The Jewish Dilemma

[EphremHagos]

If Jesus Christ (the Messiah) is immortal, How could he suffer death on the cross? (Matt. 16: 13-28)

[Little Shepherd]

Hypostasis.

[barnasha]

If you can't explain it to a seven year old, you don't understand yourself.

[NormATive]

If you can't explain it to a seven year old, you don't understand yourself.

So, explain it to my seven-year-old sitting next to me.

While you're at it, explain how "sacrificing" your only begotten son is a sacrifice if you knew he couldn't really die?

NORM

[Adrift]

If Jesus Christ (the Messiah) is immortal, How could he suffer death on the cross? (Matt. 16: 13-28)

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, "This man is calling Elijah." And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him." And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.

Jesus' did die. The earthly body he was born into physically died. And he experienced something far greater... separation from God. The blameless Word of God made flesh experienced a taste of hell to redeem those who believe in him. Jesus died through and through, and then was resurrected to glory so that we wouldn't have to experience the same.

[rogue06]

Hi Adrift! :hi:

[John Goddard]

If Jesus Christ (the Messiah) is immortal, How could he suffer death on the cross? (Matt. 16: 13-28)

He was immortal after he died.

(and was resurrected)

[Adrift]

Hi Adrift! :hi:

Hi rogue :hi: :teeth:

[NormATive]

He was immortal after he died.

(and was resurrected)

According to the Bible (I assume you've read it), Jesus was immortal BEFORE he died. Ever read Colossians I - 15-20? John chapter 1? Revelation 1:8?

So, it still is odd. How can an immortal die? Does it count if the person "killed" cannot die?

There's no way around it. It's a dilemma that has no answer.

NORM

[Little Shepherd]

There's no way around it. It's a dilemma that has no answer.
And, again, hypostasis. It's short, simple, and sufficient.

[Sparko]

we are all immortal. While our bodies will die, we will live on and get new ones. Even those in hell will live forever with their new bodies.

[NormATive]

And, again, hypostasis. It's short, simple, and sufficient.

How does a blood clot explain anything?

Just appropriating a word to make something illogical sound scientific doesn't cut it.

You'll have to do better than that. Or, as your sobriquet suggests, you may want to try something that works.

So again, how is it possible for someone immortal (can never die) to die? And how is it a sacrifice to sacrifice a son who cannot be sacrificed?

NORM

[disciple100]

well, what is death?

what is immortal?

Jesus' body pre-resurrection wasn't immortal, it got torn, beaten, and bloodied. Jesus then died and got resurrected. You can't be resurrected if you didn't die. Then post-resurrection He had a perfect, non-decaying body.

Of course, His death wasn't so much about the death as it was about the shamefulness of it. The whole honor/shame thing is at work here.

:teeth:

[Little Shepherd]

How does a blood clot explain anything?

Just appropriating a word to make something illogical sound scientific doesn't cut it.
:eh: Let's try this again. Hypostatic union. It has nothing to do with blood clots.

[EphremHagos]

Christian theology, as opposed to the teaching of Jesus Christ and the witness of His Apostles, can never explain in its original Nicene and later use of Hypostasis the deep mystery of Jesus Christ's suffering and death on the cross as complete and infallible proof of His Messiahship!

Any breakthroughs of late?

[EphremHagos]

I could not agree with you more!

Seven year olds, with their undeveloped sense of self-reliance, are indeed more open-minded to the wonderful and marvellous things of God's Kingdom than adults who are hard to teach. (Matt. 18: 3-5; 21:16)

By the way, John 11: 25-26 is an excellent promise of diacritical death broadly defined and embracing not just Jesus Christ (who is the resurrection and the life) but also everyone who lives and believes in him!

[John Goddard]

According to the Bible (I assume you've read it), Jesus was immortal BEFORE he died. Ever read Colossians I - 15-20? John chapter 1? Revelation 1:8?

So, it still is odd. How can an immortal die? Does it count if the person "killed" cannot die?

There's no way around it. It's a dilemma that has no answer.

NORM

I'm not Trinitarian but Adoptionist and don't interpret pre-existence of anything but God's Spirit that came to dwell in the human Jesus with any of those verses. So that's my way around it.

[EphremHagos]

Concerning the knowledge of God, the death of Jesus Christ on the cross is the great watershed between direct and personal revelation from the God-reliant ("tree of life", i.e., the cross of Christ; and the self-reliant theology (the "tree of knowledge of what is good and what is bad").

Based on sources in scriptures, other differences include the cause and effect of Jesus' death as announced and demonstrated; identification with versus separation from God upon death; and diametrically opposed manners of Jesus' and our resurrection to glory!

According to Jesus Christ, immortality (after death at a lower level) is only the partial share of "whoever believes in him" whose full share extends incredibly to here-and-now and the time of death (John 11: 25-26)!

How infinitely more at the source, Jesus the Messiah!!!!!!!!

If the logic is right, your suggestion that Jesus was immortal after he died does not begin to solve the dilemma. Does it?

How much would your answser change if the dilemma of "the Messiah, the Son of the living God" (immortal himself) suffering and dying on the cross, was faced particularly by Simon Peter (Matt. 16: 13-28) who, after his famous 3-time denial, was fully reinstated by the time of Pentecost (Acts 2)?


Please allow me to make an intervention.

Whether in the original Nicene or later use, the theological concept of Hypostasis cannot explain the dilemma of a suffering and dying Messiah, Son of the living God.

The possibility for someone immortal to die is limited to his human nature and even that as demonstration of inherent and awesome power in oneself.

To understand "the sacrifice of a Son who cannot be sacrificed", one has to at least understand (if not to speak) the language of one who had the humble and lowly attitude Jesus had (Phil. 2: 5-11) Without which it is impossible to make full sense of his words.
Rarely can one catch him testifying on his own behalf. Jesus depended exclusively on the witness of his works (John 5: 30-37; 10: 37-38). What a difference this rule will make as a means of witnessing!

If you wish to respond to different posts please use the quote function, if not please use the edit function.

[EphremHagos]

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, "This man is calling Elijah." And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him." And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.

Jesus' did die. The earthly body he was born into physically died. And he experienced something far greater... separation from God. The blameless Word of God made flesh experienced a taste of hell to redeem those who believe in him. Jesus died through and through, and then was resurrected to glory so that we wouldn't have to experience the same.
In the context of the terms and seal of God's "new covenant" (Jer. 31: 31-34; Matt. 26: 26-29 ff), in general, and in view of a previous notice that "the Father is with me" when the time came and the disciples scattered (John 16:33), in particular, is the question, "My God, my God, why did you abandon me?" (Matt. 27:46) an expression of Jesus Christ's experience of separation from God or rather a simple rhetorical question commenting on the invariable expressions of unbelief surrounding him at his crucifixion?

[John Goddard]

According to Jesus Christ, immortality (after death at a lower level) is only the partial share of "whoever believes in him" whose full share extends incredibly to here-and-now and the time of death (John 11: 25-26)!

How infinitely more at the source, Jesus the Messiah!!!!!!!!

If the logic is right, your suggestion that Jesus was immortal after he died does not begin to solve the dilemma. Does it?

Well, yeah, the promise is not that you'll never die, but that when you are raised from the dead you'll get immortality. Having the promise now while still dying a mortal death, and being immortal from here on in, are two different things.

...or rather a simple rhetorical question commenting on the invariable expressions of unbelief surrounding him at his crucifixion?

That.

Psalms 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

Psalms 22:7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,

Psalms 22:8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

Psalms 22:24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

[NormATive]

:eh: Let's try this again. Hypostatic union. It has nothing to do with blood clots.

Hypostasis is a medical term describing blood clots.

Adding the word union still does not explain how someone who is immortal can die.

NORM

[NormATive]

I'm not Trinitarian but Adoptionist and don't interpret pre-existence of anything but God's Spirit that came to dwell in the human Jesus with any of those verses. So that's my way around it.

Now that's a theory with some legs. I can wrap my mind around G-d "indwelling" or possessing Jesus. The trinity thing is just too weird.

NORM

[Little Shepherd]

Hypostasis is a medical term describing blood clots.

Adding the word union still does not explain how someone who is immortal can die.
Sorry, I'm not going to play the hyperliteral dictionary definition(plus I'm too lazy to even google it) game. Hypostasis and hypostatic union are theological terms that have been used by Christians to describe the Godhead for hundreds of years(In English, anyway -- I'm not sure what the equivalent terms are in other languages that were used by Christians prior to Christianity reaching English-speaking peoples).

Theology is a completely different branch of study from medicine. It is more than justified to use the same word in different branches of study to refer to different things. It doesn't, however, do anything to eliminate your own responsibility to learn the most basic facts about that which you're criticizing.

[EphremHagos]

We err seriously when lacking insight into the Scriptures and the power of the God of the living but not of the dead (Matt. 22: 29-33).

The promise by the One who is the resurrection and the life is far greater than Goddard's hope of a pie in the sky. Immortality or eternal life is what one finds at the end of "the hard way and narrow gate" (Matt. 7: 13-14). Immortality or "eternal life" is an essential portion of knowing God firsthand and personally John 17:3 in Jesus Christ's death of self-revelation on the cross John 8: 21-30; 14: 15-21 with the by-products of 1) Life-within-life and 2) Life in/after death (John 11: 25-26).

This is the glory of Christ which we are called upon to share Rom. 8: 28-30. What a gracious divine Host!

[EphremHagos]

The basic distinction between mortal and immortal bodies can facilitate better understanding of their secondary characteristics.

The first Adam was formed out of the soil from the ground, i.e., mortal; the second Adam made in the likeness of God (“life-giving breath” or Spirit), i.e., immortal (Gen. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15: 45-49). In short, there are two kinds of bodies, viz.: spiritual (God’s, Christ’s) and physical (man’s).

The experience of witnessing Jesus Christ, at his death on the cross, going back to the place where he was before makes a permanent stamp of immortality on man. The body of Jesus that got torn, beaten, bloodied and died (without being killed) was his temporary human nature which practically ended on the cross placing the Spirit nature apart by itself as self-sufficient source of life. The self-revelation of Jesus Christ’s divinity, at his death on the cross, defines the resurrection and the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is also worth mentioning that there was neither a single moment nor event, between Jesus Christ’s arrest and death, outside his own full control. It is surely life-transforming to find out the details of powerful undercurrents in the records in the four gospels.

Blessings!

[Bernie]

If you can't explain it to a seven year old, you don't understand yourself.
So if a physicist can't explain physics to a 7 year old, or an astronomer astonomy, nor an auto mechanic the workings of internal combustion engines with all their peripheral components.....none of these understand what they're doing?

[NormATive]

Sorry, I'm not going to play the hyperliteral dictionary definition(plus I'm too lazy to even google it) game. Hypostasis and hypostatic union are theological terms that have been used by Christians to describe the Godhead for hundreds of years(In English, anyway -- I'm not sure what the equivalent terms are in other languages that were used by Christians prior to Christianity reaching English-speaking peoples).

Theology is a completely different branch of study from medicine. It is more than justified to use the same word in different branches of study to refer to different things. It doesn't, however, do anything to eliminate your own responsibility to learn the most basic facts about that which you're criticizing.


As a writer, I believe in sticking with the most accurate word usage possible. The term hypostasis literally means that which stands beneath.

I don't know what theologian first appropriated the MEDICAL TERM for a scientific sounding phrase to describe the dumbest theological concoction since Greek Mythology, nor do I care. It has been customary for centuries to knock on wood when predicting a desired outcome, but it doesn't save it from being a silly thing to do.

Nevertheless, let's play your game.

So, using your pet word, how does that which stands beneath explain how an immortal person can die?

NORM

[EphremHagos]

He was immortal after he died.

(and was resurrected)
On the contrary, the death of Jesus Christ on the cross, with diacritical mark, was the infallible proof of His pre-existing immortality as "Son of the living God" (Matt. 16: 13-28). Post-resurrection immortality belongs to "another Jesus" (2 Cor. 11:4) and "another gospel" (Gal. 1: 6-11)!

[EphremHagos]

we are all immortal. While our bodies will die, we will live on and get new ones. Even those in hell will live forever with their new bodies.
If one cares to stop, think and continue to search for answers, Scriptures and God's power say very differently . "The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob" is only the God of the living not of the dead (Matt. 22: 29-33).

Scripturally speaking, your statement that we are all immortal and that we will get new bodies after death does not hold any water. Geting new spiritual bodies is a here-and-now experience when we are truly born again by the light of Jesus' immortality (John 3: 1-21).

There are two extremes here. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as well as Moses and Elijah (Luke 9: 28-36), on the one hand, are in glory, i.e., alive and well
forever. "Those in hell", on the other hand, are at the other extreme whatever it means!

[Little Shepherd]

As a writer, I believe in sticking with the most accurate word usage possible.
Then you shouldn't be making a stink about hypostasis also having a medical definition. I looked it up, and it seems the term hypostasis was used in a philosophic/religious context since at least the 4th century, and that's just the earliest use in Christian writings I was able to find with a quick skim through my resources. Considering that medical knowledge wasn't all that advanced back then, I'd say that it was the medical community that abrogated with the word and gave it a new definition. After seeing both the philosophical and medical definitions, though, it's pretty clear that both relate to "that which stands beneath."
The term hypostasis literally means that which stands beneath.
Very good. Now I'll give you a little clue. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good article on the philosophic usage of the term hypostasis. If you read it, then you will understand how the term relates to "that which stands beneath."

