The Filioque was introduced to England by Saint Theodore, of happy memory. According to the Orthodox Church, the Filioque is a heresy but Theodore is a saint. If we ever manage to make sense of this, then we might consider restricting the Filioque to those countries like Spain, Portugal and England which originally adopted it. In 1182 several thousand Latin Christians in Constantinople were sold in slavery to the Turk. We are still waiting for clarification from the Orthodox Church as to whether these enslaved persons were validly baptised. Any chance of an apology?
No, Catholic brothers, not for "good will", but for the sake of truth and respect for God, that you should do that. Also, you got to campaign to overthrow Vatican II
@JL-CptAtom I used Jesus and his direct disciples own words. Perhaps you could elaborate for me? I'm willing to acknowledge Orthodoxy if it's convincing.
@JL-CptAtom Jeez I just saw this. You're machine gunning arguments. I would rather stick to one and hammer it out although I'll answer all your objections. However, my answers are general intentionally because I want to focus on Psalm 82. How many gods (not Gods) are in Psalm 82? Please use the KJV because I want to do this on your terms. I count at least 3 PLUS The Most High himself. God says there are unjust gods (at least 2) which implies at least 1 was a good boy. Do you agree? 1. Words change meaning. Fair except we're not really giving God much credit here if that's the route you're going to take. I'm not going to die on the "begotten" hill though. I'll concede to move on to bigger fish. 2. How can you be saved by a creature? I would say that The Father is the source, The Son is an instrument. 3. The Greek phrase is ego eimi transliterated meaning I am, or I existed. The blind beggar in John 9 says the same thing to confirm "yeah I was the blind dude." This doesn't prove anything other than a preexistent Christ so I'm cool with that. 4. Tradition is the worst argument of them all because you're talking 1700 years and the church has existed since Adam 6,000 years ago. Your creed just won history is all. Maybe you're right though, please tell me how many gods you count in Psalm 82 and I'll move on to Jesus quoting it.
@JL-CptAtom This is the problem with machine gunning. You already forgot what you said. You quoted the KJV. I'm trying to be easy going but whatever. I'm trying to prove that Jesus is a deity separate from the Father but you're reading into the text trinitarian belief. Those aren't humans in Psalm 82. Reread it, God tells them they will die like men (because they are fallen angels) and that they're princes. They are sons of the Most High. If they're humans that deified then I'm cool with that too. Either way doesn't really bother me, they're gods not to be confused with The Most High. In John 10 Jesus quotes it. In most bibles the Jews accuse him of making himself God. The New World translation ACCURATELY translates the Jews accusation of Jesus making himself "a god" and not The Most High because he compares himself to fallen gods in Psalm 82. If they accused him of the opposite then Jesus didn't answer them and is incoherent. Read what the text says for yourself. Don't quote me someone else. If the Bible tells me something I'm going to believe it. Jesus is a god sent to do God's work.
@JL-CptAtom How are the gods of Psalm 82 imitating the God-man if he doesn't even exist outside of the heavenly realm yet? This is a pre-Christian text.
I think I understand this but I just want to make certain - he’s saying something very simple but with complex language from what I can tell. Which is not wrong it’s just truncating ideas with a lot of moving parts into faster explanation. So: God is not just transcendent impersonal force, he is personal Christ and the Spirit are personal, but not separate deities The last comment he makes - they stem from the father as God manifest? They do not come from nowhere. But again, not separate deities. Hope I’m understanding correctly.
"God is not just transcendent impersonal force, he is personal" Yes, but God is found as 3 hypostatis: Father, Son, Spirit. Whenever God speaks or is claimed to be heard by prophets, in fact one of the hypostatis is doing the talking/manifesting, and it's almost always the Logos (Christ), because the Logos can be observed, even pre-incarnation (before the Logos took on human nature in space and time). "Christ and the Spirit are personal, but not separate deities" All three hypostatis are persons, the Father, Son and Spirit are ALL personal, and *distinct* from eachother, but all united in one essence, the divine essence, they are co-substantial (homo-ousia). I would rather not use "separate entities" as it introduces vague language. There is only one God, with only one divine essence, which is unknowable and infinite in many ways. God however has energies (energia in greek = actions). God's actions, from our perspective, are revealed in three hypostatis, the persons of the Trinity, but only the Logos can directly manifest to be observable, the Spirit can influence people in more subtle ways and is "present" for certain actions, but is never seen, and the Father also cannot be seen or heard, the Father is the eternal source that eternally begets the son, and from whom the Spirit eternally proceeeds from. Crucial: the Son and Spirit are not created by the Father, Christ is eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit eternally proceeeds from the Father, which is a completely different status, an a-temporal one. This is crucial since the Trinity does not contain anything created, God is eternal, so are his three hypostatis. You also seem to be conflating the Father as God manifest, in fact the Logos(Christ) is the only hypostatis that we can see directly manifest in nature in an observable way. In the Old Testament, Moses and a few other prophets claim to speak to God either indirectly or, in the case of Moses "face to face", which means they had to have spoken to the Logos (Christ pre-incarnation), since Christ is literally the image (ikonos/icon) of the Father, and only Christ can be seen directly.
I'd like to suggest, if I may, that you read Chapter 3 - God in Trinity from "The mystical theology of the Eastern Church" by Vladimir Lossky. @@mrhanky5851
Brother, what about when few of the apostles and Jesus were in the mountains and the transfiguration occurred and they heard a voice from the sky? Was that still the Logos or the Father??
@@marcokite I didn't ask how I can make them to understand but how can I explain. Living in rural East Africa I can say there is an additional challenge to explaining stuff like this to people who aren't already invested. If you live in a social circle that values intellectual stuff you are more likely to apprehend this kind of material, it's not an intelligence problem, it's a cultural one. Trying to engineer ways to talk about this level of theology (especially to people of different faith backgrounds) is a significant and legitimate challenge. Obviously this applies to America and Europe in its own way but I would say the problem gets a lot worse in a global south, Muslim immersed situation because the concepts are just vastly different and unfamiliar on top of their already existing complexity.
ONE God, three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All equal in substance, nature, essence, and attributes of deity. Each has different rolls and functions at times but are in agreement, harmony, and work in unison on ALL things.
@@marcokitelets be honest, probably not, average iq of 66. but this doesnt take away any agency from them, every person regardless of his iq can come to know God; faith isnt "intellectual", what Jay's doing is giving an intellectual/logical justification for his beliefs, thats what he does; most of the saints dont, you dont have to, but its good to have strong justifications for your beliefs of course (the foremost being a Love and Fear of God) its not hateful to recognize the diversity/differences of peoples across the world, this is how God made us, we all have that base dignity regardless of any difference in attributes
He is quoting the 22nd Psalm which was a prophecy of His death - read it. it begins with those words. also some say that Our Lord voluntarily forsook the Divine consolation on the Cross. but the quotation from Psalms is 100%.
