when Jesus died - what actually died?

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
User avatar
21centpilgrim
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:17 pm

when Jesus died - what actually died?

Post by 21centpilgrim » Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:09 pm

Did only part of Jesus die? Just his humanity/human nature?
Was it just his physical death?
Did God die?

How do you guys handle this ?

thanks
Then those who feared the LORD spoke with each other, and the LORD listened to what they said. In his presence, a scroll of remembrance was written to record the names of those who feared him and loved to think about him.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: when Jesus died - what actually died?

Post by Paidion » Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:34 pm

21¢, you wrote:Did only part of Jesus die? Just his humanity/human nature?
Was it just his physical death?
Did God die?
Jesus was born fully human. He wasn't a man/God hybrid. In becoming man, He divested Himself of all His divine attributes.

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

As I see it, Jesus truly died just like any other man. And if God had not raised Him from the dead, He would have remained dead.
"Did God die?" you ask. Jesus, although He was the divine Son of God, begotten before all ages, He was not the same divine Individual as His Father.

So certainly God did not die; yet the divine Son of God experienced a true death, like any other human being.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

BrotherAlan
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:42 am

Re: when Jesus died - what actually died?

Post by BrotherAlan » Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:25 pm

Jesus, Who is God, a Divine Person (Second Person of the Trinity), having both a Divine nature and a human nature, died, but not in His Divine nature (for the Divine nature can't die), but in His human nature.

Thus, one can say that "God died" (or, as the ancient saying says, "One of the Trinity died"), meaning, the Second Person of the Trinity, Who is God, died IN HIS HUMAN NATURE.

In Christ, Second Person of the Trinity,
BrotherAlan
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: when Jesus died - what actually died?

Post by Paidion » Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:15 pm

Jesus, Who is God, a Divine Person (Second Person of the Trinity)
"The Trinity" was almost unknown until that special Nicene Council in A.D. 325 where it was defined.

Nowhere in the New Testament is "the Trinity" taught except in 1 John 5:7 where the words, "And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one" were added to Textus Receptus by some Trinitarian. They do not exist in any Greek manuscript earlier than A.D. 1600.

The Holy Spirit is simply the Persons of the Father and the Son extended into the hearts and minds of Christians. Jesus said to His disciples that the Father and He would come and make their home with anyone who loves Jesus and keeps His word (John 14:23). But They are in heaven. How would they do that? By extending their Spirit (their very Persons) into the hearts and minds of all who love Him and obey Him.

Jesus, the Son of God was begotten by God as the first of His acts. This is not an "eternal begetting" as Roman Catholics affirm, but a single act that occurred "before all ages" as Ignatius, born around A.D. 30 wrote in his letter to the Magnesians, Chapter XI these words concerning Christ:

..Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the virgin, Mary...
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

BrotherAlan
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:42 am

Re: when Jesus died - what actually died?

Post by BrotherAlan » Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:52 am

The Holy Scriptures reveal to us that the Father is God, that the Son/Word is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God.

These same Scriptures also reveal to us that the Father is distinct from the Son, that the Son is distinct from the Holy Spirit, and that the Father, too, is distinct from the Holy Spirit. Thus, these Three are truly distinct from each other.

These same Scriptures reveal that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit have a mind and a will; thus, all three of Them can properly be called “Persons” (and, since all three are God, they are “Divine Persons”), since a "person" can be defined (for our purposes here) as "an individual with a mind and a will" (or, to give a precise theological definition, "an individual subsistence of an intellectual nature"). Thus, these Three are distinct Divine Persons.

Yet, these Scriptures also reveal that there are not three Gods, but one God.

Thus, putting all of this Scriptural data together, there are three distinct Persons who are the one God; i.e., there are three Persons in one God, and one God in three Persons. Thus, in the one God there is a union of three Divine Persons-- God is, thus, a tri-unity...a Trinity.

This, in a nutshell, is the doctrine of the Trinity. And, this is an essential—and THE fundamental—belief of authentic Christianity.

Yes, St. Ignatius of Antioch—the same Ignatius who is such an important and reliable witness/interpreter to/of authentic Christianity since he was a friend and disciple of John the Apostle and Evangelist, a heroic martyr of the early Church, and a bishop of the city of Antioch (a city whose great importance is seen in the fact that IT was the first city in which Christians were first called “Christians” and whose first bishop ended up also becoming the first bishop of Rome, i.e., the first Pope, the Apostle Peter, thus making Ignatius a successor as bishop to the Apostle and Pope, Peter, in that oh-so-important Christian city of Antioch), the same Ignatius who, having been taught by the Evangelist and Apostle, John, is so thoroughly and clearly Catholic in his teachings on the nature of the Church (which he called the “Catholic Church”) and her hierarchy (i.e., his ecclesiology), as well as his teachings on the real, true, and substantial presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, that some Protestants, seeing how Catholic this great Ignatius was in his writings, doubted, but incorrectly so, the authenticity of his writings-- taught that Christ was begotten by the Father before all ages. This teaching of the great Ignatius-- and of the Scriptures-- was/is echoed in the (Catholic) Church’s early Councils (and is still proudly proclaimed during the Masses/Divine Liturgies of the Catholic—as well as Orthodox-- Church). For, the Father did/does beget the Son “before all ages”, that is, outside of time, in one, single, eternal act of generation.

