Did God die on the Cross?

[Jose]

The principle of non-contradiction states that a thing can not exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect

Hi Alan, I'm not a philosopher, but I believe I understand the principle. Your example of a man being a father and a son at the same time is valid because it is dealing with relations or functions and not with the nature of the man himself (which is what we are discussing). Naturally, it would be a contradiction if I were to say that a person can be 100% male and 100% female or that the table in my dining room is 100% wood and 100% iron. I believe the dual natures doctrine promotes this very same kind of contradiction.

In another post you said "Jesus is not "50% God" and "50% man"; He is 100% God and 100% man, true God and true man."
I would like to reiterate what I said in my prior post.

God is a deity
Man is not a deity

If Jesus is, as you say, "100% God and 100% man, true God and true man", then I would say that your are claiming that Jesus is truly a deity and truly not a deity .
This, in my opinion, is a contradiction and is no different than saying that Jesus is 100% male and 100% female.

1 Tim 2:5 "For there is one Deity, and one mediator also between the one Deity and men, the man (in contrast to the one Deity) Christ Jesus". (my paraphrase)

Peace, Jose

[Jose]

And what is meant by the Incarnation? Well, we can answer this question by simply saying that, by the Incarnation is meant that the Son of God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, retaining His Divine nature, took to Himself a human nature, that is, a body and soul like ours.

By that do you mean that the eternal divine essence (the Trinity) added something (a human body) to one of its members (the Son) that it didn't have before, and that the two other members of that essence (the Father and the Spirit) remained unchanged (did not take on human bodies)?

If that is what you mean, then how are we to understand Jesus when he said that God is spirit? Are we to believe that God is spirit or spirit+a body?

Back to the question of God dying; keep in mind that if the trinity doctrine is true, then God has always been and always will be a trinity. As touched upon earlier, to keep within the principle of non contradiction, God is popularly defined by Christians as "three whos and one what". Under this paradigm, to say that God died is to say that the trinity died because they are inseparable. The whos and the what sink or swim together, because together, they are the God "who" has supposedly died.

The question at the beginning was: Did God die on the cross?
I think an equivalent question would be: Did the Trinity die on the cross?
I imagine that not many Christians would embrace that idea, but I don't know, perhaps they would.

Jose

[Paidion]

Again, to answer this question well requires that we understand the nature of the Incarnation and the hypostatic union.
Jesus is not "50% God" and "50% man"; He is 100% God and 100% man, true God and true man.

I've heard this before, but it's nonsense'. Nothing can be 100% God and 100% man. Could you be 100% Ukranian and 100% German?

The fact is that Jesus, prior to his incarnation was 100% divine (not God. Jesus Himself addressed His Father as "the only true God" (John 17:3) and with the use of that little word "and" indicated Himself as someone OTHER THAN the only true God.) Jesus was the only-begotten Son of God, "begotten before all ages" as the original Nicene Creed affirms. As the Son of God, He was of the same essence as the Father, and therefore 100% divine. But when He became human, He divested Himself of His divine attributes, and became completely human. He retained only His identity as the Son of God. He could't perform any miracles as a human being; the Father did the miracles THROUGH Him. He, Himelf said, "I can do nothing of myself" (John 5:30).

...though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave... (Philippians 2:6,7)

After Jesus died and God raised Him from the dead, He became a life-giving Spirit. Again, He was again 100% divine.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[jriccitelli]

Not to be harsh, but to look at the verses from the perspective of His ________ (Me, Dec 25, pg3)

I’m sorry, I somehow clipped off the end of this sentence, this should have read:
Not to be harsh, but to look at the verses from the perspective of His being God
(That is, the verses that refer to 'God' raising Him from the dead. Also it never seems to make the distinction of: the Father raises Him, simply God raised Him in these verses. And so Jesus is God. And Jesus as in the Trinity can speak of Him raising Him).

Once we realize that there is a union of these two natures in the Person of Christ, then we are able to see that this Divine Person IS able to die in one of these natures (the human), though not in the other (the Divine)-- but, since He IS able to die in one of these natures, it can truly be said that He did DIE (in that human nature of His) (BrotherAlan, Dec 25)

Nice job brother Alan. I have stated this before in other threads, and I noted in this thread that even if Jesus has two spirit natures (not just Spirit and flesh, but both spirit and Spirit and flesh) this point does not change the outcome (Yet It is necessary to make the point, so others would see that it doesn’t change the outcome)

So only half of Jesus died? I believe the mistake this view of the hypostatic union makes, is to miss the fact that the divinity and humanity fully merged, they were indivisible... (Dizerner)

Scripture gives us some facts on His incarnation, but developing a dogmatic point about how much He was integrated into the body, and making an assertion on that basis goes beyond what we know for sure. We have to step back to what we do know, and one thing we know is that God cannot die. Therefore, we know: the God side of the hypostatic union cannot die (and we also stick to the law of non-contradiction, noted by Alan).

