The Reformed came up with all sorts of arguments against the Lutherans because they felt betrayed by Luther on the Lord’s Supper. When Chemnitz came along, he had access to the Greek fathers and was able to demonstrate that this concept of fire and iron, with the iron taking on properties of the fire, is found throughout the fathers from Irenaeus to Damascene. It was primarily this example that the Reformed used to claim the things they did. You’ll find Luther did not really address those two claims himself, except in his work On The Councils of the Church. The real defense of the Lutheran view according to Church History begins and is settled primarily by Chemnitz. You will not find almost anyone going after Chemnitz’s work, The Two Natures of Christ. Instead, they go after Luther and basically ignore Chemnitz altogether
For anyone interested in the two wills or two energies conversation, look up Maximus the Confessor’s “Disputations with Pyrrhus.” It is a short work and pretty affordable. It is at once both easy to read and yet profoundly deep. He first proves the two wills, then he proves the two energies, but much of what he stated regarding the wills is tied to the energies, so the energies section is far shorter as the two wills was already proven.
Historical criticism in the 19th/20th century believed there was no Jewish community in Nazareth until far after the first century. Then the archeological remains of a significant and large Jewish community in Nazareth that dated to over century before Jesus was found in the 1950s and the large scope of it was readily accepted by the late 1970s. What this means is any criticisms one might read of the birth narratives and also the early life of Jesus in 19th and most 20th century scholarship is just flat out incorrect factually on this point, particularly if they make the case that such a community did not exist at that time and was a later insertion in the text of the Gospels.
Please translate more of the German and Latin polemic works against Rome into English. 1. Also, best English or German response to Strauss, Harnack, Schweitzer? Perhaps you could fund translation.
Dr Cooper, would you say Phil Cary’s work are an accurate exposition of Luther’s theology? A friend of mine is Lutheran and he gave me one of Cary’s books on Luther, proclaiming it to expound the beauty of Luther’s theology? Do you concur with his assessment?
Hi Dr.Cooper. Thank you for your videos. They are always so helpful. You have said before in other videos that in the incarnation, not only did Christ assumed a human nature, but he also assumed humanity as a whole. Can you provide references (books, articles, ect.) on where one can find a presentation and defense of that? Is this something distinctly Lutheran, or are others having this view? Or maybe you can do a video on it, nothing the implications of such a view, specially of the idea that Christ assumed a fallen human nature (Do you still hold this view?) possibly because he assumed all of humanity(?), etc.
Thanks so much. Great video. In the end Chalcedon did not do us a great service. The gave us a Jesus described with paradoxical language. They seemed to want to have it both ways. Now if we try and explain why Jesus did not know the day or hour of his return, we usually hear he did not know in his human nature only. But isn't that Nestorian? Seems so. I think the view from Scripture is that he really didn't know, otherwise he would have just gone over to his deity side and found out, right? Rather, in the Incarnation he kept is spiritual identity of the Logos in the and was made a man, doing his miracles by the Father dwelling in him, by he Holy Spirit. As such was was indeed deity and man. If he had kept his miraculous attributes he would have glorified himself, which he could not do. Rather he glorified the Father who was doing the work in and through him. Amen?
"Whatever God unites himself to, that's what is redeemed" (47:28 timestamp) If our sin nature is redeemed then does this mean Christ took on a "sin nature"? Or does redeeming of the soul include redeeming sin nature even if Christ never united himself to a sin nature?
You may find it more accurate than the Hypostatic Union. Jesus could give up his miraculous attributes but still keep his identity as God as the Logos made into a man. That Logos spiritual identity would not change in the Incarnation, right? The testimony of Scripture is that the Father was doing the miracles through Jesus, and not Jesus by his own attributes. It says, "Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (John 10:37-38). To humble himself and become a servant as a man, he would not have miraculous attributes, since men don't have them either. The idea that he had two natures is unbiblical and not logical. If he had partial knowledge and omniscience in the same person it would not work. Wouldn't his partial knowledge be obliterated by omniscience?