There's also a separate article on hypostatic union, which deals with the incarnation of Jesus specifically. And don't try to retort with Wikipedia's faults. I know its limitations, and I read both articles before suggesting you go there to make sure the information was accurate.
I don't know what theologian first appropriated the MEDICAL TERM for a scientific sounding phrase to describe the dumbest theological concoction since Greek Mythology, nor do I care. It has been customary for centuries to knock on wood when predicting a desired outcome, but it doesn't save it from being a silly thing to do.
As is now clear, if anyone appropriated the term it was the medical profession. It has been used in Christian writings since at least the 4th century, and the term -- as a philosophic term -- predates its usage by Christians by at least another few hundred years.
Nevertheless, let's play your game.
No game, just facts.
So, using your pet word, how does that which stands beneath explain how an immortal person can die?
In Christian theology, the Godhead consists of 3 hypostases(persons) in one ousia(essence). In the hypostatic union, the divine and human natures are both united in the one hypostasis of the Son.

It is therefore a simple matter, really. Jesus in His humanity died bodily on the cross, yet in His Divinity remained alive, and the Trinity as a whole was involved in resurrecting Jesus bodily on the third day(the Bible makes separate references to the Father raising Him, the Spirit raising Him, and Him raising Himself).

I don't see any property of God that would necessitate any flesh one of His Persons inhabits from being able to be harmed and even killed.

[Sparko]

Hypostasis is a medical term describing blood clots.

Adding the word union still does not explain how someone who is immortal can die.

NORM

Again, Jesus is now immortal, but he had a mortal body when on earth. The Son is "eternal" and always will be. He took on a body of flesh, became mortal and died for our sins. His spirit did not die with his body. His spirit is immortal. My spirit and yours is immortal also. But we are not eternal. we had a beginning.

When Jesus resurrected he got an immortal glorified body. When we die we will get an immortal body also at the resurrection. Some to glory and heaven and some to suffer in hell.

There is no dilemma. Read your bible.

[NormATive]

I looked it up, and it seems the term hypostasis was used in a philosophic/religious context since at least the 4th century, and that's just the earliest use in Christian writings I was able to find with a quick skim through my resources.

Well, your "resources" are wrong.

FYI:

Origin:
1580–90; < LL < Gk hypóstasis that which settles at the bottom; substance, nature, essence, equiv. to hypo- hypo- (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypo-&db=luna) + stásis standing, stasis (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stasis&db=luna) [IMG]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/IMG © Random House, Inc. 2009]I'd say that the medical community had been well established by then. So, the FACTS suggest that theologians after the 16th century appropriated the term to describe the convoluted (judging by your acrobatics to describe it below) invention of the trinity.

Perhaps you just misread your source (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), since the fourth century is the time period the trinity was invented to settle the disputes between those who held the view of John Goddard and myself that Jesus was somehow in spiritual union with G-d, and what was emerging as the Roman Church (motto: keep-em-confused) who maintained the belief in the trinity.

Considering that medical knowledge wasn't all that advanced back then, I'd say that it was the medical community that abrogated with the word and gave it a new definition. After seeing both the philosophical and medical definitions, though, it's pretty clear that both relate to "that which stands beneath."

Considering that you were completely wrong about the origin of the word, you may want to rethink your position.

Wikipedia....

...is added to and edited by any schlub who has access to the Internet. It is a totally unreliable source. In my Master studies, if I used anything from Wikipedia, the professor wouldn't even read my work. In fact, nothing garnered via a web site is to be used.

As is now clear, if anyone appropriated the term it was...

...theologians.

It is therefore a simple matter, really. Jesus in His humanity died bodily on the cross, yet in His Divinity remained alive, and the Trinity as a whole was involved in resurrecting Jesus bodily on the third day(the Bible makes separate references to the Father raising Him, the Spirit raising Him, and Him raising Himself).

O-Kee-Do-kee. Simple. Yah.

I am certain that you do not see how absurd what you just posted looks to an average person. And, I'll bet you used to laugh at some of the Greek Myths in High School.

NORM

[NormATive]

Again, Jesus is now immortal, but he had a mortal body when on earth. The Son is "eternal" and always will be. He took on a body of flesh, became mortal and died for our sins. His spirit did not die with his body. His spirit is immortal. My spirit and yours is immortal also. But we are not eternal. we had a beginning.

When Jesus resurrected he got an immortal glorified body. When we die we will get an immortal body also at the resurrection. Some to glory and heaven and some to suffer in hell.

There is no dilemma. Read your bible.

What about the flip side? Why is it a "sacrifice" to kill your son who can't really die, and only had a body that was an illusion?

It just doesn't make sense. How is sacrificing something you KNOW cannot be sacrificed worth anything? It's like sacrificing stuffed lambs instead of real ones. It isn't REALLY a sacrifice because you won't be losing anything of value (except a fake lamb).

This doesn't sound like a plan forged in the mind of the almighty Creator. It sounds all too human.

Now, on the other hand, if Jesus were fully human and the Spirit of G-d dwelt within and he were crucified and really died - now, THAT would be a true sacrifice. The "spirit" of what G-d accomplished through indwelling Jesus is what "lives on."

NORM

[Little Shepherd]

Well, your "resources" are wrong.
Sorry, but no. The term hypostasis was used at both Nicea and Chalcedon to refer to trinitarian ideas. That's 325 and 451 AD, respectively. The term had already been in use in philosophic writings before that point -- such as in discussions on Plato's forms.
I'd say that the medical community had been well established by then. So, the FACTS suggest that theologians after the 16th century appropriated the term to describe the convoluted (judging by your acrobatics to describe it below) invention of the trinity.
Well, since theologians and philosophers were using the term more than 1100 years prior to the 16th century, that seems unlikely. Unless you're suggesting that the ancients were time travelers.
Perhaps you just misread your source (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), since the fourth century is the time period the trinity was invented to settle the disputes between those who held the view of John Goddard and myself that Jesus was somehow in spiritual union with G-d, and what was emerging as the Roman Church (motto: keep-em-confused) who maintained the belief in the trinity.
Sorry, but the trinity was well-established within Christian thought long before Nicea. All they did at Nicea was carefully pick the terms to use to successfully communicate the belief that was already a firm part of Christian thought. There's a reason when it came to the vote, only 2 of the approximately 300 attendees voted for arianism.
Considering that you were completely wrong about the origin of the word, you may want to rethink your position.
Good one. :rofl:
...is added to and edited by any schlub who has access to the Internet. It is a totally unreliable source. In my Master studies, if I used anything from Wikipedia, the professor wouldn't even read my work. In fact, nothing garnered via a web site is to be used.
Sorry, but that's the genetic fallacy. Yes, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. However, that doesn't make everything on it immediately wrong -- though I would agree that means you need to do more legwork to ensure the information is correctly represented, quoted in the proper context, etc. The article on hypostatic union in particular references a few more-than-adequately respectable sources, and there's nothing on the page to indicate foul play.

Show that the information is actually wrong, or that it is quoted out of context. An appeal to the genetic fallacy (Wikipedia = automatically wrong) is unwarranted, and won't cut it.
I am certain that you do not see how absurd what you just posted looks to an average person. And, I'll bet you used to laugh at some of the Greek Myths in High School.
Why would I laugh? And yes, it's a fairly simple explanation. I can't help that some would find it absurd. We're dealing with metaphysics, an area of philosophy not very many people look into. That it's confusing without some study . . . not surprising.

[Little Shepherd]

What about the flip side? Why is it a "sacrifice" to kill your son who can't really die, and only had a body that was an illusion?
The sacrifice was the experience of physical harm and physical death -- the breaking of His flesh and the shedding of His blood. That He resurrected doesn't take away the fact that He experienced it. And nothing about Christian theology makes His body illusory. I don't know where you even get that. The Son took on a real flesh-and-blood body, which He maintains to this day.
It just doesn't make sense. How is sacrificing something you KNOW cannot be sacrificed worth anything?
I cut my hand when I was 12. The wound has long since healed over. Does this mean that the cut and the pain it caused me wasn't real? Does it make that experience meaningless? That doesn't make any sense.
It's like sacrificing stuffed lambs instead of real ones. It isn't REALLY a sacrifice because you won't be losing anything of value (except a fake lamb).
Except that nothing was fake. The crucifixion really happened, and Jesus really felt the incredible pain of being whipped, flogged, beaten, nailed down, and hanged. That He resurrected does not erase the experience. You might as well say "I drove to the mall. I then drove home. Therefore, I did not really go to the mall." It makes about as much sense.
This doesn't sound like a plan forged in the mind of the almighty Creator. It sounds all too human.
It's supposed to seem human. That's part of the mystery of Jesus -- that He embodies both human and divine nature, and exhibits both natures without contradiction.

[Sparko]

actually Hypostasis is used in the bible in Hebrews 1:3

Thus it is used in Hebrew 1:3 where the Son represents the reality of God.

The text reads [in Romanised Greek]

os oon apaugasma tes dozes
who being [the] radiance of the [His] glory

kai charakter tes hupostaseoos autou,
and [the] representation of the reality of Him

http://www.logon.org/english/S/p230.html

I confrimed it by going to http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=heb+1%3A3&section=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search

and reading the interlinear.

[NormATive]

actually Hypostasis is used in the bible in Hebrews 1:3


http://www.logon.org/english/S/p230.html

I confrimed it by going to http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=heb+1%3A3&section=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search

and reading the interlinear.

From your "source:"

Hypostasis is in origin a Stoic term which corresponds to the Platonic term ousia. They both mean in effect essence of being. They have derived a religious use from the trinitarian arguments, which sought to define the Godhead by resort to use of the terms in distinction.which is what Random House dictionary confirms. Note the underlined phrase "derived a religious use." What do you suppose the word derived means?

The english word hypostasis is BASED on a similar-meaning ancient Greek term. I thought I already posted that etymology for your. Wait, let me look down thread. Yep. It's there.

BTW, were you aware that the source you just posted is an argument AGAINST the trinity construction?? Heh! It's actually a good read. Thanks!

Rather than google obscure anti-trinitarian tractates, why don't you just walk over to your hand library and find a book on etymology (that's the study of the origin of words).

I use one published by the Encyclopedia Brittanica. They have a web site, and here is the etymology of hypostasis for you:

Etymology of the English word hypostasis

the English word hypostasisderived from the Late Latin word hypostasis (http://www.myetymology.com/latin/hypostasis.html) (basis, foundation; single substance)derived from the Greek word upostasis (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/upostasis.html), ὑπόστασις derived from the Greek word hupo (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/hupo.html), ὑπό (under, beneath, underneath)
derived from the Greek word stasis (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/stasis.html), στάσις (a standing (properly, the act); (by analogy) position (existence); by implication, a popular uprising; figuratively, controversy)derived from the Greek word histanai (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/histanai.html)derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *stā- (http://www.myetymology.com/proto-indo-european/st%C4%81-.html)

derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *stā- (http://www.myetymology.com/proto-indo-european/st%C4%81-.html)


derived from the Greek word hupostasis (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/hupostasis.html), ὑπόστασις (a setting under (support); concretely, essence, or abstractly, assurance (objectively or subjectively))derived from the Greek word huphistasthai (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/huphistasthai.html)derived from the Greek word hupo (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/hupo.html), ὑπό (under, beneath, underneath)
derived from the Greek word histasthai (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/histasthai.html)

derived from the Greek word huphisthanai (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/huphisthanai.html)



Date

The earliest known usage of hypostasis in English dates from the 16th centurySo, you see, in the 16th century, some theologian noticed the similarity in meaning between the Greek word you quoted in scripture that is translated as "basis, foundation" and the English term used in medicine to describe what happens to the blood and fluids in a body (alive or dead) that has been lying in one position for a long time and applied it to his understanding of the trinity.

I hope this ends the discussion of this word. I don't know how else to enlighten you.

NORM

[Sparko]

From your "source:"
which is what Random House dictionary confirms. Note the underlined phrase "derived a religious use." What do you suppose the word derived means?

The english word hypostasis is BASED on a similar-meaning ancient Greek term. I thought I already posted that etymology for your. Wait, let me look down thread. Yep. It's there.

BTW, were you aware that the source you just posted is an argument AGAINST the trinity construction?? Heh! It's actually a good read. Thanks!

Rather than google obscure anti-trinitarian tractates, why don't you just walk over to your hand library and find a book on etymology (that's the study of the origin of words).

I use one published by the Encyclopedia Brittanica. They have a web site, and here is the etymology of hypostasis for you:

So, you see, in the 16th century, some theologian noticed the similarity in meaning between the Greek word you quoted in scripture that is translated as "basis, foundation" and the English term used in medicine to describe what happens to the blood and fluids in a body (alive or dead) that has been lying in one position for a long time and applied it to his understanding of the trinity.

I hope this ends the discussion of this word. I don't know how else to enlighten you.

NORM

what part of "it's used in the bible" don't you understand? of course it was a greek word in the greek language before being used in a religious manner. but that manner was first used in hebrews 1:3 to describe how Jesus is God.


As Geek explained it has been used in that manner ever since, even by the early church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. You can go google it if you wish.

from your own quote
latin word derived from the Greek word hupostasis (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/hupostasis.html),

as I have shown it was used in Hebrews 1:3 in the manner we are talking about. that dates over 1000 years before any medical use of the word.


sheesh, Norm.

[Adrift]

The earliest known usage of hypostasis in English dates from the 16th century

So, you see, in the 16th century, some theologian noticed the similarity in meaning between the Greek word you quoted in scripture that is translated as "basis, foundation" and the English term used in medicine to describe what happens to the blood and fluids in a body (alive or dead) that has been lying in one position for a long time and applied it to his understanding of the trinity.

I hope this ends the discussion of this word. I don't know how else to enlighten you.

