If we can "explain" the mystery of the Trinity so that our minds "grasp" it, we don't understand the first thing about it! Paradox is a key principle of orthodoxy, not a "problem" to be solved; and the same is true of mystery. As Saint Gregory of Nyssa, perhaps the most brilliant of the Greek Fathers, said of the Trinity, "Using riddles, as it were, we envisage a strange and paradoxical diversity-in-unity and unity-in-diversity."
@@7349yt The “explanation” provided does not encompass the mystery of the Trinity; it is also not foreign to what the Scriptures, Church Fathers, and Ecumenical Councils have affirmed. Furthermore, an apparent “paradox” is not the same as a logical impossibility, as logical impossibilities cannot exist in reality.
@@TheOrthodoxAlbanian First, I was responding to the initial comment in this string, which said "It is the best explanation and arg imo." I disagreed, if what is meant that it explains the Trinity, since the Monarchical Model, in my opinion, does not do a better job than the Latin one when the Latin one is properly understood rather than overextended, misunderstood or misrepresented. I accept the Monarchical Model as useful, by the way; just not better; and certainly not as "the best explanation" of either the Trinity or, more modestly, the teaching on the Trinity. Second, in the video Joshua claims early on that the problem with the Latin Model is that it is illogical (and hard for Muslims and others to get their minds around!). Again, I disagree (and it's meant to be hard, like the parables cf. Matt 13:10-17). Three and one can be a perfectly "logical", or to be more precise, rational statement, unless you are talking about mathematics or created things of the same kind, and when it comes to God, we are certainly NOT doing that. But even when speaking of things in this world that are of different kinds and yet related, it can still be perfectly reasonable, which is why the analogy works (and analogies never work perfectly because they are a way of saying, "it's a bit like this, but not completely"). For example, the universe as we experience it is "one" ("uni-verse") and yet this one universe is three distinct "hypostases": space, matter and time (energy being matter in space over time, so not a third but the union of the three). That's how we experience it: a "continuum" of the three as one; irreducible; co-extensive and co-equal. Space is as much the universe as are time and matter, but space is not time or matter; and the same for the other two; and so on. It's just an analogy, of course, because God is infinitely more than this; but not a totally useless one to make the point that there need not be any "illogical impossibility" in the idea of three in one, only an apparent contradiction from a certain perspective, i.e. a paradox; which, contrary to some definitions, is not the same as an illogical impossibility, it is only an "apparent contradiction" which is nevertheless true when you see it clearly and from a different perspective, say a three dimensional instead of a two dimensional one.
@@7349yt i think if you read the creed, the word God in one sense to the Father and God to the Son is God from God, this is probably inclined to Monarchical view even from the catholic church in the early days
@@learn1924 I don't deny that there is some usefulness in the monarchical model, I merely don't think it is better than the Latin, which is also flawed. All are flawed. How can they not be? If we could grasp the mystery of God in any one model, it wouldn't be God ...
Oh my Dr Joshua is a hero! I read his paper long ago, but i should read again. By the way can I take this video and make a review? Asking permission pls?
The original stream comes from Cameron’s channel, Capturing Christianity. I only took relevant excerpts and stitched them together. That being said, I have no issue with this version being used for your review!
His argument is that The God of Christianity is not supposed to be a Triple-Headed Cerberus or an abstract Divine Nature, The God is the Father, and the Son is Divine/God due to coming from the Father
@@Jeem196 HOWEVER-- the fathers of the Church also speak of the energy of God being the reason that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God. The energies of God are things we can say positively about Him, like love, mercy, justice-- even His existence, being, unity, and divinity are energies. This single and undivided energy is from the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. That is, the three persons have one being, one existence, one life, one love, and even that very unity is in the love of the Holy Spirit. "God is love" is not a platitude; it is a deep theological statement of God's inner life.
St. Vincent of Leirins famous axiom about "holding to what has been taught at all times everywhere" being the way to uphold Catholicity was historically in context a rebut to St. Augustines innovative musings on the Trinity. (Which btw after Augustine was corrected he refused to recirculate De Trinitate in his lifetime due to all the errors). The west later based their abberant theology on these musings once they lost the ability to speak and read greek in the Carolingian period loosing the Cappadocian view. Lyons and Florence dogmatized the heretical Trinitarian models of the trinity. Theres no walking that back for roman catholics unless they want to admit that infallibile/indefectible popes madea a mistake. Bertuzzi is going to come to Orthodoxy once he finaly does his homework on all of this. Shouldnt have jumped to papism so quickly...
