Crucifixion of Christ-Why Did He Have to Die?

[Anna_Scott]

Part 2 of 2

What happened when God forsook Jesus?

Careful with the wording - remember that at all times Jesus was God.

What happened was two events at once:

• The most important aspect of this event is that Christ is quoting Psalm 22, which begins with “My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?” It’s a Messianic psalm (one of many) that predicts the crucifixion and death of Christ, yet ends with His glorification and the birth of His Church.
• More metaphorically, Christ is showing compassion to all those who feel isolated from God; He is showing that His human nature feels isolation just as it felt fear in the Garden of Gethsemane.

The issue of whether or not the Divinity of Christ left Him during the crucifixion and His death is a very intriguing aspect of His Passion. This is an area of varying beliefs among Christians. As a Protestant with “issues,” I cannot say that I have a clear understanding of this.

While still attending a Baptist Church, I asked the question during a Sunday Bible Class: Who spoke those words on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” The teacher could not answer. During the following week, both co-teachers of the class called me. They were very concerned that I asked the question, but neither had an answer.

Some Christians say that any Part of Christ that was Divine had to leave Him, when he took the sins of the world upon Himself–because God cannot be in the presence of sin. There is also the issue of God’s immortality and the fact that God raised Christ from the dead. It is a complicated issue.

You solve the issue with an allegorical approach. **Could you provide resources for your beliefs that the Divinity of Christ never left him? I would really appreciate it. **

I think we, as Christians, are often judgmental and dismissive of the Jewish people. If we care about their salvation, we should at least hear what they have to say; and we should take the time to answer the issues that concern them.

If I wanted to know more about your religion, but told you I have concerns about some of your practices—how would you respond? Would you quote Titus 3:10-11; or would you explain the issues with Christian charity?

I would treat them exactly as I treat Muslims, all of which have different personalities. To use the Muslims on this board as an example: there are some, like Hadi, who are sincerely interested in what Christians believe; there are some, like famdigy, who are sincerely interested in engaging Christians in honest debate and dialogue; there are others, like planten, who are just going to cause problem, division, and headaches.

We should educate them, that’s what I set out to do. Some are naturally defensive and may be stubborn, others simply may not understand what you are saying. That’s understandable. As St. Paul said to the Corinthians, we plant and water, but it’s God that causes the growth. If they give a response, I respond back with gentleness. However, you will run into those people are are self-condemned and will not even bother to consider what you’ve said. If you run into those people, then no amount of apologetics can change them, and it is best you pray for them but focus your evangelical energies somewhere else while maintaining your calm.

I do not know the forum members you mentioned well enough to agree or disagree. However, I do not disagree with your point here. I would add that the same can be said of some Christians on the forums.

According to your level of understanding, you answer the question of why Christ had to die by saying it was the “most fitting” way for God to accomplish salvation.

I wouldn’t dare to claim I know more than God. Any one who does is deceiving himself, and is only proof of the consequences of eating from the tree in Paradise. And I might add that I didn’t just say it was “most fitting,” but demonstrated why it was most fitting.

I was not attempting to discredit your response, or to imply that you claim to know more than God. I was just stating your reason of why Christ had to die. You said it was the most fitting way. I think your comments demonstrated why you came to that conclusion.

Beautiful use of allegory. The spilling of blood on the alter is easily seen as symbolic of the blood that Christ shed for us. However, in Levitical Law, the blood of a sacrifice was never to be consumed. So, consuming the blood of Christ is difficult to explain.

It was difficult even in Christ’s time - remember that many disciples left Him in John 6 when He spoke of it. However, remember that in Jewish culture blood represented life: Christ’s instruction are, in fact, that we accept the life He has from His own body and blood. Remember too this is not animal blood, but the blood of the Risen Savior.

Good comments. Consuming the blood of Christ is not just a Jewish issue. The Eucharist continues to be debated within Christianity. In my own questioning and continued journey, the issue of the Eucharist remains a question. (Best discussed on another Thread.) Again-- yet another issue not settled within Christianity. So, not sure how we can expect this to make sense from a Jewish point of view.

In Christ,
Anna

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I agree. I am not aware of any OT prophecy that says God desires this “body prepared for Christ,” as a sacrifice.

