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

[PaulMcNabb]

Blaspemy dude..

No. You are thinking that "death" = "termination of existence." But death is when the spirit leaves the body, not when a person "terminates." God existence obviously can't terminate. Nor can someone cause God to die. In fact, God could not have chosen to die had He not first chosen to have been born.

Jesus Christ died. He was God. Jesus died willingly. God, as the perfect Man Jesus, died for our sins.

 

[Ktoyou]

Just as Hebrews 2:9 states (and I quoted in my post), "But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus".

Of course this is speaking of the Incarnation and I never implied anything else.

If the bible can say it, why can't we?:think:

I think the ‘we’ specifically addresses the manner that men saw Jesus, as an estimation. Jesus did not reveal all to his apostils, rather thought then, as they need to know. They saw it this way because it seemed this way

 

[Ktoyou]

(5) Christ’s death did not destroy the union of the two natures. While Christ was in the tomb, the divine nature was united with a human nature whose spirit was in paradise.

This is something I have conflict with, the second persona of God is what is incarnate, but that does happen in time, yet when He died on the cross, His body did die, not His Divine nature, thus they did separate and as a result, we lost the incarnate Jesus who taught man directly.

12. So who died then at Galgotha? In every way we understand and speak of death, the man Jesus Christ died. Did God die that day? Of course not. To speak of God dying is to speak a no-thing, for God cannot die.

Yes the man, Jesus died, not the Divine Jesus, what we disagree on here is the continuance on the human side, Jesus rose fully Divine

 

[beloved57]

In fact, God could not have chosen to die had He not first chosen to have been born.

God sent his son to die the man christ jesus..

1jn 4

9In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

isa 9

6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The man died who was united to the Divine word, this was necessary for the blood sake..its the blood of The God man..though God did not die..the human man died on the cross..

lk 23

And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

This was a human spirit..

 

[PaulMcNabb]

God sent his son to die the man christ jesus..

1jn 4

9In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

isa 9

6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The man died who was united to the Divine word, this was necessary for the blood sake..its the blood of The God man..though God did not die..the human man died on the cross..

lk 23

And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

This was a human spirit..

Yes, God sent His son. And in the Isaiah 9 passage He is called "The mighty God." Jesus was God incarnate.

Luke 23 merely said that Jesus died, something you and I agree on. YOUR private interpretation may be that this means that that had something to do with "a human spirit," but the text there is silent on the matter. There wasn't a human spirit plus some other spirit. The mortal Jesus consisted of a spirit and a physical body, just like the rest of us. But His spirit was divine, part of the Godhead, God.

There were not two Christs or two spirits or even two natures. God wasn't "united" to a mortal man. There was only the Anointed Savior, the "God condescended" and "God incarnate" AS a mortal man.

 

[beloved57]

Yes, God sent His son. And in the Isaiah 9 passage He is called "The mighty God." Jesus was God incarnate.

Luke 23 merely said that Jesus died, something you and I agree on. YOUR private interpretation may be that this means that that had something to do with "a human spirit," but the text there is silent on the matter. There wasn't a human spirit plus some other spirit. The mortal Jesus consisted of a spirit and a physical body, just like the rest of us. But His spirit was divine, part of the Godhead, God.

There were not two Christs or two spirits or even two natures. God wasn't "united" to a mortal man. There was only the Anointed Savior, the "God condescended" and "God incarnate" AS a mortal man.

Jesus was God because of his union with God the son, but the unique thing about Jesus the man is that he is the only human man begotten directly from the Godhead..he was a man..man must die because man sinned..His unison with the The Divine Son qulafied him as the mediator and it gave his blood its intrinsic value, but God the Son the 2nd person in the trinity did not die I understand death is seperation but nevertheless God the Son In His divinity has never been seperated from The God head its impossible..but the divine man experienced that when he said my God my God why has thou forsaken me..The Divine Son of God in and of Himself cannot be forsaken but considered in union with the man christ jesus, the man was foresaken by His covenant God..

