Channel: Jamal Badawi
Series: Jamal Badawi - Jesus
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
This program will be our series on Jesus to develop messenger of Allah. So 2007 program on both creation of Jesus evolution, our topic in particular will be the postnatal period. My name is happiness, I'm your host. And here was the difference between a university invest in general, as
for the benefit of our viewers could be a summary of last week's cover
the previous programming built essentially with the Nicene Council, and the type of debate that went on between those who believed in absolutes, monotheism and the humanity of Jesus on one hand, like the aliens, for example. And the Unitarians we did is going to be Trinity. And we discussed also the the second of the presence and involvement of Constantine, the Roman Emperor. And how many of those were prisons were trying or wanting to please Him. And under all of these pressures, we understand how the creed was arrived at, and how the four gospels were selected out of at least 270 other Gospels and burnt.
And it was obvious from various testimonies and other differences that we refer to that even those who signed the under the Nicene Creed, the creed of Nigeria, to be more accurate is actually
in fact under duress and pressure. And, in fact, it was essentially because of the surveillance of the podium type of church that the creed was arrived at. And when we indicated that this strategy did not end really would be nice in Council, it continued, even between the Nicene Council and the following major Council, and Constantinople, and it's 381.
What can we do as a viewer that happened during that time who was between Mercia and Carson tonight, that was after the death of the Emperor Constantine in 337, which is almost about three years after the Council of Nigeria.
Some of the Eastern bishops put out several Creed's condemning areas, the monotheistic we discussed before. But it appears that many of the controversies in the fourth century
where maybe partly a doctrine, but also partly Personally, I am going to give you a couple of excerpts from Encyclopedia Britannica, the 73 edition, volume six.
There's some nice discussion there from pages 633 to 637. That might give some idea about the nature of the controversies.
courts, the prolonged controversies of the fourth century were part doctrinal, first person
and another person to the person and acrimonious and rival theologies left even some contemporary observers with a distaste for counselors. In another place, it says, venerable bishops, said Gregory, of
nazianzus. I have some difficulty with this question, ironically, who put the personal squabbles before questions of faith.
In another place, he says, to speak of the truth or to speak the truth. I prefer to avoid all councils of Bishops. I have never seen a counselor which ended well or cured even on the contrary, this is a description of a contemporary for that period. But perhaps the most important counsel in that interim period between nicea and Constantinople
was headed in what is now Sofia in the year 342. The purpose in fact, was its humanity. However, the eastern bishops refused to come when they remain with that the western chairs insisted on that tenants have access. You know, this man we talked about before in the NICU was very strong upon this challenge
and believes in his death.
naseous was actually deposed in a lawful Senate. So the Eastern District did not see any point of him being invited that in any case, the decisions of that conference were largely organization, and that's within the organization of the church itself. And all of these actually preceded, perhaps the second major chess Council, the one in
the 181, will list your exams, the kalfus, up
and moving. We'd like to look into the circumstances of this holding. What,
in fact, was major decisions was in the uterus in 79, a new improved power, and became the emperor of the east by the name of Theodosius the first.
That Emperor happens to be a supporter of the thirst presented decided upon in the conference of Nigeria.
So he invited or called the Council of Bishops in Constantinople 381.
My, the Council of Nicea historians tell us that there are no detailed, reliable minutes as to what exactly went on. But it is known at least that this council addressed itself essentially, to the question of the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
As we mentioned before, the focus in the first Council in Nigeria, was on the decision of the village on the divinity of Christ, that Christ is as defined as the Father. This is the main thing that the they try to decide upon. But in that condition, however, it does not suddenly address fully the place of the Holy Spirit.
Father, divine, Jesus divine that there was not much mentioned about the Holy Spirit, even though there were some vague statements made about it, as you mentioned last time that it is also divine, there was no explanation or articulation of that.
Now, prior to this second major church Council,
there was some ideas circulating around is that the Holy Spirit is not, indeed gods, that the Holy Spirit is simply a creature of God. So some of those supporters of the Trinity went to the Emperor bedtime, being himself a supporter of the Nicene Creed,
and ask him to hold accounts in order to affirm the decision taken in Nigeria,
that conference was attended by 150 bishops.
