as it is written 1 Cor. 2:8: They have crucfied the Lord of glory. And Acts 20:28: We are purchased with God's blood.Dodo_David said:
God Died on the Cross
- Thread starter Groundzero
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
There are two ways to read that question.
The orthodox response is the affirmative would tend toward patripassianism, the idea that the Father suffered with Christ on the cross, which is heresy. So the orthodox would be reading it to say, "Did God the Father suffer through Christ dying on the cross?"
The Unitarian* would read this question differently. The Unitarian would see, "If Jesus is God in the flesh, then did He suffer in His divinity on the cross?" The Unitarian would simply say that Jesus was not God in the flesh, that He was not God at all, he was created being.
In both cases, the answer would be no. I am not a classical Trinitarian. I'm not ready to say what I am yet but I believe in the subordination doctrine, whether that implies Trinitarian or not.
*This has nothing to do with Oneness, which some would say has more in common with Trinitarianism than Unitarianism.
The orthodox response is the affirmative would tend toward patripassianism, the idea that the Father suffered with Christ on the cross, which is heresy. So the orthodox would be reading it to say, "Did God the Father suffer through Christ dying on the cross?"
The Unitarian* would read this question differently. The Unitarian would see, "If Jesus is God in the flesh, then did He suffer in His divinity on the cross?" The Unitarian would simply say that Jesus was not God in the flesh, that He was not God at all, he was created being.
In both cases, the answer would be no. I am not a classical Trinitarian. I'm not ready to say what I am yet but I believe in the subordination doctrine, whether that implies Trinitarian or not.
*This has nothing to do with Oneness, which some would say has more in common with Trinitarianism than Unitarianism.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Yes, God died in the flesh. Jesus was Immanuel (God with us). He was made flesh and he died
in the flesh. If he didn't, then he did not atone for sin and he is not our redeemer. To claim Christ
did not die is to deny his sacrifice. If his death was fake, so is our salvation. I'm surprised that the
poll shows a majority reject the sacrifice of Christ, seems almost blasphemous.
in the flesh. If he didn't, then he did not atone for sin and he is not our redeemer. To claim Christ
did not die is to deny his sacrifice. If his death was fake, so is our salvation. I'm surprised that the
poll shows a majority reject the sacrifice of Christ, seems almost blasphemous.
You are both completely wrong, according to Catholic doctrine.
Norman Geisler "The Son, on the other hand, is the Means, Sent One, and Achiever of salvation. The Father sent, and the Son came to save us; the Father planned it, but the Son accomplished it on the cross. This is why it is a heresy (called patripassianism) to claim that the Father suffered on the cross- only the Son suffered and died."
"Patripassianism means literally the 'Father suffered.' It arose in the early third century in the form of monarchianism... holding that God the Father suffered on the cross as well as Christ. However the divine nature possessed by Christ did not suffer or die: God is impassible... and hence, incapable of undergoing suffering. Only the Son became incarnated n a human nature; thus, only the Son, not the Father or the Spirit, suffered on the cross."
I suggest to you to go talk to a priest so he can straighten this out for you. You're actually teaching against the Trinity by denying the division of persons in the Trinity (one God in three persons).
Before slamming someone you disagree with of 'blasphemy', I think you ought to study to make sure you know what it is you're talking about.
How many times in history have we seen people believing they were fulfilling their pious duty to attack their opponents and even kill them? Oh Dogma, how you have destroyed true religion.
Norman Geisler "The Son, on the other hand, is the Means, Sent One, and Achiever of salvation. The Father sent, and the Son came to save us; the Father planned it, but the Son accomplished it on the cross. This is why it is a heresy (called patripassianism) to claim that the Father suffered on the cross- only the Son suffered and died."
"Patripassianism means literally the 'Father suffered.' It arose in the early third century in the form of monarchianism... holding that God the Father suffered on the cross as well as Christ. However the divine nature possessed by Christ did not suffer or die: God is impassible... and hence, incapable of undergoing suffering. Only the Son became incarnated n a human nature; thus, only the Son, not the Father or the Spirit, suffered on the cross."
