more divine mystery

[Orthodox Christian]

Lets assume that you have a human body and soul. (I imagine this is what you are talking about with regard to your spiritual nature) So did Jesus. This is different to the hypostatic union claimed for the Son of God. Do you have that?

No- note that I stated that our natures were at enmity. This is because we fall- all of us- in our human nature. Note that I did not say "we inherit fallenness." No, we fall- we do.
And this falling, repeated and reinforced, transforms our human nature into something at enmity with God.

Christ did not fall. There was no break in the union of His two natures.

It seems to me that Christians want God to die on the cross, but not really...

It's not what we want, but what has been revealed to us. That is the central claim of Christianity- not 'proof,' but revelation.

But Jesus really did die on the cross. His personhood experienced the pain and fear of the end of mortality.
If I was on a cross, I would die also, but not my spirit. My spirit is a creation of God. Jesus is God. Essentially the difference between His death and mine is negligible in terms of process, but infinitely different in result.

 

[kwag_myers]

It seems to me that Christians want God to die on the cross, but not really...

Not sure that I follow you on that. Jesus' death was a physical death only. This is to show us that our physical life (life here on planet earth) is expendable compared to our spiritual life. I believe in His physical death and resurrection, but also that His spirit lives on.

 

[DivineNames]

No- note that I stated that our natures were at enmity. This is because we fall- all of us- in our human nature. Note that I did not say "we inherit fallenness." No, we fall- we do.
And this falling, repeated and reinforced, transforms our human nature into something at enmity with God.

Christ did not fall. There was no break in the union of His two natures.

What does this have to do with the two natures of Jesus?

It's not what we want, but what has been revealed to us. That is the central claim of Christianity- not 'proof,' but revelation.

does it say in the bible that the God-'part' of Jesus didn't die? Is that just an inference? or a position to avoid the problem of a Deity that can die?


I believe Moltmann argues that God should genuinely die on the cross, not just the assumed human nature.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

No- note that I stated that our natures were at enmity. This is because we fall- all of us- in our human nature. Note that I did not say "we inherit fallenness." No, we fall- we do.
And this falling, repeated and reinforced, transforms our human nature into something at enmity with God.

Christ did not fall. There was no break in the union of His two natures.

What does this have to do with the two natures of Jesus?

Let's go back to the question that you asked

Lets assume that you have a human body and soul. (I imagine this is what you are talking about with regard to your spiritual nature) So did Jesus. This is different to the hypostatic union claimed for the Son of God. Do you have that?

My answer to this was "no," and then I explained why. Your reason for confusion escapes me.

It's not what we want, but what has been revealed to us. That is the central claim of Christianity- not 'proof,' but revelation.

does it say in the bible that the God-'part' of Jesus didn't die? Is that just an inference? or a position to avoid the problem of a Deity that can die?


I believe Moltmann argues that God should genuinely die on the cross, not just the assumed human nature.[/quote]
I'm not especially fond of your inference, repeated on this thread, that somehow the scripture was tweaked to make the round peg of Jesus' death fit into a scriptural square hole- or to state it most emphatically, your impications that Christian apologists have committed fraud.

I don't have either the time here to put forth an entire soteriology, but i will say that the notion that God should die to suit the requirements for substitutionary atonement is simply falderol, for it presupposes the necessity of an impossiblity, and bases the necessity on a great many assumptions about atonement.

Again, jesus did die, just as I will. Like Him, my body will cease working, and like Him, my being will live on.

This is only complicated if you introduce conditions that are, to ancient, orthodox Christianity, strawmen.

Atonement was never "skin for skin" to quote Job.

 

[McQuacks]

Our sins brought on us the death penalty. In taking the penalty on Himself, Jesus had to die by execution, and crucifixion was Rome's preferred means...

If Jesus takes the penalty "on himself", he has to stay dead, or he has to burn in hell for all eternity.

Of if the penalty is only to be dead for three days, why would we need Jesus? Couldn't we sinners just take the penalty of being dead for three days?

Sacrifice wasn't sufficient, but that doesn't mean Jesus was required as a sacrifice. If anything, that is a contradiction.

I'm not quite sure I'm understanding. Yes, the OT animal sacrifices were not sufficient - something else was needed. However, whatever it was, had to be by the shedding of blood, which is basically, sacrifice. So no, it's not denying that sacrifices were sufficient, but animal sacrifices.

Are there Biblical verses (O.T.) that say that animal sacrifices had to be replaced by some other kind of "shedding of blood" ?

