Okfixed it
Appeasement of a Monster God?
- Thread starter Fitzpatrick
- Start date
Again, showing you deny Jesus came in the flesh. I John has something to say about this. The second person of the trinity is not Jesus directly, but the LOGOS, which became flesh, which is when the Son took on the name Jesus and became the sacrifice for sin. Jesus, the human, who communed with the LOGOS in the flesh, is the one who was cut off from fellowship while He bore the sin of mankind. You seem to believe Jesus did not bear our sin. Paul said that God took the writ of offenses held against us and nailed them to His cross. Jesus bore our sin, and at that time, there was separation between the humanity that bore the sin, and the deity which could have nothing to do with sin. God did not die on the cross, because God cannot die. To die is to be separated from God, so if God could die, God was separated from Himself. Now man can die and be separated from God. However, that is a spiritual death, it does not have to be physical. There was no separation in the trinity.
civic
Active Member
You said the following in the osas thread which contradicts your above claim.
" To have a relationship with them is to fellowship with them. "
The Son is a single Divine Person having a human nature. He is not 2 persons. There was no cutting off of fellowship.
Anhypostasia is essential to a trinitarian understanding of the person of the God-man. It is impossible to be a trinitarian without a confession of it. Classical Christology has described the relationship of the two natures of Christ by using the rather arcane-sounding terms anhypostasis and enhypostasis. What does this mean? Well, firstly, the human nature of Jesus has no hypostasis, or "person", of its own, but subsists only as the human nature of the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. His human nature is anhypostatic in that it has no personhood, or independent reality of its own (the word 'subsists' is used rather than 'exists’' to indicate this dependence): rather it is hypostatized in union with, in (so, enhypostasis), the person of the Logos. This is how Chalcedon is explained: we have in Jesus one person in two natures. The subject of this human nature is divine. Thus Jesus is a divine person and not a human person! Here's Louis Berkhof, A Summary of Christian Doctrine, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1938, p. 87:
You have no idea what you are talking about
There is nothing in my view denying Jesus came in the flesh
You seem to forget or ignore the fact Jesus was also deity not just human.
it also is another false claim you make about me denying Jesus bore our sins in atonement
you also appear to teach a separation of Christ's deity and humanity
So God made Himself sin?
II Corinthians 5
"21He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
I have stated more than once that Jesus was the God man. That is 100% man, 100% God in one body. Two natures, one body. God can have nothing to do with sin, yet Paul said that the Father made Him who knew no sin to be sin... Can God bear sin? It is my belief that if God tried He would cease to exist, for sin is the antithesis of God. The same as my belief that if God could die, He would cease to exist because eternity is strange like that. If God has no beginning, then He can have no end, for there is no point where God did not/does not exist. (Like I said, the idea of eternity is... strange.) When it comes to immortal on Earth, they can die. However, they are different because, in all the stories I have seen about immortals, they all had a beginning. Since they had a beginning, they can have an end. [without the universe imploding on itself...] The subject is not simple, and is beyond what we can hope to comprehend. That is why I stop at what scripture says happened. It happened, and if it happened, there is a reason why it could. I don't deny what God told Matthew and others to write about what happened. I accept it, and have a construct as to how. It is only a construct, but it keeps scripture true to what God had written.
There is a separation, but there isn't a separation. The problem is, you throw out the humanity in saying there is no separation. I emphasize the idea of a separation to keep from losing how Jesus is different. Why is Jesus the perfect mediator between God and man? He is both God and man. While there is a distinction made, it isn't clean cut. As a human, you want things clean cut. You aren't going to get that, unfortunately. God is beyond our ability to truly comprehend. We only have what He has revealed in scripture. And we have a verse of Jesus crying out "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me?" This happens to be followed by "It is finished". These two do not exist in a vacuum and are related. Death, as it stands, is a spiritual thing that manifests physically at the end of life. Spiritually it is... separation from God. If Jesus faced death, and that from being the sacrifice for sin, how can that be reconciled with the understanding that death from sin is separation from God? This is what I mean when I say that this is complicated.
To be a sin offering
Isaiah 53:10 (KJV 1900) — 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, He shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
For he hath made him to be sin for us—Τον μη γνοντα ἁμαρτιαν, ὑπερ ἡμων ἁμαρτιαν εποιησεν· He made him who knew no sin, (who was innocent), a sin-offering for us. The word ἁμαρτια occurs here twice: in the first place it means sin, i.e. transgression and guilt; and of Christ it is said, He knew no sin, i.e. was innocent; for not to know sin is the same as to be conscious of innocence; so, nil conscire sibi, to be conscious of nothing against one's self, is the same as nulla pallescere culpa, to be unimpeachable.
