Episode 131: Theotokos and Christology- Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius

Tom, Trevor, and Chad continue their conversation over the Christological Controversies of the 4th and 5th centuries. In this episode, we cover the question over the name “theotokos” for Mary and why this was such a hot topic for Nestorius and Cyril. This is the second of three in the series on this important topic of early Christianity.

Timestamps:

6:18- The Mystery of the Hypostatic Union

16:16- Cyril and Conjuction

38:00- The Influence of Greek Metaphysics

54:42- Scripture as Foundation

1:05:15- Humanity and Complexity

Episode Transcription:

Charles Kim 0:00

Hello, and welcome to history of Christian theology. My name is Chad Kim with me this week will be a conversation with Tom Glasgow and Trevor Adams, where we work through some of the Christological controversies of the late fourth and early fifth centuries. If you're just coming to this podcast know that we did do one other earlier podcast on Apollo Neris, have later Cassia. And so we talked a little bit through some of the OR and AND Theodore of Mapquest as we talk through some of the early figures in his controversy. We are now moving into Nestorius and Cyril Cyril of Alexandria, and we're going to talk through their roles in the controversy. So this is our second of three on this topic. And so the first couple minutes, though, of this podcast were lost, or well, we're not recorded very well. There was something wrong with Trevor's mic. So there, we do make reference to a conversation that we had beforehand. And we had to cut some of that out. But they're still, the majority of the podcast is still there. It's just a couple of minutes right at the beginning. So I hope this conversation will be beneficial to you. I don't know how many people listen to my long intros. But if you do over on Facebook, we've been posting a little bit about stuff that we would like to do in the future, and trying to sort of get some input from our listeners. So feel free to check that out. We've asked, you know whether or not the listeners prefer to hear the conversations between Tom Trevor and Chad, or if they prefer the cover the sort of conversations with the authors. And just trying to get a feel for what what our audience wants to hear. Also, if you have any suggestions about future topics, I think we're going to do one on hope, because that's something that Trevor has thought a lot about. And that will be coming up over the Christmas break. But we'd like to do a few more possibly on the development of Scripture, and possibly on just a few other things. So feel free to go over to our Facebook page, a history.com or facebook.com/history of Christian theology. And and check that out. Yeah, so we do have a few more conversations coming up. I've got a conversation with Brad East about Scripture and the church, as well as some plans for some more conversations between Tom Trevor and chat. So after this long introduction, I want to say thank you for listening, and hope you enjoy this episode. Okay, so let me tie up as a bow here. So we've been kind of doing prolegomena that is sort of like introductory conversations, trying to help us think through some of the difficulty of these various words. So also, just, I mean, I guess, you know, this will probably end up in a podcast somewhere. I have just recorded an episode with a guy called Dr. Jordan wood, and he wrote on Maximus the Confessor. Now, so the conversation started from Maximus maximises, after chronologically the works that we're working through. So we're okay so we're what we've been trying to do in the last two episodes, at least, is think through the Christological controversies. So what you've heard to this point has been sort of some conversation around the Christological controversies, and as they're used in the Latin as they're used in English, and as they come to be deployed by someone like Maximus, so Maximus thinks of himself as an inheritor as a as a pro Caledonian as a as one in favor of Cal sit on. Our Cal Seton Council, Don is a dinosaur of, of Cal Seaton. And so but anyway, what we're trying to do is kind of work through how do we get this definition of fully God and fully man. And so that's the kind of thing like most people reflex who is, you know, who was the son of God or Jesus Christ? Or you know, how, like, what do we think about this fully God fully man, most of us kind of know, that designator so we talked a little bit in the previous episode about Theodore of mops, who estia and upholland, heiress of Laodicea. And both of them are essentially condemned as heretics in the sixth century. We don't really use their theology as as definitive. But, but we you know, one of the interesting things about that previous episode was how much when we read them, it was even hard to parse when they went astray. But yeah,

Tom Velasco 4:21

the fifth century right, Chad, four hundreds when they were condemned or

Charles Kim 4:27

a

Tom Velasco 4:29

deposition gets eaten.

Charles Kim 4:31

Yeah, sorry. Sorry. Yes. Thank you. So we're trying to, we're trying to get back get into that conversation. So we're gonna move forward in time. So we're moving on from upholland, Eris and Theodore and so we're going to talk about Cyril at Nestorius. And so we're going to look at their kind of exchanges, as some of these definitions make their way to our theology. And I want to hear what Trevor has to say I just want to make one more general point. That also when my episode comes out with with Jordan, one of the this is one point that he makes, which I still think is fundamental to understanding why this stuff matters. Which is, it's a weird thing, in a sense that Christians think you should worship Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus of Nazareth is a human. And why is it that we worship someone who we call and say, is fully human? is absolutely and totally and 100%? Human? Yeah, I worship a human. And that human walked in Nazareth, and I worship that human as God. Yeah. Wait, what? And so it's that fundamental question that as Jordan rightfully reminded me, is any like when you say it like that, it feels strange. But we don't recognize that asymmetry and most of our most of our Sunday worship, we don't think about that, because we're only thinking about the divine part. When we worship Jesus, we're thinking about the divine Jesus most of the time. And so how do we do that? How do we make that move? Where I won't worship Trevor, I won't worship Tom, but I will worship Jesus of Nazareth. So how is it possible to make that move?

Trevor Adams 6:18

I wanted to see whether or not because I remember last time, I asked something like, yeah, so what exactly is the hypostatic union? And they're kind of Yeah. And then so I wanted to know, both what was up with that, and then also, whether or not in terms of like official doctrines released by organizations such as the Roman Catholic Church, and also whether or not or how they characterized, I should say, people like the stories and the like, so it turns out that yeah, like, it's definitely called a mystery. So this is like this is affirmed, in some sense that it's a mystery. And that, you know, you really, obviously, as we've noticed, and as, as Chad has talked about, with all these words, for using the big thing, you have to affirm as you know, you need two natures, you need one person, this ends up being like, very important. Um, and hence why upholland Harris was sort of rejected was, at least he's accused of one nature, though I was sort of like maybe that you could still have two natures there anyway. But this story is this is the phrase used on new adventures. So I found this. So this is what the story is accused of. And I actually had a hard time, like discerning this was what was going on, though, of course, I believe that this is what was going I suppose because much smarter people than me have read this. But it says the union of the two natures, according to the story is not physical, but moral. A mere juxtaposition and state of being the word capital, the second person that Trinity the word and dwells in Jesus, like as God and dwells in the just indwelling of the word and Jesus is, however, more excellent than the indwelling of God and the just man by grace, the indwelling of the word purposes, the redemption of all mankind, and the most perfect manifestation of the divine activity. As a consequence, Mary is a mother of Christ Christos, not the Mother of God. Theotokos, which is also sort of what this debate as we're about to read a hinge on, or at least it was a one of the questions of which led to this debate that we're about to read about. So that was the story of, at least according to the RCC? Yeah.

