Did God die on the Cross?

[Paidion]

I am repeatedly stressing PERSON ("hypostasis" in Greek)

I think it is a mistake to translate the Greek word " ὑποστασις" (hypostasis) as "person".

Consider the following definitions from the Online Bible Greek Lexicon. Notice that "person" is not one of the definitions:

1) a setting or placing under
1a) thing put under, substructure, foundation
2) that which has foundation, is firm
2a) that which has actual existence
2a1) a substance, real being
2b) the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing

Also from Abbot-Smith's Greek Lexicon:

1. a support, basis, or foundation.
2. substance.

Again Abbot-Smith does not have "person" as one of the meanings. I suggest that in many cases the word "essence" would be the best translation.

Here is a good example from Hebrews 1:3:

ὁς ὠν-----ἀπαθαυγασμα---της δοξης-----και--------χαρακτηρ-----της----ὑποστασεως αὐτου
who being [the] brightness of [His] glory and [the] exact imprint of the essence------of Him.

Translation:
who being the brightnes of His glory and the exact imprint of His essence.

God's Son is the exact imprint of the Father's essence. Being the Son of God, He is Another exactly like the Father.

[BrotherAlan]

Paidion wrote:

The whole problem evaporates when it is recognized that Jesus did not have a divine nature WHILE ON EARTH. In being born, He emptied Himself of that (the divine self-emptying—Philippians 2:6,7). and became 100% human. While He lived as a human being, He trusted completely in the Father to work THROUGH Him. After His resurrection God glorified Him and He again possessed the divine nature as the Son of God, again becoming a life-giving Spirit, while still retaining His immortal resurrection body.

No, this positions is not possible (meaning, its not metaphysically possible). For, the Divine Nature is immutable, and so It is not possible for the Divine Nature to become something other than what it is (let alone lose Its own divinity). It would also make many statements made by Our Lord difficult to understand, if not false (eg., "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath," would be a problematic statement for a man to make unless that man also possessed the Divine Nature, i.e., was truly God).

Paidion also wrote:

But nevertheless, why do some think that God cannot suffer? Does He not suffer immeasurable pain in His Great Heart, when He sees the suffering man brings upon Himself and others, when He sees the atrocities committed by some people against others? Does not Yahweh (or "THE LORD") grieve about man's wrongdoing?

Scripture makes ample use of metaphor to communicate truths about God to us; such metaphors include the many statements about God "suffering", "grieving", "repenting", etc. Scripture speaks like this to communicate the idea that God acts in creation as if He were suffering, grieving, repenting, etc. (Although, note that there is a difference between "analogy" and "metaphor"; and when it says that God is love, or God is joyful, etc., those are ANALOGIES, not mere metaphors, which means that God truly is LOVE and JOY, etc., and He is these perfections most perfectly).

Paidion also wrote:

The notion that God is impassable is derived from philosophy, or from theology derived from philosophy, and not from the Bible.

First of all, the notion that God is impassible can be found in the Bible: eg., "For I the Lord do not change." (Mal. 3:6) "Thou changest them like raiment, and they pass away; but thou are the same, and thy years have no end." (Psalms 102: 26-27) "God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM." (Exod. 3:14)

Secondly, this attitude of juxtaposing Scripture, on the one hand, with philosophy and theology on the other hand, is a dangerous position, and one that is, actually, contrary to Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. For example, did not the Apostle Paul employ philosophy when he argued with the Athenians (Acts 17)? And does not Paul also expect men to use philosophy to come to a knowledge of God when he writes, "What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So [those who fail to see God in creation] are without excuse," (Rom. 1: 19-20)? Now, the task of philosophy is, quite simply, to follow this expectation of Paul by coming to a clearer knowledge of God by the study of the things that God has made.

