• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Cyril of Jerusalem!

Status
Not open for further replies.

davidoffinland

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2004
575
30
85
finland
✟15,843.00
Faith
Lutheran
From Finland.

I understand that Cyril of Jerusalem, was more concern with political ties, along with his understanding of the Trinity, when forcefully invoking the Alexandrian views of Trinity vs the Antiochian/Nestorian in Eastern Orthodox in the 4th & 5th Centuries. Or, was it he used Constantinople as a political favor to enforce his Trinitarian view. These two centers in Eastern Orthodoxy struggled for favor with the "new Rome"...Constantinople. In the end, Alexandria won out.

This was such a touchy subject back then when a bishop of the church would rally the people to mob against those who had a slightly opposing views. Any truth behing this?

Shalom, David.
 

MariaRegina

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2003
53,283
14,159
Visit site
✟115,460.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/store/oripress.htm

Against Those Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin Is Theotokos

(Original Greek Text and English Translation).

By Saint Cyril of Alexandria

Edited and translated with an Introduction by Protopresbyter George Dion. Dragas

Paperback (September 2004)
ISBN: 0-9745618-7-8
Price: $13.95 + S&H (USD)

READ THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

The term Theotokos helped to establish the truth that Jesus Christ, who was born of the Virgin Mary, was the preexisting Son of God who also became man without ceasing to be God in order to recapitulate in Himself the entire humanity and work out an eternal salvation for it. The point here is that Jesus Christ is the same Son of God who as true God "was born" ineffably and eternally from the Father and as true man was born in time and according to the flesh from the Virgin for the completion of the ages. Jesus Christ is one person who unites in Himself two natures, the divine and the human, and thus deifies the human by leading it to participate in the perfections of the divine. The term Theotokos brings out all these aspects of the mystery of the Incarnation and stresses its soteriological import. St. Cyril was not the first to use this dogmatic term Theotokos in a Christological dogmatic sense. Several theologians before him, including St. Athanasius and the Cappadocians, as well as conciliar Church documents, had used it in their writings. St. Cyril defended its propriety and explained its dogmatic significance for the Church's doctrine of Christ, because Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople denounced it as unacceptable. In the debate that ensued, it became obvious that Nestorius entertained a false doctrine of Christ, which eventually led to his condemnation. It was he who became an innovator and deviator from the Church's Tradition and not St. Cyril as some contemporary scholars have asserted. The present text can be described as a model of Patristic theological discourse. It is an anti-heretical treatise, which refers to a central dogma of Christian theology, the doctrine of Christ. Its importance lies, first, in that it demonstrates that dogma and exegesis are intertwined in Patristic theological thought and discourse; and second, that it shows that Patristic dogma is rooted in the biblical witness, and that the Fathers handled the Scriptures in a different way than the ancient heretics and many of our contemporary biblical scholars.
 
Upvote 0

MariaRegina

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2003
53,283
14,159
Visit site
✟115,460.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
http://www.roca.org/OA/111/111f.htm

The above website tells the story of St. Cyril of Jerusalem who apparently is a different saint from St. Cyril of Alexandria mentioned in the previous post.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem lived during the time of the Arian heresy. You must realize that almost 80 to 90 percent of the Bishops of the Christian Church espoused this heresy which claimed that Christ at one time was not God. For this statement, St. Nicholas slapped Arius across the face at the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 324 A.D.

Yes, there were bitter fights over the Arian heresy because it threatened to destroy Christianity. It was a very dark time of the Church. Yet, the faith survived because Christ said that He would protect and guide His Church. For this reason, Christ sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Apostles and their successors.

Today, we have the neo-Arians who claim that Christ became God at His baptism.\

We who are Christians deny this and say that Christ always was God. He has no beginning and no end. Christ is the Eternal Word of God Who is eternally begotten of the Father. And the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Son. So we worship a Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three Divine Persons in one Godhead.

Glory to Jesus Christ. Glory Forever.

Amen. Amen. Amen.
 
