Chemnitz conceding the Essence Energy distinction to explain the true mode of communication: “when this undivided essence of the Deity is considered in relation to things outside itself, such as created things… we must recognize there is a degree of distinction between His essence and His attributes… the divine essence works with a certain power (ενεργεια) outside itself with respect to created things… this is what Damascenus says in his work on the two activities: “the Deity does not make creatures partakers of His nature but of His ενεργεια…”
Re: the impersonality of Christ's human nature: I think this makes more sense in a Platonic framework than an Aristotelian one. For Platonists, the Word can cause himself to participate in the Platonic form of humanness, which makes him a human person (that is, the Word is now a human person when he wasn't before, but there is no new person created). But for Aristotelians, there are only individual human natures. Thus the Word assumed an individual human nature. But an individual human nature is a person, so aren't there now two persons? Aquinas tries to answer like this: "For if the human nature had not been assumed by a Divine Person, the human nature would have had its own personality." But this just seems like an assertion, not a well-motivated metaphysical distinction.
I think this is accurate. Lutherans assert that Christ assumed the form of humaness in and through a particular human nature (hence what he accomplished in his life/death/resurrection has implications for the species as a whole). It's more Platonic in disposition.
After thinking about it some more, I also think that a more Aristotelian approach to the incarnation within late Roman theology necessarily places you in a bind with how to get from _Christ's person and work_ to its application for all people. This seems to suggest the origin of alternative methods/theories such as the Treasury of Merit in order to make sense of the particular impacting the universal.
I guess, but I think Aquinas statement is more saying that the personality of Christ, through the hypostasis of Christ's human nature and Christ's divine nature, is one as opposed to how it is in Nestorianism where it would be two. Also, there has quite commonly been a clear distinction between nature [ousios] and person [especially in regard to prosopon]. Thus, I would say that in either the Platonic or the Aristotelian framework, it makes sense.
Merry Christmas! As a Reformed guy, the reason I have no issue with a communication of personhood is because "infinite" and "finite" are attributes, which belong to the natures. So our famous "finite not capable of infinite" axiom would only apply to natures, not to personhood.
Hello Reformed Zoomer. This is a big question: What is the best book on Christology that you recommend? Im a Reformed Christian as well but there are statements of Sproul which seem Nestorian. I appreciate any feedback
@@TesterBoy Jordan B. Cooper has a GREAT youtube lecture series about Christology in great detail. He's Lutheran but he explains what Reformed Christology is an admits it's not Nestorian
Dr Cooper, I love your series on Christology! Thank you for next episode. I have just one quesions: What book about classic, ancient, orthodox Christology would you recommend (except F. Weidner's), especially when it comes to historical development of this doctrine?
I really love this series, but as a Presbyterian I would like to see the reformed side of these Christology debates. Could you recommend any good resources?
I'm sure you could read the Marburg colloquy, outlines the climate of the debate at its beginning. Zwingly might be different than some reformed on some things but Calvin generally followed in his way of thinking in the communication of attributes discussion.
Father VC Samuel has written "The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined." In it, he offers an alternative view regarding the split that occurred after this council - a split due at least in part because this council did not sufficiently address the issue of Christ's nature for those bishops who did not accept the conclusions of the council.
Very interesting talk. Two natures means two centers of conscience. That would be Nestorian, as you said. Rather, we see Jesus doing miracles by the Father in him, by the Holy Spirit. He did not just ignore his divine attributes, he left them behind. This is why he didn't know the day and hour of his return. Yet, he certainly was God in his spiritual identity. I would assume that now he does have his divine attributes.
Dr.Cooper,as a Lutheran,can I listen to sermons of Catholic fathers like Bishop Barron etc .If yes please let me know the boundary or drawing line . Thank you
Alternatively you could loudly and persistently declare "FULLY GOD AND FULLY MAN" ad nauseam until people stop arguing. Merry Christmas from your Catholic fans!
I thought we received Christ’s body immaterially in the Lord’s Supper. And yet you say that Christ’s body is material… I’m confused… If Christ’s body is everywhere and material, how can I not touch it then?
