The Humanity of Christ (Intro to Christology)

[@dcsmall1]

Funnily enough I'm writing an essay about the first three centuries of Christology and the surrounding heresies so this came at the perfect time!

[@ArsontAngelfire]

Might not be one of the most popular videos you do, but I think teaching about the importance of the Incarnation is quite timely.

[@robertjim7517]

I am a simple man. I see a Jordan Cooper video and I like.

[@sharonmcclelland2163]

Thank you for having these podcasts. It is good to hear such solid Lutheran theology on You Tube. I attended Lutheran Schools growing up. You bring back to me memories of some of my religion classes. And I am learning new things from your talks. You bring the various philosophies , ancient and modern, cultural context of the past and to present date in these talks, while presenting Lutheran beliefs. I feel this method works well to weed out fallacies and show, as I confessed years ago that the Lutheran doctrine is the one true doctrine. People may feel that faith and religion is outdated. But that is not true. It is as vital today as it was in the past. Presenting ancient, modern thoughts and cultures along with doctrine shows how faith is dynamic and relevant to current times. The Solas are just as meaningful now as they were at the Reformation. Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Solid Deo Gloria

[@joshuawarren1715]

Dr Cooper, keep doing your thing, man! Good stuff! I HIGHLY appreciate what God is working through you in delivering these KZbin videos. Great minister to my heart while I'm hundreds of miles away. Godspeed, my friend.

[@cristian_5305]

loving the new camera angle p.s. we need an updated bookshelf tour

[@marvwittenburg2255]

I enjoyed this video on the humanity of Christ and look forward to more in the Christology series. Thanks for your conscientious and balanced approach to selecting topics but even more for combining sound doctrine, solid scholarship and skillful presentation. I've watched many of your presentations and am especially struck by your systematic approach to well thought out theology as well as how you often cover Scripture texts, patristic sources and contemporary authors and theologians. God has truly blessed His Church through your background and your range of unique interests. Thanks again.

[@lc-mschristian5717]

Thank you, great as always. God's peace be with you.

[@andrewsanford3320]

thank you for this series. I preached a sermon on 1 John and the first video was very helpful and this one was great as well. As always great work and thank you for your service to all Christians.

[@marilynmelzian7370]

The idea that the feeding of the 5000 was only an inspiration for people to share their food was also preached by a pastor in my former church. He also was on his way to denying the resurrection. I no longer attend that church.

[@jjsalas]

As a Latino this sound absolutely wild. Lutheranism and reformed traditions are not that popular here, so I don't know if there are places teaching actual heresy but, the one lutheran congregation that I know seems pretty orthodox, and the most popular protestant branch is pentecostalism, who are quite loud and problematic in other ways, but would punch you in the face for saying something like that(they were filled with the spirit)

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

Okay seriously: for the sake of so many troubled souls, you NEED to do apologetics against higher criticism. Because so many of those that try to argue against it, such as those who debate Bart Ehrman, do such an embarrassingly bad job and it makes people think there are no good arguments against it.

[@orangepeel3465]

Thank you for the video! Excellent!

[@sonkramarczyk9288]

Dr. Cooper, this is a great teaching, thank you!

[@NB-qo4ds]

I like the new set up. It's a nice view of your office and feels kind of comfy/welcoming.

[@andyfonseca3618]

Is there a secret to reading multiple books? A schedule maybe? Im genuinely asking, I would like to start reading books on theology, but I’m in school right now

[@IngloriousPastor]

Would love an episode on Pannenberg; I don’t agree with his conclusions but I find his thought process fascinating. Thanks for all you do Dr. Cooper!

[@jasenbailey]

Great teaching,i look forward to your teachings.

[@kjhg323]

I'd love to see a podcast on the Power of the Keys. What precisely this power is has always been a bit of a riddle.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

I did have an old podcast on this, but it isn't on KZbin.

[@darewan8233]

Thanks for doing this work. Enjoyed it and want to pursue the topic.

[@franciscafazzo3460]

Good effort put out. Just now looking at your other titles

[@rollwithethan5572]

Great video! You may have touched on this, but the Virgin Birth is also a wonderful picture of the nature of Christ- both Human and Divine. Two of Jesus’s titles are “Son of God” and “Son of Man.” Even though “Son of Man” is a divine title, I think it also points to His humanity. He is the Son of the Father (Divine Nature) and the Son of Mary (Human Nature.) I think this is a wonderful picture of the union of His full humanity and full deity.