And, it was this glorious, eternal Son, eternally generated by the Father in a single, eternal act of generation before/outside of all ages/time, Who, by the power of that third Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, and through the free consent of that holy, glorious, and blessed virgin, whose name is Mary, became Man and who, in that Sacred Human Nature received from Blessed Mary, and in her loving maternal presence, died on the Cross, for us men and for our salvation.

And, thus, we Christians, following the command of the Savior, are to be baptized in the Name of the holy and glorious Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-- to Whom belongs all power, honor, and glory, now, and throughout the ages of ages. Amen.

In Christ, the Eternal Son of the Eternal Father (the Second Person of the Trinity) and the true Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
BrotherAlan
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

User avatar
21centpilgrim
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:17 pm

Re: when Jesus died - what actually died?

Post by 21centpilgrim » Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:46 pm

Brother Alan, just because you say 'the Holy Scriptures reveal to us .....' does not make it so.

the Trinity is not the fundamental belief of authentic Christianity because it is not even stated in Scripture, and no I do not mean the word Trinity, but the very concept is not explicitly taught and at the very best is just ONE explanation of the information taken in from all of Scripture.
So how can you say it is THE fundamental belief?

"Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture." - from Olsen and Hall's book The Trinity

-Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God- this is the revelation of who Christ is that he himself says was revealed by the Father to Peter. This is clearly stated and fundamental in scripture, as well as -Jesus is Lord-

Are these two examples insufficient?
Then those who feared the LORD spoke with each other, and the LORD listened to what they said. In his presence, a scroll of remembrance was written to record the names of those who feared him and loved to think about him.

BrotherAlan
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:42 am

Re: when Jesus died - what actually died?

Post by BrotherAlan » Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:07 pm

Dear 21centpilgrim,
Are you denying that the Scriptures reveal those things which I stated that they reveal? If so, which of those things do you think the Scriptures do NOT reveal?

In Christ,
BrotherAlan
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

User avatar
21centpilgrim
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:17 pm

Re: when Jesus died - what actually died?

Post by 21centpilgrim » Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:08 am

Brother Alan, for sake of conversation I will answer your question but please speak to mine that I had as well.

That the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God and not plainly revealed in scripture- I know what verses people go to, to set up the formula- I used to teach the trinity that way too.

I will repeat my questions-

So how can you say it is THE fundamental belief of Christianity when it is not clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture?

wouldn't fundemental beliefs be clearly stated? For instance "Jesus is the Christ the son of the living God" and 'Jesus is Lord'
Are these two examples insufficient to be fudemental? Jesus said that the church was going to be built upon one.

Thanks
Then those who feared the LORD spoke with each other, and the LORD listened to what they said. In his presence, a scroll of remembrance was written to record the names of those who feared him and loved to think about him.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: when Jesus died - what actually died?

Post by Paidion » Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:44 pm

Hi Brother Alan, you wrote:This teaching of the great Ignatius-- and of the Scriptures-- was/is echoed in the (Catholic) Church’s early Councils (and is still proudly proclaimed during the Masses/Divine Liturgies of the Catholic—as well as Orthodox-- Church). For, the Father did/does beget the Son “before all ages”, that is, outside of time, in one, single, eternal act of generation.
Yes, this "outside of time" nonsense is one way to interpret (or misinterpret) Ignatius' statement that the Son was begotten before all ages. But if you carefully read the words of Ignatius, you will see that this interpretation is impossible:

I desire... that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the virgin, Mary, without any intercourse with man.

If Ignatius had meant an "eternal generation" what could have he meant by "was afterwards born of the virgin, Mary"? How could there be a time after an eternal generation? Or a single act "outside of time"? Thus in order that the Son could be born after the begetting of the Son, then the begetting of the Son must have been a single event. I won't say "within time" but as the first of God's acts as the early Christians taught. The begetting of the Son was the first event to ever take place. It was that which "got time rolling" so to speak.

