u/nsbsaamz

I recently read one miaphysite floregium (floregium-a list of quotations from the fathers)from full armor apologetics. It was bad to say the least. Even by his explanation of dyophysitism it seems that he doesn't even know what we believe. A lot of forgeries and statements acceptable to us. But it got me thinking **is there any kind of dyophysite floregium.**.

edit: I am not trying to quote mine and treat the fathers lightly I just want to see what do they have to say

If anyone has an answer to severian dilemma that is consistent with our fathers it would be really appreciated. I think this might be the only argument that is seemingly good from the miaphistes. Also is it proper to say there are two particular natures in Christ is this nestorianisam in conclusion.

What is a good book on Cyril of Alexandria from a diophisite that isn't Cyril and christological controversy by John mcguckin(already read it) and that isn't leontius of Jerusalem(already read it) and that isn't diophisite Christology of Cyril from Hans van loon (planing to read it)

Hi guys first of all I am eastern orthodox but we share chalcedon and maximus and John of damascus in common so I chose to post this here too

.

so I think you know the guy Agen(miaphisite). A lot of the time he argues that maximus the confessor and John of damascus teach that the word changed intrinsicly (he came to jay dier's stream arguing that). Now I don't even understand the argument so if anyone has an explanation of his point and a refutation I would love to hear it. Also does anyone know what can I read on that precise point if such a thing exists.

Hi guys so I think you know the guy Agen(miaphisite). A lot of the time he argues that maximus the confessor and John of damascus teach that the word changed intrinsicly (he came to jay dier's stream arguing that). Now I don't even understand the argument so if anyone has an explanation of his point and a refutation I would love to hear it. Also does anyone know what can I read on that precise point if such a thing exists.

Look at these quotes:

St. Acacius of Melitene, Letter 1 to Cyril

"Let everyone be forced to publicly anathematize the dogmas of Nestorius and Theodore, especially those who say TWO NATURES after union! For I found some refusing to say two sons, but not refusing to say two natures!"

St. Theodotus of Ancyra, Homily 1

"The becoming of one combines to each the things of the other... there were not two things, nor two natures, but what was seen was one and the same thing"

Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 3 to Nestorius

"Being made one according to NATURE... The one Christ is not twofold even though He is understood as compounded out of two different elements"

St. Theodotus of Ancyra, Homily 2

"They did not crucify a mere man, nor did they merely nail the visible nature, but they brought their daring to the GOD who was in it, who had appropriated the sufferings of the united nature"

How is this reconcilable with Chalcedon. The letter of Cyril is approved officially by the council of Ephesus. The rest are Cyril's companions all at Ephesus if someone can address these quotes it will be really helpful.

Hi guys I have been looking into **oriental orthodoxy**. Now the **letter 53 of Cyril of Alexandria** to me seems like it ends the debate and **proves our position(EO position)** because it speaks of Christ **in two natures**. But it has questionable authenticity so if anyone has good sources on that or knows himself if he could share it with me