Review and Response to Fr Mikhail Baleka & Fr John Mahfouz

The Parabolani and I will review and respond to Fr Mikhail Baleka & Fr John Mahfouz of the Eastern Orthodox Church #orthodox #catholic #christianity #syriac #coptic #armenian #tewahedo #greek #latin
Defense of Oriental Orthodoxy
• Defense of Oriental Or...
Daniel Kakish vs David Erhan
• Ephesus & Chalcedon Hi...

[@Awmanspider]

1:41 Stream start 4:59 quoting the fathers isn’t a endorsement, it’s a defense of faith/admitting that there is a theological difference between Oriental Orthodox and other Christians is ok 6:45 The Miaphysite ecclesiology 7:42 start of video review 10:17 Monophysite vs Miaphysite, addressing the equivocations 12:51: Does miaphysis assume nominalism? 17:37 What does it mean for a nature to exist in a hypostasis? 23:00 identifying the differences between the catagories/substances 25:17 Saint Gregory of Nyssa and John of Damascus on the Catagories and their distinctions 32:39 Addressing the double standard with Saint Cyril and the catagory of the one incarnate nature 34:48 A Miaphysite condemnation of tritheism, short history in the church 44:34 Fr Mikhal’s confustion of species, genus, and individual:identifying how the chalcedonians confuse the categories 47:31 are you consuming the individual body and blood of Jesus, or the common essence of human nature? 49:09 Eulogius of Alexandria and Anatasius of Sinais confusion of Christ 51:46 Leos Nestorian Christology 57:12 Concerning the accusations of “slander” 1:03:40 the view of Nestorius and how it fits into Chalcedonian Christology 1:08:35 its not enough for chalcedonians to simply “condemn” Nestorius/on the Nestorian Chalcedon 1:14:32 What is Nestorianism? 1:20:16 Evidence of Clear Nestorianism in Chalcedonian fathers 1:23:58 “Unity of Person”, anhypostatic vs. enhypostatic 1:28:17 Usage of hypostasis and prospon(person) in scripture 1:31:09 Another confused accusation of nominalism by Fr. Mikhal 1:32:39 Daniel responds to the mutation comment 1:33:47 Even MORE Nestorian patristic examples 1:38:47 Examples of a changed God In Chalcedonianism 1:42:17 Why miaphysis does NOT result in a “Tertium quid” 1:48:09 the socterology of miaphysis/how Damascene proposes that God changed+Maximus’ tertium quid Christology 1:52:57 Can dyophysitism be interpreted as true? (Spoilers: No) 1:58:12 Saint Cyril on the subject of will/willing->results of saying two wills in Christ 2:04:03 History/Conflict of the famous “True Orthodox” priest that appeared on Oprah 2:07:17 addressing yet again the accusation of a “changed” hypostasis in miaphysis 2:08:42 Addressing Fr Mikhail slandering COC church/answers 2:10:35 Taking apart the “Oh Saint Cyril didn’t mean a compound nature” argument 2:14:35 How/why The Miaphysites are not a “one council/father” church pt. 1 2:17:41 different uses of the word “ousia” 2:19:47 How/why The Miaphysites are not a “one council/father” church pt. 2 2:24:19 Why the Miaphysites are not a One Council/Father church pt. 3 2:29:00 Why Miaphysites don’t and can’t arbitrarily reject Chalcedon pt. 1 2:33:48 Miaphysites do not arbitrarily reject Chalcedon pt. 2 2:40:36 Miaphysites do not arbitrarily reject Chalcedon pt. 3 2:42:03 Miaphysites do not arbitrarily reject Chalcedon pt. 4 2:46:09 How Chalcedonians change the divine person 2:49:26 The Oriental Orthodox Church does not support the world council of churches, (which the Chalcedonians are also a part of) 2:55:20 How is reunion possible between the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonians, with opinions from Orthodox clergy on Chalcedonians 2:59:07 Saint Irenaeus on the reliance of other churches, Miracles in the Oriental Orthodox Church 3:01:30 Addressing the “miracle” of Paisos 3:04:00 Fr. Mikhal condemning the Chalcedonian fathers/drama/final thoughts on the division of the churches

[@vasilijevukcimesa87]

You should not insult two great priests like this. Oriental teaching is a heresy. Holy Eastern Orthodox Church is only TRUTH! ☦️☦️☦️

[@christianlesilolo1859]

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I hope Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches continue their dialogue and communicate their difference in the spirit of understanding and for the unity of the Church of Christ. Eastern and Oriental churches have more similarities.