NORM

Wait... I'm confused. Are you saying that the first recorded usage of hypostasis in a religious sense didn't happen until English speaking theologians started using it in the 16th century? Are you saying that noone used it in a religious sense before the English used it?

[Adrift]

In the context of the terms and seal of God's "new covenant" (Jer. 31: 31-34; Matt. 26: 26-29 ff), in general, and in view of a previous notice that "the Father is with me" when the time came and the disciples scattered (John 16:33), in particular, is the question, "My God, my God, why did you abandon me?" (Matt. 27:46) an expression of Jesus Christ's experience of separation from God or rather a simple rhetorical question commenting on the invariable expressions of unbelief surrounding him at his crucifixion?


That.

Psalms 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

Psalms 22:7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,

Psalms 22:8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

Psalms 22:24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

I'd say its still the experience of Jesus' separation from God.

The prophecy in Isaiah was being filled when it says:
Isaiah 53:10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief...

There's the possible allusion to Christ in Habakkuk:
Habakkuk 1:12 Are you not from everlasting, O LORD my God, my Holy One?
Habakkuk 1:13You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong, why do you idly look at traitors and remain silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?

Paul in Romans tells us point blank that Jesus paid the full price for our sins (the wages of sin is death).
Romans 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he passed over former sins.

and John
1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Jesus became sin for us, he took on the curse for us.
2 Cor. 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"

Jesus had to be cut off from the favor and the fellowship of the Father in order to be our propitiation, to fulfill the curse, and to endure God's just wrath.

[John Goddard]

Jesus had to be cut off from the favor and the fellowship of the Father in order to be our propitiation, to fulfill the curse, and to endure God's just wrath.

Why would God withdraw from Jesus instead of being there to carry him through the suffering?

In my view Jesus maintained his fellowship with God without doubting or cursing Him during his persecution, making him the example we should all follow.

In doing so he is like a one good man of Sodom justifying that everyone else is spared. That removes the curse of Adam's original sin from us:

Jeremiah 31:29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.

Then after that we need to repent for our own sins:

Jeremiah 31:30-31 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

That right there is an initial step of the New Covenant: no more original sin from Adam, repent of your own sins to get mercy from Jesus the God-appointed Judge.

So what good for Jesus to be like a whipping boy since we are still punished for our own sins if we don't repent with faith in Jesus?

As a true whipping boy he would need to go to Hell eternally for each person to pay that price, so this idea that he was punished in that way doesn't add up.

Rather he was punished as a martyr obedient in preaching God's word despite persecution, and that made him worthy to be the Judge who gives mercy to save us from punishment for sin, IF we repent.

Hebrews 5:8-9 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

So yeah, I don't think God ever left Jesus since he remained faithful throughout. I think it was a rhetorical question mirroring that his persecutors thought God abandoned him.

[EphremHagos]

I'd say its still the experience of Jesus' separation from God.

The prophecy in Isaiah was being filled when it says:
Isaiah 53:10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief...

There's the possible allusion to Christ in Habakkuk:
Habakkuk 1:12 Are you not from everlasting, O LORD my God, my Holy One?
Habakkuk 1:13You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong, why do you idly look at traitors and remain silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?

Paul in Romans tells us point blank that Jesus paid the full price for our sins (the wages of sin is death).
Romans 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he passed over former sins.

and John
1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Jesus became sin for us, he took on the curse for us.
2 Cor. 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"

Jesus had to be cut off from the favor and the fellowship of the Father in order to be our propitiation, to fulfill the curse, and to endure God's just wrath.
Not so fast, please!

If "sound doctrine", according to our model Apostle Paul, is found exclusively in the gospel from the glorious and blessed God that is entrusted firsthand and personally to everyone to announce (1 Tim. 1: 10-11), rather than in indiscriminate use of prophets, psalms and apostles, let us look again into the teaching in the gospel to decide whether or not Jesus' use of the proverbial verse (Matt. 27:46) was rhetorical or an expression of abandonment by God!

Remember, if one decides for the theologically correct latter option, one will have Jesus clearly contradicting Himself with what he gave notice of earlier (John 16:33).

[Adrift]

Why would God withdraw from Jesus instead of being there to carry him through the suffering?

I thought I sorta explained this in my previous post.

In my view Jesus maintained his fellowship with God without doubting or cursing Him during his persecution, making him the example we should all follow.

I don't think Jesus doubted God or cursed him. I think Jesus had the Psalm in mind knowing that, even though he was forsaken, the Psalm ends in victory as you mention in Psalms 22:24.

In doing so he is like a one good man of Sodom justifying that everyone else is spared. That removes the curse of Adam's original sin from us:

Jeremiah 31:29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.

Then after that we need to repent for our own sins:

Jeremiah 31:30-31 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

That right there is an initial step of the New Covenant: no more original sin from Adam, repent of your own sins to get mercy from Jesus the God-appointed Judge.

So what good for Jesus to be like a whipping boy since we are still punished for our own sins if we don't repent with faith in Jesus?

I'm not sure I'm following you. It could be your sentence structure, or it could be that I agree with you in part, but not in whole. Are you saying that it is up to the individual to redeem themselves from sin? That Jesus' crucifixion served as nothing more but to put God's judgment on hold while we redeem ourselves?

As a true whipping boy he would need to go to Hell eternally for each person to pay that price, so this idea that he was punished in that way doesn't add up.

Why would he have to go to Hell eternally? Isn't it enough that he was perfectly innocent and experienced death and hell for us anyways? Even if it was for only a time?

Rather he was punished as a martyr obedient in preaching God's word despite persecution, and that made him worthy to be the Judge who gives mercy to save us from punishment for sin, IF we repent.

A martyr is someone who dies for a cause or a belief. Jesus didn't die for a cause, Jesus is the cause. He died for the remission of our sins. He died for us so that we could live in Him.

So yeah, I don't think God ever left Jesus since he remained faithful throughout. I think it was a rhetorical question mirroring that his persecutors thought God abandoned him.

Well I'm sorry. We may have to just agree to disagree on this point. I don't disagree with everything you've written, but I always have a hard time picking my way through your unique doctrinal outlook. Some of the stuff you say is totally right on, and some borderline or completely unsound from an orthodox approach. But I think we've discussed this a bit in the past. I pray we both come to a better understanding of the truth.

[Adrift]

Not so fast, please!

If "sound doctrine", according to our model Apostle Paul, is found exclusively in the gospel from the glorious and blessed God that is entrusted firsthand and personally to everyone to announce (1 Tim. 1: 10-11), rather than in indiscriminate use of prophets, psalms and apostles, let us look again into the teaching in the gospel to decide whether or not Jesus' use of the proverbial verse (Matt. 27:46) was rhetorical or an expression of abandonment by God!

Remember, if one decides for the theologically correct latter option, one will have Jesus clearly contradicting Himself with what he gave notice of earlier (John 16:33).

I'm looking at 1 Tim 1:10-11 and John 16:33 and not seeing an issue or contradiction to what I've stated.

I think you meant John 16:32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

I don't really see a contradiction between Jesus saying before his crucifixion "the Father is with me" and then saying upon his crucifixion "why have you forsaken me". There's a separation of time between the two comments, and makes the later saying all the more powerful when one realizes what Jesus went through on our behalf.

[Sparko]

I'm looking at 1 Tim 1:10-11 and John 16:33 and not seeing an issue or contradiction to what I've stated.


me either.

[John Goddard]

I'm not sure I'm following you. It could be your sentence structure, or it could be that I agree with you in part, but not in whole. Are you saying that it is up to the individual to redeem themselves from sin? That Jesus' crucifixion served as nothing more but to put God's judgment on hold while we redeem ourselves?

No. To break it down, salvation for humanity comes in two phases, as Jeremiah says:

Jesus remained obedient to God through suffering, and was deemed worthy of Judging man because of his own obedience, Hebrews 5:8-9.

1. Jesus showing that man might be worth saving.
a. Removes original sin of Adam.

NOW WE DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH ADAM'S SIN, BUT JUST OUR OWN

2. Jesus being Judge who can give you mercy if you repent.
b. Removes our own sins.

So without Jesus the man showing that all men have a chance to be good, like a one good man of Sodom that Abraham wagered about (Sodom spiritually being Jerusalem and by extension the world, Revelation), he prevented all humanity from being destroyed outright. That is the removal of original sin from Adam.

However, now we can still die for our own sins unless we repent and get mercy. So you need to ask the right man for mercy, in this case Jesus. That's where faith comes in, since your works to repent and do better do no good if you are asking the wrong guy for mercy.


Why would he have to go to Hell eternally? Isn't it enough that he was perfectly innocent and experienced death and hell for us anyways? Even if it was for only a time?

It's still eye for an eye mentality, when it is that mercy is totally undeserved no matter how many lickings a person takes for us. The focus should be on his obedience to God in the face of suffering, so he THEN can be worthy of being made Judge who can show you mercy.

This whipping boy thing is a garbled understanding of what actually happened, and why a lot of people reject Jesus.


A martyr is someone who dies for a cause or a belief. Jesus didn't die for a cause, Jesus is the cause. He died for the remission of our sins. He died for us so that we could live in Him.

Jesus the man was definitely a martyr in the cause of obedience to God and following His will to preach about the Kingdom of Heaven in the face of persecution.

Matthew 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Like all other men, Jesus was tempted to avoid martyrdom or persecution, as Jonah was, but unlike Jonah, Jesus conquered the temptation.

[Adrift]

No. To break it down, salvation for humanity comes in two phases, as Jeremiah says:

Jesus remained obedient to God through suffering, and was deemed worthy of Judging man because of his own obedience, Hebrews 5:8-9.

1. Jesus showing that man might be worth saving.
a. Removes original sin of Adam.

NOW WE DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH ADAM'S SIN, BUT JUST OUR OWN

2. Jesus being Judge who can give you mercy if you repent.
b. Removes our own sins.

So without Jesus the man showing that all men have a chance to be good, like a one good man of Sodom that Abraham wagered about (Sodom spiritually being Jerusalem and by extension the world, Revelation), he prevented all humanity from being destroyed outright. That is the removal of original sin from Adam.

However, now we can still die for our own sins unless we repent and get mercy. So you need to ask the right man for mercy, in this case Jesus. That's where faith comes in, since your works to repent and do better do no good if you are asking the wrong guy for mercy.



It's still eye for an eye mentality, when it is that mercy is totally undeserved no matter how many lickings a person takes for us. The focus should be on his obedience to God in the face of suffering, so he THEN can be worthy of being made Judge who can show you mercy.

This whipping boy thing is a garbled understanding of what actually happened, and why a lot of people reject Jesus.



Jesus the man was definitely a martyr in the cause of obedience to God and following His will to preach about the Kingdom of Heaven in the face of persecution.

Matthew 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Like all other men, Jesus was tempted to avoid martyrdom or persecution, as Jonah was, but unlike Jonah, Jesus conquered the temptation.

John, your whole theology works against huge portions of Pauline doctrine and even what Jesus claimed about himself. I'm not really interested in taking the time to get into it with you because I know you're pretty well dedicated to it and its going to be hugely off topic.

[John Goddard]

John, your whole theology works against huge portions of Pauline doctrine and even what Jesus claimed about himself. I'm not really interested in taking the time to get into it with you because I know you're pretty well dedicated to it and its going to be hugely off topic.

Ok.

[NormATive]

what part of "it's used in the bible" don't you understand? of course it was a greek word in the greek language before being used in a religious manner. but that manner was first used in hebrews 1:3 to describe how Jesus is God.


As Geek explained it has been used in that manner ever since, even by the early church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. You can go google it if you wish.

from your own quote
latin word derived from the Greek word hupostasis (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/hupostasis.html),

as I have shown it was used in Hebrews 1:3 in the manner we are talking about. that dates over 1000 years before any medical use of the word.


sheesh, Norm.

Sheesh Sparko!

- hupostasis DOES NOTE EQUAL hypostasis. Hypostasis is DERIVED from it. Do you know what the word DERIVED means? It means that the ENGLISH word hypostasis CAME LATER. In this case, MUCH later.

The GREEK word HUPOSTASIS does NOT MEAN the same thing. Just because a word is derived from a previous root does not mean it means exactly the same thing.

The English word acedia, meaning; apathy, boredom, is DERIVED from the Greek root word kedos, meaning; care, concern or grief. While they kind of sound the same, and have related meanings, you can quite plainly see that they do not mean the same thing. In fact, in this case, they have almost opposite meaning.

Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sometimes I think you just jump in on threads I am posting in to disagree with me.

You do not understand etymology at all. The ENGLISH word hypostasis has ONLY BEEN AROUND since the 16th century. You don't have to take my word for it. It's in every bloomin' dictionary, thesaurus or encyclopedia known to man. Whaddya want me to do, mail you a dictionary?

NORM

[Sparko]

Sheesh Sparko!

- hupostasis DOES NOTE EQUAL hypostasis. Hypostasis is DERIVED from it. Do you know what the word DERIVED means? It means that the ENGLISH word hypostasis CAME LATER. In this case, MUCH later.

LOL. Hypostasis is not an english word. It is LATIN. and it is the same word in a different language. the early church fathers who wrote in latin used it in the same manner as the greek word. It is even used in tha Latin Vulgate version of the bible.

The GREEK word HUPOSTASIS does NOT MEAN the same thing. Just because a word is derived from a previous root does not mean it means exactly the same thing.

in this case it does. do some research instead of googling definitions. You made a mistake. own up to it. The word hypostasis was used in the bible and by the early church fathers 1000 years before the medical use of the word.

