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

[Mystery]

They are letters written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and preserved and implemented per God's divine direction.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I have given you the Biblical support that Jesus has divine nature. You have given us the Pope, your unbiblical opinions, and the theories of godless men.

AMR, I have to agree with Mystery on that one.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Sozo/MrE,

Like I said, anytime you are ready for an honest biblical discussion, please reply to the following with your own substantive exegesis of the relevant verses:

here
here
here

 

[Mystery]

Sozo/MrE,

Like I said, anytime you are ready for an honest biblical discussion, please reply to the following with your own substantive exegesis of the relevant verses:

here
here
here

Just because you find that your time is so worthless that you can spend it promoting your cult, does not mean that I have to waste my time on you when I know full well that you do not have ears to hear. I value my time.

I would no more waste my time on you than I would the Mormons or Catholics (unless they were genuinely interested in hearing the truth) which, of course, you are not.

 

[Evoken]

The hypostatic union theory was created at the Council of Chalcedon.

Actually it was not. All the Council did was express more explicitly what was already believed in order to refute errors and avoid misunderstandings. That Christ is both man and God, that is, that he has two natures has always been believed by Christians going down to apostolic ages. The Council of Chalcedon took place in 451 A.D., but we have testimony that long before that, Christians already believed in this. Note the dates of the following quotes:

Ignatius of Antioch, A.D. 110
"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit"

Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 190
"The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for he was in God—and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things"

Tertullian, A.D. 210
"The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born"

There are many more of course, but the point is, the dual natures of Christ is no novelty, it was not invented. It has been part of apostolic teaching since the very beginning. Do you know that there is simply no list of the canon of Scripture cited by anyone at this time and that it was not till 382 A.D. that the canon was set in any definite form?


Evo

 

[Mystery]

Actually it was not. All the Council did was express more explicitly what was already believed in order to refute errors and avoid misunderstandings.

Technically, that is true. I should have said adopted not "created". I'm sure Satan created it long before that and introduced through false apostles as he saw fit.

That Christ is both man and God, that is, that he has two natures has always been believed by Christians going down to apostolic ages.

Not by the Apostle Paul.

Ignatius of Antioch, A.D. 110
"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit"

Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 190
"The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for he was in God—and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things"

Tertullian, A.D. 210
"The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born"

Ask Mr. Religion A. D. 2008

"Are you seriously denying that Christ is one Person with two natures, one fully divine, one fully human?"

So what?

Do you know that there is simply no list of the canon of Scripture cited by anyone at this time and that it was not till 382 A.D. that the canon was set in any definite form?

And so what? It was still preserved by God and with divine direction given to us when God saw fit. You are wanting to add to those writings by giving the theories of men the same respect.

Shame on you.

 

[godrulz]

First off::baby: You type the word, "baby," between the colons.:dunce::duh:

Secondly, are you seriously agreeing with AMR on this?

I am not agreeing on every detail, but disagree or agree, it does not make us sinful or stupid. There is no proof text that gives detail on the exact way God becomes man and how this affects the unique God-Man in His personal reality. It is not a salvific issue if we do not deny His Deity/humanity/redemption.

 

[godrulz]

Just because you give supremacy to the Pope over the Bible, and worship Calvin over Jesus, does not give you the right to make slanderous lies about my commitment to Christ and the Bible.

I have given you the Biblical support that Jesus has divine nature. You have given us the Pope, your unbiblical opinions, and the theories of godless men.

The problem is that you use verses that prove the Deity of Christ (which we do) without considering other verses that prove His humanity (as we do). The exact way we phrase how God becomes man in Christ is subject to dialogue and does not make one sinful, stupid, possessed, or calling God a liar if we do not understand or articulate it the same.

When Chandler comes along and denies His Deity, then the fight should begin. Otherwise, you are shedding blood over issues that we can agree to disagree on.

 

[Mystery]

When Chandler comes along and denies His Deity, then the fight should begin. Otherwise, you are shedding blood over issues that we can agree to disagree on.

