Who exactly was crucified?

[jcrichton]

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

I wasn't referring to the Trinity; I meant G-d cannot be sinful, for example, or subject to error, because these traits would be contrary to His nature.

...but I've not implied that God has erred or sinned... deliverance from complete evil (unrighteousness) required the Ultimate Pure Sacrifice... hence the Body made for Christ... the exact manner in which sin is irradicated is truly beyond our understanding... I suggest that there could have been a time when the Second Person of God had to receive upon Himself the actual impurity/corruption of sin in order to experience the actual replacement of humanity (Isaiah 52; 53; 2 Corinthians 5:20-21; 1 St. Peter 3:17-19; Philippians 2:8; 1 St. Peter 2:21-25) ... this could be the briefest moment in time (compressed into a trillionth of a nanosecond) but Jesus would have still felt the pain and desolation of Being without the Father and the Holy Spirit (St. Matthew 27:46)... then, again... it could well have been as simple as just having His Blood shed for humanity... but if the latter then how can we reconcile:

Jesus said to her, 'Do not cling to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to the brothers, and tell them: I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' (St. John 20:17)

...either way, how would the cleansing of humanity denote error or sin on the part of God?

Maran atha!

Angel

[jcrichton]

Originally Posted by Uriah_Betrayed

This is kinda going far out, but if God died for 3 days does that mean that the universe doesn't need God since it seemed to have not collapsed upon itself while he was out of power?

And by that train of thought, what power brought God back to life if he actually died and not just lost his physical body? I mean I understand why the Church would not say "and then Jesus shed his weak physical body to ascend to heaven." It would make the entire sacrifice seem like nothing more than an act performed by our creator (which admittedly is how I've felt about Christ's crucifixion recently...) but to claim God died is a rather large claim.

...cause that's only our perspective; we tend to want to limit God to what our minds can assimilate...

If there's no three Distinct and Equal Persons of God, why does Jesus make it a point to demonstrate that the Church exists in the Three Divine Persons of God (St. John 14, 15, and 16)?

Conversely, if God would have to exist only within our temporal reality and would have to be defined by our temporal accidents... how could Jesus have promised the repentive sinner, on that very day that they would both die (Christ's physical Body), that He would take him to Paradise? ...and while He was dead, physically, how could He have descended to Preach to those spirits that had preceded His Incarnation and Resurrection?

We cannot seek to place God in the constraints of our temporal existence nor limit His Omnipotence to our finite knowledge and understanding (which comes to us from what God has determine to Reveal)... ("...my Way is not your way...")

Maran atha!

Angel

[jcrichton]

Originally Posted by The GreyPilgrim

FYI- Jesus did not "feel" abandoned by God the Father when he said "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me.." He was quoting Psalm 22 in answer to the Priests and those who were mocking Him on the cross. Psalm 22 is a todah, a Psalm of confidence of God's deliverance. By citing the first line Jesus was answering their mockeries. He was proclaiming His confidence in God, not feeling abandoned by God.

...but if it that would be the case, wouldn't Jesus response negate the Suffering Servant's premise:

5 whereas he was being wounded for our rebellions, crushed because of our guilt; the punishment reconciling us fell on him, and we have been healed by his bruises. 6 We had all gone astray like sheep, each taking his own way, and Yahweh brought the acts of rebellion of all of us to bear on him. 7 Ill-treated and afflicted, he never opened his mouth, like a lamb led to the slaughter-house, like a sheep dumb before its shearers he never opened his mouth. 8 Forcibly, after sentence, he was taken. Which of his contemporaries was concerned at his having been cut off from the land of the living, at his having been struck dead for his people's rebellion? 9 He was given a grave with the wicked, and his tomb is with the rich, although he had done no violence, had spoken no deceit. 10 It was Yahweh's good pleasure to crush him with pain; if he gives his life as a sin offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his life, and through him Yahweh's good pleasure will be done. 11 After the ordeal he has endured, he will see the light and be content. By his knowledge, the upright one, my servant will justify many by taking their guilt on himself. (Isaiah 53:5-11)

1 Here is my servant whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom my soul delights. I have sent my spirit upon him, he will bring fair judgement to the nations. 2 He does not cry out or raise his voice, his voice is not heard in the street; 3 he does not break the crushed reed or snuff the faltering wick. Faithfully he presents fair judgement; (Isaiah 42:1-3)

...so it is possible that there was another reason why Jesus shouted Eli, Eli!