I’m not sure who your audience is in you videos. Are you speaking catechetically to other Orthodox people, or is your audience non Orthodox? If for Orthodox, solid video clip. If for non-Orthodox, notably Catholics, it fell pretty flat regarding tone & delivery. I mean, “hard headed & stupid...and if they would just ‘humble’ themselves...” - haha. Not gunna win hearts and minds that way, I can promise you that.
This is more directed toward the context of the polemics that were- and continue to be- being exchanged between him and papist apologists. It isn’t aimed at the common Catholic who seeks truth in good faith, as Mr Dyer was, himself, a Roman Catholic for many years. I believe his biggest calling right now is to deliver the information about orthodox theology that is so sorely lacking in English speaking cultures, particularly when compared to the endless public apologetics favoring Papism (and Protestantism, too, for that matter). The information discussed in his streams far outweighs the sentimentality of niceness that is lacking. Many like Mr Dyer, and myself, believe that we could have saved much time if we had access to Orthodox sources when we were younger.
The Orthodox Church is just the Church of the Sectarian Axe to Grind, like all the nutty extreme protestant groups. I don't suppose all the Orthodox are so keen on this.
@@david_porthouse such a parochial, unlearned and outright ignorant position. Even latins admit the Orthodox Church is the same church that has existed since Paul founded all of those still-existent bishoprics throughout Greece and Asia Minor. Their only defense is that it is “static”, which is particularly ironic given that they use the opposite argument against Protestants. The claim of similarities to Protestants is also rich, given that they are simply the other side of the same coin with Prots, and they are the original Protestants. If orthodoxy is Protestant for having a view of the Pope of Rome that is less than their God Emperor of Pastor Aeternus, then so are their progenitors from the first millennium, including their own “Doctors of the Church”
@@larrycera1943 The Orthodox Church is simply unknown in my part of the world, Northern England. My first contact with it is Mr Dyer, who sounds remarkably like the average Scottish Presbyterian. Can you see a problem?
From a practical point of view - when it comes to our Sanctification - what does it matter? And if it doesn't matter, why make such a big deal out of it? There are many theological debates in the Church and some may never be definitively settled, and that's OK! Once again, what practical difference does it make?
They're three persons; yet One God. It's like looking at three seperate suns, but the light of each sun possess the same light [essence]. They are truly three distinct persons, but without seperation from the same essence. The Council Of Constantniple VI explained this. We can't fully grasp it because we are humans. The more people try to explain it, the more they are prone to fall into heresy like Mr. Dyer
@@scipioafricanus2195 It actually comes from St. Augustine who heretically taught the Filioque, then later became popular despite many Popes condemning it and the Councils decreeing the Nicene Creed could not be changed anymore. The Roman Church did this anyway and embraced it which is why their Triadology is all wacky and makes no sense lol
@@Patriarch.Chadimus it's not heretical to teach the Filioque, in the sense of the Spirit comes through the Son, the Spirit therefore comes from the Son, but originates from the Father. However, even Gregory of Nyssa taught a form of the Filioque, who was before Augustine
@@Thedisciplemike The spirit comes *through* the Son but is eternally proceeding from the Father. This is the correct way to phrase these two concepts without conflicting with the original Creed. This, however, is NOT the Filioque. The Filioque refers to a wording in the roman-catholic Creed that says "the Spirit proceeeds from the Father *AND THE SON*. Which is absolutely heresy, and has never been taught by any Church Father pre-Schism.
@sidewaysfcs0718 actually, many Church fathers mention the filioque. St Gregory of Nyssa, St Augustine, St Hilary of Poiters, and St Athanasius to name a few
Probably a dumb question but god creating man in his image and likeness as male and female I’ve heard people say this is proof that there are either two gods one male and one female or that god is both male and female. Is there an orthodox explanation? I can’t find one
So, in simpler terms, God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are not the same individual being. They are distinct persons from one another. Three distinct persons who belong to one Godhead. The Godhead is not an individual person, it is an office that all three belong to.
Doesn't Paul explains the one-ness of God very cleanly when he compares it with mariage? Like man and women become one in mariage, similarly the father-son-spirit are one. Is not that helpfull in explaining this concept?
The Orthodox Churches agreed in ecumenical council to the filioque, using the word "with" rather than "from" in 1439. A decade or two later the Turks forced you to reject what you already accepted, the position of the Church Fathers, which the Catholic Church and the Eastern rites in communion all accept.
@@RobertsonGerson lol i believe in the trinity. I just want to understand it. I grew up protestant so ive heard it try to be explained a million different ways. Jay seems way smarter to me so the way he explained it seemed a little over my head.
@@constantdoodle32 God is omnipresent he is powerful and he can do anything, it doesn't mean that we are god but he is distance from us his power his mine is not in US and God's wisdom and love is not in hell, and God is Omniscient and Omni-attribute: he can see everywhere and he can see in our thoughts and he knows the future He can use a Human image to reveal Humanity to save the world. Jesus is the spirit of God
@@RobertsonGerson But all of those 8 accounts are simply different aspects of one mind. This is like saying, God the Father is one of the personalities known as God the son and God the holy spirit, but there's no such distinct identity as God the son and God the Holy Spirit, rather there's only one person who has these different forms. The trinity is: 3 characters into one character. God the son has a mind of his own. He's fully God. Possessing all attributes that the most high God would. God the Father has a mind of his own. He's fully God. Possessing all attributes that the most high God would. God the Holy Spirit has a mind of his own. He's fully God. Possessing all attributes that the most high God would. They all share one essence. Till here, this arrangement is similar to three humans being fully human but sharing one human essence. This, however, logically doesn't mean there is only one human. Rather there are still 3 human beings. The Father can converse with the Son as an independent identity with a mind of its own, and so on. Which means there are two divine beings that are fully the God of Abraham on their own, but having different mind/identity. Much like how Zeus and his son may share the same essence but are still different mind/identity.
Is there an explanation of this that even idiot like me can understand? Too many fancy words for me, plus english isn't my native language. This type of stuff puts me off wanting to study theology as I'm afraid I'll just waste time and end up confusing myself even more. So I continue being non religious non atheist for now.
Yes, all that complex language. I wonder why. Maybe to cloud something so delusional and contradictory? The Father begetted the Son, yet the Son is only different from the Father by being his own personal entity Jay claims. But this is clearly false as the Son is different in that He didn’t have the power to beget the Father, the Son is also non-existent and depended on the Father.
The father begetted the Son?? 😂 No...the Father eternally begets the Son, the Son is eternally begotten and therefore eternally exists. It's not that complex, you just can't grasp the concept.