Again, the Jewish people will consider the words of the Prophets in the OT/Tenakh.

Perhaps you have answered your own question. As I said, the new sacrifice is that of our own repentant heart. We offer ourselves to God. I’ll get to more on the ties between the NT and OT later on, in regards to the post about the lawyer.

The Levitical sacrifices were given as a method of atonement. By the time we reach the NT, we hear that these animal sacrifices cannot atone for our sins. I’m not sure how to reconcile the two treatments of sacrifice. I do welcome comments.

That’s because the time has come for them to end with the crucifixion of Christ. The sacrifices end here - the letter to the Hebrews outlines that. The role of atonement is switched to the blood of Christ and not the yearly spilling of animal blood.

True: the scribe asked about commandments. **However, the scribe did say that loving God and your neighbor is more important than whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. **(Mark 12:28-34) Christ agreed with him. Christ did not mention His own purpose of offering the ultimate sacrifice.

More important, but the scribe does not dismiss it entirely. That’s important. And, unless he was an Essene, he would have known of and supported the sacrifices as part of Second Temple Jewish tradition.

As with the scribe, what if this was the lawyer’s only encounter with Christ? The lawyer would leave this discussion with Christ believing the requirements to receive eternal life are what is written in the Law: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Again, Christ never mentioned His role as Savior. I can’t say that I understand this. So, I can only imagine how such passages appear to the Jewish people, in considering why Christ had to die.

Then go to those passages which do speak of His role as Savior and use the OT as evidence of who He is. Look at how the apostles argued throughout Acts and in the epistles. If a Jewish person is going to harp on a handful of passages, then they are committing the same error as many Muslims in playing pick-and-choose with scripture, and you must respond by showing the entirety of scripture.

This is an area of varying beliefs among Christians…Some Christians say that any Part of Christ that was Divine had to leave Him…You solve the issue with an allegorical approach. **Could you provide resources for your beliefs that the Divinity of Christ never left him? I would really appreciate it. **

On the contrary, what you’ve just presented is bizarre and contradicts what 2000 years of Patristics and Church teaching has always taught, which is that Christ temporarily ceased being Deity. That’s heresy. The pre-schism Fathers would pronounce an anathema on that. It has been the belief of true Christianity since the time of the apostles that Christ was fully God and that as being fully God He could never be separated from that divinity. To suggest the humanity and divinity of Christ could be separated leads one to the heresy of Nestorianism, which was condemned by the Church at an ecumenical council. The burden of proof is on your end.

I must also add that I didn’t solve the problem just with an allegorical approach, but also argued that Christ was quoting scripture. Christ did so throughout His entire ministry, and it would be fitting for Him to do so here, given what is happening and what the context of the psalms is.

I would add that the same can be said of some Christians on the forums.

It’s true for all kinds of men. Nevertheless, we must pick and choose our battles.

I was not attempting to discredit your response, or to imply that you claim to know more than God. I was just stating your reason of why Christ had to die. You said it was the most fitting way. I think your comments demonstrated why you came to that conclusion.

How so? I’m a bit befuddled because I explained in detail why the crucifixion happened and what the situation was and hence why it was necessary, but those points have not really been met nor responded to.

Good comments. Consuming the blood of Christ is not just a Jewish issue. The Eucharist continues to be debated within Christianity.

By those branches which came from the Reformation in response to the 16th century Roman Catholic Church, but not for those Churches with ties to the apostles who have followed Patristics and Church doctrine for the past 2000 years. Men like Ignatius or Justin Martyr would be shocked to read what men like Dave Hunt are writing some 1800 years after them.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Mr. Wolf,

Can only stay online a little more tonight. So, will choose this issue.

My statement:
“This is an area of varying beliefs among Christians…Some Christians say that any Part of Christ that was Divine had to leave Him…You solve the issue with an allegorical approach. Could you provide resources for your beliefs that the Divinity of Christ never left him? I would really appreciate it.”

Your response:

On the contrary, what you’ve just presented is bizarre and contradicts what 2000 years of Patristics and Church teaching has always taught, which is that Christ temporarily ceased being Deity. That’s heresy.

The pre-schism Fathers would pronounce an anathema on that. It has been the belief of true Christianity since the time of the apostles that Christ was fully God and that as being fully God He could never be separated from that divinity. To suggest the humanity and divinity of Christ could be separated leads one to the heresy of Nestorianism, which was condemned by the Church at an ecumenical council. The burden of proof is on your end.