 

[PaulMcNabb]

Jesus was God because of his union with God the son, but the unique thing about Jesus the man is that he is the only human man begotten directly from the Godhead..he was a man..man must die because man sinned..His unison with the The Divine Son qulafied him as the mediator and it gave his blood its intrinsic value, but God the Son the 2nd person in the trinity did not die I understand death is seperation but nevertheless God the Son In His divinity has never been seperated from The God head its impossible..but the divine man experienced that when he said my God my God why has thou forsaken me..The Divine Son of God in and of Himself cannot be forsaken but considered in union with the man christ jesus, the man was foresaken by His covenant God..

I'm glad you feel that way. I view that as a mishmash of human theology, but I understand where you're coming from. I think any time you view Jesus as a "union" of two things, you've got it wrong. The person walking around Galilee was a single being and a single person. It was Jesus, God the Son born of woman.

 

[PaulMcNabb]

Jesus was God because of his union with God the son, but the unique thing about Jesus the man is that he is the only human man begotten directly from the Godhead..he was a man..man must die because man sinned.

But Jesus didn't have to die. He chose to die. He had the power to keep His spirit in His body no matter what happened. He let Himself be killed for our sake.

"For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;" John 5:26​

"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." John 10:17-18​

 

[beloved57]

But Jesus didn't have to die. He chose to die. He had the power to keep His spirit in His body no matter what happened. He let Himself be killed for our sake.

"For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;" John 5:26​

"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." John 10:17-18​

paul i am no longer interested in discussing this with you, for i percieve not the lip of understanding from you..:wave:

 

[ApologeticJedi]

What I was saying in that is on the Eastern side, if one is heretical they tend towards the monophysite heresy.

I apologize. I misunderstood. I am very grateful for the correction.

Hopefully I was being quite clear about that when I stated that the Catholic/Orthodox position is unified in the early councils; Christ is two natures which must be held together in unity (as paradoxical as that might be).

Hopefully you mean "might SEEM to be".

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Do we really need to try to deny that the Second Person experienced physical death? I'm curious for backdrop from those that are trying to use "two natures" to split this up as if God didn't experience physical death. Why so important to take so strange a denial?

Is it because of what it does to the immutability argument?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Elsewhere, Sozo writes:

Just to clarify...

I believe that:
Jesus had a body prepared form Him. Hebrews 10:5
God sent His Son in the "likeness" of sinful flesh Romans 8:3
He was found in the "appearance" of a man Philippians 2:8
God is manifest in the flesh. 1 Timothy 3:16
He is the exact representation of the nature of God Hebrews 1:3

One nature in a human body, that died on the cross for our sins, was buried in a tomb, was raised because of our justification and is seated in the heavenlies at the right hand of God.

Incarnate Christ is one Person, with two natures, fully divine and fully human, in a indissoluble union that cannot be mixed, confused, separated, or divided.

In this post I will show that Sozo cannot use these verses to conclude that Christ is "God in a biological suit", one nature, and not a mystical union of the fully human and the fully divine.

As we must for all verses, we first look to what is being discussed. As my other posts describing verses Sozo has appealed to demonstrate, Sozo frequently ignores the surrounding contexts, never reconciles seemingly conflicting passages in other Scripture, and lifts proof-texts in isolation to support his position. This is exactly why private interpretations of Scripture are denounced.

Hebrews 10:5:
Prior to verse 5 the author of Hebrews has been arguing that animal sacrifices will not take away the sins of the people. Yet, God’s will was that sin be atoned and Christ’s sacrifice of Himself fulfills God’s will as animal sacrifices could never do. In verse 5 the Septuagint (LXX) renders “a body you prepared for me” (from Psalms 40:6-8) from the Hebrew synecdoche “you have dug ears for me”. The synecdoche is a type of figure of speech wherein a part (ears) is put forth to mean the whole (body). Thus, if God must “dig out ears”, He necessarily must “prepare {fashion} a body”. Thus in verse 5, we find that it was God’s will that Christ “comes into the world” (v. 5) to accomplish what the OT sacrifices could never accomplish, the perfection of the new covenant believers. From Hebrews 10:1-5, we are taught that God is not satisfied with the ritualistic former sacrifices, and God “prepared” a human “body”, not a biological ‘skin suit’, for His Son, which was to be an integral part of His human life and nature. Nevertheless, the key point in the argument of the author of Hebrews was not that “a body” had been prepared; instead the point was that the Messiah came to do the will of God. This follows from the synecdoche, “you have dug ears for me”, meaning “you have made me obedient and willing to hear”.