Maran atha!

Angel

[mercytruth]

Originally Posted by jcrichton

...but if it that would be the case, wouldn't Jesus response negate the Suffering Servant's premise:



...so it is possible that there was another reason why Jesus shouted Eli, Eli!

Maran atha!

Angel

Yes, and let's not forget what our Lord Jesus said in the garden of Gethsemane. "My soul is exceedinly sorrowful, even as unto death" This is not our Lord Jesus speaking out of fear, but out of sorrow. And let's not forget what the apostle Peter said of our Lord Jesus on the day of Pentecost, 'Whom God raised up, having loosed him from the sorrows of sheol, for it was not possible for him to be held by it.' As Isaiah, says, 'surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows'.

Yes, Maran atha!

[meltzerboy]

Originally Posted by jcrichton

...but I've not implied that God has erred or sinned... deliverance from complete evil (unrighteousness) required the Ultimate Pure Sacrifice... hence the Body made for Christ... the exact manner in which sin is irradicated is truly beyond our understanding... I suggest that there could have been a time when the Second Person of God had to receive upon Himself the actual impurity/corruption of sin in order to experience the actual replacement of humanity (Isaiah 52; 53; 2 Corinthians 5:20-21; 1 St. Peter 3:17-19; Philippians 2:8; 1 St. Peter 2:21-25) ... this could be the briefest moment in time (compressed into a trillionth of a nanosecond) but Jesus would have still felt the pain and desolation of Being without the Father and the Holy Spirit (St. Matthew 27:46)... then, again... it could well have been as simple as just having His Blood shed for humanity... but if the latter then how can we reconcile:



...either way, how would the cleansing of humanity denote error or sin on the part of God?

Maran atha!

Angel

I realize you did not imply that G-d erred or sinned. However, you did state nothing is impossible for G-d, and I am pointing out that, in a sense, there is something impossible for G-d, that is, the commission of sin or error. As another poster said, if G-d were fallible, He would not be G-d. IOW, it is impossible for G-d to be inconsistent with His own unique nature.

[meltzerboy]

Originally Posted by mercytruth

God the Father did not die, He remains always 'in heaven'. 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 6:16).

God the Word, the only begotten of the Father died for our sins ... And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. ... (Heb.1:3).

Now when Jesus Christ died for our sins, he suffered and died in his physical body, and possibly suffered and died in his soul. (There is a difference of opinion whether he was abandoned by God the Father in his soul while he was on the cross, and when he descended into sheol.)

Neither his physical body, nor his soul upholds the universe, so the death of Jesus Christ would not bring about the collapse of the universe. Yet it is an interesting question to ponder.

God bless.

So, in effect, are you saying, based on your understanding of the Trinitarian G-d of three distinct and co-equal but not separate Persons who have different functions, that G-d the Son died but G-d the Father did not die? Do you therefore think it conceivable that G-d both died and did not die at the same time without separating one Person of G-d from another Person of G-d?

[mercytruth]

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

So, in effect, are you saying, based on your understanding of the Trinitarian G-d of three distinct and co-equal but not separate Persons who have different functions, that G-d the Son died but G-d the Father did not die? Do you therefore think it conceivable that G-d both died and did not die at the same time?

If I was to really tell you what I think, it would not be explainable from the current understanding.