'... The divinity went within the humanity, at least the way I see it Biblically, otherwise the "fullness" of God did not really dwell in him "bodily," but was hovering "out there somewhere," so that Jesus could watch himself die’ (Dizerner)

I would also ask: In heaven, and elsewhere, will Jesus always be confined to His resurrected body? Will He ‘not’ be able to look upon His own resurrected body? Good questions, but we have to presume His body will not restrict His Omniscience.

‘I wonder if anyone believes that it is possible for God to die now? (Jose, Dec 26)

That is a good question, very good, if Jesus was hypostatically united with God on earth, and died. Why then couldn’t God die in heaven again? In heaven, the only difference is that Jesus has a different ‘body’.

When did Jesus begin to be God again? When the Spirit entered Him? Or when the Spirit left Him? (Me)
This is a strange question to me. Are you suggesting that Jesus at some point was God, and then stopped being God, and then "began to be God again"? (Jose)

It was hypothetical (or hypostaticunion-ical). My point, like yours above, was that the answer should be obvious: No, of course Jesus did not stop being God (Sorry it was not clear that it was rhetorical)

‘One nature is said to be 100% God and at the same time he has a second nature which is said to be 100% man (human)… ‘If the above is true, then could it not be correctly stated that Jesus is 100% deity and 100% not deity at the same time? Can anything exist and not exist at the same time?’ (Jose)

Your statement answered your question, in my opinion, you spoke only of two natures: one nature is spirit and the other one is Spirit. The question might be: did Jesus consist of two persons? There is nothing that says one ‘person’ can’t have two different kinds of spirit/Spirit natures within them. But it seems unlikely that two persons are one person, by definition.

Then, Yeshua, still alive, said, "IT IS FINISHED” (Robby, Dec 26)

That is why we love bible forums, I never thought of that verse. Right, the Sacrifice was accomplished, the Veil torn, the Lamb slain, the Just for the unjust. His resurrection proved His power over death; He did not actually 'have' to lie in the tomb for one second, but did so only to 'prove' that His body was dead (in my opinion). Scripture says He left His body immediately, at death. In fact His leaving His body is what killed His body. I don't accept soul sleep. And even if Jesus was asleep, we are not dead when we are asleep. And the analogy of sleep/death depends on your standing with God, if you die in your sins we lay dead/asleep in sins, Jesus was not dead in sins. He paid the penalty, and lived, because men die, but God cannot die.

The bible says He tasted death for all men (Heb 2:9), What death? Well the only death that matters, Spiritual Death - Separation from God’ (Robby, Dec 26)

I wouldn’t say it like that though (we went through this in another thread), the bible does ‘not’ say ‘spiritual Death = Separation from God’. This comes from the Catholic/ET tradition that believes in the immortality of the human soul. Neither would I say that Jesus’ words “why have you forsaken me” mean anything more than the Father turning His back for a moment (as David also trusted in God when David penned these words, it seemed only that God had forsaken Him during this trial, for God was with David the whole time. And Jesus was pointing to His fulfillment of the psalm). Like you said Robby: “… but never did His Spirit altogether die… Yeshua was alive and conscious during the whole process”

… which would produce, if you will, some sort of "third nature" (Robby, Dec 26)

(Enter Paidion’s Jesus. But Paidion does not believe Jesus is truly God, or that Jesus died for our sins, or that we have a dichotomy, so that's another topic...)

'... and when He was born of Mary, we could truly say, "GOD is born of Mary; God's Mom is Mary." (Brother Alan, Dec 26)

I would ask what does incarnate mean? Scripture also says “God is not a man”, "God is invisible", "God is Spirit" and “No one has seen God at any time” When we go too far and say uncreated God became a created thing (the uncreated became created), well that denies the definition of God. The body (and or spirit) that Jesus had in the incarnation, anything human, that is human spirit and flesh were ‘created’. And created things, by definition are not ‘God’. If the Jesus in Bethlehem, is no different than He was in Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace, wrestling Jacob, or Abrahams visitation, or in any other Christophany then I am fine with that. God can create and indwell a body He ‘created’ from atoms. No mystery necessary (philosophise all you want, but it is not necessary in order to make sense of the incarnation).

“and the Word was God… In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men… There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us’ (John 1:14)
Jesus came 'into' the world. He 'entered' a human nature that He 'created'. 'Dwelling' can be understood to mean 'pitching His tent' among us. The human nature was not in the beginning, otherwise human nature would be Omniscient Omnipresent God. And God said "I am 'not' a man". The person of Jesus came from above, He was sent - therefore His person is not of this earth:
‘God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law’ (Gal 4:4)
‘rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness’ (Phil 2:7)
I understand He became like us in all things, to be a priest, but Jesus was always the same person who He was from eternity:
'Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil' (Hebrews 2:14 NASB) and again:
‘Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death’ (Hebrews 2:14 NIV)
‘And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness' (Hebrews 9:22)
‘Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh’ (Hebrews 10:19)
‘But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace’ (Eph 2:13-15)
Scripture only needs the death of Christ in the body, to satisfy the sacrifice of atonement. Scripture does not demand Christ die a 'spiritual' death. Scripture only speaks of His death in the flesh and blood, and the necessity of His blood poured out on the alter.

