Appeasement of a Monster God?

It would be contrary to the Christian view of the trinity if wrath was directed toward one member of the trinity by another.

And if it were true it likely would make me an instant Universalist, against all odds.

Because it sounds like God takes responsibility for His decision to equip us with free will while He knew on beforehand that sin sooner or later would rear its ugly head. Hence the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, His solution before creating us. It's almost blasphemy to reason this way.

@Johann
 
And if it were true it likely would make me an instant Universalist, against all odds.

Because it sounds like God takes responsibility for His decision to equip us with free will while He knew on beforehand that sin sooner or later would rear its ugly head. Hence the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, His solution before creating us. It's almost blasphemy to reason this way.
Glad to see you tagged me--interesting that you're implying I'm promoting blasphemy.








The Nature of God’s Wrath:
God’s wrath is not a loss of control or a division within the Trinity. Instead, it is God’s just response to sin. In Christ, God’s justice and mercy meet.

Romans 5:8–9 (NASB):
"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."

The wrath is directed at sin itself, and Christ willingly bore that wrath in our place.

5. Is This Blasphemous Reasoning?

It would only be blasphemy if it implied that God the Father acted against God the Son in a way that was contrary to the divine nature or purpose. However, Scripture clearly teaches that the Father, Son, and Spirit were in perfect agreement regarding the plan of salvation.

Philippians 2:8 (NASB):
"Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

The Son’s obedience to the Father’s redemptive plan shows concurrence, not conflict.

6. My Thoughts--
Your concern about blasphemy seems to stem from the idea that God’s wrath on Christ implies a conflict within the Trinity, but Scripture consistently portrays the atonement as an act of unified, willing sacrifice. The Trinitarian relationship is not disrupted; rather, the atonement reveals the depth of God’s love and justice.

My advice to you is to not tag me again @ProDeo since you and I have nothing in common.

(ti emoi kai soi)? Nada.

J.
 
That's the problem with the current PSA theory of atonement.

There is zero problem with the Biblical atonement that Jesus stood in our place and took our punishment.

The objections are all completely invalid and frankly, dumb.
 
And if it were true it likely would make me an instant Universalist, against all odds.

Because it sounds like God takes responsibility for His decision to equip us with free will while He knew on beforehand that sin sooner or later would rear its ugly head. Hence the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, His solution before creating us. It's almost blasphemy to reason this way.

@Johann
Well, glad you are not a universalist
 
There is zero problem with the Biblical atonement that Jesus stood in our place and took our punishment.

The objections are all completely invalid and frankly, dumb.
What is dumb is the idea God poured out his wrath on God and forsook him. Christ, God the son, becoming an anathema to God the Father.

ideas expressed here

And God Cursed Him

Rather we see

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.
 
Nope


Nope

Nestorius “denied the real union between the divine and the human natures in Christ … (and) virtually held to two natures and two persons.” Nestorius taught that while Christ suffered in His humanity, His deity was uninvolved (which was also the view of John of Damascus). The teaching was a denial of a real incarnation; instead of affirming Christ as God-man, He was viewed as two persons, God and man, with no union between them. Nestorius believed that because Mary was only the source of Jesus’ humanity, He must be two distinct persons.
An interesting take is that the reason why Nestorius was against Mary being the Mother of God, and not the Mother of Jesus is that he was afraid that the Catholic would push to far, which they did. They teach Mary is the Mother of God, and thus God has to listen to Mary His mother. Also, I read that we can't be sure what Nestorius actually taught because most of what exists in the historical record was written by people who hated him, and no compunctions in lying. So while what we have in nestorianism is a heresy, we can't be sure that is what he ACTUALLY taught/believed.
You do realize it was the deity of Christ in sacrifice that gives the sacrifice its great value
I'm not sure what this has to do with PSA. Are you still trying to separate the man from the deity and removing the man from the sacrifice? I didn't go back, but I believe I said that Jesus sacrifice is special in that the sacrifice and the High Priest that sanctified that sacrifice were in one body. It is the sanctification of the high priest, in this case the High Priest that is the Word of God, that gives the sacrifice its great value. However, scripture also places this on Jesus, the God man, the human nature taking on the wrath of God willingly as being beyond value. He volunteered. Only one time did He show any sign of self, and immediately bowed to the will of the Father... in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Did you actually address these?

