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

[PKevman]

Outrage! Scandal! That is what the passage referring to something not enetering God's mind means. Nothing more.

Right. Since God cannot mean exactly what He says, you need to make sure that people understand it for Him. The thing is, the above is NOT Bible. It's your opinion, and your attempt to avoid clear statements from the Lord that refute your points. Nothing more.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I read your post, but didn't quote it because of the length.

Thanks, it would have been tedious.

You have asked some important questions that deserve careful answers. Like most theologians who write about this sacred mystery, my fingers tremble as I carefully type the words so that I don’t inadvertently blaspheme or lead others into terrible error.

When you are born in this world what identifies you as a man? Your body, soul, and spirit?

I don’t think you literally mean “male human”, else I would just answer something like genetic sequences. I think you mean, what uniquely identifies an individual. This would be personality or just personhood.

Some preliminaries are needed, especially with respect to words like nature and person, that will serve as background to my answers to your questions. I hope you will pardon the length here.

Jesus had a human body and a soul. But He had much more. If Christ were merely a man, He could not function as Mediator; nor could Christ function as Mediator if He were simply "God in the flesh". But as both God and man, truly God as man and truly man as God, Christ can be the Mediator and unite God and men.|

God the Son, already the Second Person of the Trinity, did not take into Himself a human person in the Incarnation. That would mean two persons occupied the body of Jesus versus one person, with two natures.

The Second Person of the Trinity took into Himself a human nature. Nature used when discussing the Incarnation is “a complex of attributes”. Nature never means ‘person’ when discussing the Incarnation. The human nature has its subsistence in His Person, and the human nature has a glory and excellence given it. Yet the human nature gives nothing at all to the nature and person of the divine Word and Son of God.

When the Word became flesh, it does not mean that the Logos ceased to be what He was beforehand. In John 1:14, the verb egeneto does not mean the Logos changed into flesh, thereby changing His essential nature, only that He took on that particular character, that He acquired an additional form, without in any way changing His original nature.

The term person denotes a complete substance endowed with reason, and, consequently, a responsible subject of its own actions. 'Personality' is not an essential and integral part of a nature. A person is a nature with something added, namely, independent subsistence, individuality. The Logos assumed a human nature that was not personalized, that did not exist by itself. The Logos furnishes the basis for the personality of Christ.

The Son of God took into union with Himself a full complex of human attributes (a human ‘nature’). The man Jesus could never exist apart from the union with the one divine Son of God. There were not two “self-consciousnesses” within Christ Incarnate. The ‘person’ of the Incarnation was self-consciously divine and consciously human. Hence, Incarnate Christ possessed a human will. The human will was distinct from the divine will, though not opposite, but in subjection to it (John 6:38; Luke 22:42). The self-consciousness of Christ was always divine, and the human consciousness could never act out of discord with the divine self-consciousness.

If the body is destroyed do you cease being a man?

Again, I assume you mean ‘person’, not merely a male human. As above, the term person denotes a complete substance endowed with reason, and, consequently, a responsible subject of its own actions. So, no, destruction of the body does not destroy the person.

Are those who are absent from the body and present with the Lord, void of their identity?

No. Identity is rooted in personhood moreso than a physical body. As Christians, we know this to be a truth. From Scripture we know identities are retained after death.

Since you believe that Jesus is "fully man", does He have a soul that did not exist before He was born?

To be precise, I believe Christ was one person, with two natures, one fully divine and one fully human. I have never ever stated that Christ was fully man without these qualifiers.<o></o>
<o></o>
To the point of your question, the human nature of the Incarnated Christ was fully man. The human nature of Christ possessed a human soul that did not exist before the Incarnation.

When Jesus died on the cross, was He still "fully man"?

Fully man and fully God in the person of Christ were on the Cross. What died that terrible day was the human nature of Christ. And just as all humans who die, they retain their humanity beyond physical death. However, the Second Person of the Trinity, that had taken into Himself a human nature at the Incarnation, did not die that day.<o>
</o><o></o>
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.<o></o>

Was He still "fully man" when His body laid in the tomb?