Words can have more than one meaning you know. Just because the term is used in medicine does not preclude it from being used in a religious sense. and it was used in that sense BEFORE the medical use.


Sometimes I think you just jump in on threads I am posting in to disagree with me.

right. its all about you. :rofl:


You do not understand etymology at all. The ENGLISH word hypostasis has ONLY BEEN AROUND since the 16th century. You don't have to take my word for it. It's in every bloomin' dictionary, thesaurus or encyclopedia known to man. Whaddya want me to do, mail you a dictionary?

that you keep calling it an "english" word shows you are talking out of your rear end.

Your credibility is shot Norm. give it up.

[NormATive]

[quote=Sparko;2612761

that you keep calling it an "english" word shows you are talking out of your rear end.
.[/quote]

Au contraire, sir. Many words are mot juste even when purloined from other languages. In fact, ad hoc words from other languages can be quite bona fide in the mother tongue when used in situ. Inter alia, Latin words, such as the ones I am using here, come from a dead language. Yet, they add a certain panache, nes pas? In fact, words taken from other languages are a sine qua non to the English language. Sometimes, of course, people can use these words ad nauseam!

Hopefully, my little demonstration illustrated how idiotic your rant is. Hypostasis, while of Latin origin, is in your ENGLISH dictionary, quod erat demonstrandum (QED).

What language is a doctor in a U.S, British or Canadian hospital speaking when they use the term hypostasis to explain to the interns why patient X is experiencing blood clots?

Admit it, you do enjoy trying to poke holes in my posts.

Key word: trying.

Have a nice day.

NORM

[Sparko]

Au contraire, sir. Many words are mot juste even when purloined from other languages. In fact, ad hoc words from other languages can be quite bona fide in the mother tongue when used in situ. Inter alia, Latin words, such as the ones I am using here, come from a dead language. Yet, they add a certain panache, nes pas? In fact, words taken from other languages are a sine qua non to the English language. Sometimes, of course, people can use these words ad nauseam!

Hopefully, my little demonstration illustrated how idiotic your rant is. Hypostasis, while of Latin origin, is in your ENGLISH dictionary, quod erat demonstrandum (QED).

What language is a doctor in a U.S, British or Canadian hospital speaking when they use the term hypostasis to explain to the interns why patient X is experiencing blood clots?

Admit it, you do enjoy trying to poke holes in my posts.

Key word: trying.

Have a nice day.

NORM

Just because we use foreign words in English does not make them ENGLISH, dimwit.

medicine is ripe with latin words, as is most science.

that still doesn't change the fact that the word Hypostasis was used in the bible and by the early Church fathers 1000 years before its use in medicine or before ENGLISH was even a language.

I can't believe you are still dragging on with this. You have been proven wrong multiple times and still you insist you are correct.

You must be suffering from the dunning-kruger effect. Look that up in your dictionary.


---
Here is a letter from AD 375 discussing the term Hypostasis and the greek term ousia.

4. The non-identity of hypostasis and ousia is, I take it, suggested even by our western brethren, where, from a suspicion of the inadequacy of their own language, they have given the word ousia in the Greek, to the end that any possible difference of meaning might be preserved in the clear and unconfounded distinction of terms. If you ask me to state shortly my own view, I shall state that ousia has the same relation to hypostasis as the common has to the particular. Every one of us both shares in existence by the common term of essence (ousia) and by his own properties is such an one and such an one. n the same manner, in the matter in question, the term ousia is common, like goodness, or Godhead, or any similar attribute; while hypostasis is contemplated in the special property of Fatherhood, Sonship, or the power to sanctify. If then they describe the Persons as being without hypostasis, 2819 the statement is per se absurd; but if they concede that the Persons exist in real hypostasis, as they acknowledge, let them so reckon them that the principle of the homoousion may be preserved in the unity of the Godhead, and that the doctrine preached may be the recognition of true religion, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the perfect and complete hypostasis of each of the Persons named.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/208/2080287.htm#fn_2808

[EphremHagos]

The sacrifice was the experience of physical harm and physical death -- the breaking of His flesh and the shedding of His blood. That He resurrected doesn't take away the fact that He experienced it. And nothing about Christian theology makes His body illusory. I don't know where you even get that. The Son took on a real flesh-and-blood body, which He maintains to this day.

I cut my hand when I was 12. The wound has long since healed over. Does this mean that the cut and the pain it caused me wasn't real? Does it make that experience meaningless? That doesn't make any sense.

Except that nothing was fake. The crucifixion really happened, and Jesus really felt the incredible pain of being whipped, flogged, beaten, nailed down, and hanged. That He resurrected does not erase the experience. You might as well say "I drove to the mall. I then drove home. Therefore, I did not really go to the mall." It makes about as much sense.

It's supposed to seem human. That's part of the mystery of Jesus -- that He embodies both human and divine nature, and exhibits both natures without contradiction.
How post-resurrection appearances (distinctly different from the great resurrection appearances strictly defined) to a back-to-square-one, unbelieving group of disciples lead Christian theology and GC to conclude that the "Son maintains the real flesh and blood body to this day" is absolutely out of all contexts.

As far as Jesus is concerned, the Son of Man has gone back to the place where he was before (John 6: 62-64) at his death on the cross, i.e., revealing his glory to posterity in his de-incarnation!

Therefore, believing that the Son maintains his real flesh and blood body to this day is "judging Christ according to human standards" and completely contrary to Apostolic witness. (2 Cor. 5: 16-17)

[Adrift]

How post-resurrection appearances (distinctly different from the great resurrection appearances strictly defined) to a back-to-square-one, unbelieving group of disciples lead Christian theology and GC to conclude that the "Son maintains the real flesh and blood body to this day" is absolutely out of all contexts.

As far as Jesus is concerned, the Son of Man has gone back to the place where he was before (John 6: 62-64) at his death on the cross, i.e., revealing his glory to posterity in his de-incarnation!

Therefore, believing that the Son maintains his real flesh and blood body to this day is "judging Christ according to human standards" and completely contrary to Apostolic witness. (2 Cor. 5: 16-17)

I think you may be taking Paul out of context:

2 Cor 5:16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

Paul doesn't mean to say that Jesus is no longer "flesh", rather that we no longer regard him (or anyone for that matter) by the flesh. 2 Cor connects the Greek word kata sarka with the verb, not the noun. Paul is saying we, Paul and his readers, knew Christ by the flesh, but no longer (this was the reason for Paul's persecution of the church), not that Christ was after the flesh, but no longer.

After his resurrection Jesus himself says in Luke 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.

1 Cor 15:20 says "Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep."

Revelation 1:5 tells us that Jesus is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead.

Job tells us that "I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God." -Job 19:25

1 Cor 15 explains all of this quite well: What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

As William Lane Craig elaborates, the natural body here isn't referring to physical flesh, but to "man oriented toward human nature". And spiritual body isn't referring to an immaterial state, but to "the man oriented toward the Spirit". See here (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6963) for more on Criag's take on this.

[NormATive]

dimwit

People losing arguments always result to insults.

NORM

[Sparko]

People losing arguments always result to insults.

NORM

Then I eagerly await yours.

[mitzi]

Au contraire, sir. Many words are mot juste even when purloined from other languages. In fact, ad hoc words from other languages can be quite bona fide in the mother tongue when used in situ. Inter alia, Latin words, such as the ones I am using here, come from a dead language. Yet, they add a certain panache, nes pas? In fact, words taken from other languages are a sine qua non to the English language. Sometimes, of course, people can use these words ad nauseam!

Hopefully, my little demonstration illustrated how idiotic your rant is. Hypostasis, while of Latin origin, is in your ENGLISH dictionary, quod erat demonstrandum (QED).

What language is a doctor in a U.S, British or Canadian hospital speaking when they use the term hypostasis to explain to the interns why patient X is experiencing blood clots?

Admit it, you do enjoy trying to poke holes in my posts.

Key word: trying.

Have a nice day.

NORM

Admit it, you do enjoy trying to poke holes in my posts.

This is priceless! :wink: absolutely! and what was the title to the thread? a _____ dilemma?

[NormATive]

BTW, Re:

Here is a letter from AD 375 discussing the term Hypostasis and the greek term ousia.

4. The non-identity of hypostasis and ousia is, I take it, suggested even by our western brethren, where, from a suspicion of the inadequacy of their own language, they have given the word ousia in the Greek, to the end that any possible difference of meaning might be preserved in the clear and unconfounded distinction of terms. If you ask me to state shortly my own view, I shall state that ousia has the same relation to hypostasis as the common has to the particular. Every one of us both shares in existence by the common term of essence (ousia) and by his own properties is such an one and such an one. n the same manner, in the matter in question, the term ousia is common, like goodness, or Godhead, or any similar attribute; while hypostasis is contemplated in the special property of Fatherhood, Sonship, or the power to sanctify. If then they describe the Persons as being without hypostasis, 2819 the statement is per se absurd; but if they concede that the Persons exist in real hypostasis, as they acknowledge, let them so reckon them that the principle of the homoousion may be preserved in the unity of the Godhead, and that the doctrine preached may be the recognition of true religion, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the perfect and complete hypostasis of each of the Persons named.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/...87.htm#fn_2808 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/208/2080287.htm#fn_2808)Year of publication: Between 1923 and 1963, inclusive.

You really need to carefully examine your resources.

Do you suppose theologians borrowed the term hypostasis as the agreed upon translation of the original Greek word that previously had been translated as basis, foundation; single substance by then?

Again, when your doctor tells you that your great aunt is suffering from hypostasis, what language is he or she using?

But, I guess you are smarter than the Encyclopedia Britannica who wrote the following:

Etymology of the English word hypostasis

The English word hypostasisderived from the Late Latin word hypostasis (http://www.myetymology.com/latin/hypostasis.html) (basis, foundation; single substance)derived from the Greek word upostasis (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/upostasis.html), ὑπόστασις derived from the Greek word hupo (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/hupo.html), ὑπό (under, beneath, underneath)
derived from the Greek word stasis (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/stasis.html), στάσις (a standing (properly, the act); (by analogy) position (existence); by implication, a popular uprising; figuratively, controversy)derived from the Greek word histanai (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/histanai.html)derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *stā- (http://www.myetymology.com/proto-indo-european/st%C4%81-.html)

derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *stā- (http://www.myetymology.com/proto-indo-european/st%C4%81-.html)


derived from the Greek word hupostasis (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/hupostasis.html), ὑπόστασις (a setting under (support); concretely, essence, or abstractly, assurance (objectively or subjectively))derived from the Greek word huphistasthai (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/huphistasthai.html)derived from the Greek word hupo (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/hupo.html), ὑπό (under, beneath, underneath)
derived from the Greek word histasthai (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/histasthai.html)

derived from the Greek word huphisthanai (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/huphisthanai.html)



Date

The earliest known usage of hypostasis in English dates from the 16th centurySo, it is not ME who is saying the ENGLISH word hypostasis' first known usage is in the 16th Century. Take it up with Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Notice the first sentence of the etymological reference. It says "The English word hypostasis..."

Merriam Webster says:

hypostasis

One entry found.



Main Entry:hy·pos·ta·sis http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?hypost01.wav=hypostasis%27%29)Pronunciation: \hī-ˈpäs-tə-səs\ Function:noun Inflected Form(s):plural hy·pos·ta·ses http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?hypost02.wav=hypostases%27%29) \-ˌsēz\ Etymology:Late Latin, substance, sediment, from Greek, support, foundation, substance, sediment, from hyphistasthai to stand under, support, from hypo- + histasthai to be standing — more at stand (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stand)Date:1590 1 a: something that settles at the bottom of a fluid b: the settling of blood in the dependent parts of an organ or body2: person (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person) 33 a: the substance or essential nature of an individual b: something that is hypostatized (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypostatized)4 [New Latin, from Late Latin] : failure of a gene to produce its usual effect when coupled with another gene that is epistatic toward it
— hy·po·stat·ic http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?hypost03.wav=hypostatic%27%29) \ˌhī-pə-ˈsta-tik\ adjective
— hy·po·stat·i·cal·ly http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?hypost04.wav=hypostatically%27%29) \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypostasisthat it's origin is 1590.

So, I guess that BOTH Encyclopedia Brittanica AND Websters are wrong?

We'll let readers decide who is correct:. Merriam Webster and Encyclopedia Brittanica or your on-line Wikipedia-type "references."

BTW, I just have to emphasize that I am finding these legitimate references in ENGLISH dictionaries.

Are you still sticking to your contention that hypostasis is NOT an English word?


NORM

[NormATive]

Then I eagerly await yours.

I refuse to debase myself as so many on T-Web have. I try to maintain a Christian attitude, which I believe instructs us to refrain from abusive language toward others.

I have always admitted when I am wrong. I'm just not wrong in this matter. So, I don't see the need for insult as you do.

NORM

[NormATive]

This is priceless! :wink: absolutely! and what was the title to the thread? a _____ dilemma?

Yes, the thread subject matter is the trinity (the Jewish dilemma). Care to join in the fun? Do you believe in "hypostasis?"

NORM

[Sparko]

BTW, Re:

Year of publication: Between 1923 and 1963, inclusive.

You really need to carefully examine your resources.

as do you. click on the little 2808 hyperlink in the title

Letter CCXIV. 2809 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/208/2080287.htm#fn_2808)

Placed in 375.

It was written to Count Terentius by St. Basil

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02330b.htm

It would be rather hard for him to have written it in the 20th century.

[NormATive]

as do you. click on the little 2808 hyperlink in the title

Letter CCXIV. 2809 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/208/2080287.htm#fn_2808)

Placed in 375.