Lutheran view, argues a real, but illocal presence of Christ’s body and blood that is grounded in the omnipresence of Christ’s person, and therefore a supernatural and sacramental, rather than a local, union with the visible elements of the sacrament.
I understand everything you’re saying; I have a background in philosophy and I study theology all day (and I love it!) If I’m honest, tho, sometimes it sounds like the ramblings of a lunatic. So many invented words and concepts to fit together into a made-up jigsaw puzzle. Do we have to bracket knowledge of God had by experienced contrition and faith in order to talk, talk, talk, (and talk) like this? I don’t mean for this to come across as hateful-forgive me if it does. Just frustrated. My library has over 1,000 volumes in obscure philosophical theology (mostly in French). All of it some kind of talk about praying and reading the Bible. Sometimes, just sometimes, I think it’s all a ready excuse for not praying and reading the Bible.
@@DrJordanBCooper Whose questions are you answering with all of this endless jabbering? Yours? Readymade catechism questions baked-in to create the illusion of answering all possible objections (and thereby giving an air of credibility to belief?) I can come up with better questions and more difficult ones, if you’d like. But then you’ll spend the next week, brow furrowed, answering me. And to what end?
For me this helped to grasp (feebly) the mystery of Holy Communion, strengthen my faith making it more robust, and give me a greater hunger to delve into God's mysteries, into prayer, meditation and living out the life of Christ and the thousands of Christians before me. By this teaching I began to see how every teaching is founded on the Incarnation and has grown my understanding from a more shallow and strict one to something more willing to listen, learn, love and live. I don't appreciate the Latin phrases, and I still struggle to communicate this to others, but for me Dr Cooper presenting this helps me grasp better the wonder and love of God and also an opportunity to hear from others how they respond. So thank you sincerely for your input, yet perhaps this was more for my benefit than yours.
@@j.g.4942 Questions are easy to come up with, really. Like, “where and why do you think the imperfections of each and every thought you think accumulate? Is there a pile of flaws collecting somewhere in the mind of God?”
This video reminds me of how the documentary "What is a Woman?" got such convoluted answers from those that took what should have been a straightforward and simple concept but, through their philosophizing, turned it into complete gobbledygook.
@@dave1370 Copernicus dismissed a geocentric model of the solar system because he realized that if the sun were the center the orbits of all the planets became much more straightforward and understandable in motion. In my study of the Bible and history, it has become utterly clear to me that the trinity is a lie that needlessly complicates the Bible when the truth is much more straightforward and makes more sense. "...when the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (John 16: 13). The Apostles were guided into ALL the truth. "Do not go beyond what is written." (1 Corinthians 4: 6) Paul warned at Galatians 1: 8, 9 not to accept what is beyond what the Apostles preached, which we have in the Bible. The Bible does not say "God the Son," but rather "the Son of God." (Luke 4: 41) The Bible does not say Jesus is equal to the Father, but rather "the Father is greater than I am." (John 14: 28) The Bible does not say "God the Spirit" but rather "God's spirit" or "the Spirit of God." (Romans 8: 14) The Bible does not say "trinity" but rather "there is one God." (James 2: 19) In every evidence I have been provided of the trinity I see an attempt to conflate the agency of power that Jehovah God has bestowed to Jesus. But what would it even mean if Jesus is made "king" and yet would have no power? Of course Jesus is given power and authority because Jehovah God has chosen him to be a king (Hebrews 1: 9), but that doesn't make him a trinity with Jehovah. The idea of Jesus being the same person as Jehovah is completely unfounded in scripture and it takes a lot of wiggling to try and force it to work, even to the extent of adding verses like the Johannine Comma and forcing capitalization of "I am" where there is no reason to imply Jesus is claiming he is God.