[jcrichton]

Originally Posted by mercytruth

Yes, and let's not forget what our Lord Jesus said in the garden of Gethsemane. "My soul is exceedinly sorrowful, even as unto death" This is not our Lord Jesus speaking out of fear, but out of sorrow. And let's not forget what the apostle Peter said of our Lord Jesus on the day of Pentecost, 'Whom God raised up, having loosed him from the sorrows of sheol, for it was not possible for him to be held by it.' As Isaiah, says, 'surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows'.

Yes, Maran atha!

...many equate the Passion with only the actual aspects of the Crucifixion... but, I concur with you, Jesus' Passion was of deep sorrow not only because what He would face (human pain and suffering) but because, as He revealed in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, even when He would Raise from the dead many would refuse to Believe!

...Jesus recognizes that His Passion and Death will not be sufficient for many... and that He must allow them to deny and reject Him, even at their own peril!

Maran atha!

Angel

[jcrichton]

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

I realize you did not imply that G-d erred or sinned. However, you did state nothing is impossible for G-d, and I am pointing out that, in a sense, there is something impossible for G-d, that is, the commission of sin or error. As another poster said, if G-d were fallible, He would not be G-d. IOW, it is impossible for G-d to be inconsistent with His own unique nature.

...sorry, I did not pick up on that... clearly that is granted, God will not sin... and even when logic and everything else evades us as we fail to understand His Full Capacity and Form, His Purpose is complete!

Maran atha!

Angel

[Uzziah1]

Originally Posted by Wretched one

I think Jesus was composed of The Son of God, who arose from his bosom, Michael the archangel and David’s descendent, the human. What do you think? Do you think that only the human was crucified and not the rest and that is why Jesus said on the cross, “why Father have you abandoned me?”

Not to make you feel bad, my friend, but what the heck are you talking about? Could you add some detail?

[The GreyPilgrim]

Originally Posted by jcrichton

...but if it that would be the case, wouldn't Jesus response negate the Suffering Servant's premise:



...so it is possible that there was another reason why Jesus shouted Eli, Eli!

Maran atha!

Angel

Not at all. The Servant song verses you are citing has to do with Jesus not standing up for Himself against His accusers or answering their charges, demonstrating His humility amd meekness. Christ, being God the Son, had full confidence that God would vindicate Him.

By citing psalm 22 He is praying to God and at the same time demonstrating His confidence in God's deliverance. Your remarks make no sense because if he was to "not open His mouth" at all then how do you explain His prayer, again in response to His accusers, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

[jcrichton]

Originally Posted by The GreyPilgrim

Not at all. The Servant song verses you are citing has to do with Jesus not standing up for Himself against His accusers or answering their charges, demonstrating His humility amd meekness. Christ, being God the Son, had full confidence that God would vindicate Him.

By citing psalm 22 He is praying to God and at the same time demonstrating His confidence in God's deliverance. Your remarks make no sense because if he was to "not open His mouth" at all then how do you explain His prayer, again in response to His accusers, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

I must disagree... if Jesus responds to the mockery and chastisement the Suffering Servant is being confrontational... compare that premise (employing Psalm 22 as response) to Pilate's request that He give him an anwer... Jesus does not!

The people did not seek to Believe in Jesus; even if He did come down from the Cross they would have refused to believe their own senses; both the Jews and Romans were incredulous and merely acted as agents of Satan (temptation in the desert) seeking to derail God's Salvific Plan by coercing Jesus to put up a defense (as one of the two crucified alongside of Him); Jesus, of course, could not!

...as for Jesus Plead for humanity (specifically those involved in the betrayal, torture, and murder of the Son of man) is not as a response to the assaults but as a Merciful act of Forgiveness: Jesus did not charge those who perpetrated the hienous acts against Him with the merited wrath that their sins demanded; in essense, Jesus is fulfilling His Mission:

47 If anyone hears my words and does not keep them faithfully, it is not I who shall judge such a person, since I have come not to judge the world, but to save the world: 48 anyone who rejects me and refuses my words has his judge already: the word itself that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day. 49 For I have not spoken of my own accord; but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and what to speak, 50 and I know that his commands mean eternal life. And therefore what the Father has told me is what I speak. (St. John 12:47-50)

Maran atha!

