- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Adam Pastor,
Yes.
It was only the first death and not the second that he suffered so his soul being was freed from it's weak and perishable tent \body [2Cor 5]which lay in the tomb. His natural spirit had left him on the cross at death as Matt 27,50 shows.
As you know we are more than body and spirit.
Sheol, including Hades and the bosom of Abraham, is the fate of the souls of men awaiting resurrection.
Unlike natural men he had been anointed with the Spirit of Life by His Father which neither dies nor leaves the sons of God.
Hades was not his destiny and neither will the gates of Hades will not prevail against the other sons of the Kingdom.
So alive in the Spirit he preached to the 'spirits in prison' before he was raised again to physical life through the Spirit of the Father.Thank Again Nick
I appreciate your clear answer.
Just trying to get a handle on what you exactly believe.
Thanks Again.Quote (WhatIsTrue @ July 28 2006,19:32) epistemaniac, I am sorry to hear about your condition. I pray that you find some relief from the pain soon.
Also, I posted my thoughts in the other thread, because it wasn't quite pertinent to this one. But, now that we have already started discussing its subject matter, I will repost it below for reasons that will soon become obvious.
Quote (epistemaniac @ July 28 2006,11:27) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ July 28 2006,15:57) Quote (epistemaniac @ July 28 2006,10:01) Quote (Cubes @ July 28 2006,01:12) YHWH died on the cross to satisfy YHWH? 
Last I heard, he was going to scrap all of Israel and start over again with just Moses! Now he decided to have us kill him so that he can forgive us for killing him and redeeming us all back to glory? Gluey fly trap stickiness on the logic here.
in a sense, yes, for only God incarnate could satisfy the demands of a perfect sinless sacrifice… so God the Son came, lived a sinless life, went to the cross to propitiate and expiate the sins of His bride, He died and then rose again on the thrid day, showed Himself to many, and then ascended to where He was before, into heaven at God the Father's right hand, to ever intercede for the saints….come on guys… this is basic elementary sunday school stuff….
blessings
In what “sense” did YHWH die? Was the Almighty lifeless for three days and three nights?
(By the way, did you read my post in the “Trinity” discussion thread?)
the Son, as to touching His human nature, died…. as far as His divine nature goes, it was never dead and could never die… this is why the Bible tells us that even while Christ was in the tomb, He was not dead, but was doing His father's will….so just as the Bible says, without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sins, Christ died for His Bride, His flock, His people….. shedding His blood He set captives free…. and just as no mere man could satisfy the demands of a perfectly holy God, God Himself sent the Eternal Son, the Son complied and then when He ascended, He sent the Holy Spirit to indwell His people until the final day, and then into eternity…
blessings
blessings
I can not believe how perfect your response has been! The phrase that I highlighted, “as to touching His human nature”, is a nearly word for word copy of the title of my essay.
Here it is again:
Quote “As Touching His Human Nature” To debate a Trinitarian on the nature and identity of the God of the universe is to enter into a contest with someone who will change the rules of the game to his advantage at every turn. The debate itself is nearly two thousand years old and the only decisive winner has been the Roman Catholic Church. To wit, every orthodox Christian church, to this very day, still borrows heavily from the Catholic tradition. They follow her holy days, (which themselves are relics of a pagan tradition nowhere affirmed in scripture), and they stand on her most fundamental doctrine – the doctrine whose ultimate confirmation came from the corrupted power structure of Rome.
To be certain, the doctrine of the Trinity has been refined by constant criticism and has evolved over time into a self-sustaining force with enough circumstantial logic and circular reasoning to keep some of the brightest theological minds eternally confused. There is no angle that has not been previously discussed, and no scripture left that has not been properly twisted into compliance. It is a well honed doctrinal machine that has whole libraries full of explanations awaiting its defense. But, when one looks at two crucial events in history side by side, the duplicitous nature of Trinitarian logic is made plain.
