[@ApostolicOrthodoxy]

St Cyril pray for us!

[@CyrillicMiaphysite]

@@ApostolicOrthodoxy ❤️

[@LivingApostolic]

St. Cyril explicitly taught the Filioque, and he explicitly affirmed the Roman Pontiff as being head in authority over all bishops. Very convenient to accept his "teachings" on one composite nature then reject the unique Roman catholic doctrines he affirmed.

[@bobbobb4804]

@@LivingApostolicI’m not even Oriental Orthodox, but that’s just false. You can’t find one quote or writing from St Cyril supporting the Filioque or papal supremacy.

[@LivingApostolic]

@@bobbobb4804 "[The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God the Father as well as of the Son, and comes forth substantially from both (oudiwows & aupoiv), that is from the Father through the Son (ік Патр§ бі Yio)." Just curious, which Roman Catholic saint do you think I’m quoting here? He is teaching the filioque here, so just curious who you think he is? He is considered a top doctor of the church

[@Miguel-zc6tj]

Dyophysite concedes Christ has two natures! Description should read 'Agen gives 40 minute demonstration of the fallacy of equivocation using the word 'son'. Joshy didn't concede that 'son of man' and 'son of God' refer to anything other than the two natures, nor did Agen demonstrate that if used in this way then it logically follows that they must refer to something other than the two natures. It is the same with Peter Chrysologus's use of 'two sons'. He too is obviously referencing the two natures by the word 'sons' as he explains in the very same sentence that this is 'because divinity has been mixed with humanity, piety united to deity.' At any rate it is a sermon, not a work on christology. He is using the phrase as a springboard in a sermon the primary aim of which is to give an exposition on the relationship between Jews and Gentiles whom he calls Christ's 'two sons'. It is not a exposition on christology. This you take and twist to make your 'gotcha' video.

[@ApostolicOrthodoxy]

Ah so two natures as two sons is ok just because its predicated to nature and not two persons? Brilliant, enjoy your anathematization notice from 1500 years ago condemning two sons even in reference to two natures: "[...] let everyone be forced to publicly anathematize the dogmas of Nestorius and Theodore: especially those who say two natures after the union, properly each one working. For of those who are in Germanicia I have found some experienced, indeed refusing to say two sons, but indeed not refusing to say two natures. Wherefore if it be granted, that it may be said and taught by them, that each nature worketh by itself, and this indeed is suffered, but that remaineth impassive, there is no other thing than to confess two sons again, and bring in the parts." St. Acacius of Melitene, Letter 1 to St Cyril of Alexandria, CPG 5793 “We confess that he is the Son of God and God in the Spirit, and man in the flesh. We do not confess that this single Son is two natures.. He is rather one incarnate nature of the Word, and is to be worshiped, with his flesh, with a single worship. There are not two sons, one the true Son of God who is worshiped, and the other a man from Mary.. St. Athanasius of Alexandria, quoted by St. Cyril, A Defense of the Twelve Anathemas, Eighth Anathema Thus a duality of Sons [τῶν υἱῶν δυὰς] would be understood and resulted if a certain heterogenous nature [ἑτερογενής τις φύσις] with it's own distinguishing marks [ἰδιάζουσι σημείοις] was identified in the ineffable divinity of the Son; such as being weak or small or corruptible or temporary, while the divine nature was powerful and great and incorruptible and eternal.. How can that which is one be divided into a dual signification when there is no partitioning numerical difference [πῶς ἂν διαιροῖτο τὸ ἓν εἰς δυϊκὴν σημασίαν, μηδεμιᾶς διαφορᾶς τὸν ἀριθμὸν μεριζούσης]” St. Gregory of Nyssa, To Theophilus Against the Apollinarius, Section III, (CPG-3143), PG-45 (1269-1277)

[@Miguel-zc6tj]