[@minasoliman]

God bless you!

[@Teddy-ke6xh]

Everyone’s dream hopefully if God wills

[@vasilijevukcimesa87]

That will never happen and shall not. Oriental teaching is a pure heresy. Holy Eastern Orthodox Church is only TRUTH! ☦️☦️☦️

[@wayneburke4453]

Glorious Feast of St. Cyril the Great of Alexandria Egypt.🕯️🕯️🕯️🙏🙏🙏

[@Peter-nl5mn]

A blessed Feast of St. Cyril of Alexandria, the Pillar of the Faith. Thank you for this wonderful stream. Very educational.

[@cultofmodernism8477]

That priest does not understand the EO position/metaphysic. 1. Nominalism = Nature is divided across its instances. Each instance is 1/N the essence (100 instances of an essence = each instance 1% of the essence). 2. Idealism = Essence exists apart from the instances. Instances share the essence. 3. Immanent Realism (the EO position) = The essence exists wholly and entirely in each instance, but not apart from the instances. Each man is fully man (has fullness of human nature), and if you destroy all men, you destroy the human essence.

[@SrDre-vt5dv]

Why is Nominalism wrong I don't believe in it I thought the EO metaphysic was divine conceptualism since we aren't platonists or aristotelian Or we are Communal Ontology

[@vasilijevukcimesa87]

Oriental teaching is a heresy. Holy Eastern Orthodox Church is only TRUTH! ☦️☦️☦️

[@nickcosta7985]

I am very blessed for my Coptic Orthodox Church and for you all of you brothers, because we are the Body and Christ is the Head.

[@vasilijevukcimesa87]

Oriental amd coptic teaching is a heresy. Holy Eastern Orthodox Church is only TRUTH! ☦️☦️☦️

[@frgabriely]

Well done Lions 😉

[@MinaDKSBMSB]

Thank you Mahfouz and Mikhail for attacking the Bride of Christ. You have made more of her children to open the books of the fathers and to destroy your lies and slander. From the bottom of our hearts, we ask you to continue to slander us so long as your souls choose depravity and emptiness.

[@djfan08]

All he had to do is talk positive about Jay Dyer and David Erhan and he lost me at that point.

[@yousefsalib7609]

@@djfan08 felony level of glazing

[@vasilijevukcimesa87]

Fr. John Mahfouz, fr. Mihail Beleka and Jay Dyer are pretty good. Oriental teaching is a heresy. Holy Eastern Orthodox Church is only TRUTH! ☦️☦️☦️

[@Jongdoe1231]

Amazing stream, like always. Unfortunately Fr.Mikhal is too busy watching Oprah to make a response to this video 😢. At least his lies are being exposed, thanks again Lions

[@vasilijevukcimesa87]

You should not insult a great priest like this. Oriental teaching is a heresy. Holy Eastern Orthodox Church is only TRUTH! ☦️☦️☦️

[@copticfanatic]

Perfect review! Love how you brothers went into depth answering all his questions and false accusations against us using sources from the Fathers! Amazing God bless you my brothers! ♥🙏✝

[@MM-mp5lh]

God bless, Greetings from the Coptic Orthodox Church.

[@vasilijevukcimesa87]

Oriental teaching is a heresy. Holy Eastern Orthodox Church is only TRUTH! ☦️☦️☦️

[@Joshua_Burdono]

Well done as always lions and God bless

[@biniam_hailu]

I hope one day they will regret what they said about our faith. May God open their eyes.

[@coptic89]

May the Lord bless you. Excellent job.

[@yousefsalib7609]

Good video. Hopefully people will learn from it and those two bearded men will accept the Christian Orthodox truth into their hearts

[@baselios]

Excellent stream, brothers.

