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

[amosman]

Christ then went to hell to (a) Proclaim to the fallen angels in hell that their plan to stop the incarnation had failed;

Quote:
1Pet 3:18-20 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient,
and (b) to take the believers in Abraham's Bosom from Hades to heaven.

This is most likely a reference to the preincarnate Messiah preaching through Noah to those who, because they rejected that message, are now spirits in prison. What do these verses really say? Notice the verse that mentions in the days of Noah. A good question to ask is what about all the souls between Noah and Messiah? This is not saying that Yeshua went to some place the dead souls are to proclaim victory. The victory didn't even happen until His resurrection anyway.

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1Pe 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Messiah preached to the spirits in prison at the time of Noah and He did it through Noah.

Quote:
Ephesians 4:8-10 Therefore He says: “ When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men.” (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

Yeshua did descend into the lower parts of the earth. He also ascended back to heaven. We live in the lower parts of the earth. Lower parts of the earth is not a reference to Purgatory.

 

[Lighthouse]

Christ did not have two natures. His flesh died. He was God in the flesh. So when that flesh died, God in the flesh died. The Son of Man died. The Son of God died. They are one and the same. And He was both, in the flesh. His spirit even died, for he descended into Abraham's Bosom/Paradise.

So the entirety of Christ died, and the entirety of Christ came back to life.

 

[Evoken]

Well, it could have happened (at any time in Jesus’ life including when He was tempted), and God is free, so yes it could happen. However, God has proven a million times over that He is righteous and just. A God of His word. So we can trust that He will remain righteous and just, and keep His word. But I believe that if Jesus would have fallen, He would have been separated forever, and we could not have come back to God.

Ok, so you admit that both the Son and the Holy Spirit could be separated for all eternity from the Godhead if they sinned and would become fallen members of the Trinity, right? This would leave the Father alone and he would continue as if neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit existed.

Can the reverse be true? Can for example the Father become a fallen member while the Son and the Spirit remain part of the Godhead? As an example think that instead of the Son it was the Father that became flesh. If he sinned, would he become separated for all eternity?

Sorry for all the questions, I just want to better understand your view to avoid misunderstandings.


Evo

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Just so it is not overlooked, I repeat my previous

The short version, Top-10 ‘cheat sheet’ of the Incarnation:

1. God is one in essence, being, or substance, and three in person.

2. Christ is consubstantial (from the same essence) with the Father and co-eternal.

3. Christ has both a human nature and a divine nature.

4. These two natures are perfectly united in one person, but the two natures of Christ are without mixture, confusion, division, or separation. We may distinguish between the two natures, but we cannot blend, confuse, divide or separate them.

5. Each nature of Christ retains its own attributes. Since a perfect unity exists between the human nature and the divine nature, anything that can be attributed to either nature can be attributed to the person. For example, we can say that Jesus was God (John 20:28) without deifying His human nature—without saying He had divine feet and hands. Frequently, the Scriptures speaks of the person when only one nature is involved.

It is a doctrinal error to assume that what was known by Christ’s divine nature would also been known by His human nature. Christ’s human nature did not gain divine omniscience from the incarnation. However, it is also doctrinal error to assume that the divine nature was unable to communicate information to the human nature without violating his humanity.

6. The physical nature of Christ ascended into heaven and is there now—and is not anywhere else.

7. The divine nature of Christ is God, and is not limited to the physical confines of the body of Jesus.

8. When God was incarnated in Christ, He was not confined to any place that Jesus happened to be in <st1>Palestine<st1:city w:st="on"></st1:city></st1>.

9. God cannot die, only human beings can and do die. The work of obedience done by Christ as the second Adam was wrought in His human nature. No merit comes to us if the divine nature of Christ fulfilled the work that was given to the human. The human nature completed the work of perfect obedience. The value and merit of that work is increased by the fact that it was done by a man who was God incarnate—adding dignity and significance to the ministry of Christ.