I think you misunderstood my intentions.

First, saying you solved the problem with an allegorical approach was not an insult, or even a disagreement. It was an observation. I have never heard the allegory you described about the words Christ spoke from the cross. (I am aware that Christ quoted an OT Scripture.)

I am not placing the burden of prove on you to argue your position on the subject; I am asking for your help. That is why I asked for your resources, meaning ECF, etc.

Remember what I said about the Baptist Church (which I no longer attend):
“While still attending a Baptist Church, I asked the question during a Sunday Bible Class: Who spoke those words on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” The teacher could not answer. During the following week, both co-teachers of the class called me. They were very concerned that I asked the question, but neither had an answer.”

In all my years attending Baptist Churches, the issue of whether or not Christ’s Divinity left Him was never clearly explained—other than to say, God forsook Jesus, when He took the sins of the world upon Himself; because God cannot be in the presence of sin.

Months ago, I did receive a response from a Baptist Minister on another website (bad experience on so many levels,) who said Christ’s Divinity did leave him, on the cross (paraphrased.) That was the first time, anyone in the Protestant sector actually gave me a direct answer on the issue. That does not mean, I accept it. The issue remains an area of question for me.

Remember, I said, “As a Protestant with “issues,” I cannot say that I have a clear understanding of this.”

So, again—I’m asking for your help.

Anna

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I think you misunderstood my intentions.

First, saying you solved the problem with an allegorical approach was not an insult, or even a disagreement. It was an observation. I have never heard the allegory you described about the words Christ spoke from the cross. (I am aware that Christ quoted an OT Scripture.)

I am not placing the burden of prove on you to argue your position on the subject; I am asking for your help. That is why I asked for your resources, meaning ECF, etc…

Remember, I said, “As a Protestant with “issues,” I cannot say that I have a clear understanding of this.”

So, again—I’m asking for your help.

Anna

Ah, my mistake, apologies. Now I feel dumb. Forgive me prostrates, kisses your feet

Remember I said Christ could not lose His divinity any more than I could lose my humanity. I cannot cease being a mortal human. My humanity cannot simply leave me - I would cease to be. Similarly Christ, being fully man and fully God due to the hypostatic union, could never cease being deity, nor could He ever have His divinity taken away from Him. He was fully God, and God can never lose His divinity, for then He would cease being God. This is the logical explanation for it.

For historical reference, here are two quotes from the Third Ecumenical Council in 431 AD, which condemned Nestorianism (Christ was a human man endowed with the Word of God):

If anyone dares to say that the man who was assumed ought to be worshipped and glorified together with the divine Word and be called God along with him, while being separate from him, (for the addition of “with” must always compel us to think in this way), and will not rather worship Emmanuel with one veneration and send up to him one doxology, even as “the Word became flesh”, let him be anathema…

If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and became the first born of the dead, although as God he is life and life-giving, let him be anathema. (source) [emphasis mine]

I hope that helps somewhat.

 

[chosen_people]

The poster of the thread has asked me for my (name removed by moderator)ut to get the Jewish perspective.

The first problem is that the question posed by the thread presupposes both that Yehusa bar Yosef was the Messiah and that his execution by the Romans was part of God’s plan for the salvation of mankind. Both suppositions have no validity from a Jewish perspective. Yeshua bar Yosef was just a man who preached basic Jewish ethics and has absolutely no special significance for Jews, just as Buddha has no special significance. The reasons why this is so has been treated repeatedly on this forum and I will put it aside for our discussion.

Now as for salvation, the reason a Christian would give, the Jew would ask salvation from what? Man is not born in sin, original or otherwise, but innocent with the power to do great good. When we talk of repentance or Tshuvah we are talking of return to this good natural state. So death for man’s salvation also has no validity from a Jewish perspective.

