Comment Feedback!

Your videos should be made mandatory for all advanced cathechism classes! And also rcia! Concise and clear!

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

Thank you so much , that means a lot ! These councils are so important for the faith!

Excellent summation, please continue your explanations of the Church Councils. God Bless.

Really liked the video, although it seemed to leave some important parts out. Which is understandable, since it is meant to be a quick summary. But for those interested here are some (in my opinion) interesting bits: 1. Nestorius himself never really taught or said that Christ was two persons. It is clear from his extant writings that he was very concerned with making it clear that the unity of the subject in Christ is not impaired by his two distinct natures. The reason the party of Cyril labeled him as teaching the Two Sons Christology of his Antiochene predeccesors is because they believed (rightly) that the overly rationalistic theological system on which he based his teachings could not secure the unity of Christ and could even logically lead to a two-subject Christology. They were more concerned with Nestorius' presuppositions and their consequences than with his words in themselves. 2. The Council was originally meant to be in Constantinople, but the sister of Emperor Theodosius II, Pulcheria, managed to change the setting to Ephesus. This was a pretty big-brain move, since Ephesus was one of the main centers of Marian devotion, and the guy who refused to call her Theotokos was not exactly welcome there. 3. Although Cyril had more support from the beginning, the chances of Nestorius were also pretty ok in the beginning of the Council. If he managed to convince the undecided bishops, he would have had a serious chance of coming out on top. However, he was so puffed-up and arrogant about the supposed superiority of his theology, that he regularly insulted even his own supporters for not being as expert a theologian as he believed he was. It aslo didn't help that his pedantic and definition-obsessed way of theologizing was quite insufferable even to most of his sympathizers. These factors led to many of his supporters abandoning him and joining Cyril's side. Cyril would even use their testimony about Nestorius' beliefs as evidence in favor of his deposition. 4. Emperor Theodosius II initially decided that basically both parties were wrong, and ordered the arrest of both Nestorius and Cyril. This was because both Cyril's council and John's small council sent him their decisions as the legitimate result of the Council of Ephesus, and he couldn't really decide which side was in the right. Eventually both because it became clear that Cyril's council had legitimacy and due to popular pressure, the emperor let Cyril free while confirming the verdict against Nestorius. 5. Cyril himself was not so concerned with the specific language used to convey the unity of Christ, but rather about the content and intent behind the language (basically the opposite of Nestorius). After Ephesus, in a long correspondence in letters with the Antiochenes previously on Nestorius' side, he said that even though he would never use the theological language employed by someone lik John of Antioch or Theodoret of Cyrus, their formulations of Christology were "sufficiently orthodox" and thus acceptable in their own context. He never said the same about Nestorius though, since he (correctly) saw a major difference in the, in his opinion, somewhat sloppy Antiochene formulations and Nestorius' straight-up heretical system. Once again, great video and love your channel! Christ is risen!

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

I appreciate the extra details ! Like you said , i didn’t have enough time to put all the little details in. Love to see another person knowing about the councils though , God bless brother!

I have to admit from these months of watching you your videos has been very useful I'll pray that the Lord may bless you and your channel

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

Thank you so much , may the Lord bless you as well!

@mr.boboman5701

Жыл бұрын

@@SanctusApologetics he has. With your channel 🥰

Liked and subbed. Keep up the good work. Keep the Faith.

Yessur , another W

You left out the role that Artemis worship in Ephesus played in landing on Theotokos.

We met on Omegle! Love your channel

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

awesome brother , glad we connected on youtube too!

Doesn’t this Council affirm the “filio que”?

Most Protestants will STILL disagree and say Mary isnt the "Theotokos" This could only mean the Holy Spirit failed to guide these Bishops and that evil/heresy prevailed the church