@@ApostolicOrthodoxy Yes, a word can be used in different senses. It can be correctly used in one sense and incorrectly used in another. And so yes, it depends on the sense in which the writer means 'two sons'. And you enjoy your condemnation from me today that you disingenuously twisted Joshy’s position for a ‘gotcha’ video, all the while denying to him that that was what you were trying to do, and then took the quote from Peter Chrysologus’s sermon to make out that it was from some Christological treatise, not a sermon aiming to make a point about the relationships between Jews and Gentiles. In what you’ve quoted of Acacius of Melitene the condemnation is precisely of those claiming of the two natures that each ‘nature worketh by itself’, i.e. that there is no principle of unity between them, which implies that there is not only one person in whom the two are united, but two persons, so that 'this indeed is suffered, but that remaineth impassive’. If that was our position then we could say that Jesus did not suffer, or the Son of God remained impassive. Yet we don’t say that because there are not two persons, but one. Again in what you’ve quoted from St Cyril, what understanding of ‘two natures’ is being condemned? One whose proponent would (or could) say worship should be given to the divine nature, but not to the flesh ‘with a single worship’. One that could say that there are, ‘two sons, one the true Son of God who is worshiped, and the other a man from Mary’. Again, an understanding where the principle of unity is not the one person, Jesus Christ, who is the very same eternal Son of God. Again that is indeed two sons in the sense of two persons. Again that is not our position. There is only one person and worship is given to that one person. Do Thomists claim ‘a certain heterogenous nature with it's own distinguishing marks’ which is ‘identified in the ineffable divinity of the Son’?

[@QuinnFisher-j6y]

Glory be to God in the highest. Christ is in no way twofold.

[@ApostolicOrthodoxy]

Amen.

[@ACReji]

So Caths are closer to Leo? Therefore Nestorian?

[@ACReji]

@hagopwmyeremian Should rephrase...more Nestorian

[@ReissBXNG]

How? Asking to learn here, not to debate ​@hagopwmyeremian

[@apushyez2411]

👰🏼‍♂️

[@MrTerkoizzz]

​@hagopyeremianPardon me but don't Nestorians believe Christ's dual natures are not united? Meanwhile, Caledonians uphold unity in the two natures in one person. To my understanding. Calling them nestorian simply isn't correct.

[@copt_live]

@@MrTerkoizzzread his letters

[@MountAthosandAquinas]

This is where, as an avid reader of Aquinas, I do not box myself into his metaphysics terminology apart from an analogy in which Aquinas provides a solid concrete to establish his intention (aka, what he is trying to get at) In his commentary on Matthew’s Gospel, Aquinas points out that the Logos (Word) subsists in two natures. Because the mode of His existence in His divine nature is as “subsisting filiation,” then His self affirming “existence”, which is His identity, supposits for the human nature. Hence why Gabriel tells Mary “he shall be called the Son of God.” Because the union is in the “subsisting Filiation” the Son of Man is no other than the Hypostasis who is the Son of God. But that Son is also properly called “Word.” Here is the concrete example. God the Word is the “inner speech” of the Father. God “speaks Himself” and all things in His Son. It’s the Sons Characteristic to be the revelation. God speaks only Once. This One Speech is His Son. Now, speech has two different modes. One, the mode in which it exists in the mind. This is Internal Speech. And, the speech which meets the tongue by the breath. This is external speech. The Agent is the union of the mind and the tongue. My argument is simple: if the Son is subsisting “Word” or “inner speech” and then terminates in the incarnation as “vocal speech” then how many subsistences do we have? One. For vocal speech is the sign and incarnation of the inner speech from which and in which it derives its existence. For the Son as the Speech of the Father is spoken “once” and not “twice.” If once, we have one Subject. It’s also important to note that inner speech interpenetrates vocal speech since every word is a passion or flowing out of inner speech (which is wholly immaterial) which is informed by it. The Son is absolutely the Speech of the Father. Not spoken twice (once in eternity and once in time) but spoken once in eternity and for our sakes vocalized in time in the incarnation so that we might hear and be assimilated unto Himself. So even as “Speech” is unified as a whole, nevertheless, we can distinguish between “inner” and “vocal.” Likewise, though the Son is a unified whole, yet we can distinguish between Him as subsisting from eternity, or as subsisting in human nature for us. Vocal speech adds no additional existence to inner speech, but inner speech grants existence to vocal speech. Conclusion? Since the very Personal property which subsists is as Word or Speech, then no additional hypostasis is added in the termination of vocal speech (aka, incarnation). In the simplest terms, since the Father speaks the incarnation of the Son IN the Son, then the single subsistence OF the Son is all there is. For everything else spoken IN the Son, but as “other” than the Son does not subsist OF the Son but as an individual who is not the Son (because it doesn’t subsist as Son). Therefore, there is One Son (Speech) who is composed of two natures (Inner which is immaterial and vocal which is incarnation). Not two speeches but One from eternity subsisting in the nature in time even as your immaterial concepts meet your tongue “in time.” This understanding (which is from Aquinas, spread out in his work) is also Maximus’s. Though he establishes it by a different path. Maximus is clear that the Logos of being (which is of the Logos) preexists in the Divine Mind and terminates into an individual Hypostasis (aka, us). While the Son IS THE LOGOS and does not receive existence terminating into an individual Hypostasis but rather IS the individual Hypostasis through which all individuation (logos of being, well being, eternal well being) derives it’s termination. Hence, Maximus absolutely rejects two existences (and thus two Hypostasis) in the Word. The demonstration of “inner speech” and “external speech” is a clear example that analogously demonstrates a concrete example in which all Aquinas’s language should not be divorced. -Irenaeus