The first of these two events is creation. In this one event, we have the best of Trinitarian logic displayed in all its glory. For, in it, the Creator declares that He works alone, (Isaiah 44:24), yet, according to the doctrine, all three persons of the trinity are implicated in this act. So, here we have the Creator of the universe referring to Himself in a very singular fashion, using singular pronouns and verb tenses in a way that any plain reading of the text would indicate a single person, yet by misunderstanding or mistranslating a handful of New Testament verses, this solo act becomes a three person show to Trinitarians. Why? Because, according to Trinitarians, God is a three person being, so even if He does something alone, it can, and usually does, involve all three persons. After all, according to one Trinitarian writer, the Almighty is a “single divine essence” consisting of “three individual subsistences that we call persons”. How then could these “persons” not be entangled in each others work?
But, when we come to the crucifixion, the second of the two events, the Trinitarian logic begins to break down. The following question illustrates the problem:
Who died on the cross? Jesus only, or Jehovah?
Here, the Trinitarian faces a divine conundrum. To say that Jehovah died on the cross is to suggest that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit took part in this singular act, but to say that only Jesus died on the cross is to not only affirm his individual personhood but also to affirm him as a separate being from the Father and Holy Spirit – a being who could be killed while the other two remained alive, (thereby reducing the trinity to a “binity”, even if only for three days and three nights). One can not say that only part of Jehovah died, for, according to the doctrine, Jehovah is one “single divine essence”. It is an all or nothing prospect. Worse, to acknowledge that Jesus was separated from the other two in death, (Matthew 27:46), is to say that Jesus is a distinct being from the ever living Jehovah and therefore not Jehovah at all!
But, that is when the rules of the game must be changed by the Trinitarian. Since the normal doctrinal constructs fail miserably in this scenario, a logical escape hatch must be formulated to get the Trinitarian out of this scriptural trap. That is when the Trinitarian will utter something along the lines of the following words:
“As touching his human nature… .”
The rest of the statement is inconsequential, for by use of this phrase, the Trinitarian has managed to reconstruct Jesus into a being of two comp
letely separable parts – one part God being, the other part human being – where the things that happen to the one half do not happen to the other. The trick here is that, though the doctrine says that Jesus is fully God and fully man all the time, this sleight of hand phrase gets you to focus on one half of his person to the exclusion of the other. But, again, that is not what the doctrine states. Either Jesus is fully God, all the time, from eternity to eternity, or he is not God at all. So you can not separate out his human side and say that that side of him alone died on the cross, (i.e. Jesus only died on the cross). Either the whole person of Jesus died that day, (i.e. Jehovah died on the cross), or the whole person of Jesus did not die at all. Well, at this point, the Trinitarian is likely to cry, “Mystery!”, and change the subject.What is the last refuge of a Trinitarian? What is the subject to which he will gravitate when all else fails? Ontology, (background information)! With its origins firmly rooted in Greek philosophy – not in scripture – ontology is nothing more than a way of neatly categorizing everything that exists in the universe. The methods and the rules come from philosophers, not from the Almighty, and the application of various ontological constructs on scripture is simply confusing unless it is done selectively and circumstantially by a skilled Trinitarian.
According to the ontological constructs of a Trinitarian, God is a type of being made up of three persons. So, regardless of any evidence that the Son is subordinate to the Father, the Son is still said to be God because that is the type of being that he is. For example, my child may be subordinate to me, but that does not make him any less a human being. Unfortunately, Trinitarians tie a neat little bow on the story here and present it as though they are handing you the gift of all-surpassing wisdom. After all, who can argue with this airtight circular logic? Dig a little deeper, however, and the ontological argument immediately falls to pieces.
First, recall that, according to the trinity doctrine, Jesus is both a God being and a human being. Therefore, he is not just one of three persons in one being. He is one person in two beings – a God being and a human being! The “Godhead” then becomes three persons in two beings, or, at the very least, two persons in one being and one person in two beings. But, it doesn’t end there. By far, the vast majority of Trinitarians claim that the Angel of the LORD, (who makes many appearances in the Old Testament), was Jehovah Himself, likely a “pre-incarnation” form of Jesus, and angels, by ontological construct, are a third type of being altogether. That turns the “Godhead” into three persons in three beings – God being, angel being, and human being – or two persons in one being and one person in three beings, or two persons in two beings and one person three beings, etc.! Alternatively, as with the question of the cross, Trinitarians must split Jesus down the middle again and say that the God being part of Jesus belongs to the trinity and the human being part of Jesus is a distinct and separate being of his own, leaving us with the trinity and Jesus the human being existing separately, even if cooperatively. Clearly, trying to paint a tidy little picture of Jesus, or the trinity, through ontology does not work.