The Bible does not explicitly address the question of whether Jesus Christ has two natures or only one. As it will be explained below, however, understanding that Christ has two natures is the most biblically and theologically consistent position. The issue came to a head in church history as theologians in the church tried to grapple with and codify the information that the New Testament provides about Jesus. According to the New Testament, Jesus really is a man, born into the human race, yet He is also fully God. John 1:1 states that the Word is God and then in verse 14 we see that the Word John is speaking of is Jesus who took on human flesh and “tabernacled” among us. Matthew and Luke both tell of Jesus’ birth of the Virgin Mary and give His human lineage. It is difficult to understand and explain, but that is what the New Testament teaches. Jesus is God who entered the human race as a man. Some groups early on tried to explain the nature of Christ by saying that the divine “Christ spirit” came upon the man Jesus. Early Gnostics said that the Christ spirit came upon Jesus at His baptism and left Him at the crucifixion. In this scenario, it might seem as though Jesus had two natures; however, on closer examination, this is not the case. The man that people identified as Jesus would actually be two persons sharing a body, and each person would only have one nature. He would be Jesus the human and Christ the divine. In this scenario, God only appears to enter the human race, but He does not actually do it. Another way of trying to explain the data in the New Testament is to say that Jesus Christ was only one person AND that He only had one nature. The difficulty with this explanation is that His nature would be something of an amalgamation of divine and human. He would not be fully human because the divine nature has mixed with the human nature, making Him something more than human. He would not be fully God because the human nature has mixed with the divine nature, making Him something less than divine. We see parallels to this idea in Greek and Roman mythology where a god has a child with a human woman. The offspring is more than human and less than a god-a super human or a demi-god. Hercules was one such person, the son of Zeus and the woman Alcmene. An illustration may be helpful. Like most illustrations, it is far from perfect and cannot be pressed on every point. Suppose a king wants to identify with the poorest in his country. One way he could do it would be to disguise himself as a beggar and move among them. However, in this situation he is only pretending to be a beggar; he can go back to the castle at night, and he still has all the resources of a king. On the other hand, the king could renounce his throne and give away everything and become a beggar. But in this case, he would cease to be a king. A third option is that he could, for a time, give up the use of all his resources for a set period of time-let’s say 3 years-knowing that at the end of that time he would once again resume the throne. In this last situation, he is both truly a beggar and truly a king. Jesus became man, but He remained God. The only way to adequately explain the biblical data is to say that Jesus is one Person with two natures-a human nature and a divine nature. He is both God and Man. His two natures are inseparably united (not mixed) in what theologians term the “hypostatic union.” The New Testament affirms that Jesus Christ, who walked the earth, died on a cross, and rose again, was fully a member of the human race with a fully functioning human nature (without sin). At the same time, Jesus was fully God. He willingly humbled Himself and gave up His glory and the right to use His divine attributes apart from the direction of God the Father, but He never ceased to be God. Jesus Christ is fully man and fully God-He has the nature of both. He is a man, but He is more; He is also God. He is God, but He has forever joined Himself to a human nature. A shortened way to express this is to refer to Jesus as the God-Man. He is the Man who is also God, and He is God who became a Man. we are body, soul and spirit. body has physical realities. spirit has different realities. soul is the bridge between the two. simple but grasping the that reality, good luck.
How can you admit that Christ's body is able to change locations if his body is omnipresent? I find Lutheran christology very confusing since it often shifts from talking about Christ's body to his human nature and it's not always clear to me what exactly is being discussed. Perhaps it would be more consistent to say that the divine attributes are communicated to Christ's body but not his human nature per se.
Multiple forms of presence. His human nature does not lose it's circumscribed presence, just because it's present according to the mode of the right hand of God which is everywhere. Cooper said in the very video that Christ doesn't lose His local presence.
I saw in a Lutheran just read list, suggested reading a book by Martin Chemnitz “Two Natures in Christ”. Is that a good book to read? How difficult is it for a lay reader?
Doctor Jordan B Cooper where does The PARA - CLETE work,presence,office come to bear in our life ! ? Pneumatology ♨️ 🕊 🔥 One of the titles of The SON YEHOSHUA HAMASHIACH is The Angel of The LORD ! ? This is distinctive from being a angel sent by ADONAI.Also am I to be- lieve that The SON YEHOSHUA HAMASHIACH lied to us about sending us The PARACLETE ! ?