[@joseortegabeede8233]

Stuff like this always humbles me when reading the fathers. They worked on themes that most non-magisterial protestants have never even considered I've heard some people quickly dismiss Tertullian as a heretic because of his later ramblings and mistakes, but seeing stuff like this really puts into perspective that, at the very least, these people (the ancient Fathers) really read their Bible.

[@jasonengwer8923]

Dr. Cooper is right about the earliness of belief in the virgin birth. Celsus and his Jewish source(s) have Jesus claiming that he was born of a virgin, meaning that multiple second-century Jewish and pagan opponents of Christianity were acknowledging the earliness of the virgin birth claim (in Origen, Against Celsus, 1:28). 1 Timothy 5:18 seems to cite Luke's gospel as scripture, which carries with it the implication that the virgin birth is being indirectly affirmed. (For the evidence that 1 Timothy 5:18 is citing Luke, see Michael Kruger's discussion of the subject in Lois K. Fuller Dow, et al., edd., The Language And Literature Of The New Testament [Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2017], 680-700.) Paul wrote 1 Timothy, but notice that the document's support for the virgin birth is significant even if somebody denies Pauline authorship of the document or is agnostic about it. Whoever wrote 1 Timothy, it's another New Testament source supporting the virgin birth, which means that the claim that only Matthew and Luke support the virgin birth is false under any view of the authorship of 1 Timothy. Furthermore, the premarital timing of Mary's pregnancy is unlikely to have been made up by the early Christians, yet that timing isn't as much of a controversy in early Christianity as we'd expect it to have been if it weren't accompanied by a claim of a virgin birth. The best explanation for the lack of early controversy about the premarital timing of the pregnancy is that the knowledge of that premarital timing was accompanied by knowledge that the pregnancy was claimed to be virginal. Think of how unlikely it is that Paul and the other early sources would have said nothing about the premarital timing of the pregnancy and the inevitable controversies surrounding it if the earliest view was that Mary became pregnant prior to marriage without a virginal conception. The lack of early controversy over the premarital timing of the pregnancy is more coherent if a virgin birth claim was circulating at the same time. Keep in mind, too, that even liberal scholars acknowledge that Matthew and Luke were drawing from earlier sources when reporting the virgin birth. As Charles Quarles notes: "That allusion or affirmation of the virginal conception appears in multiple pre-Matthew sources should make one pause before dismissing it too lightly." (in Robert Stewart and Gary Habermas, edd., Memories Of Jesus [Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group, 2010], approximate Kindle location 4168) And both the internal and the external evidence heavily favor a date for Luke's gospel prior to Paul's death. No matter who wrote 1 Timothy, that document's citation of Luke's gospel as scripture reflects an early belief that the gospel of Luke was circulating while Paul was still alive. And the ending of Acts is best explained by an early date for the gospel of Luke. The author tells us that he's writing about "the things accomplished among us" (1:1), so the best explanation for why his sequel (Acts) ends where it does is that the events there are the last significant ones to have occurred before the work was published. Most likely, Acts 1:1 refers to the previous work's discussion of what Jesus "began" to do in the world because the sequel was meant to continue narrating what Jesus had done in the world up to the time when the author was publishing his material. In other words, the conclusion of Acts 28 tells us what the latest significant events were in the Christian movement at the time Acts was published. That's a far better explanation for why Acts ends as it does than the popular appeal to Acts 1:8 to explain the scope of the work. So, both the earliest external evidence and the internal evidence agree that the gospel of Luke was published during Paul's lifetime.

[@Melvin_Thoma]

Thanks Dr Cooper. The office looks good.

[@BrotherIonatan]

Amen! Thank you dear Pastor! Were this a sermon the hymn could be “Savior of the Nations Come” (LSB 332) Savior of the nations, come, Virgin’s Son, make here Your home! Marvel now, O heaven and earth, That the Lord chose such a birth. Not by human flesh and blood, By the Spirit of our God, Was the Word of God made flesh-- Woman’s offspring, pure and fresh. Here a maid was found with child, Yet remained a virgin mild. In her womb this truth was shown: God was there upon His throne. Then stepped forth the Lord of all From His pure and kingly hall; God of God, yet fully man, His heroic course began. God the Father was His source Back to God He ran His course. Into hell His road went down, Back then to His throne and crown. For You are the Father’s Son Who in flesh the victory won. By Your mighty power make whole All our ills of flesh and soul. From the manger newborn light Shines in glory through the night. Darkness there no more resides; In this light faith now abides. Glory to the Father sing, Glory to the Son, our king, Glory to the Spirit be Now and through eternity. Amen

[@Craig419]

Good vid! I like the asides except some send me on mental bunny trails thinking “hey, Jordan needs to do an episode on that, too!”

