But soon theologians moved to propose the quality of the “union” between Jesus’ divine essence and his human essence. In Antioch - according to Dalles - the complementarity of the two natures was emphasized (p. 28). The head of the Antiochian school was Doidorus, known as the Bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia. His student, Theodore, Bishop of Al-Masisa, took the matter almost to the end, and the relationship between the two natures became literary. The response came from Apollinarius of Latakia in the year 352 and perhaps in the year 360 (critics have different opinions). Starting from Aristotle, he said that the union of “perfect people” is impossible. Jesus, therefore, did not assume a full human nature. The soul (nous in Greek) is the highest tone in man according to Greek philosophers. Jesus did not receive a soul. Because the “Word” of God took its place. Therefore, Jesus has one nature. Apollinarius was unified from beginning to end: one nature, one hypostasis, one person, one will, one action (1). His companions, Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory Saint, were upset by his position. In Alexandria, the council held in the year 362, headed by Athanasius, addressed the issue. Perhaps around 370, Athanasius wrote a letter to the Bishop of Corinth in Greece, in which he refuted various heresies, including the heresy of Apollinaris and the heresy of his opponents, and Gregorianus rose up to fight him with manliness and strength (Dalles 33).

As for the matter of the Antiochians, it did not reach an obvious degree of danger until after Nestorius, a student of Theodore, ascended to the throne of Constantinople. A dispute broke out between him and the residents of Constantinople, and the sparks spread throughout the Christian world. He and his companions are also Aristotelians. So, rightly, Dalles noted that the Antiochians and Apollinaris of Latakia met in their Aristotelianism. They all started from Aristotle’s statement about the impossibility of uniting “two complete people.” Apollinarius solved the dilemma and said by amputation, meaning that Jesus did not take a human soul. The Antiochians solved it by extremism in distinguishing between the two natures until the union became moral.

However, the Greek language was again incapable of expression. Nestorius returned the basic terms of theology to their meanings in philosophy and dictionaries to a large extent. He was very strict in his adherence to tradition, but in truth and reality he was not competent in digesting and representing tradition. It seems satiated by the Cappadocians, but it is indigestible. It appears from his request to the Emperor to exterminate the innovators that he has a harsh temper, that there is prophecy in his actions, and that there is coldness in his character. He was a strict monk. Not without arrogance and self-esteem. In his writings, he makes strenuous efforts to understand, but he strays from the path of truth and tradition whenever he tries to explain his theory that there were two persons (divine and human) in Jesus and a third person whom he called the person of the union. He tried in vain to apply Gregory the Theologian's opinion that Christ is one in two (2) Likewise, the Trinity is one in three persons. He could not understand this text as the Fourth Ecumenical Council understood it. Neither philosophically nor theologically, he was not the personality qualified to articulate a very fine theological point regarding how the two natures are united and the quality of Jesus’ unity. In other words, he did not have an ontology capable of speaking correctly about the being of Jesus. He sinned against himself by departing from the tradition of the Church everywhere, as he refused to call the Virgin “Mother of God.” No matter how hard the contemporaries tried (3) Under the pretext of the Second Vatican Council (like Gerelmeyer, for example) or any other argument that alleviates the situation, Nestorius continues to make leaps outside the tradition of the Church and the teaching of the Fathers. Some of them - including Grillmayer - apologize to him for their ignorance. But Grillmeier himself mentions that he had to know Gregory the Theologian’s calling of the Virgin “Mother of God” from this sermon number 37. It also appears in Sermon 29:4. Nestorius knew Gregory’s writings, and Grillmeier mentions that Eustatius, the bishop of Antioch who was deposed in the year 330, knew This label (p. 285). In the year 325, Alexandros, Bishop of Alexandria, sent Letter 12 to his colleague Alexandros of Constantinople, where the word was mentioned (Min. 18: 568). Theodoretus himself knew this message and mentioned it in his history (1:3 in Min 82:908). Did Nestorius ignore it? In a papyrus sheet dating back to the late third century, the word appears. Since the second quarter of the fourth century, evidence and testimonies of its use have suddenly multiplied (see footnote 4, p. 43 of the French translation with the Greek text of Gregory’s letter in issue 208 of the SC collection). Chrysostom of Antioch ascended to the throne of Constantinople, like Gregory, before Nestorius ascended it. He believed that Jesus was the Son of God and the Son of Man, who became a man in order to make us children of God. The unity of Jesus' person is a major article of faith (Sermon 2:3 on the Gospel of Matthew).

