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

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Are you a Mormon?

You are closer to them by your position. The Mormon's Jesus had no human soul. Read more here and discover how aligned you are with these folks.

Do the groups below, who clearly state God was fully man (had a human soul) and fully God, mean that they are Mormons to you?

Catholic Statements
Eastern Orthodox
Lutheran
Reformed
Anglican
Methodist
Baptist

 

[Sozo]

Do the groups below, who clearly state God was fully man (had a human soul) and fully God, mean that they are Mormons to you?

Catholic Statements
Eastern Orthodox
Lutheran
Reformed
Anglican
Methodist
Baptist

No, but they are all cults.

 

[beloved57]

This looks like error

This looks like error

Athanasian Creed

Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.

Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.

For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.

But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.

What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.

Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.

The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.

Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit:

And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal;

as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.

Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit:

And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.

Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God:

And yet there are not three gods, but one God.

Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord:

And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.

As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten;

the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father;

Who was begotten here ? The man jesus or The 2nd person of the Trinity ? What is this creed saying here ?

 

[Delmar]

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

How am I equivocating! I told you that I don't even believe that I "posses" a soul! I am a soul/spirit!

 

[PaulMcNabb]

I say Beloved57's incorrect assumption is much like Mormons who think God and Christ possess physical bodies from all eternity.

No they don't...

 

[PaulMcNabb]

The Mormon's Jesus had no human soul.

Not true.

It is just fascinating what one can learn about one's own faith on this board!

 

[WizardofOz]

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

I did actually.

The Early Church’s Debate Over the Person of Jesus
The Council of Chalcedon Doctrine on the Person of Jesus
451 AD: Council of Chalcedon declared that Jesus is:
fully God and fully Human
equal to God the Father
existed from all eternity

The tension between these aspects of Jesus' person led to views now considered "heresies" by the standard of the Chalcedon definition (Jesus is one person with two natures, a fully human nature, and a fully divine nature):

If Jesus did not possess a human nature at all what is so special about him leading a sinless life? It would not be much of a challenge for a being with only a divine nature. There would be no struggle, challenge, or temptation.

The human nature of Jesus

 

[seekinganswers]

On another thread AMR stated....Curious....

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
God, the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, in no way died on the Cross. Who did die? The Son of Man, Jesus, the man.

How would you respond to a statement like that?

It seems to me that AMR is introducing a fourth member of the Godhead:

- The Father
- The Son (who never died on the cross)
- The Son (who did die on the cross)
- The Holy Spirit

Didn't the Son of God come in the flesh and die on the cross for our sins? Or was the incarnation just an illusion (i.e., body double) as AMR seems to be suggesting?

In my oppinion AMR is missrepresenting the theology of the early church. Christiologically speaking there was clearly a tension in understanding the relation between the two natures of Christ in the early church. The Church wanted to affirm the humanity of Christ fully, because if Christ does not take humanity upon himself we are left with a problem soteriologically speaking (what is not taken on cannot be redeemed). At the same time there was a struggle with how exactly Christ participates in the Godhead (because for the early church and for early theologians Diety is defined primarily using Greek Philosophical categories [immutability/impassibility - discussions of perfection]). If one holds to such categories with regards to the nature of God, than clearly God cannot suffer on the cross (for such suffering would imply a change in God's nature, thus making God out to be less than perfect, or at least not fully actualized).

Out of this tension takes rise a battle over Christology. AMR only presents one side of the discussion with regards to the two natures of Christ (i.e. that of Nestorius in the fifth century which was denounced as heretical by the church Catholic and Orthodox). Though Nestorius really doesn't die away in the church (the West in particular seems more comfortable with pulling the two natures further appart) AMR's position cannot be sustained for the church because it, in the end, fails in its soteriology. First of all, with regards to the atonement, if Christ (the Son of Man) is nothing more than human, there is no reason why his death would be any more advantageous for humanity than another human's death (i.e. the atonement is left bereft of meaning). Why would God need to dwell in flesh at all if he could simply create a perfect human being to die for sin. At the same time, if God does not truly take on human nature (if humanity is not taken up in Christ's divinity) than there really is no redemption (you are left with the same problem of gnosticism, in which the God of Creation is truly an inept God or even an evil God, who cannot make the project of Creation work).

On the other side of the discussion are monophysites, who go in the opposite direction (i.e. Christ is a conglomeration of humanity and diety). This of course was declared heretical [in the 7th century] because of the problem it presented with mixing up the divine with the Creation (moving towards idolatry), turning Christ into a third type of being. The Eastern Church tends towards this more than the West.

The Church in the end does not fully support either extreme. It is rather confined to paradox (living in the middle, though there cannot be a rational explanation for it).

Peace,
Michael

 

[Traditio]

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

Does God have a body?

 

[Sozo]

seekinganswers... Do you think that God tasted death, or just this fourth being AMR speaks of?

