Classical Trinitarianism and Social Trinitarianism (Intro to Trinitarian Theology)

Рет қаралды 6,592

2 жыл бұрын

Our website: www.justandsinner.org
Patreon: www.patreon.com/justandsinner
Publishing: www.jspublishing.org
This is the second part in a series of videos on social Trinitarianism. I discuss classical Trinitarian theology, divine persons, and ad intra Trinitarian relations.

Пікірлер: 127

@FernandoDornelles4321 Жыл бұрын

I never saw someone teaching the trinity as clearly as you, you are a blessing from God sir

@PeterMartyrVermigli_is_cool 11 ай бұрын

Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". . : ) . .

@haydenfolks6311 2 жыл бұрын

As a Missouri Synod Pastor I'm ashamed to say I didn't know anything about social trinitarianism other than a vague recollection of having heard the term before. Now I'm reading up on it. Thanks for these videos!

@PeterMartyrVermigli_is_cool 11 ай бұрын

@Athabrose 2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Dr. Cooper for your work on this. Great presentation!

@johns5951 2 жыл бұрын

Great video, it is very helpful when you distinguish the view you are advocating from the view that you are critiquing, I had difficulties parsing that a bit in your first video. May God continue to bless your ministry!

@cultofmodernism8477 2 жыл бұрын

This is an absolutely excellent video. Perhaps the best video online.

@ScholasticLutherans 2 жыл бұрын

We did a great video discussing the definition of "Personhood" in the Lutheran scholastic tradition: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a8WWe5B4vtimlYE.html . Very tightly related to this whole discussion!

@augustinian2018 Жыл бұрын

I hope someday Dr. Cooper gets a chance to collaborate with you all on his channel-you do excellent work and I’d love to see you get a wider audience.

@fndrr42 2 жыл бұрын

Great video Jordan.

@marilynmelzian7370 4 ай бұрын

To follow on what you said about Greek philosophy I think it is important to remember that the Greek philosophers, even when they were wrong, were not being simply arbitrary. They were really looking at the world to try to understand it. Therefore, they saw, to a lesser or greater degree, something that really was. In a similar way, scripture very often assumes the same realities even when it does not overtly describe them. I found this in my study of natural law. Aquinas describes it in a way that is philosophical, but when you really start to look at the biblical text, you find that the scriptural law is assuming the same reality. For example, Aquinas describes five dispositions, or inclinations of human nature, and these fit very well with such things as the 10 Commandments. The inclination to remain in being is addressed by the command to not kill or steal. The inclination to procreate and educate children is addressed by laws concerning sexuality and family life which seek to protect the unity of the family. The inclination to seek the good and the truth are addressed by all of the laws that seek to prevent harm and deceit. The final inclination is to live in society, which is addressed by the many biblical laws which seek to make community possible. One finds many of the same laws and texts on wisdom throughout the ancient Near East. This is because they shared a similar perception of reality.

@eternaljunker8300 2 жыл бұрын

Was a joy to listen to.

@jesuscorona3562 2 жыл бұрын

Hi pastor Cooper, question, when will we see your critique of the essence energy distinction? Thank you and may God continue to bless you. Great lecture btw.

@AnUnhappyBusiness 2 жыл бұрын

Honestly, my understanding of Chemnitz’s Two Natures of Christ is that, although he might not have pushed it super hard, he seems to use it (essence/energy distinction) to explain the “True mode of the communication of the Majesty” chapter 23. He makes a distinction between God’s essence and God’s activities (and even puts ενεργια in brackets by the word activities in multiple places in that chapter) and also uses the very quotes from Irenaeus, Nyssa, Cyril, and Damascene that are used to support that doctrine, as His defense of the presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. And, many EO will say that a doctrine of simplicity without the essence/energy distinction doesn’t allow for a real presence of Christ; this is a critique I have heard before from the EO of Rome. It’s something I am trying to look into more and more because I think that is really what Chemnitz is saying, and it’s even hinted at in the opening of articles viii of the solid declaration of the formula of concord. Also, it’s no real problem for the Lutherans when you consider that in his later disputations Luther almost always brings up the 4th Laterans upholding of what he considered to be an error by Lombard as an example of why we should not trust the Roman councils.