[@JP-rf8rr]

I really enjoyed this.

[@benw386]

If you take topic requests I think a program on how the reformers/or we read earlier sources and appropriate those. Sort of how the reformation worked practically speaking and not mythically if that makes sense

[@marvalice3455]

jesus walking on ice blocks is more miraculous than him just telling the water to give him a boost. lol

[@judithtaylor-fn8ox]

All is good.

[@matthewhanke2976]

I'm glad that you cover multiple topics. I once heard you mention that you do not get involved in the debate over Six-Day creation, but I believe it is very important for you to mention that it is necessary to believe that there was no death before the fall and that we do not believe that Adam and Eve evolved.

[@AaronMiller-rh7rj]

(2 years ago but still hope things are going well with you)

[@jaredriesen1480]

You should make an episode refuting the “psychedelic modernist” view. I’m 32 and when ever I talk about the scriptures people my age don’t straight out deny the supernatural stuff, they just say they were tripping. Moses and the bush was a trip, group trip all over the scripture’s, shamanism traditions are the root of story, ect. Maybe I’m just in a bubble but I come across this a lot.

[@Steve-wg3cr]

Dr. Cooper, I'm your new camera is not as clear as the old one. You look like your underwater. Good teaching though as always. Thank you.

[@marilynmelzian7370]

Couldn’t you argue that Matthew’s account refers to the virgin birth as well as the account in Luke?

[@JohnMartim-sy9yf]

Let’s look at the following question about the humanity of Christ: Let us suppose that Christ had not died on the Cross. What would happen to Christ over time? Got old? Did He die?? If his nature, as theologians say, is 100% divine and 100% human, He would grow old and die like any man, wouldn't He? But how can the second person of the Trinity die of “natural causes”? How can God live (in his body) with the corruption of the flesh? We fall into this paradox because we assume that Christ is 100% divine and 100% human. Either Christ is not 100% human and would not die or, He is 100% human and would have to die like any human! How do we avoid the paradox of a dying Christ?

[@danyks4847]

at 20:20 many people are missing the original context, I've learned to always use the original greek: hebrews 4:12 "For the Logos of God is active and powerful. It is sharper than the sharpest two-edged sword, cutting between PSYCHE AND SPIRIT, between joint and marrow. It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God." (biblehub - interlinear ) καὶ διϊκνούμενος ἄχρι μερισμοῦ ψυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος kai diiknoumenos achri meriousmou Psyches kai Pneumatos and penetrating as far as the division of Psyche and Spirit note the term used: Psyche, Spirit, Logos it does NOT use the term "soul" etymonline on "spirit": "animating or vital principle in man and animals" "inspiration; "breath of life" invisible corporeal being of an "airy" nature, angel, demon "soul" same as "spirit" (Spirit as the "seat of emotions") understanding the original concept of Logos is important to understand all this subjects, Logos DOES NOT means just "the word" this is a big error in translation and doing so unnecessarily obscures many passages, Logos is a compounded term and the original intention of the evangelion was precisely to use that compounded nature that the term Logos represents (just like Christ has two natures at once!): encyclopedia Britannica: "Logos is the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning." Logos: "computation", "reasoning", the expression of a thought, "Logic"; wisdom, is preeminently used of Christ (John 1:1), expressing the thoughts of the Father.... "reasoning expressed by words"... St Agustine knows that the term Logos doesn't have an equivalent in latin, he knows that any translation will be compromise and so he explains how the translation "Verbum" (word) should be understood: "The Greek Logos in latin signifies Reason(reasoning, "Ratio") and Word. here is better to interpret it "Word" as it represent not only the Father but also the creation of things, "Word" is operative power whereas "Reason" though nothing it can make (on its own) is rightly called Reason/Ratio" source: "catena aurea" ("golden chain", various commentaries on each chapter of the bible compiled by Aquinas, that one is Agustine commentary on John 1.1) "FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS NOT IN THE WORD(s) BUT IN POWER." 1 Corinthians 4:20 *greek dynamei (δυνάμει) = force, power, "dynamic", potency Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος... καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. John 1,1 En arch en o Logos... kai Theos en o Logos in the beginning is the Logos...and God is the Logos colossians 1-15 For by Him (the Logos) all things were created, [both] in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the BEGINNING , the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything"

[@dylan3456]

Something I don’t understand is the comment about Robert Jenson et al.: is “eternity” before time? How do you have something “before” any possibility of succession?