If there has to be a video about this subject and how to do it correctly, then it's probably not true, right? There's nowhere that Jesus is referred to as God in the Bible. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Word and God's only begotten Son, John 3:16. Repeating phrases of God does not a God make. We are all body parts of God and Jesus is the Son of man, which is something God would never say about himself, because he is the first and the last! Too much Theology always seems to end up at the same problem, which is making Jesus into God, which he said he is not multiple times.
Number one? Don't affirm Jesus Christ who is the second person of the Trinity was Killed by His Father. There is NO HUMAN PERSON IN CHRIST TO PUNISH OR DISFELLOWSHIP! Appolinarianism is heresy, Nestorianism is heresy, if one of the persons "became sin" instead of a "sin offering" was Anathema which He was not 1 Cor 12:1-3 Then that person died a sinner and not a member of the Trinity. You got problems boy!
And I do not care what that Masoretic menstrual cloth says in Isaiah 53:10 where it contradicts the Septuigint, Jesus said the devil was active in His Execution (John 8:44)
In conclusion: For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship… It’s so plain, that someone must be a really stupid person, to NOT understand this simple nature of Christ thing. How much more simple is the trinity, if the person Christ is just a one hour video. 😂
![Tee Grizzley - Robbery 8 [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/34_vkNV6wrU/mqdefault.jpg)
![KSI - Thick Of It (feat. Trippie Redd) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/At8v_Yc044Y/mqdefault.jpg)
It's not a Dr. Cooper video if the Christmas present is not a theological introduction to Christology.
Chemnitz conceding the Essence Energy distinction to explain the true mode of communication: “when this undivided essence of the Deity is considered in relation to things outside itself, such as created things… we must recognize there is a degree of distinction between His essence and His attributes… the divine essence works with a certain power (ενεργεια) outside itself with respect to created things… this is what Damascenus says in his work on the two activities: “the Deity does not make creatures partakers of His nature but of His ενεργεια…”
Merry Christmas, Dr. Cooper! Church was cancelled due to inclement weather, so this is a wonderful gift. Thank you.
Re: the impersonality of Christ's human nature: I think this makes more sense in a Platonic framework than an Aristotelian one. For Platonists, the Word can cause himself to participate in the Platonic form of humanness, which makes him a human person (that is, the Word is now a human person when he wasn't before, but there is no new person created). But for Aristotelians, there are only individual human natures. Thus the Word assumed an individual human nature. But an individual human nature is a person, so aren't there now two persons? Aquinas tries to answer like this: "For if the human nature had not been assumed by a Divine Person, the human nature would have had its own personality." But this just seems like an assertion, not a well-motivated metaphysical distinction.
I think this is accurate. Lutherans assert that Christ assumed the form of humaness in and through a particular human nature (hence what he accomplished in his life/death/resurrection has implications for the species as a whole). It's more Platonic in disposition.
I think you're right here.
After thinking about it some more, I also think that a more Aristotelian approach to the incarnation within late Roman theology necessarily places you in a bind with how to get from _Christ's person and work_ to its application for all people. This seems to suggest the origin of alternative methods/theories such as the Treasury of Merit in order to make sense of the particular impacting the universal.
I guess, but I think Aquinas statement is more saying that the personality of Christ, through the hypostasis of Christ's human nature and Christ's divine nature, is one as opposed to how it is in Nestorianism where it would be two. Also, there has quite commonly been a clear distinction between nature [ousios] and person [especially in regard to prosopon]. Thus, I would say that in either the Platonic or the Aristotelian framework, it makes sense.
Merry Christmas! As a Reformed guy, the reason I have no issue with a communication of personhood is because "infinite" and "finite" are attributes, which belong to the natures. So our famous "finite not capable of infinite" axiom would only apply to natures, not to personhood.
The hypostatic union is a union of natures.
Hello Reformed Zoomer. This is a big question: What is the best book on Christology that you recommend? Im a Reformed Christian as well but there are statements of Sproul which seem Nestorian. I appreciate any feedback
@@TesterBoy Jordan B. Cooper has a GREAT youtube lecture series about Christology in great detail. He's Lutheran but he explains what Reformed Christology is an admits it's not Nestorian
Thank you Dr. Cooper, Bless you and Merry Christmas
Holey Eternal Omnipresent Greetingz cuzinz 🌠🏵🔥🧡🧙♂️👍
You're an excellent teacher Dr. Cooper. Thanks for these videos
Dr Cooper, I love your series on Christology! Thank you for next episode.