Charles Kim 9:00

Um, yeah. I mean, that's not really fair. He does not use the word moral union. I mean, the word moral union is just sticking in my craw. Because that's not what he I don't even know what that would mean. Exactly. But it's like a union bike like so if we think about the root word, a more a accustom may have it a, a sort of inaction or something. I don't really but that's not but even that's not at all related to anything that the story says now, it is what so Nestorianism is sort of pushed away because people interpreted him to say that the the union of divinity and humanity created a third price upon created a third person. So the story is, is oftentimes it's said that the story is holds to a pro Sofic union, that is a union according to a person. Now to some extent, That's not wrong, right? Like there's a sense in which that's almost right. Like, we do think that there's something about the conjunction well, and actually that word conjunction is rejected as well. But the union of divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ is in the matter of a person. But the fear is that that turns like so then, then the story of seems to talk about the person of the Divinity, and the person of humanity. And so it seems like you're starting to say three persons and three sons. And that's where that's where it goes awry. So if it implies that there's three different seats of of, of unity, or something, then then that's where it's problematic.

Tom Velasco 10:48

So, I'll need a little bit more explanation on what you mean by three, Chad, the way I read in the story is, is in some parts, his language is very orthodox, because he says, there's one person Jesus and two natures, which is what the definition of calcine says, He asserts that theater of mops, who estia does as well, however, both Theodore in the story is speak of Jesus as being a like, they don't use this language, but the way they talk, it says if God the logos, God, the word is a separate person, from Jesus, the man, and they're united, but they speak of them as separate people, even though they don't assert that like, like he says, it's one man two natures, that every time they talk about the word and the way, not just talking about but the way they argue, they argue for the steepness of God, the word from the the man, Jesus, but I'm not picking up on what you mean by the third, a third person, I'm not following that.

Charles Kim 11:50

So I don't want to see if I can find a quote here.

Well, so the. Let's see. He says, Am I the only one who calls Christ to fool does he not call himself both the destroyable temple and God who raised his up, and if it was God, who was destroyed, and let the bat blasphemy be shifted to the head of areas the Lord would have said, Destroy this God in three days, I will raise them up. If God died when consigned to the grave, the Gospel saying why do you seek to kill me a man is meaningless. That was from the first from the Sermon on the Theotokos. So but so the the idea that the accusation, the accusation, not necessarily, specifically what the story is, says, The accusation against the story is is not this that he calls him to fold. But is that by implication, it becomes a three fold by implication, if you have to, if you ascribe too much distinction to them, the god and the human that are only United that whatever the unity is, is the third thing I've ever made. I've never read that.

Tom Velasco 13:15

So yeah, so that it's Jesus the man that's the thing, and then it's God the Word united with that in the body of that man, but I've never heard any I've not heard an accusation either. That it's three ever seen three on that subject?

Charles Kim 13:33

Yeah, yeah. So that's the Pacific Union union would sort of say if that's another person that's like, it's three, that's what they are. That's why they don't like the phrase PROSONIC Union. It sounds like a third third.

Tom Velasco 13:45

Maybe I could put it that way. What's the third thing? That's not the unity but

Charles Kim 13:51

the Unity itself?

Tom Velasco 13:55

So what you're saying was that

Charles Kim 13:58

well, so say there is the there's the son of the son the logos, that's one person and if we say there is the man that's two persons Well, what brings them together? Or is it accidental that they're together is it just does it just so happened that the Divinity brushes by humanity at this moment? No, there's some

Tom Velasco 14:22

that's an operation Not a thing. And I my big thing really here is is that I don't know what the third thing would be. And I've never both with accusation or in the writing itself seen any reference to a third thing, like getting the responsibility Sarel doesn't say anything about a third thing. And I had just come across the third.

Charles Kim 14:43

So in the in the first writing that we have from Cyril on page 133. At the top he says the logos united to himself in his who pasta sis flesh, enlivened by a rational soul and in this way, became a human being, and has been designated Son of man, he did not become a human beings simply by act of will or good pleasure anymore that he did so by merely taking on a person. So it's not merely taking on it's a, this is where we get the in his hypothesis. This is where we get the hypostatic union, right this is this is where we're beginning to start seeing the Orthodox position of the hypostatic union in the writing of Cyril. So that is one. So if we go down on that page on 133. Since, however, the logos was born of a woman after he had for us and for our salvation, United human reality, hypo statically, to himself, he is set on this ground to have had a fleshly birth. It is not the case that first of all, an ordinary human was born of the Holy Virgin at the logos descended upon Him subsequently, on the contrary, since the union took place in the very womb, He is said to have undergone a fleshly birth by making his own birth of the flesh, which belonged to him. So this is Searles argument, this is what is becomes the Orthodox position. It's the hypostatic union. So the way that in distorting this story is we'll say it's a pro sapphic union, he does not want to call it a hypostatic. Union.

Tom Velasco 16:16

I got that. And he also, he did use the word conjunction. And, again, the splitting hairs over words like, like, for sure syro, rejects conjunction and wants union. I still just don't see where a third is. I mean, I don't want to belabor this point. I just have never heard that seen it or can can comprehend where why is it?

Trevor Adams 16:40

Is that a contemporary? Is that a contemporary? Yes. Yeah,

Charles Kim 16:48

yeah. I mean, I'm taking that from mcgucken. So I don't think Cyril is actually accusation is that it's a third person, but that's a that's a later No, yeah, so that's a later ascription I think it might come from Constantinople, when or when all of his writings are destroyed. Because the story is, isn't like fully in heartily, like, you know, a visceral not eviscerated, expunged from the historical record until later. Because actually, in the story is, so this is, there's another theologian, Francis Young, who writes a good, pretty good book on this. And as she points out, essentially, the story is comes to kind of agree with Cyril by the end of all of this. And so the fact that the story is is condemned as a heretic later on, is more of a misreading of later in the story ends, like the story is kind of a he's, you know, he just, he just is just like theater it and just like others, like some others. He just doesn't want to use this phrase hypostatic union, because he says, That's what Apollon heiress called it, a pollen heiress wanted to talk about a hypostatic union. And I'm concerned if we call it that, because that makes it seem like one being so in the mind of Nestorius if you call it a hoop hypostatic union not only did a heretic, say that. Not only did Apollon Eris say that, but in his mind, that's like saying there just one was one being, and that that there's like, there's no difference between the human and the divine. But there's one, like it's almost like saying, one who says that the Son of Man and The Son of God is One Who sia is one being. And we don't want as one one ground of being or something. We don't want to say that. And so that is what Nestorius is concerned if you say kata who pastan is the is the Greek if you say that, that's what it sounds like to Nestorius. And so Sera. So Cyril, in his response to the story, it says to say, well, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying it, I'm saying there is Lucia. And then there is fu CS, there is the instantiation of the nature. And so