Upvote 0

MariaRegina

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2003
53,283
14,159
Visit site
✟115,460.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
http://www.roca.org/OA/111/111f.htm

For a renowned Church Father, St. Cyril's Life is constructed on surprisingly meager details. According to the Greek Menaion, Cyril was "born of pious parents, professing the orthodox Faith, and to have been bred up in the same, in the reign of Constantine." The year of his birth is generally given as 315 and the location in or around Jerusalem, for it was customary to choose a bishop from among the local clergy, a man already known and respected by the people over whom he would assume spiritual authority. His youth coincided with the height of Arian domination and the rediscovery of the Holy Sepulchre in 326, when Jerusalem, a relatively poor community, began moving into prominence. In 335 Constantine's magnificent Church of the Resurrection was dedicated and Cyril, a new deacon, undoubtedly took part in the ceremonies. The principal celebrants were Arians, who had just deposed their vigorous opponent, St. Athanasius, in a council at Tyre. The Church at Jerusalem, however, never embraced Arianism. Bishop Macarius, and his successor Maximus who ordained Cyril to the priesthood in 345, were both staunchly Nicaean. And when, on Maximus' death in 350, Cyril succeeded him as bishop, he continued to guide the Church at Jerusalem from this position.

Meanwhile, Bishop Acacius of neighboring Caesarea had been drawn into the Arian camp. This conflict between the two hierarchs was sharpened by the resentment Acacius felt when Cyril disputed Caesarea's jurisdiction over Jerusalem, now an established center of pilgrimage and sprouting monastic communities. In 357 Acacius successfully maneuvered to have Cyril deposed. Banished for two years, Cyril went to Tarsus, where he associated with Basil of Ancyra, a champion of Nicaea. There, too, he won the hearts of the people with his preaching. Cyril was banished a second time in 360, returning after the accession of Julian in 361, when all exiled bishops were recalled. Nothing is known of his third period of banishment, from 367 to 378, under the Arian Emperor Valens. In 381 Cyril went to Constantinople as one of 150 Church Fathers who took part in the Second Ecumenical Council. He died peacefully on March 18, 386, remembered by the Church as a great ascetic and uncompromising champion of the true Faith. St. Cyril's principle claim to fame, however, rests on his catechetical lectures. These form a systematic course of instruction which he developed as a priest assigned to prepare candidates for baptism. Essentially practical, highly biblical, direct and noble in tone, they reflect St. Cyril's sincere pastoral concern. Their primary purpose is not to discuss or examine, nor to defend, but to impart knowledge of the Faith. Very striking here is the thoroughness of this preparation and the seriousness with which entry into the Church was regarded. Even before being made catechumens, candidates were strictly examined as to their character, belief and sincerity of purpose. The probationary period varied, lasting about two years.

At the heart of these lectures is a perfectly balanced emphasis on God's transcendence and the ineffable wonder and dignity of the heavenly citizenship conferred through Baptism on the one hand, and man's essential responsibility for genuine repentance and good works on the other. St. Cyril skillfully prepares his listeners in his Introductory Lecture, by turns sobering and exalting, which emphasizes at the outset the need for a sustained purpose. Taken from this lecture, the following passages are characteristic of the Saint's teaching.

§ He lieth not who said, that to them that love God all things work together for good. God is lavish in beneficence, yet He waits for each man's genuine will: therefore the Apostle added and said, to them that are called according to a purpose (Rom. 8:28). The honesty of purpose makes thee called: for if thy body be here but not thy mind, it profiteth thee nothing..

§ Let none of you be found tempting His grace.

§ ...beware lest thou have the title of "faithful" but the will of the faithless. Thou hast entered into a contest, toil on through the race: another such opportunity thou canst not have.

§ Attend closely to the catechisings, and though we should prolong our discourse, let not thy mind be wearied out. For thou art receiving armor against the adverse power, armor against heresies... Thou hast many enemies; take to thee many darts, for thou hast many to hurl them at... And the armor is ready, and most ready the sword of the Spirit; but thou also must stretch forth thy right hand with good resolution, that thou mayest war the Lord's warfare.

§ Great is the Baptism that lies before you: a ransom to captives; a remission of offences; a death of sin; a new-birth of the soul; a garment of light; a holy indissoluble seal; a chariot to heaven; the delight of Paradise; a welcome into the kingdom; the gift of adoption! But there is a serpent by the wayside watching those who pass by: beware lest he bite thee with unbelief...