@@ACE-pm3ghwhat is the difference between begetting and eternally begetting? And my point still stands, the Farher is still different from the Son in that he (eternally) begetted the son and not vice versa
too much mental gymnastics for my taste. God = Father = Superior and Jesus = Son = Inferior. simple as that. The Holy Spirit is just God's active force. there you go.
The Son is not inferior but shares the same essence of the Father. Would you consider yourself inferior to your Father and mother just because you originated from them? No, you share the exact same essence as them.
The Trinity is just a CONVENTIONAL doctrine, which was even UNKNOWN to Jesus: He always stated to be ONLY with the Father. Contrary to that doctrine no third "helper-Godperson" exists: it was not understood that the Holy SPIRIT is none other than the "Father who is a SPIRIT" ("God is a spirit" Jn. 4:23,24). You could figure it out from the verse on the TWO BLASPHEMIES. Of course the second blasphemy was directed to the Father by Jesus. That "SPIRIT, who is the Father" was called "Holy Spirit" by Him on that occasion. ONLY the "FATHER WHO IS A SPIRIT" - called either "Holy Father" or "Holy Spirit" - is with Jesus.
you blaspheme so casually. I understand of course you do so from ignorance. I wonder how the Eternal Son didn't know He was a member of the All Holy Trinity?
@@marcokite Jesus knew the Truth: that the TRINITY DOES NOT EXIST. It's VERY VERY EASY to disprove the Trinity, the emperor has no clothes!! Jesus is supposed to be in an EXTREMELY CLOSE UNION with TWO divine Persons: the Father and the Holy Spirit. Thus, if the trinity existed Jesus would have to CONFIRM THAT and state something as "I am with the Father and the Holy Spirit". However, this NEVER HAPPENS in the four gospels disclosure. If you had any remaining doubts, Jesus gives you the precise information that HE IS ONLY WITH THE FATHER, NEVER with TWO other Persons. Hence the trinity doctrine is disproved by the most qualified Person: Jesus.
@@SILLY_BILLY_777 Modalism? I'm just a "truth addict". There are three divine NAMES in the gospels: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. According to the trinity theory they allegebly correspond to three distinct divine persons. Math does not agree though! If they were three distinct persons, then the people would have THREE distinct relationships with three different divine persons. As regards Jesus, He would then have TWO distinct relationships with the other two persons of the alleged trinity. On the contrary you can check out in the gospels that people has TWO divine relationships (for ex."... If a man loves me, he will keep my words and my Father will love him. We will come to him and make our abode with him.") and Jesus has ONE divine relationship (for ex. "I am in the Father and the Father in me"). No third person exists because neither the people nor Jesus has a relationship with that alleged person. No "lord who gives life" exists. The fathers failed to correctly decode Jesus' words (or simply didn't care much). Too much evidence that the trinity is just a CONVENTIONAL (false) doctrine. That doctrine could maybe serve INTERNALLY in the Church, but too bad that in doing so you DUMP precious Jesus' teachings about God and you expose yourself to just criticism from outside people.
@@claudiozanella256 You have no biblical canon without the church, you have no church to begin with, no priests, deacons, bishops, no eucharist. This is a spiritual delusion you have sunk yourself into brother, and you really must escape it for the sake of your soul
Three persons equals three gods. Eternal sonship equals illogical supposition. This whole conversation is philosophical banter about a theory which references scripture that really has nothing to do with it. In short, false doctrine would be the best title for this discussion.
Aren’t Adam and Eve two persons united under one flesh? They are two separate people yet are ONE under marriage.. it’s not that hard to apply this to God. Three distinct persons united under in ONE essence (ousia). Those who reject the Trinity simply can’t think critically. The only thing illogical is Unitarianism, assuming that Jesus was a man and the Holy Spirit is a mystic force.. you might as well be a Jew at that point.
@@awake3083 God is A spirit, not two or three of anything. One does not equal three, nor three one. Doubletalk is not accepted, allowed, or condoned in any field but trinitarian theology.
@@thomasschultz7770 That’s why your style of hermeneutics doesn’t exist in biblical exegesis. Trinitarianism is the standard because it is exegetically true and the Church will always defend this. The Father worships/honors the Son and vice versa. Their Holy Spirit gets sent temporally into creation and eternally outside time. God being “spirit” doesn’t deny the fact that he has multiplicity. Him being spirit means that by nature He is incorporeal and isn’t locked away in Jewish ways of worship. Christ said in John 4:21 that the hour will come when neither up this mountain (Mount Gerizim) or Jerusalem shall ye worship the Father. Why? Because no longer will a place be sought after which is thought to be exclusively indwelled by God. The Gospel was being preached so that their ways of worship would be purified and spirit-filled, directing their praise to God alone and not their idols or carnal traditions. God, being spirit, is truly adorned by those who worship in Spirt and Truth. Do not seek out the physical circumcision believing it will justify you before God, but seek a circumcision of the heart which will make you virtuous and pleasing before Him. You would know this if you had understood the context of the verse, but reading and contemplation isn’t a field in Unitarian theology.
I love how jay pretends that the "eastern bishops and patriarchs" didn't abandon their anti-filqoue heresy, and sung the filiqoue in the creed with the "Romans", before they were persecuted by the apostate easterns. If the Spirit comes through the Son, then that means The SPirit comes from the Father and the Son. St. Athanasius and many eastern + western fathers taught the filioque. I get the point about the "singular procession", but the point is the Spirit is still coming from the Son. He can't come from the Father without coming from/through the Son. Cyril of Alexandria “Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it” (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]). I believe Jay's desire for paganism, pagan philosphy, immodesty, invalid priesthoods, sacrificing the faith for invalid sacraments due to putting flesh over faith, has caused him to suffer a massive curse of ignorance/blindness.
Exodus 3:14 《God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM"》 John 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, HE WILL TESTIFY of Me." In the first quote of the above mentioned verses God the Father reveals Himself as a personal being! In the second quote of the above mentioned verses Holy Spirit is also revealed as a personal being! Person=Who, Nature=What! It's a false presupposition that an impersonal nature of the personal beings exists for sure! In reality the nature of a personal being always presupposes that there is a person! There is not an impersonal nature that exists without the particular person! Nature defines what a person is! If there is no person, we have nothing to define! There is no point of an intellectual approach to a person's nature, if there is no person! Person comes first! There is not such an abstract thing such as a person's nature, if there is no person! That's a certainty! Thinking the other way around is an illusion! I understand the reason for being confused in such a simple matter! You are initiated into an intellectual approach which overlooks the aspect that an impersonal nature is not present in reality! Therefore such an abstract approach isn't consistent with the reality!