It was written to Count Terentius by St. Basil

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02330b.htm

It would be rather hard for him to have written it in the 20th century.

So, it was written in English?

NORM

[Sparko]

So, it was written in English?

NORM

right Norm. they wrote english in the 4th century. :ahem:

It was written in LATIN and the translators kept the various greek and latin words in the original language because they were being discussed as to their meanings regarding their religious meaning.

sheesh.

So are you still contending that the word Hypostasis was never used in a religious sense until the 16th century? Really?

How many ancient texts do we have to show you before you accept the fact that the Church used the word centuries before english was even invented?

History of the usage of the word in Christianity:



Hypostatic Union

A theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11728) that in Christ (http://www.catholic.org/clife/jesus) one person (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=9193) subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human. Hypostasis means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation. Hence it came to be used by the Greek philosophers to denote reality as distinguished from appearances (Aristotle, "Mund.", IV, 21). It occurs also in St. Paul's Epistles ( 2 Corinthians (http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=54) 9:4 ; 11:17 ; Hebrews (http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=65) 1:3 - 3:14 ), but not in the sense of person. Previous to the Council of Nicæa (325) hypostasis was synonymous with ousia , and even St. Augustine (De Trin., V, 8) avers that he sees no difference between them. The distinction in fact was brought about gradually in the course of the controversies to which the Christological heresies gave rise, and was definitively established by the Council of Chalcedon (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=2774) (451), which declared that in Christ (http://www.catholic.org/clife/jesus) the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=9193) ( eis en prosopon kai mian hpostasin ) ( Denzinger, ed. Bannwart, 148). They are not joined in a moral or accidental union (Nestorius), nor commingled ( Eutyches (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=4453) ), and nevertheless they are substantially united. For further explanation and bibliography see: INCARNATION ; JESUS CHRIST ; MONOPHYSITISM ; NATURE; PERSON.

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6003

Do you see that it was established in its current usage by AD 451 at the Council of Chacedon? that is 1000 years before any english usage or medical usage of the word.

[NormATive]

It was written in LATIN

EXACTLY!

So, what you are actually reading is an ENGLISH translation - circa (that's a LATIN word, btw) 1923 - 1963.



So are you still contending that the word Hypostasis was never used in a religious sense until the 16th century? Really?

Nope, not me: Encyclopedia Brittanica and Websters. Are you saying that they are wrong?

You continue to post religious writings from the 20th century that of course translate the original Greek and Latin with the modern understanding (borrowing the modern usage).

NORM

[Adrift]

EXACTLY!

So, what you are actually reading is an ENGLISH translation - circa (that's a LATIN word, btw) 1923 - 1963.





Nope, not me: Encyclopedia Brittanica and Websters. Are you saying that they are wrong?

You continue to post religious writings from the 20th century that of course translate the original Greek and Latin with the modern understanding (borrowing the modern usage).

NORM

No... I don't think he is. I don't speak Greek, and maybe someone who does can correct us if we're wrong, but the word has essentially the same meaning in Greek and English. I'm assuming even the same pronunciation. The only difference is the characters used to spell the word out. Maybe Theonomy or Jaltus can elaborate.

What was the point of all this anyways? I forgot.

[Sparko]

EXACTLY!

So, what you are actually reading is an ENGLISH translation - circa (that's a LATIN word, btw) 1923 - 1963.





Nope, not me: Encyclopedia Brittanica and Websters. Are you saying that they are wrong?

You continue to post religious writings from the 20th century that of course translate the original Greek and Latin with the modern understanding (borrowing the modern usage).

NORM


LOL! I think you are just trolling Norm. Nobody can be as dumb as you are playing..

Indulge me once more:

You contend that Hypostasis is an english word that was derived from a Latin word right?

What was that latin word it was derived from?

Go check your dictionary and get back to me.

[NormATive]

No... I don't think he is. I don't speak Greek, and maybe someone who does can correct us if we're wrong, but the word has essentially the same meaning in Greek and English. I'm assuming even the same pronunciation. The only difference is the characters used to spell the word out. Maybe Theonomy or Jaltus can elaborate.

What was the point of all this anyways? I forgot.

How do you explain Webster and Encyclopedia Brittanica? BOTH of these respected sources claim that hypostasis first appeared in 1590.

The point is that someone tried to claim that the answer to the question "how can one who is immortal die?" can be answered by one word: hypostasis.

According to Websters and Encyclopedia Brittanica, hypostasis is a sixteenth century derivation of an original Greek word (upostasis (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/upostasis.html)) translated into Latin as hupostasis (maintaining the same definition) by church fathers and held the definition of basis, foundation, single substance.

Whether the word was first used by the medical establishment or philosophers, it has been altered in meaning over the centuries in the 16th century as an English word that in its first definition is very close to the Greek original; substance, sediment, something that settles to the bottom, as blood in the organ of a body at rest.

I think the reason we are at loggerheads over this is that there is really no way of knowing how the Latin word was actually used in the Middle Ages. The English translations were not completed until the Renaissance when they were discovered. By then the theory of the trinity was fully developed. So, the word hypostasis to the theologian who was well aware of the physician's and philosopher's found it a convivial word to employ.

It is an imprecise term in discussing the trinity, IMO. It does not even suggest the notion of three distinct persons in one being.

Besides, this whole discussion on the trinity is off the topic of the main question: how is it possible for an immortal to die?

NORM.

[NormATive]

LOL! I think you are just trolling Norm. Nobody can be as dumb as you are playing..

Indulge me once more:

You contend that Hypostasis is an english word that was derived from a Latin word right?

What was that latin word it was derived from?

Go check your dictionary and get back to me.

Both the Latin and the English word (hypostasis) were derived from a common Greek word, upostasis..

It was not translated into English until the middle of the sixteenth century. I don't know how single substance, basis, foundation supports the notion of a trinity, so I am at a loss as to how this answers the question: how can one who is immortal die?

NORM

[Sparko]

Both the Latin and the English word (hypostasis) were derived from a common Greek word, upostasis..

It was not translated into English until the middle of the sixteenth century. I don't know how single substance, basis, foundation supports the notion of a trinity, so I am at a loss as to how this answers the question: how can one who is immortal die?

NORM

Norm go back and re-read your own quotes. the use in ENGLISH of the world might date to the 1500's but the word was borrowed from Latin. and it existed in latin long before english was ever invented. and it was used in a religous sense since the 1st century.

The latin word that hypostasis "derived" from is "hypostasis" it is the same word.

from your own quote earlier:

Etymology of the English word hypostasis

the English word hypostasisderived from the Late Latin word hypostasis (http://www.myetymology.com/latin/hypostasis.html) (basis, foundation; single substance)derived from the Greek word upostasis (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/upostasis.html), ὑπόστασις derived from the Greek word hupo (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/hupo.html), ὑπό (under, beneath, underneath)
derived from the Greek word stasis (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/stasis.html), στάσις (a standing (properly, the act); (by analogy) position (existence); by implication, a popular uprising; figuratively, controversy)derived from the Greek word histanai (http://www.myetymology.com/greek/histanai.html)derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *stā- (http://www.myetymology.com/proto-indo-european/st%C4%81-.html)

do you see that first line? the latin word is HYPOSTASIS. the same word as used in english. English borrowed the word.

The letter I quoted you was written originally in latin. It might have been translated into enlish in 1923 (I still dont see where you found that date) but the original letter was written in the 4th century. the reason the english translation didn't translate "hypostasis" into the english meaning was the same reason they didn't translate the greek word "ousa" - because they were technical terms that were being discussed. They left the words in the original language (updated the spelling to roman letters for the readers)

I don't know what else I can do to prove it to you. I wish I had access to some original latin documents to show you bu tI don't.

Go to ccel.org (early christian writings) it has tons of the writings from the first 4 centuries of Christianity. Do a search for hypostasis and see how many documents come up using the LATIN term. which is the same as the english version since it is a borrowed word.

http://www.ccel.org/search?category=fulltext&qu=hypostasis

[disciple100]

how can one who is immortal die?

NORM

This is my take on it.

First let me establish what constitutes a soul. The soul is a combination of the body (physical, fleshy) and the spirit (mental, abstract personality, who we are). Body+Spirit=Soul.

Now, on to the question, how can an immortal die? And the other, if Jesus was simply going to be brought back, was it really sacrifice?

I'm operating on the belief that Jesus was with God since the Beginning.

Quick explanation of the Trinity. A good analogy of the Trinity would be that it is like a light bulb. Light Source, Light, and Heat. God is the Light Source, Jesus is the Light, and the Holy Spirit is the Heat.

We say that Jesus is 100% man, and 100% God, hence, God-man. What made Jesus 100% man was His physical, fleshy, susceptible to pain, nourishment needing body. What made Jesus 100% God was His personality, His mind, Who He was, that He retained in the transition from the Kingdom dimension to our dimension.

^I'm thinking that the above is essentially how we are to understand hypostasis works, somewhat.

Now, the sacrifice. I'm operating on the belief that Jesus's sacrifice wasn't so much about pain and suffering as it was about shame.

JPHolding goes over the shame of crucifixion here (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#one), and how Jesus being nailed to a cross to atone for our sins makes sense here (http://www.tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.html).

But basically, the society where Jesus comes from is an honor/shame society. Sin is shameful. We have all sinned, therefore we are all shameful in God's eyes. Normally, the people of the day sacrificed animals to atone for their sins, you know, like a scape'goat' (get it?). But then God decided offer the gift of grace to us all by having Jesus, His Son, the Honorable One, to make the ultimate shame payment for us all by dying a shameful death. And crucifixion is/was considered the most shameful, dishonorable death one can have.

What we've got to realize here is that the only way this would have worked is if the one being sacrificed was perfect, sinless, innocent, without blemish, etc. And the only one who fits that bill is Jesus.

Another note. Do you realize how painful and excrutiating an experience crucifixion is? And what Jesus had already gone through before He was crucified? While He was praying in the garden, before He was arrested, He started to sweat blood (Luke 22:44). More on that here (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2223).

But basically:

Commonly referred to as hematidrosis or hemohidrosis (Allen, 1967, pp. 745-747), this condition results in the excretion of blood or blood pigment in the sweat. Under conditions of great emotional stress, tiny capillaries in the sweat glands can rupture (Lumpkin, 1978), thus mixing blood with perspiration. This condition has been reported in extreme instances of stress (see Sutton, 1956, pp. 1393-1394). During the waning years of the twentieth century, 76 cases of hematidrosis were studied and classified into categories according to causative factors: “Acute fear and intense mental contemplation were found to be the most frequent inciting causes” (Holoubek and Holoubek, 1996). While the extent of blood loss generally is minimal, hematidrosis also results in the skin becoming extremely tender and fragile (Barbet, 1953, pp. 74-75; Lumpkin, 1978), which would have made Christ’s pending physical insults even more painful.

So before Jesus was even crucified He was experiencing emotional and spiritual anguish to to the point He sweated blood, making Him even more susceptible to pain. Then He got arrested, beaten, whipped, spat on, had a crown of thorns jammed on his head, nailed to a cross, and after hours of pushing Himself up to breathe finally suffocated to death.

Now, His physical body died, but His spirit still lived. I'm not sure were His spirit went to until His body was resurrected, but Jesus the Son of God's spirit retained His personality and Who He was. All He did was leave this plane, our dimension. Then His body was resurrected and glorified.

While He came back to this dimension in a new, glorified, physical body, I hardly doubt He will forget His experiences. It's not like being resurrected erases everything else He went through while being here. He worked, nourished and maintained Himself. He experienced fatigue, exhaustion, temptation, torture, and death. Not things you forget about in a hurry.

Okay, I've said my piece:sigh:. Feel free to point out where I err, I desire to learn.

[NormATive]

Norm go back and re-read your own quotes. the use in ENGLISH of the world might date to the 1500's but the word was borrowed from Latin. and it existed in latin long before english was ever invented. and it was used in a religous sense since the 1st century.

I did.

And, you are right.

I was wrong. :blush:

The original Latin word was hypostasis. I still don't think it had the same meaning that I am seeing these days, though. All of those early references have the connotation of "essence" or a congealing of sorts.

I guess I just saw the date 1590 and got carried away since you-all were saying it was originated in the 4th Century. The English usage didn't come about until the 16th Century, so you are probably correct that the word was first used in a theological / philosophical sense.

I feel like such an ass!

Can you at least give me cred' that I was right about it being adopted as a bona fide English word?

I finally got a chance to spend an hour re-reading these posts and realized about halfway up (when I posted the Encyclopedia Brittanica etymology) that I was being a real bone-head - especially since the proof was in my own @#$% post!

Oy.

NORM

[Sparko]

I did.

And, you are right.

I was wrong. :blush:

thanks Norm. I appreciate that you do indeed admit your mistakes.

The original Latin word was hypostasis. I still don't think it had the same meaning that I am seeing these days, though. All of those early references have the connotation of "essence" or a congealing of sorts.

No, actually the early greek meaning was "that which lies beneath" something like a hidden foundation, or revealed truth. That is why the bible authors and early church fathers used the word, because they were trying to describe how Christ's nature was not just a man, but lying underneath it all was a divine nature, that of God. Early greek philosophers were already using it in a similar meaning...