So what is at the root of all this tortured logic and philosophical gymnastics? Quite simply, It is the desire of the Trinitarian to forge the three gods of his doctrine into one single god. In their attempts to elevate Jesus to the same level as the God that he serves, (Revelations 3:12), they have created an unworkable dilemma that scripture presents them at every turn. God is one, (Deuteronomy 6:4), yet the Father and Son make two, (John 8:17-18). Try as they might, they simply can not get around this divinely placed hole in their doctrine. For, when one looks to the cross and the glorious resurrection that followed, one can clearly see the work of two distinct, separable beings: one who died and rose again, and One who can never die, but grants life to all who live. Trinitarians are eternally trying to fill in the gap between these two very different beings.
Your thoughts?
For the record, what is your official answer to the following question:
Who died on the cross? Y'shua only or YHWH?
Your answer above is a bit conflicting, as at one point you say:
“…the Son, as to touching His human nature, died…”
But, later, you say:
while Christ was in the tomb, He was not dead
It does not sound like you are talking about the same singular person.
thanks as always for your concern re my ongoing battle with chronic pain, I truly appreciate your concern and hope that all is well with you and yours as well…..so…. hey there WIT!! and no, I will not put “dim” in front of that acronym, I steadfastly refuse to. Lol… seriously though… I appreciate the discussion and the seriousness with which you approach this, the strong words you use and feel about your beliefs are evident, and yet you are civil and clearheaded, thanks.
“To debate a Trinitarian on the nature and identity of the God of the universe is to enter into a contest with someone who will change the rules of the game to his advantage at every turn. The debate itself is nearly two thousand years old and the only decisive winner has been the Roman Catholic Church. To wit, every orthodox Christian church, to this very day, still borrows heavily from the Catholic tradition. They follow her holy days, (which themselves are relics of a pagan tradition nowhere affirmed in scripture), and they stand on her most fundamental doctrine – the doctrine whose ultimate confirmation came from the corrupted power structure of Rome.”
Historically simplistic and naïve. Also is involved in poisoning the well and guilty by association fallacies. Just because Rome believes something does not make it false. Further. “Rome in the early centuries of church history is not the Rome of today, or the Rome of Trent, or the various “Romes’” throughout history.
“To be certain, the doctrine of the Trinity has been refined by constant criticism and has evolved over time into a self-sustaining force with enough circumstantial logic and circular reasoning to keep some of the brightest theological minds eternally confused. There is no angle that has not been previously discussed, and no scripture left that has not been properly twisted into compliance. It is a well honed doctrinal machine that has whole libraries full of explanations awaiting its defense. But, when one looks at two crucial events in history side by side, the duplicitous nature of Trinitarian logic is made plain.”
Begs the question… rhetoric….. lack of full and total comprehension DOES NOT equal confusion. No one claims to fully understand God do they? Does this mean that they are automatically confused? No, of course not. The finite will never fully comprehend the infinite, so I really wish the non/anti-Trinitarians would drop this little bit of meaningless rhetoric.