[@vasilijevukcimesa87]

Oriental teaching is a heresy. Holy Eastern Orthodox Church is only TRUTH! ☦️☦️☦️

[@dante18-p2m]

Wait wasn't the whole controversy around Nestorius started because he denied the term Theotokos?

[@Philip__325]

“I know in Canada they don’t speak English” haha you couldn’t be more correct.

[@ChristIsEpouro]

God bless you! Thank you for that beautiful response 🔥

[@Troy-Moses]

Second time watching... ~1:43:00 One example of a _Third Thing_ could be, fabrics of cotton, linen and a blend: the "third thing" is the blend since it is neither is 100% cotton or linen. But if the cotton fabric is soaked in oil, it still remains 100% cotton and the oil remains 100% oil. This is only possible because the nature of each element is completely different from the other. The nature of this composite material is now an "oily fabric", but still seen as one thing (of the two).

[@minasoliman]

Well then when fabrics are blended, the fabric never changed their integrity. So you could still say divinity was interwoven with humanity while maintaining both are 100% intact. St. Athanasius loved to use the interwoven imagery, and you also see it on St. Proclus’s sermon spoken against Nestorius to his face. Putting dye on fabric was St. Gregory the Theologian’s analogy, which St. Severus loved to quote, but it was more of an analogy of theosis than the incarnation.

[@Troy-Moses]

@@minasoliman Wouldn't you consider the fabric to then be a mixture or alteration by being 50/50? That dye analogy is a great example.

[@minasoliman]

@@Troy-Moses not necessarily. The fibers still maintain its integrity. There’s no real alteration, but there is an Orthodox way of using the word “mingling” as the Cappadocians and St. Severus taught.

[@Peter-nl5mn]

Hey all, I'm hoping to get the insight of those of you who are far more learned than I am. An analogy that I often think about when it comes to Christ being both God and Man, yet they are one composite nature as per St. Cyril, is that of light. Now, I know that any analogy is incomplete, but this one helps me and I'm wondering if it is accurate. So, as we know, light exists as a wave and as a particle, the wave-particle duality of light. A particle is of a separate and distinct "nature" (if you will) than that of a wave. Yet light is both simultaneously, without it being some sort of wave-particle hybrid thing. Each "nature" manifests itself depending on how light interacts with something, viz. during a double slit experiment, light manifests as a wave (yet light is still wave-particle, it does not cease being a particle). However, during a photoelectric effect experiment, it manifests as a particle (yet light is still wave-particle, it does not cease being a wave). Regardless, it is still light in possession of both natures at all times. It has "one" nature. In a similar way, we speak of Christ having one nature after the union. Christ is, at all times, 100% man and 100% God. As the God-man, He ate. As the God-man, He slept. As the God-man, He wept. As the God-man, He walked on water. As the God-man, He raised the dead. As the God-man, He performed miracles. In the first 3 instances, He manifests His humanity, yet He is still the God-man (100% God, 100% man). In the last 3 instances, He manifests His Divinity, yet, again, He is still the God-man (100% God, 100% man). Am I correct? If not, please feel free to correct my error. I am trying to learn. Thank you all and God bless your service.

[@MinaDKSBMSB]

This is good to an extent, however, the analogy doesn't show a union of two things. The analogies used in St. Cyril and the fathers include a hot iron, soul-body, the blood water of the Red Sea, the burning bush, the wood-gold of the ark of the covenant, and lit coal. No one analogy will capture the ineffable oneness, but they have their use to an extent for our limited minds. As far as I can tell, your conclusions are Orthodox nonetheless.

[@Peter-nl5mn]

@@MinaDKSBMSB Thank you! I appreciate your response. I have to be honest, I had always thought the analogy of the iron rod and fire was one for theosis. Could it also be applied in that case? Namely, think of the human nature as the iron rod and the divine nature as the fire. As we grow closer to God, we become partakers of the Divine Nature, the way the rod gets put into the fire. As a result, the iron rod begins to take on properties of the fire, without becoming fire, just as, through theosis, man takes on the properties of the Divine Nature without ever becoming Divine (God became Man so that man might become God, as St. Athanasius taught, or said another way, we come by grace what Christ is by nature).