Fully man and fully God in the person of Jesus Christ were laid to rest in the tomb. While He was in the tomb, the divine nature was united with a human nature whose spirit was in paradise. However, that divine nature was not confined to any location wherein the human nature existed. God, and necessarily, God in the Second Person of the Trinity is omnipresent.<o>
</o><o></o>
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.

Is He still "fully man" as He sits in heaven?

The one divine Second Person of the Trinity, who possessed a divine nature from eternity, assumed a human nature, and now has both in Heaven. Again, the divine nature, the Second Person of the Trinity, is not limited to the physical location of the presently existing glorified body of Jesus in Heaven.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Right. Since God cannot mean exactly what He says, you need to make sure that people understand it for Him. The thing is, the above is NOT Bible. It's your opinion, and your attempt to avoid clear statements from the Lord that refute your points. Nothing more.

The infinite God communicates to His creatures made from the dust of the earth in a language they understand, with all of that language's limitations to receive communications from a transcendent God.

To attach doctrine to obvious anthropomorphisms in many narrative passages, when very clear passages exist that teach a contrary view, is just bad exegesis. You have no problem admitting that when God asks Adam, "Where are you?" that the passage does not literally mean God did not know where Adam was. Yet, when God says something like "I will go down now", you inconceivably cast off the very reasoning used in the former case, because to do otherwise would weaken an already tenuous openism doctrine on the nature of God's knowledge.

It is not my opinion, PK. It is my and the many thousands of others in orthodox Christendom who study, teach, author, and publish on these matters. Beware of the seduction of the minority view, for it often appeals to our prideful human natures. I am not saying the majority is always right. I am saying that one should be very cautious when adopting a minority theological view in this era.

 

[godrulz]

If Jesus is "fully man", when the body of Jesus died on the cross, where was the "man"?

Was the "man" separated from God? Was 'he' conscious of self?

Is Jesus eternally the "God-Man"?

Jesus is not half man, half God. He is 100% God and 100% man. He has a fully human nature (He is not superman) and a fully divine nature (he is not less than the Father).

Jesus was not eternally the God-Man since He only became flesh at the incarnation (Jn. 1:14). Now that He is raised from the dead, He will be forever the God-Man (glorified body; I Tim. 2:5 post-resurr.).

 

[Ktoyou]

Based on the two highlighted answers, what happen to the "fully" man?

I am sorry SOZO; my computer is not showing up highlighted questions. I do think you are referring to the last answer as one of the two. If you look at what AMR stated, he believes Jesus now in heaven has the two natures, fully God and fully man. I think Jesus is fully God, but not fully man.

The position I hold does contradict what seems to be Biblical and a tenant of the early Church. Why I think this is not clear to me, but I have thought about it for many years. I think the human body is a biological vessel, not needed in heaven. I may be a heretic on this, but I cannot see why Jesus or any person in heaven would need a body?

I think it is hard for people to conceive of this idea. Jesus appeared after the resurrection, but He had his wounds, yet was not injured by them. In addition, Jesus was not always recognized, as we know from scripture. I think he appeared as his image without a human body.

 

[godrulz]

Hold on. Hold on. Let me get this straight. godrulz says he believes in the hypostatic union of Christ, i.e. He had two natures. But whenever I say that we, as Christians, have two natures [the flesh/sinful and the Spirit/Christ] he calls it a heresy?

:bang:

The incarnation is not parallel to anthropology/harmartiology (doctrine of sin). Man is tripartite, so we do have a spirit, soul, and body. The body is flesh (nature), while the spirit is immaterial. I dispute that we are born with an Adamic, causative sin nature since sin is not genetic nor a substance. I do not dispute that men form sinful natures as they sin volitionally. The NIV smuggles Augustinian views in when it translates flesh or bloody meat as 'sinful nature' (not in Gk., but a preconceived theology). Flesh is used in a variety of ways. A common Pauline use is that it is a metaphor for sin, since sin is often putting bodily appetites above obedience to God.

LH answer anticipated: blah blah blah against me.

 

[godrulz]

AMR: I appreciate your detailed thought and humility in recognizing the 'mystery' of God becoming man in Christ Jesus. I wonder if adding humanity resulted in limitations in some sense, but not in other ways? He was not superman nor was he less than God.

