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

[Mystery]

"For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." Hebrews 4:12

1 Corinthians 2:1-16

:loser:

 

[Daniel50]

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any
twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and
spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the
thoughts and intents of the heart.
I Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:
for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Mystery]

Likewise, we need to understand that self-consciousness and self-determination do not belong to nature but to personality. Therefore, Incarnate Christ does not have two wills, two consciousnesses, only a single will and a single conscious.

The human will was distinct from the divine will, though not opposite, but in subjection to it

Which is it?

You're a flaming nutjob. :kookoo:

Goodbye :wave2:

 

[Lighthouse]

Looks like it to me.

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

Yes I am.

 

[godrulz]

On the contrary, do not be fooled by the wording being used. The key issue is whether or not incarnate Christ possessed a human soul. Mystery, and now STP deny this.

They also fail to grasp the significant distinctions between 'person' and 'nature' that have been clearly elaborated upon and links cited for personal study.

Person vs nature is another issue for JWs who reject the Trinity.

If Jesus did not have human spirit, soul, body, He would not be fully human. If He just possessed this as a man, He would not be fully God. The bottom line is that He is the God-Man and one person (whether we understand the details of how God becomes man or not).

 

[godrulz]

AMR holds to the heretical idea that Jesus had a human soul that functioned in supremacy over His eternal divine soul while Jesus died on the cross, therefore giving Jesus two minds, two wills, and two completely different personas. According to AMR, God the Son did not die on the cross for your sins, but some newly created persona that suffered and died for you while God went on vacation.

That is not what he is saying. AMR?

 

[godrulz]

AMR,

Was the Son separated from the Father in hades for 3 days/nights? Or just the human soul of Jesus?

The process of dying on the cross wasn't death, but separation from the Father was death...the wages of sin is the latter.

Jesus died physically as a man on the cross.

Death is separation (physical, spiritual, eternal).

 

[godrulz]

What does this even mean?

Do you think souls pre-exist before human beings are born? I assume you do not. There is no "Soul Guff".

When does a soul get created? I have no idea. I like to think the soul is created at the quantum moment in time that the human zygote is formed at conception. Thus we have a biological and the spiritual union that creates the human Person still in the womb.

A person is a nature with something added, namely, independent subsistence, individuality.

Nature used when discussing the Incarnation is “a complex of attributes”. Nature never means ‘person’ when discussing the Incarnation.

God the Son did not subtract from His Person when incarnated. He took on a fully human nature comprising a body and a soul. God the Son did not take on a fully human Person, for then two Persons would exist in the one body of Jesus.

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, the Son of God.

Hence, the Person of God the Son was not subsumed by that human nature, for the union of human and divine natures of the Incarnation, while indissoluble, cannot be mixed, separated, confused, or divided for to do any of these things is to fall into numerous biblical errors.

As I have stated many times in this thread, the Person of God the Son, comprised the self-consciousness of the Incarnate Christ. The human will of the Incarnate Christ never acted out of discord with the divine self-consciousness.

Mystery, proof that he is not saying two beings in one person or 2 persons in one person. If you continue to confuse nature and person, you will end up denying the Trinity and the incarnation.

 

[godrulz]

I hope this is not how you craft your beliefs, that is, by locking into one item, stopping there, and then ignoring any surrounding context. Yours is the perfect example of lifting something out of its wholeness to build a straw man.

Anyone reading the entire post will clearly see how you like to twist things around to suit your purposes.

Also, please review previous post above, wherein I repeat earlier content on the aspects of 'person' and 'nature'.

Finally, you keep dropping 'persona' around as if it is commonly understood what you mean. Your track record is such that no one should assume anything about what you mean by the term. So do us all a favor and define 'persona' very, very, clearly.

The same issues happen with his exchanged life concepts, sinless perfectionism, no mental illness, etc. The rest of us are stupid and demon-possessed, but part of the problem is his lack of clarity and consistency. There is a semantical and intellectual barrier in trying to dialogue with him.

 

[godrulz]

There is no support for tripartism in the Scriptures. You (and other exchanged life proponents) have construed the only place all three are mentioned simultaneously, 1 Thess. 5:23 incorrectly, where they all actually mean personal aspects to which Paul is referring.

The duality of man is clear from Scripture, see James 2:26; 2 Cor. 7:1, Matthew 10:28) where spirit and soul are used interchangeably. God "breathed into his nostrils: the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Gen. 2:7. The "breath of life" is the principle of his life, and the "living soul" is the very being of man. The soul is united with and adapted to a body, but can, if need be, also exist without the body. In view of this we can speak of man as a spiritual being, and as also in that respect the image of God.

God’s image in humanity at creation, then, consisted in:
(a) existence as a “soul” or “spirit” (Gen. 2:7), that is, as personal and self-conscious, with a Godlike capacity for knowledge, thought, and action;
(b) being morally upright, a quality lost at the Fall but now being progressively restored in Christ (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10);
(c) dominion over the environment;
(d)the human body as the means through which we experience reality, express ourselves, and exercise dominion; and
(e) the God given capacity for eternal life.

You cannot have a Person that does not possess independent subsistence, as in the three Persons of the Trinity, or as in you or I. Necessarily that Person comprises a body and a soul and an independent subsistence<--this is a key aspect you are overlooking with respect to the Incarnation.

You or I, as wholly human beings, are not comprised as was Incarnate Christ. The Person, that which independently subsisted, of the Incarnation was God the Son. The human nature of the Incarnate Christ could not independently subsist without the union of the divine Son of God. If it could, then there would indeed be two Persons in the one body, but the Incarnation was not wholly analogous to our commonly understood notions of human existence. Indeed, the Incarnation is uniquely special (Amen!).