Tom Velasco 19:17

even the way you're describing it, like even the way you're describing it, I would have a reaction against that, because I do want to say there's one being so I don't only say this because again, we're running into this problem with the meaning of these words, because I do want to say there is one being in Jesus just one right? And but I also want to say there are two natures, there's the god nature and there's the human nature, that that both. So again, this is a change. This is the word being and nature. So I in my English language, do not feel comfortable, and would think of it as heresy to refer to Jesus as more than one being. But I would also think that He has two natures. And I would think of it as heresy to say he only has one nature, right? So even an English like, like you as far as I can tell, we're just using the word being like nature, because I would never say that there are two beings and Jesus because that is what actually it seems like the story is is saying, because the way that and this is like, it's weird, because when I read this story is because if you remember last time we recorded, I said that I had a hard time understanding the difference between the historian view or I shouldn't say at the time, Theodore Matsu STS view and the orthodox view Siros view, because they both are saying there's one person, Jesus, and there are two natures. They're both saying that, like, the theater asserts that the story asserts that and then the only thing I could dig up at that time having not read this, you know, work that we just read on on the story is, was that he rejected the term to telcos, right God bearer for Mary, which, for me being a Protestant, though, I mean, I mean, I just I'm not that concerned with with Mary receiving certain titles, I guess. Um, so it's like, I really had to dig into that. But then when I read the stories, I'm like, Oh, and by the way, Theodore AdMob. So estia, to my big problem with both of them is, is the way they write, they just speak. And again, we're getting back into these ambiguous terms, but in English, so it's infinitely worse when you're trying to think all these Greek terms and these English terms. They speak as if there's God, the Word who is a distinct person from Jesus, the man, and that God, the word is joined together with Jesus, the man in his body. And actually, Trevor thinking about what you just said, Because chatter was with you. 100%, when in that article says that it's a Moroccan joining on his view. I was like, what could that possibly mean? Like I, I've never heard that term I've never seen certainly in the stories didn't mention, at least in this writing. But it did define it a little bit. When you read that it said, The Saint it's like when God inhabits the life of the just man, which I guess I could see that but even the story is what acknowledge that there's a difference in the way that Jesus is inhabited by the logos from the way that we are right.

Trevor Adams 22:21

I mean, I say read that part, too. He didn't work out. I think I got hung up. He says that his however, a more excellent indwelling. Of

Tom Velasco 22:31

more excellent, but I would more excellent doesn't seem to do it justice, right. There's seems to be the most

Trevor Adams 22:37

perfect manifestation of the divine activity. Like it seems

Tom Velasco 22:41

like there's metaphysically something different. And in the union of, of the hypostatic, union and Jesus, then what happens to us? Well, I can appreciate that because the way that in the story is speaks is as if there's a second being running around, and he wouldn't use that word that running around in the head of Jesus and that I reject. Well, I'm so

Trevor Adams 23:06

sorry, I just wanted to read a little bit of the latter half of that exact paragraph from the new Advent because this is what this is. I basically I wanted to pose this as a question like, which you've all basically already answered, which is, I didn't read that. But I wanted to ask, did you guys read the same thing as me because I did the Catholics read the same thing as us because he says right here, this is about news stories. He he forcibly denied that Christ was two persons but proclaimed him has one person sounds good, so far, made up of two substances. Sounds fine. I'm not. The oneness of the person was however, only moral. And not at all physical. Hold on, first of all, already, I'm already tripped up because I'm going how would it ever been physical? I mean, it's got to be some it's got to be beyond the physical already. So what do you mean? I don't know. Anyway, despite whatever the story is said as a pretext to save himself from the brand of heresy, he continually and explicitly denied the hypostatic union, the year that you which Chad recognized right, that union of physical entities and of substances which the church defends in Jesus, he affirmed a juxtaposition in authority, dignity, energy, relation, and state of being and he maintained that the fathers of Nicaea had nowhere said that God was born of the Virgin Mary. So that is apparently where they they take issue but yeah, again, this word moral comes up. The oneness of the person was only moral. I am really I am now more confused. Isn't I ever was, and I am one of these people who I just consider myself orthodox. I know I can say the Creed's, but I'm willing to fully admit I don't understand some things. I do not.

Tom Velasco 25:11

I just wouldn't listen to that article. I just wouldn't even listen to it. Because I don't think this needs to be all that confusing. That language is weird.

Trevor Adams 25:21

But let's like even the original issue, like let's just like, think about this. So we want to affirm to, and see, we've already we've actually already noticed that we have some different usages even among us, because it seems like you want to say being and maybe person are more similar words than being and substance, I guess,

Tom Velasco 25:47

in essence, are the same or being and substance person is a different word. Oh, but then you want one person, but he has two essences or substance,

Trevor Adams 26:00

that you're uncomfortable with saying there's two beings?

Tom Velasco 26:03

Oh, sorry. No, you're right being I have the word being is different in that in that context? Yeah. If I say that Jesus is two beings. Yeah, that's, that's not right.

Trevor Adams 26:12

So now what do you mean by being then? Well, I

Tom Velasco 26:14

don't know. But just think about. I mean, just think about how English works. What do you think if you think of two beings, you think of? I mean, yeah, you're right. I realize now you were right, to begin with, I do think of it at least as it's used there as being more closely connected with person, but doesn't have to be personhood. Here are two beings, my phone and this thing. Those are two beings.

Charles Kim 26:36

Right. So that was when when I made my original statement, I was trying to speak more idiomatically in English, where we don't want to say that Jesus human being is different from his divine being. And some, you know, on some sense, like, there has to be some, there has to be some oneness to those things. They're not accidental, they could not have been otherwise. And, and actually, this is a point that Jordan makes, that's kind of interesting. They're not reducible. Like, you can't, you know, and so there's some sense in which that's maximally both of those things. And, and so, yeah, so anyway, that's when I said the problem of being that's what I meant. It's like it feels I think it felt like, there were two in you know, yeah, like you pointed up a phone and a card. There were two of those are two beings. My, you know, my dog and my chickens or two beings, or, you know, I'll pick one of my, you know, Aretha we named them after female singers. So we have Aretha and Paul, a chicken and a dog. And those are two beings. But if they, you know, what would I mean, if I said there i pathetically joined I don't know. Yeah.

Tom Velasco 27:56

Yeah. The only point I was making there was just how confusing it is in our own language as well. Because even as you're sitting here, and this is based off of the point you just made Trevor I do typically And this just shows that I need to spend more time thinking about the Trinity when talking about the Trinity they say Oh, there's one being three persons but I cannot say that about Jesus when I in saying that there's one person two beings I can't that's not right. Not the way I use the word being right. So that means I really probably shouldn't refer to God if I'm following the Trinitarian Nicene formula as one being three persons there's got a essence I feel comfortable with nature I feel comfortable with but I mean well I feel comfortable saying being but that's I'm sure this is a conceptual thing. That's the only point I'm making here Yeah, I use the words and the the conceptual picture or image that I have and sorry by the way for holding the phone in the guard up without pointing out what they were I just did it and there of course anybody listening is gonna go What is he doing?

Trevor Adams 29:02

No, I can I can hear a correct and incorrect being that's the thing so I can hear it both ways, because I can hear a sense in which there was obviously a way in which obviously the second person of the Trinity existed before the human being Jesus Christ was ever born and so there was one being that then had to be Union had formed a union with like an actual in mattered stuff that had as is per tradition a its own rational soul in some sense. So in that way, I can hear something

Tom Velasco 29:35

like a pole in Aries

Trevor Adams 29:38

right? For the fact that I just there confessed that that thing had its own rational soul apparently. Right. So Paul Arias, rational soul just as Jesus, how not still to nature's I don't know, I'm still not convinced of honors as a heretic. Or at least, he maybe was or let me Three be clear. Maybe he was because he did say one nature. And that's what got him condemned. Yeah, I did

Tom Velasco 30:08

all these things, all these terms are so, man. I mean, it's like there's so every single like a pulmonary is. The story is syro unit keys, who I guess we didn't read any of you to keys although we read that's openbios response to you the keys. All of these guys just a man, they just seem to really be trying to understand something that is mysterious and really hard to understand. And if you interpret any number of words that they use just slightly differently, just a slightly different tweak, then you basically have landed on the same thing. Yeah.

