Who died on the cross? - a Hall of Fame thread.

[Evoken]

You don't try and say Jesus had four natures, do you? No. The point God shows us is that Christ, God, the King, came as a man, and a servant of man, to save us from our sins.

Obviously not! For to be man, servant and King are things that pertain to man whereas to be God does not pertains to man but to God alone. Besides neither servant nor King are natures. So there are just two natures, no need to go beyond that


Evo

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Your position on the Incarnation:

There was not an amalgamation of two minds or souls or spirits.

Elsewhere:

The "soul" is the very thing that distinguishes you from everyone else.

Then there is no humanity in your version of the Incarnate Christ, since you reject the inclusion of a human soul in Him.

Paul clearly states that the sin of one man has made us sinners. We were made sinners because of Adam's sin. Those who come to Christ, are made righteous because of His obedience!

If as you state, Incarnate Christ possessed no human soul, but was solely God manifested in the flesh, then the matter of "His obedience" was not really a challenging matter at all. How could the Incarnate Second Person of the Trinity, having no human soul, be anything other than obedient? After all, if the one being obedient is God Himself, where is the struggle to be obedient, the trials of the human condition, that lie behind the myriad of verses that describe Christ's obedience, temptations, etc.

How exactly is the property of having to be obedient operative if all we have in front of us is God in a biological human body? What is it about the fact that God now occupies a human body that warrants His having any struggle with being obedient? I assume you do not believe that biological flesh is inherently evil, so where do the infirmities of struggling with obedience arise?

Jesus was born of the Spirit of God, and that is why He can come to our aid as our High Priest.

Again, if Incarnate Christ was God and no human soul, then how is any vicarious sacrifice suitable to God made? Humanity is more than a biological body of flesh and bones. A human soul is required. Your position has no human soul in Incarnate Christ. Then where is the kinsmanship spoken of in Hebrews 2:11-17 between your version of Christ and humanity? A kinsman, a brother, has to be more than mere flesh and bones.

Moeover, your position is God the Son 'sacrificing' Himself to God the Father, or God sacrificing Himself to Himself, since God the Son and God the Father are the one God. This is not tenable, nor even logical.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

The "mystical union" is a scriptural and logical vacuum. Life cannot be found within. Unlike the "Trinity" it is scarcely proven as stated.

Miaphysitism has actually existed longer among Church Fathers and is given as the true understanding of hypostasis long before the ideas of the "mystical union" came about. Oriental Orthadoxy has always rejected the hypostatic union as tripe and nonsense and they do so rightly.

Any doctrine that leads people to claim that Jesus was two beings, is flummery at its best, and weak-minded excuses at its worst.

In one person, Jesus Christ, both Divinity and Humanity were fused into one nature. This is the natural reading of the Bible and has been held by the Oriental Orthodox Church from the beginning.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Miaphysitism has actually existed longer among Church Fathers and is given as the true understanding of hypostasis

Weak, your force, is.

Ignore you, I must.

 

[Delmar]

Your position on the Incarnation:


Elsewhere:
Then there is no humanity in your version of the Incarnate Christ, since you reject the inclusion of a human soul in Him.



If as you state, Incarnate Christ possessed no human soul, but was solely God manifested in the flesh, then the matter of "His obedience" was not really a challenging matter at all. How could the Incarnate Second Person of the Trinity, having no human soul, be anything other than obedient? After all, if the one being obedient is God Himself, where is the struggle to be obedient, the trials of the human condition, that lie behind the myriad of verses that describe Christ's obedience, temptations, etc.

How exactly is the property of having to be obedient operative if all we have in front of us is God in a biological human body? What is it about the fact that God now occupies a human body that warrants His having any struggle with being obedient? I assume you do not believe that biological flesh is inherently evil, so where do the infirmities of struggling with obedience arise?

Again, if Incarnate Christ was God and no human soul, then how is any vicarious sacrifice suitable to God made? Humanity is more than a biological body of flesh and bones. A human soul is required. Your position has no human soul in Incarnate Christ. Then where is the kinsmanship spoken of in Hebrews 2:11-17 between your version of Christ and humanity? A kinsman, a brother, has to be more than mere flesh and bones.