@jesuscorona3562 2 жыл бұрын

@@AnUnhappyBusiness im glad Lutherans do not pick a side in that debate, I don't think you can justify either side using revelation so you end up relying too much on philosophy and scholastic metaphysics in my opinion.

@seanbasa2248 2 жыл бұрын

@@AnUnhappyBusiness Have you read Calov's Systema actually because he is closer to the Eastern view on this question than say Gerhard is in his Loci.

@cristian_5305 2 жыл бұрын

It would be aweseome for you to address the Filioque

@benmizrahi2889 2 жыл бұрын

Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics by Hoenecke is in fact available through Northwestern Publishing house.

@BrotherIonatan 2 жыл бұрын

Magnificent!

@newreformationapologetics4953 2 жыл бұрын

Could you possibly clarify more about the order vs the rank that is inherently incorrect because they all share the same divine essence?

@presbygoose 2 жыл бұрын

New audio setup? Sounds good!

@frederickwilliams3319 Жыл бұрын

At marker 49:22 you said prayers always go to the whole trinity. Is this also true of the prayers of Jesus? Do the incarnate son pray to and worship God the Son?

@FearAndTrembling 4 ай бұрын

I noticed no one answered this, but I think this is a great question. I discovered recently the answer is that the incarnate son has two wills, and the human will prays to the divine will. So, in Gethsemane, when Jesus says, "Not my will but yours be done", that is the human will that is submitting to the divine will. The divine will is the same will of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (they do not have separate wills), but that human will only began existing when the Son became flesh. The divine will has, of course, always existed.

@PeterMartyrVermigli_is_cool 11 ай бұрын

And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 . .

@kjhg323 2 жыл бұрын

Re: analogical predication: you don't need to appeal to analogy to say that a human person is different from a divine person. For instance, an isosceles triangle is different from a scalene triangle, but the word "triangle" is used univocally. For persons, you could say that having an individual will is not part of the definition of a person in general, but only part of the definition of human persons specifically. Then the word "person" is applied univocally between us and God. Of course, it may be the case that the English word "person" is not a perfect term and therefore must be understood analogically; my point is that you don't need to accept that all language about God is analogical in order to accept that there is only one divine will.

@christophekeating21 2 жыл бұрын

In the case of triangles, that common ground is "a geometrical figure with three angles." If you omit that, you lost what triangle means. In the case of "person" what is it without "having an individual will" what does it mean to be an individual person without an individual will. What is that common ground like with the word triangle?

@toomanymarys7355 2 жыл бұрын

@@christophekeating21 Personhood defined for human beings always results in all humans not being persons some of the time and some humans being persons none of the time. It is only by relationship to the perfect example of personhood that we are more persons than an octopus.

@truth.speaker Жыл бұрын

You seemed to say "there is only one divine will", but at Luke 22:41, 42 we read "And he withdrew from them about a stone’s throw away, and he bent his knees and began to pray, saying: “Father, if you want to, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, let, not my will, but yours take place.”" Jesus was asking, pleading, begging for another way out. Yet he acquiesced to the will of the Father. He clearly said "let not my will take place", showing his will differed at that time from the Father's will. So if Jesus is fully God, and if there is only 1 divine will, how could his will for that moment differ from his Father's? Did Jesus have 2 wills? A divine and a human will? If we say "sure, Jesus had 2 wills" we have split Jesus from being God because God only has 1 will - not 2 conflicting wills simultaneously. Since you said "there is only one divine will." how are we to views this will of Jesus that differed with his Father's will? Surely we have no choice but to conclude that his will could not have been divine.

