I dislike Extra Credits videos relevant to the Oriental Orthodox more every year

First of all the fact that in the final Episode of the Early Church Schisms series and the entire Justinian Saga they keep saying “Monophysite” in the videos proper to then in the Liars videos acknowledge the Miaphysite distinction but stills defend their Academic use of Monophysite really bugs me.

No one Self Identified as principally a Monophysite even the few niche Heretics who didn’t prefer Miaphysite.  But those people are never talked about in any of these videos, it’s all about the 5th and 6th Century Christians who became what we now know as the Oriental Orthodox Church.  They are ONLY ever talking about the Miaphysites who find the Monophysite label offensive.  

Monophysite is a term that shouldn't exist.

But I’ve grown to be annoyed even by how they initially defined the distinction between Chalcedonian and Miaphysite Christology. 

Yes I agree that ultimately the difference between both of them and Nestorianism is semantical, all three view Jesus as Fully Divine and Fully Human and the nuanced issues of how the two natures interact I can’t really as a Low Church Protestant find a definitive Sola Scriptura answer to, it’s a Mystery that maybe God didn’t want us overthinking this much.  Unfortunately I am a Nerdy overthinker by nature.

Years ago I had a thing for mildly preferring the Nestorian Formula, but the more I’ve learned about how Divine Impassibility is uniquely vital to their Logic the more I’ve drifted away from that.  But let’s return to the topic at hand.

Extra Credits chooses to define Chalcedonian Christology as “Two natures that are Mixed” and Miaphysite Christology as “One Nature that is both Divine and Human”.  This is mistaken however, there is nothing about Mixing or Mixture in the Chalcedonian Definition.

Rather the clause in the Chalcedonian Definition that the Oriental Orthodox object to “in Two Natures” because they prefer “Out of Two Natures”.

When I define how I personally view the Incarnation without trying to fit into one of  the boxes of Late Antiquity Greeks arguing over nuanced distinctions of Hellenic Verbiage, I like to say it like this.

In The Incarnation Christ Unified both the Divine and Human Natures, and that Unification is not ultimately just in Christ but at the future Consumption of all things, when all the Dead are Bodily Raised and All Things are Made New the separation between Divine and Human will fade away.  That of course also needs to be understood in the Context of my Materialist (maybe a little Stoic) understanding of Divinity in contrast to the Platonism more popular in modern Mainstream Christianity.

One can see how at face value the way Extra Credits had defined them made Chalcedonianism seem more compatible with my perspective, while the real distinction makes the Miaphysite model seem more compatible.  However I also suspect many Christians in both camps would say my way of looking at it can fit theirs.

I’ve been wanting to write this post for a while now but keep putting it off because it feels like every time I look into the “In Two natures” vs “Out of Two natures” distinction I change my mind on which one I prefer.  Sometimes I get a little too paranoid that the “Out of Two Natures” phrasing could be taken out of context to imply Jesus is a New Third Nature neither Human or Divine.

Honestly I feel like I’m sometimes biased against the Oriental Orthodox because of my personal distaste for Cyril of Alexandria.  Yes the Chalcedonians also consider him a Saint but the Miaphysites often seem like they are basing their entire self identity on being the “True Cyrilians”.  But it’s important to remember that people are complicated, Cyril could be right on Christology and a Bad Tyrannical Leader at the same time.  

The Branch of Oriental Orthodoxy most directly connected to Cyril, the Copts, are now the religious Minority in Egypt.  They have more in common with those Cryil persecuted than Cyril however much they may be in denial of Cyril’s villainy. 

Regardless of which Christology I prefer, I'm not eligible to join any Denomination that adheres to the Second Ecumenical Council because of my Congregationalist views on Church Governance and opposition to Infant Baptism.

Census Before Cyrenius was Governor

So I have become aware of another solution to the Luke 2 Census issue thanks to this PDF.

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=sor_fac_pubs

THE CENSUS AND QUIRINIUS: LUKE 2:2 by Wayne Brinale

This answer is Section for starting on Page 7 of the PDF saying page 48 at the top. 

