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

[beloved57]

who died on the cross ?

who died on the cross ?

The man christ jesus died on the cross , the anointed God Man..

 

[Newman]

If Hades is separation from God, and Jesus went to Hades, and Jesus is God, then wouldn't that make Hades not separation from God while Jesus was there? Can God be separated from God?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Oh, yes, the doctrine of the Trinity is "clearly expounded" in the Bible. All of us can whip out the Scriptures pointing to the doctrine. Yet many here fail to acknowledge that they are standing on the backs of the early church fathers who actually did the heavy lifting to synthesize the doctrine. I'll wager there is not a person herein, myself included, that would have been able to ferret out the full doctrine with nothing but their bible and having never read or been taught the doctrine. Every single one of us is relying upon the great thinkers of the past who taught us these great mysteries.

So to sit around and claim "I rely only upon the bible" is being intellectually dishonest. It is a claim frequently made when some are faced with clear contradictions in their own incorrect doctrines and are unwilling to consider or yield to the same masters of old that they will readily rely upon when the masters are in agreement with them.

You can complain about theologians until the cows come home, but you cannot dismiss the need for someone to teach and formulate the doctrines that you hold so dear. Looked at from another direction, if our view of God is wrong, no amount of good works can erase the idolatry we have erected in our heart. So, both go together: faith (theology) and praxis (life). One guides, corrects, and balances the other. What if our faith is in something we have imagined? What if we have created an intellectual idol? Theology is the guarantor, the check point, and the touchstone, that our faith is legitimate.

 

[Ktoyou]

The man christ jesus died on the cross , the anointed God Man..

What does this mean? You make little sense!

 

[Varangian]

AMR you might want to explain the significance of the doctrine as it was formulated, because to a lot a modern readers it will simply appear to be semantic difference otherwise.

 

[Lighthouse]

If Hades is separation from God, and Jesus went to Hades, and Jesus is God, then wouldn't that make Hades not separation from God while Jesus was there? Can God be separated from God?

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, [Jesus]“Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?”[/Jesus] that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”
-Matthew 27:46

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, [Jesus]“Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”[/Jesus] which is translated, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”
-Mark 15:34

 

[godrulz]

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:

It is more likely that this is a reference to the ungodly human line of Cain, not demons having sex with humans to make giants (Genesis).

 

[godrulz]

If Hades is separation from God, and Jesus went to Hades, and Jesus is God, then wouldn't that make Hades not separation from God while Jesus was there? Can God be separated from God?

At the time, Hades had a righteous and unrighteous compartment (Lk. 16). Jesus was sinless, even in death. He went to the righteous area. He did not go to hell to suffer for sins. His physical death was the substitute for the wages of sin.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If Hades is separation from God, and Jesus went to Hades, and Jesus is God, then wouldn't that make Hades not separation from God while Jesus was there? Can God be separated from God?

Anyone who thinks God is not present in Hell misunderstands His omnipresence and transcendence.

In hell God's blessedness is removed and His wrath is ushered in.

Rev 14:10 he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence {enopion} of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.

enopion, in the face of (literally or figuratively):-before, in the presence (sight) of, to.

Psa 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!

Hell is separation from the comfortable presence of God. For the condemned, Hell is the uncomfortable experience of the presence of the holy and wrathful God, and the absence of His mercy and grace.

 

[Poly]

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.

Ok, so we can't blend them but we also can't seperate them. If we can't blend them then they must be seperated...er... wait....they can't be seperated if they're not blended in the first place....

I now see where you're coming from when you say that you cannot confuse it since you've made it out to be all so clear. :freak:

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.

So just how do you suggest this was done? I guess Christ nature #2(human) had to wait until it got word from nature #1 (divine) on what it was God wanted him to do.

And how did nature #2 know that it was nature #1 relaying these messages of God to Him? :think:

Since nature #2 was human, how was it sure that it was nature #1 giving the orders from God and not just dreaming up it's own desires?