Kenotic theory:

http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T3598

I wonder if there is partial truth in it? I agree the passage is not primarily doctrinal, but about love and humility illustrated by Christ's humiliation. We must speculate on the exact nature of the incarnation just as 'homoousias' is not found explicitly in a verse.

Is it wrong to say He laid aside the independent exercise of His divine attributes for a time? He depended on the Holy Spirit, not supernatural, inherent strength (he walked vs flew). He learned as He grew and was not a talking infant like Muslims say He did (once). Or, was there an inherent veiling due to the limitations of flesh?

Bottom line is that we must assert that Jesus is fully God and fully man to avoid the collection of heresies you have listed relating to the kenosis.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The position I hold does contradict what seems to be Biblical and a tenant of the early Church. Why I think this is not clear to me, but I have thought about it for many years. I think the human body is a biological vessel, not needed in heaven. I may be a heretic on this, but I cannot see why Jesus or any person in heaven would need a body?

After the Second Coming believers will exist in what Scripture defines as glorified spiritual bodies wherein the souls of the believers now in Heaven will be united. The nature of these bodies is not fully described, but we have hints that the corruption of the original bodies after the Fall will be removed. The resurrected Christ exists now in heaven in one of these glorified bodies, seated at the right hand of God the Father.

See also 1 Corinthians 15:42-44:

1Co 15:40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.
1Co 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

1Co 15:42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.

1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.

1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

 

[beloved57]

amr says

The resurrected Christ exists now in heaven in one of these glorified bodies, seated at the right hand of God the Father.

Yes he does have this body and he had it before the incarnation too..

Jn 17:

5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

 

[godrulz]

amr says



Yes he does have this body and he had it before the incarnation too..

Jn 17:

5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Huh? His essential pre-existent glory had nothing to do with a body or glorified body after the resurrection. There were pre-incarnate theophanies, but only in the first century was humanity added to his deity (Jn. 1:1-14; Philippians 2:5-11).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Is it wrong to say He laid aside the independent exercise of His divine attributes for a time?

Indeed it is not wrong and I assert this. But, carefully note that there is nothing here that says the Second Person of the Trinity emptied himself of His attributes, that is, becoming something less than what He was before the Incarnation. To say the latter is to say God can become less than God, to will Himself to not be God. So while Christ gave up independent use of the divine attributes, He could and did use His divine powers, but only did so in deference to the will of God the Father. In other words, at all times Christ remained fully God and, of course, fully man.

He depended on the Holy Spirit, not supernatural, inherent strength (he walked vs flew). He learned as He grew and was not a talking infant like Muslims say He did (once). Or, was there an inherent veiling due to the limitations of flesh?

There is no difference essentially between the divine nature of Christ and the Holy Spirit. They are one being, but two persons of the Trinity. So, strictly speaking, a union of the human nature with the divine nature is united with all of the Trinity. In other words, the union is with God, and God has three persons. This is subtle and a new concept for non-seminarians to understand, for it relates to what you and I learned as the 'economy of the Trinity', which means a distinguishing of the manner of operation and the manner of working within the Godhead.

So, when considering the economy of the Trinity, we speak of the Second Person's being as incarnated in Christ, but the Second Person is never separated from the First or the Third Person. All we are doing is distinguishing the manner of working and the manner of operation between the three Persons.

Was it a veiling or a matter of the fullness of time?

The Scriptures record no miracles by Christ until he was about thirty years old. Second century Gnostics came up with many fanciful stories about miracles He purportedly performed as a youth (casting spells over playmates, making mud pies and then turning them into birds to play with, etc.) From Scripture we may rightly infer that at His baptism, Jesus was anointed by the Spirit and empowered in His human nature to fulfill the Messianic role. Christ read Isaiah 61:1 in the synagogue at the beginning of His ministry, concluding that the Scripture had been fulfilled (Luke 4:21)--that He was the 'annointed one' Isaiah had written about.