We Christians, especially in our rationalist world today, have to be very much on our guard against the error that is opposite that of rationalism, namely, fideism. Fideism is that system of belief which is excessively suspicious of the use of man's reason to discover the truth about the world and God. Rather, authentic Christian thought steers a "middle course" between the errors of rationalism (the idea that nothing can be known by man beyond man's reason) and fideism (a disordered suspicion of philosophy and reason) by simply using our reason in service to the Christian Faith-- and this is the task of Christian philosophy and theology.

The fact is that philosophy has proven, with certitude, that which common sense comes to known intuitively: namely, that there is a God, there is but one God, and this God is immutable. Any other notion is contrary to sound reason and, thus, contrary to the truth; and, as truth cannot contradict itself, one cannot possibly hold that a truth we KNOW with certitude by reason (eg., God is immutable) is opposed to a supposed "truth" found in Scripture (eg., God is not immutable). If we ever fall into that sort of thinking, then we KNOW that we are not interpreting the Scriptures correctly, for Scripture will never contradict sound reasoning (and sound reasoning does conclude, among other things, that God is immutable).

And, besides, as stated above, this truth of philosophy (i.e., the immutability of God) is, again, also taught in the Divine Scriptures.

In Christ, the Immutable and Eternal God,
BrotherAlan

[Jose]

jriccitei wrote:
She was looking at flesh and blood. He was in the beginning, and through Him all things were made (including His human nature). Human beings were not in the beginning. So what Mary (bless her name) was looking at was God in human flesh. Mary provided the human side...: He came from above. And in Him was The Life: the life never left Him. ‘The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us’ (John 1:14) Jesus can take on human nature, but Jesus said He came from above and always existed. So He did not begin ‘existing’ at the time He was born.

BrotherAlan responded:
I completely agree with this statement and would--- I hope-- be willing to die for these fundamental truths of the Christian Faith which you happily affirmed here! (Given the errors and heresies surrounding these very points you bring up here, reading these lines gave joy to my "ears"-- so thank you for affirming this central truths of the Christian Faith!)

BrotherAlan,

I was wondering how long it would be before the "H" word revealed itself. You do realize that the Trinity doctrine is only one of several theories that are available for people attempting to understand the relationship between God and his Son, don't you?

If the God-man doctrine is such a fundamental truth, I wonder why it is missing from the list of "fundamental principles of the oracles God" in Hebrews 5:12 and 6:1-2? I wonder also if Jude was aware of it when he wrote about "the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints"?

I would like to sincerely ask any trinitarian how they understand Rev 3:12.

‘He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.

According to trinitarianism, Jesus temporarily set aside his divineness (in whatever way one chooses to understand that) to become a man and then upon his resurrection and exaltation he recieved it back and resumed his role again in heaven as YHWH, only now he has a body whereas before he didn't. Now, I've heard it said that Jesus, could refer to the Father as his God because while on earth he was speaking from his human nature. So, in what sense can one believe that Jesus, as Almighty God, either in heaven or on earth, has an Almighty God that He continues to worship, without falling into polytheism? I'm not throwing out a challenge, but I'm truly interested in any explanation anyone has to offer.

Thanks, Jose

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Jose]

For, the Divine Nature is immutable, and so It is not possible for the Divine Nature to become something other than what it is (let alone lose Its own divinity).

Please correct me if I misunderstand your position, but don't you believe that Jesus in his pre-incarnate state was "divine nature" only, but after the incarnation and forevermore, He is "divine and human nature" combined? I think it is a contradiction to claim that the "second person" of the "divine nature" has added to himself something that he did not previously have, (human nature) and also say that the "divine nature" did not change in any way. Is there no conflict here to you?

Jose

[jriccitelli]

The whole problem evaporates when it is recognized that Jesus did not have a divine nature WHILE ON EARTH (Paidion, Dec 30)

Seems that Jesus said He was from above:
‘You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world’ (John 8)
Your problems just begin when if you think Jesus did not have a Divine nature:
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God’ (Matt 16:16)
The OP really was not a question of his Divinity. This has made answers to the original question terribly long and winded. And now it seems this thread is again about the Trinity.