§ We for our part as men charge and teach you thus: but make not yet our building hay and stubble and chaff, lest we suffer loss, from our work being burnt up: but make ye our work gold and silver, and precious stones! For it lies in me to speak, but in thee to set thy mind upon it, and in God to make perfect.

The first two lectures stress the need for thorough repentance and hope in the remission of sins: "Cleanse thy vessel that thou mayest receive grace more abundantly ...thorny ground also, if cultivated well, is turned fruitful." In the third lecture, "On Baptism", St. Cyril impresses on his audience that "this is no light matter, no ordinary and indiscriminate union according to the flesh, but the All-searching Spirit's election according to faith...Each one of you is about to be presented to God before tens of thousands of the Angelic Hosts: the Holy Spirit is about to seal your souls: ye are to be enrolled in the army of the Great King. Therefore make you ready...that thou mayest become an heir of God, and joint-heir with Christ."

The next lecture provides "a short summary of necessary doctrines," carrying brief statements concerning the Oneness of God, Christ as the Only-begotten Son, His Birth of the Virgin, the Cross, His Burial, Resurrection and Ascension, the Judgment to Come, the Soul ("the noblest work of God"), the Body, Fasting, Baptism, the Scriptures. Following another general lecture, "On Faith," St. Cyril launches into a series of thirteen lectures explaining in greater detail the successive articles of the Jerusalem Creed, which the candidates were required to recite by memory at the time of their baptism.

A second series of five lectures was delivered on Bright Monday to the newly-baptized. Here the Saint initiates them, as it were, into the knowledge of those rites which they have experienced for themselves for the first time, having been strictly required as catechumens to leave the church after the reading of the Gospel and the exclamation, "Catechumens, depart!" The Saint explains to his "true-born" listeners the actual rites of baptism and chrismation, the Eucharist and the Liturgy of the Faithful, with particular attention to the Lord's Prayer. His joy at thus welcoming the new Christians is unmistakable. These five lectures are particularly valuable to us today in documenting the liturgical practices of the early Church, providing stunning evidence of Orthodoxy's ancient liturgical roots. Indeed, it is thrilling to read a fourth-century text that so closely accords with our experience today.

The lectures give one to understand that the course was not limited to candidates for baptism. Those already baptized also came to be edified. Even today, these lectures should be required study for potential converts, while those of us who are already baptized would likewise do well to avail ourselves of these clear streams of living water, to strengthen our faith with knowledge and refresh our sense of awe at the great mystery of our salvation. We owe a great debt to St. Cyril who, through laboring on these lectures, found lasting favor with God and man.
 
Upvote 0

davidoffinland

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2004
575
30
85
finland
✟15,843.00
Faith
Lutheran
From Finland

The use of Kristotokos was used by Nestorius instead of Theotokos because Antiochene Theology believed that Mary was the Mother of Messiah because if they used Theotokos it would imply Mary is mother of the Trinity, plus other things. This whole controversy can be seen at this link,

http://www.nasarani-patriarchate.org/eng/articles/consideration_for_kristotokos.php

Shalom,
David. PS This is the link but don´t understand why it doesn´t come. Try a using a search engine for kristotokos & theotokos
 
Upvote 0

MariaRegina

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2003
53,283
14,159
Visit site
✟115,460.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Do you believe that Mary the Virgin gave birth to Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word and only begotten Son of God?


  • [*] If you sincerely believe that Christ is God, and that He has no beginning nor end, then it would be proper to call Mary the birthgiver of God = Theotokos.

    [*] If on the other hand, you believe that Christ became God in time, then this would be called the Arian heresy and Mary would only be the Mother of Christ = kristotokos.

    [*] If you believe that Christ is only a good man, and not God at all, then this is called the Nestorian heresy and Mary would be the mother of Christ = kristotokos.


Do you see the difference?
 
Upvote 0

davidoffinland

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2004
575
30
85
finland
✟15,843.00
Faith
Lutheran
From Finland.

