Explaining Miaphysis and Dyophysis

The History and Development of the Orthodox-Oriental Dialogue: www.pravmir.com...
An Oriental Orthodox perspective on Eastern Orthodox - Oriental Orthodox reunion: • Video
Apollinarian forgeries visited: www.ccel.org/c...
The Slow Death of Iconography in the Coptic Church: becomeorthodox....
#Orthodox #Theology #Miaphysite

[@rickbaker261]

Protestant here: love this video. Very cool. Very helpful.

[@v4854]

Same

[@milesd947]

thank you so much for putting this explanation up

[@MrMinaalexander2007]

David, The Coptic church doesn’t refute theosis all together. It simply rejects the view that Theosis is acquired from “bottom top” but believe it to be “top bottom”. In a nutshell, it’s not through us that we gain theosis but it’s through God’s grace as you mentioned. The concept of the One Nature of Christ after the Union is more simple than I believe you’re grasping. The Oriental Orthodox Church believe in the two natures of Christ but after the Union, it’s in “abstract” sense but in “reality” or “concrete” we rather use the Miaphysis formula. There a several reasons why we believe this. Union Without Mingling, Confusion, Alteration or Transmutation: BY "one Nature", we mean a real union. This does not involve mingling as of wheat and barely, nor confusion as of wine and water or milk and tea. Moreover, no change occurred as in the case of chemical reaction. For example carbon dioxide consists of carbon and oxygen, and the nature of both changes when they are combined; each loses its properties which distinguished it before the unity. In contrast, no change occurred in the Divine or Human nature as a result of their unity. Furthermore, unity between the two natures occurred without transmutation. Thus, neither did the Divine nature transmute to the human nature, nor did the human nature, transmute to the Divine nature. The Divine nature did not mix with the human nature nor mingle with it, but it was a unity that led to Oneness of Nature. The Example of the Union of Iron and Fire: St., Cyril the Great used this analogy and so did St. Dioscorus. In the case of ignited iron, we do not say that there are two natures: iron and fire, but we say iron united with fire. Similarly, we speak about the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, and we do not say "God and man". In the union of iron with fire, the iron is not changed into fire nor fire into iron. Both are united without mingling, confusion or alteration. Although this situation is not permanent in the case of iron, and here is the point of disagreement, but we only want to say that once iron is ignited with fire, it continues to retain all the properties of iron and all the properties of fire. Likewise, the nature of the Incarnate Logos is One Nature, having all the Divine characteristics and all the human as well. To whom did the Virgin give Birth? Did she give birth to the Godhead only? Did she give birth to the manhood only? Did she give birth to God and man or did she give birth to the Incarnate God? It is impossible to say that she gave birth to God alone, because she gave birth to a Child who was seen by everybody, nor that she gave birth to man only (or a pure human nature), otherwise we revert to the heresy of Nestorus. What does the Bible mean by saying, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you, therefore , also, that Holy One who is to be born of you will be called the Son of God. " (Lk. 1:35)? Again, what is the meaning of the verse stating that the Son shall be named Emanuel which is interpreted "Goal with us. "(Matt. 1:23)? And what is the meaning of Isaiah’s words: "for unto Us a Child is born, unto Us a Son is given and the government will be upon His shoulder, and His Name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting, Father, Prince of Peace. " (Isaiah 9:6). Therefore, He (Christ) is not just a man, but the Son of God, Emanuel and the Mighty God. The Virgin did not give birth to a man and God, otherwise she would be said to have had two sons: one being God and the other, man. We are thus left with the evidence that she gave birth to the "Incarnate God." Christ is not two Sons, one the Son of God to be adored, and the other a man and not to be worshipped. We can not separate between the Divine and the human nature of Christ. As stated by St. Athanasius the Apostolic regarding the Lord Jesus Christ, he is not bi-natured, to one we kneel down and to the other we do not, but He is rather of One Nature - the Incarnate Logos - that is one with His Body and before whom we kneel down in one genuflection, Therefore, our worship is not offered to the Divine nature apart from the human nature. There is no separation and consequently, all worship is to the Incarnate God. The One Nature of the Incarnate Logos: It is One Nature (one entity) but has all the properties of two natures: It has all the properties of the Divine nature and all those of the human nature. In this One Nature, the body was not transmuted to the Divine nature but remained as a body, the body of God the Logos. The Logos, also was not transmuted to be a human nature but remained as it is the Divine nature though united with a body. His Divine nature is not susceptible to death while His human nature is liable to die. Both the Divine and the human natures united in essence in the Hypostasis and in nature without separation. No separation occurred between the Divine nature and the human nature at Christ’s death: As we say in the Syrian Fraction, concerning the death of Christ "The soul left the body but His Divinity never departed neither from His Soul nor from His Body. His Soul likewise, whilst united with His Godhead, descended into hell to preach those who died in the faith and to open to them the gates of Paradise and let them enter. Yet His Body, also united with His Godhead, remained in the grave.

