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

[beloved57]

No I did not say this. Lion did here.

I see thanks..

 

[Lion]

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

Hopping....hopping...hopping down the bunny trail...

Quickly though... Actually it would be the ungodly line of Cain and the Godly line of Seth... buuuut....I've heard the argument and dismiss it because of this verse...

Genesis 6:4
There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Notice the verse says..."There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward". What were those days? They were the days before the flood. What are the days after? They are the days after the flood. Now if it had been Cain's line, it would have been wiped out in the flood.... remember that Noah was perfect in his generations? So if Noah's line was perfect, there was no stain from the supposed Cain's line. However, after the flood there were still fallen angels to mate with human women.:the_wave:

 

[Lion]

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.

First off, I don’t believe Christ humiliated Himself by coming in the flesh. He was perfect as was Adam. Sinless. He humbled himself, becoming one of us, but He did not humiliate Himself.

Second. Christ in the flesh did become a new creation. Never before had God the Son been born on Earth as a baby. The idea that God cannot change in any way is the blasphemy.

 

[Lion]

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.

Perfect Lighthouse!:up: :thumb:

 

[Lion]

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?

Hades is not separation from God. It is a place that God prepared for Satan and his demons. 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). But the prisoners of Hell are still without God. They chose to live and die without Him.

 

[Lion]

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.

Okay, that's mostly true, except I think many people would develope the idea of the Trinity without the old teachings if they didn’t have all kinds of other bad theology clogging up their brain pans. Still, I agree that there is no reason to reinvent the wheel on every theological thought. But we should be equally as strong on not believing every theological hypothesis just because it had been accepted in the past.

If we see Biblical truths that go against accepted theology, then we should try and expunge it from accepted Christian thinking.

And that’s what we are trying to do here.

Remember the great theologians were fallible people… just like us.

 

[Lion]

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.

While you are right that Christ did not go to Hell to be punished... you are wrong about Him going only to Abraham's Bosom. He also preached to the angels in chains. And they weren't in the nice place. Unless of course you think Jesus took a bullhorn with him?:sozo:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

First off, I don’t believe Christ humiliated Himself by coming in the flesh. He was perfect as was Adam. Sinless. He humbled himself, becoming one of us, but He did not humiliate Himself.

Wiffenpoofle! You are now straining at gnats. See here and review for yourself. Is every sentence a debate?

Second. Christ in the flesh did become a new creation. Never before had God the Son been born on Earth as a baby. The idea that God cannot change in any way is the blasphemy.

No change in the divine (God) occurred. God, in the Second Person of the Trinity, took on humanity hypostatically. No mixture, no division, no confusion, no separation occurs between the two natures. There are not three parts to the Trinity that can be separated out, such as God the Son coming to earth, leaving 2/3rds of the Trinity behind.

Do you believe that while the Second Person of the Trinity was residing in the human body of Jesus, that the Second Person of the Trinity was confined to wherever the body of Jesus happened to be at the time?

 

[Lion]

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

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

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?

I'm not a proponent of Sola... traditions and knowledge from others is useful and helpful... but it must always be checked and challenged against the Word of God. Oh... and the cannon of the Bible was actually decided before the "church" formally put it together. For the Oracles of God were given to the Jews.

 

[Lion]

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... He wasn't a man before the incarnation. Buuuuut... He was begotten... hmmmm... I have a theory on this which I think makes everything fit. My wife and I have been looking at it for awhile but we are still trying to punch holes in it so I don't want to go into it yet.

By New Creation I mean He became something New...never before was there a God-Man.

 

[Lion]

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?

Well, that is what the Bible says...isn't it?

Hebrews 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, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 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. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

:cheers:

 

[Lion]

Wiffenpoofle! You are now straining at gnats. See here and review for yourself. Is every sentence a debate?

Hey, you said it. And as for McCarther and the others... I don't believe them anymore than I believe you. So, don't say silly things like Christ humiliated Himself if you don't want to be taken to task on it.

 

[Lion]

Do you believe that while the Second Person of the Trinity was residing in the human body of Jesus, that the Second Person of the Trinity was confined to wherever the body of Jesus happened to be at the time?

Yes.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Well, that is what the Bible says...isn't it?:cheers:

Er, no. The humanity of Christ is in view in the verse in question, not His divinity. As Priest He makes the offering and is indeed the offering. The Perfect Priest whose sacrifice is once and for all.

 

[beloved57]

No... He wasn't a man before the incarnation. Buuuuut... He was begotten...

Sure he was a man[before incarnation] the anointed prince..The only part of him that could have been begotten was his humanity it sure was not His Divinity , For His Divinity is That of God the Son The second person of the Trinity..The Divine Son according to Divinity is no more begotten than the Father and the Spirit..

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Yes.

So, if the Second Person of the Trinity was geographically limited to wherever the physical body of Jesus was, how do you reconcile the following?

Joh 1:48 Nathanael said to him, "How do you know me?" Jesus answered him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."

 

[yeshuafreak76]

Who Died On The Cross?

Who Died On The Cross?

Our Savior, Jesus Christ, died a physical death on the cross. However, he conquered death so that we may live. Not sure why this is really a big deal, being that Easter is a celebration of his triumph over death.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Our Savior, Jesus Christ, died a physical death on the cross. However, he conquered death so that we may live. Not sure why this is really a big deal, being that Easter is a celebration of his triumph over death.

It is a big deal. Wrong doctrine leads to wrong ideas of who we worship.

It is a big deal for you, too:
Here you go, specifically Para. 1.III.464-469.

 

[PKevman]

So, if the Second Person of the Trinity was geographically limited to wherever the physical body of Jesus was, how do you reconcile the following?

Joh 1:48 Nathanael said to him, "How do you know me?" Jesus answered him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."

God knows everything knowable that He chooses to know WHEN He chooses to know it. Problem solved. Thanks for asking!

 

[PKevman]

Calvinists say they believe in the sovereignty of God, but they don't believe that God has complete sovereignty over His own emotions, knowledge, power, and presence.