I am going to post the history of the word from the Catholic site again:

A theological (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580x.htm) term used with reference to the Incarnation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm) to express the revealed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) that in Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) one person (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) subsists in two natures (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm), the Divine and the human (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm). Hypostasis means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation. Hence it came to be used by the Greek philosophers (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12025c.htm) to denote reality as distinguished from appearances (Aristotle, "Mund.", IV, 21). It occurs also in St. Paul's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) Epistles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05509a.htm) (2 Corinthians 9:4 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2co009.htm#vrs4); 11:17 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2co011.htm#vrs17); Hebrews 1:3 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/heb001.htm#vrs3)-3:14 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/heb003.htm#vrs14)), but not in the sense of person (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm). Previous to the Council of Nicæa (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm) (325) hypostasis was synonymous with ousia, and even St. Augustine (On the Holy Trinity V.8 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130105.htm)) avers that he sees no difference between them. The distinction in fact was brought about gradually in the course of the controversies to which the Christological (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14597a.htm) heresies (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm) gave rise, and was definitively established by the Council of Chalcedon (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm) (451), which declared that in Christ the two natures (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm), each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) (eis en prosopon kai mian hpostasin) (Denzinger (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04736b.htm), ed. Bannwart, 148). They are not joined in a moral or accidental (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01096c.htm) union (Nestorius), nor commingled (Eutyches (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05631a.htm)), and nevertheless they are substantially united. For further explanation and bibliography see: INCARNATION (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm); JESUS CHRIST (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm); MONOPHYSITISM (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10489b.htm); NATURE (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm); PERSON (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm).



I guess I just saw the date 1590 and got carried away since you-all were saying it was originated in the 4th Century. The English usage didn't come about until the 16th Century, so you are probably correct that the word was first used in a theological / philosophical sense.

I feel like such an ass!

Can you at least give me cred' that I was right about it being adopted as a bona fide English word?

OK, but only in the sense that English borrows other foreign words. LIke "couch" (french) or even other latin terms like "ad hominem" or "hemoglobin" or "tyranasurus rex"

They become part of our language and are used in english.

I finally got a chance to spend an hour re-reading these posts and realized about halfway up (when I posted the Encyclopedia Brittanica etymology) that I was being a real bone-head - especially since the proof was in my own @#$% post!

No problem. I am sorry I started acting like a jerk towards you. I am trying to make an effort to stop being so sarcastic. I have a long ways to go.



peace.

[NormATive]

This is my take on it.

First let me establish what constitutes a soul. The soul is a combination of the body (physical, fleshy) and the spirit (mental, abstract personality, who we are). Body+Spirit=Soul.

You won't find this body / spirit dichotomy in the Bible. According to the Shema in Exodus 6:

V'ahav'ta eit Adonai Elohekha b'khol l'vav'kha uv'khol naf'sh'kha uv'khol m'odekha. And you shall love the L-rd your G-d with all of your heart and with all of your soul and with all of your might or will.The way the sentence is constructed (b'khol / uv'khol) , each aspect of the human being is emphasized separately, but as parts of a whole, hence; the repetitious phrasology (this same construction is in the Creation story in Genesis). Instead of body + spirit = soul, the Jewish Biblical perspective is body=spirit=soul. IOW, there is no separation between the body and soul. This dichotomy entered Judaism (and later, Christianity) during the Hellenization movement in the early first century.

The idea that the body is separate from the soul is a major component of Platonic philosophy.



I'm operating on the belief that Jesus was with God since the Beginning.

I am familiar with this theory, but it is on shaky Biblical ground. It is based on a certain translation of just a few verses taken out of context. Can you walk me through the evidence?

Quick explanation of the Trinity. A good analogy of the Trinity would be that it is like a light bulb. Light Source, Light, and Heat. God is the Light Source, Jesus is the Light, and the Holy Spirit is the Heat.

In another 20 years you will have to abandon this analogy since CFL bulbs emit no discernable heat. Why not just stick with the water / ice / vapor analogy? It's the only way you can get remotely close to explaining the bizzare trinity scheme to the average person.


We say that Jesus is 100% man, and 100% God, hence, God-man. What made Jesus 100% man was His physical, fleshy, susceptible to pain, nourishment needing body. What made Jesus 100% God was His personality, His mind, Who He was, that He retained in the transition from the Kingdom dimension to our dimension.

^I'm thinking that the above is essentially how we are to understand hypostasis works, somewhat.

But there is still no logical reason for this convoluted symbiosis. It honestly sounds like a third-grader's attempt to explain something she doesn't really understand.

Now, the sacrifice. I'm operating on the belief that Jesus's sacrifice wasn't so much about pain and suffering as it was about shame.

JPHolding goes over the shame of crucifixion here (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#one), and how Jesus being nailed to a cross to atone for our sins makes sense here (http://www.tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.html).

But basically, the society where Jesus comes from is an honor/shame society. Sin is shameful. We have all sinned, therefore we are all shameful in God's eyes. Normally, the people of the day sacrificed animals to atone for their sins, you know, like a scape'goat' (get it?). But then God decided offer the gift of grace to us all by having Jesus, His Son, the Honorable One, to make the ultimate shame payment for us all by dying a shameful death. And crucifixion is/was considered the most shameful, dishonorable death one can have.

What we've got to realize here is that the only way this would have worked is if the one being sacrificed was perfect, sinless, innocent, without blemish, etc. And the only one who fits that bill is Jesus.

The shame theory is not bad considering the era.

I believe, however, that humanity has evolved beyond requiring the virgin be thrown into the volcano. This whole human sacrifice idea is what makes it so very difficult for Jews to swallow. G-d drilled both the monotheism (no trinity) and what-makes-us-different-is-that-we-don't-do-human-sacrifice thing into the faithful. Did you know that Jews understand the Abraham and Isaac story as a primer against human sacrifice and not a testimony to Abraham's obedience?

It's a bit ironic: Chrisitans, who reject The Law, see the Abraham story as one of blind obedience and reject the notion of it being about human sacrifice (which is what all the pagan religions required).

Another note. Do you realize how painful and excrutiating an experience crucifixion is?

Yes, we all endured the whole Mel Gibson thing a few years ago.

I desire to learn.

I recommend keeping an open mind and question things that "have always been."

I truly think that in order to make Christianity relevant to today, we need to keep things like the trinity and emphasis on crucifixion as interesting cultural history. People are looking for moral guidance, love and acceptance. We don't need more confusion. Life is complex enough.

Now you see why I hang in UT 201.

NORM

[disciple100]

You won't find this body / spirit dichotomy in the Bible. According to the Shema in Exodus 6:
The way the sentence is constructed (b'khol / uv'khol) , each aspect of the human being is emphasized separately, but as parts of a whole, hence; the repetitious phrasology (this same construction is in the Creation story in Genesis). Instead of body + spirit = soul, the Jewish Biblical perspective is body=spirit=soul. IOW, there is no separation between the body and soul. This dichotomy entered Judaism (and later, Christianity) during the Hellenization movement in the early first century.

The idea that the body is separate from the soul is a major component of Platonic philosophy.


True, I am familiar with the belief that the ultimate goal is to shed our physical bodies and become a non-physical entity. However, I retain that belief that though we become separate from our bodies in death we become reunited with them in their glorified physical state when the final Resurrection comes.


I am familiar with this theory, but it is on shaky Biblical ground. It is based on a certain translation of just a few verses taken out of context. Can you walk me through the evidence?


I was going by an interpretation of John 1:1 that was taken to mean that Jesus was with God in the Beginning.


In another 20 years you will have to abandon this analogy since CFL bulbs emit no discernable heat. Why not just stick with the water / ice / vapor analogy? It's the only way you can get remotely close to explaining the bizzare trinity scheme to the average person.


I am familiar with that analogy, but I thought the light bulb one was a better way of showing all three in the Trinity operating at the same time.


But there is still no logical reason for this convoluted symbiosis. It honestly sounds like a third-grader's attempt to explain something she doesn't really understand.


I will address this at the end.


The shame theory is not bad considering the era.

I believe, however, that humanity has evolved beyond requiring the virgin be thrown into the volcano. This whole human sacrifice idea is what makes it so very difficult for Jews to swallow. G-d drilled both the monotheism (no trinity) and what-makes-us-different-is-that-we-don't-do-human-sacrifice thing into the faithful. Did you know that Jews understand the Abraham and Isaac story as a primer against human sacrifice and not a testimony to Abraham's obedience?

It's a bit ironic: Chrisitans, who reject The Law, see the Abraham story as one of blind obedience and reject the notion of it being about human sacrifice (which is what all the pagan religions required).


But the only perfect Man in history happened to be God's Son. His perfection is what made Him the ideal sacrifice. And we attribute the total abolition of sacrifice to Him as well.

Yes, we all endured the whole Mel Gibson thing a few years ago.

:hehe:

I recommend keeping an open mind and question things that "have always been."

I truly think that in order to make Christianity relevant to today, we need to keep things like the trinity and emphasis on crucifixion as interesting cultural history. People are looking for moral guidance, love and acceptance. We don't need more confusion. Life is complex enough.

Now you see why I hang in UT 201.

NORM

Thank you for your response.

The great thing about TWeb is the exchange of thought and the whole iron sharpening iron thing. I have been working on taking the open approach to things. For example, I am not as adamantly against the theory of evolution like I once was because I realize that evolution in no way removes God from being the Creator.

I understand why the idea Jesus not existing before He was born on earth does not mean He isn't the Son of God. He would still be the only begotten Son of God and Mary, and make Him 100% Man and 100% God genetically, and explain Him not being less than God while not being the Father.

I have a great many things to ponder. :smile:

[EphremHagos]

I think you may be taking Paul out of context:

2 Cor 5:16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

Paul doesn't mean to say that Jesus is no longer "flesh", rather that we no longer regard him (or anyone for that matter) by the flesh. 2 Cor connects the Greek word kata sarka with the verb, not the noun. Paul is saying we, Paul and his readers, knew Christ by the flesh, but no longer (this was the reason for Paul's persecution of the church), not that Christ was after the flesh, but no longer.

After his resurrection Jesus himself says in Luke 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.

1 Cor 15:20 says "Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep."

Revelation 1:5 tells us that Jesus is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead.

Job tells us that "I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God." -Job 19:25

1 Cor 15 explains all of this quite well: What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

As William Lane Craig elaborates, the natural body here isn't referring to physical flesh, but to "man oriented toward human nature". And spiritual body isn't referring to an immaterial state, but to "the man oriented toward the Spirit". See here (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6963) for more on Criag's take on this.
I choose to maintain my hard earned position of a well schooled “witness to his resurrection”, defined in terms of principle and practice of Discipleship Training 101 aimed at seeing the divine identity and authority of Jesus Christ (John 1:51) at his diacritical death on the cross as “the first begotten of the dead” (John 8: 21-29; 10: 17-18; Acts 1: 21-22; Rev. 1:5). The alternative is nothing but “looking for the living among the dead” (Acts 24:5). This is what Jesus Christ taught, put into practice and spent 40 additional days rehabilitating the majority of the failed disciples through intensive 40-day rehearsal.

Now, to point by point rebuttals:

1. Luke 24:39 refers to a post-resurrection appearance for rehabilitation of an unbelieving group of disciples beginning from scratch.
2. 1 Cor. 15:20’s raising of Christ from the dead as first fruits of those who have fallen asleep supports my position not yours!
3. Rev. 1:5, on the qualification of Jesus as the faithful witness and first begotten of the dead refers to His victory over death as and where it happened exclusively by his own free will and power with unexpected outcome (“blood” and “water” pouring out from his pierced side; the latter representing “the water of his baptism” or the Holy Spirit (John 19: 34-37; 1 John 5:6).
4. Job 19:25, as an early and partial version of Rev. 5:6, speaks of the demonstration of the Redeemer’s immortality shown on the last day (referring to the timing of Jesus Christ’s diacritical death; and matches Jesus’ words: “Whoever believes in me will live even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die” (John 11: 25-26).
5. 1 Cor 15 also supports wholly my position not yours at all!
6. Neither William Lane Craig nor any other person whosoever is qualified to serve as primary source for sound doctrine (1 Tim. 1: 10-11).

[mitzi]

So, explain it to my seven-year-old sitting next to me.

While you're at it, explain how "sacrificing" your only begotten son is a sacrifice if you knew he couldn't really die?

NORM

You would also have to explain why God asks Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, on Mount Moriah even though we read prior to the sacrifice about the promise given to him (from God) for many descendants. And He (God) took him (Abraham) outside, and He said, "Please look heavenward and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So will be your seed.

The progressiveness for the redemption was one of given hope in the future through Abraham, Moses, Isaac..etc. Like all great prophets produced a catalyst to the things/events to come. When Jesus spoke about his crucifixion...and he (Jesus) also spoke about the end of days. In the same as Jesus accept God’s will into the future so must we accept things to come. Is the crucifixion not a opening to the redemption of all mankind…as Jeremiah 31:31-34 The time is coming, ... they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the .... promise to Abraham that through his seed people of ALL nations will be blessed. ... “

[NormATive]

You would also have to explain why God asks Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, on Mount Moriah even though we read prior to the sacrifice about the promise given to him (from God) for many descendants.

Many Jews read this scripture as a condemnation of human sacrifice. Abraham's neighbors all practiced human sacrifice to appease the gods. This story (I don't believe it actually happened) is a parable showing how the new G-d operates.

This is also why it is difficult for Jews to swallow the notion that the atonement for sin is human sacrifice (Jesus).


Is the crucifixion not a opening to the redemption of all mankind…as Jeremiah 31:31-34 The time is coming, ... they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the .... promise to Abraham that through his seed people of ALL nations will be blessed. ... “

I think the crucifixion was/is the consequence of challenging the powers that be:

If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? - Mark 8:34NORM

[mitzi]

[QUOTE=NormATive;2623378]Many Jews read this scripture as a condemnation of human sacrifice. Abraham's neighbors all practiced human sacrifice to appease the gods. This story (I don't believe it actually happened) is a parable showing how the new G-d operates.