“The first of these two events is creation. In this one event, we have the best of Trinitarian logic displayed in all its glory. For, in it, the Creator declares that He works alone, (Isaiah 44:24), yet, according to the doctrine, all three persons of the trinity are implicated in this act. So, here we have the Creator of the universe referring to Himself in a very singular fashion, using singular pronouns and verb tenses in a way that any plain reading of the text would indicate a single person, yet by misunderstanding or mistranslating a handful of New
Testament verses, this solo act becomes a three person show to Trinitarians. Why? Because, according to Trinitarians, God is a three person being, so even if He does something alone, it can, and usually does, involve all three persons. After all, according to one Trinitarian writer, the Almighty is a “single divine essence” consisting of “three individual subsistences that we call persons”. How then could these “persons” not be entangled in each others work?”Who was the creator? We see that the Holy Spirit is said to have been the one who “hovered over the deep”, or as the NASB puts it; (Gen 1:1-2 NASB) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. {2} And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.” Yet we see that the Father is said to be the creator; (Isa 40:28 NASB) Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God (elohim) , the LORD (YHWH), the Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable.” Yet, the Bible says very clearly that it is the Son who created all that is, and it is by His (!!!) power that the universe is able to continue to exist! (Col 1:13-18 NASB) For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, {14} in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. {15} And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. {16} For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created by Him and for Him. {17} And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. {18} He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything.”
So we are faced with a fairly simple problem, either the Bible speaks of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as being one in a very significant way, or, the Bible contradicts itself. The Trinity is simply the view that makes the most sense of all the biblical data considered as a whole.
“But, when we come to the crucifixion, the second of the two events, the Trinitarian logic begins to break down. The following question illustrates the problem:
Who died on the cross? Jesus only, or Jehovah?”
This is not difficult. Jesus the man, as far as His human nature is concerned, that is, only His physical human body, died on the Cross. Jesus never ceased to exist at any time; just as any human who dies, their spirit/soul continues to exist. In that sense, Jesus the Son, the second person of the Trinity never died on the Cross, His spirit lived on, just as it did before He came to earth to be begotten of the Holy Spirit and Mary, He returned to the glory He had previously with the Father, (John 17:5 NASB) “And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.”
…… and thus any supposed conundrums about God dying on the Cross are straw men.“Here, the Trinitarian faces a divine conundrum. To say that Jehovah died on the cross is to suggest that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit took part in this singular act, but to say that only Jesus died on the cross is to not only affirm his individual personhood but also to affirm him as a separate being from the Father and Holy Spirit – a being who could be killed while the other two remained alive, (thereby reducing the trinity to a “binity”, even if only for three days and three nights). One can not say that only part of Jehovah died, for, according to the doctrine, Jehovah is one “single divine essence”. It is an all or nothing prospect. Worse, to acknowledge that Jesus was separated from the other two in death, (Matthew 27:46), is to say that Jesus is a distinct being from the ever living Jehovah and therefore not Jehovah at all!”
See above, which easily dismisses this rather human conundrum. 😉
“But, that is when the rules of the game must be changed by the Trinitarian. Since the normal doctrinal constructs fail miserably in this scenario, a logical escape hatch must be formulated to get the Trinitarian out of this scriptural trap. That is when the Trinitarian will utter something along the lines of the following words:
“As touching his human nature… .””
Likewise, this is answered above…..
“The rest of the statement is inconsequential, for by use of this phrase, the Trinitarian has managed to reconstruct Jesus into a being of two completely separable parts”
Not true…..
“- one part God being, the other part human being “
No, Jesus is fully God and fully man, He has to be, considering all the bible’s testimony concerning all His attributes and identity.
“– where the things that happen to the one half do not happen to the other.”
This is true in the sense that Jesus’ human body died on the Cross and was in the grace for 3 days, while, as mentioned above, on the other hand, His Spirit was fully alive and He was doing the will of the Father, as always. So just as whenever any human dies, the death is physical only, their spirit lives on, and this does not make humans 2 separate beings, so too some things that happened to Jesus affected His physical body, and yet, not His spirit. Remember that Jesus was clear about this distinction when He said (Mat 10:28 NASB) “And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
“The trick here is that, though the doctrine says that Jesus is fully God and fully man all the time, this sleight of hand phrase gets you to focus on one half of his person to the exclusion of the other. But, again, that is not what the doctrine states. Either Jesus is fully God, all the time, from eternity to eternity, or he is not God at all. So you can not separate out his human side and say that that side of him alone died on the cross, (i.e. Jesus only died on the cross). Either the whole person of Jesus died that day, (i.e. Jehovah died on the cross), or the whole person of Jesus did not die at all. Well, at this point, the Trinitarian is likely to cry, “Mystery!”, and change the subject.”