However, in fact, as part of that number, we did not really represent offices, or, or regions, they were limited actually, in their representation. And there was all kinds of difference in the beginning as to who should be the chairperson or chair the reason, after a long debate, that it was quite controversial, for a long debate, they concluded that the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit.
And God's Spirit is equal to God's life, this dispense assumption, both assumptions are not necessarily
conclusive, or that the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, and God's Spirit is God's life. And they say if God's life was created, because it's the Holy Spirit, if you say, the Holy Spirit's created for us that God's life is created, as they claim, then God is not living is not living. And as such, anyone who says that, or supportive, must be cursed and must be condemned.
It is interesting here, by the way, as indicated that there is this need to be some confusion, in attempting to equate the Holy Spirit with the Spirit of God, because Holy Spirit also could very well if there's two angels, which are creatures of God. But in any case, the decision
in that conference was in a way, confirmation of the decision taken in Nigeria. But it became more explicit by indicating that the Holy Spirit is equal to the fathers and equal to the son IE divine so the Holy Spirit is also glad.
They said also that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Okay, and that alongside with the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit also is to be worshipped and glorified.
Now with this aggression in Constantinople, the
boundaries of the Trinity became more crystallized
in a way, which is strikingly analogous, as many scholars have pointed out, very analogous to the platonic philosophers specific type of Trinity.
The bishops then asked the Emperor
to put his seal on that decision, in order to take effect especially to be enforced, like all other previous decisions, which he did.
As Herman HG Wells, the famous historian in his book The outline of history in Volume One, in page 439. He says that he remains, Theodosius the Emperor for varied, the unorthodox to hold meetings,
handed over all churches to the trinitarians.
In another place, he says there was no there was to be no rival, no qualification, to the rigid unity of the church. And it's got to be one way and that's it. No.
This comes this council, however, even though it crystallized or at least added the remaining element in the Trinity, deification of the Holy Spirit does not even address the very critical question as to how the divinity and humanity both join or combined in Jesus.
So that wasn't talked about at all, you know, it was actually attested, explained issue settled in the middle Council. When the issue was addressed in the third measures, parish Council, that's the concert that was held in
FSS in 451.
One of the tenants was made at that time, or close to the holding of that council by the monopolist heights, to try to reconcile the two elements in Jesus, the human and the divine elements. But in their attempt to reconcile these seemingly different
elements altogether, they minimize the full humanity of Jesus. In other words, they didn't see them really, as fully human. In order just to be conservative, I mean, it's really difficult than critical question, you know, to go one way or the other, it's very hard to reconcile.
again, we find in Britannica, the deposition was that the word or they focused on the words, as the subject, inhabiting the god man, in that case, Jesus.
On the other hand, they were also mysterious,
who was the Bishop of Constantinople, who emphasized on his manhood, of humanity, of Jesus peace be upon him,
that he had an interesting view that did not please others. He said that Jesus was united with the gods, or with the Father, by love,
or three life
investments, we said that Jesus really is not real gods, in the real sense, it is not really the Son of God in the real sense. But he was that only as a gift as a divine gift bestowed upon him.
As far as Jesus or Christ who was born, he says nothing is no more than a human being. In other words, you look at it more as a source of spiritual unity rather than being God's prophet in Korean unity.
Bishop, the mysterious also objected to the term that has been used to describe Mary disputed hurts the mother of Jesus, because she was described as Theotokos, which means the god bearers. He didn't like that term. And he said, God is only the mother of Jesus, the human. And he said that while Jesus is really above humans, it's much more than that is much more novel in his characters. He is not here, or he's not. Because of that. God is better than humans is about University is not God is not divine himself.
Now, the Bishop of Rome,
strongly objected to that. And he started exchanging some messages of letters between himself and the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
And this kind of discussions in correspondence, represented in one sense, really, the Genesis, which led eventually to the whole theme of the conference.