What you are saying is only one side of the argument. You know there is a wide schism in the Christian world on how to relate to the Virgin Mary. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, she is loved, revered and adored. In Protestantism, while she is relegated to the mother of the baby Jesus. One group in Eastern Orthodoxy, the Nestorians and their links, find themselves in a delicate position in the middle. While they love and praise the Blessed Virigin Miriam as "The Kristotokos" the Christ-bearer, they do not express it like the RC or other Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters.

Here is the reason: Miriam gave birth to His humanity, whereas YHWH gave birth to His Divinty. This is central to Nestorian belief and world-view. The reason they do not view Miriam as the Theotokos, the Mother of God as this would imply that she is the Mother of the Trinity and that is in error. Nor do they view her simply as only a historical figure of the Church in the same way Protestants to. To the Nestorians and their links, Miriam was chosen by the Triune God to give birth to the biological form of Yeshua. Again, Miriam gave birth to Yeshua´s humanity and YHWH gave birth to His divinity.

(The above was their response about the view of Miriam as Theotokos that I received lately)

Shalom, David.

PS This is an added note. A historical note. The Alexandrian School and the Antiochian School of theology of Eastern Orthodox during this time had a checked and colored history and it is good to see both sides. Of course, the Alexandrian Schools, with the help of ruler, eventual won out. One must actually read the both sides. When the Council convened, St Cyril went ahead and booted-out Nestorius and the other 10 Eastern bishops, just because he could not wait for them. This started the whole battle. And, vica-versa.

Since the Nestorians have a semitic and Aramaic background, instead of Grecian or Latin, still to this day; meanings of Aramaic or Hebraic words do not translate clearily in Greek or English. One must take this into account. For example, the Aramaic word Qnume means essence. The essence of either Yeshua´s divinity or humaity. But, when this word was first translated into the debates of the time...it came out persons. This was one reason for the heated debates against Nestorius that they thought he had meant "persons". And, the two-person theory started. But, Nestorius meant essence! Another reason for this controversy is that the personalities of either side weren´t handled properly.
 
Upvote 0

MariaRegina

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2003
53,283
14,159
Visit site
✟115,460.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
You didn't answer my question above.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Eternal Word and Only-Begotten Son of God, that He was incarnated in time but that He has always existed from all eternity? And that He is one with the Holy Trinity.

Theotokos means "God-bearer" in Greek. She was the Mother of God precisely because God the Son dwelt within her womb. She is not the Mother of the Trinity, that is a misinterpretation of the Greek due to the limitations of the Arabic language. Yes, Greek is a more superior theological language.

Notice that English has many word borrowings ... and all living languages do unless political forces intervene as they do in French and in Arabic. When word borrowings are prohibited by political/religious leaders, then that language suffers limitations and misunderstandings with their neighbors. This is due to human pride.

Back on topic:

The Virgin Mary gave birth to God, isn't this true? Therefore, she is rightly called the "Bearer of God" or the "birthgiver of God" which is from the Greek, Theotokos.

Again, I have had dialogs with modern Nestorians, and they do not believe that Jesus is God. That is why they use a term similar to the Greek word kristotokos, the bearer of Christ, which term only refers to Christ's humanity.

However, Mary did not give birth to only a man.

Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

The two are joined together in a hypostatic union. You cannot separate the humanity of Christ and the Divinity of Christ because the Divine Person unites them in a hypostatic union. Mary could not have given birth to only the humanity of Christ or Christ would have been born dead as it is the Second Person of the Blessed and All-Holy Trinity which unites the humanity and the divinity of Christ.

Note: Mohammed studied under the Nestorians. He believed that Jesus was born of a Virgin but was not God.

It's strange because Mohammed's own mother was not a virgin, yet Islam teaches that Mohammed is the greater prophet than Jesus. So Islam teaches that Christ had a miraculous birth, and was born of a Virgin but Mohammed didn't. Yet, somehow Mohammed is greater? :doh: Strange thinking.

Some muslims who have honestly studied the Quran realize this serious error and then begin to critique the Quran for other obvious or not so obvious errors.

So it is the Theotokos who has led many muslims to Christianity. By her miraculous virginal life-giving birth to the Creator of All and the Light of the World, she is saving muslims from darkness and bringing them to the Light, Her Son.

The purpose of the Theotokos, therefore, is seen. She is humble and draws all to her Son.