[jriccitelli]

I am satisified that when Jesus says to me in Revelation: "I was dead," that I don't have to rationalize or explain that away. Isn't that more Occam's razor than your explanation? (Diz, pg5, Dec 27)

I agree Jesus died. He was fused with a human spirit and body. But still nothing says either part of His spirit died, nor does anything say God died. You still have to correlate ‘I was dead’ with: God is invisible / God is not a man / No man has seen God / God is immortal / He is the Life / He is from above / His Spirit left His body at death, etc. etc.

Come on, JR, this is simply untrue. You should know better. Do you think man is a three part being? Do you know the Scriptural use of the word "soul." (Diz, pg5, Dec 27)

The margin of the Revised Version gives the rendering: ‘His soul shall make an offering for sin’. The Septuagint can also be read as ‘His soul shall see His offspring’:
When ‘Thou shalt make his soul - Margin, 'His soul shall make.' According to the translation in the text, the speaker is the prophet, and it contains an address to Yahweh, and Yahweh is himself introduced as speaking in Isaiah 53:11. According to the margin, Yahweh himself speaks, and the idea is, that his soul should make an offering for sin. The Hebrew will bear either. Jerome renders it, 'If he shall lay down his life for sin.' The Septuagint renders it in the plural, 'If you shall give (an offering) for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived posterity.' Lowth renders it, 'If his soul shall make a propitiatory sacrifice.' Rosenmuller renders it, 'If his soul, that is, he himself, shall place his soul as an expiation for sin.' Noyes renders it, 'But since he gave himself a sacrifice for sin.' It seems to me that the margin is the correct rendering, and that it is to be regarded as in the third person. Thus the whole passage will be connected, and it will be regarded as the assurance of Yahweh himself, that when his life should be made a sacrifice for sin, he would see a great multitude who should be saved as the result of his sufferings and death. (from Barnes notes on the Bible)

'When Scripture says "the life is in the blood," you would think that's a metaphor right? Our physical life is in our physical blood’ (Diz, pg5, Dec 27)

The life is not literally in the blood, although it may seem so. God knew that, and the context was eating the sacrifice for sins, so looking back we now see it represented Christ, and that ‘our life’ is believing His blood was poured out for our sins.

With this in mind, the second part of your statement, "Jesus did not come 'from' Mary," I think needs to be clarified. The clarification that needs to be made, I believe, is this: "Jesus, in His Divine Nature, did not come 'from' Mary." (Alan, pg 6, Dec 29)

I agree with your statement; "Jesus (in His human nature) came from Mary.
I think I would much rather say: Jesus’ human nature came from Mary.
But I would not say ‘Jesus came from God, AND Jesus came from Mary’ without adding the some clause or clarification such as: ‘in His human nature’ because ‘Jesus did not come from Mary’. Mainly because, scripture never says: ‘Jesus came from Mary’ Jesus does say: "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:23)
Jesus infused His Spirit with a human spirit, and although Jesus could blend with a human spirit, Jesus was not ‘from’ the human spirit He blended with. Jesus infused with and became human, He came ‘from’ Mary’s womb, but we don’t need to say ‘Jesus’ came from Mary, or from man, or ‘from’ creation. When we say ‘Jesus’ I think we mean His Spirit which would be His God side, and His spirit was from above. So whatever part of Jesus’ incarnation was ‘not from above’: I suppose is from: ‘earth’.

‘For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God’ (1 Peter 1:23)

[jriccitelli]

‘For, the Divine Nature is immutable, and so It is not possible for the Divine Nature to become something other than what it is (let alone lose Its own divinity) (Alan, above)

Good point. Jesus is the same yesterday and today. He left His Glory, and humbled Himself like a servant, poor and homeless, yet He was still the Lord of Lords and King of Kings while on earth.

‘It would also make many statements made by Our Lord difficult to understand, if not false (e.g., "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath’ (Alan, above)

Another good verse. He claimed this position for Himself while in his human body.