Caricature….
“What is the last refuge of a Trinitarian? What is the subject to which he will gravitate when all else fails? Ontology, (background information)! With its origins firmly rooted in Greek philosophy – not in scripture – ontology is nothing more than a way of neatly categorizing everything that exists in the universe. The methods and the rules come from philosophers, not from the Almighty, and the application of various ontological constructs on scripture is simply confusing unless it is done selectively and circumstantially by a skilled Trinitarian.”
Its very true that the ontology is never used in Scripture, but, so what? The Bible tells us all about ontology every time it describes to us what kind of a being God is, or, for that matter, what kind of a being humans and angels are as well. This is not a “Greek” construction at all, because people have always been interested in trying to get to the heart of things, if I may use that expression. We want to know the inner details of what makes one thing what it is, and another thing what it is. As long as humans have been interested in this, including those who wrote the Bible, ontology, metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, etc. are all addressed. Just as Aristotle did not invent logic, he simply systematically named and categorized some aspects of it, so too do the writers of Scripture speak of issues that we eventually came to try and give a name to it as shorthand, and that is all the word and concept “ontology” does, it looks to speak about the nature of God.
“According to the ontological con
structs of a Trinitarian, God is a type of being made up of three persons. So, regardless of any evidence that the Son is subordinate to the Father,”
Trinitarians do not deny that the Son is subordinate to the Father in so far as He was sent by the Father and He willing submitted Himself to the Father to do His will, while yet at the same time saying that He laid down His life of His own accord, no one took it from Him. Trinitarians then speak of the “economic” relationship among the members of the Trinity or godhead, each relates to one another perfectly as to their roles, but this does not make any one member inferior to the other as to their basic nature.Look at it this way, the husband is said to be the head of the household, the wife is to submit to her husband, right? But does this fact mean that men are somehow inherently (ontologically) superior to women? Of course not. They have their roles to play in the family hierarchy and the body of Christ, but are, as to touching their ontological nature, completely equal before God. So too, the Son carries out the various functions of His role to play in salvation, but this does not mean that He is inherently inferior to the Father at all.
“the Son is still said to be God because that is the type of being that he is.”
Exactly…. Paul talks about this in the opening lines of the book of Romans; (Rom 1:1-3 NASB) Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, {2} which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, {3} concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,”.
So just as Paul makes a distinction concerning the nature of Christ, one as far as the flesh is concerned, another as far as His deity or ontological nature is concerned, so too do Trinitarians correctly recognize this and speak in the same concepts as the writers of the Bible, though we use different words to convey those concepts, they are biblical concepts nonetheless.“For example, my child may be subordinate to me, but that does not make him any less a human being. Unfortunately, Trinitarians tie a neat little bow on the story here and present it as though they are handing you the gift of all-surpassing wisdom. After all, who can argue with this airtight circular logic? Dig a little deeper, however, and the ontological argument immediately falls to pieces.”
Yep.. the analogy of the husband and wife works well too…. as shown above.
“First, recall that, according to the trinity doctrine, Jesus is both a God being and a human being. Therefore, he is not just one of three persons in one being. He is one person in two beings – a God being and a human being!”
Please accurately convey the beliefs of Trinitarians.
“Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.” (Chalcedonian Creed)“So what is at the root of all this tortured logic and philosophical gymnastics?”
I think it is your incorrect and incomplete grasp of the Scriptures. 😉“Quite simply, It is the desire of the Trinitarian to forge the three gods of his doctrine into one single god.”
Quite simply, it is to be as biblically faithful as possible.
“In their attempts to elevate Jesus to the same level as the God that he serves, (Revelations 3:12),”
Again. (and again and again and…..) Trinitarians do not deny that Son serves the Father, but this in no way means… that is… it does not necessarily follow… that He must therefore be a subordinate being as far as His nature is concerned. Indeed, the Bible accords the same level of worship and majesty to Christ Jesus as it does for the Father. This can only be true if they share the same glory, a glory Yahweh said He would not share with another, yet one in which He shares with the Son.