When the Baptist doubted from prison (Matthew 11:3), Christ basically sent word back (Matthew 11:4-5) saying, "Go read Isaiah 61" to understand what the Messianic ministry was all about. The mission of the prophesied Messiah was to be carried out by a human person anointed by the Spirit. Yet from birth, Jesus was God incarnate with a perfect union with a human nature. He could have called upon His powers, but He had to fulfill the law of God in His human nature as the second Adam. A human sacrifice was needed, a human fulfillment of the law. If God keeps the law, we don't have the necessary sacrifice. We needed the God-man to keep the law for us.

So, yes, I believe that Christ, in His humiliation, gave up independent use of His divine attributes, desiring to obey the will of the Father for Him to be the Mediator and take upon Himself all of mankind's guilt.

 

[godrulz]

Perhaps in the future, you could post more substantially with less mere assertions?lain: (kidding, good job, I think)

 

[PKevman]

amr says



Yes he does have this body and he had it before the incarnation too..

Jn 17:

5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Can you point us to where in that verse it says He had His human body BEFORE the incarnation? And why do you ignore an extremely MORE CLEAR verse like this:

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[Psalmist]

After the Second Coming believers will exist in what Scripture defines as glorified spiritual bodies wherein the souls of the believers now in Heaven will be united. The nature of these bodies is not fully described, but we have hints that the corruption of the original bodies after the Fall will be removed. The resurrected Christ exists now in heaven in one of these glorified bodies, seated at the right hand of God the Father.

See also 1 Corinthians 15:42-44:

1Co 15:40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.
1Co 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

1Co 15:42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.

1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.

1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

First Corinthians fifteen continued . . . 1 Cor. 15:49; 1 Cor. 15:50; 1 Cor. 15:51-58

AMR: The nature of these bodies is not fully described. True.

We shall be like Him.

1 John 3:2
Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

That's​

- 30 -​

:scripto:. . Psalmist

 

[Sozo]

The Son of God took into union with Himself a full complex of human attributes (a human ‘nature’). The man Jesus could never exist apart from the union with the one divine Son of God. There were not two “self-consciousnesses” within Christ Incarnate. The ‘person’ of the Incarnation was self-consciously divine and consciously human. Hence, Incarnate Christ possessed a human will. The human will was distinct from the divine will, though not opposite, but in subjection to it (John 6:38; Luke 22:42). The self-consciousness of Christ was always divine, and the human consciousness could never act out of discord with the divine self-consciousness.

I'll try to respond to the rest of your post later. I first want to clarify something you said above.

Based on the verses you quoted, it appears that the will of Jesus was contrary to the Father's will, and He only chose to submit to the Father's will, even though His own will was to do otherwise.

Is that correct?

 

[beloved57]

pk says

Can you point us to where in that verse it says He had His human body BEFORE the incarnation? And why do you ignore an extremely MORE CLEAR verse like this:

Slow down first you need to deal with the scriptures I have shown..

He says to the Father to restore him to the glory he had[a glorified body] before !! If He is the glorifed man christ mediator now then its reasonable to conclude that he had that glory before..

So why do you ignore that verse ?

also isa had a vision of christ the glorified man in heaven before the incarnation Jn 12:

37But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:

38That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

39Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,

40He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

41These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

Him being the man Jesus christ..Thats who Isiah saw..

Now here is where isa saw the vision.isa 6:

1In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train[his high priest garments] filled the temple.

2Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

3And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

4And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.

5Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.
6Then flew one of the seraphims unto me

Isiah saw King Jesus the God man sitting on His throne Jn makes that clear..

He was born already a king..matt 2:

Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.



Him

 

[Freak]

When Christ was there, He was still God, but separated from the trinity (I think--I don't know how long the separation lasted, it could have been a second, although I personally believe it was the three days in Hades).

Jesus Christ was seperated from the Trinity? Since Jesus Christ is God He was never seperated from the Godhead. Perhaps you can clarify...

 

[Sozo]

AMR... Could you also please give me a biblical reference where it says that Jesus has the nature of a man?

 

[beloved57]

AMR... Could you also please give me a biblical reference where it says that Jesus has the nature of a man?

rom 5

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

The bible calls him a man what else you want ? geesh..

 

[Stripe]

what the ..?? It's SOZO!