[@MinaDKSBMSB]

@@Peter-nl5mn Certainly, St. Athanasius speaks of theopoesis in his discourse against the Arians, St. Cyril speaks of transelementation, and the Cappadocia fathers, I believe mainly St. Gregory Nazianzus speaks of theosis. Be aware that there is heretical and Orthodox uses of the words theosis, deification, etc. We believe we participate in the divine nature through grace and adoption. Not that we become God or believe in extreme apotheosis, but that we receive the graces of the Holy Spirit, and we become immortal and incorruptible by grace. We don’t believe in theosis in that we become uncreated, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, or become God just as much as Christ is, even by grace. Fathers such as St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Cyril make it clear that we participate in the graces of the divine nature so much as the human nature allows. Palamas apotheosis teaches that we become uncreated by grace, Fr. Matta el Meskeen seems to have erroneously taught a hypostatic union with the Holy Spirit, - these things you have to be cautious of. If you want to play it safe, use the biblical word “sanctification” as found in the epistle to the Thessalonians where St. Paul states “This is the will of God, your sanctification”. But indeed, the fathers upheld the ineffable union of the natures because of its implications on the economy of salvation. If He did not make the divinity ineffably one with the humanity without confusion or division, our nature is not rehabilitated, is not sanctified, is not made eligible to participate in the graces of the divine nature. Also, be careful of making the hypostatic union of Christ a union of essences. It is a union of hypostases of the divinity and humanity according to nature as stated in anathema 3 of St. Cyril. Just because we have the consubstantiality with Christ in His humanity doesn’t meant that we were the ones incarnated, that we were born in Bethlehem, that we died on the cross, that we rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, etc. This is a pitfall of heretical understanding of the hypostatic union and Orthodox theosis.

[@Peter-nl5mn]

@@MinaDKSBMSB Understood. Thank you very much. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to share you knowledge with me. God bless you and a blessed Feast of St. Cyril!

[@merhawifirzun3477]

​@@Peter-nl5mn you have been helped greatly aleardy.but if you have more things that might not be clear, i could help with my weakness little bit here.and if i made mistakes hopefully they would be corrected by the brothers who have better understanding. The Soul and Body The Iron and Fire analogy were really helpful for me, when i encountered them in the Fathers writings. Of course there is no perfect analogy, but it can help a confused mind understand the deep mystries. The Iron and Fire analogy for example, as it was used by St.Cyril, if i am not mistaken it might have been used first by St.Basil The Great. The Analogy goes like this, you have iron and you put it on a Fire.when you took the Iron, it is red hot. It is Iron and fire at the same time. St.Cyril says when the iron is shaped by a hammer or similar object, it is only the iron that is effected, yet you will see the fire holding the shape of the iron.what St.Cyril is Saying here, is that everthing the flesh suffered can not be felt by the the divinty, Yet it was with the Flesh.because of it's unity, just like how the iron and fire were united. We can also understand from this analogy another great mystry. We believe for example that the flesh of our Lord is 100% like ours except sin and yet we believe that it is Life giver, due to it's unity with the divinity. We can again bring the analogy of hot Iron. Hot Iron is like any Iron, except that it is hot. The Iron did not change it's Nature to a fire, but if you touch hot Iron, you have touched a Fire. This is also the same with our Lord's flesh, the flesh did not turn in to a Divinty, but since it is united with it, it has life in it. A life that you will not find in other humans flesh. The differeces between our flesh and our Lord's flesh is similar to how hot Iron is differnt from Non Hot Iron. As i said neither changed to the other, they are just being united with something greater. Now we can come to the Soul and Body analogy.as we are taught The Soul is Sipiritual and immaterial. It is also simple. The body is physical,material and compound too. But God brought them together and they are one nature. They have one existence.neither of their original natures lose when united with each other. But how they exist and acts is as one. Human nature being composite is already all over the patristic tradtions.these who object by saying that, different natures can not be coumpounded, are speaking nonsense. We can see for instance how Body and soul acts or exist as one. Things like eating,sleeping,sickness,thirst,walking etc...these all are natural to the body. Things like praying,meditating,floating,not dying,not being hungry or sick etc....are natural to the Soul. Other Virtues might be also natural to the Soul.Soul that is rational. Yet all these things are done by one human nature.one does not pray only by his soul while his body is sleeping. No his body also has to strech it's hand and pray. One does not walk only by body, because the soul is in the body.not only is that a body that does not have a soul can not walk neither can it moves.because the energy or power or life is usually in Our Soul, and it is the Soul having life in it, that gives life or movement to the body. It is for this reason that a dead body can not move.the tradtional understanding of this is because the Soul has departed from the body. This is how one nature of human exist. With Our Lord also we belive that the flesh did not exist apart from the divinty, that's why we refuse to say with the tome of Leo, the flesh did or say that.if these people believe that the flesh of Christ did not have hypostasis of it's own or it did not exist apart from the divinty, and yet how do they confess that the flesh can act freely on it's own? This is where their Nestorianism and Monophysitism/MonoConfusephysitism appears at the same time. The Orthodox way of understanding however is that, The flesh can not act on it's own.when the flesh is acting it is the divine logos acting through it.that is why we can say confidently God ate,God slept,God Hungered and God Dead.Because everything that is done, is done by the divine Logos who took flesh and became one with it. This is proven how he said in Revalation, "i am the Alpha and Omega, i was dead and i am Alive" And when he walked on the water, which is impossible for bothe natures if they were to do it apart from each other. When he made a mud by his spit and healed the blind man with it. I hope this helped.