I shall now Copy/Paste some form it.

Feldman, in his edition of Josephus, states that "Luke 2:2 can be vindicated only if we translate ... , This census was the first before that under the prefectureship of Quirinius in Syria.'  The adjective prötos may mean "first" or "earlier," "former,".

"First census" must be taken in its Hellenistic connotation as the first of two, and then we must expand the clause a little. "This census was before the census which Quirinius, governor of Syria, made."

I am personally annoyed on why so many think the well known Census of the Empire taken in 8 BC can't fit this even when they are not identifying it with AD 6. Is it just lack of a formal "Decree"?

Again Tertulian says Saturninus was Governor of Syria when Jesus was born without any acknowledgment of how Luke seemingly says someone else was Governor.

Sunday is not Pagan

 First I want to state clearly that I disagree with the notion that Sunday replaces the Sabbath or that any weekly observance on the “first Day of the Week” is Biblically ordained.  

And that I strongly believe Biblically The Lord’s Day is The Sabbath.  I believe Paulian Christians kept keeping the Sabbath into the 2nd Century and that even in the Fourth Century many Seventh Day Sabbath keeping Christians still saw themselves as Paulian like the Nazarenes.

But this idea that Sunday was chosen because Pagan at Heart Emperors wanted to worship Jesus on a day for Sun Worship is absurd.

Christians well before Nicaea did start doing First day of the Week Observances because they misunderstood certain “first day of the week” references in 1 Corinthians 16:2 and Acts 20:7.

There was no Seven Day Week among Pre-Christian Greco-Romans, the idea of a Seven Day Week with one day in particular as more Holy than the others is inherently Abrahamic no matter which day you choose.

I'm going to copy and paste a Quote from Tacitus at this link, skim down to [4].

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/tacitus/tacitus-on-the-jews/

“We are told that the seventh day was set aside for rest because this marked the end of their toils. In course of time the seductions of idleness made them devote every seventh year to indolence as well. Others say that this is a mark of respect to Saturn, either because they owe the basic principles of their religion to the Idaei, who, we are told, were expelled in the company of Saturn and became the founders of the Jewish race, or because, among the seven stars that rule mankind, the one that describes the highest orbit and exerts the greatest influence is Saturn. A further argument is that most of the heavenly bodies complete their path and revolutions in multiples of seven.”

First of all we see a hint that the very idea of a day of rest was revolting to Roman Pagans, this is all the more reason why I believe Capitalist “Work Ethic” Values are Roman in Origin not Protestant.

When at some point Christianized Greco-Romans started identifying the days of the weeks with the visible wandering heavenly bodies since there were seven of them, Saturday was named for Saturn probably because of the influence of what Tacitus said here, or the older sources he got these ideas from.  

Now Biblically we know from Amos 5:26 and Acts 7:43 that the Israelites were departing from the proper worship of YHWH when they worshiped the planet we now call Saturn.  But there would have been a pagan affiliation no matter which Planet was assigned to the Seventh Day, Saturn’s Harvesting and Agriculture characteristics do fit some of the Sabbath associations.  And Tacitus’s observation that Saturn is the farthest from us of the visible Planets is worthy of note.  It appearing to move through the night sky the slowest could be a good reason to associate it with rest.

The day on which Jesus Rose from the Dead was associated with The Sun because of the Biblical reasons for viewing The Sun as a symbol of Jesus (Malachi 4:2) and Sunrise as a Symbol of Resurrection (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 1:78-79, Matthew 4:16, Matthew 5:45, 2 Peter 1:19, 2 Samuel 23:4, Psalm 110:3).

And the SDA belief that it's specifically about attacking the Sabbath is also silly.  The fact is none of the earliest Christian Sunday observance based laws even post Nicaea forbid also resting on the Sabbath.  If you wanted to make another day the day of rest with the intention of making Sabbath observance more difficult, what would make sense is making the Sixth Day, the Biblical Preparation Day, the legally enforced day of rest.