I suggest to you to go talk to a priest so he can straighten this out for you. You're actually teaching against the Trinity by denying the division of persons in the Trinity (one God in three persons).
Before slamming someone you disagree with of 'blasphemy', I think you ought to study to make sure you know what it is you're talking about.
How many times in history have we seen people believing they were fulfilling their pious duty to attack their opponents and even kill them? Oh Dogma, how you have destroyed true religion.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Study patripassianism. It is anti-trinitarian.horsecamp said:
What you're defending is an anti-trinitarian doctrine.
This has been the teaching of the Church for 1600+ years. The Catholic Church already answered this question.
Aren't you a Catholic? Can you explain to the Catholics posting here what the Church teaches about this? Because I think it will have more influence with you explaining it for them because of your being around much longer than me.aspen said:
No, we're not wrong. The Catholic Church doesn't deny that Jesus Christ is God; one Christ with two natures. He is one (and only one) Person. Whatever happens in His humanity truly happens to God. Here's one example of a Catholic, Pope Gregory I, who has proven you wrong:
It was not a plain man who was conceived and brought forth, who afterwards merited to be God. Rather, at the announcement of the angel and at the coming of the Spirit, as soon as the Word came into the womb, just then in the womb did the Word become flesh; and His unchanging essence remaining, His co-eternal essence in which He is with the Father and with the Holy Spirit; He assumed within the virginal womb that too by which the Impassable was able to suffer, the Immortal was able to die, and by which He that was Eternal before the ages was able to be one who was temporal at the end of the ages, so that through an indescribably mystery, in a holy conception and inviolable birth, in accord with the realities of both natures, the same Virgin would be both handmaid of the Lord and His Mother also...And although He is in one way from the Father and in another way from the Virgin, nevertheless, He is not one person from the Father and another person from the Virgin; rather, He Himself who is eternal from the Father, is He Himself who is temporal from the Mother; He Himself who made, is He Himself who was made... He Himself who was before the ages from the Father without a mother is He Himself who at the end of the ages is from the Mother without a father. He Himself who is the Temple is He Himself who is the Builder of the Temple. He Himself who is the Author of the work is He Himself who is the work of the Author. Remaining from both and in both natures nor a twinned product by a distinction of natures.
It was not a plain man who was conceived and brought forth, who afterwards merited to be God. Rather, at the announcement of the angel and at the coming of the Spirit, as soon as the Word came into the womb, just then in the womb did the Word become flesh; and His unchanging essence remaining, His co-eternal essence in which He is with the Father and with the Holy Spirit; He assumed within the virginal womb that too by which the Impassable was able to suffer, the Immortal was able to die, and by which He that was Eternal before the ages was able to be one who was temporal at the end of the ages, so that through an indescribably mystery, in a holy conception and inviolable birth, in accord with the realities of both natures, the same Virgin would be both handmaid of the Lord and His Mother also...And although He is in one way from the Father and in another way from the Virgin, nevertheless, He is not one person from the Father and another person from the Virgin; rather, He Himself who is eternal from the Father, is He Himself who is temporal from the Mother; He Himself who made, is He Himself who was made... He Himself who was before the ages from the Father without a mother is He Himself who at the end of the ages is from the Mother without a father. He Himself who is the Temple is He Himself who is the Builder of the Temple. He Himself who is the Author of the work is He Himself who is the work of the Author. Remaining from both and in both natures nor a twinned product by a distinction of natures.
I do. :)horsecamp said:
Here is what Christ said when he was leaving us, John20:17 "Jesus saith unto her,Touch me not;for i have not yet ascended to my father:but go to my bretheren,and say unto them,I ascend to my father,and your father;and to my God,and your God."
How can you read this verse,and all the other things that Jesus said about himself,and God,And reach the conclusion that jesus was fully God?
I always thought Jesus was half man half God.
God is aspirit, Jesus was born from a woman.
How can you read this verse,and all the other things that Jesus said about himself,and God,And reach the conclusion that jesus was fully God?