2 Corinthians 5:19 (LEB) — 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

If God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, how could he forsake Christ?
I believe you were trying to present a logical rational argument here, but I don't see it. I gave the premise and you changed them, so there is no rational argument here. Now, perhaps God can stand sin and just told us He can't. I believe there is a term for that. Or perhaps you will understand that while Jesus, the human nature, was carrying sin, God could not have anything to do with Him. Jesus said why did God forsake Him, where the reality is the sin that was borne in sacrifice, cut off fellowship with God, who can have nothing to do with sin. Jesus knew this was coming in the Garden of Gethsemane, and the knowledge was of such effect that He sweat drops of blood. He knew what He was going to face (Jesus, the human nature), and bowed to the Father and said, Your will be done. (figuratively bowed to the Father). God was in the sacrifice of His Son, reconciling the world to Himself. Consider the context. He is not counting their trespasses against them because of the sacrifice. By the sacrifice He entrusted to us the message of reconciliation.

So instead of asking why God didn't just bask in sin in Christ, consider that what happened is that the fellowship between the human and divine nature in Christ was cut off while the human nature bore man's sin in sacrifice. Or can God have fellowship with sin?
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.

This states he did not

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.

As does this

I repeat

It is inconsistent to hold a view of the trinity and believe God could forsake God
Reverse Nestorianism? Jesus was only God with not a shred of humanity, or a human nature? I mean, that is what I just saw you say. Again, Jesus said forsake, which was His reaction to the fellowship between the human nature and the divine nature being cut off while the human nature bore man's sin in sacrifice. It isn't at all a difficult concept. Are you going to deny Jesus was tortured by the Romans while God watched on? That He was crucified and hung on a tree, which is to be cursed, while God simply watched on? Or, will you realize that there is more going on? I don't emphasize the wrath of God in PSA. I emphasize the substitutionary atonement. The wrath of God is that Jesus was tortured by the Romans, was hung on a cross, and was made to carry our sin in the first place. The fact that Jesus did this WILLINGLY is the heart of PSA. I don't agree with the focus on the wrath, when the focus should be on the substitution.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what this has to do with PSA. Are you still trying to separate the man from the deity and removing the man from the sacrifice?
Far from it . I do not separate the man Christ from his deity. It is just the opposite and should have been obvious from my quote.



You do realize it was the deity of Christ in sacrifice that gives the sacrifice its great value

I didn't go back, but I believe I said that Jesus sacrifice is special in that the sacrifice and the High Priest that sanctified that sacrifice were in one body. It is the sanctification of the high priest, in this case the High Priest that is the Word of God, that gives the sacrifice its great value. However, scripture also places this on Jesus, the God man, the human nature taking on the wrath of God willingly as being beyond value. He volunteered. Only one time did He show any sign of self, and immediately bowed to the will of the Father... in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Again, the idea that God the father pours out wrath on God the son and forsakes him is harmful to a belief in the trinity
and is unbiblical

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 (NASB95) — 7 In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety.

Psalm 22:24 (NASB95) — 24 For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.
 
Far from it . I do not separate the man Christ from his deity. It is just the opposite and should have been obvious from my quote.



You do realize it was the deity of Christ in sacrifice that gives the sacrifice its great value


Again, the idea that God the father pours out wrath on God the son and forsakes him is harmful to a belief in the trinity
and is unbiblical
You claim "far from it", but then you immediately respond in a way that you are combining the man and deity to where there is no man, only deity. Hence, dualism, even if you don't realize it. No flesh because flesh is evil, and only God. Therefore whatever happened to Jesus happened to God. You understand that when God, through the authors of scripture, says that Jesus said "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" that something has happened, right? If you look at it as it is written, and don't agree/believe it, you are the problem. That writing is there for a reason. God had it put there. What it means, if you can't accept it, is that you are missing information, but you have no desire to consider, or find that information as to absolve God of wrongdoing putting those words into scripture. You are UNWILLING to absolve God in your mind. I explained that it was sin that interrupted the fellowship that existed between the human nature and the divine nature within the body of Christ. It was the human nature crying out. The human nature that bore the sin of mankind. Why you believe God has fellowship/communion/an open relationship with sin is beyond me. That sin severed the fellowship until Jesus cried out "It is finished!" The spirit that was dead was made alive, according to Peter. Why dead? The sin borne.
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 (NASB95) — 7 In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety.