Sozo uses a private interpretation of Hebrews 10:5 to conclude that Incarnate Christ’s “body” is mere biology, and not a fully human body. This contradicts the actual willingness to obedience and a right heart, taught by the verse. This contradicts other Scripture teaching that Christ came also as fully human (e.g., John 6:14; 18:37, see also numerous verses here.). Hebrews 10:5 teaches that a real, fully human, body was prepared for the Son of God to be clothed with, for Him to accomplish the will of God.

Romans 8:3:
“For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,”

By appealing to Romans 8:3 and later 1 Timothy 3:16, Sozo demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the word “flesh” (sarx) is used throughout the New Testament. Sozo incorrectly interprets Scriptural use of the term “flesh” to mean a 'biological skin suit', devoid of full humanity, and not the word’s many varying uses which clearly demonstrate full humanity in the Scripture, as shown in the list below:

Earthly existence – Gal. 2:20; Phil. 1:22, 24
Humanity, weak, earthy, perishable (cf. Isaiah 40:6) – Luke 3:6; Acts 2:17; Romans 3:20; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16
Human nature without disparagement – Romans 9:5
Physical heritage, lineage - John 3:6; Rom. 4:1; 9:3; 9:8; Gal. 3:7, Phil. 3:3
Temptability, sinful nature, viewed as the seat and vehicle of sinful desire - Romans 7:5; 8:3-9; 8:12-13; Gal. 5:16-17, Gal. 5:19; Gal. 6:8
Union of Marriage - Matthew 19:5; Eph. 5:29, 30; Col. 2:1

In fact, in all of Paul’s writings, the word “flesh” only applies to the biological substance of the body in 1 Cor. 15:39 and Colossians 2:5.

In the opening of Romans Chapter 8, Paul begins with the word, “Therefore” (v. 1). To what previous is this inferential conjunction setting the stage for in what is to follow in Chapter 8? The connection is to the entire sweep of the discussion of justification and sanctification begun in Chapter 3 of Romans. It is very easy to assume a narrow view that Chapter 8 is simply being presented as an antidote to the wretched state of the sinner given in the previous chapter. But in actuality, Romans 8 collects all the strands of thought from preceding chapters on justification and sanctification and now ties them together with glorification. Paul begins to develop the redeeming work of Christ by the Holy Spirit to the life of a believer such that sin’s dominion is crushed and a reign of godliness assured.

In Romans 8:3, we read that Christ was sent to us “in the likeness of sinful flesh”. The use of flesh here is clearly in the context of full, temptable, humanity (see list above of similar verses). This is borne out by the overriding theme of Chapter 8 discussed above. The verse shows how the Incarnate Christ assumed a full human nature such that He has two natures, the divine (“sending His own Son”) and the human (“in the likeness of sinful flesh”), united but each retaining its own properties. Christ took on this human nature not as it came originally from God (Gen. 1:31), but weakened by sin, though remaining without sin—that is, not “in sinful flesh” but “in the likeness of sinful flesh”.

Sozo concludes that Romans 8:3 does not speak to the full human nature of the Incarnation. Yet, when viewed in its proper context, along with the corpus of Scriptural use of the word “flesh”, we find that not only does the verse support the full humanity of Christ, but it also fully supports the divinity of Christ. Unwittingly, Sozo has selected a verse that fully supports the proper view of the Incarnation—Christ was two natures, fully human and fully divine indissolubly united.