[@orthoarmenian]

It has been such a huge blessing finding the Lion's Den channel. Keep up the great content.

[@Fermenting760]

These are real soldiers of Rebbe Yeshua (Rebbe = Teacher of Hesed/Loving Kindness). The opponents don't stand a chance. This Tertium Quid seems akin to idolatry/idol worship. I've never seen things expossed to this extent.

[@cindysmith9087]

This panel of presenters are very sharp. It would be helpful to hear them debate with EO theologians who know what they are taking about. The priest on the video puts OE to shame. He should not be speeking.

[@Troy-Moses]

Like clockwork, every four-, five-hundred years or so there is another split: the Scandal of Chalcedon, the Roman East-West Schism, the Protestant Rebellion, the Moscow-Constantinople Schism (among others)... Protestantism is not solely to be blamed for all the fragmentation -- blame Chalcedon instead. But as the closing remarks stated, there shall be no unity at the expense of truth.

[@merhawifirzun3477]

You have observed well.in the early times The Orthodox Fathers thought that Chalcedon and it's results was responsible for the rise of Islam. Because Chalcedonians brought division to the Church.not only is that, but they tortured those who did not accept it. And this continue from Chalcedon until the rise of islam. And the reason the fathers thought this is because God was angry with these who brought division and torments in the Church.as punishment Islam Rised.similar to how God would sent the Babylonians to the isrealites, whenever they did something wrong. I have seen this guy who is being reseponded to in this video, tried to downplay the torments which Chalcedonians brought to The Orthodox believers, by saying the Church is not the Empire. But i don't think he knows well how propagandists the Councils he accepts were. How does one confess a creed that was made by Chalcedon? When making new Creed was insisted by Mercian the Emperor, despite the Bishops rejecting the idea. we know well none of the bishops were in agreement in making new creed in Chalcedon, and yet the creed that was insisted or created by the politicians is accepted as being Orthodox.despite the bishops rejecting the idea and despite Ephesus 431 saying to make new creed apart from Nicea is forbidden. And he can twist history however he wants, but all bishops and emperors who were from different times were participated in torturing those who did not accepted Chalcedon.throughout the 190 years(from Chalcedon to the rise of islam), what i have read so far is that, only one bishop and one emperor rejected the idea of torturing the Non Chalcedonians. Where is then the Church apart from the Empire here? Even the schism that happend between Chalcedonians East and West, The pope of Rome would not have the Courage to proclaim his Universal Authority in the 12th Century.Because in Chalcedon Leo was the Ultimate Authority.being align with the Emperor and the Empress everyone was afraid to disagree with him. His delegates accused Dioscoros of Alexandria by saying "he held a Council without the permission of pope of Rome(Leo), which never occured since the begining of time". Neither the bishops or Commissioners did say you are speaking unfounded things inregards to wether or not a Council could be held without the permission of the Pope of Rome. And After Chalcedon everyone was required to to be in Communion with the Pope of Rome.otherwise you are heretic. Notice who is being the Ultimate Criteria for the Truth and Authority in their Church here. Yet The Eastern Chalcedonians are crying now, as if the pope of Rome acted as the Ultimate Authority, only in the 12th Century.