Psalm 22:24 (NASB95) — 24 For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.
So, in your argument, are you claiming God made a mistake, or was He blatant about the error of having the gospel author write that Jesus cried out "My God, My God, why has Thou forsaken Me?" You understand that if you can't accept/believe what God Himself had recorded in scripture, the problem is with you right? That problem is specifically that you are unwilling to reflect on scripture, and gather all the information that makes what God Himself had written, true and correct. Jesus, the man, faced the wrath of God. No one is saying that God faced wrath from Himself. Again, the wrath is poured out on SIN, and since God cannot sin and can have nothing to do with sin, then, if you are a rational, logical being as God created you to be, you would understand that that wrath was not poured out on God, but on the sacrificial lamb, which was the flesh that bore the sin, the human nature of Christ. The human nature that God tells us cried out "My God, My God, why has Thou forsaken Me?"

The best that you can do is accept that it happened, trusting God and what He has told us, understanding that just because your understanding is lacking doesn't mean it didn't happen. There are atheists and agnostics out there who shipwrecked their own faith because they could not accept what God said. Understand that there is a lot involved. When Jesus spoke to the Jews about His being God, He didn't say that they were wrong for not believing Him. He said, accept the works that He did from the Father. Why? If they accept/believe the works He did from the Father, then they were accepting what He said about Himself. Why? If He wasn't who He claimed to be, He couldn't do the works of the Father. One could not be consistent and accept the works, and not, even if only tacitly, accept what He said about Himself. Irrational. Understanding the true nature of God, and His triune nature, is still outside of our capability. We have our frameworks, but when we finally behold who He is, we will see how woefully short our understanding truly was.
 
You claim "far from it", but then you immediately respond in a way that you are combining the man and deity to where there is no man, only deity.
Sorry you are reading that into my words

I never stated any such thing

Nor do I hold to any such thing


Hence, dualism, even if you don't realize it. No flesh because flesh is evil, and only God. Therefore whatever happened to Jesus happened to God.
Of course, Jesus was both man and God.

That is biblical theology

You appear, on the other hand, to be denying his deity.


You understand that when God, through the authors of scripture, says that Jesus said "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" that something has happened, right?
You ignored the scripture quoted

Jesus was quoting from

Psalm 22:1–24 (LEB) — 1 My God, my God why have you forsaken me? Why are you far from helping me, far from the words of my groaning? 2 O my God, I call by day and you do not answer, and by night but I have no rest. 3 Yet you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel. 4 Our ancestors trusted you; they trusted and you delivered them. 5 They cried to you and were saved; they trusted you and were not ashamed. 6 But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by humankind and despised by people. 7 All who see me mock me. They open wide their lips; they shake the head, saying: 8 “He trusts Yahweh. Let him rescue him. Let him deliver him because he delights in him.” 9 Yet you took me from the belly; you made me trust while on my mother’s breasts. 10 On you I was cast from the womb. From my mother’s belly you have been my God. 11 Do not be far from me because trouble is near; because there is no helper. 12 Many bulls have encircled me; mighty bulls of Bashan have surrounded me. 13 They open their mouth against me like a lion tearing and roaring. 14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart is like wax; it is melted within me. 15 My strength is dry like a potsherd, and my tongue is sticking to my jaws; and you have placed me in the dust of death. 16 Because dogs have surrounded me; a gang of evildoers has encircled me. Like the lion they are at my hands and my feet. 17 I can count all my bones; they gaze, they look at me. 18 They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots. 19 But you, O Yahweh, do not remain distant. O my help, hasten to help me. 20 Rescue my life from the sword, my only life from the power of the dogs. 21 Save me from the mouth of the lion, and from the horns of the wild oxen answer me. 22 I will tell your name to my brothers; inside the assembly I will praise you. 23 You who revere Yahweh, praise him! Glorify him, all you seed of Jacob, and be in awe of him, all you seed of Israel, 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.

where we find out he did not forsake him

You also ignored both

2 Corinthians 5:19 (LEB) — 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

and

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.

as well as the fact



John 14:10–11 (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. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves.

