22:5822:58, 10 November 2010diffhist−27
Gregory of Sinai
This article has nothing to do with OOy. Gregory of Sinai, Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Athos, Hesychasm, and Bulgaria are all EO specific topics.
06:2906:29, 28 October 2010diffhist+213
Ecthesis
Your edit excluded the point that I made that the OO did not believe in one divine nature. It is an important point to make, especially in light of them being distinguished from Chalcedon.
05:5405:54, 27 October 2010diffhist−19
Oriental Orthodox Churches
Changing the text to specify which council of Ephesus. Referring to the 1st as simply "the council of Ephesus" usually expressed a biased Chalcedonian desire to overlook the others.
00:5500:55, 29 April 2010diffhist−334
Hypostatic union
The doctrine of two natures is not the concern here, but rather the doctrine of one hypostasis. Further, "in two natures" expresses a Chalcedonian POV.
06:5006:50, 25 February 2010diffhist+10
Monophysitism
Yes it is, because it conveys that not everyone agreed historically with that usage. If you don't like the particular way I conveyed that message, then YOU come up with an alternative.
22:5822:58, 10 November 2010diffhist−27
Gregory of Sinai
This article has nothing to do with OOy. Gregory of Sinai, Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Athos, Hesychasm, and Bulgaria are all EO specific topics.
06:2906:29, 28 October 2010diffhist+213
Ecthesis
Your edit excluded the point that I made that the OO did not believe in one divine nature. It is an important point to make, especially in light of them being distinguished from Chalcedon.
05:5405:54, 27 October 2010diffhist−19
Oriental Orthodox Churches
Changing the text to specify which council of Ephesus. Referring to the 1st as simply "the council of Ephesus" usually expressed a biased Chalcedonian desire to overlook the others.
00:5500:55, 29 April 2010diffhist−334
Hypostatic union
The doctrine of two natures is not the concern here, but rather the doctrine of one hypostasis. Further, "in two natures" expresses a Chalcedonian POV.
06:5006:50, 25 February 2010diffhist+10
Monophysitism
Yes it is, because it conveys that not everyone agreed historically with that usage. If you don't like the particular way I conveyed that message, then YOU come up with an alternative.