That the begetting of the Son of God was a single event is also born out by the statements of Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165) to the Jews in his "Dialogue with Trypho." Justin compared the begetting of the Son to lighting a small fire from a large fire (which would be a single act). The small fire is of the same essence as the large one—yet is a distinctive fire. The lighting of a small fire from a large one, is a single event—not an eternal event or an event "outside of time."
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

BrotherAlan
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:42 am

Re: when Jesus died - what actually died?

Post by BrotherAlan » Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:16 am

Dear 21centpilgrim and Paidion,
Thank you for your replies…. Providentially and interestingly, this discussion we are having occurs on a day in which we Catholics commemorate the Trinity in a special way (as today, in the Catholic Church, is "Trinity Sunday").

First, to answer your question, 21centpilgrim…we need to first define what we mean when we say that any given doctrine is more fundamental than another doctrine. For, if there is a claim that any truth is the MOST fundamental doctrine of Christianity, then we need to know what we mean when we say any one truth is more fundamental than another truth.
So, this being said, one doctrine-- call it doctrine A-- is more fundamental than another doctrine-- call it doctrine B-- if the truth of doctrine B depends upon doctrine A being true.

To give a simple example from common experience, the truth that "the sun is hot" is a more fundamental truth than that truth which says "excessive exposure to the sun causes sunburn", because the truth of the latter statement is dependent upon the first statement being true.

Or, again, from math, "a triangle is a (closed and concave) three-sided figure in a plane" is a more fundamental truth than that truth which says, "the sum of the measure of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees", since this latter truth depends upon the former truth being true.
Applying this notion to theology, the doctrine which says that "the Father is God" is more fundamental that the doctrine which says "the Father is Almighty", because the doctrine which says "the Father is Almighty" depends upon the truth of the statement "the Father is God".

So, with that being said, we can say that the doctrine of the Trinity-- "in one and the same God there are three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Spirit"-- is the most fundamental doctrine of Christianity, since the truth of all other doctrines in Christianity depends upon the fact that God is a Trinity, upon the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity is true. So, for example, the fact that "Jesus is Lord", depends upon the truth of the fact that Jesus is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, that is, that He, with His Father, is true God, and, therefore, Lord. Or, again, the fact that "Jesus is Savior", depends upon the fact that Jesus is first, true God, that is that he is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and the truth of this latter statement is dependent upon the truth that God is a Trinity (for, in order for Jesus to be Savior, He needs to impart to us Divine Life, which means that He must have in himself Divine Life, which means that he must be God-- and this is true because He is Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and, this, of course, depends upon the fact that God is a Trinity). So, the doctrine of the Trinity proves to be a more fundamental doctrine than even that which says that "Jesus is Savior", since the truth of this latter statement is dependent upon the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity. And, no matter what doctrine we look at, the truth of that doctrine is, ultimately, going to depend upon the fact that God is a Trinity. This means that the Trinity is the most fundamental doctrine of Christianity.

And, so, we see that it is not necessarily the case-- and, in fact, it is not the case-- that, for a doctrine to be the most fundamental doctrine of the Christian Faith-- that it must be clearly and explicitly spelled out in one simple sentence in the Scriptures. For, for a doctrine to be the most fundamental doctrine, it is sufficient that the Scriptures simply reveal this doctrine IN SOME MANNER, and that the truth of this doctrine be the reason for the truth of all other Christian doctrines, such as is the case with the Trinity (which doctrine is revealed in the Scriptures, not in one simple sentence, but by putting together multiple pieces of Scriptural data, and which doctrine, again, is at the root of the all other doctrines being true). And, so, this premise-- that a doctrine must be spelled out in one simple sentence in order for it to be the most fundamental doctrine of Christianity-- is an arbitrary (and, I should add, non-Scriptural) principle, which, in the end, proves to not be true.

All this being said, the more fundamental question in OUR discussion (to utilize this notion of "more fundamental" again!) is not, "Why would one claim that the Trinity is the most fundamental doctrine of Christianity?", but, rather, "Is the doctrine of the Trinity true?", since that latter question must be addressed (and answered) first in order to adequately address and answer the former question. You stated that you are familiar with the Scriptures which are used to show that God is a Trinity, but that you are not convinced of the veracity of this theological reasoning (reasoning I gave in my earlier post). So, the question to ask is which part of that reasoning is not convincing to you?

--------------------------------

Now, to address your post, Paidion…carrying out this notion of one doctrine being “more fundamental” than another, it is clear that the more fundamental question/notion with which we need to deal is this question/notion about God being “outside of time”/eternal. For, this notion is at the root of so much theology, including the theology of the Trinity (and, the way we understand—or accept—this notion will determine how we interpret statements from the Scriptures and the Fathers concerning, say, the generation of the Son). Of course, this is a huge question, and would require a thread of its own—or, perhaps, a book!—to answer it sufficiently well. But, short of that, I will leave this.