[@westernriteorthodox8719]

Didn't your last Patrairch say Theosis was heresy?

[@MrMinaalexander2007]

@@westernriteorthodox8719 I’ve never read or heard that. Can you please send me your source?

[@bruhidk3069]

@@adothariman966 they say he has one nature but it’s both divine and human in union

[@ReyWho]

@@adothariman966 the Father and the Holy Spirit did not become incarnate because the divine nature (attributes of God) was united with the human nature of Christ (attributes of Christ as man).

[@ReyWho]

@@adothariman966 this is a false dilemma. Let me use an analogy to explain a third option: Three business owners can own a business together and a further business bought by the second business owner becomes one with the current business without mingling, confusion or division (they're distinct and also one). The oneness is seen in that all finances, projects and so forth are united together. But the distinction is that they function differently and the second business is only owned and run by the second business owner. So what happened was that the divine nature and human nature became one without mingling, confusion or division. But the human nature functions only with Christ since it is particular to Him and not to the other members of the Trinity.

[@hayots_lernashkharh]

the Armenian Apostolic Church (which is OO like the Coptic Orthodox church) rejects cousin marriage. It varies from church to church.

[@crypton3292]

Therefore the OO church isn't catholic, for a church to be catholic it needs to have the same doctrine in all churches

[@Bellg]

​@@crypton3292you don't understand catholicity. There is only one catholic church. If the orientals did all teach the exact same thing they would still not be catholic

[@crypton3292]

@@Bellg elaborate

[@bond3161]

​@@crypton3292dude... The actual catholic church has lots of different practises...

[@theonik6082]

​@@bond3161the roman catholic church is not the catholic church

[@mulualemasfaw643]

David, I don't think you will see this comment because the video is a bit older but I will write with a hope that you might see it. There are a points that must be clear in your presentation as Oriental Orthodox Christian there are points that I don't agree with you. 1st, We believe that our lord Jesus Christ is fully human fully god but in one body with out separation, alteration or confusion. This is our faith. I think you mistakenly presented that. 2nd, In our church for instance we don't accept cousin marriage and circumcision is not mandatory you are referring only the Coptic church as oriental but there are 5 other churches in oriental orthodox. regards, A brother from Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church

[@nodiet8660]

Thank you sir, it's important to show how incorrect they are and not let it slide

[@WaysOfTheJedis]

Which clearly shows how the sacrifice is then less worthy.. OO clearly states the fall wasn't meant to happen and that God made mistakes. Rather than the fall being apart of our growth as a whole knowing Jesus's mission was already predestined since the beginning..

[@WaysOfTheJedis]

"Without" is one word bro.. divine nature can't feel pain or even witness evil hence christ on the cross saying my God my God why have you forsaken me..

[@dikaioskyrios]

If there does not exist deification by participation in the energies of God which He fully indwells, then the Orientals must think that the phrases of Sts Irenaeus and Athanasius (that God became man so man might become god) refer to a likeness to God in reference to good deeds and morality. Though this is one factor of the Christian life, it is not the essence of it. The essence is to become a god by grace, which is deification. But again, if the well-known phrase of the above-mentioned saints isn't about participation in the divine energy, then they are talking about increased morality, and if this were the case, then Christianity would simply be a system of morals and not of power.

[@dikaioskyrios]

@@paul11magdy Does he signify what we call energy by 'work'?