I'm not as concerned with someone standing there with a bottle of Draino in their hand saying "Here, drink this", as I am with the ones who are mixing Draino in your grape juice to hide the poison and then handing it to you with a smile on their face.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I'm not as concerned with someone standing there with a bottle of Draino in their hand saying "Here, drink this", as I am with the ones who are mixing Draino in your grape juice to hide the poison and then handing it to you with a smile on their face.

I agree with you on this, Mystery.

A false message coming out of a pulpit is infinitely more dangerous than
the message of a Satanist or Atheist.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Or, I should say a message of 60% truth and 40% blatant error
coming out of a pulpit...

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I agree with you on this, Mystery.

I appreciate a person who is precise in their written words. Your use of "on this" leads me to ask if you believe Christ was incarnated as one Person, with two natures, one fully divine and one fully human?

Or, do you agree with Mystery's view: One person, fully divine, in a human body, with no human soul?

 

[godrulz]

Or, I should say a message of 60% truth and 40% blatant error
coming out of a pulpit...

Heresy is half truth, not full error. One drop of poison in pure water can be fatal.

MAD is heretical, but not totally false. Watchtower/JW and Mormon beliefs are spiritually false and fatal, unlike the the topic of this thread among true believers.

You guys should start a fundamentalist pharisee cult (that is what you are due to lack of discernment between essential vs peripheral issues).

 

[godrulz]

I appreciate a person who is precise in their written words. Your use of "on this" leads me to ask if you believe Christ was incarnated as one Person, with two natures, one fully divine and one fully human?

Or, do you agree with Mystery's view: One person, fully divine, in a human body, with no human soul?

Can you name and link detail on this particular heresy again, or is it unique to sozo?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Can you name and link detail on this particular heresy again, or is it unique to sozo?

Apollinarianism for starters.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I appreciate a person who is precise in their written words. Your use of "on this" leads me to ask if you believe Christ was incarnated as one Person, with two natures, one fully divine and one fully human?

Or, do you agree with Mystery's view: One person, fully divine, in a human body, with no human soul?

What do you mean by soul? mind, will, emotions?

 

[Mystery]

What do you mean by soul? mind, will, emotions?

Just so you know where I stand...

I do not accept that Jesus had a human soul for the following reasons:

First... Jesus had a mind, a will, and emotions before the incarnation, and He also had an identity (that of being God the Son).

In a body of flesh, Jesus experienced all that man does with His own mind, will, and emotions.

In order for Jesus to have a newly created human soul, He would have to have two minds, two wills, and two sets of emotions, as well as two identities. He would be someone who did not pre-exist, where this "fusion" they suggest dissolves at the cross where God the Son does not experience death, but only His human aspect does. This makes Jesus into two different people during that event.

 

[godrulz]

Just so you know where I stand...

I do not accept that Jesus had a human soul for the following reasons:

First... Jesus had a mind, a will, and emotions before the incarnation, and He also had an identity (that of being God the Son).

In a body of flesh, Jesus experienced all that man does with His own mind, will, and emotions.

In order for Jesus to have a newly created human soul, He would have to have two minds, two wills, and two sets of emotions, as well as two identities. He would be someone who did not pre-exist, where this "fusion" they suggest dissolves at the cross where God the Son does not experience death, but only His human aspect does. This makes Jesus into two different people during that event.

This is your human reasoning and speculation not proven by specific texts in context. We use the same proof texts and support another theory. The exact relations between divine and human in one person are debatable, not a heaven-hell issue.

If we would have never read your post (few will), or if the most godly Christians do not understand or accept your wording (true in church history), it would not affect our salvation one bit (based on Christ, not your views). You are deluded to elevate your limited understanding above Christ and his Word.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What do you mean by soul? mind, will, emotions?

Just tell us what you believe concerning the doctrine of the incarnation.

If you agree with Mystery, please just say so. You have read his posts on the matter. If you don't, what is it about his posts that you disagree with?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Well, scripture says Christ was a man, so I believe he was a man.

I'm not so sure that I buy into him having two minds, two wills, two sets of emotions. I believe I am basically in agreement with Mystery.