[@jessemiller6318]

With that logic, you could say that st. Cyril and co were too obsessed with Greek philosophy and got what they deserved by causing a schism with the Nestorians.

[@merhawifirzun3477]

@@jessemiller6318 what Greek philosophy are you talking about? And we are not speaking about mere division. But division that has blood sheding.which did not occure in the Cyril-Nestorius Conflict. Beside Cyril actually reconciled with the Antiochians.it was Chalcedon who destroyed the reconciliation by adopting only the Antiochian side Christology.

[@jessemiller6318]

@@merhawifirzun3477 i mean, you can say that, but the chalcedonians also say their council solved monophysitism and Nestorianism. Besides the point, where does this logic end?

[@merhawifirzun3477]

@@jessemiller6318 did my comment reached you or it is being deleted?

[@jacobrox1632]

Original title was great bruv 😢

[@mbzk]

Great refutations, keep it up

[@hadramut]

Name the first hymn

[@dante18-p2m]

Im gonna need a source citation for Florovsky affirming Theodoret en toto, link and verse

[@xmc7189]

What do you mean by 'rum'?

[@Martin_23906]

Roman or Roman orthodox. It’s what the Eastern Orthodox are called in Arabic.

[@enremkemi]

Melkite/Rum = Imperial/byzantine-aligned

[@MinaDKSBMSB]

Those who belong to Rome, are under Roman leadership, have Roman masters, follow Rome

[@junicornplays980]

It would be nice if the other four participants didn't hide their identities. I wonder why they do so.

[@buckledcrane9639]

I live in the same way Chalcedonians accuse us of Tritheism or 3 wills…. But don’t realize it’s the same way they answer to a Muslim that there isn’t 3 Gods

[@junicornplays980]

I'm Chalcedonian, and tbh this is the first time I'm hearing the Oriental Orthodox be accused of tritheism. I find it absurd that Fr. Mikhail would make that accusation. I felt exactly the way that Daniel did, that he was straight lying. It's troubling to me that he is a priest and would make these accusations.

[@_Moses_The_Servant]

Individual substance=individualized substance... Am I missing this. That's what it sounded like.

[@Katholikos78]

I used to believe that the EO was the true Church, but I now believe none are. The one holy catholic and Apostolic Church is split up over things not really that serious. I don't care how Christ is true God and true man in one hypostasis, just that he is and that is all that's needed for salvation. To me it always sounded more like semantics and less in substance. I will not be EO, OO, or even Catholic again because you're all just tribalistic, anathematizing each other, and excluding the others. You all claim to be "the Church." I don't see it. Don't even bother trying to argue with me because I've had enough of you all.

[@LTK.777]

Looks like you've got a bad ecclesiology

[@MinaDKSBMSB]

You’re right in that these matters can make people overly tribalistic. But getting beat up and staying down by the search for truth is not correct thinking. We don’t say that St. Paul anathematizing those who taught a different gospel in the epistle to the Galatians was creating division or split over things that are “not really that serious”. We also agree with St. Paul in Ephesians ch4 that there is One Lord, one faith, one Baptism. I know the search for truth is grueling and sometimes looks muddy and ugly along the way until clarity is obtained. Please pray for us as we pray for you that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, comes and dwells in us and continues to give us His truth. God bless and guide you.