So, emphasis, beginning with June 7 451. might be interesting. Dennis, before we read more about this tell us what went on. Yeah.
Well, like the previous two major councils.
This Council also was held under the auspices, again, of a secular interest. In this case, Theodosius the second.
The purpose behind the council was to demand from mistoria. To come, and but largely, you know that he changed his mind, you know, this shift and so from this from his opinion, otherwise he would be perished and condemned.
Now, in the story I learned about that plan ahead of time. So he did not see any point of going for it. He thought that he was not willing to change his mind, he's convinced it is hard to live with this belief. So we did not come. But also the Bishop of Antioch did not also come as well. Now,
the meeting began with seven, the Bishop of Alexandria, with two other 200 other bishops, and they decided to depose and historian
Mr. Yours did not acknowledge
or accept the decision. After 19 days of the beginning of the Council, the the bishops of Antioch came, we came quite late. And they in turn, deposed Cyril, who deposed
the stewardess, they can see everybody's deposing the other, you know,
after two weeks, on July 10 431, finally came the representatives of the pope from Rome, who in turn sided with the Bishop of Alexandria, and condemned the stories.
They accused, mysterious of
minimizing divinity of the divinity and humanity of Jesus, that he didn't, you know, recognize that sufficiently. And that you looked at the question of intervention only as a source of association between God and Christ, rather than, as they call it, assumption of manhood, by the Divine Word that the Divine Word assumed, you know, men are human form.
As a result of that, they decided to exile mysteries. And they said that nobody should ever introduce any innovation in the Nicene Creed.
Well, that's quite interesting, because you see, they are speaking against any innovation to be added to the Nicene Creed, which in itself, that's the Nicene Creed was an innovation, which, as you indicated before, the Nicene Creed was an innovation introducing the teaching of Christ, but they think that innovation should stop this. And nobody else should add any other innovation to that. In addition to this minimum decision, we also decided in some other issues.
For example, they condemned Celestials because he denied the dogma of original sin. And he upheld that the grace of God is there. Yes, it's important, but it is given according to merits, not just by claiming belief.
They decided also that Peters, you know, who was the head of the disciples, according to the Bible,
sutras of Jesus, who is still living is talking about hundreds of years later, he's still living and ruling the church through his successes.
But despite the fact that they cursed and condemned nestorius mysterion ism continued to spread on a wide scale, especially in the area of what is now
known, telling me that the council was not concrete on his definition, at least that they need to have Jesus. And we're collecting this assumption. Yes, I think that's correct. They wouldn't make that clear on the definition of what exactly the nature of Jesus is, nor how
exactly does he relate to God? What is the nature of relationship between Jesus and God? What is the relationship between the divine element and the human element in Jesus, and that's continuing to be a subject of
very severe and very strong debate for at least 20 years. It is continued afterwards, but I'm talking about the next stage. Perhaps to explain that we can go back again for a minute to the count.
in Ephesus, in which an attempt was made to resolve the conflict between the bishops of Antioch and the Bishop of Rome and Alexandria on one on the other side, you know, because he had they had this basic conflict as we discussed before. So in an attempt to try and unite them, or somehow bring some kind of unity,
they accepted the word, theocracy or the union of the two natures.
But the hardliners of the followers of certain, you know, the Bishop of Zambia
were very sad and the Griffins that Cyril accepted this term, your chakras, which was the two natures because they believe in one nature, Jesus.
On the other hand, we find that the bishops of Antioch continued also to consider certain alexandrian bishops as heretical. So each one it says to sort of evidence as heretical
after the death of several
the hardliners among his followers prevailed. And they insisted that again, that Jesus had only one meters.
what they meant by that is that Jesus had one, nature's both before incarnation after incarnation, which is an impossibility. I think we've come to that later. But this is their view that he has one nature before and after seeing.
The evidence for that view is that a moon?