We don't worship the Theotokos, we honor her as the Mother of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Glory to Jesus Christ. Glory to Him forever. Alleluia. Amin. Amin. Amin.
 
Upvote 0

davidoffinland

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2004
575
30
85
finland
✟15,843.00
Faith
Lutheran
From Finland.

Of course I believe that Yeshua was God/elohim! But the balance that most people do not want to talk about is Yeshua´s humanity...that He grew in wisdom, that He was hungry, etc. This is one reason many people are confused and frustrated over the Trinity issue. Plus, the fact you did not mention in the above posts His humanity. It is a one-sided argument that you present and many non-trinitarians would debate with you because in the time of Roman and Greek cultures pagans believed that gods/elohims, angels took human form. See Acts 14 when Paul was preaching powerfully, the local pagans thought Paul was a god come in the flesh. The emperors of the Roman empire thought they were deities.

If the person you talked about who was a Nestorian is truly a believer in the Creeds and theology of Nestorian then he or she would believe that Yeshua says what the Creeds state.

Another question about Mary...is your opinion about her that she is in the Heavenlies, interceding and in equal position with Yeshua? Many have a un-balanced view of Mary who sits equally with Yeshua in the Heavenlies even to the point of putting Yeshua in the background. That view is not biblical! It is a view by some Orthodoxs or western Roman Catholic who overly revere and worship Mary to the point that she is the Queen of Heaven. Most of these arguments are late post-christian views of the 4th, 5th CTs and some of them about Mary came came very, very late.

Shalom for now,
David.
 
Upvote 0

MariaRegina

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2003
53,283
14,159
Visit site
✟115,460.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
davidoffinland said:
From Finland.

Of course I believe that Yeshua was God/elohim! But the balance that most people do not want to talk about is Yeshua´s humanity...that He grew in wisdom, that He was hungry, etc. This is one reason many people are confused and frustrated over the Trinity issue. Plus, the fact you did not mention in the above posts His humanity. It is a one-sided argument that you present and many non-trinitarians would debate with you because in the time of Roman and Greek cultures pagans believed that gods/elohims, angels took human form. See Acts 14 when Paul was preaching powerfully, the local pagans thought Paul was a god come in the flesh. The emperors of the Roman empire thought they were deities.


Welcome from Finland - my husband ancestors are also from Finland and he is part Saami. He is also an Orthodox Christian.

You made three points in your above thread, so I will briefly address them and hopefully others will also respond.

1. I have never denied Christ's humanity. I have repeatedly said that Christ is truly man and truly God. I have repeatedly said that Christ was born of a Virgin. He assumed his humanity from her, but Mary was created in His Image. Interesting paradox. He took His humanity from her who received her humanity from Him.

By becoming man, Christ our Lord, God and Savior, revealed His Divinity to us mortals and opened to us the gates of Heaven. He lived among us working miracles and instructing those who received Him. He died as a lowly criminal having assumed our sins to save us. By His death and Holy Resurrection, He set us free by trampling down death by His Holy Death.* He established His Church on earth to guide us home to heaven, so that we can be with Him forever.

However, He is so far above us that as God, He remains incomprehensible, uncircumscribable and unknowable.

* Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death. And upon those in the tombs bestowing life. [This is the Pascha Troparion which we sing at Pascha every year to commemorate Christ's Holy Resurrection.]


Another question about Mary...is your opinion about her that she is in the Heavenlies, interceding and in equal position with Yeshua? Many have a un-balanced view of Mary who sits equally with Yeshua in the Heavenlies even to the point of putting Yeshua in the background.


2. The Theotokos is not equal to God. She is the creature and Christ God is her Creator. The Theotokos is above the angels ... as we all can become now that we can receive the Holy Eucharist and become Christ through theosis; however, we can never become God by nature. Only by participating in the Holy Eucharist do we become divinized (the process of theosis) and truly put on Christ and become Christ to all we meet. The Church's purpose on earth is to serve the Holy Eucharist so that we may become Christ by grace, and therefore become part of the Mystical Body of Christ.

[I know I have opened up new topics, so please start another thread if you wish to discuss these points further so as not to detour the topic on hand: The Theotokos and Christ.]