[@dikaioskyrios]

@@paul11magdy The word energy is used by St Paul and the Latin translation of the Scriptures translated it into operation

[@dikaioskyrios]

@@paul11magdy Yeah I know, but I said what I said because it seemed you thought energy and operation were different.

[@dikaioskyrios]

Paul Youssef Ok all good 👍 but you said it’s because ye weren’t confronted with ADS. But before the problem of ADS energy was used by the eastern Church. And at the same time, operation in the West. Now I’m wondering what is the word for energy/operation in Coptic(or Arabic I’m not sure)?

[@joonie8103]

You take things to far ..we understand St Athanasius phrase ..it is in litrugy and prayers ...we believe in union with God by grace ..as the Eucharist is literal and the real body of christ that we have union with😅as we are not baptist for example ...however the term theosis in the modern OO just is not used out of not adding more misconceptions to christians in the middle east

[@StuartMacDonald-h2z]

what does 2 energies mean like what are they and what is are the wills of christ

[@stephengolay1273]

David, who did your "icon" tag? Just viewed your 'face' video. Doesn't quite represent you. One could debate which is the more handsome, your mirror or this pictorial write up!!

[@AroundElvesWatchUrselves96]

Cousin marriage? 😏 Sweet home Alexandria

[@order_truth_involvement6135]

lol

[@dannygherzgiher8430]

This I never knew. I am Orthodox (Chalcedonian) Catechumen of Eritrean background. As such a majority of Christians in Eritrea are in communion with the Copts. However, cousin marriage in Eritrea is considered anathema unless there is a 7 generation separation.

[@Alex-ou4gy]

@@dannygherzgiher8430 What made you decide to leave your Church and join the EO?

[@coolpf]

I think this is a thing because ancient Egyptian used to practice this so it just carried on... I'm coptic but certainly would not marry my cousin because I know that it's wrong (mainly genetically)

[@V_Gabriel]

I am. Ethiopian orthodox and cousin marriage is absolutely not allowed by the church unless there's a seven generation gap. This is the first time hearing this. And I'm pretty sure the Eritrean Orthodox church also doesn't allow it. I have no idea where this misinformation came from.

[@isaacadel1183]

circumcision isn't a must before babtism infact most of the people do it as cultural thing but year or two and some times 6 and more years after babtism babtism is done in the 40 day of a boy

[@tonypp10]

(I wrote this commentary in another video but you didnt answered so Im posting it here again): This thing 'two natures in thought only' sounds a bit weird for me. I dont have much knowledge on this but it seems a bit contradictory: when arguing with OO the Orthodox say that the distinction of two nature is not a real distinction but in thought only and thus there is no division. But when arguing with papists about the E/E distinction the Orthodox dont accept a mental/in thought only distinction. The E/E distinction is a real distinction and the two natures distinction is a mental distinction? It sounds a contradiction

[@therealMedWhite]

You didn't watch the video

[@tonypp10]

@@therealMedWhite i just watched it but there is no answer to my question. You again affirm that the two nature distinction in Christ is mental only. Im not saying you are wrong on this. What im questioning is the fact that it seems contradictory to say that this 2 nature distinction is mental only while the e/e distinction is real and not mental.

[@shiningdiamond5046]

@@tonypp10 because the Hypostatic union is not about 2 separate natures being linked like a chain and its unrelated to the energies doctrine which is sacramental theology

[@frgabriely]

Thank you for trying, however there are significant misrepresentations here of the Coptic Orthodox views

[@WaysOfTheJedis]

Such as... your theology isn't important enough for you to explain yourself and provide your reasoning? You just like to state things without evidence?

[@grvity33]

To echo what Adarsh Kunnel has already thoroughly explained, in addition the need to define Essence & energies very deliberately (not talking about the doctrine itself) came as a reaction to Scholasticism of the West and the controversy of Barlaam which St. Gregory Palamas had defended on the Eastern Orthodox side. Therefore, the Oriental Orthodox cannot be shown to be "lacking" in this particular doctrine because it did not need to purport a defense of such, since the EO & OO were already separated 900 years prior to the debate! In fact, the doctrine of Essence & energies is part of the OO Church - more so, the later is termed as "grace." Also mentioned in other comments, the underlying current or view towards the OO is that, at least Post-Chalcedon lacking is a stringent systemization of further doctrine outside of what had been already established in the First 3 Ecumenical Councils. Typically I unfortunately see those outside of the OO Church not present the theology of the OO Church accurately, as a way to indirectly (or directly) dimish them to thus support the counter-argument. The pains of the division Post-Chalcedon is a reality which we should all feel (EO & OO). Over the past several decades, especially in the mid-20th century there were many on both sides that describe each respective Christological formulae as congruent with the other (see Fr. Romanides from the EO side, Fr. Dr. V.C Samuel & His Grace Paulos Mor Gregorios from the OO side).