10. Jesus Christ died on the cross, but God did not die. The divine nature did not die. Jesus the person, experienced death in his human nature. The divine nature, prior to the death of Christ, was united with a living, breathing, human nature. 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. When Jesus’ physical body was in the grave (tomb), the divine nature was still united with it. Death did not sever the union of the two natures of Christ, but the divine nature did not die.<o></o>

 

[Lion]

Error! You, Knight, etc., will be unable to find any support for this sort of doctrine unless you turn to the heresies denounced at Chalcedon. Unbelieveable!

You fall into the kenotic theology heresies of old times past with this sort of thinking.

The only thing Christ emptied Himself of was His glory in the humiliation of the Incarnation. He was still the same God that is in Heaven now as He was then. The openist desires to see change in God so desperately that they would remake His very essence into something denounced hundreds of years ago by all of Christendom.

Well, I agree that this theology is out of accepted thought, but I also believe it to be right and far more Biblically provable than the accepted theology.

The below verses point to a Jesus that was in all things made like his brethren;

Phil 2:5-11 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Heb 2:14-18 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

You said that Jesus is the same God in heaven as He was before He came in the flesh. Huh? Come on, now. God the Son was never flesh before. He became flesh. He became a New Creation. Man and God as One. He had never been that before and He will never be just God the Son again.

 

[Lion]

This is most likely a reference to the preincarnate Messiah preaching through Noah to those who, because they rejected that message, are now spirits in prison. What do these verses really say? Notice the verse that mentions in the days of Noah. A good question to ask is what about all the souls between Noah and Messiah? This is not saying that Yeshua went to some place the dead souls are to proclaim victory. The victory didn't even happen until His resurrection anyway.

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1Pe 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Messiah preached to the spirits in prison at the time of Noah and He did it through Noah.



Yeshua did descend into the lower parts of the earth. He also ascended back to heaven. We live in the lower parts of the earth. Lower parts of the earth is not a reference to Purgatory.

I don’t want to go off on a rabbit trail, but Christ was preaching to the fallen angels that tried to corrupt the messianic line by creating a race of giants. That’s why the reference to Noah is there. Do a few word searches and you will be able to put the puzzle together. It’s pretty cool.:up:

 

[amosman]

I don’t want to go off on a rabbit trail, but Christ was preaching to the fallen angels that tried to corrupt the messianic line by creating a race of giants. That’s why the reference to Noah is there. Do a few word searches and you will be able to put the puzzle together. It’s pretty cool.:up:

I call them Rabbi trails. :thumb:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Error! You, Knight, etc., will be unable to find any support for this sort of doctrine unless you turn to the heresies denounced at Chalcedon. Unbelieveable!

Oh no!!! What ever will we do?

How dare we contradict the Chalcedon!!! :chuckle:

To be honest, I have no idea what what was denounced at the Chalcedon nor do I really care. The Bible is God's word. The Bible is my authority on what is right and what is wrong. You can have the theologians, you can take the philosophers, I never really liked them that much anyway.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You said that Jesus is the same God in heaven as He was before He came in the flesh.

No I did not. You, like so many others, are not reading carefully. Don't just say, "you said", but actually quote my words, so I can show you your error in your assumption.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Well, I agree that this theology is out of accepted thought

"out of accepted thought"? It has been denounced as heretical for hundreds of years!

Do you or do you not agree with the Chalcedonian Description of the Incarnation? If you do not then you are one of the following:

1. deny the genuineness (Ebionism) or the completeness (Arianism) of Christ's deity
2. deny the genuineness (Docetism) or the completeness (Apollinarianism) of His humanity
3. divide His person (Nestorianism) or confuse His natures (Eutychianism)

Your words so far place you in the Arian camp, sir.

 

[Lion]

Hopping down the bunny trail.

Hopping down the bunny trail.

Ok, so you admit that both the Son and the Holy Spirit could be separated for all eternity from the Godhead if they sinned and would become fallen members of the Trinity, right? This would leave the Father alone and he would continue as if neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit existed.

Can the reverse be true? Can for example the Father become a fallen member while the Son and the Spirit remain part of the Godhead? As an example think that instead of the Son it was the Father that became flesh. If he sinned, would he become separated for all eternity?