[@gleon1602]

Learned a lot!

[@ddelucia94]

I was wondering if you could speak more about the supernatural elements of scripture. That would be pretty cool. Thanks!

[@blade7506]

A civil topic indeed

[@danielchristian2728]

@DrJordanBCooper, I know that the council of Chalcedon clearly defined that Jesus has two distinct nature, truly man and truly God. Early church struggle with this idea of Him being man with the immutability and sovereignty of God. They stated that Son took on human form without losing his divine nature. I agree with all this but I am still struggling with the whole idea in light of who Jesus is today as he intercedes for us. First let me know if I am understanding this incorrectly, I am going to layout all different eras and how Triune God’s relationship has been with His creation, namely man. 1: Before there was anything else but Triune God. This is a concept of Aseity of God that He doesn’t need anything as He ever existed in His triune nature and neither creation in general or mankind added anything to God. He (God the father, son and Holy Spirit) was in a perfect Union. 2: Creation: this is when we see three offices of God head and all three involved in creation but Jesus being the main agent of creation as all things are created by Him and for Him (Colossians chap 1). Still all three in perfect Union 3: Sin and Fall: now we know that all things were made during those seven days, including angles. There are many scripture references to list but Hebrews 1 says that angles are ministering spirits for elect. Regardless of when Satan sinned and consequently Adam, we know that at the fall God head had three distinct roles. God the father planed the salvation, God the Son executed it and God the Spirit reveals it to the elect. Still in perfect Union as nothing more added to the God head. But the relationship with man and His creation is now broken and He can only be approached with Blood sacrifice as we see as early as Able’s sacrifice and the Law. God tabernacle but with the ministry of Priests as human mediators. 4: The Incarnation: God the Son entered the human race; Holy, undefined and sinless due to virgin birth and His sinless life. He humbled himself to take on Human nature so that He can be the perfect sacrifice that’s pleasing to God while fulfilling all righteousness as prescribed in the Law. The Perfect mediator, once for all. There was no other way, Jesus’s prayer in the garden is the proof when He asks if there is any other way. No God couldn’t have sent His angles because that wouldn’t have dealt with the Sin. Without dealing with the Sin there remains the domain and terror of death (wages of Sin is death) Now here we see first time something is added to the God head. There was a time when He was not man and then came a time when He became man. 100% man, anything less would be heresy. I can still understand this if this was temporary and at resurrection He cease to be man but that’s not what Bible states. 5: church age: Paul states in Acts 17:31 that God has determined a day when He will judge the world through the Man Jesus. Very important to note that after the resurrection, Jesus has the glorified body and hasn’t cease to be man. John states that when we see him (future) we will be like him, meaning not God but Glorified body like him. 6: New heaven and earth: we also know that Jesus is coming to judge the world, Pslam 8. We also know that he comes in His glorified body. Still God-man. So my real struggle is God in perfect triune nature now has man nature/ likeness added to him for eternity? How can this be? How can “man” be part of trinity for eternity. How does the doctrine of immutability of God be true? Jesus is coming to judge and sit on His throne as “Man” the second Adam but that adds something to God and now He can’t exists who He is apart from the “man” added to him? I know these are hard questions but I truly can’t resolve in my mind from scripture. One solution can be that after the judgment and glorification, Jesus will cease to be God-man and be like He was before the creation. There is hint to this in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, but I am not 100% sure on how to interpret it and I certainly don’t want to fall in to heresy of any kind. Any insights?

[@르세라핌김가람]

Pastor, how do you think about ELDoNA Pastor channel Ask The Pastor(ATP)? He is a pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church in Texas. I think he is too extreme.

[@jordanparsons5703]

What do you think of the theory that the virgin birth was invented due to a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son . . ."? Apparently the word Isaiah uses means "young woman," not "virgin," and early Christians may have grasped onto this mistranslated passage in order to justify their faith in Christ- the same way they seemed intent on establishing Jesus' lineage from David, as if ashamed of his low birth.