He says that he ascribes to Roman Catholicism, though I’m not sure in what capacity. However, he is trying to reconcile the historical Cappadocian view with later Western developments, which, respectfully, won’t go far. Pray for his conversion!
@@EricAlHarb The 8th Ecumenical Council Anathematized the Filioque from the Creed. And this was accepted by Rome for almost 200 years, and now Roman Catholic Saints are basically saying that St. Photios was right.
The Church Fathers undoubtedly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son. They even undoubtedly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Both EOs and RCs can agree that these phrases are in the Church Fathers. Where we disagree is on the ***meaning*** of these phrases. So merely quoting Church Fathers who say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son does nothing to address the actual issues. The Roman Catholic church has dogmatized a heretical interpretation of these phrases in their council of Florence. Here’s what Florence says about the Son: "***the Son*** should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed ***as cause [αἰτίαν]*** , and according to the Latins as principle [άρχήν] of the subsistence [ύπἁρξεως] of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.” So Florence makes the Son a ***cause*** . Here’s what the Church Fathers have to say on the question of whether or not the Son is a cause: • St. Gregory the Theologian (Oration 34, X): ...all that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, ***EXCEPT CAUSALITY*** ... • St. Gregory of Nyssa (Letter 32, To the monk Philip, on the objections of the Arians, 8-10): Since in truth the Father does not precede the Son, but is coequal with him in all things ***EXCEPT CAUSALITY*** . • St. Dionysius the Areopagite (On the Divine Names, 2, 5): Further, there is one fountainhead of divinity, the Father, who is also the ***ONLY CAUSE*** and only Fount of divinity. • St. Cyril of Alexandria (Confession of Faith): For, among us there is ***ONE CAUSE*** and connection for both persons, namely, THE FATHER. • St. John of Damascus (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 8): And we DO NOT speak of the Son ***AS CAUSE*** or Father... • St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople (Ad Domnum Marinum Cypri presbyterum (Letter to the priest Marinus of Cyprus), PG 91, 134D-136C): With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit - they know in fact that THE FATHER IS THE ***ONLY CAUSE (αἰτία)*** of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession
@@phillwithskill1364 Slight correction, Florence only reaffirmed Lyons, the Council where the Dual Procession of the Holy Spirit was Dogmatised for RCs. Following that Council the Bulgarians and Georgians broke Communion with Rome as they saw that there was no turning back for them. They had fully come into error.
@@micahbre12 Pride usually. The Cappadocian Model of the Trinity is Dogmatised at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, that Dogma is Reaffirmed at the 8th Ecumenical Council by St. Photios. Both of these points are brought up by both St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus in their dialogs with the Latins.
But doesn't this simply do away with the paradox, which is an essential principle of orthodoxy (e.g. human and divine, transcendent and immanent, virgin and mother, etc)? Does it not reduce the ineffable mystery of God, "whom no one has seen or can see" (1 Tim 6:16), to a pretty mundane, not to say banal, version of either functional subordinationism or tritheism? Nicaea clearly says φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν *ἀληθινὸν* ἐκ Θεοῦ *ἀληθινοῦ*, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί ("God from God, Light from Light, *true* God from *true* God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father"). And terms like "a divine being" strike me as Arian, or Deist, or nominalist, or even downright pagan. God is not "a" being (paganism) of any kind, not even "the supreme being" (Deism), but is the subsistent act of being (Aquinas) as communion (Zizioulas); and "person" applied to God is neither what we moderns mean by person (an autonomous centre of individual consciousness and agency) nor is "person" (as either hypostasis or prosopon/persona) anything other than a barely adequate analogical/metaphorical use of language ("subsistence" / "an actor's mask"), rather than an unambiguous ontological or metaphysical definition.
Not at all. It's a debate of whether you study the Trinity from the point of view of the essence or the hypostasis. There's no subordination because there's no time neither three essences in the processions. So, as latin theology says the hypostases are coeternal and coessential.