@@dimitrispeiraias John 4:24 God is spirit(nature) John 1:18 no man has seen God at any time colossians 1:15 Jesus who is the image of the INVISIBLE God. So a impersonal being (spirit,nature) is no longer a impersonal being but a personal being which is what I think you are saying so when Isaiah 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD. Now would you say the spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, might, and knowledge are personal beings or Revelation 1:4 the seven spirits of God(nature) are now seven personal beings. Also I have seen so many time people try to use John 15 to explain the holy ghost to be a person because Jesus used the word HE will testify of me. We can't just determine in our on ideology that he, she, they, them us, both,sent, means it's a person or persons for example my dog is a animal(nature) HE is a good dog because I used the he does that automatically make my dog a person or how about when God spoke through a donkey because he spoke that makes him a person? The trinity always make it hard to understand the Godhead but it's easy God is spirit not person John 4:24. God is our Father (spirit,nature) not person Isaiah 63:8. God was manifested IN the flesh 1 Timothy 3 :16. Ephesians 4:4 one body one spirit. Now God as Father (nature) took on flesh(person)he took on two natures flesh and spirit not two person's. The Holy Ghost is the spirit of the Son Roman's 8:9-10, 1 Peter 1:11, Galatians 4:6 colossians 1 :27. The Holy Ghost is the spirit of Father Roman's 8:11 Matthew 10:19 Mark 13:11 Luke12:11. Jesus is the Father in flesh John 14:6-11
Brandon, your whole syllogism derives from the false presupposition that an impersonal nature of beings, who act as persons, exists for sure! Both the Father and the Holy Spirit act as personal beings in the verses that I have quoted! Person=Who, Nature=What! In reality the existence of the nature of personal beings always presupposes that there is a person! There is not an impersonal nature that exists without the particular person! Nature defines what a person is! If there is no person, we have nothing to define! There is no point of an intellectual approach to a person's nature, if there is no person! Person precedes! There is not such an abstract thing such as a person's nature, if there is no person! That's a certainty! Thinking the other way around is an illusion! I understand the reason for being confused in such a simple matter! You are initiated into an intellectual approach which overlooks the aspect that such an impersonal nature is not present in reality! Therefore such an abstract approach isn't consistent with the reality!
you're using a lot of big terms that you do not understanding the meaning of. See Jay's livestream about the transcendental argument if your attention span can take it, he explains exactly why the Trinity is the only logical conclusion.
Who imposed the idea of God as a triadic being by force onto the church? When did it happen? What was the doctrine that the church had before the Trinity?
"Our Trinitarian theology" - Jesus would never speak this way. None of his disciples did either. If Jesus was the creator and not the creation, then he can not be killed... What was sacrificed? Trinitarianism is just idol worship, so no surprise the 2nd council of Nicaea was promoting iconoclasm. Holy spirit = "Love of God" "Love of God" = "God" These people can't logic and have been overcompensating for well over 1000 years now. "If you believe in Jesus' divine nature, then you have to believe in Orthodox theology..." Maybe we do, but just not the Orthodox theology we think you fabricated.
The divine nature of Christ undertook death in order to resurrect and conquer death, hell, and the grave. Non-trinitarians end up separating Christ so that only a human died for the sins of humanity. Hebrews says: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” Hebrews 2:9 KJV. Notice, being made a little lower than the angels refers to the incarnation so the divine Son was incarnated “for the suffering of death” and “tasted death for every man”. Tell me again non-trinitarian how God can’t die nor undergo the experience of death. Non-trinitarianism is idol worship you worship your own pride and refuse to submit to the teachings of the apostles and their church.
@@sidpan8218 We aren't "non-trinitarians" - that is just a fabricated definition placed on us. Just as it was placed on Arius. God can experience death via anyone who dies, not just Jesus.
@@jamesm5192 How does God experience death by anyone? You’re not a trinitarian? You referred to worshiping Jesus as worshiping an idol. I guess you aren’t even Christian maybe.
@@okbrostartcoping5835 Did Christ recommend calling yourself a Christian? Did Christ call himself a Christian? Did Christ recommend identifying oneself by special names that separate you from the rest?
I think Catholicism has established a great culture, but as a religion it falls short of true Christianity. You will not find a trinity anywhere in the Bible
Except the places that you do. It's not an accident that the church fathers thought very deeply about this concept. Or are you trying to say that you have somehow found the truth that The early Christians somehow missed?
@@michaelalbertjr.3230 Right... Council #1: "one of God's creations is God (worship creation)"... Council #2: "Now make images of more creations and worship those."
God is masculine not the chaotic femenin. God brings order to the chaos. But this is why Mary has such a high place in the church. She is the queen of heaven, the mother of God, who is the greatest Saint of all, and whom we loyally follow for she loyally follows God
I love how you chose the three Saints who battled against Rome's errors. Very appropriate👍
Amen 🙏🏼
As a Catholic, the Catholic Church should drop the Filioque from the Creed out of good will towards the Orthodox.
@@elvisisacs3955 No, it would not crumble papal infallibility.
The Filioque was introduced to England by Saint Theodore, of happy memory. According to the Orthodox Church, the Filioque is a heresy but Theodore is a saint. If we ever manage to make sense of this, then we might consider restricting the Filioque to those countries like Spain, Portugal and England which originally adopted it.
In 1182 several thousand Latin Christians in Constantinople were sold in slavery to the Turk. We are still waiting for clarification from the Orthodox Church as to whether these enslaved persons were validly baptised. Any chance of an apology?
No, Catholic brothers, not for "good will", but for the sake of truth and respect for God, that you should do that. Also, you got to campaign to overthrow Vatican II
amen @@EasternRomeOrthodoxy
You are not a catholic
Thank you i can use this video as a quick reference
Same here!
I want to understand this, but I’m just a lowly Protestant with no scholastic training and this goes straight over my head
They're like Pharisees. When you're begotten you have a beginning. These are simple anthropomorphic terms. Father and a son, father begets son.
@JL-CptAtom I used Jesus and his direct disciples own words. Perhaps you could elaborate for me? I'm willing to acknowledge Orthodoxy if it's convincing.
@JL-CptAtom Jeez I just saw this. You're machine gunning arguments. I would rather stick to one and hammer it out although I'll answer all your objections. However, my answers are general intentionally because I want to focus on Psalm 82. How many gods (not Gods) are in Psalm 82? Please use the KJV because I want to do this on your terms. I count at least 3 PLUS The Most High himself. God says there are unjust gods (at least 2) which implies at least 1 was a good boy. Do you agree?
1. Words change meaning. Fair except we're not really giving God much credit here if that's the route you're going to take. I'm not going to die on the "begotten" hill though. I'll concede to move on to bigger fish.
2. How can you be saved by a creature? I would say that The Father is the source, The Son is an instrument.
3. The Greek phrase is ego eimi transliterated meaning I am, or I existed. The blind beggar in John 9 says the same thing to confirm "yeah I was the blind dude." This doesn't prove anything other than a preexistent Christ so I'm cool with that.