In the second place, it signifies a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, and answers to the חטאה chattaah and חטאת chattath of the Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch. The Septuagint translate the Hebrew word by ἁμαρτια in ninety-four places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, where a sin-offering is meant; and where our version translates the word not sin, but an offering for sin. Had our translators attended to their own method of translating the word in other places where it means the same as here, they would not have given this false view of a passage which has been made the foundation of a most blasphemous doctrine; viz. that our sins were imputed to Christ, and that he was a proper object of the indignation of Divine justice, because he was blackened with imputed sin; and some have proceeded so far in this blasphemous career as to say, that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners, because all the sins of mankind, or of the elect, as they say, were imputed to him, and reckoned as his own. One of these writers translates the passage thus: Deus Christum pro maximo peccatore habuit, ut nos essemus maxime justi, God accounted Christ the greatest of sinners, that we might be supremely righteous. Thus they have confounded sin with the punishment due to sin. Christ suffered in our stead; died for us; bore our sins, (the punishment due to them), in his own body upon the tree, for the Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all; that is, the punishment due to them; explained by making his soul—his life, an offering for sin; and healing us by his stripes.
Adam Clarke's Commentary.
Utter nonsense I throw nothing out
Scripture plainly shows there was no actual separation between the father and the son
2 Corinthians 5:19 (KJV 1900) — 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Hebrews 5:7 (LEB) — 7 who in the days of his flesh offered up both prayers and supplications, with loud crying and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard as a result of his reverence.
Psalm 22:24 (LEB) — 24 because he has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and has not hid his face from him; but he listened to him when he cried for help.
Perichoresis
The Orthodox Formulation
The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was enunciated in a series of debates and councils that were in large part prompted by the controversies sparked by such movements as monarchianism and Arianism. The Council of Constantinople (381) formulated a definitive statement in which the church made explicit the beliefs previously held implicitly. The view that prevailed was basically that of Athanasius (293–373), as elaborated and refined by the Cappadocian theologians—Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa.
The formula that expresses the position of Constantinople is “one οὐσία (ousia - essence) in three ὑποστάσεις ((hupostaseis).” The emphasis often seems to be more on the latter part of the formula, that is, the separate existence of the three persons rather than on the one indivisible Godhead. The one Godhead exists simultaneously in three modes of being or hypostases. The idea of “coinherence” or, as later termed, perichoresis, of the persons is emphasized. The Godhead exists “undivided in divided persons.” There is an “identity of nature” in the three hypostases. Basil says:
For all things that are the Father’s are beheld in the Son, and all things that are the Son’s are the Father’s; because the whole Son is in the Father and has all the Father in himself. Thus the hypostasis of the Son becomes as it were form and face of the knowledge of the Father, and the hypostasis of the Father is known in the form of the Son, while the proper quality which is contemplated therein remains for the plain distinction of the hypostases.1
1 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology. (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 361
Paul is not saying God was inside Christ. That is NOT Paul's point. Christ's sacrifice was not in a vacuum. God was in it. And by Christ's sacrifice He was reconciling the world unto Himself. Read the whole context. Paul is not speaking to the trinity here. He is speaking to what God was doing by way of Christ's sacrifice. This is neither for nor against your point. Stop acting like it is for. Treat it as it is. A treatise on what God was doing. Don't force your beliefs onto the text. Let the text inform your beliefs. It should tell you to believe that Jesus died for God and in that sacrifice, God was reconciling the world unto himself and all the rest. It says nothing more than that. It says nothing less than that.
The above does not deny what I am saying, for I said nothing of a divided trinity. I said Jesus is both God and man, two natures in one body. The Word become flesh (Jesus). The two natures are distinct, but existing in perfect harmony/union/fellowship. That fellowship was severed by sin on the cross, not within the trinity, but within the body of Christ. The fellowship of the flesh and divine, the fellowship of the two natures residing in Christ was interrupted by sin. If you read the sacrifice of atonement in the Old Testament, you will see what it means to have sin imputed. That sacrifice is made sin, which is then sacrificed, while the scapegoat which symbolizes the substitution is released into the wilderness to never be seen again. All of this was in Christ. The High Priest imputing the sin, sanctifying the sacrifice (a requirement for the sacrifice of atonement) and the sacrifice being made. The "forsaking" was within the body of Christ, not within the trinity. And it was because of the sin borne by Christ on the cross. Again, you forcing God to fellowship with sin, which is the antithesis of God, is beyond the pale to me.
Um you are denying scripture
2 Corinthians 5:19 (KJV 1900) — 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
John 10:38 (LEB) — 38 But if I am doing them, even if you do not believe me, believe the deeds, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
John 14:10 (LEB) — 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from myself, but the Father residing in me does his works.
and denying orthodox doctrine
Perichoresis
The Orthodox Formulation
The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was enunciated in a series of debates and councils that were in large part prompted by the controversies sparked by such movements as monarchianism and Arianism. The Council of Constantinople (381) formulated a definitive statement in which the church made explicit the beliefs previously held implicitly. The view that prevailed was basically that of Athanasius (293–373), as elaborated and refined by the Cappadocian theologians—Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa.