From Alexandria to Antioch to Constantinople to Cappadocia, theologians and patriarchs were in the fourth century, along with the monks and the people, attached to the title “Mother of God.” It is not reasonable for Nestorius to be alone in his ignorance. But the palace was with him.

He was confronted at first by the lawyer Ephesabius, who later became Bishop of Dorylium (4). Cyril of Alexandria jumped into battle. Clestinus, Pope of Rome, fought it with him. Both sides exchanged accusations. Cyril of Alexandria used a phrase that investigations proved was fabricated in the name of Athanasius, while it was in fact written by Apollinaris. The phrase is: “One incarnate nature of God the Word” (5). His opponents accused him of being Apollinarian. The battle turned into a kind of Egyptian-Syrian conflict. The Third Ecumenical Council was held in Ephesus (431). Bishop John of Antioch was late, so the council was held in his absence (7/22/431), and Nestorius was excommunicated. John arrived and held a counter council and excommunicated Cyril. The overwhelming majority were with Cyril (about 200 and then more), while the Council of John included 37. The schism expanded and the palace was immersed in it, both negatively and positively. The operation cost Cyril his church bankrupt. He finally succeeded because his Syrian opponents wanted to save Nestorius, knowing that he had deviated from the true faith. In August 431, they sent a letter to the emperor indicating that their faith was strong. It itself (after adding a paragraph to it) became in the year 433 the Message of Reconciliation. In text 431 and text 433 (we mentioned them all at once elsewhere because they appeared in text 433), it becomes clear that the Antiochians preserved the teaching of the Church Fathers, especially the letter of Athanasius to Epictus. (6) The letter of Gregory the Theologian to Cledonius and his thirtieth sermon (7). In addition to the palace’s constant efforts to impose peace, Acacius, Bishop of Aleppo, his representative in the council, Paul, Bishop of Homs, and Saint Simon the Stylite, played glorious roles for peace. Kellus considered himself victorious. John and Theodoretos, Bishop of Cyrus and Hippas, considered that they had been victorious. The indisputable truth is that the greatest victor is the Orthodox faith. The Antiochians dragged Cyril into a wonderful theological effort, with which his Apollinarian phrases returned to them with an Orthodox, not Apollinarian, meaning. (8). Cyril led the Antiochians to delve deeper into the Fathers of the Church and put the emphasis on the unity of the person of Jesus. In the agreed upon text, we see Cyril’s tone on unity and the tone of the Antiochians on two natures (9). As for the word “structure,” it is not specific to the Antiochians, as Bardi believes (in Flesch and Martin). Athanasius used it and used others, such as “house”, “tool”, “garment”, “robe”, (The Epistle to Epictus 2 and 4 10; to Adivius 3: 4; in the Incarnation 42, 43, 44, a summary in Min 26: 1240 ). Chrysostom used it in explaining Psalm 44:2. He used the word “dwelling” in Sermon 11 on John.

This reconciliation between the moderate Antiochians and Egypt, Rome, and Constantinople, on the basis of the sanctuary of Nestorius, and on a solid (albeit incomplete) theological text, brought out the extremists from the body of the universal church, and a Nestorian church arose. It has diminished little by little throughout history. In the year 589, Emperor Zeno closed its school in Nisibis. It ended up spreading in Iraq, Persia, and even China, with a rare dynamism that was protected by the Persian palace and leaned toward Constantinople. Linguistically, it referred to the Syriac language until it appeared nationalistic. It played a prominent role in transferring science and philosophy to Arabic.