Charles Kim 30:43

Anyway, all right. So so I think I mean, I guess I could put a link up to this in the podcast. But there's, like I said, there's another good book, Francis Young from Nicaea to Cal Seaton. And that's helpful in kind of distinguishing some of these things. But one thing that Jung points out, is that recent scholarship is basically absolved, notorious of anything like heresy after the kalam after the acts of Cal Seaton, like essentially it read the story is does not read, like a heretic, or like later Ness story ends. And so like, yeah, so most scholars read the stories and say, yeah, he had some real concerns. And part of what the whole, you know, part of what doing this work does, is I think it is supposed to help us understand how we get to the settlement that we get. And actually, if you read, it's funny, if you read the introductory comments in the letters between Cyril and the stories, they both talk about two different things, one, wanting to have peace with each other, and to wanting to make sure that there is broad agreement among all believers on the topic. So what they're trying to do is they want to have peace with one another. They're actually not nearly as hostile as they are two areas if you'll notice, like one thing that changes is in the tenor of these conversations, is it's not it doesn't have the same feel as the contrary, you know, me is that we read from basil or something. I think that the rhetoric is way too tone down. By reading

Tom Velasco 32:22

the stories is a little harsher than syro. And maybe that's maybe being a little was patronizing. But it the story has had moments when I'm like, Oh, he's digging a bit nothing like against you know, meanness or against the, although Leo also against yubikeys. Similarly, he, he kind of crept on YouTube, he's pretty, pretty hard. Yeah, it's not as bad not nearly as bad as against the

Trevor Adams 32:46

Aryans. It's not as bad. It's definitely like my brother in Christ, who I love and only through the love of Christ, do I Right? You know, it's very, like,

Tom Velasco 32:57

it's like the stop being an idiot, my brother and

Trevor Adams 33:01

candid like, I love these bits, where he just says stuff like, you've been led astray by those to your churches

Tom Velasco 33:11

and the devil incarnate.

Trevor Adams 33:15

It's understandable that you would that you would misunderstand. And then and then sales right back like, well, if only you would come to, you know, I'm sure as soon as you read this, you'll come to teach the things by which we're all teaching here and like so they're both acting like it's so obvious that what they think is true, that the other person will just clearly agree with them. So in that way, I feel like they're like back handedly just you know, in a way insulting each other, but it's kind of it is definitely more like it reads like 18th century British people insulting each other something.

Charles Kim 33:54

Well, so one thing just to kind of get all all of their positions on the table, you know, and I'll I'll be curious your responses to this as well. But when I read the story is similar to Theodore and to some extent theater it so all of these people have been associated with what's called the entire Keene school. Right so the entire Kean school are people broadly considered who have kind of similar reflexes when it comes to reading the scriptures. They're they're they're hesitant to do much quote unquote allegorical reading. I think theater I think theater have Cyrus, who's the latest of the three. So historically, we can talk about Theodore mops, who estia notorious who we're reading right now, and then later is Theodoret, who comes along after the story is, but all three of them and to some extent, I think they have an inclination that's very philosophical, that what's actually quite interesting about all three of them, is they they clearly lay out what they're worried about. What does it mean for the impassable God that is is a God who cannot suffer to suffer? And what you know, and so what I feel like when I'm reading them, they lay out the terms of the debate really well. And they're like, hey, look, this is a weird thing for us to say, God died. Okay, well, we can't say that Properly speaking, because what we mean by God would mean that that thing cannot die. And, and so like, when I read the entire Keynes, I sort of like reading them, because I do feel like there's a, there's a precision about language, and they'll set out the problems. But what's also interesting is both of the groups, the civilians, and the what are later called the Alexandrians, they all are, the Alexandrians and the anti Keynes both assume what we might call Greek philosophical concepts about God, they all assume that God is impossible that God is simple, that God is the, you know, like, sort of whatever God's nature is not the same thing as human nature. And so, you know, so there are not necessarily analogs, like probably, you know, the thing that most contemporary people won't like is that God doesn't have emotions, in the same sense that we do people hate that, if century theology. But but you know, they all assume a basic idea about what the what, what Divine is, and what human is, and they're trying to work towards a center about how we can talk about one thing unified like unit having a unity in what is essentially different. It is it is an almost exclusively different, whatever it is to be human is just not what it is to be divine, and almost vice versa. And that may be overstating it to some extent, but that so like the anti kings, I follow right along with them as they're trying to say. So that's why this that's why that Nestorius doesn't like the phrase Theotokos the god bear, because he's like, Well, that sounds too much like, the Jesus of Nazareth is God, when we know Properly speaking, Jesus of Nazareth is the human, like, the human instantiation of the word. And is and so we don't, we want to be careful, because Theotokos is misleading. And then he actually brings up the phrase Anthro pocos, the like the one who bears the human. So it's it for him. Those are two poles of the of the problem. So let's use Krista talk also as his solution, she's the Christ bearer, because that seems to say, let's get them both under one umbrella and say that Mary bears that. And so I do sort of have a sympathy for the entire Keynes in that way. It's like, yeah, that seems like a better settlement.

Tom Velasco 38:00

But yeah, I brought this up before and I mean, we've actually talked about this a few times, I don't know that we need to rehash it. But of course, it's been a long time. But I've always, well, I just don't feel any compulsion to embrace the Greek metaphysics surrounding God. And so when, like, so this idea of the impossibility of God, I don't feel I mean, obviously, I'm trying to route my, my metaphysic, I guess, when it comes to the nature of God in the Bible, right in the scriptures, and at least in the Hebrew vision of God, I don't see any reason to assume that God is impassable, like, the Bible seems to speak of him as having as being very passable, like, as having emotions and feelings and passions, and, and all of that kind of stuff. Now, I have no doubt that that is different as it relates to God from as it relates to man, and that we just have feelings, and emotions and sufferings and all that kind of stuff. Almost by analogy, right? There's an analogy between the two. I have no problem saying that, but I just don't see why I need to accept that that Greek understanding, same thing with the simplicity of God, I've never I'm not by the way, I'm not trying to say that there isn't a version of those two doctrines that I would be okay with. I'm just saying I've never received what I took to be a really good argument, I thought, for why those two things need to be true, certainly not from the Bible. And I don't feel like I have from philosophy either that I can think of I mean, other than it's just this assumption, in the backdrop of Greek thinking, which and so Chad, I appreciate you pointing that out. Because you know, when when I think was I mean, both the stories and sciro camped on that idea of the possibility of God right. And I or the sorry, the Well, that's what I guess just like the question of it, yes, yeah. I It was like checked out, man. I was like, I don't? I don't. So I'm glad you brought that up. Because at the time, I was like, what does this have to do with anything, but you made that really clear there. But it just makes me go, oh, that's why probably I'm not as passionate about some of these arguments as they are. I mean, I was the one thing that I can say did set wrong with me is the whiteness stories of Theodore speak of Christ, and the logos, like so much as if they were two different beings, or persons may have to try to keep consistent wear skirts, that just like was unsettling to me in the way that they talked. But other than that, man, I have sympathies to everybody involved to voluntariness to this story, aside from that, one thing, just that and to sciro. Of course, syro does state it in a way that makes most sense to me. So I felt kind of vindicated as a Cal Cydonia. And, you know, Christian, but, um, but even yubikeys Even and even though I didn't read any unit GIS, just reading Leo's characterizations, I'm like, I can see how you could take that a different way from how you're, you know, describing it, you know, but anyway,