It was both, divine and human. You are confusing Person (see above). Once you get your mind around the distinction between person and nature this will all fall into place for you.

Again, distinguish between person and nature. A person, like you or I, subsists separately. The human nature of Christ has not and never had a separate subsistence, thus it is impersonal. In the Incarnation of the God-man, the God the Son furnishes the Personhood (the personality).

Likewise, we need to understand that self-consciousness and self-determination do not belong to nature but to personality. Therefore, Incarnate Christ does not have two wills, two consciousnesses, only a single will and a single conscious. Moreover (another key distinction coming), the consciousness and will is not simply human, it is theanthropic--one personality uniting the divine and the human (see

Here as above, we must understand the differences between person and nature.

If two persons existed in a single body you would be correct. A single Person existed in Incarnate Christ. The will and the conscious of that Person was theanthropic.

I am tripartite. Sometimes spirit, soul, body is distinguished (Heb. 4:12; I Thess. 5:23), while other times they are used interchangeably. Words have a semantical range of meaning depending on context. Soul can refer to the immaterial part of man or to the person as a whole (many souls lost at sea or before the throne).

The incarnation issues are technical as evidenced by your Walvoord link.

The Councils said Jesus had two wills, divine and human, with human submitted to divine. You seem to be saying He has one will since he is one person (I lean this way).

Perhaps you could publish this debate with mystery as "C.S. Lewis debates Homer Simpson on the Incarnation." (pseudonyms)

 

[godrulz]

Which is it?

You're a flaming nutjob. :kookoo:

Goodbye :wave2:

I asked for clarification on this apparent contradiction.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Which is it?

Yikes! Good catch. I was hopeful from your questions that you wanted honest dialog and got in a hurry, getting my ones and twos crossed up. The correct statement should have read (and now does):

Likewise, we need to understand that self-consciousness and self-determination do not belong to nature but to personality. Therefore, Incarnate Christ does not have two consciousnesses, only a single divine self-consciousness and a single human conscious. Moreover (another key distinction coming), the consciousness and will is not simply human, it is theanthropic--one personality uniting the divine and the human.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The Councils said Jesus had two wills, divine and human, with human submitted to divine. You seem to be saying He has one will since he is one person (I lean this way).

Actually I was in a hurry and got my 'one of this' and 'two of that' crossed. I corrected my sloppiness to reflect the two wills, with the human will in accord with the divine will position I hold to (see corrected text in the previous post above). Mea culpa

 

[godrulz]

Actually I was in a hurry and got my 'one of this' and 'two of that' crossed. I corrected my sloppiness to reflect the two wills, with the human will in accord with the divine will position I hold to (see corrected text in the previous post above). Mea culpa

Mea Maxima Culpa

 

[Mystery]

Summary

As I expressed to Knight on another thread, I am glad that this important doctrine has been brought to debate. I am also encouraged that many now know that God, who appeared to us in the likeness of sinful flesh Romans 8:3 Philippians 2:5-7, died on a cross to reconcile the world unto Himself 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 and was raised because of our justification Romans 4:25 did not have two natures, two souls, two minds, and two unique identities.

As those who hold to an unbiblical view of the incarnation have pointed out, they think that the "one nature" of God abandoned the "other nature" of man at some point prior to or during the crucifixion, where they attempt to divide Jesus into two separate persons:

God... whom they claim did not and could not suffer and die for your sins

and a

Man... who was abandoned by God, and suffered and died with an independent mind, will, and soul.

They conclude that God, who was in Christ reconciling the world, was not in Christ during the time that the world was being reconciled. :dizzy:

The "two nature" theorists have no biblical support, and have in fact stripped us from our redemption, while at the same time stripping Jesus from His divine nature when it was the most pivitol point in History (His story).

 

[godrulz]

One person with 2 natures is biblical, but I would not agree with it the way you misrepresent it (straw man). If some have been imprecise in describing it, take it with a grain of salt. Since Scripture is not a systematic theology text and there are no proof texts to resolve this issue definitively, it should not be made a condition of eternal life (your list grows by the hour as to what sends people to hell).

Can we agree that Buddha or Mohammed did not die on the cross, but that it was the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God/Son of Man, who died on the cross as the Lamb of God?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

As reiterated here and here, Mystery's Apollinarianism is anathema.

 

[Mystery]

As reiterated here and here, Mystery's Apollinarianism is anathema.

AMR thinks that God being in Christ reconciling the world to Himself is "anathema".

Too bad for YOU.

 

[chrysostom]

hear hear

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR thinks that God being in Christ reconciling the world to Himself is "anathema".

Too bad for YOU.

Uh, too bad for you. I stand with all of Christendom. You stand with the folks below:

Apollinarianism​

Apollinarianism was the heresy taught by Apollinaris the Younger, bishop of Laodicea in Syria about 361. He taught that the Logos of God, which became the divine nature of Christ, took the place of the rational human soul of Jesus and that the body of Christ was a glorified form of human nature. In other words, though Jesus was a man, He did not have a human mind but that the mind of Christ was solely divine. Apollinaris taught that the two natures of Christ could not coexist within one person. His solution was to lessen the human nature of Christ.
Apollinarianism was condemned by the Second General Council at Constantinople in 381. This heresy denies the true and complete humanity in the person of Jesus which in turn, can jeopardize the value of the atonement since Jesus is declared to be both God and man to atone. He needed to be God to offer a pure and holy sacrifice of sufficient value and He needed to be a man in order to die for men.
Jesus is completely both God and man. This is known as the Hypostatic Union.
·"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." (John 1:1,14).
·"for Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form," (Col. 2:9).


References
1.Microsoft Encarta 96.
2.Baker's Dictionary of Theology
(source)