[@siddislikesgoogle]

But perfect communion with God does not transform us into gods. it allows us to partake of the divine experience and wield a form of its power, but only makes us god-LIKE, but our nature remains human. We do not become Christ, only Christ-like, meaning we do not receive a divine nature or we would be equal to God ......which is blasphemous and a heresy. Thoughts?

[@maralyngray6472]

Always interesting!

[@danielgaley9676]

Hard to follow. Heavy accent, and my lack of understanding. I will keep learning 🙏

[@Gonicksomestuff]

Well this was excellent and I think "Oriental Heterodox" is the best way to refer to the OO. Still a little unsure about how you mean "reality" whether it means more than just "subject" or if subject is a sufficient equivalent.

[@joonie8103]

Not understanding oriental lets call them heterodox ...genuis

[@science_is_fake_and_gay2710]

@@joonie8103 Everyone who does not subscribe to the EO councils is by definition a heteredox. From an EO point, of course.

[@ryrocks9487]

@@joonie8103Not being able to spell, a hallmark of Monophysites and Muslims.

[@WaysOfTheJedis]

Saying one nature dismisses the entire role of the human nature! Oriental theology is schismatic and prideful.

[@bond3161]

You seem to explain miaphysitism fairly well Why do you reject OO then if they are of that position? How about both are orthodox? Or both wrong, because we are human and we fall But even while we fall, God allows it and still maintaind his glorious victory

[@bond3161]

Please entertain me, brother in Christ Whats the issue between oriental and eastern Miaphysite is from two natures united into one Did cyril not say after the union, speak no more of two? If david erhan himself agrees that strict dyophysitism is an issue, isnt that exactly what easterns do? Two natures, two will? Is God not one though three persons? Why is it hard to accept 1 christ, not two?

[@johnnyd2383]

Heretical Christology of so called Orientals makes salvation of human kind impossible as if Christ did not have two natures as described in the Council of Chalcedon, then we can never become Christ-like by attaining divine nature through the Grace and becoming deified humans in perfect unity with the Divine God. What Orientals proposed is the amalgamation of two natures in Christ thus creating new type of nature that is completely different from original human nature - neither human nor divine but something third. Chalcedonian Christology maintains in Christ both natures: divine and human. Perfectly united the divine nature and a human nature, and that this union is without confusion, mixture, separation, or division, each nature retaining its own attributes. Because each nature retains its own attributes, Christ is truly human and truly divine.

[@bond3161]

@@johnnyd2383 orientals are Miaphysites NOT Monophysite. they dont believe in one nature. Its OUT OF TWO nature But also without mixing or confusion....

[@us3rG]

@@johnnyd2383 non of us are from the heavenly father and a virgin mother, Jesus was sinless, We are humans, Mom and dad were not perfect and we won't be perfect for our children, We can follow Christ to the best of our ability but we can never be sinless, we can be forgiven but we can't be sinless...we humans start to lie before we can even speak, forgive them for they not know what they do, we sin without even knowing we sinning hence why the road to hell is paved with great intentions.we can only sin less No one was and no one will be sinless like christ. That's why we forgive and pray to be forgiven. We can only follow Christ so we can sin less To think we humans can become like Jesus, the word in flesh is practically blasphemous. To believe you are or will be sinless means you have no truth left in you

[@johnnyd2383]

@@us3rG We are called to partake in divine nature (2 Peter 1, 4), we have received Sonship (Rom 8, 12), we are called to become brothers of Christ through adoption (Gal 4), etc. Your failure to understand the final stage of God - mankind synergy and union is nothing new in Protestantism. Those with the deeper hats are not in that religious group. BTW: I have nowhere said we Orthodox do not sin. In the Heavens there is no sin (Rev 21,27). You are delusional and lacking basic home education.