Moeover, your position is God the Son 'sacrificing' Himself to God the Father, or God sacrificing Himself to Himself, since God the Son and God the Father are the one God. This is not tenable, nor even logical.

What does that even mean, "no human soul"? Is your soul/spirit something you posses or is it who you are absent the flesh? You seem to enjoy making things more complicated than they are!
Whatever it is, that every man experiences when they die, that is what Jesus experienced when He died!

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Acts 2:25-31 KJV.

 

[Sozo]

Then there is no humanity in your version of the Incarnate Christ, since you reject the inclusion of a human soul in Him.

If Jesus has a newly created soul, then He has two identities in one body (Nestorianism).

If as you state, Incarnate Christ possessed no human soul, but was solely God manifested in the flesh, then the matter of "His obedience" was not really a challenging matter at all.

Sure it was, He suffered in a body of flesh. His eternal soul experienced temporal suffering.

How could the Incarnate Second Person of the Trinity, having no human soul, be anything other than obedient?

Then you do believe Jesus can sin.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What does that even mean, "no human soul"? Is your soul/spirit something you posses or is it who you are absent the flesh? You seem to enjoy making things more complicated than they are!
Whatever it is, that every man experiences when they die, that is what Jesus experienced when He died!

You are not paying attention.

You or I possess human souls, these souls give us our humanity. When we die we, our souls, are immediately present with the Lord.

"that every man experiences" - Sozo's Christ was not a man except biologically. Sozo denies Christ possessed a human soul along with divinity.

Do you think Christ was fully human and fully God? Sozo does not. Do you?

 

[Sozo]

AMR... your "Jesus" is a fabrication of your own perversion. You think that that God is two beings in one body with two souls who are separated at the cross, with one of the beings wondering where the other being went to. So God was not crucified on the cross, but He just carried the one being to the cross and then split. God just wanted to make sure the one being was just good and nailed to the cross, and then said, "Your on your own. My soul is not going to go through this, but yours is".

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If Jesus has a newly created soul, then He has two identities in one body (Nestorianism).

No so. He was one Person, one identity, with two natures. Christ's divine self-consciousness was the expression of His Person, not the human consciousness. There was not two distinct personalities in the one body of Christ. There were two distinct natures, as previously discussed. Do you understand the difference between nature and person when discussed in the context of the Incarnation? These are the key to understanding the Incarnation.

Sure it was, He suffered in a body of flesh. His eternal soul experienced temporal suffering.

You have only God with a body in the Incarnation. No humanity (no human soul) is present by your definitions. When the Scriptures speak of the flesh, it does not refer to a biological system, but human flesh, that is, one's humanity. Your definition of Christ contains no humanity.

Then you do believe Jesus can sin.

As in last September's related thread, you should recall that I certainly do not think Jesus could sin, just as you do!

 

[Sozo]

As in last September's related thread, you should recall that I certainly do not think Jesus could sin, just as you do!

You said...

If as you state, Incarnate Christ possessed no human soul, but was solely God manifested in the flesh, then the matter of "His obedience" was not really a challenging matter at all. How could the Incarnate Second Person of the Trinity, having no human soul, be anything other than obedient? After all, if the one being obedient is God Himself, where is the struggle to be obedient, the trials of the human condition, that lie behind the myriad of verses that describe Christ's obedience, temptations, etc.

How exactly is the property of having to be obedient operative if all we have in front of us is God in a biological human body? What is it about the fact that God now occupies a human body that warrants His having any struggle with being obedient? I assume you do not believe that biological flesh is inherently evil, so where do the infirmities of struggling with obedience arise?

You believe that Jesus can sin. Deny it all you want, but you just affirmed that He "struggled" to be obedient. You clearly believe that He could be disobedient.

Do you understand the difference between nature and person when discussed in the context of the Incarnation?

Yes, but you don't. You believe that Jesus had two persons (souls) in one body.

 

[Sozo]

These three verses completely disprove the heretical doctrine that Jesus has "two natures"...

"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high"

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

"But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out and saying, "Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you in order that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them."


Jesus is NOT the representation of our nature, but the divine nature. ONE nature, not two. God does not have "two natures", but ONE nature; a nature that is divine.