Did God split the scene as the "human nature" suffered and died on the cross?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

In my oppinion AMR is missrepresenting the theology of the early church.

If you took Knight's quote as my position, you would be correct. But it is not, as I clearly state here. I am in full agreement with your post. :thumb: It is the combined union of the divine and the human that wrought the suffering Person on the Cross. To place only God on the Cross, as Sozo has done, is meaningless for our redemption and negates the suffering of our Savior in payment for our sins.

 

[Sozo]

Does God have a body?

He does now.

 

[Traditio]

I'm coming in kind of late, but I figured I might as well give my two cents.

A nature cannot suffer. If we consider natures to be anything like properties, let's consider something analogous. "I ate the red, but the apple I left aside." That doesn't make sense. The apple truly is red, but you can't eat redness. You eat a red thing.

So a nature cannot suffer. Only persons can suffer. Therefore, either Jesus is God or Jesus is not God. If Jesus is not God, I fail to see why any of you are Christians. If Jesus is God, then truly, God died on the cross.

Last but not least: When it is said that Jesus is fully man, this is not to say that Jesus is only a man. What this means is that everything which is true of man (ideally) is true of Jesus. Every man has a body, a human soul, etc. These things are true of Christ.

This isn't a problem, however, insofar as Jesus isn't a human person, but a divine person.

Christ is not man, who just so happens to be God. Jesus is God become man.

If we go with Sozo's position, we run into the heresy that the Father suffered and died on the Cross, and the Holy Spirit sent Himself into the world.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father;

Who was begotten here ? The man jesus or The 2nd person of the Trinity ? What is this creed saying here ?

See here for a decent exposition.

 

[Sozo]

I'm coming in kind of late, but I figured I might as well give my two cents.

So you've decided to invest your entire worth?

Every man has a body, a human soul, etc. These things are true of Christ.

Then Jesus has two souls, two identities, and is two different beings.

 

[WizardofOz]

Then Jesus has two souls, two identities, and is two different beings.

Jesus had two natures, two identities in those natures (he identified with his human nature and he identified with his divine nature), but was not two different beings; no one is saying that. I didn't know this was a really debatable tenet.

That Jesus (God) came to earth and took upon a human nature is what makes Christianity what it is.

Sozo; how was your Jesus (lacking human nature) living a sinless life anything special?

First of all, with regards to the atonement, if Christ (the Son of Man) is nothing more than human, there is no reason why his death would be any more advantageous for humanity than another human's death (i.e. the atonement is left bereft of meaning). Why would God need to dwell in flesh at all if he could simply create a perfect human being to die for sin. At the same time, if God does not truly take on human nature (if humanity is not taken up in Christ's divinity) than there really is no redemption (you are left with the same problem of gnosticism, in which the God of Creation is truly an inept God or even an evil God, who cannot make the project of Creation work).

 

[Sozo]

Sozo; how was Jesus (lacking human nature) living a sinless life anything special?

He suffered in a body of flesh. His eternal soul experienced temporal suffering.

Jesus had the body of a man, just as real as you and I. He suffered and died in that body. In His "body" He was just as much a man as you and I, but I am not just a body, and Jesus did not take on a new persona of someone who did not pre-exist; a "fully" man nature co-existing with His Divine nature. He was God manifested in a body of flesh, and bone, and blood, etc; in ALL respects a man's body that was prepared for Him.

 

[WizardofOz]

He suffered in a body of flesh. His eternal soul experienced temporal suffering.

Jesus had the body of a man, just as real as you and I. He suffered and died in that body. In His "body" He was just as much a man as you and I, but I am not just a body, and Jesus did not take on a new persona of someone who did not pre-exist; a "fully" man nature co-existing with His Divine nature. He was God manifested in a body of flesh, and bone, and blood, etc; in ALL respects a man's body that was prepared for Him.

I understand all of that; you didn't address the question I asked at all. You are explaining how his pain and suffering in his selfless act of sacrifice was extraordinary. I am talking about him living a sinless life.

Was his living a sinless life really nothing extraordinary?

 

[Sozo]

Was his living a sinless life really nothing extraordinary?

No, He is God. It would be extraordinary if He was not God. Are you saying that He is not God manifest in the flesh?

Do you think it "extraordinary" that Jesus walked on the water?

 

[WizardofOz]

No, He is God. It would be extraordinary if He was not God.

Are you saying that He is not God manifest in the flesh?

Already answered that if you bothered to pay attention.

That Jesus (God) came to earth and took upon a human nature is what makes Christianity what it is.

Couldn't be much clearer. Although I should have said "a part of what makes Christianity what it is."

Do you think it "extraordinary" that Jesus walked on the water?

Do you think this has anything to do with the thread?

I just wanted to be sure you think Jesus living a sinless life was nothing special. Thanks for your time.