@@emilianoestevarena5071 I don't think so. And I really don't understand what you mean by "because there's no time neither three essences in the processions". What do you mean by "no time"? What's time got to do with it? And is "essences" the right translation of "hypostases"? That really doesn't work in our Latin-based English. I think Joshua's argument creates more problems than it sets out to solve. After all, what's the problem with the "Latin Model" anyway? His main objection seems to be that it's paradoxical and hard to understand. I think that's part of its strength. God is not an idea that can be grasped by the human mind, and is ultimately impossible to understand completely and perfectly. "If you know what it is, it isn't God" as Augustine said. And while Augustine's own "psychological model" tends towards modalism, as long as we predicate the argument by reminding ourselves that no argument or model is going to be able to "grasp" the whole perfectly, then it is a partial image of limited use giving a small glimpse into the inexhaustible mystery. But, frankly, I find the "monarchical model" far more problematic and partial. I accept it, of course, as valid; just not very good; and precisely because it tends towards (and falls over into!) more heresies than Augustine's.
@@7349yt Start by understanding that time matters because of heresies that made Christ and the Sprit creations. Then, follow by understanding that essence is substance in general and hypostasis/person is substance in particular. What you are mentioning is the ineffability of the divine essence, but that's a whole different debate
@@emilianoestevarena5071 How does time matter because of heresies? The Latin Model is hardly making Christ and the Spirit creations. I don't understand what you mean or how that is relevant to what I was saying. The statement you made initially that I was questioning does not make grammatical sense in English: "because there's no time neither three essences in the processions." And it seems unrelated to the point I was making. Help me understand.
@@7349yt Let me be as clear as I can. You asked something about subordination in the Greek model. So I said there's no time neither three essences in the processions, so that God is one, and the Persons coeternal and consubstantial. Then, I went to say that the Latin model views processions from the essence, while the Greek model from the hypostases. Subordination implies that either the Father creates the other Hypostases or that they aren't consubstantial or coeternal to the Father. So, no time (coeternal) neither three essences (consubstantial) in the processions. By processions I mean the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit. If still in doubt, I can provide further clarifications.
If Jesus is fully God, I don't understand the logic of his argument. If Jesus is God in a derivative sense, then Arianism would be correct! I don't see his argument or emphasis aligning with what historical writings have claimed.
Any time you're trying to recreate a individually ascertained historical conception of The Church, you're doing the Protestant thing, rejecting what Jesus said, and assuming the gates of hell won against the Church. The Orthodox bishops, all but one, voted to return to full communion with the Catholic Church at the ecumenical council of Florence. That one, Mark, was so popular the population made him a "saint" and rejected their bishops and the emperor. Within a generation Constantinople fell. Christ wants unity.
Not unit based on a coerced lie. That council could never have occurred the way it did without the threat of Mehmed holding a scimitar at their backs. Rome and Florence should have provided unconditional protection for Constantinople and THEN had the council, no strings attached, just pure theological debate without any coercion whatsoever.
It doesn’t matter what any “fathers” say. What does God reveal to us about Himself in His word? What Scripture says is what matters, not what someone’s interpretation of scripture.
This is a protestant response from someone who doesn't know his own Christian history or how important those "Fathers" were in sharing and defending the Faith.
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he *interpreted* to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. - Luke 24:27 If Jesus interpreted the Scriptures then I don't think we're getting off the hook. Who's interpretation should we trust? The Fathers or yours?
That guy is a beast. Good to see more Monarchical Trinitarians coming out of the woods. It is the best explanation and arg imo.
If we can "explain" the mystery of the Trinity so that our minds "grasp" it, we don't understand the first thing about it! Paradox is a key principle of orthodoxy, not a "problem" to be solved; and the same is true of mystery. As Saint Gregory of Nyssa, perhaps the most brilliant of the Greek Fathers, said of the Trinity, "Using riddles, as it were, we envisage a strange and paradoxical diversity-in-unity and unity-in-diversity."
@@7349yt The “explanation” provided does not encompass the mystery of the Trinity; it is also not foreign to what the Scriptures, Church Fathers, and Ecumenical Councils have affirmed.