Angel

[fred conty]

Originally Posted by Wretched one

I think Jesus was composed of The Son of God, who arose from his bosom, Michael the archangel and David’s descendent, the human. What do you think? Do you think that only the human was crucified and not the rest and that is why Jesus said on the cross, “why Father have you abandoned me.?”

You seem confused about the Trinity; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Please bear with me.

There are three divine persons in God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
They are distinct persons.
But there is only one God, not three.
They are distinct but not separate.
They are three in one.
Three persons in one God.
Illustration: 3 leaves in one plant, a 3 leaf clover.
This mystery was revealed to us else we would never have known it.

Jesus is the second person of God.
This divine person became flesh(man) in Mary's womb.
Becoming man he has a human soul, that is, an intellect and will, besides the divine.
But there is only one person of Jesus, the divine person.
There is no human person of Jesus, tho He became man.
He is both human and divine, but is a divine person.
Therefore He is both God(of the Holy Spirit) and man(of Mary).
This mystery was revealed to us else we would never have known it.

It was Jesus, both God and Man, that suffered for our infinite injustices to God.
Since Jesus was a man, he could pay for what man had done against God.
Since Jesus was was God, he could pay the infinite price demanded.
This mystery was revealed to us else we would never have known it.

Some very deep thoughts and of his wonderful outreach to us.

[The GreyPilgrim]

Originally Posted by jcrichton

[font="Palatino Linotype"][size="3"][color="Blue"]I must disagree... if Jesus responds to the mockery and chastisement the Suffering Servant is being confrontational... compare that premise (employing Psalm 22 as response) to Pilate's request that He give him an anwer... Jesus does not!

1) Citing Psalm 22 to a Roman governor would be pointless because Pilate would have no idea what He meant. Jesus didn't respond directly to the charges of the Jews to Pilate because the charges were false and the priests were being dishonest. They wanted Jesus dead because he testified to Himself in front of the Sanhedrin(Matt 26-63-64). The Priests set Him before Pilate with the charge that Jesus was setting Himself against Ceasar. And Jesus did answer pilate while at the same time avoiding to answer(see John 18).

2) Jesus in John's gospel responded to the High Priest's questions and also to the guard after he had struck Jesus. I think you are missing a distinction between "being confrontational" and testifying to the truth. Jesus citing Psalm 22 while on the cross is no different.
3) Your interpretation seems to indicate that Jesus-God the Son-succumbed to the sin of despair.

Originally Posted by jcrichton

The people did not seek to Believe in Jesus; even if He did come down from the Cross they would have refused to believe their own senses; both the Jews and Romans were incredulous and merely acted as agents of Satan (temptation in the desert) seeking to derail God's Salvific Plan by coercing Jesus to put up a defense (as one of the two crucified alongside of Him); Jesus, of course, could not!

I would warn against speculating what God the Son could or could not do(see John 19:11). Secondly there was no amount of coersion that would have set Jesus against the Father's will. Neither would their lack of faith nullify Jesus' faithfulness.

Originally Posted by jcrichton

...as for Jesus Plead for humanity (specifically those involved in the betrayal, torture, and murder of the Son of man) is not as a response to the assaults but as a Merciful act of Forgiveness: Jesus did not charge those who perpetrated the hienous acts against Him with the merited wrath that their sins demanded; in essense, Jesus is fulfilling His Mission:

"...therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin."(John 19:11)
" [23] And he said, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Let him be crucified."
[24] So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves."
[25] And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!" (Matt 27)

The Jews through this final rash oath brought judgement upon themselves when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 a.d.. Jesus did not need to "charge" them because as with the nature of sin the wrath it brings stems from sin's own nature; meaning sin is it's own punishment(see Romans 1:18-32).