I have just one quesions: What book about classic, ancient, orthodox Christology would you recommend (except F. Weidner's), especially when it comes to historical development of this doctrine?
Khaled Anatolios' Retrieving Nicea.
@@DrJordanBCooper Thank you!
I really love this series, but as a Presbyterian I would like to see the reformed side of these Christology debates. Could you recommend any good resources?
I'm sure you could read the Marburg colloquy, outlines the climate of the debate at its beginning. Zwingly might be different than some reformed on some things but Calvin generally followed in his way of thinking in the communication of attributes discussion.
Father VC Samuel has written "The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined." In it, he offers an alternative view regarding the split that occurred after this council - a split due at least in part because this council did not sufficiently address the issue of Christ's nature for those bishops who did not accept the conclusions of the council.
Very interesting talk. Two natures means two centers of conscience. That would be Nestorian, as you said. Rather, we see Jesus doing miracles by the Father in him, by the Holy Spirit. He did not just ignore his divine attributes, he left them behind. This is why he didn't know the day and hour of his return. Yet, he certainly was God in his spiritual identity. I would assume that now he does have his divine attributes.
Dr.Cooper,as a Lutheran,can I listen to sermons of Catholic fathers like Bishop Barron etc .If yes please let me know the boundary or drawing line .
Thank you
Alternatively you could loudly and persistently declare "FULLY GOD AND FULLY MAN" ad nauseam until people stop arguing.
Merry Christmas from your Catholic fans!
Holey Eternal Omnipresent Greetingz
I thought we received Christ’s body immaterially in the Lord’s Supper. And yet you say that Christ’s body is material… I’m confused… If Christ’s body is everywhere and material, how can I not touch it then?
Lutheran view, argues a real, but illocal presence of Christ’s body and blood that is grounded in the omnipresence of Christ’s person, and therefore a supernatural and sacramental, rather than a local, union with the visible elements of the sacrament.
I understand everything you’re saying; I have a background in philosophy and I study theology all day (and I love it!) If I’m honest, tho, sometimes it sounds like the ramblings of a lunatic. So many invented words and concepts to fit together into a made-up jigsaw puzzle. Do we have to bracket knowledge of God had by experienced contrition and faith in order to talk, talk, talk, (and talk) like this? I don’t mean for this to come across as hateful-forgive me if it does. Just frustrated. My library has over 1,000 volumes in obscure philosophical theology (mostly in French). All of it some kind of talk about praying and reading the Bible. Sometimes, just sometimes, I think it’s all a ready excuse for not praying and reading the Bible.
I'm a theologian. And this is a channel of theology lectures. So yes, I will talk, talk, talk.
@@DrJordanBCooper Whose questions are you answering with all of this endless jabbering? Yours? Readymade catechism questions baked-in to create the illusion of answering all possible objections (and thereby giving an air of credibility to belief?) I can come up with better questions and more difficult ones, if you’d like. But then you’ll spend the next week, brow furrowed, answering me. And to what end?
For me this helped to grasp (feebly) the mystery of Holy Communion, strengthen my faith making it more robust, and give me a greater hunger to delve into God's mysteries, into prayer, meditation and living out the life of Christ and the thousands of Christians before me.
By this teaching I began to see how every teaching is founded on the Incarnation and has grown my understanding from a more shallow and strict one to something more willing to listen, learn, love and live.
I don't appreciate the Latin phrases, and I still struggle to communicate this to others, but for me Dr Cooper presenting this helps me grasp better the wonder and love of God and also an opportunity to hear from others how they respond. So thank you sincerely for your input, yet perhaps this was more for my benefit than yours.
@@dylan3456 also please ask those difficult questions, I want to hear them too; and hopefully benefit from your tradition and understanding too!
@@j.g.4942 Questions are easy to come up with, really. Like, “where and why do you think the imperfections of each and every thought you think accumulate? Is there a pile of flaws collecting somewhere in the mind of God?”