Furthermore, an apparent “paradox” is not the same as a logical impossibility, as logical impossibilities cannot exist in reality.
@@TheOrthodoxAlbanian First, I was responding to the initial comment in this string, which said "It is the best explanation and arg imo." I disagreed, if what is meant that it explains the Trinity, since the Monarchical Model, in my opinion, does not do a better job than the Latin one when the Latin one is properly understood rather than overextended, misunderstood or misrepresented. I accept the Monarchical Model as useful, by the way; just not better; and certainly not as "the best explanation" of either the Trinity or, more modestly, the teaching on the Trinity.
Second, in the video Joshua claims early on that the problem with the Latin Model is that it is illogical (and hard for Muslims and others to get their minds around!). Again, I disagree (and it's meant to be hard, like the parables cf. Matt 13:10-17). Three and one can be a perfectly "logical", or to be more precise, rational statement, unless you are talking about mathematics or created things of the same kind, and when it comes to God, we are certainly NOT doing that. But even when speaking of things in this world that are of different kinds and yet related, it can still be perfectly reasonable, which is why the analogy works (and analogies never work perfectly because they are a way of saying, "it's a bit like this, but not completely"). For example, the universe as we experience it is "one" ("uni-verse") and yet this one universe is three distinct "hypostases": space, matter and time (energy being matter in space over time, so not a third but the union of the three). That's how we experience it: a "continuum" of the three as one; irreducible; co-extensive and co-equal. Space is as much the universe as are time and matter, but space is not time or matter; and the same for the other two; and so on. It's just an analogy, of course, because God is infinitely more than this; but not a totally useless one to make the point that there need not be any "illogical impossibility" in the idea of three in one, only an apparent contradiction from a certain perspective, i.e. a paradox; which, contrary to some definitions, is not the same as an illogical impossibility, it is only an "apparent contradiction" which is nevertheless true when you see it clearly and from a different perspective, say a three dimensional instead of a two dimensional one.
@@7349yt i think if you read the creed, the word God in one sense to the Father and God to the Son is God from God, this is probably inclined to Monarchical view even from the catholic church in the early days
@@learn1924 I don't deny that there is some usefulness in the monarchical model, I merely don't think it is better than the Latin, which is also flawed. All are flawed. How can they not be? If we could grasp the mystery of God in any one model, it wouldn't be God ...
Thank you for the video and information!
Are there three subjects, "I"s, in God or one subject, one "I", when he/they refers to themself?
Oh my Dr Joshua is a hero! I read his paper long ago, but i should read again.
By the way can I take this video and make a review? Asking permission pls?
The original stream comes from Cameron’s channel, Capturing Christianity. I only took relevant excerpts and stitched them together.
That being said, I have no issue with this version being used for your review!
@@TheOrthodoxAlbanian thank you so much brother. I will tag and give credit to you for the video
Yes, come to Orthodoxy. The life of the world.
I actually still don’t understand what his argument is. For example, is he saying that we should not call Jesus God?
His argument is that The God of Christianity is not supposed to be a Triple-Headed Cerberus or an abstract Divine Nature, The God is the Father, and the Son is Divine/God due to coming from the Father
@@Jeem196 HOWEVER-- the fathers of the Church also speak of the energy of God being the reason that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God. The energies of God are things we can say positively about Him, like love, mercy, justice-- even His existence, being, unity, and divinity are energies. This single and undivided energy is from the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. That is, the three persons have one being, one existence, one life, one love, and even that very unity is in the love of the Holy Spirit. "God is love" is not a platitude; it is a deep theological statement of God's inner life.
@@Jeem196 I’ve never heard an argument within Orthodoxy that God is an either triple headed cerberus or an abstract spirit.
@@servantbenjamin919 They use the statement that God is 3 persons with one divine nature in hypostasis without distinction.
@@letruweldonothsa2622There is a distinction between the divine energy and divine essence/nature of god.
Wonder what Sam Shamoun has to say about his take on the Trinity.
I wonder what the Bible has to say
💪
St. Vincent of Leirins famous axiom about "holding to what has been taught at all times everywhere" being the way to uphold Catholicity was historically in context a rebut to St. Augustines innovative musings on the Trinity. (Which btw after Augustine was corrected he refused to recirculate De Trinitate in his lifetime due to all the errors).