[@crossedfalcon23]

I agree that's the problem we are Christians first rest should not matter. But again all them slander each other I hate this . Iam oo

[@LTK.777]

@@crossedfalcon23Assuming you're cradle, your people died to preserve a pure and blameless faith for you. And the thanks you give them is to trivialize it and downplay the significance of an undefiled confession? Even converts should be in awe and gratitude for the radiant and grace filled martyrs/confessors who certainly thought their differences were important enough to die for, as they preserved the same pure and blameless faith for them. Ecumenism in all of its various forms is a spit in their face and wants to equate their sacrifice as being for nothing. What you believe and what you practice matters. And it's not inconsequential.

[@junicornplays980]

@@LTK.777 Jesus died for us. We shouldn't place anyone else above HIM.

[@theeasternjourney]

Why isn't there 10 minute or lets say 30 min response? Why does it have to be 3 hours!?!? Can someone tell me juiciest parts?

[@yousefsalib7609]

@@theeasternjourney fast food theology without citations is not how the OO do thingsb

[@przecinek8078]

yall EOs want everything easily lol use your brain melkite

[@theeasternjourney]

@@yousefsalib7609 I am not saying that, smh. If you can't put your defence in 1 hour max video but need 2 more hours to explain it to me that sounds very suspicious.

[@yousefsalib7609]

@@theeasternjourney but 15 minutes to make like 50 points is not sus?!?!? What is wrong with you guys💀 this is like when Muslims make a 10 minute video trying to refute Christianity and machine gunning like 80 points

[@theeasternjourney]

@@yousefsalib7609 Depends on the content. 45min to 60 max. It's not about points, it's about bringing actual good definitive arguments.

[@Kauahdhdhd]

A Canadian rocor priest is rūm/roman? And schismatic? Cmon man you’re better than that

[@yousefsalib7609]

They get called rum since that means Roman which is what the Eastern Orthodox are called in Arabic

[@dioscoros]

We aren't better than schismatics and heretics such as the ROCORites. We're sinners who will be held up to a higher standard since we are members of the Orthodox Church. They are held to a lower standard because they know not Christ, nor the grace of the sacraments. All they know is the antichrist masquerade which they call a "church."

[@danielkakish]

Rūm is not a derogatory term. It’s what we call the EOs

[@Kauahdhdhd]

@@danielkakish oh ok thanks for the clarification

[@cultofmodernism8477]

The difference between us is that we affirm the category/notion of enhypostaton, while you do not, which is not an Aristotelean category. We use this construct to explain how, in patristics (including St. Cyril), it is affirmed that Christ is both "from" and "in" two natures. How can the single subject of Christ be "in" two natures if we follow the Aristotelean primary-secondary substance framework? He couldn't be. We the EO depart from Aristotle in this area while you and the Nestorians do not. We feel that both you and the Nestorians fall into absurdity. I agree with the EO priest that ultimately you confess a tertium quid that is neither consubstantial with the Father nor with the Theotokos. I also agree with him that you fall into monothelitism. I disagree with the priest when he charged you with the heresy of Philoponus. I also deeply disagree with him when he says Christ is a divine only person who isn't, in any way, a created person. That's very wrong.

[@copticfanatic]

St. Cyril never affirmed the statement Christ is both from and in two natures. He only stated that Christ is from both natures. We affirm a non self-subsistent human hypostasis that united with the self-subsistent divine hypostasis to from a divine-human hypostasis that's fully divine and fully human. The problem with the enhypostaton notion that you claim to affirm is that it results in mono/miaphysitism which you guys condemn. You'll end up having the human nature of Christ be a part of the divine nature forming this one divine-human nature that you guys criticize. You claim that we confess a tertium quid because you don't understand identity and how identity works. You guys don't know the different types of identity like absolute/strict/leibnizian identity, pure and impure relative identity, compositional identity, constitutional identity...etc. When you say that we affirm a tertium quid, you are assuming leibnizian absolute identity. However, we apply relative identity (or numerical oneness without identity) to the two natures and the person of Christ which results in one nature that's fully divine and fully human while allowing for a conceptual distinction between the divinity and humanity of Christ. There is no logical inconsistencies when applying relative identity and no it doesn't result in a tertuim quid. The problem with you is that dyophysitism will result in two particulars after the union. A person is just a particular. Therefore your view logically entails nestorianism. Now, how your Neochalcedonian fathers attempted to solve this is by introducing the notion of enhypostaton for the humanity of Christ. The problem with this notion is like what i said previously it will result in one nature which you guys condemn. Also, the enhypostaton contradicts with your 6th council that affirmed dyothelitism and dyoenergism. Dyothelitism and dyoenergism denies composition and if Christ is not composed of divinity and humanity that will mean that the humanity of Christ is not enhypostasized which would result in blatant nestorianism.