It would intersting to see what historic Lutheran responses were to „This generation will not pass away” supposedly being a false prophecy. Some have held like C.S.Lewis that Lord Jesus got it wrong (because he could have false beliefs due to the Incarnation), it seems like a terrible view (Jesus is God after all), but it is a pretty popular among contemporary theologians (WLC suggested it as one of the solution to the historical Adam problem, though he doesn’t hold that view, he says it is a viable option for orthodox Christians, so it’s not limited to “this generation” problem). So the question of how was the said prophecy fullfiled and Christology would make an interesting podcast episode in my opinion :)
Look at the previous verse (In Matt). "when you see" is repeated from verse 15, therefore "all these things" means the abomination of desloation etc. And what happens when you see these? Christ is near. Then Jesus describes how near "Truly, this generation will not pass away". I.e. the text means that the generation that sees the abomination of desolation and lives through the tribulation will also see the return of Christ. So the tribulation will be less than one generation and likely much less (encouraging us to keep the faith through even the darkest trials, Christ is coming to the rescue!). Anyways we can immediately see that "this generation" isn't the generation listening otherwise we'd have an immediate contradiction with the next passage that describes how unexpected Christ's return will be. Otherwise the listeners would know that Christ's return would happen in the next ~100 years at most and would even gain more knowledge as to when it was as time progressed, making it not unexpected/imminent.
This was a very good video. It brought back memories of CSL, listening to men like Nagle, and also David Scare. I would like to hear you talk about the Weimar Disputation in August of 1560 and how all this gave us the synergistic controversy, The Flacian controversy.
It's funny- I'm Coptic, so when you mention Saint Cyril's "One nature of God the Word incarnate", that's pretty much where we stand. Makes you wonder where we fit into all of this.
I'm a bit of an odd duck, I grew up Protestant nondenom (and went to a Lutheran high school), and converted to Coptic Orthodoxy (for various reasons like liturgy, iconography, the filioque). I was drawn to Dr. Cooper's work through his book Christification: A Lutheran Approach to Theosis (I haven't finished it, but my Lutheran education has made it pretty understandable. There's also some patrisitcs that use the term "Christification" so it piqued my interest). I think Lutheranism is the closest of the Protestants sects to Orthodoxy (though there's some important differences, like iconography, theosis, essence/energies distinction, the filioque, apostolicity and traditions like praying toward the East and memorized prayer) that would prevent unification. I haven't looked into the whole monotheletism issue- it seems like this whole kenosis business is where it matters, so maybe I'm wrong and should be East Orthodox haha. From the Copts I know, "Sola Fide" gives them the most pause. Salvation is seen more as an ontological change than a moral one in theosis. Although Oriental Orthodox churches don't have it explicitly in their theology, they follow the East Orthodox churches a good bit. I can mention East Orthodox concepts and nobody bats an eye- priests will often quote East Orthodox saints like St. Seraphim of Sarov and St. Paisios, and Coptic iconographers will require East Orthodox iconology books. We'll see how the official theology develops, especially with talks of unification with the East Orthodox.
@Christos Kyrios Thanks for sharing yours man. If you don't mind me asking, how do Anglicans have a close relationship with the Copts? I've heard some Coptic iconographers make icons for Anglican churches, but never looked into it much. Do you guys have Catholic or Eastern iconography, if at all? I've actually heard Methodist soteriology is close to Orthodoxy as well, but never looked much into it. I guess that's another thing on the list, haha!
@Christos Kyrios I'll be honest, I kind of came to the Coptic Orthodox church by accident. I had looked into East Orthodoxy in general, but couldn't find many East Orthodox churches near me. I looked into the miaphysite vs dyophysite issue, but realized that most people see it as an issue of terminology, and there's not much theological discussion on it currently. With that I figured it'd be best to go to church and work it out from there. I have to say, the Copts have been exceptionally welcoming. I definitely agree with you on iconography- the Neo-Coptic canon is absolutely amazing (though the EO has us beat on archietecture). I've also heard that the Anglicans coined the term "Oriental Orthodox", so that's pretty neat. It's good to hear we have some inter-church dialogue. Also, if you're in England, there's a couple good Neo-Coptic iconographers up there (like Stephan Rene and Mikhail Fadi). Both of them make icons for Anglicans, so if you're ever interested, I'm sure they'd be happy to make you one.