Sorry for all the questions, I just want to better understand your view to avoid misunderstandings.


Evo

Well, once again I don’t want to go off on rabbit trails, but I will briefly answer . The scenario you propose is somewhat different, because God the Father is the head. God the Son and the Holy Spirit accept an obedient role to the Father. However, God is free. He could choose to sin, but He does not. What He could not do is sin and still be righteous. If God the Father sinned, I think it would destroy the Godhead, (although I won’t go into why here…it would take us too far off topic).

 

[Lion]

No I did not. You, like so many others, are not reading carefully. Don't just say, "you said", but actually quote my words, so I can show you your error in your assumption.

Um….I sorta think you did to.

The only thing Christ emptied Himself of was His glory in the humiliation of the Incarnation. He was still the same God that is in Heaven now as He was then.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

AMR's name fits him well.

AMR's name fits him well.

"out of accepted thought"? It has been denounced as heretical for hundreds of years!

Do you or do you not agree with the Chalcedonian Description of the Incarnation? If you do not then you are one of the following:

1. deny the genuineness (Ebionism) or the completeness (Arianism) of Christ's deity
2. deny the genuineness (Docetism) or the completeness (Apollinarianism) of His humanity
3. divide His person (Nestorianism) or confuse His natures (Eutychianism)

Your words so far place you in the Arian camp, sir.

AMR, you are a worshipper of theology. On this thread and on almost every other thread you participate in you seem more committed to theology and philosophy than you are to God's word.

Dig yourself out of that rut! Free yourself from that bondage! (you will thank me for it!) :thumb:

There certainly isn't anything wrong with reading commentaries and other theological works but denouncing people for not agreeing with dead theologian(s) simply because they were "accepted by Christendom" is wacky! In other words... I have no problem with you referencing other theologians and using them as an additional source but you seem to think that to disagree with stuff like this is akin to rejecting the Bible itself which of course is hogwash.

AMR, it's the Bible that is ultimately most important, not a council, nor a creed, nor any other man-made theology. Let's commit ourselves to using the Bible as our source for what is true. Deal?

 

[Lion]

Oh no!!! What ever will we do?

How dare we contradict the Chalcedon!!! :chuckle:

To be honest, I have no idea what what was denounced at the Chalcedon nor do I really care. The Bible is God's word. The Bible is my authority on what is right and what is wrong. You can have the theologians, you can take the philosophers, I never really liked them that much anyway.

Hey, don’t denounce the theologians, they say clear cut things like this;

10. Jesus Christ died on the cross, but God did not die. The divine nature did not die. Jesus the person, experienced death in his human nature. The divine nature, prior to the death of Christ, was united with a living, breathing, human nature. 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. When Jesus’ physical body was in the grave (tomb), the divine nature was still united with it. Death did not sever the union of the two natures of Christ, but the divine nature did not die.

Er, maybe you should dis them.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Oh no!!! What ever will we do?

How dare we contradict the Chalcedon!!! :chuckle:

To be honest, I have no idea what what was denounced at the Chalcedon nor do I really care. The Bible is God's word. The Bible is my authority on what is right and what is wrong. You can have the theologians, you can take the philosophers, I never really liked them that much anyway.

Please. You think the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly expounded upon in the Scriptures?

Some words of advice:

"The term "Trinity" is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in Scripture in solution; when it is crystalized from its solvent it does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view. Or, to speak without figure, the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not in forumulated definition, but in fragmentary allusions; when we assemble the disjecta membra into their organic unity, we are not passing from Scripture, but entering more thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture. We may state the doctrine in technical terms, supplied by philosophical reflection; but the doctrine stated is a genuinely Scriptural doctrine."
{B. B. Warfield, The Works of B.B. Warfield, 10 volumes, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House) 1929, 2:133}
​

Do you honestly think the church divines involved in crafting the Chalcedonian Description were not Christians and not relying upon biblical constructs?

Don't hide behind the "I rely only upon the bible" as an excuse to be more informed or to dismiss something you don't care to learn. God never expected His faithful to be unlearned and an embarrassment to the unbeliever. One need only read the NT and see how often extra-biblical works are cited to see that the disciples were not ignorant men.