The west later based their abberant theology on these musings once they lost the ability to speak and read greek in the Carolingian period loosing the Cappadocian view.
Lyons and Florence dogmatized the heretical Trinitarian models of the trinity. Theres no walking that back for roman catholics unless they want to admit that infallibile/indefectible popes madea a mistake.
Bertuzzi is going to come to Orthodoxy once he finaly does his homework on all of this. Shouldnt have jumped to papism so quickly...
Wow Is Dr joshua an eastern orthodox ?
He says that he ascribes to Roman Catholicism, though I’m not sure in what capacity. However, he is trying to reconcile the historical Cappadocian view with later Western developments, which, respectfully, won’t go far. Pray for his conversion!
@@TheOrthodoxAlbanianI’m not aware eastern fathers saying St Augustine’s idea of the trinity as being heterodox.
@@EricAlHarb
The 8th Ecumenical Council Anathematized the Filioque from the Creed. And this was accepted by Rome for almost 200 years, and now Roman Catholic Saints are basically saying that St. Photios was right.
Shame about the filioque not being omitted, otherwise that was excellent.
I debated on becoming EO but it's too easy to prove the filioque. Oh well
The Church Fathers undoubtedly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son. They even undoubtedly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Both EOs and RCs can agree that these phrases are in the Church Fathers. Where we disagree is on the ***meaning*** of these phrases. So merely quoting Church Fathers who say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son does nothing to address the actual issues. The Roman Catholic church has dogmatized a heretical interpretation of these phrases in their council of Florence. Here’s what Florence says about the Son:
"***the Son*** should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed ***as cause [αἰτίαν]*** , and according to the Latins as principle [άρχήν] of the subsistence [ύπἁρξεως] of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.”
So Florence makes the Son a ***cause*** . Here’s what the Church Fathers have to say on the question of whether or not the Son is a cause:
• St. Gregory the Theologian (Oration 34, X): ...all that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, ***EXCEPT CAUSALITY*** ...
• St. Gregory of Nyssa (Letter 32, To the monk Philip, on the objections of the Arians, 8-10): Since in truth the Father does not precede the Son, but is coequal with him in all things ***EXCEPT CAUSALITY*** .
• St. Dionysius the Areopagite (On the Divine Names, 2, 5): Further, there is one fountainhead of divinity, the Father, who is also the ***ONLY CAUSE*** and only Fount of divinity.
• St. Cyril of Alexandria (Confession of Faith): For, among us there is ***ONE CAUSE*** and connection for both persons, namely, THE FATHER.
• St. John of Damascus (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 8): And we DO NOT speak of the Son ***AS CAUSE*** or Father...
• St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople (Ad Domnum Marinum Cypri presbyterum (Letter to the priest Marinus of Cyprus), PG 91, 134D-136C): With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit - they know in fact that THE FATHER IS THE ***ONLY CAUSE (αἰτία)*** of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession
@@phillwithskill1364
Slight correction, Florence only reaffirmed Lyons, the Council where the Dual Procession of the Holy Spirit was Dogmatised for RCs. Following that Council the Bulgarians and Georgians broke Communion with Rome as they saw that there was no turning back for them. They had fully come into error.
Yeah like how do you go through all of what you're saying and still not omit the filioque.
@@micahbre12
Pride usually. The Cappadocian Model of the Trinity is Dogmatised at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, that Dogma is Reaffirmed at the 8th Ecumenical Council by St. Photios.
Both of these points are brought up by both St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus in their dialogs with the Latins.
But doesn't this simply do away with the paradox, which is an essential principle of orthodoxy (e.g. human and divine, transcendent and immanent, virgin and mother, etc)? Does it not reduce the ineffable mystery of God, "whom no one has seen or can see" (1 Tim 6:16), to a pretty mundane, not to say banal, version of either functional subordinationism or tritheism? Nicaea clearly says φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν *ἀληθινὸν* ἐκ Θεοῦ *ἀληθινοῦ*, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί ("God from God, Light from Light, *true* God from *true* God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father").