@Christos Kyrios Asking the intercession of the saints is definitely there, haha. Funnily enough it seems to be used more in devotional practices- in the Liturgy of St. Cyril we have a prayer to the saints leading up to the Epiclesis, but Midnight Praises is full of prayers to the saints. That's probably because it was originally supposed to go all night- I can't imagine praying that long! Most of the time it'll mention some related saints by name(like the martyrs, confessors, etc.) and the response will be "Pray to the Lord on our behalf, that He may forgive us our sins". I've never really seen a prayer to a specific saint (besides veneration of an icon), though we definitely go more in depth with prayers to the Theotokos. Yes, you're right on our position of Rome's Marian dogmas. We have a fast and feast for the Assumption of Mary, though the dates are probably different because we have a different calendar haha. Then we have a procession with the icon of St. Mary, and churches back in Egypt will process around the city. The women do ululations and everyone venerates the icon (usually when they come in, sometimes when they process). There's definitely a culture around it!
@Christos Kyrios I'm only somewhat familiar with the Rosary, but haven't looked into it much. We have prayers directly to Mary (and to a lesser extent Guardian Angels), but usually they're tied with an intercession. For instance one of my evening prayers is: "O Good Mother of the Good King, most pure and blessed Theotokos Mary, do thou pour out the mercy of thy Son and our God upon my passionate soul, and by thine intercessions guide me unto good works, that I may pass the remaining time of my life without blemish, and attain paradise through thee, O Virgin Theotokos, who alone art pure and blessed". I think it's important that salvation is granted through Mary, in Christ ("by thine intercessions...") . With that in mind, I think there's room for prayers to Mary, that point to Christ. With that said, most of our prayers will be prayers to Christ or to God in general. I definitely think it's important to focus on Christ or God in prayer. We have the Daily Office in our tradition as well (we call it the Agbeya, and the Greeks call it the Horologion). I find it difficult to keep fully, but the prayers in it are great. I personally feel the most connection to the Jesus Prayer. The full version is "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner", but you can shorten it down to "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me" or even "Lord have mercy". It's connected to the hesychastic tradition, so there's tons of mystical theology if you want to look into it more. You can practice it with a prayer rope, and some people time it with their breathing (breathing in Christ and breathing out their sin). If you're going to do it with breathing, definitely tell your spiritual father. Hyperventilation is not a good prayer technique. The good thing about the Jesus Prayer is its memorability. Being able to practice it all the time, breathing with it, all remind you that you're supposed to be united with the energies of God. If you try going for "constant prayer" as St. Paul says, definitely tell your spiritual father. There's stories of monks going insane in practicing the Jesus Prayer out of pride. It's definitely a great prayer- its conciseness is its strength. To your point on the Assumption, yes, we believe in the Dormition. On whether Mary has recieved her glorified body, I can't say for sure. I'll say that our iconography depicts saints in their "deified flesh". There's an extra-temporal sense of the Last Judgement (and a temporal one), so it seems like it's left a mystery. I think this is pointed to in that, in the account of the Dormition, it's said that she died natural death, but she left no relics (her tomb was empty). I must say, I haven't looked into this in depth, so I can't say much in certainty. I haven't heard of NT Wright, but I'll definitely check him out.
It wpuld not be logical for you to deny the possibility of the ever-existing Godhead of three omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent persons being ruptured but the distonct centre of consciousness called the Son giving up those divine powers, and yet maintain that the ever-existing love of the Father for the distinct centre of conscioisness called the Son eas broken when Jesus bore God's wrath for us. Both would be radical changes within the Godhead. The beauty of a trinitarian Godhesd is that if God is three distinct persons each possessing the same perfect attributes, then one of those Persons could give up those attributes to become human, and there would still be two Divine Persons in the Godhead to keep the universe running. Jesus gave up the glory he had with the Father before the world began, and received that glory back after his resurrection, and in that glory of the Father he came to some who had been standing before Him during his ministry.