This video reminds me of how the documentary "What is a Woman?" got such convoluted answers from those that took what should have been a straightforward and simple concept but, through their philosophizing, turned it into complete gobbledygook.
“Oh but did you know about this distinction (that someone I consider an authority invented)?”
But the answers to the questions aren't straightforward if Christ is true, which is the premise for this channel.
@@dave1370 Copernicus dismissed a geocentric model of the solar system because he realized that if the sun were the center the orbits of all the planets became much more straightforward and understandable in motion. In my study of the Bible and history, it has become utterly clear to me that the trinity is a lie that needlessly complicates the Bible when the truth is much more straightforward and makes more sense.
"...when the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (John 16: 13). The Apostles were guided into ALL the truth.
"Do not go beyond what is written." (1 Corinthians 4: 6)
Paul warned at Galatians 1: 8, 9 not to accept what is beyond what the Apostles preached, which we have in the Bible.
The Bible does not say "God the Son," but rather "the Son of God." (Luke 4: 41)
The Bible does not say Jesus is equal to the Father, but rather "the Father is greater than I am." (John 14: 28)
The Bible does not say "God the Spirit" but rather "God's spirit" or "the Spirit of God." (Romans 8: 14)
The Bible does not say "trinity" but rather "there is one God." (James 2: 19)
In every evidence I have been provided of the trinity I see an attempt to conflate the agency of power that Jehovah God has bestowed to Jesus. But what would it even mean if Jesus is made "king" and yet would have no power? Of course Jesus is given power and authority because Jehovah God has chosen him to be a king (Hebrews 1: 9), but that doesn't make him a trinity with Jehovah.
The idea of Jesus being the same person as Jehovah is completely unfounded in scripture and it takes a lot of wiggling to try and force it to work, even to the extent of adding verses like the Johannine Comma and forcing capitalization of "I am" where there is no reason to imply Jesus is claiming he is God.
The Bible does not explicitly address the question of whether Jesus Christ has two natures or only one. As it will be explained below, however, understanding that Christ has two natures is the most biblically and theologically consistent position. The issue came to a head in church history as theologians in the church tried to grapple with and codify the information that the New Testament provides about Jesus.
According to the New Testament, Jesus really is a man, born into the human race, yet He is also fully God. John 1:1 states that the Word is God and then in verse 14 we see that the Word John is speaking of is Jesus who took on human flesh and “tabernacled” among us. Matthew and Luke both tell of Jesus’ birth of the Virgin Mary and give His human lineage. It is difficult to understand and explain, but that is what the New Testament teaches. Jesus is God who entered the human race as a man.
Some groups early on tried to explain the nature of Christ by saying that the divine “Christ spirit” came upon the man Jesus. Early Gnostics said that the Christ spirit came upon Jesus at His baptism and left Him at the crucifixion. In this scenario, it might seem as though Jesus had two natures; however, on closer examination, this is not the case. The man that people identified as Jesus would actually be two persons sharing a body, and each person would only have one nature. He would be Jesus the human and Christ the divine. In this scenario, God only appears to enter the human race, but He does not actually do it.
Another way of trying to explain the data in the New Testament is to say that Jesus Christ was only one person AND that He only had one nature. The difficulty with this explanation is that His nature would be something of an amalgamation of divine and human. He would not be fully human because the divine nature has mixed with the human nature, making Him something more than human. He would not be fully God because the human nature has mixed with the divine nature, making Him something less than divine. We see parallels to this idea in Greek and Roman mythology where a god has a child with a human woman. The offspring is more than human and less than a god-a super human or a demi-god. Hercules was one such person, the son of Zeus and the woman Alcmene.
An illustration may be helpful. Like most illustrations, it is far from perfect and cannot be pressed on every point. Suppose a king wants to identify with the poorest in his country. One way he could do it would be to disguise himself as a beggar and move among them. However, in this situation he is only pretending to be a beggar; he can go back to the castle at night, and he still has all the resources of a king. On the other hand, the king could renounce his throne and give away everything and become a beggar. But in this case, he would cease to be a king. A third option is that he could, for a time, give up the use of all his resources for a set period of time-let’s say 3 years-knowing that at the end of that time he would once again resume the throne. In this last situation, he is both truly a beggar and truly a king. Jesus became man, but He remained God.