'I wouldn't be so presumptuous to say I understood such a mystery (Dizerner, above)

I don't 'want' to sound presumptuous to say I understood such a mystery. I get that we don't know 'how much' and 'how mingled' the nature of the Divine was with the human nature of Christ, but I think we make it more difficult than it is. I am just trying to relate that I really am satisfied that it is explained by the word in-carnate. I am satisfied that Jesus came from above and indwelt a body that He Himself 'created'. He lived and experienced what we experience in this body. He was tortured and felt pain and death in every way a human would, and yet did so as an unblemished lamb without sin. All of this can be accomplished and believed without forcing the idea into this that His Spirit/spirit died, because; scripture does not say His spirit/Spirit died.
'That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7" Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again' (John 3:6-7) I do not believe Jesus needed to be born again, He must have been 'from above', that is what He said.

Something to think about and pray over...it is a great mystery! (Alan, Dec 26)

I think I will respond to that here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7851741-7/#post66648427

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Homer]

Considering two scriptures that might seem contradictory:

Philippians 2:5-7 (NASB)

5. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6. who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7. but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.


Colossians 1:19 (NASB)

19. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,

It seems to me that when The Word became flesh He laid aside His position, prerogatives, and power and took on the limitations of the human flesh. But He was still God - God in the flesh, the "fullness dwelt in Him". Then when He died on the cross He, as God, experienced death as we do and His spirit went to be with God (the Father) where I believe ours go to await resurrection. It seems to me that if Jesus is seen as nothing more than another man when He died on the cross, the atonement is diminished. But God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them,[ 2 Corinthians 5:19 (NASB)]
Thus God, at the historic moment of Jesus' death on the cross, was reconciling the world to Himself. Paul identifies Christ's death on the cross with God's work. He reconciles, He internalized the punishment for our sins, He paid our debt. How could the death of another human be of infinite efficacy?

Dizerner wrote:

The penalty is death, clearly. This cannot mean only physical death, because righteous men still die, and then all could go to heaven without Christ anyway, because they "paid" the price of sin by physically "dying."

But isn't the "second death" the final penalty for sin?

[jriccitelli]

Considering two scriptures that might seem contradictory:

True Homer, how much of His Deity – or self – He left in heaven is hard to figure, since He was also the Word when He was incarnate. And The Word certainly has an element of Divinity, power and wisdom associated with it, that seems inseparable from His Glory. Jesus did say He left His Glory with the Father, but it seems Jesus showed some demonstrations of His own Glory before His resurrection also. Which would tend to make it more likely that Jesus blended Himself with a human nature, rather than being made a into a new human person who had no form of the God He was.

But isn't the "second death" the final penalty for sin? (Homer)

Right. I believe that if we do not accept Christ’s death on the cross as our sacrifice for sin, we will die in our sins, be judged, and end up in the LOF. I believe that the second death is the death of the human spirit, the death on earth is the death of the body only.

'The penalty is death, clearly. This cannot mean only physical death, because righteous men still die, and then all could go to heaven without Christ anyway, because they "paid" the price of sin by physically "dying." (Diz)

There is no one righteous. No one atones for their own sins, and no one goes to heaven just because they die. We are just dead sinners. Jesus was not a dead sinner, Jesus although he was a man, He also was from above. But this sounds like another thread, so I will answer here under; Re: The Penalty of death http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=4452

[steve7150]

Right. I believe that if we do not accept Christ’s death on the cross as our sacrifice for sin, we will die in our sins, be judged, and end up in the LOF. I believe that the second death is the death of the human spirit, the death on earth is the death of the body only.











Or maybe the second death is the death of our sin nature? It sounds to me like physical death may be over since death and hades are thrown into the LOF together. Since death is linked with hades it sounds like both are destroyed and that may eliminate conditionalism as a possibility.

[jriccitelli]

'... that may eliminate conditionalism as a possibility' (7150)

That may eliminate the direction of this thread

Sorry these discussions tend to get a bit intense JR, don't take anything personally... (Diz)

No, don't worry, I am happy and delighted to communicate. It is interesting that I see your posts under the the other thread, where i totally agree with your posts, and I don't feel your view here taints my opinion of your view there! Not in the least! I think that sometimes we carry our perceptions of the other person into other threads and topics, but I think with so many topics here, soon we learn to agree with people we don't agree with. And to you I think I said earlier 'welcome to disagreeing with those you agree with'. The ability to see our communication is as important as our relationships, and that both need and edify each other, is very scriptural. The disagreements should be educational, not emotional. This is only online, but it serves as a great model for how we should act in person while challenging our own doctrine and salvation. And half of this experience I am using to understand how the church might better function, if they we could discuss these things openly in Church. As all relationships in the Church should be foremost of love and grace , yet with knowledge, wisdom and growth . God bless you all.
(I might add, I am aware that I am still human, and prone to bursts of irrationalism and stupidity, so excuse me and let me know when I get carried away. I also recognize this is spiritual sometimes, and we should all recognize that. So falsehood should be addressed, but I believe it can be done in an intellectual and sensical manner, I think)