Well said. Regarding the Kenosis, Jesus could give up his miraculous attributes but still keep his identity as God as the Logos made into a man. That Logos spiritual identity would not change in the Incarnation, right? The testimony of Scripture is that the Father was doing the miracles through Jesus, and not Jesus by his own attributes. It says, "Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (John 10:37-38). To humble himself and become a servant as a man, he would not have miraculous attributes, since men don't have them either. The idea that he had two natures is unbiblical and not logical. If he had partial knowledge and omniscience in the same person it would not work. Wouldn't his partial knowledge be obliterated by omniscience? You are right, he received those attributes back again in his glorified state.
It was a human nature. Regarding the Kenosis, Jesus could give up his miraculous attributes but still keep his identity as God as the Logos made into a man. That Logos spiritual identity would not change in the Incarnation, right? The testimony of Scripture is that the Father was doing the miracles through Jesus, and not Jesus by his own attributes. It says, "Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (John 10:37-38). To humble himself and become a servant as a man, he would not have miraculous attributes, since men don't have them either. The idea that he had two natures is unbiblical and not logical. If he had partial knowledge and omniscience in the same person it would not work. Wouldn't his partial knowledge be obliterated by omniscience?
“Reason must give way where the Fishermen have spoken” Luther, disputation on the Word made flesh. Per the closing remarks.
an epidose addresing the charge of monophysitism and eutychianism against lutheran christology would me extraordinarily helpful
I've also heard some say Luther was Nestorian. I don't really see how
@@j.g.4942 That sounds more like Zwingli
The Reformed came up with all sorts of arguments against the Lutherans because they felt betrayed by Luther on the Lord’s Supper. When Chemnitz came along, he had access to the Greek fathers and was able to demonstrate that this concept of fire and iron, with the iron taking on properties of the fire, is found throughout the fathers from Irenaeus to Damascene. It was primarily this example that the Reformed used to claim the things they did. You’ll find Luther did not really address those two claims himself, except in his work On The Councils of the Church. The real defense of the Lutheran view according to Church History begins and is settled primarily by Chemnitz. You will not find almost anyone going after Chemnitz’s work, The Two Natures of Christ. Instead, they go after Luther and basically ignore Chemnitz altogether
For anyone interested in the two wills or two energies conversation, look up Maximus the Confessor’s “Disputations with Pyrrhus.” It is a short work and pretty affordable. It is at once both easy to read and yet profoundly deep. He first proves the two wills, then he proves the two energies, but much of what he stated regarding the wills is tied to the energies, so the energies section is far shorter as the two wills was already proven.
Hi! Were you planning to make a podcast about how Calvin denies the eternal generation of the Son? I'd be very interested to see that
Where does he say that🤔 very interesting if true!
Historical criticism in the 19th/20th century believed there was no Jewish community in Nazareth until far after the first century. Then the archeological remains of a significant and large Jewish community in Nazareth that dated to over century before Jesus was found in the 1950s and the large scope of it was readily accepted by the late 1970s. What this means is any criticisms one might read of the birth narratives and also the early life of Jesus in 19th and most 20th century scholarship is just flat out incorrect factually on this point, particularly if they make the case that such a community did not exist at that time and was a later insertion in the text of the Gospels.
Perfect timing, great video Jordan. I probably should pay less attention to social media drama 🤣
Please translate more of the German and Latin polemic works against Rome into English.
1. Also, best English or German response to Strauss, Harnack, Schweitzer? Perhaps you could fund translation.
Sir can i get any pdf or article on the same topic since i have my thesis on the controversies and problems of kenosis theology
I found this to be a very useful introduction to this controversy. The theology nerd in me loves this sort of thing.
Hi can you possibly do a video on Typology in terms of Christology? I was wondering about some of your opinions on this matter.
Another enlighten content Dr Jordan Cooper. By the way like the new hair cut. ✝️✝️✝️✝️
I'm a new subscriber - thank you for these helpful videos.
Rather humorous to argue about the "soul of Christ" when we cannot even agree on what the soul is!