The Crucifixion story is itself, from a Jewish perspective, paganism personified (no pun intended). God as a human being? God the eternal and everlasting dying? God being killed by human beings? God as the ultimate human sacrifice and this a sacrifice not to God but to human beings?
In fact, if you check out pagan mythology in Egyptian, Persian, Greek and Roman culture you will discover different characters with a remarkable similarity to the story of the life and death of Yeshua bar Yosef (Divine father - human virgin mother born in humble circumstances but accompanied by great signs and wonders- no stories about childhood - we meet again with the adult figure doing services for man - ultimately sacrificing himself for mankind - comes back to life and rejoins his father ). Now if these stories were in time attached to Yeshua bar Yosef (it’s easy to understand how Christianity eventually spread so successfully among the Pagan populations and failed so miserably among the Jews) the story and nature of his death was also possibly developed around these stories.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. .the Jew would ask salvation from what? Man is not born in sin, original or otherwise, but innocent with the power to do great good. When we talk of repentance or Tshuvah we are talking of return to this good natural state. So death for man’s salvation also has no validity from a Jewish perspective.

chosen people:

I appreciate your comments.

I think many Christians are uninformed regarding the reasons the Jewish people reject Jesus. I have attempted to touch on some of those issues on this Thread–though I may not have represented the Jewish viewpoint very well.

The Torah, A Modern Commentary, Revised Edition, Union for Reformed Judaism, Sacrificial Offerings: An Introduction, Talmudic Views on Sacrifices, Page 677:

Shortly after the Temple was destroyed, it is said, the aged Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai visited its ruins in the company of his pupils. One of them bewailed the cessation of the rites that provided atonement for sin.

The old sage replied, "Do not grieve, my son. We have a means of atonement that is equal to sacrifice–the doing of kind deeds. For it is said, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ (Hos. 6:6). A few centuries later Rabbi Isaac declared that prayer takes precedence over sacrifice.

Still more remarkable is a parable of Rabbi Levi, a contemporary of Rabbi Isaac: The son of a king became mentally confused and fell into the habit of eating carrion. Thereupon the king ordered his servants to serve kosher meat from the same kinds of animals at his own table so that the son might regain the habit of eating proper food.

Similarly, said Rabbi Levi, Israel became addicted to idolatry while in Egypt; and in the wilderness they still brought offerings to the goat-demons. Thereupon, God said, ‘Let them bring regular sacrifices to Me, and they will be protected from the tendency to idolatry.’

The Torah, A Modern Commentary, Revised Edition, Union for Reformed Judaism, Sacrificial Offerings: An Introduction, Medieval Views on Sacrifices, Page 677:

Rabbi Levi’s parable may have suggested the rationalistic explanation of sacrifice offered by the philosopher Moses Maimonides, (1135-1204). That famous thinker held that the sacrificial legislation was a concession to human frailty. In ancient times, sacrifice was the universal practice; the Hebrews who left Egypt could not imagine a religion without it.

Had they not been permitted to bring offerings to the true God, they would inevitably have sacrificed to other deities. Biblical sacrifice was the means by which they were weaned away from heathenism and instructed in true beliefs.

Moreover, the animals designated for sacrifice were those held sacred by Hindus, Egyptians, and Sabeans, which were never slaughtered by those peoples. Thus the Israelite sacrifices were a repudiation of pagan superstition.

There is a point in the OT/TANAKH when there seems to be a change in the significance of “sacrifice”:

Micah 6: 6 “With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” 8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

Proverbs 21: 2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart. 3 To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

Hosea 6: 4 What shall I do with you, O Ephraim? What shall I do with you, O Judah? Your love is like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes early away. 5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth, and my judgment goes forth as the light. 6** For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

**Jeremiah 7: 22 For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, **I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. **23But this command I gave them: ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’

Though, sacrifices continued, until the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE; we see the change in attitudes about sacrifice—at the time of Christ—as demonstrated by the scribe who told Jesus **loving God and your neighbor is more important than “all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” **

Mark 12: 28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?”

29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

32 And the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.

Would you comment on the Jewish viewpoint of “sacrifice” and why you believe they are no longer necessary for the forgiveness of sin?

 

[chosen_people]

chosen people:

I appreciate your comments.

I think many Christians are uninformed regarding the reasons the Jewish people reject Jesus. I have attempted to touch on some of those issues on this Thread–though I may not have represented the Jewish viewpoint very well.