And how did the whole praying thing work out? I'm guessing anytime nature #2 wanted to know something or needed something, it asked nature #1 to "go ask Dad".


:hammer:

 

[Ktoyou]

We know want went into the Bible was determined by the Church and we know much of what was and still is Church doctrine stands as credible. If we should limit ourselves to Sola scriptura, then we limit ourselves to a Protestant stand. According to sola scriptura, the Church does not speak infallibly in its traditions, but only in Scripture.

From Knight

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.

Further, if we exclude the theologians, then we limit ourselves to the idea that anyone can say the Bible means anything they believe it says and that no formal and proper exegesis exists. Often confused with sola scriptura, is that of solo, which is the belief that it is up to the individual to interpret the Bible, discarding all conciliar and ecclesiastical authority.

From AMR

Yet many here fail to acknowledge that they are standing on the backs of the early church fathers who actually did the heavy lifting to synthesize the doctrine.

The First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, basing the declaration in the claim that this was a formulation of traditional Christian belief handed down from the Apostles. This belief was expressed in the Nicene Creed.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council or Third Council of Constantinople (680) held that Jesus has two wills as well as two natures, one Divine and one human, that those two wills did not conflict with or strive against each other. It thus refuted theheresy known as monothelitism, which held that Jesus Christ had only one Divine nature.

These are cannons of the Church, yet most Protestants hold to these. I cannot see how most Protestants can say they believe in Sola scriptura without taking into account the exegesis of the Apostles and early Church fathers?

 

[beloved57]

What does this mean? You make little sense!

Well he was a man only as man could he die but because of his divinity[as God] that gave infinite value and power to his blood..

Also what folk fail to realize is that jesus christ the man was directly generated or begotten from the Divine Essence before he was hypostatically joined wtih The Word whom is The Divine Son of God...He is the only man to have been generated from the Divine essence..adam was created from the dust of the ground the 2nd adam according to his humanity was generated from the Divine Essence..

 

[beloved57]

amr says

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

Hmm but he was a human man before he came in the flesh , because he was begotten of God..

also what do you mean he became a new creation ?

 

[ApologeticJedi]

The objection skeptics raise that Christians run and hide from is that :

If God died on the cross who was running the show?​

In the process of running from this question (which really isn't that difficult), we sometimes swing the pendulum to a bizarre extreme in my opinion.


I feel the correct answer to both questions is:

Jesus existed as both flesh and spirit (not completely dissimilar to us - we have body and spirit as well). When Jesus died on the cross, he died in the flesh. God felt what it was like to die in the flesh at that moment, just as God felt what it was like to eat, sleep and everything else Jesus experienced. However just like when we die, it is only our flesh that is dead. Only God's flesh was dead. God himself still reigned in the spirit world. I believe Jesus actually went to redeem the saints in Abraham's bossom (borrowing from Charles Larkin's imagery) and eventually came back to the earth three days later.​

Now that fits, but it won't satisfy some.

It fits because we don't have to worry about how Jesus's spirit crossed in and out of the eternal now or bother with some of the logical contradictions about how Jesus and the Son of Man are treated like different persons, or just the bizarre dodges that often we use by just saying "duel nature" and then get impertenant when people question how that really solves anything. (After all, don't they know they are supposed to stop asking questions when I spout my buzz word?!)

 

[Ktoyou]

Well he was a man only as man could he die but because of his divinity[as God] that gave infinite value and power to his blood..

Also what folk fail to realize is that jesus christ the man was directly generated or begotten from the Divine Essence before he was hypostatically joined wtih The Word whom is The Divine Son of God...He is the only man to have been generated from the Divine essence..adam was created from the dust of the ground the 2nd adam according to his humanity was generated from the Divine Essence..

OK, I think I understand what you are saying. You need to work on your writing skills, as without doing so, you came across unreadable.

I think you are saying that Jesus is man or as I would say it, fully human, yet He is fully Divine.