Dr Cooper, would you say Phil Cary’s work are an accurate exposition of Luther’s theology? A friend of mine is Lutheran and he gave me one of Cary’s books on Luther, proclaiming it to expound the beauty of Luther’s theology? Do you concur with his assessment?
Hi Dr.Cooper. Thank you for your videos. They are always so helpful.
You have said before in other videos that in the incarnation, not only did Christ assumed a human nature, but he also assumed humanity as a whole.
Can you provide references (books, articles, ect.) on where one can find a presentation and defense of that? Is this something distinctly Lutheran, or are others having this view?
Or maybe you can do a video on it, nothing the implications of such a view, specially of the idea that Christ assumed a fallen human nature (Do you still hold this view?) possibly because he assumed all of humanity(?), etc.
Thanks so much. Great video. In the end Chalcedon did not do us a great service. The gave us a Jesus described with paradoxical language. They seemed to want to have it both ways. Now if we try and explain why Jesus did not know the day or hour of his return, we usually hear he did not know in his human nature only. But isn't that Nestorian? Seems so. I think the view from Scripture is that he really didn't know, otherwise he would have just gone over to his deity side and found out, right? Rather, in the Incarnation he kept is spiritual identity of the Logos in the and was made a man, doing his miracles by the Father dwelling in him, by he Holy Spirit. As such was was indeed deity and man. If he had kept his miraculous attributes he would have glorified himself, which he could not do. Rather he glorified the Father who was doing the work in and through him. Amen?
"Whatever God unites himself to, that's what is redeemed" (47:28 timestamp) If our sin nature is redeemed then does this mean Christ took on a "sin nature"? Or does redeeming of the soul include redeeming sin nature even if Christ never united himself to a sin nature?
Marvelous!
First time I heard about Kenoticism
You may find it more accurate than the Hypostatic Union. Jesus could give up his miraculous attributes but still keep his identity as God as the Logos made into a man. That Logos spiritual identity would not change in the Incarnation, right? The testimony of Scripture is that the Father was doing the miracles through Jesus, and not Jesus by his own attributes. It says, "Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (John 10:37-38). To humble himself and become a servant as a man, he would not have miraculous attributes, since men don't have them either. The idea that he had two natures is unbiblical and not logical. If he had partial knowledge and omniscience in the same person it would not work. Wouldn't his partial knowledge be obliterated by omniscience?
If God is eternal, is that property in itself a limitation on His powers? Or can God choose to be finite, and, if so, is he still God at that point?
It would intersting to see what historic Lutheran responses were to „This generation will not pass away” supposedly being a false prophecy. Some have held like C.S.Lewis that Lord Jesus got it wrong (because he could have false beliefs due to the Incarnation), it seems like a terrible view (Jesus is God after all), but it is a pretty popular among contemporary theologians (WLC suggested it as one of the solution to the historical Adam problem, though he doesn’t hold that view, he says it is a viable option for orthodox Christians, so it’s not limited to “this generation” problem). So the question of how was the said prophecy fullfiled and Christology would make an interesting podcast episode in my opinion :)
Look at the previous verse (In Matt). "when you see" is repeated from verse 15, therefore "all these things" means the abomination of desloation etc. And what happens when you see these? Christ is near. Then Jesus describes how near "Truly, this generation will not pass away". I.e. the text means that the generation that sees the abomination of desolation and lives through the tribulation will also see the return of Christ. So the tribulation will be less than one generation and likely much less (encouraging us to keep the faith through even the darkest trials, Christ is coming to the rescue!).
Anyways we can immediately see that "this generation" isn't the generation listening otherwise we'd have an immediate contradiction with the next passage that describes how unexpected Christ's return will be. Otherwise the listeners would know that Christ's return would happen in the next ~100 years at most and would even gain more knowledge as to when it was as time progressed, making it not unexpected/imminent.
This was a very good video. It brought back memories of CSL, listening to men like Nagle, and also David Scare. I would like to hear you talk about the Weimar Disputation in August of 1560 and how all this gave us the synergistic controversy, The Flacian controversy.
It's funny- I'm Coptic, so when you mention Saint Cyril's "One nature of God the Word incarnate", that's pretty much where we stand. Makes you wonder where we fit into all of this.