The Torah, A Modern Commentary, Revised Edition, Union for Reformed Judaism, Sacrificial Offerings: An Introduction, Talmudic Views on Sacrifices, Page 677:

The Torah, A Modern Commentary, Revised Edition, Union for Reformed Judaism, Sacrificial Offerings: An Introduction, Medieval Views on Sacrifices, Page 677:

There is a point in the OT/TANAKH when there seems to be a change in the significance of “sacrifice”:

Though, sacrifices continued, until the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE; we see the change in attitudes about sacrifice—at the time of Christ—as demonstrated by the scribe who told Jesus **loving God and your neighbor is more important than “all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” **

Would you comment on the Jewish viewpoint of “sacrifice” and why you believe they are no longer necessary for the forgiveness of sin?

By the first century of the common era the Jews made up about a tenth of the population of the Roman empire and a diaspora, meaning Jews living outside of Judea, already was well developed. This in itself was a basis in changes for religious practices and the development of the synagogue away from the Temple.

The development of prayer came to replace the sacrifice - it is also important to note that Jews do not require an intermediary to God.

Until now you have not dealt with the second part of the Christian rejection of God’s covenant. The concept of God is the first part. However the second part is the Christian rejection of Torah in its wider sense. The Jews had grasped the concept of God without having to conceive of Him in animate or inanimate form. The second unique thing of Judaism was to take laws and to give them a divine religious status. Religion for the first time dealt not only with man’s relationship to God but just as importantly man’s relationship to his fellow man. Intellectual ethical monotheism was created. However, a discussion of the nuances on whether you were taking care of your neighbors ox for consideration or as a favor when considering damages to a party injured by the ox and whether you were doing so as an individual or as a group, and how this might be affected by the injured person’s status, required a group of people with the requisite ability to grasp such nuances as well as universal male literacy as father’s had to pass on and teach these laws to their sons. The Jews fit this bill. However, Christianity which sought its adherents among the pagan masses did not have this ability. It declared that Torah had been fulfilled with the coming of its Messiah. It formed a set of dogmatic principles that could be learned by rote and the acceptance of which made one a member of the Christian religion. It set up an hierarchy that had the power to decide these dogmas.

 

[Zundrah]

Crucifixion of Christ-Why Did He Have to Die?

A Jewish author posed a very important question which I have not been able to answer, and it bothers me that I cannot answer the question.

Question paraphrased:

If God is God, and He makes the rules, why did anyone have to die for our salvation?

I am a Christian, and I want to be able to answer this question. I believe that God is infinite and that He brought all things into being. So, there cannot be anything before God or any law higher than God. God must surely make the rules. So, I think it is reasonable to ask why Christ had to die.

The O.T. does reveal a point, when God seemed to no longer desire a sacrifice or blood atonement for sins.

Micah 6: 6 “With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” 8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

Proverbs 21: 2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart. 3 To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

Jeremiah 7: 22 **For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. **23But this command I gave them: **‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’
**
Even in the N.T. we find **Jesus quoting **Hosea 6:6:

Matthew 9: 12 But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Hosea 6: 4 What shall I do with you, O Ephraim? What shall I do with you, O Judah? Your love is like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes early away. 5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth, and my judgment goes forth as the light. 6** For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.**

One of the most intriguing passages in the NT reveals Jesus agreeing that loving God and your neighbor is more important than “all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

Mark 12: 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.

This seems to be a very strange thing for Jesus to say, since he came as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.

Also, throughout the NT, Jesus forgave sins. Not once did he tell those he forgave to go and make a sacrifice to complete the forgiveness.

In addition, John proclaimed Baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

**Luke 3: **2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 1: 4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

So, I hope someone can help me answer this question:

If God is God, and He makes the rules, why did Jesus have to die for our salvation?

Anna

Why did he have to die? Why did he have to die!? My little friend, haven’t you heard of the fulfilment of passover?

 

[Anna_Scott]

ah, my mistake, apologies. Now i feel dumb. Forgive me prostrates, kisses your feet

Mr. Wolf: Sometimes you crack me up. No “feet-kissing” necessary. I hope you are feeling better today.
byzantine_wolf;5950078:

. . . christ, being fully man and fully god due to the hypostatic union, could never cease being deity, nor could he ever have his divinity taken away from him. He was fully god, and god can never lose his divinity, for then he would cease being god. .

for historical reference, here are two quotes from the third ecumenical council in 431 ad, which condemned nestorianism (christ was a human man endowed with the word of god). .