This is also why it is difficult for Jews to swallow the notion that the atonement for sin is human sacrifice (Jesus).

You say that the difficulties for the Jews to swallow is the notion that the atonement for sin is a human sacrifice (Jesus). Actually the difficulties (and I think) was that Gd could be three in one persons (trinity), made in a human form and then sacrificed. When you read Genesis 1:26-27 And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth." 27. And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

and then when you read Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.

Within this text is the difficulty. The stumbling block...

Do you believe in "hypostasis?"


Why not use the Hebrew word "gala" as to uncover (what has been made hidden), lay bare (see the New Testament ..Greek apokalypto "lay bare, uncover," and apoklypsis "uncovering laying bare, revelation-expresses both exile and the uncovering what had been covered for many years) to that of of hypostasis? Not visible or understandable to some but to others (as to refer to Nicodemus John 3:1) or in another sense: to open someone’s eyes or ears (...You could say-to reveal (uncover). (Is 35:5-6) Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped.. "As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, 'If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace -- but now it is hidden from your eyes.' " (19:41-42)The word translated "wept" is the Greek verb klaio, "weep, cry, bewail."[1] Jesus bursts into sobbing. He weeps for their blindness.

Faith in itself is an hypostasis as an essence of the reality that is God. So in thought; that reality would have been revealed to you-


I think the crucifixion was/is the consequence of challenging the powers that be: If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? - Mark 8:34

What is the greatest commandment? “You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, and with all your mind” (Deuteronomy 6:5). “This is the greatest and first commandment. The second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ (Leviticus 19:18)...and Jesus said

[John Goddard]

This is also why it is difficult for Jews to swallow the notion that the atonement for sin is human sacrifice (Jesus).

Until they want to be Suffering Servant, then it's ok.

Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

[Overlord!]

If Jesus Christ (the Messiah) is immortal, How could he suffer death on the cross? (Matt. 16: 13-28)

Jesus is really Christ.
Christ is not the Hebrew notion of "the Messiah".
The Hebrew messiah concept is antithetical to Christ...anti-christ in function.

Having said that...
Jesus is Christ.
Christ is not Jesus...nor any individual we can point to and say "he is here", or "he is there".

Here, let me explain it with a parable:

Christ is to Jesus what William Shatner is to Captain Kirk.
Captain Kirk is really Willian Shatner.
William Shatner is not really Captain Kirk.
But Christ is not an individual, nor a body, nor even a person.

Christ is pre-world Reality.
Christ is "the Truth".
The Truth is Life...immortal...eternal.
The world is a concept of all that is anti-christ.
The world is an illusion.
The world is a lie.
The lie is death.

Truth is "killed" by a lie.
But how can what is immortal die?
Well, it can't.
Jesus understood this...and demonstrated this in parody.

The cross-resurrection sequence cannot be understood as other than a parody.
Jesus was teaching about the true genesis and exodus of the world.
The world begins with an attack on truth.
The world is the death of truth.
The world ends when the truth returns.
The world ends for you when the truth returns to you.
The truth returns to you when you want it to.

The world is a rediculous parody of the Truth.
The only way to describe it is in parable and parody.
The cross resurrection sequence is a rediculous parody which exposes a rediculous parody.

Let me give you an example of a parody.

On 9/11 the World Trade Center was attacked, and fell down.
A man goes to a little island out in the middle of nowhere on vacation.
They don't speak his language, and they don't get the news.
They only understand "World Trade Center" from pictures they had seen.
He wants to tell a story about the World Trade Center.
So he says, "I am the World Trade Center".
He asks someone to throw a pebble at him.
Then he begins to shake and collapse to the ground.
The people get the message: The WTC has been attacked and fallen to the ground.
Now, say the man dramatically gets up off the ground, and stands straight up again.
The people get the message:
A.) The towers have been rebuilt
B.) The towers will be rebuilt.

Likewise, Jesus said, "I am the truth"..."I am the Life".
He also said, "I am the alpha and the omega".
He also said, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up again in three days".
Then, he gets himself crucified...pretends to die...and - dramatically - rises from the dead.
If this is a reality, the message is very confused.
But if this is a parody, the message is clear:

A.) The world begins when the truth dies so a lie may live.
B.)The world ends when the lie dies so the truth may live.

A.)The world begins when Life dies that death may live.
B.)The world ends when death dies, that Life may live.

A.)The world begins as a war on truth.
B.)The world ends with the return of peace.

A.) The world begins with sleeping and dreaming (of death)
B.) The world ends with dreaming of life...and awakening.


The world begins with "Christ crucified".
All of time is a tomb for a "dead" Christ.

But...if Christ is immortal, how can he suffer death on a cross?

He can't.
And that's the "good news".
Jesus resurrection is a "promise" of "redemption".
It means the world shall "pass away" because what is built on "sand" cannot "stand".
It means the truth will return...as we welcome it.
Meanwhile...truth stands at the door and knocks.

Christ is preworld Realilty and postworld Reality...the "alpha" and "omega".
Meanwhile, Christ is still Reality...even while the world seems to kill it.
This is the Christ we must believe in to be saved.
Christ is "the Kingdom of God".
The Kingdom of God is..."at hand"...because it is Reality...now.
Therefore, "today is the day of salvation"...for anyone willing to truly believe.
The Kingdom was, is, and always shall be.
The key world is: "is".

[Overlord!]

we are all immortal. While our bodies will die, we will live on and get new ones. Even those in hell will live forever with their new bodies.

That's what I've been trying to tell you.
Those in hell just keep getting new bodies.
Some call it "reincarnation".
I call it hell.
Hell is immortality expressed in life and death cycles.
Heaven is immortal Life without cycles.
Life only is the truth.
The concept of life and death is a lie.

[Overlord!]

My spirit and yours is immortal also. But we are not eternal. we had a beginning.

When Jesus resurrected he got an immortal glorified body. When we die we will get an immortal body also at the resurrection. Some to glory and heaven and some to suffer in hell.

There is no dilemma. Read your bible.

You are confused.
What is immortal has no beginning and no end.
Only the Son is immortal.
If you are anything other than the Son, you are mortal.
The Son is not a body.
A body has a beginning and an end.
There is no such thing as an immortal body.
The Son is Spirit.
Jesus didn't "get" a glorified body.
He showed a glorified body...to demonstrate something about the truth.
A glorified body does not demonstrate "the" truth.
So,
He ditched that body into thin air.
No one saw him take that body to Heaven.
They saw him only as far as the eye can see a body ascending.
That body disappeared and hasn't been seen since.
If you want a body....glorified or not...you will keep getting more bodies...glorified or not.
And this is hell.
So long as you want hell, you won't know Heaven...nor the glory of Heaven.
You must "die" to mortality in order to have true Life.
You must let your desire for a glorified body die...if you would truly Live.

[EphremHagos]

Jesus is really Christ.
Christ is not the Hebrew notion of "the Messiah".
The Hebrew messiah concept is antithetical to Christ...anti-christ in function.

Having said that...
Jesus is Christ.
Christ is not Jesus...nor any individual we can point to and say "he is here", or "he is there".

Here, let me explain it with a parable:

Christ is to Jesus what William Shatner is to Captain Kirk.
Captain Kirk is really Willian Shatner.
William Shatner is not really Captain Kirk.
But Christ is not an individual, nor a body, nor even a person.

Christ is pre-world Reality.
Christ is "the Truth".
The Truth is Life...immortal...eternal.
The world is a concept of all that is anti-christ.
The world is an illusion.
The world is a lie.
The lie is death.

Truth is "killed" by a lie.
But how can what is immortal die?
Well, it can't.
Jesus understood this...and demonstrated this in parody.

The cross-resurrection sequence cannot be understood as other than a parody.
Jesus was teaching about the true genesis and exodus of the world.
The world begins with an attack on truth.
The world is the death of truth.
The world ends when the truth returns.
The world ends for you when the truth returns to you.
The truth returns to you when you want it to.

The world is a rediculous parody of the Truth.
The only way to describe it is in parable and parody.
The cross resurrection sequence is a rediculous parody which exposes a rediculous parody.

Let me give you an example of a parody.

On 9/11 the World Trade Center was attacked, and fell down.
A man goes to a little island out in the middle of nowhere on vacation.
They don't speak his language, and they don't get the news.
They only understand "World Trade Center" from pictures they had seen.
He wants to tell a story about the World Trade Center.
So he says, "I am the World Trade Center".
He asks someone to throw a pebble at him.
Then he begins to shake and collapse to the ground.
The people get the message: The WTC has been attacked and fallen to the ground.
Now, say the man dramatically gets up off the ground, and stands straight up again.
The people get the message:
A.) The towers have been rebuilt
B.) The towers will be rebuilt.

Likewise, Jesus said, "I am the truth"..."I am the Life".
He also said, "I am the alpha and the omega".
He also said, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up again in three days".
Then, he gets himself crucified...pretends to die...and - dramatically - rises from the dead.
If this is a reality, the message is very confused.
But if this is a parody, the message is clear:

A.) The world begins when the truth dies so a lie may live.
B.)The world ends when the lie dies so the truth may live.

A.)The world begins when Life dies that death may live.
B.)The world ends when death dies, that Life may live.

A.)The world begins as a war on truth.
B.)The world ends with the return of peace.

A.) The world begins with sleeping and dreaming (of death)
B.) The world ends with dreaming of life...and awakening.


The world begins with "Christ crucified".
All of time is a tomb for a "dead" Christ.

But...if Christ is immortal, how can he suffer death on a cross?

He can't.
And that's the "good news".
Jesus resurrection is a "promise" of "redemption".
It means the world shall "pass away" because what is built on "sand" cannot "stand".
It means the truth will return...as we welcome it.
Meanwhile...truth stands at the door and knocks.

Christ is preworld Realilty and postworld Reality...the "alpha" and "omega".
Meanwhile, Christ is still Reality...even while the world seems to kill it.
This is the Christ we must believe in to be saved.
Christ is "the Kingdom of God".
The Kingdom of God is..."at hand"...because it is Reality...now.
Therefore, "today is the day of salvation"...for anyone willing to truly believe.
The Kingdom was, is, and always shall be.
The key world is: "is".
Open for personal verification by all peoples, Scriptures testify that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was not the handiwork of men but rather a phenomenal part and parcel of the terms and seal of the “new covenant” (Jer. 31: 31-34; Matt. 26: 26-29 ff) to be seen in Jesus’ return, in public view, to the place where he was before (John 6: 62-63) as expression of God’s once and for all self-revelation to mankind!

Jesus Christ's death on the cross, based on the witness of supernatural works, is actually the only infallible proof of His immortality and exclusive ground for our firsthand and personal knowledge of His identity and our salvation defining “God’s powerful weapons” as:

• the cause of His death, i.e., His own free will and awesome power; and
• the effect of His death or outpouring of the Holy Spirit for revelation of His divine identity as the “I Am Who I Am” or the Father (John 8: 21-29).

This is the only gospel of divine origin or source of sound doctrine which is open for investigation, verifiable by individual instruction and personal experience!

[Chavak]

Why is this a "Jewish dilemma"?

Since Jews do not believe in Jesus or the Christian concept of who and what the messiah is, whether he died or not or was immortal
or not is really of no importance.

[John Goddard]

Why is this a "Jewish dilemma"?

Since Jews do not believe in Jesus or the Christian concept of who and what the messiah is, whether he died or not or was immortal or not is really of no importance.

It seems that it's important to all the antimissionaries who keep popping up to remind us that they don't believe it. :eh:

[Chavak]

Why is this a "Jewish dilemma"?

Since Jews do not believe in Jesus or the Christian concept of who and what the messiah is, whether he died or not or was immortal
or not is really of no importance.

It has nothing to do with missionaries or counter-missionaries, but common sense.

Why would this possibly be a dilemma for Jews? It is as crazy as saying that
Christians need to decide whether to follow Ashkenazic or Sephardic customs
during Pesach.

It doesn't apply to them, so it makes no sense.

[mitzi]

Until they want to be Suffering Servant, then it's ok.

Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Hi John;

We know that in proceeding times Israel will have to face Roman (again). Isn't this the reason that Jewish people were scattered throughout the world? and doesn't this sounds as if history will repeat itself for the second time (as in the days of Jesus)-referring to the Messianic age. This Jewish people are building a third temple-(larger than the first and second temple) we don't know really if sacrifices will be reinstated and then we read Daniel's prophecy ""And the King of the South who joins with the King of the North to cause injury to the inhabitants of the Land [of Israel], and the Ammonites and Moabites ? dwellers on the plains who cause pain to Israel, and the exile of the disciples of [the Prophet] Elijah who are exiled from the plains of Jericho, and the exile of the disciples of [the Prophet] Elisha who are exiled from the town of Dekalim by their brethren of the House of Israel, two hundred thousand, and the pain of each and every bonfire, and the disaster [caused by] Armalgus the Evil One, and the battle order of Gog, and at the time of that great agony, [the Archangel] Michael will rise up with [G-d's outstretched right] forearm to redeem."

Reading about the first Jewish-Roman War (66–73) I couldn't help but see what a similar number of Jews who had been crucified verses the total number of holocaust victims.How could they be so similar???

[John Goddard]

It has nothing to do with missionaries or counter-missionaries, but common sense.

Why would this possibly be a dilemma for Jews? It is as crazy as saying that
Christians need to decide whether to follow Ashkenazic or Sephardic customs
during Pesach.

It doesn't apply to them, so it makes no sense.

If it doesn't apply to you at all why are you posting in this thread? It applies somehow.