And terms like "a divine being" strike me as Arian, or Deist, or nominalist, or even downright pagan. God is not "a" being (paganism) of any kind, not even "the supreme being" (Deism), but is the subsistent act of being (Aquinas) as communion (Zizioulas); and "person" applied to God is neither what we moderns mean by person (an autonomous centre of individual consciousness and agency) nor is "person" (as either hypostasis or prosopon/persona) anything other than a barely adequate analogical/metaphorical use of language ("subsistence" / "an actor's mask"), rather than an unambiguous ontological or metaphysical definition.
Not at all. It's a debate of whether you study the Trinity from the point of view of the essence or the hypostasis. There's no subordination because there's no time neither three essences in the processions. So, as latin theology says the hypostases are coeternal and coessential.
@@emilianoestevarena5071 I don't think so. And I really don't understand what you mean by "because there's no time neither three essences in the processions". What do you mean by "no time"? What's time got to do with it? And is "essences" the right translation of "hypostases"? That really doesn't work in our Latin-based English.
I think Joshua's argument creates more problems than it sets out to solve. After all, what's the problem with the "Latin Model" anyway? His main objection seems to be that it's paradoxical and hard to understand. I think that's part of its strength. God is not an idea that can be grasped by the human mind, and is ultimately impossible to understand completely and perfectly. "If you know what it is, it isn't God" as Augustine said. And while Augustine's own "psychological model" tends towards modalism, as long as we predicate the argument by reminding ourselves that no argument or model is going to be able to "grasp" the whole perfectly, then it is a partial image of limited use giving a small glimpse into the inexhaustible mystery. But, frankly, I find the "monarchical model" far more problematic and partial. I accept it, of course, as valid; just not very good; and precisely because it tends towards (and falls over into!) more heresies than Augustine's.
@@7349yt Start by understanding that time matters because of heresies that made Christ and the Sprit creations. Then, follow by understanding that essence is substance in general and hypostasis/person is substance in particular. What you are mentioning is the ineffability of the divine essence, but that's a whole different debate
@@emilianoestevarena5071 How does time matter because of heresies? The Latin Model is hardly making Christ and the Spirit creations. I don't understand what you mean or how that is relevant to what I was saying. The statement you made initially that I was questioning does not make grammatical sense in English: "because there's no time neither three essences in the processions." And it seems unrelated to the point I was making. Help me understand.
@@7349yt Let me be as clear as I can. You asked something about subordination in the Greek model. So I said there's no time neither three essences in the processions, so that God is one, and the Persons coeternal and consubstantial. Then, I went to say that the Latin model views processions from the essence, while the Greek model from the hypostases. Subordination implies that either the Father creates the other Hypostases or that they aren't consubstantial or coeternal to the Father. So, no time (coeternal) neither three essences (consubstantial) in the processions. By processions I mean the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit. If still in doubt, I can provide further clarifications.
If Jesus is fully God, I don't understand the logic of his argument.
If Jesus is God in a derivative sense, then Arianism would be correct!
I don't see his argument or emphasis aligning with what historical writings have claimed.
Any time you're trying to recreate a individually ascertained historical conception of The Church, you're doing the Protestant thing, rejecting what Jesus said, and assuming the gates of hell won against the Church. The Orthodox bishops, all but one, voted to return to full communion with the Catholic Church at the ecumenical council of Florence. That one, Mark, was so popular the population made him a "saint" and rejected their bishops and the emperor. Within a generation Constantinople fell. Christ wants unity.
Not unit based on a coerced lie. That council could never have occurred the way it did without the threat of Mehmed holding a scimitar at their backs.
Rome and Florence should have provided unconditional protection for Constantinople and THEN had the council, no strings attached, just pure theological debate without any coercion whatsoever.
It doesn’t matter what any “fathers” say. What does God reveal to us about Himself in His word? What Scripture says is what matters, not what someone’s interpretation of scripture.
This is a protestant response from someone who doesn't know his own Christian history or how important those "Fathers" were in sharing and defending the Faith.
Ignorant comment
So god has never revealed himself in two thousand years is basically what youre saying.
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he *interpreted* to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. - Luke 24:27
If Jesus interpreted the Scriptures then I don't think we're getting off the hook. Who's interpretation should we trust? The Fathers or yours?
Imagine being a disciple of the apostles and then some guy 2000 years later says you know nothing about God or Christianity. lol