He was found in the "appearance" of a man Philippians 2:8

Sozo next appeals to Philippians 2:8: “Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

In the first eleven verses of the second chapter of Philippians Paul is exhorting for humility and unity towards those in the church. Paul begins Philippians 2 by “being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose” (v. 2), doing everything selflessly, “humility of mind” (v. 3), and being concerned “for the interests of others” (v. 4). In verse 5 Paul connects these attitudes to Christ, and calls upon the reader to have “this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus”.

What follows in verses 6-11 of Philippians is one of the most outstanding Christologies in the New Testament, illustrating the divine condescension, even though Paul was writing them to exhort others to humility and selflessness. These verses, which clearly describe the Incarnation, must be properly understood by all believers.

Php. 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

In verse 6, the pre-Incarnate Christ is described—He existed “in the form of God” and Christ did not regard his existing in a manner of equality with God as a prize to be grasped or held onto. Here “form” is morphe, which denotes the outward manifestation which corresponds to the essence. Readers should contrast that with the noun schema in verse 7, which refers to the outward appearance “taking the form”, which may be temporary.

The NASB renders the participle hyparchon as “existed in the form of God”. This is one place that I believe the NKJV does a better job, rendering it “being in the form of God”, where the present tense clearly indicates Christ’s continuing condition. To state that Christ was existing in the essential metaphysical form of God is equivalent to saying that Christ possessed the nature of God. This phrase is further elaborated by the phrase “equality with God” (isa theo). Here, isa is an adverb (it is not the substantive ison), and thus it describes the manner of existence. The manner of existence need not be regarded as precisely the same as “the form of God”, since one’s essential nature can remain unchanged, while the manner in which that nature is manifested can vary greatly through changing circumstances and times.

The noun harpagmon (“a thing to be grasped”), has been interpreted several ways by others. Does this mean something has been seized or is to be seized? Three possible views have arisen:
1. Preincarnate Christ already possessed equality with God the Father and was resolved not to cling to it;
2. Christ already possessed equality with God and had no need to grasp at it;
3. Unlike Adam, Christ did not reach for His crowning prematurely, but was willing to wait until after His suffering.

Given that harpagmos can be passively used passively much in the same sense as harpagma to mean “prize”, we must let the context to guide us. From the movement of the passage it is evident that the preexistent state is in view (see also the parallel at 2 Cor. 8:9). Given that as Christ already existed in “the form of God”, the mode of His existence as equal with God was hardly something totally future and thus as yet unexperienced. Rather it must be something Christ divested himself of. Thus, view 3 above does not fit the context so well as view 1. Moreover, view 2, while expressing a truth, does not provide any adequate basis for the statements that follow. Therefore, view 1 is the proper view from the biblical context before us.

Php. 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

In this verse, the Apostle’s description moves to Christ's incarnate state. Two clauses are carrying the main thoughts:
1. “but {He} emptied Himself” (NASB, ESV), “But made himself of no reputation” (KJVR), “{he} made himself nothing” (NIV)

2. “He humbled Himself” (verse 8)

The first clause, literally translated is “but himself he emptied” and uses the verb ekenosen that has led to the various kenosis theories that examine the nature of Christ’s “emptying” Himself. While the text is not explicit that Christ emptied Himself of something, this would nevertheless be a proper understanding. We are obviously being prepared for understanding that Christ divested Himself of something and what that “something” was is implied in the following verses.

In the second clause (v. 8) the one who was existing (see verse 6 discussion) in the form of God is seen “taking the form of a bondservant”. The verb, “taking” (labon) does not imply an exchange, but instead implies an addition. Obviously, the “form of God” could not be relinquished, for God cannot cease to be God. But Christ could and did take on the very form of a lowly servant when He entered human life. Some have suggested that “servant” refers to the exalted Servant of Jehovah, but this passage is intended to stress His condescension and humble station. As suggested by the opening of the chapter, we see here the wonderful example Christ provides of the spirit of humility (see verses 3-5).