4. Tradition is the worst argument of them all because you're talking 1700 years and the church has existed since Adam 6,000 years ago. Your creed just won history is all. Maybe you're right though, please tell me how many gods you count in Psalm 82 and I'll move on to Jesus quoting it.
@JL-CptAtom This is the problem with machine gunning. You already forgot what you said. You quoted the KJV. I'm trying to be easy going but whatever. I'm trying to prove that Jesus is a deity separate from the Father but you're reading into the text trinitarian belief. Those aren't humans in Psalm 82. Reread it, God tells them they will die like men (because they are fallen angels) and that they're princes. They are sons of the Most High. If they're humans that deified then I'm cool with that too. Either way doesn't really bother me, they're gods not to be confused with The Most High.
In John 10 Jesus quotes it. In most bibles the Jews accuse him of making himself God. The New World translation ACCURATELY translates the Jews accusation of Jesus making himself "a god" and not The Most High because he compares himself to fallen gods in Psalm 82. If they accused him of the opposite then Jesus didn't answer them and is incoherent. Read what the text says for yourself. Don't quote me someone else. If the Bible tells me something I'm going to believe it. Jesus is a god sent to do God's work.
@JL-CptAtom How are the gods of Psalm 82 imitating the God-man if he doesn't even exist outside of the heavenly realm yet? This is a pre-Christian text.
I think I understand this but I just want to make certain - he’s saying something very simple but with complex language from what I can tell. Which is not wrong it’s just truncating ideas with a lot of moving parts into faster explanation. So:
God is not just transcendent impersonal force, he is personal
Christ and the Spirit are personal, but not separate deities
The last comment he makes - they stem from the father as God manifest? They do not come from nowhere. But again, not separate deities.
Hope I’m understanding correctly.
"God is not just transcendent impersonal force, he is personal" Yes, but God is found as 3 hypostatis: Father, Son, Spirit. Whenever God speaks or is claimed to be heard by prophets, in fact one of the hypostatis is doing the talking/manifesting, and it's almost always the Logos (Christ), because the Logos can be observed, even pre-incarnation (before the Logos took on human nature in space and time).
"Christ and the Spirit are personal, but not separate deities" All three hypostatis are persons, the Father, Son and Spirit are ALL personal, and *distinct* from eachother, but all united in one essence, the divine essence, they are co-substantial (homo-ousia). I would rather not use "separate entities" as it introduces vague language.
There is only one God, with only one divine essence, which is unknowable and infinite in many ways.
God however has energies (energia in greek = actions). God's actions, from our perspective, are revealed in three hypostatis, the persons of the Trinity, but only the Logos can directly manifest to be observable, the Spirit can influence people in more subtle ways and is "present" for certain actions, but is never seen, and the Father also cannot be seen or heard, the Father is the eternal source that eternally begets the son, and from whom the Spirit eternally proceeeds from.
Crucial: the Son and Spirit are not created by the Father, Christ is eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit eternally proceeeds from the Father, which is a completely different status, an a-temporal one. This is crucial since the Trinity does not contain anything created, God is eternal, so are his three hypostatis.
You also seem to be conflating the Father as God manifest, in fact the Logos(Christ) is the only hypostatis that we can see directly manifest in nature in an observable way.
In the Old Testament, Moses and a few other prophets claim to speak to God either indirectly or, in the case of Moses "face to face", which means they had to have spoken to the Logos (Christ pre-incarnation), since Christ is literally the image (ikonos/icon) of the Father, and only Christ can be seen directly.
@@sidewaysfcs0718 alright thank you
I'd like to suggest, if I may, that you read Chapter 3 - God in Trinity from "The mystical theology of the Eastern Church" by Vladimir Lossky. @@mrhanky5851
Brother, what about when few of the apostles and Jesus were in the mountains and the transfiguration occurred and they heard a voice from the sky? Was that still the Logos or the Father??
@@Martra0 He said it's almost always Christ speaking not always Christ speaking
Where can I read the mentioned letters of St Basil? Google isn't helping much.
Now how do I explain this to people in East African villages
You wouldn't lol you wouldn't give babies steak. you'd give them milk first
are you suggesting that they can't understand what North Americans or Europeans can?
@@marcokite I didn't ask how I can make them to understand but how can I explain. Living in rural East Africa I can say there is an additional challenge to explaining stuff like this to people who aren't already invested.
If you live in a social circle that values intellectual stuff you are more likely to apprehend this kind of material, it's not an intelligence problem, it's a cultural one. Trying to engineer ways to talk about this level of theology (especially to people of different faith backgrounds) is a significant and legitimate challenge.
Obviously this applies to America and Europe in its own way but I would say the problem gets a lot worse in a global south, Muslim immersed situation because the concepts are just vastly different and unfamiliar on top of their already existing complexity.
ONE God, three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All equal in substance, nature, essence, and attributes of deity. Each has different rolls and functions at times but are in agreement, harmony, and work in unison on ALL things.
@@marcokitelets be honest, probably not, average iq of 66.
but this doesnt take away any agency from them, every person regardless of his iq can come to know God; faith isnt "intellectual", what Jay's doing is giving an intellectual/logical justification for his beliefs, thats what he does; most of the saints dont, you dont have to, but its good to have strong justifications for your beliefs of course (the foremost being a Love and Fear of God)
its not hateful to recognize the diversity/differences of peoples across the world, this is how God made us, we all have that base dignity regardless of any difference in attributes
What’s the best understanding on why it’s written Jesus called out “why have you forsaken me” on the cross?
He is quoting the 22nd Psalm which was a prophecy of His death - read it. it begins with those words. also some say that Our Lord voluntarily forsook the Divine consolation on the Cross. but the quotation from Psalms is 100%.
What about psalms 22:5 than? “5 To you they cried out and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.”
I’m not sure who your audience is in you videos. Are you speaking catechetically to other Orthodox people, or is your audience non Orthodox? If for Orthodox, solid video clip. If for non-Orthodox, notably Catholics, it fell pretty flat regarding tone & delivery. I mean, “hard headed & stupid...and if they would just ‘humble’ themselves...” - haha. Not gunna win hearts and minds that way, I can promise you that.
Indeed, it seems he has no intention of bringing them to Orthodoxy.
This is more directed toward the context of the polemics that were- and continue to be- being exchanged between him and papist apologists. It isn’t aimed at the common Catholic who seeks truth in good faith, as Mr Dyer was, himself, a Roman Catholic for many years. I believe his biggest calling right now is to deliver the information about orthodox theology that is so sorely lacking in English speaking cultures, particularly when compared to the endless public apologetics favoring Papism (and Protestantism, too, for that matter). The information discussed in his streams far outweighs the sentimentality of niceness that is lacking. Many like Mr Dyer, and myself, believe that we could have saved much time if we had access to Orthodox sources when we were younger.