[@ApostolicOrthodoxy]

Hello! I appreciate your comment. Everyone would agree that the Word subsists as "filiated" or speech, the issue is, did his divine person intrinsicly inherit a new mode? (as a quasi-accident, or as a particularized enhypostatized human ousia in his hypostasis), or did he unite to a thing with another mode and gain those properties not by intrinsic addition but by extrinsic relation. For example one can say God gained the subsistence being the God of Abraham. Not that in his intrinsic reality did he gain this, but by way of external/extrinsic relation. This "vocalization" of the one speech has flaws, did this vocalization alter the inner speech to transform into a vocalized speech? or did he inherit the mode of vocalized speech, or did he unite to a thing with vocalized speech? All 3 options entirely have flaws.

[@MountAthosandAquinas]

@@ApostolicOrthodoxy The Word, no matter how many “relations” gained over time (Adonai, YHWY, Elohim, Angel of the Lord) gains no new “actuation.”In this you are correct that his being called “the God of Abraham” doesn’t add anything to God except logically. With that being said, Christ doesn’t exist “in” the Divine Mind, but rather is the Logos of the Fathers Mind in which all things terminate in their proper nature and receive their constituent parts. When I say Christ is the “Speech” of God, I am showing that the “Speech” remains One in existence and agency though two in relation (vocal to inner). For the Son of Man does not have “existence” as an individual suppositum in which he subsists but rather He is supposited by the Speech, being identical in reference. Again, Vocal speech does not have its own “existence” but exists in Simple Speech and depends upon it though it doesn’t change inner speech since it’s immaterial. Notice, between “Vocal Speech” and “inner Speech” you have the overlapping common predication of “Speech.” Just as “son of Man” and “Son of God” you have the overlapping common term of “Son.” It’s precisely “subsisting filiation” that shows Him assuming Human nature as “Son” of Man is not repugnant to His “Personality”. Two nativities (though one filiation), one simple and one composite. Even as a Hypostasis is the union between the Inner Speech (immaterial in the soul) and vocal speech (material on the tongue) even so is the Son of God and Son of Man in Union in the Person. I can say of myself “my speech is weak” and yet I can also say wonderful things in my mind which my tongue can never adequately signify. Christs vocal speech is “feeding of milk and not solid food.” He becomes incarnate precisely to bring the hearer to direct perception of Him as subsisting Truth which bears witness of the Father (Intellect which begot Him). With that being said, I would like to hear the “flaws” with this reasoning. Always open to correction. This is my formulation but it has its basis in Aquinas. As far as the common objection that we are Nestorians (heard it on the video), this is a gross misunderstanding of Nestorius position. When Nestorius was speaking of nature as “hypostasis” (and thus seemingly put forth two natures) he did so with a union in “Gnomie.” That is, a union of Will. By importing into Christ a “gnomic” will he showed that Christ was a unique Hypostasis in the same manner in which we would be considered Hypostasis. For a gnomic will is a deliberative one which moves through contraries (choice of good and evil). This is rejected in Chalcedonian Christology since it is not a union of “wills” (a contractual union based on convergence of will) that bridges the gap (for this makes two Persons full stop) but a union of One Person. A synthetic union in the Eternal Person of the Word. Hence, the communication of Idioms which converge in the same subject. Not two subjects united in contractual union (which can be severed). Christs intellect was wholly deified as was his Natural will in virtue of the One who assumed the Human Nature into His Suppositum. Christ acquires the most personal identity in each of the natures and their parts. Just wanted to add this so I could address what I heard in the video. Now to your questions. As to rather this “mode” is a “new inherited” mode intrinsically acquired, or, a new mode relationally juxtaposed by extrinsic relationship is, in my opinion, going beyond what can be known through the art of human reasoning. It is clear that this union is not accidental. What is not clear is how this union came about except that it has been dogmatically affirmed at an ecumenical council that it is in the Hypostasis. How? We know of no such unions. But we have intimations of it we can reason from. Hypostasis is a loose term. A rock, compounded of the four elements can be called a hypostasis (since it’s an integral whole) but not a person. But the combination of the elements in an animal body is not a hypostasis since it is only a part and not the integral whole (animals have a soul). Humans (except one) are a Hypostasis as possessing within themselves all predications (My hand, Me). I, therefore, am a Hypostasis because I am completely “whole” in my subsistence. But, Christ is not. In addition to the two substances of soul and body, Christ has a third substance. Namely, Divinity. So, in some ineffable way, the Personality of the Eternal Logos Supposits for the human nature such that “He” is not complete unless you know Him as Subsisting in two natures. “Unless you believe I AM you will die in your sins.” But his Human Nature, as the instrument of His Divine Nature, behaves as an “individual.” For individuality can be said of a part (such as My Hand) or a whole, such as “Peter.” But in Christ His Humanity is His instrument (like my hand to Me) and thus the “whole” is no other than the Eternal Logos. Christ operates in and of two natures. Performing all acts (like me and my hand, or my soul using my body) in complete union. This is how Aquinas handles the difficulty.