The formula that expresses the position of Constantinople is “one οὐσία (ousia - essence) in three ὑποστάσεις ((hupostaseis).” The emphasis often seems to be more on the latter part of the formula, that is, the separate existence of the three persons rather than on the one indivisible Godhead. The one Godhead exists simultaneously in three modes of being or hypostases. The idea of “coinherence” or, as later termed, perichoresis, of the persons is emphasized. The Godhead exists “undivided in divided persons.” There is an “identity of nature” in the three hypostases. Basil says:
For all things that are the Father’s are beheld in the Son, and all things that are the Son’s are the Father’s; because the whole Son is in the Father and has all the Father in himself. Thus the hypostasis of the Son becomes as it were form and face of the knowledge of the Father, and the hypostasis of the Father is known in the form of the Son, while the proper quality which is contemplated therein remains for the plain distinction of the hypostases.1
1 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology. (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 361
And you still ignore the context. Not my fault. You still deny the humanity of Christ.
You have not a clue
I affirm Christ as fully God and fully human
The nature of Jesus Christ is a central doctrine in Christianity that reveals His dual nature as both fully God and fully man. This concept, known as the hypostatic union, presents Jesus as transcending the ordinary boundaries of human existence. Let's explore this profound mystery and its significance for believers.
The Hypostatic Union: Fully God, Fully Man
The term "hypostatic union" expresses the belief that Jesus has two distinct natures—divine and human—united in one person without confusion, change, division, or separation. This doctrine was articulated by the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. However, it remains an unfathomable mystery that stretches the limits of human comprehension.Jesus' humanity is evident in the New Testament, which presents Him as a historical figure who experienced the full range of human existence. He was born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth. He faced physical limitations, emotions, and temptations just like any other human being. Jesus felt hunger, thirst, fatigue, and sorrow. He showed compassion to those in need and experienced the pain of betrayal. In His humanity, Jesus is a perfect representation of what it means to be human.
While fully human, Jesus is also fully divine. He claimed divine authority, forgave sins, performed miracles, and accepted worship. The New Testament describes Him as the eternal Word of God who became flesh and is referred to as "Immanuel," meaning "God with us." His divine nature includes attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, and perfection. https://biblebasedliving.com/fully-god-fully-man
So why don't you understand that the fellowship between the fully God and fully man was interrupted by the sin borne by the fully man? Or will you continue to deny the fully man? Will you also continue to say that you have all understanding beyond that of man, to understand the very heart of God? Something happened that God had the authors write right down to "My God, My God why hast thou forsaken Me." Why do you continue to deny this? We don't need to focus on it, but why do you deny it?
civic
Active Member
Ditto
It's all he ever does.
Because nowhere in scripture is any such thing ever stated
and for the reason showing he was not forsaken you were given scripture
2 Corinthians 5:19 (NASB95) — 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
Hebrews 5:7 (LEB) — 7 who in the days of his flesh offered up both prayers and supplications, with loud crying and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard as a result of his reverence.
Psalm 22:24 (LEB) — 24 because he has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and has not hid his face from him; but he listened to him when he cried for help.
I can hear you and your attack.
My God, My God, why has Thou forsaken Me. That seems very clear. The people didn't know what He meant because they didn't understand who Jesus was. They believed He was crying out to Elijah.
And Jesus HIMSELF cried that out. Did He lie?
I understand you have a strong belief against context. I get that. You don't have to keep repeating your disdain for context.
Jesus cried out why was He forsaken, and yet God saved Him... afterwards.
So explain how He helped instead of just saying He did. Was it when the Romans tore up His back with 39 lashes? Perhaps when they pressed down that crown of thorns into His skull? When they put the robe on Him and let it stick to His wounds, then tore it off doing even more damage. They so tortured Him that He, unlike the two thieves, couldn't carry the crossbeam for His cross. There is so much going on that you are missing.
"But [m]Yahweh was pleased
To crush Him, [n]putting Him to grief;
If You would place His soul as a guilt offering,
He will see His seed,
He will prolong His days,
And the [o]good pleasure of Yahweh will succeed in His hand.
11 As a result of the [p]anguish of His soul,
He will see [q]it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will [r]justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore, I will divide for Him a portion with the many,
And He will divide the spoil with the strong;
Because He poured out His soul to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself
And interceded for the transgressors.
So, going off of what you said, God Himself became sin... How can God become the antithesis of Himself? How can God become a sinner in His own eyes? Can God fellowship with sin? Can God look upon sin? I expect an answer to that last question. Remember what God said would happen to anyone with sin who stands in His presence. They aren't there for long as they would burn.