Secondly, this attitude of juxtaposing Scripture, on the one hand, with philosophy and theology on the other hand, is a dangerous position’ (Alan, above)

I am glad you appreciate and understand this. Reason and sense are not juxtaposed to scripture.

If the God-man doctrine is such a fundamental truth, I wonder why it is missing from the list of "fundamental principles of the oracles God" in Hebrews 5:12 and 6:1-2? (Jose)

This is just a for example statement (H 6:1-2), it by no means includes everything. It is almost as humorous as it is tongue in cheek. Paul is just saying you should at least know the basics, like washing your hands, for example (like the needing milk quip in verse 5:12) This was always interesting to me, because the Mormons think laying on of hands is a a central doctrine (I was LDS for a short time).

I would like to sincerely ask any trinitarian how they understand Rev 3:12 (Jose)

I think we had that conversation here, under the 'Trinity' thread:
http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... ple#p64128

According to trinitarianism, Jesus temporarily set aside his divineness… only now he has a body whereas before he didn't’ (Jose)

He humbled Himself, became a human man, but this does not mean that He left Himself, His person in heaven. So your right, I only see him taking a body. If Jesus took upon Himself a human spirit also that is perfect also, it just does not say He did. We can infer it from some statements but it is not explicated.

So, in what sense can one believe that Jesus, as Almighty God, either in heaven or on earth, has an Almighty God that He continues to worship, without falling into polytheism? (Jose)

Good point, and one JWs would have to answer to.

[Paidion]

No, this positions is not possible (meaning, its not metaphysically possible)[that the Son of God could empty Himself of His divinity].

What is impossible to man's way of thinking is possible to Deity.

For, the Divine Nature is immutable, and so It is not possible for the Divine Nature to become something other than what it is (let alone lose Its own divinity).

It is not the divine nature that emptied itself of its own divinity. It was the divine Person, the Son of God, who emptied Himself of his divinity or divine nature.

It would also make many statements made by Our Lord difficult to understand, if not false (eg., "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath," would be a problematic statement for a man to make unless that man also possessed the Divine Nature, i.e., was truly God).

Why do you capitalize "son" and man" in the phrase "son of man"? It is recorded 82 times in the gospels that Jesus referred to Himself as "the son of man". He wished to emphasize his humanity, to declare that He was a true man, fully human while on earth. It is recorded 39 times that OTHERS referred to Him as "the Son of God", whereas it is recorded only 3 times that He referred to Himself as "the Son of God", all in the gospel of John. When He was brought to the council of chief priests and scribes, and was asked directly, "Are you the Son of God?", He admitted it (Luke 22:70). And of course He was the Son of God both prior to His birth and during His lifetime on earth, as well in His present resurrected state. The point I am making is that His emphasis was on the fact that He was fully human while on earth.

Consider the context in which Jesus said that the son of man is lord of the Sabbath:

And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the son of man also is lord of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27,28)

I understand Jesus to be saying that since the Sabbath was made for man, therefore the children of man (including himself as the son of man) have the right to observe the Sabbath in the ways in which He chooses. The apostle John stated that Jesus broke the Sabbath [that is, the strict rules which were written in the Mosaic law] (John 5:18).

[Paidion]

Scripture makes ample use of metaphor to communicate truths about God to us; such metaphors include the many statements about God "suffering", "grieving", "repenting", etc. Scripture speaks like this to communicate the idea that God acts in creation as if He were suffering, grieving, repenting, etc. (Although, note that there is a difference between "analogy" and "metaphor"; and when it says that God is love, or God is joyful, etc., those are ANALOGIES, not mere metaphors, which means that God truly is LOVE and JOY, etc., and He is these perfections most perfectly).

So who decides whether it's metaphor or analogy? Why should records of God suffering be metaphorical, while His being joyful be analogy. Why should He be "truly joyful" while not being truly grieving, suffering, changing His mind, etc.? This sounds a lot like picking and choosing what we want to beleive about God's character.