This references the Perichoresis or the mutual indwelling of those in the Trinity
 
Sorry you are reading that into my words

I never stated any such thing

Nor do I hold to any such thing



Of course, Jesus was both man and God.

That is biblical theology

You appear, on the other hand, to be denying his deity.



You ignored the scripture quoted

Jesus was quoting from

Psalm 22:1–24 (LEB) — 1 My God, my God why have you forsaken me? Why are you far from helping me, far from the words of my groaning? 2 O my God, I call by day and you do not answer, and by night but I have no rest. 3 Yet you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel. 4 Our ancestors trusted you; they trusted and you delivered them. 5 They cried to you and were saved; they trusted you and were not ashamed. 6 But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by humankind and despised by people. 7 All who see me mock me. They open wide their lips; they shake the head, saying: 8 “He trusts Yahweh. Let him rescue him. Let him deliver him because he delights in him.” 9 Yet you took me from the belly; you made me trust while on my mother’s breasts. 10 On you I was cast from the womb. From my mother’s belly you have been my God. 11 Do not be far from me because trouble is near; because there is no helper. 12 Many bulls have encircled me; mighty bulls of Bashan have surrounded me. 13 They open their mouth against me like a lion tearing and roaring. 14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart is like wax; it is melted within me. 15 My strength is dry like a potsherd, and my tongue is sticking to my jaws; and you have placed me in the dust of death. 16 Because dogs have surrounded me; a gang of evildoers has encircled me. Like the lion they are at my hands and my feet. 17 I can count all my bones; they gaze, they look at me. 18 They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots. 19 But you, O Yahweh, do not remain distant. O my help, hasten to help me. 20 Rescue my life from the sword, my only life from the power of the dogs. 21 Save me from the mouth of the lion, and from the horns of the wild oxen answer me. 22 I will tell your name to my brothers; inside the assembly I will praise you. 23 You who revere Yahweh, praise him! Glorify him, all you seed of Jacob, and be in awe of him, all you seed of Israel, 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.

where we find out he did not forsake him

You also ignored both

2 Corinthians 5:19 (LEB) — 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

and

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.

as well as the fact
I did not ignore that which is completely unrelated to the argument. Jesus cried out "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Are you going to claim that Jesus lied on the cross? That His question did not speak to reality? Or, are you going to look into the whole of what was happening, and find all the parts that you are missing that make this truth, and rational. If you simply make the statement that he did not forsake him, does that not mean Jesus lied? Jesus spoke evil of the Father by making an untruthful claim attacking God's faithfulness? Or is there more to the situation that explains why Jesus said that, and meant it?

On 2 Corinthians, why do you ignore the rest of the verse that explains what the verse means? You ignore the context. It isn't saying that Christ is incarnate (there are enough verses in scripture that state this, that one that doesn't changes nothing). God was in Christ's sacrifice, was behind Christ's sacrifice, which was to reconcile the world to himself. By way of the sacrifice, He did not count their sins against them. Why not? He counted it against Christ, however, Christ was innocent and through this God made a way where He did not count their sins against Him. By this, He entrusted to Paul and the apostles the message of reconciliation with God through Christ. That reconciliation is that by Christ's death, the sins of the believer are no longer counted against them, so the believer can approach God through Christ.

For Hebrews, Jesus was praying, and the biggest one was in the Garden of Gethsemane. God heard His prayer as a result of His reverence, and resurrected His Son from the dead on the third day. To be saved from death, one has to be facing death, or in death. That is the moment when Jesus cried out "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me", ending with "It is finished". At death, His spirit was made alive, which must mean... it was dead. Since God cannot be dead, it is obviously speaking of the human nature/spirit, and that being saved from death.
John 14:10–11 (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. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves.