First, Boethius defines eternity as, “the simultaneously-whole and perfect possession of interminable life."

Then, Thomas Aquinas, going off of Boethius’ definition, then describes eternity as follows:
As we attain to the knowledge of simple things by way of compound things, so must we reach to the knowledge of eternity by means of time, which is nothing but the numbering of movement by "before" and "after." For since succession occurs in every movement, and one part comes after another, the fact that we reckon before and after in movement, makes us apprehend time, which is nothing else but the measure of before and after in movement. Now in a thing bereft of movement, which is always the same, there is no before or after. As therefore the idea of time consists in the numbering of before and after in movement; so likewise in the apprehension of the uniformity of what is outside of movement, consists the idea of eternity.

Further, those things are said to be measured by time which have a beginning and an end in time, because in everything which is moved there is a beginning, and there is an end. But as whatever is wholly immutable can have no succession, so it has no beginning, and no end.
Thus eternity is known from two sources: first, because what is eternal is interminable—that is, has no beginning nor end (that is, no term either way); secondly, because eternity has no succession, being simultaneously whole.
Applying this notion of eternity to God, Aquinas then goes on to say,
The idea of eternity follows immutability, as the idea of time follows movement, as appears from the preceding article. Hence, as God is supremely immutable, it supremely belongs to Him to be eternal.
Key to Aquinas’ argument here is the claim that God is “supremely immutable”. He holds to this position for two reasons: first, natural reason, by means of philosophy, can show this to be true. Secondly, and more importantly, the Scriptures reveal it to be true (as The Psalmist says: “But You, Lord, endure forever”; and he goes on to say: “But You art always the selfsame: and Your years shall not fail” (Ps. 101:13, 28)).

Now, there is no questioning that, as with all things related to God, this notion of “eternity” is a very difficult one to grasp—or, rather, as with other notions related to God, for us, in this life on earth, living IN TIME, it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to perfectly grasp what it means to be “outside of time”, and eternal. However, as with our efforts to understand all other qualities and perfections of God—eg., His omnipotence, His immateriality, etc.—we usually come to SOME understanding of these perfections by way of “negation” (as Aquinas would say), that is, by understanding what God is NOT. Thus, by understanding more what time is, and then coming to see (by means of both philosophy and Scriptural revelation) that God is “outside of time”, we come to understand what God is NOT (i.e., He, unlike things subject to time, is NOT subject to motion, change, decay, etc.). Again, as with everything related to our mysterious God, this is a HUGE philosophical/theological question, and I do not pretend that this response comes anywhere near to fully answering the question—again, one would, really, need a book to come close to adequately responding to it—but, let what I have written here hopefully serve at least as a start to considering this notion of eternity more deeply.

Though our “being on the same page” with regard to this notion of eternity would certainly be helpful for me to give you an adequate response to your questions about Ignatius (and Justin Martyr’s) statements, I will at least say this. The reason why Ignatius can talk about Christ, the Word, being (eternally) begotten of the Father before all ages, and “then” being born of the Virgin Mary is because, well, that is simply how we human beings, this side of heaven, talk—that is the best we can do. Those of us who hold to God’s eternity talk like that all the time; because we are living in time, our imagination—and, thus, our speech—is necessarily bound to the way we perceive things “in time”. So, even though we believe that God is eternal, and outside of time, we will say things like, “BEFORE God created the universe, He was perfectly happy.” When we make assertions like that, we are not asserting that there was time before the universe, but we are simply using our IMAGINATIONS in considering the universe, and what God was like “before” the universe existed. We are, simply speaking, speaking according to the way we IMAGINE things. And, such was the way Ignatius spoke here in referring to the Word being born of the Virgin “after” He was begotten—eternally begotten—by the Father. He speaks like that because that is how we time-bound creatures—even those of us who recognize that God is eternal—IMAGINE God, and, thus, speak about God. In other words, we often speak METAPHORICALLY about God (as Ignatius does here).

In fact, Paidion, it seems to me that you yourself, actually, are relying upon SOME notion of God being “outside of time” when you assert that time “started” when God begot the Son, that the begetting of the Son was the first act of God in time, the act that God time “rolling”. It seems to me that you, when making such assertions, are holding to the idea that, BEFORE this generation of the Son, God still existed BUT, yet, time did NOT…and, therefore, it seems to me that, implied in your theology, there is some notion of God existing without (outside of?) time. What do you think? Is this true to say about your theology, or am I missing something to your thinking here?

Peace.

In Christ,
BrotherAlan
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”