 

[Lighthouse]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"What am I that He loves me so much He would die
All that I can say is... [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
It's God, truly God"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]-[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Rebecca St. James[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"God"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]God[/FONT]

 

[Evoken]

These three verses completely disprove the heretical doctrine that Jesus has "two natures"...

No, they do not, in fact, only one of them says anything related to the issue.

"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high"

Yes, Christ was fully God, that much is known. But he was also fully man (see below).

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

In what sense does this verse speaks against the two natures of Christ? Nobody denies that God has a divine nature.

"But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out and saying, "Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you in order that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them."

Yes, God is a living God and Barnabas and Paul being human like the persons they were talking to are of the same nature that they are. How do these verses relate to the two natures of Christ?

Jesus is NOT the representation of our nature, but the divine nature.

St. Paul begs to differ, he says:

Romans 15:21
"For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead."

Philippians 2:7-8
"But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross."

He was as much a “representation” of our nature as he was of the divine nature. He is fully God and fully man.

ONE nature, not two. God does not have "two natures", but ONE nature; a nature that is divine.

The divine nature is one and has always been. The Son, who shares the one divine nature with the Father and the Spirit assumed a human nature. Both natures the divine as well as the human remained intact without being fused together, there being only one person, not two in Christ. Christ was fully man and fully God, in him there is the divine nature as the first set of verses you cited say and also the human nature as the two sets of verses I cited say. The Scriptures present both natures, it is incorrect to deny one or combine the two.


Evo

 

[Sozo]

Yes, Christ was fully God, that much is known. But he was also fully man (see below).

Jesus is the EXACT representation of His nature. God does not have two natures.

In what sense does this verse speaks against the two natures of Christ? Nobody denies that God has a divine nature.

His divine nature is eternal, and has been sicne He (Jesus) created the world.

The exact representation is a divine nature. Always has been, and always will be. There is no change in that nature, and Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He has the same glory now, that He had before the incarnation. In order for there to be "two natures" in the incarnation, one of them would have to be annihilated when He was raised from the dead and ascended to the Father.

Yes, God is a living God and Barnabas and Paul being human like the persons they were talking to are of the same nature that they are. How do these verses relate to the two natures of Christ?

Jesus is a living God, while the nature of man is a living soul.

St. Paul begs to differ, he says:

Romans 15:21
"For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead."

Philippians 2:7-8
"But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross."

No one has denied that Jesus was in the appearance of a man.

He was as much a “representation” of our nature as he was of the divine nature. He is fully God and fully man.

That is a lie, and an unbiblical cultish addition to the truth.

The divine nature is one and has always been. The Son, who shares the one divine nature with the Father and the Spirit assumed a human nature, both natures the divine as well as the human remained intact without being fused together, there being only one person, not two in Christ. Christ was fully man and fully God, in him there is the divine nature as the first set of verses you cited say and also the human nature as the two sets of verses I cited say. The Scriptures present both natures, to deny one or combine the two is to fall into error.

The verses you provided say nothing about Jesus having the nature of a man. It's all in your head, from following the lies of men.

I believe the Bible, you follow councils of men. It's that simple. You want Jesus to be "fully man" so you can increase, and He can decrease.

 

[Delmar]

You are not paying attention.

You or I possess human souls, these souls give us our humanity. When we die we, our souls, are immediately present with the Lord.

I am a human soul!

"that every man experiences" - Sozo's Christ was not a man except biologically. Sozo denies Christ possessed a human soul along with divinity.

Do you think Christ was fully human and fully God? Sozo does not. Do you?

Jesus Christ was, in fact, fully God and fully human! It is not true, by the way, that Sozo does not believe that!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Sozo/Mystery's Folly

Sozo/Mystery's Folly

So rather than argue the substantive merits you resort to caricatures? Or is it that you realize how exposed your are now and prefer to start the ad hominems in hopes it will all go away? Your usual tactics won't work here.

Please don't use the tactics that godrulz would use, that is beneath you.

I truly thought you were better than this and I thought you could read my words and not twist them just so you can appear to be sanctimonious. Let’s examine the facts in evidence, versus sozoisms:

AMR... your "Jesus" is a fabrication of your own perversion.