Inasmuch as angels are also servants, the verse makes it clear that Christ became part of humanity, “being made in the likeness of men”. Here “likeness” (homoiomati) does not carry the connotation of exactness as would eikon, or of an intrinsic form, as would morphe. The word emphasizes the similarity, but leaves room for differences. Hence, Paul implies that while Christ became a genuine man, there were certain aspects in which He was not absolutely like other men. Paul likely had in mind the union of the divine and human natures in Christ or the absence of a sinful nature.


Summarizing the verse we find:
1. Christ did not empty himself of the form of God, that is, His diety
2. Christ did empty Himself of the manner of existence as equal to God
3. Christ did not lay aside the divine attributes, but rather His signs of majesty, much as illustrated by the son of Henry VIII doing when he temporarily exchanged positions with a poor boy in London in Twain’s The Prince and The Pauper.

Christ’s actions have been described as the laying aside, while incarnated, of the independent use of His divine attributes. We find this is a consistent view with Scripture revealing Him using divine powers and displaying His glories on occasion (e.g., miracles, the Transfiguration), yet always under the direction of the Father and the Holy Spirit (see Luke 4:14; John 5:19; 8:28; 14:10).

Php. 2:8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Following his description of the fact of the Incarnation, Paul now turns to considering the utter depths of the humiliation Christ underwent. “He humbled Himself” and ultimately went to “death on a cross”. The final phrase of verse 7 states what Christ actually was while the opening phrase of verse 8 looks at Christ from the perspective of how He appeared in the eyes of men. Christ was “found” by men, as far as His external appearance was concerned (schemati) as a mere man (hos anthropos). Indeed, from all outward appearances Christ was no different from other men. Despite this great condescension for one who possessed “the form of God” Christ did not stop here. He humbled Himself further by “becoming obedient to the point of death”. So committed was Christ to the Father’s plan, that He obeyed it even to death (Hebrews 5:8). Wait! There is more, for this was no ordinary death, but a death of disgrace by crucifixion, a death not even Roman citizens, but only slaves and foreigners, could suffer, but a death signifying to the Jews that was indicative of the curse of God (Deut 21:23; Gal 3:13).

In Chapter 2 of Philippians, Paul’s depiction of Christ's humiliation and subsequent exaltation was intended by him to encourage an attitude of Christ-like humility. Paul teaches that if we are to be identified as followers of Christ, we must demonstrate His characteristics. Yet, Paul’s appeal was just only to a life of lowliness and hardship; his appeal also carried the wonderful reminder that victory followed humiliation and that God's glory will ultimately prevail (vs. 9-11).

Sozo concludes that Php. 2:8 supports his position that Incarnate Christ was not a mystical union of fully divine and fully human natures in one Person. As the entire discussion of the passages within Chapter 2 of Philippians shows, the full humanity of Christ was clearly implied as well as His full divinity. Instead of supporting Sozo’s position, Philippians 2:8 supports Christ’s obedient humbling and humiliation as the fully human bondservant, even unto death.

God is manifest in the flesh. 1 Timothy 3:16

Sozo next seeks to rely upon 1 Timothy 3:16: “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.”

Often rendered in the following hymnal form from the Greek:
By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who

was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.
​

Chapter 3 of Timothy is primarily concerned with pastoral oversight of the church, pastoral behavior and qualifications. In verses 14-16, Paul changes his focus from the qualifications of church leaders to the church in which these leaders serve. Paul refers to the church as God’s household (the family that occupies the building), the church of the living God, and the pillar and foundation of truth (v. 15).

In a very striking creedal statement to follow, “by common confession” (homologoumenos - confessedly), that is by common profession, the great “mystery of godliness” is “was revealed (phaneroo)”. In the active voice the verb phaneroo means, “make visible, clear, manifest, or known”. The eternal Second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God, existing as pure spirit, was made visible, was manifested, in his incarnation.

The creedal hymn in verse 16 by Paul consists of three couplets, each having two lines, each having a deliberate antithesis: between flesh and spirit; between angels and nations; between world and glory. Moreover, each verb used at the beginning of each line of the hymn are third person singular passive aorists. Use of this tense means that each of the six indicated actions is to be viewed as a single whole, irrespective of any time elements involved. Thus “He who was revealed in the flesh” indicates not only the birth of Christ, but the complete period of earthly existence—birth to burial—yet this entire manifestation in the flesh is viewed as one fact. The same is true for the other five verbs.

