Top Eastern “Orthodox” Apologist ENDED by Egyptian Kid (He Doesn’t Want You to See This)

Añadido: 2026-05-14

[00:00:04]How is this well of course but how is this any different from an historian saying Christ United with the human Jesus from the moment it was conceived and from that on it was all they were always United how is that any different >> Because he doesn't make them one That's the difference >> Let's say let's say that he he says they are one Then he would have never said that he United to the man Jesus Why would he never say that We're we're we're no one we're we're looking into like an alternate dimension he didn't say that what do you want me to do about it No because historians do say for example as you pointed out There's one person there's one person in Christ Uh-huh Right and that's >> Like calcedon says How is that how is that any different for example Because he doesn't make them one he keeps them as two >> [clears throat] >> So that so you're saying that they're by nature one Is the reason why your position is completely different from the sources you don't Into the problem of Christ uniting to an already particularized human nature An already born In the historian thought duh the fact that I say there's one nature and he doesn't duh that's a symmetry breaker It makes all the difference why Okay but the historians but the historians that he unites with a human being that already has its own hypostatic properties I don't I don't agree with Nestorius I agree with Saint Cyril Saint Gregory and Nestorius agrees with them I sincerely doubt that because you state that Christ unites with an already particular human nature how for example And you said that as well If he unites to a particular human nature how do you say that Christ himself was born of the Virgin Mary because the human Jesus already was born >> Because the human Jesus wasn't already born, there's no moment where there's not a union. As soon as the flesh is concretized, it's numerical like division is completely done with.

[00:02:13]There's just one entity resulting. And that's why I can say God the Word was born because there's one from out of both.

[00:02:20]Yeah, but the question is about logical priority which does inform the mode in which the temporal event occurs. I agree, but in that logical priority, I can't induce anything because the flesh was never on its own for me to say it was the man Jesus. It never existed in time for me to mark out demarcate those properties with my induction.

[00:02:40]Like you get how we find out hypostatic properties.

[00:02:42]>> Okay, so that that basically means the human nature did not have its own particular particular property. That doesn't follow. I gave you one example. Being I I actually gave you two examples actually. Being a temple from among us is what Cyril says, and being in the womb of the virgin.

[00:02:57]>> Those are not examples. Those are statements from the fathers which are own interpretation. Those are not answers.

[00:03:02]You think being a temple from among us isn't an individual mark?

[00:03:07]I can state the same thing.

[00:03:10]Okay. Like you said.

[00:03:11]>> an answer to the question.

[00:03:13]>> Like you said in the rebuttal period.

[00:03:14]You already conceded [clears throat] that a human hypostasis is assumed. You already concede that in the debate. Like are you trying to refute yourself now?

[00:03:21]I think you're just running away from the question. The question is incredibly simple. The logical informs the temporal event that occurs.

[00:03:40]Whatever you say, man. Like I already said. In the case of the human nature that's in the womb of the virgin, even though there's a logical priority, because there's no temporal instance where they're divided, I can't give it its own terminated marks. Like the name Jesus, I'll give you an example. Let me finish. Like the name Jesus, we can all agree refers to the termination of the union. Why? Because Jesus refers to Yahweh's salvation, right? It already assumes the unity. Take even son of man.

[00:04:07]Son of man is a title which already assumes the unity.

[00:04:10]The man Jesus assumes an a moment where there's an individual subsistent moment where there's the flesh. That logical priority is not going to collapse into temporal one.

[00:04:19]You're trying to pretend as if you're acknowledging this difference but then you're conflating them.

[00:04:23]>> That's not the argument though. It informs the temp- the the temporal event. Just like how the the logical sequence of fire and its heat and its light informs the temporal sequence in the way in which they exist.

[00:04:33]It could not be the other way around.

[00:04:34]Similarly, the fact that you know God gives all created human beings an inborn motion in their nature uh is what allows us is basically why human beings can be born of their own mothers of their own parents because you cannot have if it was the other way around then you will have situations where human mothers could be giving could be able to give birth to other things but that's not the case. Look at the two analogies you gave, I like them. The father and the son and fire and heat. In the case of father and son they never become numerically one in hypostasis. That never happens. So that's why the logical priority could still be made out of distinguishing marks. In the case of fire and heat Cero says it's the substance and it's natural property. He says this in the source of the Trinity.

[00:04:56]So they're already different class of being for me to again apply differentiation In the case of Christ and his flesh, it's two things of the same category. As soon as the flesh is concretized instantaneously the flesh of God the word and all the hypostatic marks of the flesh become the hypostatic marks of God the word incarnate. How do we know that? Because it's not just it's not just a pre-union and a post-union event. There's something that stands in the middle that has a logical sequence.

[00:05:08]There's the creation of the flesh as something distinct from God the word.

[00:05:10]There's the instantiation from it and that exact same motion and will is for it to be numerically one with him in the hypostatic You just admitted that the instantiation of it uh precedes the union. Not temporally Not temporally It doesn't matter if it's It does matter. Because you get into example for example person of the Trinity they're already different hypostases. And then you draw all the time in it. Yeah and then your response is basically well they're not they're not different hypostases. Well, that's what's in question. You're basically trying to reason for your arguments by giving answers to questions. Are you Are you saying my position doesn't believe the two become one?

[00:05:32]I logically consistently know they don't. No?

[00:05:35]Huh?

[00:05:37]So you're saying I'm a dyophysite is essentially what I'm hearing.

[00:05:41]No, I'm saying you're a Nestorian.

[00:05:43]Saying I'm a Nestorian. Okay, so you're I'm So you're saying So let me get this straight. You have the same view.

[00:05:49]>> [clears throat] >> I like this. Is man two hypostasis after the union?

[00:05:53]Man is not two hypostasis after the union. Then why does Epiphanius say two hypostasis make one hypostasis in man?

[00:05:59]Oh, that's that's a really nice quote.

[00:06:00]Saying Epiphanius in the same work also used the old Nicene definition of hypostasis as God the Trinity is one hypostasis. So there he's using it in Can I share my screen? No, you can't share your screen because >> [laughter] >> that has nothing to do with Two hours later. And he did a poll for the beginning of the debate.

[00:06:15]And it's like half and half. So the audience is half and half.

[00:06:17]Based on some of the stuff I Um Based on some of the stuff that I do, I feel like it seems like I And it's out of the polls.

[00:06:24]Which I'll be completely honest, I did not expect [laughter] to I I felt like I could do much better. Of course we're going to be criticizing.

[00:06:33]Cuz I mean there's a lot to criticize. I will say it because I have to. Well, tomorrow myself too.

[00:06:40]What's up?

[00:06:41]>> [music]