The Orthodox Church is just the Church of the Sectarian Axe to Grind, like all the nutty extreme protestant groups. I don't suppose all the Orthodox are so keen on this.
@@david_porthouse such a parochial, unlearned and outright ignorant position. Even latins admit the Orthodox Church is the same church that has existed since Paul founded all of those still-existent bishoprics throughout Greece and Asia Minor. Their only defense is that it is “static”, which is particularly ironic given that they use the opposite argument against Protestants. The claim of similarities to Protestants is also rich, given that they are simply the other side of the same coin with Prots, and they are the original Protestants. If orthodoxy is Protestant for having a view of the Pope of Rome that is less than their God Emperor of Pastor Aeternus, then so are their progenitors from the first millennium, including their own “Doctors of the Church”
@@larrycera1943 The Orthodox Church is simply unknown in my part of the world, Northern England. My first contact with it is Mr Dyer, who sounds remarkably like the average Scottish Presbyterian. Can you see a problem?
Rad channel.
From a practical point of view - when it comes to our Sanctification - what does it matter?
And if it doesn't matter, why make such a big deal out of it?
There are many theological debates in the Church and some may never be definitively settled, and that's OK!
Once again, what practical difference does it make?
So what does this MEAN? In what respect are they different? Can this be explained with words that you define clearly beforehand?
They're three persons; yet One God. It's like looking at three seperate suns, but the light of each sun possess the same light [essence]. They are truly three distinct persons, but without seperation from the same essence. The Council Of Constantniple VI explained this. We can't fully grasp it because we are humans. The more people try to explain it, the more they are prone to fall into heresy like Mr. Dyer
3:00 Notice how he contrasts from every Person in the Trinity except for the Father... Is the Father identical to His Will? I'll wait.
Good video. Did the Filioque start with Arian? Thanks.
No it appeared in the 700s in spain and slowly spread in west. I believe it did appear in some kind of reaction to heresy though
@@scipioafricanus2195 It actually comes from St. Augustine who heretically taught the Filioque, then later became popular despite many Popes condemning it and the Councils decreeing the Nicene Creed could not be changed anymore. The Roman Church did this anyway and embraced it which is why their Triadology is all wacky and makes no sense lol
@@Patriarch.Chadimus it's not heretical to teach the Filioque, in the sense of the Spirit comes through the Son, the Spirit therefore comes from the Son, but originates from the Father. However, even Gregory of Nyssa taught a form of the Filioque, who was before Augustine
@@Thedisciplemike The spirit comes *through* the Son but is eternally proceeding from the Father. This is the correct way to phrase these two concepts without conflicting with the original Creed. This, however, is NOT the Filioque.
The Filioque refers to a wording in the roman-catholic Creed that says "the Spirit proceeeds from the Father *AND THE SON*. Which is absolutely heresy, and has never been taught by any Church Father pre-Schism.
@sidewaysfcs0718 actually, many Church fathers mention the filioque. St Gregory of Nyssa, St Augustine, St Hilary of Poiters, and St Athanasius to name a few
Probably a dumb question but god creating man in his image and likeness as male and female I’ve heard people say this is proof that there are either two gods one male and one female or that god is both male and female. Is there an orthodox explanation? I can’t find one
So, in simpler terms, God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are not the same individual being. They are distinct persons from one another. Three distinct persons who belong to one Godhead. The Godhead is not an individual person, it is an office that all three belong to.
Doesn't Paul explains the one-ness of God very cleanly when he compares it with mariage? Like man and women become one in mariage, similarly the father-son-spirit are one. Is not that helpfull in explaining this concept?
God is One
What conspectus are you reading ?
Just read the Bible and switch your own logic too.
Yes, he is one when it says one it refers to being.
@@JScholastic One God,forget the rest
The Orthodox Churches agreed in ecumenical council to the filioque, using the word "with" rather than "from" in 1439. A decade or two later the Turks forced you to reject what you already accepted, the position of the Church Fathers, which the Catholic Church and the Eastern rites in communion all accept.
So.... 3 persons 1 being?
Why not, 3 characters in 1 person
For example Mrbeast has 8 account youtube but he is one being.
@@RobertsonGerson lol i believe in the trinity. I just want to understand it. I grew up protestant so ive heard it try to be explained a million different ways. Jay seems way smarter to me so the way he explained it seemed a little over my head.
@@constantdoodle32 God is omnipresent he is powerful and he can do anything, it doesn't mean that we are god but he is distance from us his power his mine is not in US and God's wisdom and love is not in hell, and God is Omniscient and Omni-attribute: he can see everywhere and he can see in our thoughts and he knows the future
He can use a Human image to reveal Humanity to save the world.
Jesus is the spirit of God
@@RobertsonGerson
But all of those 8 accounts are simply different aspects of one mind. This is like saying, God the Father is one of the personalities known as God the son and God the holy spirit, but there's no such distinct identity as God the son and God the Holy Spirit, rather there's only one person who has these different forms.
The trinity is: 3 characters into one character.
God the son has a mind of his own. He's fully God. Possessing all attributes that the most high God would.
God the Father has a mind of his own. He's fully God. Possessing all attributes that the most high God would.
God the Holy Spirit has a mind of his own. He's fully God. Possessing all attributes that the most high God would.
They all share one essence.
Till here, this arrangement is similar to three humans being fully human but sharing one human essence. This, however, logically doesn't mean there is only one human. Rather there are still 3 human beings.
The Father can converse with the Son as an independent identity with a mind of its own, and so on. Which means there are two divine beings that are fully the God of Abraham on their own, but having different mind/identity. Much like how Zeus and his son may share the same essence but are still different mind/identity.
yes, it's a holy mystery.
Is there an explanation of this that even idiot like me can understand? Too many fancy words for me, plus english isn't my native language. This type of stuff puts me off wanting to study theology as I'm afraid I'll just waste time and end up confusing myself even more. So I continue being non religious non atheist for now.
You need to primarily be a part of orthodox church. Deep theology here is not necessary but encouraged.
Yes, all that complex language. I wonder why. Maybe to cloud something so delusional and contradictory?
The Father begetted the Son, yet the Son is only different from the Father by being his own personal entity Jay claims. But this is clearly false as the Son is different in that He didn’t have the power to beget the Father, the Son is also non-existent and depended on the Father.
Right on the money. Especially on the begetting part suggesting a preceding.
The father begetted the Son?? 😂 No...the Father eternally begets the Son, the Son is eternally begotten and therefore eternally exists. It's not that complex, you just can't grasp the concept.