“they have created an unworkable dilemma that scripture presents them at every turn.”
Not really.“God is one, (Deuteronomy 6:4),”
Yep. He is echad, a plurality of oneness, just as one cluster of grapes is a single “bunch” of grapes, yet composed of more then one grape, so too God is one in plurality. How many you ask? Why, I am glad you did! The Bible tells us 3.“yet the Father and Son make two, (John 8:17-18).”
And the Holy Spirit makes three “Try as they might, they simply can not get around this divinely placed hole in their doctrine.”
Holes truly are in the eye of the beholder. One person looks at the Grand Canton and sees the work of millions upon millions of years of gradual erosion, another looks at it and sees a catastrophic worldwide flood.“For, when one looks to the cross and the glorious resurrection that followed, one can clearly see the work of two distinct, separable beings: one who died and rose again, and One who can never die, but grants life to all who live. Trinitarians are eternally trying to fill in the gap between these two very different beings.”
Tell me this, did Jesus possess a real physical body? Ok. Did Jesus possess a soul or spirit that survived the Cross? Does that then make Him two beings? I didn’t think so. 😉
Blessings, Ken
epistemaniac,
I see that you are back and as feisty as ever! Despite being on opposite sides of this debate, I still appreciate your presentation style. You are clear and concise in your beliefs.
Aside from some peripheral matters, (which we can certainly discuss if you think it necessary), your response to my “dim”-witted observation is this:
Quote Tell me this, did Jesus possess a real physical body? Ok. Did Jesus possess a soul or spirit that survived the Cross? Does that then make Him two beings? I didn’t think so. 😉 Let's take this one by one:
1. Did Jesus possess a real physical body?Yes. (Only Gnostics have a problem with this concept.)
2. Did Jesus possess a soul or spirit that survived the Cross?
Um, can you tell me what you mean by “soul or spirit”? Are they the same thing, two different things, etc.?
In any case, I believe that Y'shua, the person, died on the cross. So does he, by the way.
Revelations 1:18:
Quote I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades. 3. Does that then make Him two beings?
If someone is both dead in a tomb and alive somewhere else, I would have to conclude that we are speaking of a two “person” being.
Here is my original question again:
Quote Who died on the cross? Jesus only, or Jehovah?” And your response:
Quote
This is not difficult. Jesus the man, as far as His human nature is concerned, that is, only His physical human body, died on the Cross. Jesus never ceased to exist at any time; just as any human who dies, their spirit/soul continues to exist. In that sense, Jesus the Son, the second person of the Trinity never died on the Cross, His spirit lived on, just as it did before He came to earth to be begotten of the Holy Spirit and Mary, He returned to the glory He had previously with the Father, (John 17:5 NASB) “And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.”
…… and thus any supposed conundrums about God dying on the Cross are straw men.So to clarify, Yahweh did not die on the cross? Correct? Only the body of the man, Y'shua, died, and not the whole person of Y'shua. Correct?
remember… I honestly do not think you are dim witted in the least… after writing out your initials the “fiesty” in me had to be put down… lolblessings
I wasn't for a moment offended by what you wrote. I like a good pun as much as the next fellow, and I can tell that you aren't being hateful towards me.
We are just having a spirited debate, and a little levity on occasion can be refreshing.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 02 2006,19:30) epistemaniac, I see that you are back and as feisty as ever! Despite being on opposite sides of this debate, I still appreciate your presentation style. You are clear and concise in your beliefs.
Aside from some peripheral matters, (which we can certainly discuss if you think it necessary), your response to my “dim”-witted observation is this:
Quote Tell me this, did Jesus possess a real physical body? Ok. Did Jesus possess a soul or spirit that survived the Cross? Does that then make Him two beings? I didn’t think so. 😉 Let's take this one by one:
1. Did Jesus possess a real physical body?Yes. (Only Gnostics have a problem with this concept.)
2. Did Jesus possess a soul or spirit that survived the Cross?
Um, can you tell me what you mean by “soul or spirit”? Are they the same thing, two different things, etc.?