@romeostojka123 11 ай бұрын

@@truth.speakerclassical trinity teaches that Christ share two wills after incarnation human will and divine. So when Christ your will be done not mine he talking his human will here that subject to the divine will that shared with the father the son and Holy Ghost

@truth.speaker 11 ай бұрын

@@romeostojka123 that is fascinating. I just researched it and this is what I found - The difference between dyothelitism and monothelitism is that dyothelitism is a Christological doctrine that holds that Christ has two wills, one divine and one human, while monothelitism is a Christological doctrine that holds that Christ has only one will, which is either divine or a fusion of divine and human. Dyothelitism is based on the belief that Christ has two natures, divine and human, and that each nature has its own proper will. Therefore, Christ's human will is not absorbed or replaced by his divine will, but rather acts in harmony with it. Dyothelitism was affirmed by the Third Council of Constantinople in 680-681 as the orthodox doctrine of the Christian faith¹. Monothelitism is based on the belief that Christ has one nature, either divine or a mixture of divine and human, and that this nature has only one will. Therefore, Christ's human will is either nonexistent or subordinate to his divine will. Monothelitism was proposed as a compromise between the Chalcedonian and the non-Chalcedonian churches in the seventh century, but was rejected and condemned as heretical by the Third Council of Constantinople².

@wolvadora9049 2 жыл бұрын

Those bots are disgusting! 🤮🤢 God bless you Pastor Cooper!

@homebrewer7 2 жыл бұрын

Can I hang onto ephesians 2:8,9 and John 6:47, and Roman's 6:23 ?

@AnUnhappyBusiness 2 жыл бұрын

True or false: Chemnitz endorsed the basic premises of the essence/energy distinction in chapter 23 of the Two Natures, and his argumentation there is the basis for the argumentation of Article 8 of the solid declaration of the formula. I mean, he uses the same quotes of Irenaeus and others which the EO use as their examples, and not only that but borrows heavily from argumentation of John of Damascus in the very passages where he (John) presents the essence and energy distinction

@toomanymarys7355 2 жыл бұрын

EO are now saying energies are uncreated. But the classical view is that the uncreated energy is identical with the essence, and there are created energies in addition to that, which Thomas Aquinas also talks about.

@AnUnhappyBusiness Жыл бұрын

@@jonamarinch read chapter 23 on the true communication, and realize he says we must hold to a distinction between God as He is, and God and created things. This distinction is precisely the distinction Aquinas denies when he says things such as God’s power is His essence, and His power is what He does. Whereas the essence energy distinction holds these as two different things, sort of how an operating system (the hardware itself) is not the software, there is a distinction between a virtual reality and the device used to create it. The device is necessary and the virtual reality is contingent. They are related but there is a distinction. And by the way, read the apology of the formula of concord starting around page 218 and realize the Reformed argument against the presence of Christ in the Sacrament rested on Aquinas’s Aristotelian categories: the EO contend Aquinas has a contradiction between his doctrine of God and his doctrine of the Incarnation; the Reformed simply resolved that contradiction and eliminated Christ from being able to be bodily present in the Sacrament.

@deadalivemaniac Жыл бұрын

@@toomanymarys7355 Saints like Athanasius, Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and many others talk about God’s energies as eternal yet separate from His essence. Augustine serves as the archetype Rome (and Protestantism later) would follow with ADS.

@MortenBendiksen 2 жыл бұрын

A proper understanding of personhood would see that it is actually dependant on the whole. It is a focus point, perhaps. A magnet has one power, but at all points there are the two polarities. It makes no sense to try to isolate the "negative" polarity from the whole of the magnetic power. The negative polarity is nevertheless real. It is only the analytical mind that insists on separating in order to understand. The imaginative mind can relate to reality as it is, and see that there are no real separations anywhere, though there are real distinctions, points of focus, perspectives, etc. and that they only make sense in light of the whole.

@MortenBendiksen 2 жыл бұрын

Abother way it can be seen, gravity is just one, though it gives rise to both up and down. Up and down is distinguishable everywhere, though one does not operate somewhere where the other does not, and one can't isolate up from down. No matter how far down, there will still be up also. This is how everything exists, though our minds insist on separation to be able to apply clear logic.

@collettewhitney2141 2 жыл бұрын

Another amazing presentation Dr Jordan Cooper. However I need some advice. My close friend is losing his faith. And he is bringing to doubt the existence of God What can do to help him God bless you brother in christ Jesus ✝️✝️✝️✝️✝️💗💞💖

@jesuscorona3562 2 жыл бұрын

Im no expert but here i go with my two cents. listen to the Greg Bahnsen debates, lectures. Learn some presuppositional apologetics, they are really effective arguments against atheism, naturalism, empiricism, dualism and and other forms of theism. If you want some insights from a living good presuppositional apologist, listen to Jay Dyer and watch his debates. Besides that, lots n lots of prayer. Hope this helps, God bless you.