No, not my own, but all of Christendom’s. Read and understand your confusion:

Doctrine of the Trinity
Comparison Chart
Catholic Statements
Eastern Orthodox
Lutheran
Reformed
Anglican
Methodist
Baptist

In all of these statements you very position is denounced. Using your own words that indict you, from the facts clearly in evidence, your “Jesus” is a fabrication of your own perversion.

You write:

You think that that God is two beings in one body with two souls who are separated at the cross, with one of the beings wondering where the other being went to.

Clearly refuting your mis-characterization above, I wrote:

Fully man and fully God in the person of Jesus Christ were laid to rest in the tomb. While He was in the tomb, the divine nature was united with a human nature whose spirit was in paradise. However, that divine nature was not confined to any location wherein the human nature existed. God, and necessarily, God in the Second Person of the Trinity is omnipresent.<o>

So both the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, and the human soul of the man Jesus were both in <st1>Paradise</st1>, still joined, forever joined, hypostatically.

</o>Also contradicting you once again, on the matter of person versus nature, I wrote:<o>

God the Son, already the Second Person of the Trinity, did not take into Himself a human person in the Incarnation. That would mean two persons occupied the body of Jesus versus one person, with two natures.

The Second Person of the Trinity took into Himself a human nature. Nature used when discussing the Incarnation is “a complex of attributes”. Nature never means ‘person’ when discussing the Incarnation. The human nature has its subsistence in His Person, and the human nature has a glory and excellence given it. Yet the human nature gives nothing at all to the nature and person of the divine Word and Son of God.

The term person denotes a complete substance endowed with reason, and, consequently, a responsible subject of its own actions. 'Personality' is not an essential and integral part of a nature. A person is a nature with something added, namely, independent subsistence, individuality. The Logos assumed a human nature that was not personalized, that did not exist by itself. The Logos furnishes the basis for the personality of Christ.

The Son of God took into union with Himself a full complex of human attributes (a human ‘nature’). The man Jesus could never exist apart from the union with the one divine Son of God. There were not two “self-consciousnesses” within Christ Incarnate. The ‘person’ of the Incarnation was self-consciously divine and consciously human. Hence, Incarnate Christ possessed a human will. The human will was distinct from the divine will, though not opposite, but in subjection to it (John 6:38; Luke 22:42). The self-consciousness of Christ was always divine, and the human consciousness could never act out of discord with the divine self-consciousness.

The one divine Second Person of the Trinity, who possessed a divine nature from eternity, assumed a human nature, and now has both in Heaven. Again, the divine nature, the Second Person of the Trinity, is not limited to the physical location of the presently existing glorified body of Jesus in Heaven.

Sources on the matter of nature versus person:
Here
Here
Here – deeply theological for the serious student
And a nice layman’s discussion here

These are the facts plainly in evidence. All you offer is rhetoric, because when a man runs out of substance, the only thing he has left is irrationality.

Now do you want to engage on this topic in a civilized manner, giving it the careful consideration such a sacred topic warrants, or do you want to continue in one-upmanship? You can start by making substantive arguments, providing any publications, references, etc., that support your position that Incarnate Christ was not fully human and did not include a fully human soul. I am confident that those you will find, and there are not that many, will be clearly exposed as the fringe elements by their very names being known to all intellectually honest persons. And don’t tell me “the Bible says it” for as clearly shown above, all of Christendom interprets the bible in complete opposition to Sozo’s private interpretation. In short, the bible does not say it! You are not allowed your private interpretation, for as clearly shown above by your position, you have divided the body of believers, Christ’s Church.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I am a human soul!Jesus Christ was, in fact, fully God and fully human! It is not true, by the way, that Sozo does not believe that!

Stop equivocating. Do you believe Christ possessed a human soul? Yes or no?

 

[Sozo]

:rotfl: It's funny you wasted all your time writing something that no one will read.

:mock:AMR

I used the Bible to prove you are in error, and you give us nothing but your opinions, philosophies, and lies. I call the Bible God's revelation to man, and you call it "rhetoric".

You and your godless, false Christ religion, are a joke.

 

[Sozo]

You are no different than godrulz, AMR. You worship men, not God, and that is why you are obssessed in making God out to be "fully" a man.

Are you a Mormon?