Is the pain of an animal really a valuable part of sacrifice? I wasn't aware that it was. Does the Bible support that?

All I am saying is, just like the sheep experiened pain while being killed, Jesus would experience pain while shedding His blood. The Bible calls for the shedding of blood in order for forgiveness. Could He have somehow miraculously shed blood without an ounce of pain? I don't doubt that all things are possible for Him. But I also believe that this is the way that He chose to do it.

So you aren't saying that pain is a valuable part of the sacrifice? You are only saying that it is a normal part of sacrifice?

Sorry, didn't want to leave this unanswered. I did some research, and I recommend these two links if you want to read more: http://www.tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/2littlepain.html
Very good in my opinion, shed light on all that you mentioned above. I've found them helpful, I hope you will too.
-McQ 8-)

 

[DivineNames]

My answer to this was "no," and then I explained why. Your reason for confusion escapes me.

It was indeed, I probably missed the "no". sorry.

I'm not especially fond of your inference, repeated on this thread, that somehow the scripture was tweaked to make the round peg of Jesus' death fit into a scriptural square hole- or to state it most emphatically, your impications that Christian apologists have committed fraud.

I don't have either the time here to put forth an entire soteriology, but i will say that the notion that God should die to suit the requirements for substitutionary atonement is simply falderol, for it presupposes the necessity of an impossiblity, and bases the necessity on a great many assumptions about atonement.

What I asked-

"does it say in the bible that the God-'part' of Jesus didn't die? Is that just an inference? or a position to avoid the problem of a Deity that can die?"

Is there any clear and specific biblical support for the position that only the assumed human nature died?


Would it be necessary for God to die? That may be what Moltmann thinks. But anyway, to say that the death (or pseudo-death) of Jesus is worth anything, (let alone our salvation), whether or not the God 'part' died, seems to be extremely speculative.

 

[DivineNames]

So we can see from these verses that:
1. Animal sacrifices only made people clean on the outside, but could not change their hearts, and remove their feelings of guilt. I think this is the biggie.
2. Christ was only offered once - His sacrifice was sufficient to pay for all sins - future, past, and present, unlike animal sacrifices If the animal sacrifices were totally sufficient, they would not have been offered over and over again. But Christ was offered once and for all time - the ultimate sacrifice.

"For I desire loving-kindness, and not sacrifices, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6 - Judaica Press)

It seems that God wants righteous behaviour and not sacrifice. It doesn't say that sacrifice is required because we aren't capable of righteous behaviour.

 

[DivineNames]

Blood has to be shed in order for the forgiveness of sins.

"Those who believe that one must have a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins look to Leviticus 17:11, which reads:

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." [Leviticus 17:11]

But if you read the whole context of this verse, you will find that it is in reference to abstaining from eating the blood of a sacrifice, and nothing more. God commanded the abstaining from eating or drinking blood because most other pagan religions ate the blood of their sacrifices as a way to incorporate their gods into their bodies and into their lives. (See The Golden Bough by Sir James Frazer, the chapter on "Eating The God." Perhaps this is the source of ritual communion?) But the Holiness of the People of Israel requires them to not practice the pagan ways and not to hold the same beliefs of their pagan neighbors.

The whole quotation from Leviticus 17 reads:

Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood-- I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, `None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood. Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, because the life of every creature is its blood.' That is why I have said to the Israelites, `You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.'"

Many might still insist that blood is needed to atone for sins. But there are many examples in the TaNaCh where other things besides blood atone for sins. If you are poor and unable to afford a blood sacrifice, God allows you to use flour (which has no blood and is not an animal!). If the poor were not able to offer a sacrifice of flour, forgiveness would only be for the wealthy. God would never exclude humans from obtaining forgiveness on the basis of wealth.

If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. He is to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the Eternal by fire. It is a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for any of these sins he has committed, and he will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering. [Leviticus 5:11-13]

So here, right in the midst of the commandments concerning the sacrifices for sin, the Bible tells us we do not need any blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. This proves that the idea that one needs a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin is an UnBiblical idea."

http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/


And don't Christians drink the blood of their sacrifice? Did God change his mind about that pagan practice?

 

[DivineNames]

2. Christ was only offered once - His sacrifice was sufficient to pay for all sins - future, past, and present, unlike animal sacrifices If the animal sacrifices were totally sufficient, they would not have been offered over and over again. But Christ was offered once and for all time - the ultimate sacrifice.

Did sacrifice in the Old Testament have to do with all sins? or only certain specific sins?