Thank you for the references. Much appreciated. I need to do more research on the issue.

I still cannot say that the issue, of whether or not the Divinity of Christ left Him during the crucifixion, is settled for me–especially in light of NT passages that appear contradictory.

In John, we find the well known passage, where Jesus said, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”

John 14:8-10 (ESV):

[8] Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”
[9] Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
[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 on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

There is a very puzzling passage in 1 Timothy, which seems to separate Christ from God, and claims that God alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see.

1 Timothy 6:11-16 (ESV):

[11] But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.
[12] Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.
[13] I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession,
[14] to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,
[15] which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
[16] who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

1 Timothy 6:11-16 (RSV):
[11] But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.
[12] Fight the good fight of the faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.
[13] In the presence of God who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession,
[14] I charge you to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ;
[15] and this will be made manifest at the proper time by the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
[16] who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

In 1 John, again we are told that no one has ever seen God:

1 John 4:11-13 (ESV):

[11]Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
[12] No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
[13] By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.

Please indulge me with a few Questions.

Before you read them, keep in mind that I am a Christian, who believes Christ become the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. Also, remember I am a Protestant questioning Protestantism. So, the Orthodox and Catholic viewpoints are important for me to hear.

I am aware that the Book of John identifies Jesus as the Incarnate Word/God.

In considering the NT as a whole, I think my questions are reasonable—unless I ignore the passages that seem contradictory. Maybe there is no contradiction. I’m just asking. . . .

1. If God is immortal, how can He die?
2. If Christ is God, why do the passages in 1 Timothy and 1 John say that no one has seen God?
3. Can God allow sin in His presence?
4. If Christ took the sins of the world upon Himself, how could God be present?
5. If God could be in the presence of sin, as Christ took humanity’s sin upon Himself----why do we need Christ as mediator in order to come into the presence of God in prayer, now, and even in the afterlife?
6. How can you be certain that God did not “literally” forsake Christ on the cross? The question, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” seems very clear.

Mark 15:

[33] And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.
[34] And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
**
Psalm 22:**
[1] My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?

If we are to answer the question of why Christ had to die for our sins, I think it is reasonable to ask if Christ died as man, or if He died as fully man and fully God.

I welcome all comments.

Working out my salvation in fear and trembling,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Why did he have to die? Why did he have to die!? My little friend, haven’t you heard of the fulfilment of passover?

Zundrah,

I’m glad you checked out this Thread.

However, answering a question with a question is not really an answer.

If God makes the rules, could He forgive our sins in any other way?

Anna

 

[Zundrah]

Zundrah,

I’m glad you checked out this Thread.

However, answering a question with a question is not really an answer.

If God makes the rules, could He forgive our sins in any other way?

Anna

He gave us a law to follow - the passover. He came and followed that law too. The lamb of God. Please don’t make me elaborate…

P.S. How could I not check out this thread?

 

[Anna_Scott]

He gave us a law to follow - the passover. He came and followed that law too. The lamb of God. Please don’t make me elaborate…

P.S. How could I not check out this thread?

Zundrah,

You still haven’t answered the question. Are you saying that God could not have forgiven our sins any other way? Is there anything higher than God to dictate one way to salvation.

Anna

 

[Zundrah]

Zundrah,

You still haven’t answered the question. Are you saying that God could not have forgiven our sins any other way? Is there anything higher than God to dictate one way to salvation.

Anna

Okay here we go!

• We had to kill an animal to stop God from killing us instead (for our sins), yes?
• We use to sacrifice animals (name removed by moderator)lace of US for God to forgive us, yes?
• One animal sacrifice is suffice for one sin, yes?
• If we sin again, we must sacrifice again, yes?
• God came into human flesh so that he could be that sacrifice, yes?
• …because he can cover ALL sins rather than just one or two for each person at a time, yes?

Happy?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Okay here we go!

• We had to kill an animal to stop God from killing us instead (for our sins), yes?
• We use to sacrifice animals (name removed by moderator)lace of US for God to forgive us, yes?
• One animal sacrifice is suffice for one sin, yes?
• If we sin again, we must sacrifice again, yes?
• God came into human flesh so that he could be that sacrifice, yes?
• …because he can cover ALL sins rather than just one or two for each person at a time, yes?

