Miaphysitism

I am sorry for that error, and I'm gonna put a correction notice on that episode, because, as I said, the Council of Chalcedon actually ruled that Christ had two natures, a nature that was human, a nature that was divine, but that these two natures were commingled, so to speak.

It's a subtle difference, but it is an important one because some Eastern Christians in the fifth century, particularly those in Egypt and Syria, rejected the definition established at Chalcedon in favor of Miaphysitism.

Like I said, Miaphysitism says that Christ had one nature, but that it was fully human and fully divine.

Now, you may be asking, what is the real difference between believing that Christ had one nature that was fully human and fully divine, or that Christ had two natures that were in full communion with each other? Is this more of a distinction than a difference, you might be asking.

Well, in modern times, Miaphysite churches have improved relations quite a bit with the pro-Chalcedonian churches, uh, to the point where reunion between these different groups of churches might be possible.

People really believed that if they got the definition about Christ's nature wrong, that they would anger God, jeopardize their salvation, and potentially bring God's wrath down upon the people of the Earth.

So fifth century Eastern Romans really thought there were serious stakes to the debate about Christ's nature, and that's why this debate became so important during Basilicus' reign.

As I said before, Miaphysitism was especially popular with the Christian communities in Syria and Egypt, both of which were important provinces for the Eastern Empire.

That's correct

... had a somewhat different theology than, you know, the Monophys, what we call the Monophysites or the Miaphysites, whatever you wanna call them.

You know, the Jacobite Church, Coptic Church, Armenians, you have the Eastern Orthodox.

You know, in the early periods or early centuries, there's the Ebionites who were the Jewish Christians.