[@agen00]

Thank you for affirming that your Gods hypostasis changed. Secondly having read the entirety of the Cyrillian corpus, the only statement of “in two” is Leontius of Jerusalems interpolated fragment of “Letter 53” I also thank you dearly for proving that the canonized documents of Ephesus which teach a united nature fall into absurdity under your view.

[@cultofmodernism8477]

@@agen00 Well, I'm Christian, so I believe that God *became man* according to Hypostasis. There is, in other words, some type of change viz. the incarnation. The question is, what is meant by the Chalcedonian formula of "Christ became man without change?" St. Maximus explains: no new ontology is introduced; rather, a new union of existing ontologies is introduced. In other words, there is no new person introduced; we do not add a 4th to the Trinity. Nor is there is a new nature introduced, so that the Logos isn't consubstantial with both the Father and the Theotokos. Orientals have to affirm that either the hypostatic union is a union of hypostases - i.e., a new person is introduced *or* a new nature is introduced. Neither of these work, but I've heard both confessed in your communion. Now, you may ask, "how is there no new person introduced when a new instance of human nature is added to the Logos?" We confess that what Christ adds is an impersonal human nature. More precisely, every person has their in logos, which is grounded in the mind of God. With Christ, He is His own Logos. St. Maximus calls this, "the mystery of Christ known before all ages." Christ's humanity doesn't have its own Logos.

[@cultofmodernism8477]

@@copticfanatic I already addressed this in my response to "agen00" below. Your position, which you acknowledge, necessarily results in either: two hypostases (a form of Nestorianism) or a compound/new nature. I've heard both confessed in your communion, and the latter is a tertium quid. There's no way around it. Your commentary on different types of identity is irrelevant. Whatever type of identity characterizes this new, compound nature - it is not shared by either the Father or the Theotokos. It doesn't result in two particulars after the union because a person is not "just a particular." Imperfect analogy, but it makes my point: Peter Parker is still Peter Parker before and after he's bit by the spider. Every person has his/her own distinct logos that's grounded in the mind of God. With Christ, He is His own Logos. St. Maximus calls this, "the mystery of Christ known before all ages." Christ's humanity doesn't have its own logos. It was eternally known in the Logos. This is what we mean when we say that Christ's human nature is "impersonal." Finally, St. Cyril, in his Scholia de Incarnatione Unigeniti, wrote "the natures [plural] remained without confusion." He also wrote that, "we know the difference of the natures [plural] and we keep them without confusion of each other." In other words, St. Cyril confessed that Christ remained "in" two natures after the union.

[@cultofmodernism8477]

@@agen00 Well, I'm Christian, so I believe that God became man according to Hypostasis. There is, in other words, some type of change viz. the incarnation. The question is, what is meant by the Chalcedonian formula of "Christ became man without change?" St. Maximus explains: no new ontology is introduced; rather, a new union of existing ontologies is introduced. In other words, there is no new person introduced; we do not add a 4th to the Trinity. Nor is there is a new nature introduced, so that the Logos isn't consubstantial with both the Father and the Theotokos. Orientals have to affirm that either the hypostatic union is a union of hypostases - i.e., a new person is introduced or a new nature is introduced. Neither of these work, but I've heard both confessed in your communion. Now, you may ask, "how is there no new person introduced when a new instance of human nature is added to the Logos?" We confess that what Christ adds is an impersonal human nature. More precisely, every person has their in logos, which is grounded in the mind of God. With Christ, He is His own Logos. St. Maximus calls this, "the mystery of Christ known before all ages." Christ's humanity doesn't have its own Logos.