Trevor Adams 41:09

yeah, I I similarly, had I yeah, I had a lot of sympathy, basically. And I, there were particular parts that were interesting. We'll have to, by the way, we'll have to talk about simplicity later. Because there is an argument, there's like a real quick one. But well, what did we do it? If it's quick, it's super quick. The argument for simplicity is just that, if you deny simplicity, then God does have parts. That's just the definition of simplicity. But then it's got its parts, those things would be more fundamental than God, since God depends on those parts. So then those parts of the things that really exist, they're at the base level of reality, and God's like, depends on them. And so some people think that, that is, like consistent, at least with like, those things existing in God not existing I, I got doesn't exist necessarily, or isn't metaphysically ultimate, or isn't the ultimate expression of being, which definitely are very Greek conceptions, though, you could see being rooted in the very like I Am that I Am language. And yeah,

Tom Velasco 42:17

anyway, can I respond real quick to that? Just, yeah, I get that. I think my problem and so it's not so much that I deny his simplicity, per se. Rather, when it comes to simplicity, as opposed to impassibility. I just think it's the wrong category. God is spiritual. And it strikes me that when we think of parts, we're thinking of material things. So I don't maybe spiritual things have parts, I don't know. I just don't know anything about the substance that makes up spiritual things. Parts are physical things, which I do understand. And so it's like to say that God is simple for me, it's just a category failure, because that's speaking in terms of physical things. So it's like, yeah, like when we think of like, the, the atomic structure that makes up the universe, right? When we discovered atoms, people thought, because atom, of course, comes from that Greek word for unbreakable unit. People thought, oh, that's the smallest part. But then of course, we go deeper, and we find that it goes so much further down. Yeah, but the assumption I think, still is that there is a smallest unit that there is a bottom level I could be wrong on that. But

Trevor Adams 43:23

I've Yeah, kind of differs now. Because now it's like, sort of waves and forces seem to be Yeah,

Tom Velasco 43:29

which makes it very,

Charles Kim 43:32

the part would be as God separable from his attributes or something like that. So like, the parts could be things like, you know, if we say God is love, is that saying something about the unchanging characteristic of God and God's self God just is love versus God shows love or God has love or God you know, and so we want to be able to say something about the very nature of divinity of such that what we mean by God is love and that that there's no time with God isn't love God is always love. So the parts isn't necessarily the the different Legos in the Lego set. It's the part of his at, like, have these essential attributes and things like that. In the

Trevor Adams 44:17

mirror y'all like Mariology. And in metaphysics, there's a distinction in proper parts and parts. So like there because there's a there's a dumb way in which here I'm gonna hold up m&m Because I have an Eminem on me. Like there's a dumb way in which the Eminem is its own is a part of the whole Eminem, like, the whole is a part of the whole. And so there's the way in which you could talk about parts that way. And then, so in Mariology, they want to distinguish you that in proper parts, like there's the shell of them in em, and there's the core of the m&m, such that you don't have an m&m Unless you have both. And then that's all you have to technically deny if you're gonna deny God as part so God can't proper parts in that way, right? Whatever, whatever that would mean. Yeah, even in a spiritual way, just can't have two things such that God really depends on those things. But then yeah, then certainly you can talk. Other than that, of course, that's consistent with you being able to talk about God having something like parts, it's just, it's more, it really is just being more like metaphysically. I don't know, what is it? It's like gatekeeping of words, in classical theism, because of the metaphysics and the way it's used.

Charles Kim 45:34

Well think about. It's a real concern in the sense that if you don't want God to be mutable, like think about the change, like what would it mean when God changes? If God changes in who God is? I mean for Augustine and the whole edifice falls apart, right? So like for Augustine, if God isn't always love, that then then there's there's no firmness, there's no solidity, there's no, there's there's nothing permanent. It's all flux,

Trevor Adams 46:05

logical cohesion of like the immutability, the simplicity and the eternality, the timelessness, those kind of all go together as well.

Tom Velasco 46:14

But so these things all still go back to again, and this is probably always going to be the case when it comes to any kind of discussion about God. But they come down to, of course, these definitions of these words, which we do not define very well and are not probably don't have very clear concepts of but because we're not when we talk about the attributes, again of God or something like that, for instance, things like his omnipresence, or His omniscience, or any of those things, like in terms of the normal way that I think of those words, I don't think of those kinds of things as parts, like you could you could stipulate in a theological definition, that those are parts, but it's like, if I say, Oh, I know, Bill's really friendly. His friendliness isn't a part of him. That's, like, not a part in the proper sense. Like when I think of a part, I think of a physical unit of something. And so, too, so now, now, so here's the thing, like, Trevor, you said a second ago, and I wish I could read the exact context, something about, like, even a spiritual thing has to be well asked, it has to be simple. But the reality is, what I'm saying is, I don't know what it means for a spiritual thing to have a part. I'm not saying I can't even know what it means

Trevor Adams 47:26

what I was saying was even spiritual things you could think have proper parts, like, even if even if I can't wrap my picture it so to speak, like, you could think of an angel. I don't know. This. I mean, this is hard. But you can basically think of, for example, two different things existing, that aren't necessarily physical, like, what's a good example of that, like, if you have this fear, like, if you're a Platanus, about numbers, and you think like, even this needs to exist, and, and something else needs to exist in order to,

Tom Velasco 48:07

I'd still would think of that as a part at well, then

Trevor Adams 48:09

you could say that they're like, proper parts of the thing. But yeah, that's, that's just the way

Tom Velasco 48:13

that doesn't strike me as the normal meaning of the word. No,

Trevor Adams 48:16

it's not. That's what I'm trying to say this is in Mariology, how it's used. And this is one night of God. That's, that's what I

Charles Kim 48:23

just clarify. I mean, I just like, you know, like, the, the etymology of the word pars in part to keep you is something that like, you know, the the Latin roots of these words are not like, they're not thinking in sort of the English way that we use part. Yeah. And so my, that was kind of where I was trying to go like par is the thing that participates in the being of God. It just is the

Tom Velasco 48:53

this. This gets so much worse, though, if you start expanding the word part further, because we because at that point, now, then, like, you're just like, they're just wrong. And they say God is simple. So it's like, if you say that God doesn't have qualities that clearly is false, right? So it's like the only way that it can make any sense to me at all. To say that God doesn't have parts is to use the word part in the way that we use it if you start including things like Omnipotence or omnipresence, or like things like that, that then renders everything nonsense.