I'm a bit of an odd duck, I grew up Protestant nondenom (and went to a Lutheran high school), and converted to Coptic Orthodoxy (for various reasons like liturgy, iconography, the filioque). I was drawn to Dr. Cooper's work through his book Christification: A Lutheran Approach to Theosis (I haven't finished it, but my Lutheran education has made it pretty understandable. There's also some patrisitcs that use the term "Christification" so it piqued my interest).
I think Lutheranism is the closest of the Protestants sects to Orthodoxy (though there's some important differences, like iconography, theosis, essence/energies distinction, the filioque, apostolicity and traditions like praying toward the East and memorized prayer) that would prevent unification. I haven't looked into the whole monotheletism issue- it seems like this whole kenosis business is where it matters, so maybe I'm wrong and should be East Orthodox haha.
From the Copts I know, "Sola Fide" gives them the most pause. Salvation is seen more as an ontological change than a moral one in theosis. Although Oriental Orthodox churches don't have it explicitly in their theology, they follow the East Orthodox churches a good bit. I can mention East Orthodox concepts and nobody bats an eye- priests will often quote East Orthodox saints like St. Seraphim of Sarov and St. Paisios, and Coptic iconographers will require East Orthodox iconology books. We'll see how the official theology develops, especially with talks of unification with the East Orthodox.
@Christos Kyrios Thanks for sharing yours man. If you don't mind me asking, how do Anglicans have a close relationship with the Copts? I've heard some Coptic iconographers make icons for Anglican churches, but never looked into it much. Do you guys have Catholic or Eastern iconography, if at all?
I've actually heard Methodist soteriology is close to Orthodoxy as well, but never looked much into it. I guess that's another thing on the list, haha!
@Christos Kyrios I'll be honest, I kind of came to the Coptic Orthodox church by accident. I had looked into East Orthodoxy in general, but couldn't find many East Orthodox churches near me. I looked into the miaphysite vs dyophysite issue, but realized that most people see it as an issue of terminology, and there's not much theological discussion on it currently. With that I figured it'd be best to go to church and work it out from there. I have to say, the Copts have been exceptionally welcoming. I definitely agree with you on iconography- the Neo-Coptic canon is absolutely amazing (though the EO has us beat on archietecture).
I've also heard that the Anglicans coined the term "Oriental Orthodox", so that's pretty neat. It's good to hear we have some inter-church dialogue. Also, if you're in England, there's a couple good Neo-Coptic iconographers up there (like Stephan Rene and Mikhail Fadi). Both of them make icons for Anglicans, so if you're ever interested, I'm sure they'd be happy to make you one.
@Christos Kyrios Asking the intercession of the saints is definitely there, haha. Funnily enough it seems to be used more in devotional practices- in the Liturgy of St. Cyril we have a prayer to the saints leading up to the Epiclesis, but Midnight Praises is full of prayers to the saints. That's probably because it was originally supposed to go all night- I can't imagine praying that long! Most of the time it'll mention some related saints by name(like the martyrs, confessors, etc.) and the response will be "Pray to the Lord on our behalf, that He may forgive us our sins". I've never really seen a prayer to a specific saint (besides veneration of an icon), though we definitely go more in depth with prayers to the Theotokos.
Yes, you're right on our position of Rome's Marian dogmas. We have a fast and feast for the Assumption of Mary, though the dates are probably different because we have a different calendar haha. Then we have a procession with the icon of St. Mary, and churches back in Egypt will process around the city. The women do ululations and everyone venerates the icon (usually when they come in, sometimes when they process). There's definitely a culture around it!
@Christos Kyrios I'm only somewhat familiar with the Rosary, but haven't looked into it much. We have prayers directly to Mary (and to a lesser extent Guardian Angels), but usually they're tied with an intercession. For instance one of my evening prayers is: "O Good Mother of the Good King, most pure and blessed Theotokos Mary, do thou pour out the mercy of thy Son and our God upon my passionate soul, and by thine intercessions guide me unto good works, that I may pass the remaining time of my life without blemish, and attain paradise through thee, O Virgin Theotokos, who alone art pure and blessed". I think it's important that salvation is granted through Mary, in Christ ("by thine intercessions...") . With that in mind, I think there's room for prayers to Mary, that point to Christ. With that said, most of our prayers will be prayers to Christ or to God in general. I definitely think it's important to focus on Christ or God in prayer.