[@benmizrahi2889]

Why, this theory was already refuted on the ground that Jewish law would make it clear to everyone reading the text that the young woman in person must be a virgin (Otherwise she would either commit the sin of fornication to get pregnant, or otherwise there is nothing really remarkable with a married young lady getting pregnant by her husband, and this would work purely as the sign Isaiah meant). Even before the early Christians, the translators of the Septuagint understood the word "עלמה" as "parthenos" (virgin). Of course, since the Masoretic text is a relatively late version, one cannot completely dismiss the possibility that the Septuagint translators worked with a text that had "בתולה" in it instead of "עלמה". The article I am going to link here is not exactly the most scholarly of works, but it contains a good lay level defence against the claims of the mistranslations of Isaiah 7:14: www.catholicworldreport.com/2019/12/24/a-defense-of-the-virgin-birth-against-a-bible-bashing-atheist-detractor/

[@eddieck123]

There were traditions which didn't accepted our even talked about any virgin tradition as many as there were those which accepted it, so it's not true to assert that it indeed was an original tradition. The virgin birth is absent outside the gospels and Paul doesn't talk about it, EVEN! Mary didn't follow the Jesus' ministry in Mark's gospel Thanks for this videos, I'm learning a lot about Christological theology

[@bobsagget9212]

Do humans lose their human spirit when they are assumed into the body of Christ?

[@Mike65809]

If the hypostatic union is correct, and there is no division between the human nature and divine nature in Christ, then he should have known the time of his return, which he said he didn't know. But Scripture shows us he was indeed God in the flesh, the Logos (Word) made into a man. But "being found in the form of a man" meant he no longer had his miraculous attributes of deity. In fact, Jesus states that his miracles were from the Father, who was in him and he in the Father. That would mean he still had the spiritual identity as the Word of God, but now made a man, doing miracles by the Holy Spirit, the Father dwelling in him. So he was and always is divinity.

[@Robert-vv6qp]

Could you discuss the "Oneness" Pentecostal view vs Orthodox Trinitarian Christianity.

[@hightoryman3482]

How do you spell that synod you mention like 9 min in?

[@benmizrahi2889]

It is pretty clear that those who posited Jesus walked on ice cubes never visited the Sea of Galilee in their lives (good luck finding ice there).

[@eternaljunker8300]

Great lecture.

[@FalconOfStorms]

So what I took away from this is that sin is stored in the balls.

[@vngelicath1580]

I prefer the mind, will, appetites trichotomy.

[@dylandoherty3782]

Ahh yes the famous ice blocks of the Israeli desert.

[@viaini.niaivi]

Jesus the creature being!? 😵 fully human=fully creature!? 😶

[@j.sethfrazer]

William Lane Craig is extremely overrated. The fact that he even embraces neo-Apollinarianism at all is a reflection of how unorthodox he is willing to allow his scholarship to be all for the sake of being “reasonable” in his faith. Brilliant thinker, sincere and humble guy, and adamant defender against secularism, just not a good source for orthodoxy at all.

[@nerdygames5185]

It appears to me that neither you nor Dr Cooper understands WLC's proposal very well, at all.

[@nerdygames5185]

The problem with old school Apollinarianism is that, on that view, since Jesus didn't have a human mind, he didn't redeem the human mind. That's the be-all-end-all of the objection to Apollinarius. WLC affirms that, in the incarnation, Jesus was truly human in every way including possessing of a human mind. The only interesting postulation by WLC is that since humanity was made in the image of God, i.e., the Logos, therefore the Logos was the prototype for human beings. As such, the Logos was sufficient to be the human mind of Jesus. In other words, The Word BECAME flesh in Jesus.

[@danfalcone5358]

Christians worship a man. To be more precise, Christians worship a Jewish man. Christ was fully Jewish, fully human and fully divine. When I ask Christians if they worship a man they inevitably will initially vehemently deny this.

[@Mygoalwogel]

Then you're probably asking American evangelikls. The Jewish Man Jesus is my God, and I only believe in the Heavenly Father because Jesus compels me to. I would not believe in God if I only had philosophical or rational ontological, cosmological, or whatever arguments. They're not enough for me. The Jewish Man of the New Testament is the only God who can make me hate the way I am and want to become good.

[@benmizrahi2889]

I am not worshipping any Jew. I am worshipping the Man-God,, fully god and fully man, who was from the tribe Judah. Jesus however, was definitely not a Jew in the religious sense, as Judaism as we know it today did not yet come into being.

[@MrTheclevercat]

I love how you are as educated on the nature of reality as an expert on Harry Potter. Religion is so hilarious.

[@Cuyt24]

Hillsong pastor

[@DrJordanBCooper]

What?

[@Cuyt24]

@@DrJordanBCooper hipster

[@blade7506]

L opinion + ratio

[@Cuyt24]

@@blade7506 blade