Nestorius said that there are two hypostases, two natures, two persons, and a union person. He refused to say that Mary is the mother of God. He also said of one will and one action. He was very keen to clear the divinity of the Son from human descriptions to the point that he greatly weakened the union. His tone is set on both natures, no matter how much he tries to talk about the union. On the other hand, the Reconciliators said that Jesus is one and that the union has become of two natures, and that theologians use three methods:

1. They attribute theologies to theology.
2. They attribute humanity to humanity
3. They attribute them all to one person, Jesus.

This is why Mary is truly the Mother of God thanks to the unity of Jesus.

(1) The central terms in theology from the beginning until the end of the Sixth Council were presented by Apollinaris, including the word “rationalization.” He was the only one to raise the whole issue of Christology in one go, ahead of time, even though he was a heretical man.

(2) Two natures.. (The Network)

(3) Some of them are among the great theologians of Antioch in the 20th and 21st centuries... (Al-Shabaka)

(4) The Bishop of Dorylium is the same person who later confronted the heresy of Eutyches, and Dioscorus fought him in the thieves' council and accused him of Nestorianism... This lawyer was the first to fight Nestorius and declare publicly that what Nestorius taught was heresy. He was the one who was the beginning of the spark that ignited the fire of jealousy in Saint Cyril to confront the heresy of Nestorius. Nestorius was branded as a follower of Paul of Samosius... (Al-Shabaka)

(5) {Even the most important book in this regard issued by the Monophysites, “The Council of Chalcedon, A Re-Examination” by Father Samuel, acknowledged that this statement is Apollinarian. But he defended its use in a way that makes it clear that he is ignorant of everything our Orthodox Church says, as he says on page 458:

[Many contemporary scholars have asserted that the phrase “one incarnate nature of God the Word” was originally formulated by the Apollinarian school. Even if we accept this possibility, we should be aware that the non-Orthodox origin of a term or document is not a valid reason for its rejection by Orthodox theological thought. For example, the Nicene expression “of one essence with the Father” (homo osius tu patri), was part of the Valentinian vocabulary (pertaining to the followers of Valentin). Even more than that, it was condemned by the Council of Antioch, which excommunicated Paul of Samosata in 268 AD. Despite this, the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD adopted that phrase, and after about half a century of violent conflict, the Church ratified it at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.

Therefore, the matter of interest regarding a term is not how it arose, but rather the meaning attributed to that term and the theological need to confirm an idea (through it)].

The Orthodox Church says this. But she expands the explanation and says: Saint Cyril was deceived at first, but the battle that took place between him and Antioch made it clear to him the difference between nature and hypostasis. That is why we later see him accused of Nestorianism, and this is what will become clear later in this book, and in the footnotes that Al-Shabaka will put in this book}… (Al-Shabaka)

(6) John of Antioch gave them great importance. His copy was incorrect, so Cyril provided him with an accurate copy (the Letter of Reconciliation), which is truly an Orthodox faith.

(7) They are similar to Sermon 7 of Chrysostom against Eunomius.

(8) This is what Father Samuel did not understand. We are not against the phrase as a phrase, but the meaning that is taken from the phrase. This is why we find Saint Cyril entering into a battle with those who were fanatical towards him against Antioch, and he began explaining to them that his faith had not changed, but rather it was the same as it was. However, the expression of this faith has changed... and this will become clear later, as we mentioned in footnote (5) (Al-Shabaka)

(9) The weakness of the Antiochians is not based on placing emphasis on the two natures, but rather on making them a hypostasis corresponding to the divine hypostasis. Cyril's strength lies in focusing on the unity of Jesus and on his divine hypostasis, which in time took a human being to own and made it his property by including it in his divine hypostasis.