This references the Perichoresis or the mutual indwelling of those in the Trinity
I fail to see how this relates to Jesus being both God and man. Jesus does not have to speak to this because, to those seeing Him bodily, it is obvious that He is man. So He speaks to the divine nature of Himself, not dealing with the human part. Looking back, He mentions the human part in only that He is doing work on Earth, with Him in human form.

Somehow you manage to keep ignoring the humanity of Jesus as though He wasn't human at all. Again, the wrath was poured out on the sin, which was carried by the humanity of Christ for God cannot have any fellowship with sin. Why you deny that God cannot have fellowship with sin is beyond me. The forsaking of Christ is when the fellowship/communion between the human and divine natures in Jesus was cut off by the sin Jesus bore. As you can see, it isn't actually Jesus being forsaken, but in His state, it would most certainly feel like it. God never left, but could not have communion/fellowship with sin. So during the time Christ was actually paying the penalty for our sin, He was separated from God (the flesh, the sacrifice, the one who bore the sin was separated from God) until He said "It is finished!". What was finished? Jesus bearing our sins in sacrifice. He then died, and though His spirit (not speaking of the divine/diety, but human nature/spirit) was dead, it was made alive, according to Peter.

You keep forgetting the humanity. You seem dead set on separating the humanity from Christ. It is fine that you cannot understand/see God's wrath poured out on Christ because of the sin He bore on the cross. Just don't deny that something happened. Tony Campolo's son denied it, and then could see no reason for Jesus dying, and became an atheist/agnostic. By the way, this whole take on God pouring out his wrath on God, and cosmic child abuse, came from the femi-nazis of the past. If you want to see some really messed up theology, look up the proponents of what you are pushing. There is no other words for who they are other then hell bound heretics. When you hear what they have to say about Jesus, if it doesn't disturb you, you have no hope.
 
I did not ignore that which is completely unrelated to the argument. Jesus cried out "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Are you going to claim that Jesus lied on the cross?

Jesus is quoting David prophecy. In a way also His last sermon to the bystanders. Those bystanders, especially the Pharisees and Sadducees knew Psalm 22 and must have realized that it was Jesus David was talking about.
 
I did not ignore that which is completely unrelated to the argument. Jesus cried out "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Are you going to claim that Jesus lied on the cross? That His question did not speak to reality? Or, are you going to look into the whole of what was happening, and find all the parts that you are missing that make this truth, and rational. If you simply make the statement that he did not forsake him, does that not mean Jesus lied? Jesus spoke evil of the Father by making an untruthful claim attacking God's faithfulness? Or is there more to the situation that explains why Jesus said that, and meant it?
No I do not assume he lied. Nor do I assume what is states is actually correct

You ignore the facts however

Jesus is quoting from Psa 22 which ends

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.

where we find out he did not forsake him

You also ignored both

2 Corinthians 5:19 (LEB) — 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

Do you not see God was in Christ during the reconciliation

and

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.

and yet another verse shows God heard from Christ

On 2 Corinthians, why do you ignore the rest of the verse that explains what the verse means? You ignore the context. It isn't saying that Christ is incarnate (there are enough verses in scripture that state this, that one that doesn't changes nothing). God was in Christ's sacrifice, was behind Christ's sacrifice, which was to reconcile the world to himself.
Absurd

God the Father was in Christ reconciling the world

You say the verse does not say Christ is incarnate?

Are you denying God the son, the word became flesh?

That Christ on the cross was humanity only?
 
No I do not assume he lied. Nor do I assume what is states is actually correct

You ignore the facts however

Jesus is quoting from Psa 22 which ends

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.

where we find out he did not forsake him
You should try reading it all in context. That might help. Why?
"6 But I am a worm, and no man;
A reproach of men, and despised by the people.
7 All those who see Me ridicule Me;
They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 “He [c]trusted in the Lord, let Him rescue Him;
Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!”

Given verse 24, God did not deliver Jesus from this, die He? Did He send angels down to remove Him from the cross and rescue Him? Or did God leave Him there to face torment and pain? Could God have stopped it at any moment, and ended this pain that He allowed onto the Godhead? (Using your stance.) Do you realize that another take on being forsaken is that God left Him there to die? I don't agree with that. I believe it is more to do with Jesus bearing sin, and God being incapable of fellowshiping/communing, well, haveing anything to do with sin.