That view is not biblical! It is a view by some Orthodoxs or western Roman Catholic who overly revere and worship Mary to the point that she is the Queen of Heaven. Most of these arguments are late post-christian views of the 4th, 5th CTs and some of them about Mary came came very, very late.

Shalom for now,
David.


3. The Theotokos is rightfully called the Queen of Heaven as she is the Mother of the King of all. However, she does not lord it over Christ, but like all the angels and saints in heaven, worships and adores Her Son, Our Lord God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Her whole purpose on earth was to point to her Son as our Redeemer and God. She continues to do so in heaven. We venerate her but we do not worship and adore her, as worship and adoration are due to God alone.

Note: my treatment is only superficial. A lot more can be said. So I hope other Orthodox Christians will join to clarify any other questions you may have.

Thanks for your understanding and charitable responses.

Lovingly in Christ,
Elizabeth
 
Upvote 0
K

Kolya

Guest
Hi David,

Are you a Nestorian? If so, we can not debate this as you will have fixed views, and you have fixed views.

If however you are merely trying to clear up a theological mystery for yourself, Aria has already told you all you need to know.

I was a staunch Protestant, and while converting to EO, I found it very difficult to venerate the Blessed Ever Virgin Mary. That took a lot of study, prayer and some miracles too (Which I will not discuss here)
The point is, the Logos (Word) which had proceeded from God the Father and was begotten of the Father before All Ages, was by means of the Holy Spirit "Cloned" into humanity. What Mary carried in her womb was nothing less than God the Son from His conception in her by the Holy Spirit.
By taking on human flesh, He also became Human, so in ONE Homeostasis there existed, and still exits TWO natures - Human and Divine. By some miracle Mary was able to carry God within her without being consumed, for no other human mortal could ever have done that.

What Mary gave birth to in the cave in Bethlehem was nothing less than God! So, she IS Theotokos - the Mother of God Incarnate (Not of the Trinity). Do not try to mix the two concepts, as that is where Nestorians get confused.

I hope that helps. And i pray that you will be given wisdom from God on this matter.

As for her exalted place in heaven now, Mary is, and always will be subject to her Son, who is one of the God-head. She has pride of place on His right, and thus is rightly called the Queen of heaven - not because she rules, but because she was the first to accept Salvation through her Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ - the promised Messiah!

Kolya
 
Upvote 0

davidoffinland

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2004
575
30
85
finland
✟15,843.00
Faith
Lutheran
From Finland.

I am a believer in Yeshua and what He has done for us according to the Father´s plan, and been so ever since I was a teen. I am retired and always been a student of history and theology and into 1st CT Jewish/Christian roots and just like to discuss these things.

I am not a Nestorian but studying only their history and theology. The Nestorian website manager said to me if I want to know what their theology and history is all about study their sites only because of the conflicts between them and East Orthodoxy and the Western Church (i.e. Roman Catholic) have dominated Christian thought for over a century and a half. In the past, Nestorian books have been burned, and Nestorius, himself, has been exiled. But, this Eastern branch of the Christian Church went eastward into Persia, India, Burma and China and very little is know of them in the West. So what makes this Church so on fire and vibrant?

So when it comes to theology there are differences, for example, Theotokos verus Kristotokos. Or, the divine and human essences of Yeshua? Certainly, studying the history of both of these churches can bring more knowledge for an over all view. One thing I can say is that there are similarities but it seems that there may be too much emphases on one view without acknowledging another view may be perfect legit.

For now,
Shalom, David.

PS Just an end note about Nestorian view of Mary. Quote from an email of mine: Many Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox christians believe that Mary has special powers, than it becomes problematic. Nestorian churches revere Miriam as the mother of Messiah, she along with her family are honored, revered and loved as the first Patriarch of the Church of Jerusalem. We do not teach the immaculate conception or that she ascended into heaven as some other groups believe. Unquote.

One added note of mine: whether we believe this or not does it jeopardize our own salvation? I don´t think so because of the solid fact of Yeshua´s work on the Cross for the forgiveness of sins and fulfilling the work of YHWH that had to be done. Much, much later, the hammering out and clarifying the problematic areas were worked out by these Councils of the Churches. But it does not affect, or it is effect, the work of Yeshua in what He accomplished according to the Scriptures.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.