W

Feedback

Mary was 100% human,... when they say Mary is the "mother of God", isn't it being a bit dishonest if not an overly excessive focus in an unnecessary direction? While Jesus loved, respected, and honored his parents, I don't think he consider his mother as a particularly special subject to be venerated, rather more as a honored vessel for the purpose/fulfillment of the "will of his Father in heaven". When asked "who is your mother", Jesus didn't venerate his human mother, but instead replied... "Here are my mother and my brothers (pointing to his disciples). For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." - Matt 12:48-50. While Mary served an honored role that we should all have gratitude for, emphasizing her role as the "mother of God" overly aggrandizes this role any seems to imply something more than what it really is and could be misleading. The bible identifies Jesus as Arch Angel Michael as the "first born of all creation... the only one "begotten" of God, the master craftsman through whom all other things came into existence". How do you reconcile that description of a mighty spirit creature in Heaven with his having to take human form through a physical human birth process from Mary. The emphasis was that Jesus' spiritual life force/being had undergone the human birth process so that he could "legally" serve as a ransom to buy back humanity from the imperfection that Adam had cast all his descendants into... "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned-" Rom 5:12, "Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." Rom 5:18 The whole point of the bible is for God's will to be fulfilled, which meant that a "perfect" sinless human would have to ransom mankind back from the sin and death that Adam sold us into. No human descendent of Adam could provide this "sinless" "perfect" ransom, so Jesus life force had to be begotten in human form by God's "holy spirit", not by Joseph. God didn't have to do this, but it was important to God for all the heavenly creatures to see that God fulfills his purpose, and I suppose it appropriate for the "mastercraftsman" himself, through whom we were created, would serve as that ransom; rather than some other Angel. Also, it was important that God provide a clear response, in front of all the Angels, to Satan's claim that "you will become like God knowing Good from Evil" (which really means, "you have the right and free will to decide yourself what is good and what is evil"... how have we done so far?) Saying Mary is the "mother of God" may confuse people by implying that she has some overriding role over her offspring, as if the offspring derived and was subject to the parent, as we normally understand human birth. Mary was a honored "vessel" or "conduit" through which the most powerful spirit creature in existence, other than God himself, was made flesh and only for the purpose to deliver humanity from sin and death by providing the ransom equivalent (a perfect human) to Adam to buy back what Adam had lost and to accomplish God's original will/purpose for his creation. In this context, while honoring Mary's role and her life as a faithful "Christian", venerating Mary is purpose a distraction and even a stumbling block. Also, it goes without saying, that Michael the Arch Angel (Jesus) is "the first born of all creation" the one through who all other things were created. While we humans might consider Jesus as "a God" himself, it does not say he is "The Almight God", the one and only, who is without comparison. Remember, Isa 44:6 "I am the first and last; besides me there is no god". Sounds like God felt this was a rather important point. So why did Christendom find it so important to forcefully assert that the Almighty God, Jesus, and God's holy spirit "are all but one". Some translations of the Bible use the term "Spirit of God" while others refer to it as "God's active force", doesn't spirit in most contexts make more sense as and an force activity achieving something as in the creation story of God's "active force moved upon the waters..." Also, the most suggestive verses that imply a Trinity (Matt 28:9, 1 John 5:7) are both recognized as later insertions and for that reasons have not been included in some translations. However, the idea of Triune gods and even many archeological findings show that Triune gods were very popular amongst ancient and pagan religions. The early apostolic fathers are important, but it seems as time passed other considerations, agenda's, and motivations were brought into the christian doctorine, perhaps even to unit more people (i.e. Sun worshippers and Son worshippers under the Roman empire, or like the black Madonna of South America, a blending of beliefs.) Much of these things add unnecessary complexity and confusion to the very simple story of Christ and his important message, which actually was one of the objectives of the church in keeping the bible and services in Latin so only an "approved" class could translate for the people. Clearly, not how Jesus conducted his ministry. I have always found it helpful, like a guiding light or a baseline for reasoning, to always keep foremost in mind... 1) the main purpose of the bible - God achieving his original purpose and will for mankind. 2) the "Free Will Issue" - God's right to rule mankind (and Angels) and decide morality versus humans deciding for themselves what is right and wrong), 3) Jesus Ransom Sacrifice - why Jesus had to come "in the flesh" as a "perfect" human ransom equivalent to Adam, to buy back mankind from inherited Adamic imperfection. Also, whether you believe the bible or not, Jesus message was a very civilized, evolved, good, upright type message that I think as humans we would want to strive towards. It's vision is good... one of love, peace, joy, kindness, goodness, patience, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Gal 5:22). We might call that a truly cooperative civilized society that would probably stand the best chance of success verses some sort of helscape with everyone in fear. I mean, wouldn't you support a message like that, wouldn't that be an ideal worth pursuing, wouldn't you want to be among a group of people who strive to practice these same ideas for everyone's benefit and peaceful life? Compare this message and ideal with the alternatives? Not the worst by far, but consider Buddhism... all life is suffering, eliminate all desire, transcend to nervana/nothingness. How does that compare to Jesus' hopeful message with a promise that restores God's original purpose for mankind to live forever and make Earth a paradise, even to bring back loved ones. I had a lot of trouble with Religion and the Bible, especially things like "Noah's Flood" and the very earliest of Sumerian writings which you have to admit tell some of the same stories, but written way before Noah and Abraham, or just how repeatedly pathological God could be at times in the old testament. I would be disappointed by religious leaders who when honestly asked reasonable and rational questions, would reject science, then condemn and have you shunned. However, I have found more peace in my later days by focusing on Jesus, his qualities and message, and how by his example the qualities of our heavenly father are seen. While there are lessons in the old testament, Jesus death "put an end to the (Mosaic) Law" and replaced it with a new, simple, and far superior law... "do on to others as you would have them do unto you... and love God with your whole heart and mind." The Golden Rule. That's the focus really and it's all about the ransom and God's original purpose. As such, I don't need everything in the Bible to make sense and I'm not going to fall apart when it seems that the plural "Elohim" (Gods) may actually refer be referring to the Ananochy. Jesus was one cool dude and I start first with his life, example, and message.

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

Well the church fathers thought that Jesus was God , and so for mary to birth Jesus was to birth God , they never meant that Mary created God , as he existed before Mary. The church fathers used the term theotokos to understand this belief. Those who opposed them often had a weird view of Jesus’s divinity as well , which is telling in this world of theology…

Catholics dont believe in Theotokos but we still believe that Mary is the mother of God edit : nvm we do