[@tims5677]

based

[@elia_d_chad5648]

Letsgooo

[@Mike65809]

Seems the council of Ephesus was very preoccupied in keeping Mary the "Mother of God." They should have been more concerned about keeping their understanding based on Scripture. Was Chalcedon correct in saying Jesus had both natures? If so, how is it he gave his Father all of the glory for his miracles (John 10:37-39)? And why does Acts 10:38 say, "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him." So how was it his own divine attributes? Hadn't he left them behind in the Kenosis? But it must be believed that he was indeed deity in his spirit and identity of the Logos. Than never changed. Amen?

[@kidus_1010]

Another comment for the algorithm

[@Alexandros74738]

How am I as a non-philosopher supposed to know who’s correct? I don’t understand, nor do I think I could understand, 90% of this debate.

[@kidus_1010]

You don’t need to be a philosopher to understand. You just need to have read a few books. Ultimately in terms of deciding which church is true, even aside from philosophy, the testimony of the early church fathers is clear and unanimous, that is, there is 1 composite nature, and thus 1 Lord Jesus Christ, the 1 Son of God.

[@dioscoros]

Ephesus 431 anathematizes Dyophysitism blanketly. One doesn't have to know why it's wrong in depth to know that Dyophysitism is condemned by the Holy Spirit. The voice of the 3 Holy Councils is enough to show to he who knocks.

[@eliasAbouda-z4s]

​@@kidus_1010St Cyril and other church fathers most definitely did teach the Filioque. I recommend you watch Dwong's videos showing that all church fathers east and west taught the Filioque. Abosolutely no one can be an Orthodox after watching his videos 😁

[@kidus_1010]

@ lucky for you, Agen has made a nearly hour long video responding to all the alleged Filioque quotes from St. Cyril. After watching this, you won’t be able to take dwong seriously: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n4molGaFi6aBiMUsi=kogQwokk9cr6FOhZ

[@Ben-w9c6m]

Engagement comment

[@OrientalApostolic_123]

W Miaphysis language

[@Ghiptiakhchik]

😮

[@NuhAlBulgar]

It’s so over. 😭

[@Miaphysite_Carsin]

Noah such an agenite 🙏☠️

[@NuhAlBulgar]

@@Miaphysite_Carsin Agen why does Cyril say Christ died via humanity. Please Agen help me I need t

[@Miaphysite_Carsin]

@@NuhAlBulgar☠️

[@Merzilasaysrepent]

Debate jay dyer, if you want to say jay dyer is mean then debate ubi petrus

[@CopticZaza]

jay dyer blocked Agen

[@ACReji]

@@Merzilasaysrepent Jay doesnt specialise in Christology...he has made that clear many times. He will send the debate to Erhan or someone else.

[@kidus_1010]

Jay is scared to debate us.