Trevor Adams 49:24

Well, that yeah, no, they don't want it tonight qualities though. I guess technically. There's a way in which they'll say we don't actually attribute God calling or we don't, as you said earlier, we only do it and logically we don't do it. I guess in some literal sense, like what God's loving, not like literally the way we are somehow in some better way or some more maximum way but you can still say God is love, but no, no. So it's extending the use but not to mean no qualities. It's extending the use to be things that are required for something's existence, something like that. That's, that's, that's like the base level. That's all you need to understand. Yeah. It's

Tom Velasco 50:08

just, it just strikes me as a relatively meaningless assertion in general. It's not that I'm saying God isn't simple. What I'm saying is, is that we're applying a distinction. That makes no sense. So it's like saying he has parts when I have no comprehension of what it could mean to have spiritual parts, or spiritual simplicity, like neither one of those things are concepts. Those concepts only make sense to me in a physical world. So

Trevor Adams 50:39

I could describe, well, we just this is a rabbit hole, that I could describe lots of non physical things that maybe you would have a better idea of it having a part. But what

Tom Velasco 50:50

I'd love I'd love to think about it or hear about I mean, I'm open to considering work or the quality of work, what those would be,

Trevor Adams 50:59

you might think, wow, yeah. All shapes. But anyway, well, we'll move on. Yeah, like,

Charles Kim 51:07

that's good, too. But so well, all of this to say, I think I mean, it does. So this is went way too far down the rabbit hole. But except for it doesn't it doesn't right. So you have to understand what the terms of the debate are for it to make any sense at all. And so if the terms of the debate are we take God to be this impossible thing we take and also, just interestingly, we take Scripture scripture to be true. So one thing to one other thing to notice about every single one of these people is every paragraph is laced with scriptural reference. So whatever they're doing, they're doing it entirely as an exercise in reading what the Scriptures say about Jesus and about God, right. So they're constantly referring to Scripture to to do this. Now we can, we can say that they're, you know, they're importing Greek concepts into their scriptural reading. That's not what they take themselves to be doing, though, I will say that. And, and so yeah, and actually, interestingly, both Cyril and the stories will critique thinkers for being too Greek, which is one of my other favorite things. So I think there's a paper book to be had there. What does it mean to call something Greek? And which is to say, because in the 21st century, right, we have, like a lot of people who are, are well, actually starting in the 19th century with von Harnack. And other Germans, they're very concerned that Christianity was Hellenized, that Christianity was to Greek, but so are the church fathers. And so now, they're the ones who are falling prey to this critique it from from a German point of view, but but that's like, they are trying to read scripture, right? So they are trying to say, how we read scripture, how do we make sense of who this person is? And I but I will say that the question of analogy, the question of how do we speak about things divine? Is the I mean, in some sense, that is the fundamental theological question. Right? So because we all take the scriptures to be true, in some sense. But if God if God is a rock, as the Psalms say, well, we don't think that God is literally a rock. If God has an arm, well, you know, my right, my right arm, do we think that God literally has an arm? You know, is this you know, and so this is like, there's that question. But then when we say God is love, we want to say that that's something you know, true in a different sense than saying that God is Iraq. And so all of these questions about how we understand the nature of what it means to the nature of divinity. From the scriptures, we're going to have to use some kind of analogical language at some point, we're going to have to say, well, we don't literally mean God is a rock. And so the same goes for when Jesus says, God, I got the Father is in Me and I and the Father are one. Does he mean one as in there's no difference? Or does he mean one in some union that preserves the distinction, but shows some unity? And so these are like, these are, this is just replete throughout all of these conversations is how does Jesus say I and the Father are one maybe? And what does that mean? And how is it not in an identity like inequality of identity or something like Well, those are identically the same thing with no remainder?

Tom Velasco 54:42

I would I would, real quick, just say a couple of things to these points. One, just so you guys know, I do know that these guys are using the Scripture as the foundation of their of their faith. I'm not under the impression that they're like quoting Plato is an authority or something like that. They are using the Bible where I think they're wrong or confused. I think they're using the Scripture wrongly like, like, and that's the way that this is always going to work. Like if you're debating somebody, and you disagree theologically with them, fundamentally, that's probably going to mean that you think they're reading the Scripture incorrectly. I can't remember I think it was an historic moment in the story is his talk about the temple. And like, all that stuff is arguments from like, we're quoting where Jesus says, Destroy this temple. And in three days, I'll raise it, his arguments about that, in my mind, were the weakest part of his entire essay, like, everything else was interesting, except for that, like, I was like, this is just one of the worst takes I could possibly imagine, on this particular passage, and that says, a guy who's somewhat sympathetic to certain things he was saying, you know, so I'm not saying he doesn't think that he's reading the scriptures, you know, faithfully, because I think he is. And I think that that is the priority. Also, it doesn't strike me as odd that he or these are Cyrus, or anybody would criticize Greek culture, right? That's the problem we all have. I am incredibly critical of 21st century American culture all the time. In fact, I feel like I just want to do that. Like, I only want to criticize our culture. But that doesn't change the fact that I am a product of our culture. And that I think in our in our cultural terms, and that there are ways in which I can't escape that, like, even no matter how, like, gifted, I am at annal analysis and breaking things down and, and I still am going to somewhat be enslaved to that. So that's all I was saying, with those guys. I wasn't trying to like, go beyond like make a really strong claim about them, disliking scripture or not trusting it or relying on something else. I'm always fascinated by, by, by their by these guys commitment to Scripture. And even if I think that their interpretations of it are weird, or even dumb, I'm always fascinated by interpretations of it. It strikes me as like, especially if it's one that I never considered before, you know, kind of thing.

Trevor Adams 57:03

Yeah, no, I didn't get that impression. All right.

Charles Kim 57:06

Well, and one, yeah, sorry, I was just speaking generally, I wasn't necessarily implying to Tom, that you didn't recognize that they read scripture. But as as, as an aside, that was a general point. And it's also one that I think people miss. Is that where what their assumptions are, and literally, it's the assumptions of both sides. And, but actually, it it is fascinating in terms of if we think again, of the trajectories of 2000 years of Christian theology, which is a lot of 20th century theology has collapsed, the comunicazione. Omar, Adam has tried to say that there is that is the the so well, actually, we haven't defined that term in this podcast. So as a result, essentially of the hypostatic union, how do we say we can say, we can predicate or yeah, we can predicate of Jesus that God died on the cross, right? We could say God died on the cross. Well, what do we mean? Did Jesus die qua God on the cross like in, in, in who Christ is as God? No. Jesus died in who Jesus is as a human. Now, what the comunicazione do madam does is it makes that predication possible across these things. But it also it also metaphysically binds them. So that to some extent, by this death, on the cross, and by the resurrection, all of humanity, all of human nature, begins to participate in divinity, there is a union of divinity with humanity to make possible our return and our, to our divine source and, and make that an eternal possibility. So what we have is more than just a possibility of naming and speaking, but a possibility of divinization of eternity. How do we make a mortal creature immortal, Jesus Christ, and the hypostatic union, and the communication of properties, and so the comunicato radio model, and what makes so so what Cyril is doing here is more than just a semantic possibility. But in the Greek tradition under the great tradition of theological reflection, it is what makes possible eternity with God.