[@SolarSiege]

Circumcision? Gal 5

[@adarshkunnel8532]

I am not sure why you refer to Eastern Orthodox as "Orthodox" and Oriental Orthodox as "Oriental." We consider ourselves to be validly Orthodox as well. The tradition of the energy essence distinction I have actually learned in my Oriental Orthodox Church (Sunday School), and we consider the core of it to be true; it's just that that concept was not very much developed in Oriental Orthodoxy. Because Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy grew separately because of political reasons, the word "theosis" was historically not used to the extent that Eastern Orthodox use it. Part of this reason is because many Oriental Orthodox were under Muslim rule and oppression, and theosis really sounds like "apotheosis" which is heresy so we never used that word for protection. But, that doesn't mean we don't believe in it. With regards to what Pope Shenouda III said, he was referring to apotheosis, which he may have mistaken theosis/deification for that. Regarding iconography, it really depends. The Coptic church has a strong tradition of iconography and use an iconostasis which they should aim to uphold. However, in the Syriac tradition/Malankara tradition, historically they had a strong iconography in the past but now it is mostly gone. Again, this is because of political reasons. The Muslims many Syrian Christians were under saw icons as idols and thereby banned it and persecuted people for it. However, now they are reviving Syriac iconography as well as using Byzantine icons. I can understand how the use of unleavened bread in the Armenian tradition because of Western tradition influence could be an issue. Circumcision and cousin marriage, again, happened because of political reasons in specific churches, mainly because of racial oppression. I really don't think any Oriental Orthodox today actually believe that the Eastern Orthodox are Nestorians. Back then, there was a lot of politics and people misunderstand each other because differing terminology. Let's not try to compare people from back then to the current day. I don't think we also are against the dyophysite (not strict) formula. Again, we are not against it. It essentially means the same thing as miaphysis. The only issue is that the Council of Chalcedon only accepted that formula and didn't leave room for other formulas that mean the same thing. The political situations following the loss of parts of the Byzantine Empire to the various Islamic Caliphates would bring in many of these differences I have mentioned. Thank you for this video and God bless!

[@MarcovonAntoni-jb6bh]

We believe Jesus was conceived by the Virgin Mary by work of the Holy Spirit God. Since he was conceived by a human creature, he shall have the human nature. Since His natural father was the Holy Spirit God, then he shall also have the divine nature, as it also testified by His never see Harrowing to Hell and being the first cause of the Pentecost. We can not only Say He has two distinct natures. Those natures are distinct in our minds, but are unique person in his flesh, soul and spirit. His body Is God but It Is a spiritual body and It Is the Holy Spirit God himself. The singularity of God the Father and of God the Son Is that the spurit which for a man Is a created Angel of God, for the two divine persons is the Holy Spirit God himself. On the cross died the flesh of Jesus Christ God, while his soul and his Holy Spirit God separated from thr body to the Harrowing into Hell. We can't say the human nature Is distinct from the divine, without being in a unique person: otherwise, on the cross could have dief the man and not God and nobody won't be capable not to loose the ethernal salvation; moreover, Jesus could have committed sins or mistakes. And that would be heretical. Properly, nobody cause his own salvation, not being able to acquire infinite merits of salvation for an infinite life. Jesus gives a promise of ethernity to anyone who believes in Him, in respect of which the unique merit of the single persons is not to have betrayed Christ and thus not to have lost of ethernal Life.

[@DemetriosLevi]

@@realzhella6817 Why would David go to hell for clearly explaining the differences between Calcedonian Orthodoxy and non-Calcedonian Orthodoxy? What are you a Vatican 1 Catholic?

[@BarbaPamino]

To be fair only one side can be orthodox. It's a pretty big disagreement to believe in one nature vs two natures. One of those 2 is heterodox.