 

[Lion]

"out of accepted thought"? It has been denounced as heretical for hundreds of years!

Do you or do you not agree with the Chalcedonian Description of the Incarnation? If you do not then you are one of the following:

1. deny the genuineness (Ebionism) or the completeness (Arianism) of Christ's deity
2. deny the genuineness (Docetism) or the completeness (Apollinarianism) of His humanity
3. divide His person (Nestorianism) or confuse His natures (Eutychianism)

Your words so far place you in the Arian camp, sir.

An arian, YOIKS! Hey, let’s not get nasty here, dude.

Anyway, I’m with knight. I don’t with creeds or ancient followings for their sake alone. Prove it to me in the Bible and I will change my mind. I want my theology to be as close to God’s as possible. So, if I’m wrong and you can prove it I will thank you heartily and once we get to heaven I’ll buy you a root beer, (unless we meet sooner).

As to what I am… well… what I believe is that Christ was Christ. He was God the Son and the Son of God. He was free and He is free and He did what I didn’t. He chose to do His Father’s will at all times. I don’t because I’m stupid and weak and selfish.

He is part of the Godhead but is His own personality which is different than the Father’s or the Holy Spirits’.

 

[PKevman]

Please. You think the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly expounded upon in the Scriptures?

Irrefutably so. But that is a topic for another thread.

 

[Lion]

Please. You think the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly expounded upon in the Scriptures?

Some words of advice:

"The term "Trinity" is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in Scripture in solution; when it is crystalized from its solvent it does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view. Or, to speak without figure, the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not in forumulated definition, but in fragmentary allusions; when we assemble the disjecta membra into their organic unity, we are not passing from Scripture, but entering more thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture. We may state the doctrine in technical terms, supplied by philosophical reflection; but the doctrine stated is a genuinely Scriptural doctrine."
{B. B. Warfield, The Works of B.B. Warfield, 10 volumes, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House) 1929, 2:133}
​

Do you honestly think the church divines involved in crafting the Chalcedonian Description were not Christians and not relying upon biblical constructs?

Don't hide behind the "I rely only upon the bible" as an excuse to be more informed or to dismiss something you don't care to learn. God never expected His faithful to be unlearned and an embarrassment to the unbeliever. One need only read the NT and see how often extra-biblical works are cited to see that the disciples were not ignorant men.

Yeah, we done knowed that already. Ums TOL boys gots brains yer know?

The term Trinity isn’t in the Bible, but you are wrong that it isn’t clearly expounded on in the Bible. It’s just that you have to search it out a little. God does that a lot. He hides things…some a little…some a lot. That way the Bible stays interesting all the time.

Proverbs 25:2
These also are proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied: It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

It’s like God being free and able to change things up when necessary. God never says…”Hey lunk heads I have power and can change things if I want to.” Instead He just screams it off every page of the Bible.

But again… a rabbit trail.

Prove the two natures of Christ…meaning the Trinity is really a quadrangle from the Bible…please?

 

[patman]

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?

Wow. I've been out of the loop.

So if the Son did not die who was resurrected?

That would imply we shouldn't worship the Risen Lord wouldn't it?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Um….I sorta think you did to.

Your words to me:
'You said that Jesus is the same God in heaven as He was before He came in the flesh."

What I said that forms the basis of your words above:
"The only thing Christ emptied Himself of was His glory in the humiliation of the Incarnation. He was still the same God that is in Heaven now as He was then."

Note I am speaking here of the Incarnated God-Man, Christ, the Savior. You hoped to imply something different from my words when you wrote:

"God the Son was never flesh before. He became flesh. He became a New Creation."

Your words are incorrect in that you assume some change took place in God because of the hypostatic union. In so doing you fail to understand the nature of the union, in that it implies that two natures are perfectly united, but they cannot be mixed, confused, divided, or separated. All we can do is distinguish between the two natures. By your words, you have mixed (blended) the two natures. This is not orthodoxy, but heresy.