Tom Velasco 59:42

Really quickly, just thinking about what you just said about that a little bit ago about when when Jesus died on the cross, did God die? No, clearly and that's that's certainly what Saira would say it certainly wouldn't stories would say, and I think I mean, this is where they This is where theology becomes interesting to me, because I think I agree with that. But I'm open to considering it. And it was while you were talking to this, this thought popped into my head, just I'm just throwing this out here. I'm not saying this is true. I am, like I said, I just read the council, Cal Seaton or the I shouldn't say, the definition of calcium. And I was like, yeah, like, yeah, baby, I'm on. I'm on board with a definition of calcium. I'm still Orthodox, awesome. I love syro. Best out of all this stuff we read, but I'm getting back to a pollen areas, I want you to consider this. So a pollinator is the definition, you have Jesus the man, he has a body, He does not have a rational soul. God, the Logos is the rational soul of Jesus, the man, Jesus, the man hangs on the cross. And God the Logos, the which is the rational soul of Jesus is taken out of him, and presumably descends into hell, or Hades or whatever, right? I mean, that's part of our, you know, part of I mean, you have those passages in Scripture, you know, Second Peter Ray talks about going to the spirits in prison, you know, that kind of thing. So, here's one last thing that I noticed that mystery is doesn't define. Cyrus doesn't define what is death? What does death mean? And I just as I'm sitting here, I immediately thought of Socrates. Well, it was Plato, but you know, through the, through the voice of Socrates, in the Phaedo, Socrates defines death, as a separation of rational soul from body. So if death just is that and if Jesus his rational soul, is God, the logos, wouldn't it be proper to say that God, the logos to being the rational soul of the body, Jesus, being ripped from Jesus would in fact be death, and thus, God would in fact, die? To die?

Trevor Adams 1:01:51

This a lot. So because this is from what I can tell, this is the this is like the two different views, we have to take care. So if when we die, since you are properly a body soul composite, you're not just one than the other. You're both by the way, there's a something immaterial being apart. But you're you're both right. You're both things. You're not just one thing. So when you die, and you in the resurrection hasn't occurred yet, is that literally you? That's another weirdness. Right? So when you're in heaven, we can say, oh, it's the soul, Peter, whatever. But we're referring to it in the kind of way that like, yeah, we point it like the leaf of the tree, that's an oak leaf, but like, it's, it's not literally you. It's, it's, it's part of you, technically. And then when you when the resurrection happens, it'll be that's you, that's who you are, because you are essentially human. So the only difference between Paul and Eris and what ends up being, I guess, Orthodoxy in the end, from what I could tell, well, not the only difference, but the difference in the death part would be that properly, right? The second person a sense, like, that's what, because that just was the rational soul to, but it's just that that's all that a sense, is the second person to Trinity. And then if you affirm the hypostatic union, you got to say, a rational soul that you know, like Descartes sort of soul of a human, that's now mystically union with where I don't know which words I'm allowed to use. With

Tom Velasco 1:03:38

let me correct you descends. Remember when He ascended yeah,

Trevor Adams 1:03:41

that's, that's your only defense. Right? Yeah. Good. Good point. Good point. That that that's what descends. And then as far as I can tell, as long as you're willing to just admit of two natures, or at least come up with a way in which Apollinaire says to nature's that's, to me, that's the only difference and I don't really get why one's more important than the others. Like, I get that if it's like, oh, there's only one nature here, then I kind of get the issue. It's like, okay, so we've got this whole redemption story and, and actually really liked, funnily enough, the story is, has that great metaphor of like picking something, when you pick somebody up, you have to hold on to them, and that's the only way to like, sort of help them up. And so in same way, divinity reached down and picked up humanity that had fallen. I like that little metaphor, it was nice and so I get that so we need that. But then I just still don't see if if people are just a soul body composite. I don't know why it's not to nature still. Do you have a whole human being? Just the rational soul happens to be God, I, I still haven't. But then again, that's the thing. me not being able to see it. doesn't mean, that's not true. I just can't think my way through that one as to why and maybe that's why William Lane Craig, I imagine ended up coming to his view as well. So I don't know, maybe we're both wrong, but I can't Well, yeah.

Charles Kim 1:05:14

So separate, we can read some Severus of Antioch. So we could read some sort of post Caledonian theologians who continued to debate this thing, who continued to talk about God dying, in a way that actually sort of sounds like you're going Moltmann. And so the crucified God and these sorts of things. So there are there are continued questions over this. Actually, Maximus will say that. Jordan was just talking to me a little bit about this, but about the nomic will. So it's like, what what? So rather than going for an upholland Aryan solution, the difference between what God is and what humans are, as we experience it, is that Christ doesn't have a nomic will, Christ doesn't have a will that has to deal with the possibility of failure sort of or something. I, you know, it's but anyway, there's a way to sort of say that what God has is not precisely what humanity has in some of these other things. But, I mean, the only problem with the I mean, I don't know, in my mind, Apollon airs is you can't go for that. But but it's, it's not going to be at a question of descent. My problem is already from the beginning, which just is whatever it is, what Christ is not assumed, cannot be saved. So that means human minds are not saved. And so if human minds What's that?

Trevor Adams 1:06:39

But but really, though, like, cuz it is human in the sense that it's a mind, you know, body that operates, that's operates a body? I don't know. Yeah, I don't know why it's not.

Tom Velasco 1:06:55

So then the person is that Jesus didn't have a separate, rational soul from God, the logos, not that there wasn't a rational soul.

Charles Kim 1:07:04

So my understanding of pollen Eris says that he he, he sort of presses the tripartite nature not so part of what Trevor was basing all of this on was a dual understanding of humanity. So part of what we have is a confusion over what does it mean to be human? So he was talking about a soul body composite. upholland, Eris is proposing a tripartite variant of all of this where the mind is one other thing, that of what it is to be human. So to some extent, to some extent, your whole explanation doesn't quite work. Now. My

Trevor Adams 1:07:40

mind is more Neo appalling. It's not quite literally, yeah, yeah. But also

Tom Velasco 1:07:45

fairly understand what the Spirit is on upon that tripartite distinction. That's one of the things I'm like, I don't know what it is, if it's not the interior person,

Charles Kim 1:07:55

right? Yeah. Well, so and we don't have a lot of upholland. Eris is writing so it can be really hard to reconstruct exactly what he thought.

Tom Velasco 1:08:04

Well, Chad, do we have other writers in the church during this period? Who wrote about a tripartite nature? Because like I like like, in like Socrates, again, Plato writing through Socrates, his description of it, I think, in the symposium, I think that's where he talks about the horse, the charioteer in the, the,

Charles Kim 1:08:26

the faith, yeah. Okay, it could be the fate up, but I

Tom Velasco 1:08:29

thought it was the symposium. But in any case, he gives a description that does make sense, but for him, the spirit is literally just the, the, like the oomph that you have as a human being if you're morose and like, I mean, it would almost be akin to when, when people talk about the different kinds of, you know, temperaments that people have, like, phlegmatic versus I can't remember the whole breakdown, but you guys, I think, say sanguine versus phlegmatic all that. It's totally, yeah, yeah, spirited person is like very up and going and like, like Tigger in in Winnie the Pooh, and an undisputed person or a weak spirited person would be somebody like, er, or somebody like that, you know. So that seems to be Plato's definition of it. So I've always been curious how Christians, especially, you know, in the first few centuries, define it? Do we have anybody who does?