In any case, I believe that Y'shua, the person, died on the cross. So does he, by the way.
Revelations 1:18:
Quote I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades. 3. Does that then make Him two beings?
If someone is both dead in a tomb and alive somewhere else, I would have to conclude that we are speaking of a two “person” being.
Here is my original question again:
Quote Who died on the cross? Jesus only, or Jehovah?” And your response:
Quote
This is not difficult. Jesus the man, as far as His human nature is concerned, that is, only His physical human body, died on the Cross. Jesus never ceased to exist at any time; just as any human who dies, their spirit/soul continues to exist. In that sense, Jesus the Son, the second person of the Trinity never died on the Cross, His spirit lived on, just as it did before He came to earth to be begotten of the Holy Spirit and Mary, He returned to the glory He had previously with the Father, (John 17:5 NASB) “And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.”
…… and thus any supposed conundrums about God dying on the Cross are straw men.So to clarify, Yahweh did not die on the cross? Correct? Only the body of the man, Y'shua, died, and not the whole person of Y'shua. Correct?
as far as my first question, the important thing to see is people have a physical and a spiritual nature, whether one is a dichotomist or a trichotomist, and this fact does not mean that humans are really 2 separate beings, and so Jesus could be both God and man, and yet one being…and yes, Jesus the man died on the cross, but that was His physical body only, He never ceased to exist…. that's the point here…. and so the caricatures that try to accuse Trinitarians of saying that YHWH died on the cross etc etc, and all the supposed conundrums that are supposed to entail because of His death on the Cross are easily and simply swept aside, and are no objection at all, YHWH can never die, Jesus as the God-man could die as far as His flesh is concerned, but not as far as His Spirit is concerned… simple..
as far as number 3 goes, then to be consistent in your reasoning, you would have to say that so too when a person dies and their spirit lives on, they must be 2 different people, clearly, this is not the case. and thus, Jesus' body being in the tomb, and yet His Spirit was elsewhere doing His Father's work, as the Bible clearly states:
(1 Pet 3:18-20 NASB) For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; {19} in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, {20} who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.”and so YHWH did not die on the cross, and as far as Jesus is concerned, though His body died, He did not thereby cease to exist by His death on the Cross…
blessings, Ken
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 02 2006,19:54) I wasn't for a moment offended by what you wrote. I like a good pun as much as the next fellow, and I can tell that you aren't being hateful towards me. We are just having a spirited debate, and a little levity on occasion can be refreshing.
good deal!! lol… I have a seriously sarcastic sene of humor and I really have to watch it…… in this media it is very easy to be misunderstood…..blessings, Ken
epistemaniac,
Ah! I see the problem now.
You said:
Quote as far as number 3 goes, then to be consistent in your reasoning, you would have to say that so too when a person dies and their spirit lives on, they must be 2 different people, clearly, this is not the case. The problem is that I don't share your presumed belief that when a person dies their spirit lives on. I believe that when a person dies, they are dead – not alive in a different form. The idea that death is simply a release of a man's “spirit or soul”, (which would better be termed “ghost” in this instance), is both Gnostic in origin and false. In my view, resurrection, in all cases, is the act of bringing back to life that which was dead. Thus, when Y'shua says, “I was dead”, in Revelations 1:18, he actually means it. Of course, if he were Gnostic, (or Trinitarian), he could not possibly think of himself as ever having been dead, since he would have known the “higher truth” that he has always been alive, and only ever changed forms.
Bearing that in mind, let's take a closer look at 1 Peter 3:18-20:
Quote For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God… So far, I think that we would understand the passage in the same way.
Quote …being put to death in the flesh… He died.
Quote …but made alive by the Spirit… He was resurrected. Notice the precision of the verb being used here. It does not say that he “was” alive. It says that he was “made” alive. That presupposes that before he was “made” to be alive, he was dead. Thus, when Y'shua says that he was dead in Revelations 1:18, he actually means it.