@beowulf.reborn 2 жыл бұрын

First, pray for Him (and recruit (at least) two or three others to pray as well). Second, demonstrate God's love to Him (pray God will reveal Himself through you, and again get others involved, where two or three are gathered in Christ's Name, Christ is present). Third, study the word with him (and others) Fourth, get him to go to Church with you (and others). Fifth, get him to live out the commandments of Christ with you (and others), go and do the things God tells us to do, and when you do that God's presence will make Himself known to you all (again, where two or three are gathered). Sixth, find online resources to answer any tough questions he might have. Discovery Institute is great for Science stuff, as is Reasons to Believe (they are Old Earth Creationists), or Answer in Genesis (for Young Earth Creation alternatives), and Reasonable Faith gives great Philosophical answers to many questions. From there you'll find plenty more channels and resources to use. God bless you and your friend, I will pray for you too.

@collettewhitney2141 2 жыл бұрын

@@jesuscorona3562 hi there thanks for the reply. And your kindness and advice much appreciated God bless you ✝️

@collettewhitney2141 2 жыл бұрын

@@beowulf.reborn hi there blessed brother in christ Jesus. Thank you so very much for your kind response. And your wonderful recommendation. And advice God bless your 💖💖💖✝️✝️✝️

@jesuscorona3562 2 жыл бұрын

@@collettewhitney2141 you're so welcome sister! If you really get into presup apologetics you will find that the truth Christianity is not reduced to probability but of total certainty, in that, in order for anything in this reality (ethics, cience, life, the self, meaning, argumentation, human dignity, laws of logic, laws of nature, etc) to make sense the Christian narrative has to be true.

@cristian_5305 2 жыл бұрын

35:32 this is essentially the thomistic position

@christophekeating21 2 жыл бұрын

It sounds a lot like classical trinitarianism is modalism in self-denial. The distinction of persons is proclaimed as "real" but we'll deny all possible distinctions while affirming there is one. From your quote of Augustine, the distinction is simply one of expression (we say three persons because we have to say something). How is that better than saying that the distinction is one of human experience? What's wrong with saying the three divine persons (three wills) are fully united in purpose and fully share the undivided divine essence and work together? A natural reading of Luke 22:42 would be that the Son submitted his will to the Father's, that means they don't have the same will.

@toomanymarys7355 2 жыл бұрын

That's the human will of Christ before glorification.

@MarvelGamer2023 Жыл бұрын

There is no distinction of wills in the person of Jesus Christ.

@MarvelGamer2023 Жыл бұрын

Hey. I have a Social Trinitarian server on Discord. Do you use Discord?

@drbkjv 10 ай бұрын

Sounds like it. Yes. Modalism in self denial lol. I wonder why Classical Trinitarians would call modalism a heresy but no the tri theism of social trinity (in their perspective). Both believe God has one mind, one spirit, one will, once center of self consciousness.

@victorbennett5414 Ай бұрын

Faith like a child... There is simplicity in Christ and false teachers corrupt that simplicity. 2 Cor 11 : 3 The male child born, is no other than God incarnate. Isaiah 9 : 6 The Word was eternal life in the Father, and the Father sent forth that Word of Life by which he made all things and came united with the Word he sent. John 14 : 11; John 16 : 28 ; Isaiah 55 : 11 ; John 1 : 1 ; 1 John 1 : 1-2; Col 2 : 8-9; Hebrews 11 : 3 "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 2 Cor 4 : 6 "I and my Father are one." John 10 : 30

@NnannaO 2 жыл бұрын

Though it isn't relevant to the video (which I intend to watch later), I wanted to ask if a Lutheran could explain or point me to a good resource on Lutheran justification. I don't understand what the advantage is of being declared righteous more than once (Abraham in Gen. 12 according to Hebrews, and Gen. 15). The Reformed view justification as a one time event, but you guys don't seem to, and it doesn't seem that believe that believers gain more righteousness before God, nor do they lose it (unless they apostatize) so long as they are believing. Thanks