The only way to adequately explain the biblical data is to say that Jesus is one Person with two natures-a human nature and a divine nature. He is both God and Man. His two natures are inseparably united (not mixed) in what theologians term the “hypostatic union.” The New Testament affirms that Jesus Christ, who walked the earth, died on a cross, and rose again, was fully a member of the human race with a fully functioning human nature (without sin). At the same time, Jesus was fully God. He willingly humbled Himself and gave up His glory and the right to use His divine attributes apart from the direction of God the Father, but He never ceased to be God. Jesus Christ is fully man and fully God-He has the nature of both. He is a man, but He is more; He is also God. He is God, but He has forever joined Himself to a human nature. A shortened way to express this is to refer to Jesus as the God-Man. He is the Man who is also God, and He is God who became a Man.
we are body, soul and spirit. body has physical realities. spirit has different realities. soul is the bridge between the two. simple but grasping the that reality, good luck.
How can you admit that Christ's body is able to change locations if his body is omnipresent?
I find Lutheran christology very confusing since it often shifts from talking about Christ's body to his human nature and it's not always clear to me what exactly is being discussed. Perhaps it would be more consistent to say that the divine attributes are communicated to Christ's body but not his human nature per se.
Multiple forms of presence.
His human nature does not lose it's circumscribed presence, just because it's present according to the mode of the right hand of God which is everywhere.
Cooper said in the very video that Christ doesn't lose His local presence.
@@st.martinlutherofwittenber18 Come again?
@@st.martinlutherofwittenber18 Holey Eternal Omnipresent Greetingz my friends 🔥👁🔥
Hey Dr. Cooper, what do you think about miaphysitism?
I saw in a Lutheran just read list, suggested reading a book by Martin Chemnitz “Two Natures in Christ”. Is that a good book to read? How difficult is it for a lay reader?
It's the best on the subject, but it is pretty dense.
@@DrJordanBCooper Oh good! That just happens to be arriving in the mail for me today! :)
No offense, but God and man remain two different subjects....there is no hypostatic union in scriptures
False.
@@dave1370 prove me wrong on the hypostatic union then
Did Mary have any children before Jesus?
No.
Question, what Bible version do you use?
Deuteronomy chapter 23 is a good one
@@theunclejesusshow8260 Lmao I had a sneaking suspicion that was the verse you referenced but I had to double check
Doctor Jordan B Cooper where does The PARA -
CLETE work,presence,office come to bear in our
life ! ? Pneumatology ♨️ 🕊 🔥 One of the titles of The SON YEHOSHUA HAMASHIACH is The Angel of The LORD ! ? This is distinctive from
being a angel sent by ADONAI.Also am I to be- lieve that The SON YEHOSHUA HAMASHIACH
lied to us about sending us The PARACLETE ! ?
If there has to be a video about this subject and how to do it correctly, then it's probably not true, right? There's nowhere that Jesus is referred to as God in the Bible. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Word and God's only begotten Son, John 3:16.
Repeating phrases of God does not a God make. We are all body parts of God and Jesus is the Son of man, which is something God would never say about himself, because he is the first and the last!
Too much Theology always seems to end up at the same problem, which is making Jesus into God, which he said he is not multiple times.
Number one? Don't affirm Jesus Christ who is the second person of the Trinity was Killed by His Father. There is NO HUMAN PERSON IN CHRIST TO PUNISH OR DISFELLOWSHIP! Appolinarianism is heresy, Nestorianism is heresy, if one of the persons "became sin" instead of a "sin offering" was Anathema which He was not 1 Cor 12:1-3 Then that person died a sinner and not a member of the Trinity. You got problems boy!
And I do not care what that Masoretic menstrual cloth says in Isaiah 53:10 where it contradicts the Septuigint, Jesus said the devil was active in His Execution (John 8:44)
In conclusion: For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship…
It’s so plain, that someone must be a really stupid person, to NOT understand this simple nature of Christ thing.
How much more simple is the trinity, if the person Christ is just a one hour video. 😂