In all of this you have not once considered why Jesus cried this out. I mean, He may have been of clear mind, and showed that humanity was far from Him, or perhaps He experienced exactly what we would experience in that condition, and spoke out to feeling.

"1 My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
Why are You so far from helping Me,
And from the words of My groaning?
2 O My God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear;
And in the night season, and am not silent."
You also ignored both

2 Corinthians 5:19 (LEB) — 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

Do you not see God was in Christ during the reconciliation
Yes, except that I understand language. If something happens to someone and you planned it, when they come to you, you can say you were in it. You schemed it. You planned it. You set it up. God was behind Jesus going to the cross, in that that is how God reconciled the world to Himself.
and

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.

and yet another verse shows God heard from Christ


Absurd

God the Father was in Christ reconciling the world

You say the verse does not say Christ is incarnate?

Are you denying God the son, the word became flesh?

That Christ on the cross was humanity only?
That is the problem. You put so much on this "God was in Christ" that you pushed out the humanity, becoming a dualist. Jesus was both man and deity, as I have been saying over you saying deity only. The sacrifice and the High Priest in one body. That which affected the humanity did not affect the deity, for if sin could corrupt God, then that kind of destroys Christianity and God. Do you actually believe that Satan was trying to tempt the divine nature of Jesus? To tempt GOD? Or, was Satan tempting the flesh, which if Jesus (the flesh) was not in perfect unity and fellowship with the Word (the deity), He could have/would have succumbed. If anything shows that Jesus willingly came to Earth to carry out the will of the Father as the Word become flesh, His defeat of Satan should make that perfectly clear. Satan's last temptation cut into the very reason Jesus was here. Satan's temptation/deceit was that Satan would give Jesus all He came for, just worship Satan. Jesus knowing everything to come didn't even blink. Yet, he sweat drops of blood in the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus, the God-man, both God and man, was fully surrendered to the will of the Father.

The Christ that paid the penalty for sin was the humanity/flesh of Christ. The deity was spirit/divine. Do you believe that God faced His wrath that put Jesus on the cross, that is that God Himself became sin for us? God is Holy. He cannot be touched by sin. Yet, Jesus became sin for us. Do you see the distinction and the true meaning of Jesus being both God and man? Why the two natures? We cannot hope to truly comprehend it all, yet we know it happened. Do you trust God, or do you have to search within YOURSELF for the answers to life? You are digging in yourself and not in scripture. We cannot know exactly what was happening when Jesus cried out, fulfilling prophecy "My God, My God, why has thou forsaken Me?" My best rational guess is it is because God is Holy and cannot look upon sin, or be corrupted by sin. If this is true by scripture, that God is Holy, that God cannot look upon sin, and God cannot be corrupted by sin, you have to deal with that here. For Paul tells us that Jesus was made sin for us.

I Corinthians 5:21
"21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

As for your, ahem, usage of the verse above in your comment:
"18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not [d]imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation."

If you read that in context, it is basically saying that God was behind Jesus being crucified in the first place, and by that was reconciling the world to Himself. How can we be sure? It is followed by the action that God took because of the sacrifice of Christ that He set up which is, He did not impute their trespasses to them, and committed to the apostles the world of reconciliation. (And later the the church, but the apostles were the foundation of the church who first took the message/word to the world.)
 
Jesus is quoting David prophecy. In a way also His last sermon to the bystanders. Those bystanders, especially the Pharisees and Sadducees knew Psalm 22 and must have realized that it was Jesus David was talking about.
There is a lot in the prophecy on how God did not do anything to change Jesus' condition, while everyone around Him mocked and threw scorn on Him. Was there some kind of civil war going on in the trinity that the Father didn't put a stop to that? I mean, looking at it as some here are, the 1st member of the trinity stood by and watched as the Romans almost beat the second member of the trinity to death, then mocked Him with a crown of thorns pressed into His skull and a robe placed on His torn back and skin, before ripping it more removing the robe. Just watched. You have to consider everything. It is almost as though the Father was pleased to crush Him. (Isaiah 53).
 
Back
Top Bottom