Charles Kim 1:09:24

I mean, so Cyril just Cyril does in these debates. Right. So I mean, Cyril talks about the soul in the body, as part of the way that he you know, as part of the unity that he's talking about here. So Cyril seems to imagine a dual part, like, you know, not tripartite dual part. So he's

Tom Velasco 1:09:47

a definition of spirit, like, is there anybody who might?

Charles Kim 1:09:51

Well, so, I mean, well, it's hard, right? Let's see, because, to some extent, it's not always clear the difference between su Hey pneumatic a like, like and so probably Paul Paul in himself, you know where, like, you know Well the one thing I don't know I've done some reading on the the natural philosophers Galen and Hippocrates who who really have like the pneumatic A, the new the Numa, the pneumatic thing, the the spirit like where we get where we normally get our word for spirit. Well actually Latin just was spirit TOS is something in the air right? It's our lifeforce. It's the thing that we breathe in and breathe out. And you still so that's a separate, like, so it's actually more physical to some extent, then, than what we think about as the soul. The soul is your seat of mind is your seat of psychology. Your body is the thing that your soul kind of moves. But in order for your body to have sort of dunya moss to have power to have ability, it needs to breathe in the Kanuma the spirit and so the spirit is what animates you. And incidentally when you have sex, it is your NUMA that goes out into the woman to create a new person

Trevor Adams 1:11:22

oh wait so then soul so in like later? Metaphysics so when they talk about just the difference between an animal and irrational soul? That is essentially the difference between spirit and soul?

Charles Kim 1:11:39

In some cases, yes. In some cases, no.

Trevor Adams 1:11:43

Yeah. Okay.

Charles Kim 1:11:49

Yeah,

Trevor Adams 1:11:50

because I got my head around animal and rational slowly. Okay. Yeah, just add a couple properties or any animal and you get fully rational person.

Charles Kim 1:11:58

Yeah. Yeah. So it's not. Yeah. Okay. And it? Yeah, the simple the simple thing like Well, yeah, in Latin it's hard because yeah, in Latin we have spirits whose Auntie moose aneema Men's. So the sort of animal is Auntie Ma, where we get animal and the moose is maybe somewhere in between? Spirit tus Auntie moose and men's? And yeah, so in Latin, there's just sort of too many terms to keep straight. Where no one seems to have a very clear, like anthropology we can say. And the ancient sense, and I would have to I don't know, I'd have to think about who who doesn't sort of independent. So the other hard part is is what you really want what Tom I think is really asking for, which would be the most interesting was independent of debates about the nature of God. What are we

Tom Velasco 1:12:58

doesn't really exist, does it? I mean, that that

Charles Kim 1:13:01

I know of no, but I'd have to I can think about it.

Tom Velasco 1:13:04

And something comes to mind. We should talk about Leo the first and you the keys. And I guess Flavien in a sense, because I guess Leo's writing to Flavien.

Charles Kim 1:13:16

Yeah, we're Yeah. I mean, so you have the keys is a hair like is considered a heretic through you apparently.

Tom Velasco 1:13:28

In that, in that writing as a heretic unit keys is like, by the way, like, Oh, crud, what is his name? The guy, the mono physic that we've been talking about? I just blanked it all of a sudden. Oh, yeah, he's calling a voluntary Sorry. Yeah. yubikeys is a mono physic kind of like Apollon areas? And I don't know, I mean, this, this book you gave us chat doesn't have any of you to keep his writing. Do you know if, if you to keep writing is extant at all? Do we have anything from him? Or is I mean, I'm

Charles Kim 1:14:02

sure. I'm sure there's some more fragments than this. That you but you could gather, but yeah, not much substantial? Not

Tom Velasco 1:14:10

much. Because that's one thing that makes it tough. Leo is clearly clearly doesn't like you to keys. So he's stating it and kind of the worst possible way. Because there were even as Leo's describing things, there are parts where I'm like, Man, I could see where you the keys might be going here. But I just actually heard his arguments, because Leo's so Leo's big problem with YouTube keys is that yubikeys is describing Jesus as a third kind of being. He's neither deified or He's neither deity. Maybe I don't know, what would be the best way to say you can either say He's neither deity nor human. He's a mixture of both. Or you can say he's both deity and human. But it's through this new nature, this, this mixture of both, which in a sense, that's kind of like upholland areas, in the sense that Apollon Arias has the physical body the Spirit, but then God inhabits the rational soul. So there's this combination of the two of those, although I don't think voluntaries would use the word, like a third substance, because that's what Leo seems to be accusing yubikeys of I don't know that yubikeys actually uses the phrase third substance. But that does seem to be what, what Leo's accusing him of. But I kind of was even a little sympathetic thinking about utorcase Kind of like, hey, if we it like, like, I think what he's doing is he's just conceptually saying, Look, when we see Jesus, in our minds, we see God and demand not like, he's it's not like, it's like, he's not distinguishing you saying we don't see two different beings. That's kind of how I gathered, but it's hard to say without actually reading his stuff.

Charles Kim 1:15:48

Yeah, I, um,

Trevor Adams 1:15:52

I was just gonna say, I think I'm biased because I do have a view of personhood, and of like dualism that I think is most plausible. And that's why I'm like, Oh, who best fits my own view already. Of course, this is often my motivation. And I'm sitting here and I'm good man, I could really have a type of a pollen Aryan view that would fit really well into my own view already.

Tom Velasco 1:16:18

Well, I'm not sure that you Dickies. His view is all that radically different from a pulmonary and so that's why it'd be helpful if I'd actually read you two keys, because I need to see in what way is the is Jesus the combination of these two things? Because it's just not really laid out by Leo well enough? I don't think you know. Yeah. But they're both both upland areas and unicase are categorized as monophysites. Right? Monophysite, by the way, meaning one thesis one nature, right? Yeah. So as opposed to a dual nature, like Nestorius, or like the, like Orthodox Christianity, which says that there's that Jesus has two distinct natures, the mono Fizz, I'd say he has one nature. Yeah. And in some sense, that one nature is a combination of the divine and the human. But like with appalling areas, we know very concretely what he means by that. Whereas with beauty keys have some kind of an admixture that I'm not sure I understand.

Trevor Adams 1:17:14

Yeah, I can, I can see one version of monophysites isn't even being worse in a way. Because if you're, if your version of monophysites ism is, there's just no human there. There's only a divine thing there. Because you're trying to be like, really respectful to the divine. That seems wrong. It's like no, we need to affirm the humanity of Christ. But if you're a type of monophysites isn't that strange to say? Yeah, well, it is like kind of like a human. Because it's got like, literally everything you need to be human, but it is also God. So it's like, it's just its own unique thing. That's why it's Monophysite ism, then I'm like, Oh, I am I at least get that. And then at that point, it just seems like sheer how intuitive you find the metaphysics or how clean the physics are, I don't really otherwise wouldn't really care. Very

Tom Velasco 1:17:59

well might be splitting hairs in terms of like, how you use those terms, uses or you know, Lucia, sorry, Lucia or hippo stasis, or postpone or whatever terms you're using are going to be key to how you interpret that because that's what I was getting. When I was reading Leo. I'm like, Oh, my gosh, as I read this, I could see your Nikki's as saying things that are not fundamentally all that different from syro. Right? It's like he's because he's not saying that there is no deity or humanity there at all. He is saying something which brings in all of humanity and brings in all of deity. It's just about how those interchange or interact