Between flesh and spirit
Was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit,

The human and divine aspects of His earthly ministry in Palestine. “He was revealed in the flesh” is literally rendered “veiled in flesh the Godhead see”, and the word “flesh” points to Christ’s humiliation.

Between angels and nations
Seen by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,

Christ’s significance seen to extend beyond Palestine to all of the earth, to angels, to humans, to nations.

Between world and glory
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.

Heaven and earth did more than see and hear Christ—they joined in giving him recognition and acclaim.

As discussed above, Sozo’s reliance on 1 Tim. 3:16 to bolster his claim that Christ possessed no fully human nature in mystical union with a fully divine nature is not supportable. We have seen from careful construction of the passage and examination of the original language verb tenses, that “revealed in the flesh” is not a simple biological statement, but one that conveys a birth to burial manifestation of Christ’s humanity.

He is the exact representation of the nature of God Hebrews 1:3

This improper private interpretation by Sozo has been shown to be seriously in error in my previous post here.

From the above, I have shown that Sozo’s private interpretations of Scripture to support his position that Incarnate Christ is one nature, fully divine, in a biological body, with no mystical union of a fully human nature, are outside of proper Scriptural teachings.

Sozo will likely attempt to cite more verses and they equally will be shown as unsupportive of his position. Perhaps one should remind Sozo that Our Lord clearly labeled Himself a man, and was speaking as a man, when he said “a man who has told you the truth” in John 8:40. No amount of straining can twist this verse to imply that the “man” in view here is strictly a biological male. Biology does not speak, “has told” or tell anyone “the truth”. If Sozo’s view is allowed to stand, the phrase would literally read: “a person of the male sex who has told you the truth”. One need only stop the next time they say to someone, “I’m a man, and I am going to….” Ask yourselves if you are referring to your mere sexual identification or to your actual humanity.

Sozo claims he is not a docetist, for he believes docetism merely relates to the early beliefs of Christ as only appearing as a human, like a hologram. The term “docetism” has evolved since it was denounced by the Chalcedonian Definition of the Incarnation. As it is commonly understood today, Sozo’s beliefs about the Incarnation label him a docetist for he clearly denies the true humanity of Our Lord and Savior and claims Christ possessed no human soul and thus no mystical union between the fully divine and the fully human. More specifically, Sozo is an Apollinarian, a heresy denounced over 1600 years ago.

Sozo has denounced many of us all in these forums as being lost, hell-bound, and sin-bent. He has labeled all Christian denominations that teach the biblical view of the Incarnation, the Chalcedonian view, as cults. Sozo’s denunciations are always from the perspective that another gospel is being believed and Christ is being denied. What Sozo frequently means that anyone who disagrees with His view are condemned. I have exposed Sozo’s unscriptural beliefs about the Incarnation in this and other posts in this forum. If Sozo’s rhetoric (“I am right, you are going to Hell”) about anyone’s salvation is allowed to stand, we must all become the docetist that he clearly is and deny the humanity of our Savior. If we do this, then we have no redemption, no justification before God from a perfect sacrifice for our sins. In short, we would all be still in our sins. I hope each of you will pray with me that Sozo carefully review my posts and Scripture and turn away from his private interpretation of the miracle of the Incarnation.

 

[Newman]

Incredible.

 

[Sozo]

You're a godless liar, AMR, and anyone who has honestly read all of this thread, knows that you are.

You think you can hide behind your many words, but God knows that you have the heart of a demon, and your lies will not prosper.

You will go to hell, and not because God has predestined it, but because you have elected to all on your own.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

This is something I have conflict with, the second persona of God is what is incarnate, but that does happen in time, yet when He died on the cross, His body did die, not His Divine nature, thus they did separate and as a result, we lost the incarnate Jesus who taught man directly.