@@ACE-pm3ghwhat is the difference between begetting and eternally begetting? And my point still stands, the Farher is still different from the Son in that he (eternally) begetted the son and not vice versa
@emirselman3984 you said the son is non existent but there has never been a time when the son didn't exist...that is eternally begotten
too much mental gymnastics for my taste. God = Father = Superior and Jesus = Son = Inferior. simple as that. The Holy Spirit is just God's active force. there you go.
no, they're all equal.
The Son is not inferior but shares the same essence of the Father. Would you consider yourself inferior to your Father and mother just because you originated from them? No, you share the exact same essence as them.
Well yea that would be a great example of the Trinity if you are a heretic.
That reasoning reduces Christianity to paganism imo. Too much separation between the son and the father
The Trinity is just a CONVENTIONAL doctrine, which was even UNKNOWN to Jesus: He always stated to be ONLY with the Father. Contrary to that doctrine no third "helper-Godperson" exists: it was not understood that the Holy SPIRIT is none other than the "Father who is a SPIRIT" ("God is a spirit" Jn. 4:23,24). You could figure it out from the verse on the TWO BLASPHEMIES. Of course the second blasphemy was directed to the Father by Jesus. That "SPIRIT, who is the Father" was called "Holy Spirit" by Him on that occasion. ONLY the "FATHER WHO IS A SPIRIT" - called either "Holy Father" or "Holy Spirit" - is with Jesus.
you blaspheme so casually. I understand of course you do so from ignorance. I wonder how the Eternal Son didn't know He was a member of the All Holy Trinity?
@@marcokite
Jesus knew the Truth: that the TRINITY DOES NOT EXIST. It's VERY VERY EASY to disprove the Trinity, the emperor has no clothes!! Jesus is supposed to be in an EXTREMELY CLOSE UNION with TWO divine Persons: the Father and the Holy Spirit. Thus, if the trinity existed Jesus would have to CONFIRM THAT and state something as "I am with the Father and the Holy Spirit". However, this NEVER HAPPENS in the four gospels disclosure. If you had any remaining doubts, Jesus gives you the precise information that HE IS ONLY WITH THE FATHER, NEVER with TWO other Persons. Hence the trinity doctrine is disproved by the most qualified Person: Jesus.
look up modalism, that's what you're preaching
@@SILLY_BILLY_777
Modalism? I'm just a "truth addict".
There are three divine NAMES in the gospels: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. According to the trinity theory they allegebly correspond to three distinct divine persons. Math does not agree though! If they were three distinct persons, then the people would have THREE distinct relationships with three different divine persons. As regards Jesus, He would then have TWO distinct relationships with the other two persons of the alleged trinity. On the contrary you can check out in the gospels that people has TWO divine relationships (for ex."... If a man loves me, he will keep my words and my Father will love him. We will come to him and make our abode with him.") and Jesus has ONE divine relationship (for ex. "I am in the Father and the Father in me"). No third person exists because neither the people nor Jesus has a relationship with that alleged person. No "lord who gives life" exists. The fathers failed to correctly decode Jesus' words (or simply didn't care much). Too much evidence that the trinity is just a CONVENTIONAL (false) doctrine. That doctrine could maybe serve INTERNALLY in the Church, but too bad that in doing so you DUMP precious Jesus' teachings about God and you expose yourself to just criticism from outside people.
@@claudiozanella256 You have no biblical canon without the church, you have no church to begin with, no priests, deacons, bishops, no eucharist. This is a spiritual delusion you have sunk yourself into brother, and you really must escape it for the sake of your soul
Sorry. We completely disagree.
He stats brilliant,then brings in shit ,stick to the truth ,so that one can experience truth, ,what sets. Free, to hell with Rome
Nothing but conjectures
muslim?
I didn't understand a word from that. Lost me completely by the first 10 seconds. Let's try again
Three persons equals three gods. Eternal sonship equals illogical supposition. This whole conversation is philosophical banter about a theory which references scripture that really has nothing to do with it. In short, false doctrine would be the best title for this discussion.
Aren’t Adam and Eve two persons united under one flesh? They are two separate people yet are ONE under marriage.. it’s not that hard to apply this to God. Three distinct persons united under in ONE essence (ousia). Those who reject the Trinity simply can’t think critically. The only thing illogical is Unitarianism, assuming that Jesus was a man and the Holy Spirit is a mystic force.. you might as well be a Jew at that point.
truely a brainlet moment
Bingo, everything else is mumbo jumbo
@@awake3083 God is A spirit, not two or three of anything. One does not equal three, nor three one. Doubletalk is not accepted, allowed, or condoned in any field but trinitarian theology.
@@thomasschultz7770 That’s why your style of hermeneutics doesn’t exist in biblical exegesis. Trinitarianism is the standard because it is exegetically true and the Church will always defend this. The Father worships/honors the Son and vice versa. Their Holy Spirit gets sent temporally into creation and eternally outside time. God being “spirit” doesn’t deny the fact that he has multiplicity. Him being spirit means that by nature He is incorporeal and isn’t locked away in Jewish ways of worship. Christ said in John 4:21 that the hour will come when neither up this mountain (Mount Gerizim) or Jerusalem shall ye worship the Father. Why? Because no longer will a place be sought after which is thought to be exclusively indwelled by God. The Gospel was being preached so that their ways of worship would be purified and spirit-filled, directing their praise to God alone and not their idols or carnal traditions. God, being spirit, is truly adorned by those who worship in Spirt and Truth. Do not seek out the physical circumcision believing it will justify you before God, but seek a circumcision of the heart which will make you virtuous and pleasing before Him. You would know this if you had understood the context of the verse, but reading and contemplation isn’t a field in Unitarian theology.
... sounds like he just described the Catholic trinity
Why did you not just explain it ,and not bringing in other false teaching why o why brother
Other than religious stories, if we decide only on Trinity than I think Hindu Trinity is more logical than Christian Trinity..
I love how jay pretends that the "eastern bishops and patriarchs" didn't abandon their anti-filqoue heresy, and sung the filiqoue in the creed with the "Romans", before they were persecuted by the apostate easterns.
If the Spirit comes through the Son, then that means The SPirit comes from the Father and the Son. St. Athanasius and many eastern + western fathers taught the filioque. I get the point about the "singular procession", but the point is the Spirit is still coming from the Son. He can't come from the Father without coming from/through the Son.
Cyril of Alexandria
“Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it” (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).
I believe Jay's desire for paganism, pagan philosphy, immodesty, invalid priesthoods, sacrificing the faith for invalid sacraments due to putting flesh over faith, has caused him to suffer a massive curse of ignorance/blindness.
I just want scripture that says Father is a person and the holy ghost is a person
Exodus 3:14 《God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM"》
John 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, HE WILL TESTIFY of Me."