[@V_Gabriel]

​@@BarbaPamino why not? As far as I can understand we both believe the same thing while using a different term to describe it. dyophysites and miaphysites affirm the same essential belief in the inseparable union of the divine and human natures in Christ, they do emphasize different terminologies to express that belief. The distinctions in terminology have historical, cultural, and theological significance for each tradition. The differences in terminology arose due to historical debates and the development of theological language in different regions and contexts. These differences in expression have sometimes led to misunderstandings and divisions in the past. However, it is important to recognize that both dyophysites and miaphysites share the common conviction that Christ is one person with both divine and human natures united in a manner that preserves their distinctiveness without separation or confusion. The use of different terms does not necessarily imply a difference in the underlying belief or theological stance. It is more a reflection of the particular vocabulary and emphasis employed by each tradition to articulate their understanding of the mystery of the Incarnation. Both dyophysites and miaphysites reject the monophysite position, which asserts that Christ has a single mixed nature. Instead, they affirm that Christ has two distinct natures that are united without confusion, separation, or mixture.

[@bond3161]

​​@@DemetriosLeviactually I don't think he clearly explains it at all He spent most of the explaining what miaphysitism and dyophysitism is only at the end of the video to say 98 percent of miaphysitism is acceptable to easterns And then briefly briefly explains what. That is not good. It should be the other way around. Briefly explain what the two differences are in theory. Then proceed in detail why each position is taken by what church and exactly why.

[@frgabriely]

23:20 are you then saying that all men, since they share the same nature, also all have one will?

[@johnnyd2383]

Yes, it is in Orthodox theology called Gnomic will. You should research that term and what it entails. Perhaps it may click in your head and you realize heresy you believe in atm.

[@frgabriely]

Jesus Christ, as both man and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, possessed complete congruence of His two wills, the divine and the human. Therefore, St Maximus reasoned, Christ was never in a state of ignorance regarding what he wanted, and so never engaged in gnomic willing. If that is what you mean by two wills, then we see no problem in that. To us a Miaphysites we express it as the one will of the Incarnate Word of God, not undermining the reality of His full incarnation...but acknowledging the One Jesus Christ.

[@frgabriely]

@johnnyd2383 I would also advise a dose of humility to be added in your responses.

[@WaysOfTheJedis]

You have no desire in understanding the Chalcedonian position so you are the one who lacks humility and are schismatic, you havnt given one statement whatsover that debunks christ having two distinct natures, the Oriental position literally debunks itself by saying human and divine united but then saying only one nature🥴🫠🤦 divine nature cant suffer... ​

[@WaysOfTheJedis]

​​@@frgabrielyoriental say things that sound good on the surface but don't actually make any sense, you can't say you acknowledge the human nature without saying he has two natures.. it's factually wrong to say you acknowledge the Incarnation but dismiss the human nature having any foundational distinction

[@MinaDKSBMSB]

James 1:8 “he is a double minded man unstable in all his ways”. I don’t blame you for believing in a divided Christ. It was the card Leo dealt you.

[@johnnyd2383]

You are bastardizing Bible verse for your own heretical Monophysite needs. Shame on you for doing that.

[@siddislikesgoogle]

Its strange but can Christ be considered fully human if he cannot be tempted by sin? Maybe his human nature is fully "temptable" but his divine nature overrides this facet since it cannot be tempted. This would make sense since human nature is not equal to divine nature and is the "cart that follows the oxen". I´m not a heretic, yay

[@HigherThanYou]

Christ was tempted. Who says he wasn't tempted? Christ never sinned.

[@siddislikesgoogle]

@@HigherThanYou if i remember correctly, the argument is that if he is fully God and fully Human, his divine nature exempts him from temptation, since God the Father cannot be tempted, neither can God the son.

[@HigherThanYou]

@@siddislikesgoogle Matthew 4 1-11 is the verses. Jesus was tempted by satan in the desert. He didn't fall for the temptation and sin however. Thanks for your reply

[@siddislikesgoogle]

@@HigherThanYou that was my position as well but apparently, it's a heresy. I can't remember at which council they decided this, but I think it's the same one where they branded miaphysiticism as heretical.

[@asdfghjk8876]

Your English is great!

[@robrustle6379]

Grab a glass of water next time yeah start a video. Great listening, but hearing your mouth smacking around stood out to me.

[@Florianuus]

I had to turn it off 10 minutes in.

[@YoungMule]

2 minutes in and I don’t know half the technical vocabulary coming out your mouth

[@oaktree2406]

St. BlahBlahBlah is my patron Saint. 😄