Quote …by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. This is a post-resurrection mission to rebellious spirit beings described in Genesis 6:
Quote 1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. 2 Peter 2:4
Quote For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; But, getting back to my question. In your last post, you said:
Quote and so YHWH did not die on the cross, and as far as Jesus is concerned, though His body died, He did not thereby cease to exist by His death on the Cross… How do you reconcile that with what Y'shua says in Revelations 1:18? This is the resurrected Y'shua speaking, whom you would freely call YHWH, so in effect, from your point of view, YHWH here is saying, “I was dead”. Is he not contradicting your statement, or is his statement simply not precise enough for Trinitarian doctrine?
Hi E,
The old favourite:
No one can understand God.
“Begs the question… rhetoric….. lack of full and total comprehension DOES NOT equal confusion. No one claims to fully understand God do they? Does this mean that they are automatically confused? No, of course not. The finite will never fully comprehend the infinite, so I really wish the non/anti-Trinitarians would drop this little bit of meaningless rhetoric”
“The Trinity is simply the view that makes the most sense of all the biblical data considered as a whole.”
Not good enough sorry.
True or not true , not the best guess.But what we can know about God is TAUGHT in scripture.
You ask us to believe a theory on the nature of God
ascribing to it as much validity as the Word of God itself,
so do not hide hide behind claims of ignorance please
as if you really are ignorant
why are you presenting us with this new teaching as if it was truth?Hi E,
You say
:“the Son is still said to be God because that is the type of being that he is.”So why do you claim he is not a true son but still a part of a conjoint God if his TYPE is the only reason for that decision?
Hi E,
What you say here is not quite true as the Father is the God of Jesus so his level is higher than that of the Son. He worships and serves a God, his father.
“Indeed, the Bible accords the same level of worship and majesty to Christ Jesus as it does for the Father”Hi WIT,
Are these the ones in Tartaroo?
“This is a post-resurrection mission to rebellious spirit beings described in Genesis 6:”
If so are they to be preached to or are they awaiting a judgement of condemnation for which the lake of fire was prepared?
2Peter
” For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment”;Hi WIT,
“He was resurrected. Notice the precision of the verb being used here. It does not say that he “was” alive. It says that he was “made” alive. That presupposes that before he was “made” to be alive, he was dead.”
You may be right here as it seems to agree with Rom 8.10-11
Hi Adam P,
Do you think a dead body is a person?
“What? Nick are you saying that whilst Jesus laid in the tomb for 3 days; he was at the same time, during these 3 days, alive preaching to the spirits in prison?”Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 03 2006,06:45) Hi Adam P,
Do you think a dead body is a person?
“What? Nick are you saying that whilst Jesus laid in the tomb for 3 days; he was at the same time, during these 3 days, alive preaching to the spirits in prison?”
A corpse is a dead person/soul.
A dead person is a dead soul.
Right now within tombs & coffins are dead souls.
What one buries or cremates is a dead person/soulJews in the OT were not allowed to touch dead souls … (subtly translated dead body)
So a person according to the Hebrew Bible, dead or alive, is a soul/nepheshAgain, in the Bible, 'person=soul'
To touch or see or speak to a living person, is to touch, see & speak to a living soul.
To touch a dead person is to touch a dead soul.It was Greek philosophy & Platonism that taught that a soul is some ethereal, immortal, incorporeal part of man.
The Scriptures teach no such thing.See for yourself …
(Lev 21:11) Neither shall he go in to any dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul], nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother;
(Num 9:6-7) And there were certain men, who were defiled by the dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul] of a man, that they could not keep the passover on that day: and they came before Moses and before Aaron on that day: 7 And those men said unto him, We are defiled by the dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul] of a man: wherefore are we kept back, that we may not offer an offering of YAHWEH in his appointed season among the children of Israel?
(Num 9:10) Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul], or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto YAHWEH.
(Num 19:11) He that toucheth the dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul] of any man shall be unclean seven days.
(Num 19:13) Whosoever toucheth the dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul] of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of YAHWEH; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.
(Num 19:16) And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul], or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
(Hag 2:13) Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul] touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