In the fourth in the year 448, was excommunicated? Because he said that, yes, Jesus have one new church that only asked her information. In other words, you agreed with them. But he simply said Jesus had two natures, before the incarnation, but they became one after returning. So that was not good enough. So unless it must be admitted that he had one nature before and after, then it wasn't good enough. But this decision to excommunicate that person was appealed
to the Emperor. So the Emperor held a Synod in the 449, which actually deposed of all the mean of the principal supporters of the two natures language or theory. But the arguments again, and debates continued until the horse users church Council, and passed it on in the 451. Now, we're
also involved in
where the answer is yes, and this is interesting that this has been for a long period of time, a continuous involvement, ever since the alliance between the Pauline church and Constantine the first emperor. In the early part of the development prior to the Nicene Creed,
years is continued always there was an auspicious and sort of active involvement by the Emperor's perhaps it might be helpful to look into some of the circumstances that materialized resulted in this kind of counsel. It began with the proclamation by the church of Alexandria, that Jesus had only one nature in which both divinity and humanity united are joined.
In order to support that they held a conference in emphasis, which was different that's different from the one that was held in for first one, the second, second one,
which actually objected
decision made in Constantinople.
But they didn't like that. So the
the, the the Patriarch of Constantinople, he withdrew
from the meeting. So the Chairman of the Council decided that you should be excommunicated.
This led to a great deal of commotion outside of the chambers, where the council was held. There was lots of shouting, and almost fighting because the Bishop of Constantinople was about to be killed, actually, because of his dissent.
That's why the legitimacy of best counsel has been always in question. And lots of times that after the death of the Emperor, Theodosius, second in the, in the 450, some of his successors were really among the supporters of the other theory, the two miniatures that we just had two natures. So we held the meeting
in October 8 14
51 which was estimated by 520 bishops. And as expected, of course, that's what the inference light ended up supporting the theory of the two natures in Jesus rather than one.
You know, you talk a little bit about telcel, when it came to that it was more peaceful in nature. Not really, in the beginning of the council historians tell us that the representatives of the Church of Rome
demanded that discourse, the Bishop of Alexandria at that time,
should not be in the meeting, you should withdraw from the meeting. So the Chairman of the Council asked why. He said, Well, because he held a council previously without the permission of the pope in Rome, they refer to the one in which it was decided that Jesus has one nature's rather than teenagers.
But the government representatives did not agree with this kind of demand, thought that he should stay and attend the discussion that according to study has led to a great deal of commotion,
mutual name calling, beating, punches were exchanged, to the point that we say that the representatives of the government to show that those people did this is not appropriate behavior of religious leaders.
The discussion, however, continued as you can, you could tell from this atmosphere, with a great deal of contention and tolerance. And they ended up actually with the decision to condense mysterious and discard us, both of them and condemn anyone
who accepts the views. So the ended up by having a confession of faith, which again, emphasize the true nature as a practice. So there was a confession, yes. How.
When this was the post is in several references, one of which is Encyclopedia Britannica, again, the 72 edition, volume six page 637 process and just stay with the series, Jesus Christ is one and the same son, the same trust in God who, and the same project in manhood, the baton from the Father, before the ages, as the gods is godhood, or Godhead, and from Virgin Mary, the gods are the focus, as regards his manhood, human is known in through nature's, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. that distinction of nature being by no means taken away by the union. It is interesting that this confession raises a very serious question as to who actually died
on the cross according to the to the to the Gospels, because definitely, it would be totally inappropriate to say that God's died on the cross, if Christ was done. And when it is responded that only that human parts of Jesus died on the cross, then we find that this is not consistent with that theory of futures, because if you insist that the true nature of Jesus, the human and the divine, are not without change, and of course, in the case of death on the cross, there is change, without division and without separation, but again, to assume that only Jesus then then died on the cross with rose the same difficulty because the two natures are not to be regarded as separate or cannot
be separated. And if this is the case, then it is impossible to say that one element only of the two elements,
children's are less Jesus on the under cross. So this is some of the, you know, developments up to that point and the kind of difficulty that it has raised with respect to the interpretation of the nature of Jesus make peace and blessings.
Thank you very much. And thank you very much for joining us here and we'll see you next time and we would appreciate any questions or comments, do you have a phone number or address
on your screen? All of us