The divine nature and human nature exist in a mystical union, a hypostatic union, that is not separable, mixable, divisible, or confusable. Why do you believe it is not possible for this union to remain unsevered in Paradise? Can God not be present in Paradise and yet be everywhere else as His omnipresence dictates? Perhaps I misunderstand your point.

Yes the man, Jesus died, not the Divine Jesus, what we disagree on here is the continuance on the human side, Jesus rose fully Divine

No, Christ rose fully divine and fully human in a glorified body and now sits at the right hand of God the Father in heaven. Again, as above, the Second Person of the Trinity is not confined to this glorified body or whatever its location may be. God is still God and omnipresent.

 

[Newman]

You're a godless liar, AMR, and anyone who has honestly read all of this thread, knows that you are.

You think you can hide behind your many words, but God knows that you have the heart of a demon, and your lies will not prosper.

You will go to hell, and not because God has predestined it, but because you have elected to all on your own.

I didn't see a single lie in his post, and I'm not even a Calvinist. Did you read it? I don't think you did.

You are a sad, little man. You act worse than the third and fourth graders that I take care of. You constantly resort to the same ad hominem attacks whenever anybody disagrees with you. Open your eyes.

I've been praying for you, and I won't stop.

 

[Sozo]

I didn't see a single lie in his post, and I'm not even a Calvinist. Did you read it? I don't think you did.

You are a sad, little man. You act worse than the third and fourth graders that I take care of. You constantly resort to the same ad hominem attacks whenever anybody disagrees with you. Open your eyes.

I've been praying for you, and I won't stop.

Go to hell, Newman. You're as much a pervert as AMR is.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You're a godless liar, AMR, and anyone who has honestly read all of this thread, knows that you are.

You think you can hide behind your many words, but God knows that you have the heart of a demon, and your lies will not prosper.

You will go to hell, and not because God has predestined it, but because you have elected to all on your own.

You know, Sozo/Mystery, I actually enjoy many of your posts when you are being reasonable. I truly believe that you can add much value to numerous biblical topics. This is why I spent all of the day today preparing my post above. For your sake, Sozo. It is you and I who are truly having this discussion and I genuinely want you to consider a different view that is not Calvinist, not Catholic, not whatever denomination you may choose, but is simply a biblical view that you won't consider seriously. I know your other views, especially with respect to soteriology, and I can guarantee you that none of them are at risk if you accept the "one Person, two natures in a hypostatic union" biblical view of the Incarnation. As I prepared my post I was mindful of these things, as I was hoping that this is what lies behind your entrenchment. Because if it is, you have nothing to fear. An exchanged life is still supportable, even sinlessness of Christ.

Sozo, I believe you are mindful of these matters. I don't think you brush off anything that is posted on topics you are interested in. I think you take me as seriously as I take you. Your current turmoil, evidenced by your vitriol, is the product of the Spirit of God wrestling with you. I am confident there will come a day that the great and wonderful truths of the Incarnation will be made more clear to you, for I believe you to be a man (in all of your humanity's sense!) who constantly searches the Scriptures to prove out what you believe, hear and read.

 

[Sozo]

No AMR, it has absolutely nothing to do with any personal struggles about what I believe in any way. You couldn't be more wrong. It has to do completely and totally with your misrepresentations of what the Bible says, and your personal willingness to lead others away from Christ.

Your view is not the orthodox view any more than monophysitism is, but it is closer to the truth than anything you have suggested.

I get fed up with people on this site who think they know the Bible, think they know the gospel, and think they know Jesus, when they don't know much about anything. All you guys do is bring your own self-centered agendas into the debate and as Satan himself distort the truth to win souls unto yourselves.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Worthless garbage :vomit:

You can forge quotes all day and attribute them to me, Sozo, but it does not diminish your error. You are embarrassing yourself with these tactics.

I seriously cannot understand why the moderators allow a post's content to be forged. I can see how it would get out of hand quickly as forged posts traverse pages of threads. Ultimately a historical record that is left behind, absent the current context, will be an unjust and an inaccurate rendering of the supposed discourse these forums are intended to be used for.

This is a bad precedent to be allowed to stand without action being taken.