[@Caleb_287]

⁠@@ACRejierhan already got decimated by subdeacon Daniel kakish

[@Toasternaut]

lol this doesn't prove anything because Thomists are clueless

[@SebastianGonzalez-cy1fx]

Agens usage of basic Aristotelian terms and framework clearly shows how he lacks understanding. Joshy clearly won this

[@Miaphysite3]

😭

[@MrTerkoizzz]

​@@Miaphysite3OO blows out of the water once they can't dogpile.

[@Miaphysite3]

@@MrTerkoizzz not really, but whatever makes you happy I guess.

[@dioscoros]

Nope, you're just in denial. Ironically, the opposite is true because Agen showed a good command of Aristotelianism, while Joshy confused the 10 predicamentals with the 5 predicables.

[@SebastianGonzalez-cy1fx]

@@dioscoros misunderstood how we even utilize primary substance. Look in the manner individuality is shown through operation none of his critiques actually mean anything 😂. At the end of the day the divine essence is really distinct from human nature. If you don’t affirm the lack of identity that distinguishes the 2 gg you admit God changed

[@maximilian8959]

Letter 46 St Cyril: the only-begotten Son of God in so far as he is known to be and is God did not endure the sufferings of the body in his own [divine] nature but suffered rather in his earthly nature.

[@copt_live]

This was refuted on Lion’s den channel

[@maximilian8959]

@@copt_live Source please? Also I am Orthodox not RC.

[@dioscoros]

​@@maximilian8959it is the case for all singular composite natures that the composite nature can perform some actions according to 1 part, but not according to the other part, while remaining 1 nature and not being numerically divided into 2 parts after the union. This is just the Chalcedonian equivalent of the "call no man Father" argument.

[@maximilian8959]

@@dioscoros Look here, St Euphemia who is a pre-schism Saint already solved this issue at Chalcedon, and you guys never get the Holy Light even when you made arrangements to receive it in the past from the Holt Sepulcre at Pascha. God approves of the Orthodox Faith and He wants the whole world to be Orthodox. Miaphysitism can actually be debunked with a single question, if Jesus Christ is one nature, is He human or Divine, created or Uncreated? The implications of this are obvious. We need the two natures the same way we need the Essence Energies Distinction.

[@copt_live]

so we conceptually divide the two natures enumerating them as two and saying "He suffered in his human nature". This is a theoretical division. But in reality, all the predicates of the humanity and divinity no longer belong to either nature by way of division but rather all the properties belong to the One Composite Nature/Hypostasis of God the Word Incarnate.

[@Ccruzi]

I think Joshy won this, only becuase agen was lacking a good amount of terminology and in some parts didn’t track what Joshy was saying

[@dioscoros]

That just shows that you don't understand. Agen made no mistakes in this, while Joshy did make metaphysical mistakes. For instance, Joshy confused the 10 predicamentals with the 5 predicables.

[@Ccruzi]

@@dioscoros where? I didn’t catch that and I might be wrong but I have seen other Catholic debaters say the 5 predicables are in the 10 predicaments

[@dioscoros]

​@curzzi you're the one who claims to understand what Joshy was saying, by accusing Agen of not knowing. Look at how manifestly false that is, that now you're trying to defend his conflation of the 10 predicamentals with the 5 predicables. Joshy also kept making the mistake of thinking that his Christology does not allow one to simultaneously apply what is proper to each nature to the natures after the union and to the 1 nominal person. Eventually he conceded this, that the indexical "I am the Son of Man by nature" is able to be applied to the human nature in atomo but not to the divine nature/constituent. The conceded this after being shown Peter Chrysologus and Isidore and Aquinas following Isidore teaching 2 natural sons within the 1 relational son.

[@kidus_1010]

@@Ccruzihow are you gonna accuse Agen of being wrong and then turn around and say that YOU could be wrong. Make that make sense

[@Ccruzi]

@@kidus_1010 look I’m not an Aristotelian philosopher so I don’t know the answer to that one. But just listening to the dialogue and questions it looks like Joshy rhetoric was better and kept cornering the other person

[@trevorbinning4683]

Catholics lean Nestorian in their Christology anyway; they are not representative of other “Dyophisite” (rather, Orthodox) Churches.

[@kidus_1010]

EOs are next. Stay tuned

[@dioscoros]

No such thing as an "Orthodox Dyophysite," since Dyophysitism is fundamentally condemned by the 3 Holy Councils of the Apostolic Orthodox Church. Stay tuned.