@davidgrasch3869 2 жыл бұрын

I'll try my hand at answering your question. Generally, the Reformed and Lutherans treat justification by faith similarly. The emphasis on what I will term "continual justification" isn't usually a focus of the dogmatics texts (which are usually focused on marking out faith vs works), so you'll have trouble finding an explanation there. Continual justification is a doctrine that comes into focus when justification and "simultaneously saint and sinner" meet. Believers are justified by Christ and this justification is applied in time. However, believers are not entirely purged from sin while here on this sinful Earth. Since believers sin, they are continually justified and renewed. Christ doesn't atone for sin more than once, but his promises of grace and love are delivered more than once. Justification can be spoken of in several ways. It can be spoken of as a single event, though this is usually in reference to the cross. It can be spoken of in terms of a past event in one's life, but this is unusual in Lutheran circles. Most emphasis is placed on Christ's atonement. As you have mentioned, it can also be spoken of as an enduring reality. In this sense, the benefits of the atonement are applied continually.

@davidgrasch3869 2 жыл бұрын

It's an interesting question. I don't think the Reformed would disagree really. Instead, they shift focus to the past event of conversion. There is some variation in Reformed beliefs, so I could be wrong. What do you think?

@AnUnhappyBusiness 2 жыл бұрын

Also read Luther’s freedom of a Christian and his Two kinds of righteousness, both available for free on various websites. Read them in full

@davidgrasch3869 2 жыл бұрын

Jordan Cooper writes on this in pages 171-173 in The Great Divide.

@NnannaO 2 жыл бұрын

@@davidgrasch3869 Thanks for going above and beyond to help me out, man. I will check those sources

@ryandawson2877 6 ай бұрын

If one believes in three wheels, three minds, three centers of consciousness, etc., it is very difficult for me to understand them as not logically having to believe in three gods/deities/entities. I am definitely not a social trinitarian by any stretch of the imagination.

@drbkjv 10 ай бұрын

Why is belief in Tritheism ( social Trinity/mormon belief) not ‘ heresy’ , but believing God is One ( Oneness/modalism) is ‘ heresy’? Hear o Israel the Lord is one Lord. Wouldn’t that put any kind of tri theism way way more on the heresy spectrum? Who decided what is ‘ heresy’. Thats very strange. Being wrong or incorrect is fine, but who chooses these ‘ heresy’ labels for extreme Monotheism but rejects the heresy label for tritheism? Strange.

@marilynmelzian7370 2 ай бұрын

I think tritheism is heresy.

@mysticmouse7261 2 жыл бұрын

Wow so much a priori (synthetic) theology attempting to sound the Trinitarian doctrine. Angels on the head of a pin

@losmcdonald 2 жыл бұрын

Me, a complete noob in any of these things and what they are 🤓✍🏽

@ChericeGraham Жыл бұрын

Calvin has been misinterpreted on eternal generation. If one reads the entirety of book 1, chapter 13 of the Institutes, it is quite clear that he held to the traditional, orthodox view of eternal generation.

@beowulf.reborn 2 жыл бұрын

Concerning God having wings, is it not true that He can have wings if He so wants to? For instance, when the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ in a bodily form as a dove, He had wings. And so, in virtually every encounter that a creature has with God, where God reveals Himself, He chooses a form in which to appear, and so it can be said He has arms, He has nostrils, etc. Just not that He is limited to having arms, or wings, or nostrils. By His nature He can have any form He chooses, or no form at all, but when He has a form, it is no less real than when He has no form. He is the one who perceives of Himself in a form, and take son that form. I don't know, it just seems strange to me that people shy away from speaking about God in ways that He is perfectly comfortable speaking of Himself.

@davidgrasch3869 2 жыл бұрын

I think Jordan is disturbed by the idea that God would have wings from eternity, meaning that wings are naturally part of who he is, not how he chooses to show himself. I think the idea is that just adding all of the descriptors in the Bible together as eternal realities (not as an indwelling of his creation or a revelation in a "temporary form), you would make God a chimera. I could be wrong though.