In the first quote of the above mentioned verses God the Father reveals Himself as a personal being!
In the second quote of the above mentioned verses Holy Spirit is also revealed as a personal being!
Person=Who, Nature=What!
It's a false presupposition that an impersonal nature of the personal beings exists for sure!
In reality the nature of a personal being always presupposes that there is a person!
There is not an impersonal nature that exists without the particular person! Nature defines what a person is! If there is no person, we have nothing to define!
There is no point of an intellectual approach to a person's nature, if there is no person! Person comes first!
There is not such an abstract thing such as a person's nature, if there is no person! That's a certainty! Thinking the other way around is an illusion!
I understand the reason for being confused in such a simple matter!
You are initiated into an intellectual approach which overlooks the aspect that an impersonal nature is not present in reality! Therefore such an abstract approach isn't consistent with the reality!
@@dimitrispeiraias John 4:24 God is spirit(nature) John 1:18 no man has seen God at any time colossians 1:15 Jesus who is the image of the INVISIBLE God. So a impersonal being (spirit,nature) is no longer a impersonal being but a personal being which is what I think you are saying so when Isaiah 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD. Now would you say the spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, might, and knowledge are personal beings or Revelation 1:4 the seven spirits of God(nature) are now seven personal beings.
Also I have seen so many time people try to use John 15 to explain the holy ghost to be a person because Jesus used the word HE will testify of me. We can't just determine in our on ideology that he, she, they, them us, both,sent, means it's a person or persons for example my dog is a animal(nature) HE is a good dog because I used the he does that automatically make my dog a person or how about when God spoke through a donkey because he spoke that makes him a person?
The trinity always make it hard to understand the Godhead but it's easy God is spirit not person John 4:24. God is our Father (spirit,nature) not person Isaiah 63:8. God was manifested IN the flesh 1 Timothy 3 :16. Ephesians 4:4 one body one spirit. Now God as Father (nature) took on flesh(person)he took on two natures flesh and spirit not two person's. The Holy Ghost is the spirit of the Son Roman's 8:9-10, 1 Peter 1:11, Galatians 4:6 colossians 1 :27. The Holy Ghost is the spirit of Father Roman's 8:11 Matthew 10:19 Mark 13:11 Luke12:11. Jesus is the Father in flesh John 14:6-11
Brandon, your whole syllogism derives from the false presupposition that an impersonal nature of beings, who act as persons, exists for sure!
Both the Father and the Holy Spirit act as personal beings in the verses that I have quoted!
Person=Who, Nature=What!
In reality the existence of the nature of personal beings always presupposes that there is a person!
There is not an impersonal nature that exists without the particular person!
Nature defines what a person is! If there is no person, we have nothing to define!
There is no point of an intellectual approach to a person's nature, if there is no person! Person precedes!
There is not such an abstract thing such as a person's nature, if there is no person! That's a certainty! Thinking the other way around is an illusion!
I understand the reason for being confused in such a simple matter!
You are initiated into an intellectual approach which overlooks the aspect that such an impersonal nature is not present in reality! Therefore such an abstract approach isn't consistent with the reality!
@JL-CptAtom Interesting comment thread. I've been revisiting this concept and now it seems as though I've become a little confused...
This gibberish does nothing but expose the trinity as an unbiblical Neoplatonic lie that was imposed on the church by force.
you're using a lot of big terms that you do not understanding the meaning of. See Jay's livestream about the transcendental argument if your attention span can take it, he explains exactly why the Trinity is the only logical conclusion.
Who imposed the idea of God as a triadic being by force onto the church? When did it happen? What was the doctrine that the church had before the Trinity?
"Our Trinitarian theology" - Jesus would never speak this way. None of his disciples did either.
If Jesus was the creator and not the creation, then he can not be killed... What was sacrificed? Trinitarianism is just idol worship, so no surprise the 2nd council of Nicaea was promoting iconoclasm.
Holy spirit = "Love of God"
"Love of God" = "God"
These people can't logic and have been overcompensating for well over 1000 years now.
"If you believe in Jesus' divine nature, then you have to believe in Orthodox theology..." Maybe we do, but just not the Orthodox theology we think you fabricated.
The divine nature of Christ undertook death in order to resurrect and conquer death, hell, and the grave. Non-trinitarians end up separating Christ so that only a human died for the sins of humanity. Hebrews says:
“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”
Hebrews 2:9 KJV.
Notice, being made a little lower than the angels refers to the incarnation so the divine Son was incarnated “for the suffering of death” and “tasted death for every man”.
Tell me again non-trinitarian how God can’t die nor undergo the experience of death. Non-trinitarianism is idol worship you worship your own pride and refuse to submit to the teachings of the apostles and their church.
@@sidpan8218 We aren't "non-trinitarians" - that is just a fabricated definition placed on us. Just as it was placed on Arius. God can experience death via anyone who dies, not just Jesus.
@@jamesm5192 How does God experience death by anyone? You’re not a trinitarian? You referred to worshiping Jesus as worshiping an idol. I guess you aren’t even Christian maybe.
@@jamesm5192 so you are not a Christian?
@@okbrostartcoping5835 Did Christ recommend calling yourself a Christian? Did Christ call himself a Christian? Did Christ recommend identifying oneself by special names that separate you from the rest?
Just a bunch of word salad mental gymnastics to try to insulate this incoherent doctrine.
That is some Really brain Gymnastics to justify some illogical construction....
are you muslim?
illogical for you, because your brain is limited.
I think Catholicism has established a great culture, but as a religion it falls short of true Christianity. You will not find a trinity anywhere in the Bible
And Orthodoxy?
Except the places that you do. It's not an accident that the church fathers thought very deeply about this concept. Or are you trying to say that you have somehow found the truth that The early Christians somehow missed?
@@Jcarte4308 The church fathers did not worship statues.
@@michaelalbertjr.3230 No one said they did.
@@michaelalbertjr.3230 Right... Council #1: "one of God's creations is God (worship creation)"... Council #2: "Now make images of more creations and worship those."
Orthodox theology separates the Father and Son to the point where they are no longer one.
Nope.
i wish
that is extremely false
Your a Modalist
@@lololololol8677 Ironically Orthodox Trinitarianism is literally Eternal ad intr Modalism.
The trinity is impossible.
wrong, it’s very much coherent
@@Sosarchives wrong, it's impossible
@@somedude8613prove it
So god can do the impossible? Interesting
With God all things are possible
Where is the FEMALE principle in the trinity ? The mother who gives and births life.
Τhe word Trinity is greek it is Femined
God is masculine not the chaotic femenin. God brings order to the chaos. But this is why Mary has such a high place in the church. She is the queen of heaven, the mother of God, who is the greatest Saint of all, and whom we loyally follow for she loyally follows God