The bottom line is that since Jesus is perfect man as well as God the Son there is no way I can accept that Jesus, even on the cross, succumbed to despair and believed that God had literally abandoned Him. That "God abandoned God". It is a total contradiction. You are essentially saying that God would deny Himself.

Every biblical commentary I have read on Matthew contradicts such a claim. At best you could only claim that the citation expresses Jesus' agony as He experiences the full brunt of humanity's rejection.

[jcrichton]

Originally Posted by The GreyPilgrim

1) Citing Psalm 22 to a Roman governor would be pointless because Pilate would have no idea what He meant. Jesus didn't respond directly to the charges of the Jews to Pilate because the charges were false and the priests were being dishonest. They wanted Jesus dead because he testified to Himself in front of the Sanhedrin(Matt 26-63-64). The Priests set Him before Pilate with the charge that Jesus was setting Himself against Ceasar. And Jesus did answer pilate while at the same time avoiding to answer(see John 18).

Perhaps I am not being clear enough... I am not speaking about the Psalm... I am speaking about Jesus refusal to engage those whom He has already given an answer for His Being... as Pilate who could not have goaded Jesus to satisfy his human curiosity.

Originally Posted by The GreyPilgrim

2) Jesus in John's gospel responded to the High Priest's questions and also to the guard after he had struck Jesus. I think you are missing a distinction between "being confrontational" and testifying to the truth. Jesus citing Psalm 22 while on the cross is no different.

Not missing it; giving a response to someone who is debasing, mocking or belittling is to engage a defense--hence, being confrontational.

Originally Posted by The GreyPilgrim

3) Your interpretation seems to indicate that Jesus-God the Son-succumbed to the sin of despair.

Quite the contrary... Jesus is alone for the very first time as He takes on the sin of the world... it is this Chalise that He must Drink Alone and His human nature will feel the weight of the world a a singular fraction of time (perhaps a trillionth of a nanosecond)... and it is that moment in which Jesus, the Son of man, calls to His Heavenly Father... not out of despair or impotense but due to the realization of how painful it is to be distant from the Father.

Originally Posted by The GreyPilgrim

I would warn against speculating what God the Son could or could not do(see John 19:11).

I must disagree... there is Biblical text that demonstrate, explicity or implicitly, that Jesus will do or not do certain things... (ie: a) removing the vendors/thieves from the Temple--while this may seem inappropriate for Jesus to do, He is fulfilling a prophecy and the event takes place in the House of God; b) when Jesus is being Curcified He is offer--as it was customary, a special mixture which had sedative/s... Jesus, of course, could not drink it since it would violate all of the prophecies that claim that He would suffer for the people; c) though He prayed for Kephas (Cephas), Jesus could not pray for Judas...)

Originally Posted by The GreyPilgrim

Secondly there was no amount of coersion that would have set Jesus against the Father's will. Neither would their lack of faith nullify Jesus' faithfulness.

"...therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin."(John 19:11)
" [23] And he said, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Let him be crucified."
[24] So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves."
[25] And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!" (Matt 27)

The Jews through this final rash oath brought judgement upon themselves when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 a.d.. Jesus did not need to "charge" them because as with the nature of sin the wrath it brings stems from sin's own nature; meaning sin is it's own punishment(see Romans 1:18-32).

The bottom line is that since Jesus is perfect man as well as God the Son there is no way I can accept that Jesus, even on the cross, succumbed to despair and believed that God had literally abandoned Him. That "God abandoned God". It is a total contradiction. You are essentially saying that God would deny Himself.

Every biblical commentary I have read on Matthew contradicts such a claim. At best you could only claim that the citation expresses Jesus' agony as He experiences the full brunt of humanity's rejection.

...answered above.

Maran atha!

Angel