What you say next is a common error; Jesus was not created by God the Father through Mary. Jesus as God always existed beyond time. There is not a hierarchy in the Trinity, as some might think, God the Father is the most powerful and is the boss. It is not three persons, for that would be polytheism. It is that God is presented to us in three personas, the father who is the God of the Old Testament, the Son who is God made flesh and God the Holy Spirit who is ever present in Grace. We have one God, but three understandings of God and three ways of knowing God.

 

[Ktoyou]

ApologeticJedi,
You are presuming that God needs to experience being human to understand it? Do you actually think God is so limited that He must eat to know eating?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Ok, so we can't blend them but we also can't seperate them. If we can't blend them then they must be seperated...er... wait....they can't be seperated if they're not blended in the first place....

You see, the Chalcedonian Description is more about what the Incarnation is not, and not about what it is. The Description tells us the boundaries of discussion on the mystery of the Incarnation, boundaries we must not cross or we fall into the heresies that were denounced. The hypostatic union is a true mystery that no one can fully understand on this side of the grave, if ever. The point of saying we cannot mix, separate, confuse, or divide means we must accept things as they have been defined and no more. In other words, the inseparable divine and human natures of the Incarnated Christ must not be mixed, separated, confused, or divided ("the four negatives of Chalcedon") and that is the limit of how far we can go on the matter to avoid heretical thinking. This is a good introduction.

I wrote two sentences:
"(1)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. (2)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."

So just how do you suggest this was done?

How do you suppose the prophets of the OT were guided by God without God violating their humanity? Did God speaking through these men somehow change their human nature? No. This is the point of my sentence number (2) and is equally applicable to the communication between the divine nature and the human nature of Christ.

Sentence (1) is important so that we do not deify a human nature.

We must not fall into the Nestorian heresy of thinking two persons existed in the Incarnated Christ. He was one person, with two natures perfectly united into that one person, who acts according to both natures. We see in Scripture many actions that are clearly actions of one nature rather than another. Jesus gets hungry, sleeps, etc., thus manifesting His human nature. At other times, for example, Jesus knows things only God would know, thus manifesting His divine nature. By these examples we distinguish between the two natures, but we do not separate them.

There was only one personality in Christ. While Christ had both a human and divine consciousness He possessed only one all-controlling self-consciousness, which was the divine person, the Second Person of the Trinity, and not the human nature. If and when determined by the Logos, Jesus Christ was omnipotent. Yet, when the divine nature withdrew, metaphorically speaking, its support from the human, the human was as any other ordinary human. Why or how the divine nature sometimes withdrew itself, metaphorically speaking, ("Who touched me?"), or did not ("Lazarus, come forth."), is not revealed in the Scriptures. And when God is silent our mouths should remain shut, too.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

amr says

Hmm but he was a human man before he came in the flesh , because he was begotten of God..

also what do you mean he became a new creation ?

No I did not say this. Lion did here.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

These are cannons of the Church, yet most Protestants hold to these. I cannot see how most Protestants can say they believe in Sola scriptura without taking into account the exegesis of the Apostles and early Church fathers?

Basically the idea is that if confessions and creeds are biblically based, sola scriptura still applies. For example, if I thought the Westminster Confession was not biblical in its interpretations of Scripture, I would reject it immediately. Moreover, the Confession is not held out to be an infallible pronouncement by ecclesiastical authorities. It is this latter issue that runs afoul of sola scriptura.

I think what you are saying (pls correct me) is that no one should be claiming they get all they need to know from strictly personal study of the bible without relying upon the proper efforts of the great forefathers. I have seen some go so far as to say they won't read a bible that has only cross-references in it because they feel they will be unduly influenced by the thinking of whomever developed the system of cross-references.

 

[Ktoyou]

What I have said about Christ being for a moment “fully human’ to a bit of hyperbola that was taught to me as a child by an Anglican priest. It is not Canon to suggest that Christ did divide Himself upon His death, yet it does attempt to explain why he cried out, “Why has thou forsaken me”. It is nevertheless not Christian canon