Happy?

Zundrah,

Please answer these 3 questions:

1. If God is God, and He makes the rules, why did Christ have to die?
2. Could God have chosen to forgive our sins another way?
3. Is there anything higher than God that limits how He can forgive sins?

Anna

Anna

 

[Zundrah]

Zundrah,

Please answer these 3 questions:

Anna

Grrr, I am in a college class right now!

1. If God is God, and He makes the rules, why did Christ have to die?

There no such thing as death for him you see, it was only his physical offering that died. His body, not his soul. That was hopw things were because that is what he taught us. That is how he prepared us for the messiah. That would be how we would understand it.

1. Could God have chosen to forgive our sins another way?

He forgave us in the way that he already forgave us - sacrifice. That is what we were use to. That is what we would understand and accept (at the time) as forgiveness of sins.

1. Is there anything higher than God that limits how He can forgive sins?

Anna

…sort of, he doesn’t like to physically interveen in our actions. In that way, he is restricted because he wants to leave us to our actions. As such…

 

[Anna_Scott]

Grrr, I am in a college class right now!

There no such thing as death for him you see, it was only his physical offering that died. His body, not his soul. That was hopw things were because that is what he taught us. That is how he prepared us for the messiah. That would be how we would understand it.

He forgave us in the way that he already forgave us - sacrifice. That is what we were use to. That is what we would understand and accept (at the time) as forgiveness of sins.

…sort of, he doesn’t like to physically interveen in our actions. In that way, he is restricted because he wants to leave us to our actions. As such…

Zundrah,

I’m sorry, and I do no mean this in an unkind way; but I can’t spend any more energy asking you to answer the questions on this Thread Topic.

You have spent a great deal of energy avoiding the questions. You have the freedom to do that. You are not obligated to answer.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

The poster of the thread has asked me for my (name removed by moderator)ut to get the Jewish perspective.

The first problem is that the question posed by the thread presupposes both that Yehusa bar Yosef was the Messiah and that his execution by the Romans was part of God’s plan for the salvation of mankind. Both suppositions have no validity from a Jewish perspective. Yeshua bar Yosef was just a man who preached basic Jewish ethics and has absolutely no special significance for Jews, just as Buddha has no special significance. The reasons why this is so has been treated repeatedly on this forum and I will put it aside for our discussion.

Now as for salvation, the reason a Christian would give, the Jew would ask salvation from what? Man is not born in sin, original or otherwise, but innocent with the power to do great good. When we talk of repentance or Tshuvah we are talking of return to this good natural state. So death for man’s salvation also has no validity from a Jewish perspective.

The Crucifixion story is itself, from a Jewish perspective, paganism personified (no pun intended). God as a human being? God the eternal and everlasting dying? God being killed by human beings? God as the ultimate human sacrifice and this a sacrifice not to God but to human beings?
In fact, if you check out pagan mythology in Egyptian, Persian, Greek and Roman culture you will discover different characters with a remarkable similarity to the story of the life and death of Yeshua bar Yosef (Divine father - human virgin mother born in humble circumstances but accompanied by great signs and wonders- no stories about childhood - we meet again with the adult figure doing services for man - ultimately sacrificing himself for mankind - comes back to life and rejoins his father ). Now if these stories were in time attached to Yeshua bar Yosef (it’s easy to understand how Christianity eventually spread so successfully among the Pagan populations and failed so miserably among the Jews) the story and nature of his death was also possibly developed around these stories.

By the first century of the common era the Jews made up about a tenth of the population of the Roman empire and a diaspora, meaning Jews living outside of Judea, already was well developed. This in itself was a basis in changes for religious practices and the development of the synagogue away from the Temple.

The development of prayer came to replace the sacrifice - it is also important to note that Jews do not require an intermediary to God.