@PeterMartyrVermigli_is_cool 11 ай бұрын

@honey2badger 2 жыл бұрын

So how again is this not philosophical? To me it seems the economic trinity is spoken of in more real terms whereas the imminent trinity is very philophical. The internal workings of the trinity seems almost entirely philosophical where as the external workings seem more "real" to me. If that makes sense.

@romeostojka123 2 жыл бұрын

And it’s also real ur aka ur heretic for affirming modalism

@honey2badger 2 жыл бұрын

@@romeostojka123 you again? Didn't we already establish you don't know what your talking about in our previous thread? Your the guy who seems to think a person in the trinity is someone who has a nature thereby making God either 3 parts of a nature or 3 nature's themselves. Instead of name calling you should probably learn orthodox teachings so you don't teach heretical views. Please stop teaching your social trinitarianism and learn classical trinitarianism. Glad this video finally explains what a person is in the context of the trinity so you can just watch it and be corrected. Bet you still can't explain. Lol

@romeostojka123 2 жыл бұрын

@@honey2badger yea we know modalist become dishonest people so they try to twist other peoples words so they promote there modalism like you. Please stop preaching ur garbage modalism and repent affirm classical Trinity

@honey2badger 2 жыл бұрын

@@romeostojka123 please leave me alone man. Your not edifying me or giving me a rebuke with any substance. I was kind and asked you to explain my "supposed errors" in the last videos conversation. You then got frustrated with me because you couldn't explain any of it. Get your theological position and verbiage figured out before you rebuke others. Your not acting like a Christian. Speak truth in love, don't verbally assault others on a Christian forum trying to get clarity on a subject.

@romeostojka123 2 жыл бұрын

@@honey2badger no you didn’t you ask on purpose to twist my words. Dishonesty isn’t also christian thing

@MortenBendiksen 2 жыл бұрын

You seem to have this notion that we can just keep repeating what Chemnitz said or whom ever. But that is the source of the problem. We change. The "heretical" view is just s reflection of the fact that just repeating the same old words does not work. The heretical views are completely necessary to make the discussion a lively one, and not just a matter of repeating propositional statements which have no meaning. It is precisely because of this tendency to just repeat the old spelling, which actually undermines peoples ability to keep in touch with the reality they were once talking about. But words are alive, and form the basis our our very world, the only thing they do not do, is stay still through time.

@lonnierandall7882 Жыл бұрын

1Co 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is ONE Spirit. The Spirit is God's essence. Spirit is what God is, and the Spirit He is is the Holy Spirit. That is the missing key to understanding "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. The reason the Father and the Son are One is because they are the Holy Spirit. This scripture makes it plain. The Spirit is also how we are one in them when we believe. Ro 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but IN THE SPIRIT, if so be that THE SPIRIT OF GOD DWELL IN YOU. Now if any man have not THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he is none of his. 10 ¶ And if CHRIST be IN YOU, the body is dead because of sin; but THE SPIRIT IS LIFE because of righteousness. 11 But if THE SPIRIT OF HIM THAT RAISED UP JESUS from the dead DWELL IN YOU, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by HIS SPIRIT THAT DWELLETH IN YOU. Ro 12:5 So WE, BEING MANY, ARE ONE BODY IN CHRIST, and every one members one of another. 1Co 10:17 For we being many are ONE BREAD, and ONE BODY: for we are all partakers of that ONE BREAD. 1Co 12:12 ¶ For as THE BODY IS ONE, AND HATH MANY MEMBERS, and all the members of that ONE BODY, being many, are ONE BODY: SO ALSO IS CHRIST. In the exact same way, Jesus said,... Joh 10:30 I AND my Father ARE ONE. Joh 17:11 ¶ And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that THEY MAY BE ONE AS WE ARE: (IN THE SAME WAY) Joh 17:20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for THEM ALSO WHICH SHALL BELIEVE IN ME through their word; 21 THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE; AS THOU, FATHER, ART IN ME, AND I IN THEE, THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE ONE IN US: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that THEY MAY BE ONE, AS WE ARE ONE: (IN THE SAME WAY) 23 I IN THEM AND THOU IN ME, that they may be made perfect IN ONE; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Joh 17:24 ¶ Father, I WILL THAT THEY ALSO, WHOM THOU HAS GIVEN ME, BE WITH ME WHERE I AM; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for THOU LOVEDST ME BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD. 25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. 26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I IN THEM. Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another COMFORTER, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for HE DWELLETH WITH YOU, AND SHALL BE IN YOU. 18 ¶ I will not leave you comfortless: I WILL COME TO YOU. Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and WE WILL COME UNTO HIM, AND MAKE OUR ABODE WITH HIM. Jesus comes to us in the Holy Spirit. The Spirit doesn't leave them, it emanates from them. That is how God is omnipresent. His Spirit permeates every place in heaven and earth. In the book of Revelation, in the last two chapters, where it talks about the new heaven and the new earth, we find no mention of the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit is there, in the Father and the Son. What we do see is a river of life flowing out of the throne. Re 22:1 ¶ And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. Joh 7:37 ¶ In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) Joh 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. 11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? 12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? 13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. Trinity isn’t a good explanation of theFather, Son and Holy Spirit. Look at these references to the Holy Spirit. These are from the kjv. Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, the Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of Jesus Christ, Spirit of the Lord , Spirit of Christ, Spirit of the living God, Spirit of our God, Spirit of your Father, holy Spirit of God, Spirit which is of God, Spirit of His Son, his Holy Spirit, My Spirit, His Spirit, the Lord is that Spirit, Spirit of grace, holy Spirit of promise, Spirit of adoption, Spirit of life in Christ, Spirit of life from God, the Spirit itself. The way the Spirit is described in the scripture as being "of God" and "of His Son" and being "His Spirit", it doesn't sound like a third person. I don't think the Spirit is a third person. I think it is what God is. Just as you and I are human beings, the Father and Son are Holy Spirit. Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Spirit is what God is, and the Spirit He is is the Holy Spirit.