I always thought Jesus was half man half God.
God is aspirit, Jesus was born from a woman.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Pelaides - Jesus is fully man and fully God - if He were only half of each, He would be imperfectly human and imperfectly God. Also, we are called to be perfect or fully human just like the Father is perfect or fully God. Jesus could not have shown us how to be fully human if He was not perfectly human, himself. Finally, less than perfect or fully human means that sin (less than perfection) exists - Jesus was and is perfect. Thankfully, the church recognized this and created the doctrine of the incarnation to describe it
The reason that Jesus talks about Himself as less than the Father is because He chose to humble Himself from His rightful position of glory reserved for God alone, and walk with us for a time. During His time here with us, He was lower than the Father in position only.
The reason that Jesus talks about Himself as less than the Father is because He chose to humble Himself from His rightful position of glory reserved for God alone, and walk with us for a time. During His time here with us, He was lower than the Father in position only.
I was just giving the scriptures that say it was truly God that died on the cross..
I didn't mean to debate anyone; ..the apology for what I said is the scriptures I pointed out and the creeds.
Apostles Nicene and especialy Athanasian
ATHANASIAN CREED
This creed is named after St. Athanasius, a staunch defender of the Christian faith in the fourth century. It was prepared to assist the Church in combating two errors that undermined Bible teaching. One error denied that God's Son and the Holy Spirit are of one being or Godhead with the Father. The other error denied that Jesus Christ is true God and true man in one person. The Athanasian Creed continues to serve the Christian Church as a standard of the truth. It declares that whoever rejects the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of Christ is without the saving faith.
http://www.wels.net/what-we-believe/statements-beliefs/athanasian-creed
I didn't mean to debate anyone; ..the apology for what I said is the scriptures I pointed out and the creeds.
Apostles Nicene and especialy Athanasian
ATHANASIAN CREED
This creed is named after St. Athanasius, a staunch defender of the Christian faith in the fourth century. It was prepared to assist the Church in combating two errors that undermined Bible teaching. One error denied that God's Son and the Holy Spirit are of one being or Godhead with the Father. The other error denied that Jesus Christ is true God and true man in one person. The Athanasian Creed continues to serve the Christian Church as a standard of the truth. It declares that whoever rejects the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of Christ is without the saving faith.
http://www.wels.net/what-we-believe/statements-beliefs/athanasian-creed
I'm not opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity, but I don't think it does the best to explain the mystery. This is how I see it....The Bible says God is not a man, God cannot die, and God cannot be tempted. Jesus was all three. He was a man, who was tempted, and truly died. So, was Jesus God before his birth in Bethlehem? Yes. Is Jesus now God in Heaven? Yes. Was Jesus God during the 30 years he walked the planet? No. The NT teaches he gave up being God to make himself lower than the angels. He went from One being served, toone doing the serving. God became a man. But he was just a man while he was here, if not, then what he accomplished would give us no hope. So what, God beat temptation? So what, God healed people? So what, God was sinless? Who do we have as an example, someone "like us" who gives us hope by saying "I over came and sit at my Fathers throne, and you too can over come and sit at my throne." My strength comes by knowing Jesus was a guy like me who beat the odds, and if he can do it, so can I. It means more to me if God fully gave up being God for me, to show me the way, then if he still stayed God but was a man too. Kinda half and half?
Because nothing is impossible with God, Jesus was fully Man and fully God while he was on the Earth.lukethreesix said:
Im sorry Dodo, but NO WHERE in the entire Bible does it say "God the Son". IT DOES say "God the Father", and "God being both Holy and Spirit". Again, Im not opposed to the doctrine of the trinity, it just does make sense if Jesus was truly tempted, since God cannot be.Yes I believe Jesus is God, and was God in "eternity past", but while here gave up his throne and power. Is that not what the scriptures say?
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (I Corinthians 15:20-28,NIV)
Amen Harry, even the reign of Christ will come to an end, when he (Christ) has brought all things (Including himself subject to God) and God will finally be all in ALL.
Similar threads