Until now you have not dealt with the second part of the Christian rejection of God’s covenant. The concept of God is the first part. However the second part is the Christian rejection of Torah in its wider sense. The Jews had grasped the concept of God without having to conceive of Him in animate or inanimate form. The second unique thing of Judaism was to take laws and to give them a divine religious status. Religion for the first time dealt not only with man’s relationship to God but just as importantly man’s relationship to his fellow man. Intellectual ethical monotheism was created. However, a discussion of the nuances on whether you were taking care of your neighbors ox for consideration or as a favor when considering damages to a party injured by the ox and whether you were doing so as an individual or as a group, and how this might be affected by the injured person’s status, required a group of people with the requisite ability to grasp such nuances as well as universal male literacy as father’s had to pass on and teach these laws to their sons. The Jews fit this bill. However, Christianity which sought its adherents among the pagan masses did not have this ability. It declared that Torah had been fulfilled with the coming of its Messiah. It formed a set of dogmatic principles that could be learned by rote and the acceptance of which made one a member of the Christian religion. It set up an hierarchy that had the power to decide these dogmas.

Thank you so much for your excellent contributions to our topic. Much appreciated. We needed the Jewish viewpoint.

Anna

 

[Zundrah]

Zundrah,

I’m sorry, and I do no mean this in an unkind way; but I can’t spend any more energy asking you to answer the questions on this Thread Topic.

You have spent a great deal of energy avoiding the questions. You have the freedom to do that. You are not obligated to answer.

Anna

I think I have realised the problem Ann. You see, I thought that you were catholic but I see that you are not. All catholics know about the fulfilment of passover and if you know about the fulfiolment of passover then you know why Christ had to die.

Do you want me to explain it for you?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Mr. Wolf:

Appreciate the info in your PM. Still would like more elaboration on the questions at the end of this post, when you have time

I still cannot say that the issue, of whether or not the Divinity of Christ left Him during the crucifixion, is settled for me–especially in light of NT passages that appear contradictory.

In John, we find the well known passage, where Jesus said, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”

John 14:8-10 (ESV):
[8] Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”
[9] Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
[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 on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

There is a very puzzling passage in 1 Timothy, which seems to separate Christ from God, and claims that God alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see.

1 Timothy 6:11-16 (ESV):
[11] But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.
[12] Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.
[13] I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession,
[14] to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,
[15] **which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
[16] who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. **To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

1 Timothy 6:11-16 (RSV):
[11] But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.
[12] Fight the good fight of the faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.
[13] In the presence of God who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession,
[14] I charge you to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ;
[15] and this will be made manifest at the proper time by the blessed and only **Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
[16] who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see. **To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.
In 1 John, again we are told that no one has ever seen God:

1 John 4:11-13 (ESV):
[11]Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
[12] No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
[13] By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.

Again, keep in mind that I am a Christian, who believes Christ become the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. Also, remember I am a Protestant questioning Protestantism. So, the Orthodox and Catholic viewpoints are important for me to hear.

I am aware that the Book of John identifies Jesus as the Incarnate Word/God.

In considering the NT as a whole, I think my questions are reasonable—unless I ignore the passages that seem contradictory. Maybe there is no contradiction. I’m just asking. . . .

1. If God is immortal, how can He die? You said, “when speaking of Christ, God did not necessarily “die” as in He ceased to exist for those three days in the tomb, but Christ died as a man and rose again in a spiritually glorified body.” That does make sense, in that only the mortal body died. Yet, the passage in 1 Timothy makes a clear separation between Christ and God.
2. If Christ is God, why do the passages in 1 Timothy and 1 John say that no one has seen God?
3. Can God allow sin in His presence?
4. If Christ took the sins of the world upon Himself, how could God be present?
5. If God could be in the presence of sin, as Christ took humanity’s sin upon Himself----why do we need Christ as mediator in order to come into the presence of God in prayer, now, and even in the afterlife?
6. How can you be certain that God did not “literally” forsake Christ on the cross? The question, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” seems very clear.

Mark 15:
[33] And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.
[34] And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
**
Psalm 22:**
[1] My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?
If we are to answer the question of why Christ had to die for our sins, I think it is reasonable to ask if Christ died as man, or if He died as fully man and fully God.

I welcome all comments from anyone.

Working out my salvation in fear and trembling,
Anna

 

[Zundrah]

Anna, how long have you been a christian now? It would be good for you to look up about Scott Hahn on google.

I’m want to sincerely apologise for my rude behaviour and language on this thread and the other one. I hope you will pardon me and forget my bad ways… I want to really take you seriously on this matter and try to help you understand your problem with the scriptures in as many ways as I can.

xxXx zundrah xXxx