@claudiozanella256 2 жыл бұрын

In the WHOLE GOSPELS DISCLOSURE Jesus FORGOT to say that God is a triune God!!! "My Father is greater than I", Jesus forgot the Holy Spirit, is He also greater? "On that day YOU will know that I am in my Father, you are in me, and I am in you." Jesus neglected the Holy Spirit. "...so that THEY all may be ONE, as YOU, FATHER, are IN ME, and I IN YOU. THEY also may be ONE IN US" Jesus again neglected the Holy Spirit... "...the hour, no man knows, no, not the ANGELS in heaven OR THE SON, but the FATHER ONLY knows." Jesus remembered the angels but forgot to say that the Holy Spirit knows the hour too! "ye shall see the SON OF MAN sitting on the right hand OF POWER and..." Jesus again neglected the Holy Spirit, who is sitting there... "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" this one is more serious: in the intimacy with the Father Jesus neglects the third person of the Trinity!! The Trinity only comes from JUST ONE misunderstood verse: "Baptize them in the name of..." and from the Jesus' baptism: they didn't get that the SPEAKER THERE WAS THE HOLY SPIRIT, i.e. the Father in form of a spirit. Only TWO Persons there" No Comforter who comes down the sky!!! He will only come after Jesus' death to relieve Him: "If I do not go the COMFORTER WILL NOT COME to you." No Trinity exists, God is only made by the Son and by the Father - who is a spirit here ("God is a spirit") -: "On that day you will know that (2) I am in (1) my Father, (1) you are in (2) me, and (2) I am in (1) you." "...THOSE WHO will believe in me through their word so that they all may be one, as you, (1) Father, are in (2) me, and (2) I in 1. you. They also may be one in US (1) + (2)...." CRYSTAL CLEAR: THOSE PEOPLE WILL BE WITH THE FATHER AND THE SON, PERIOD. No third divine person exists. Matthew 28:19 includes both God who is a "spirit" (the Holy Spirit) and God who is "normal", i.e. NOT a spirit (the Father). Nobody ever met God in his "normal" form ("the world has not known you"). God who is NOT a spirit is the SOURCE of the Spirit of God. God can be here with his words and actions, but NOBODY IS HERE in reality. This is why He is like a spirit here, He is the Spirit of God.

@romeostojka123 2 жыл бұрын

Yes u the m.o.r.o.n who rejects God being eternal who transcends time