We have the Daily Office in our tradition as well (we call it the Agbeya, and the Greeks call it the Horologion). I find it difficult to keep fully, but the prayers in it are great.
I personally feel the most connection to the Jesus Prayer. The full version is "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner", but you can shorten it down to "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me" or even "Lord have mercy". It's connected to the hesychastic tradition, so there's tons of mystical theology if you want to look into it more. You can practice it with a prayer rope, and some people time it with their breathing (breathing in Christ and breathing out their sin). If you're going to do it with breathing, definitely tell your spiritual father. Hyperventilation is not a good prayer technique. The good thing about the Jesus Prayer is its memorability. Being able to practice it all the time, breathing with it, all remind you that you're supposed to be united with the energies of God. If you try going for "constant prayer" as St. Paul says, definitely tell your spiritual father. There's stories of monks going insane in practicing the Jesus Prayer out of pride. It's definitely a great prayer- its conciseness is its strength.
To your point on the Assumption, yes, we believe in the Dormition. On whether Mary has recieved her glorified body, I can't say for sure. I'll say that our iconography depicts saints in their "deified flesh". There's an extra-temporal sense of the Last Judgement (and a temporal one), so it seems like it's left a mystery. I think this is pointed to in that, in the account of the Dormition, it's said that she died natural death, but she left no relics (her tomb was empty). I must say, I haven't looked into this in depth, so I can't say much in certainty. I haven't heard of NT Wright, but I'll definitely check him out.
Is there not an audio-only version of this video?
It should be on the podcast feed
@@DrJordanBCooper I searched as carefully as I know how; I did not find it. Thank you just the same.
@@welshmannn hmm... let me check and see if something happened to the episode. It should be there.
It wpuld not be logical for you to deny the possibility of the ever-existing Godhead of three omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent persons being ruptured but the distonct centre of consciousness called the Son giving up those divine powers, and yet maintain that the ever-existing love of the Father for the distinct centre of conscioisness called the Son eas broken when Jesus bore God's wrath for us. Both would be radical changes within the Godhead. The beauty of a trinitarian Godhesd is that if God is three distinct persons each possessing the same perfect attributes, then one of those Persons could give up those attributes to become human, and there would still be two Divine Persons in the Godhead to keep the universe running. Jesus gave up the glory he had with the Father before the world began, and received that glory back after his resurrection, and in that glory of the Father he came to some who had been standing before Him during his ministry.
Well said. Regarding the Kenosis, Jesus could give up his miraculous attributes but still keep his identity as God as the Logos made into a man. That Logos spiritual identity would not change in the Incarnation, right? The testimony of Scripture is that the Father was doing the miracles through Jesus, and not Jesus by his own attributes. It says, "Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (John 10:37-38). To humble himself and become a servant as a man, he would not have miraculous attributes, since men don't have them either. The idea that he had two natures is unbiblical and not logical. If he had partial knowledge and omniscience in the same person it would not work. Wouldn't his partial knowledge be obliterated by omniscience? You are right, he received those attributes back again in his glorified state.
From the thumbnail I thought this was a Seth Roget book review
If the interpretation is literal then there is a nature which is not God nor human
It was a human nature. Regarding the Kenosis, Jesus could give up his miraculous attributes but still keep his identity as God as the Logos made into a man. That Logos spiritual identity would not change in the Incarnation, right? The testimony of Scripture is that the Father was doing the miracles through Jesus, and not Jesus by his own attributes. It says, "Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (John 10:37-38). To humble himself and become a servant as a man, he would not have miraculous attributes, since men don't have them either. The idea that he had two natures is unbiblical and not logical. If he had partial knowledge and omniscience in the same person it would not work. Wouldn't his partial knowledge be obliterated by omniscience?