In my world we call this intellectual dishonesty and false pride. So why don't you get real and discuss how you think Jesus or the Christian concept of who and what the messiah is might be damaging to Jews and affect them adversely, instead of blustering about?

[John Goddard]

Reading about the first Jewish-Roman War (66–73) I couldn't help but see what a similar number of Jews who had been crucified verses the total number of holocaust victims.How could they be so similar???

The Suffering Servant are righteous people of God, like all the Jewish prophets and disciples who were persecuted and martyred for God's Word, represented most primarily by Jesus, their leader.

Their pain leads to our salvation, not as a whipping boy payment type of thing, but simply in all they suffered to bring us to God.

[Chavak]

If it doesn't apply to you at all why are you posting in this thread? It applies somehow.

It applies in the sense that it makes no sense. It isn't a Jewish dilemma, but a Christian one.



In my world we call this intellectual dishonesty and false pride

The only person here with a false pride seems to be you, my friend.
You certainly have a welcoming attitude.


. So why don't you get real and discuss how you think Jesus or the Christian concept of who and what the messiah is might be damaging to Jews and affect them adversely, instead of blustering about?
Because Jesus means nothing to Jews and Christians are free to believe
anything they want about the messiah and Jesus. The Christian concept
of who and what the messiah is and what Christians believe is
"not damaging to Jews" in current times.

My point wasn't to dispute Christian beliefs, but to point out that I don't see this as a Jewish dilemma.

[John Goddard]

The Christian concept of who and what the messiah is and what Christians believe is "not damaging to Jews" in current times.

Antimissionaries like Jews for Judaism say otherwise.

[Chavak]

Antimissionaries like Jews for Judaism say otherwise.

The loss of any Jew to a foreign religion is of course a great tragedy to the Jewish people.

But the biggest problem for Jews is not Christianity, not Messianic "Judaism", but
ignorance and apathy on the part of Jews. Assimilation and intermarriage are
our biggest threat.

[John Goddard]

The loss of any Jew to a foreign religion is of course a great tragedy to the Jewish people.

But the biggest problem for Jews is not Christianity, not Messianic "Judaism", but
ignorance and apathy on the part of Jews. Assimilation and intermarriage are
our biggest threat.

Well I agree there, that's why it is utterly ridiculous that God's Chosen People would allow atheists to keep identifying themselves as Jews. Messianics are small potatoes compared to all the godless wonders running around waving the Jewish flag.

[Chavak]

Well I agree there, that's why it is utterly ridiculous that God's Chosen People would allow atheists to keep identifying themselves as Jews. Messianics are small potatoes compared to all the godless wonders running around waving the Jewish flag.
Once a Jew, always a Jew.....even if not such a "good" Jew.
I agree, Messianics are "small potatoes" and really not much of
a concern to Jews.

Many Jews have assimilated and drifted away from G-d and Torah
throughout our history. There is always a faithful remnant left however, to
carry on.

It is observant Jews, who maintain our faith and beliefs and traditions, who
guarantee the existence of our people. "Cultural Judaism" is not enough.

As assimilated Jews vanish, and Orthodoxy grows due to low assimilation,
high birthrate, and BT's, it will once again be at the forefront of Judaism.

Love your avatar, by the way.

[John Goddard]

Once a Jew, always a Jew.....even if not such a "good" Jew.

But I wonder why more religious Jews aren't afraid that if they don't cut off the atheist Jews, that God will punish them all. Not only for not destroying Amalek, which is said to be the epitome of atheism by some rabbis, but also for allowing him into their ranks.

[NormATive]

[

You say that the difficulties for the Jews to swallow is the notion that the atonement for sin is a human sacrifice (Jesus). Actually the difficulties (and I think) was that Gd could be three in one persons (trinity), made in a human form and then sacrificed.

Nope. The trinity is just weird. More than just Jews have problems with that one! Even among Christians, the debate is hardly settled.

Jews were taught that they were different because their G-d did not require human sacrifice like the heathens. Imagine their shock when Christian revisionists suggested that Jesus was really G-d in human form - and was sacrificed for atonement! Human sacrifice? Why would G-d do that?

When you read Genesis 1:26-27 And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth." 27. And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

and then when you read Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.

Within this text is the difficulty. The stumbling block...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that the "we" is G-d and Jesus? OK, but that contradicts the trinity. It should read "I" created... with the Hebrew word - wait - there is no Hebrew word for two / three persons in one.




Why not use the Hebrew word "gala" as to uncover (what has been made hidden), lay bare (see the New Testament ..Greek apokalypto "lay bare, uncover," and apoklypsis "uncovering laying bare, revelation-expresses both exile and the uncovering what had been covered for many years) to that of of hypostasis?

Both are not grounded in reality, but mystery. Every good religion depends on mystery to keep control of the wayward. I prefer Gala. It sounds nicer than hypostasis.

Faith in itself is an hypostasis as an essence of the reality that is God. So in thought; that reality would have been revealed to you-

Why?

What is the greatest commandment? “You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, and with all your mind” (Deuteronomy 6:5). “This is the greatest and first commandment. The second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ (Leviticus 19:18)...and Jesus said

Ah. Jesus was such a good Jew! Did you know that he was quoting Hillel? Too bad more don't follow this advice.

NORM

[NormATive]

Why is this a "Jewish dilemma"?

Since Jews do not believe in Jesus or the Christian concept of who and what the messiah is, whether he died or not or was immortal
or not is really of no importance.

Good points. However, I think what the Opening Post is referring to is the "rejection" of Jesus as Moshiach by Jews- that this is the "Jewish dilemma."

It might have been a dilemma in the First Century when those who followed The Way, a reformation WITHIN Judaism that focused on the TEACHING of Jesus was beginning to distance themselves more and more from traditional Jewish beliefs.

But, when the whole story of Jesus was invented, Jews simply ruled him out because he didn't fulfill what Moshiach was supposed to fulfill. You know; peace on earth, re-establishment of the Davidic Kingdom, the Temple, etc...

NORM

[NormATive]

Once a Jew, always a Jew.....even if not such a "good" Jew.
I agree, Messianics are "small potatoes" and really not much of
a concern to Jews.

Many Jews have assimilated and drifted away from G-d and Torah
throughout our history. There is always a faithful remnant left however, to
carry on.

It is observant Jews, who maintain our faith and beliefs and traditions, who
guarantee the existence of our people. "Cultural Judaism" is not enough.

As assimilated Jews vanish, and Orthodoxy grows due to low assimilation,
high birthrate, and BT's, it will once again be at the forefront of Judaism..

My grandfather kept his Jewish roots to himself. He was orphaned at 8 years old and was shipped from New York to a small town in Ohio. It was not "prudent," the Christians who ran the orphanage in Ohio decided, at the time to reveal the fact that he was raised in a Jewish household. They tried in vain to convert him to Christianity. He maintained that he was an atheist, but confided to me shortly before he died that he had faith in G-d. I thought, at the time that he meant the Christian version, but now I don't think so.

We discovered his secret upon his death some time ago. A search for his original birth certificate from the orphanage turned up a form that was filled out by New York officials whereby the religion of his parents was noted as "Jewish."

Since then I've studied Torah and learned Hebrew (at least to read it). The more I study, the more I feel inclined toward this faith - the real faith, not just a "cultural identity." I keep kosher and observe Sabbath (although some in our local synagogue consider posting on line during Sabbath a violation).

But, I still don't believe in miracles and tradition for tradition sake. I am more of an agnostic Jew. However, we have a minyan at church and no one disrespects me for my views. They don't even hold my years as a Christian against me (actually, it is a commandment). I feel freedom to put a voice to my doubts when I am among them which is something I could never do among Christians. This is a Reformed community.

Are you Orthodox?

NORM

[NormATive]

But I wonder why more religious Jews aren't afraid that if they don't cut off the atheist Jews, that God will punish them all. Not only for not destroying Amalek, which is said to be the epitome of atheism by some rabbis, but also for allowing him into their ranks.

Maybe because they feel that they might learn something - even from atheists.

NORM

[John Goddard]

Maybe because they feel that they might learn something - even from atheists.

I learn a lot of things from atheists too.

But if they tried to call themselves Christians. I'd tell them they were on crack. :duh:

[NormATive]

I learn a lot of things from atheists too.

But if they tried to call themselves Christians. I'd tell them they were on crack. :duh:

What if they were closer to the truth of what Jesus was trying to say than you?

What you really mean is that those who do not accept the modern standard litmus of what is called "Christian" is not a follower of Jesus in your estimation.

For example, you would probably not accept as Christian a believer who came to you and described his or her beliefs say; around 200 CE, before the Nicene Creed or the Heidelberg Catechism and only adhered to the theology of the Apostle's Creed (before Jesus' divinity was settled officially by the Church).

However, in regards Atheists, you are probably correct. Probably most do not seek to follow the example of Christ in their lives- 2nd Century or this one.

NORM

[EphremHagos]

It has nothing to do with missionaries or counter-missionaries, but common sense.

Why would this possibly be a dilemma for Jews? It is as crazy as saying that
Christians need to decide whether to follow Ashkenazic or Sephardic customs
during Pesach.

It doesn't apply to them, so it makes no sense.
The Jewish dilemma is very well expressed in John 12:34. "Our Law tells that the Messiah will live forever. How, then, can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?"

An explanation is offered in John 10:18 --"No one takes my life away from me. I give it up of my own free will. I have the right to give it up, and I have the right to take it back. ..."

Why don't you visit the concluding chapters of the 4 gospels and refute, if you can, the cause and effect of Jesus' death before rejecting outright the dilemma? I DARE YOU!

[John Goddard]

What you really mean is that those who do not accept the modern standard litmus of what is called "Christian" is not a follower of Jesus in your estimation.

For example, you would probably not accept as Christian a believer who came to you and described his or her beliefs say; around 200 CE, before the Nicene Creed or the Heidelberg Catechism and only adhered to the theology of the Apostle's Creed (before Jesus' divinity was settled officially by the Church).

I'm "Christian (other)" in the postbit, Adoptionist not Trinitarian.

As long as people believe that Jesus is the everlasting King promised to David in 2 Samuel 7:12+ that administers the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31, and tries to adhere to the basic concepts of the NT, I'm open to accepting their status as a Christian.

[Chavak]

. However, I think what the Opening Post is referring to is the "rejection" of Jesus as Moshiach by Jews- that this is the "Jewish dilemma."



I guess I still don't see it as a "Jewish" dilemma.
The OP asked:

If Jesus Christ (the Messiah) is immortal, How could he suffer death on the cross? (Matt. 16: 13-28)

To me that is a problem for Christians, not Jews. It is a conflict-how can immortality
die, and if one believes Jesus is G-d, then how can G-d die?

I can see a conflict for Christians, but not Jews.

But maybe I'm just dense, LOL

[Chavak]

But I wonder why more religious Jews aren't afraid that if they don't cut off the atheist Jews, that God will punish them all. Not only for not destroying Amalek, which is said to be the epitome of atheism by some rabbis, but also for allowing him into their ranks.

Two things come to mind. First, "atheist Jews" are cutting themselves off by intermarrying
and disappearing. They don't need our help to destroy themselves.

Also, I would also rather try to bring back said atheist Jews to G-d and Torah than
cut them off. We can take action and also pray that they do teshuvah.

[Chavak]

Since then I've studied Torah and learned Hebrew (at least to read it). The more I study, the more I feel inclined toward this faith - the real faith, not just a "cultural identity." I keep kosher and observe Sabbath
That does not sound like an agnostic Jew :teeth:

However, we have a minyan at church and no one disrespects me for my views. They don't even hold my years as a Christian against me
I'm confused- do you go to church (not too many churches have minyans, lol) or shul?

Do you have a maternal Jewish background, or just paternal?

Yes, I am Orthodox.

[NormATive]

That does not sound like an agnostic Jew :teeth:

I'm confused- do you go to church (not too many churches have minyans, lol) or shul?

Do you have a maternal Jewish background, or just paternal?

Yes, I am Orthodox.

Sorry for the confusion. I was raised Christian so I often refer to the synagogue as "church." I no longer attend the Christian church. I also only attend infrequently the Friday evening services at the synagogue. Minyan meetings are at the Rabbi's home.

I NEVER miss Purim!!! :ale:

I consider myself agnostic because I do not believe in miracles or supernatural occurrences. I consider G-d to be a naturally occurring being.

My Jewish grandfather was on my mother's side. According to the local Rabbi, if I wanted to convert I would not be required to go through -gulp- adult circumcision.

The Rabbi has been very helpful and understanding of my religious evolution.

NORM

[NormATive]

I guess I still don't see it as a "Jewish" dilemma.
The OP asked:

If Jesus Christ (the Messiah) is immortal, How could he suffer death on the cross? (Matt. 16: 13-28)

To me that is a problem for Christians, not Jews. It is a conflict-how can immortality
die, and if one believes Jesus is G-d, then how can G-d die?

I can see a conflict for Christians, but not Jews.

But maybe I'm just dense, LOL

No, you're not dense. I agree with you. This is NOT a Jewish dilemma. Christians sometimes arrogantly (no delicate way to put it) assume that Jews don't really understand their own faith.

It's because they consider themselves every bit as Jewish as real Jews. (if you want a more in depth understanding of this, send me a private message). Some Christian churches actually practice some of the "symbolic" Jewish festivals like Passover.

I don't think it is done to be intentionally insensitive. Most Christians are simply ignorant of just what Jews actually believe. I know that when I attended my first Sabbath at the synagogue I realized I had pictured everything completely wrong. I really thought because I read the Old Testament a lot that I understood everything there is to know about Judaism. How wrong I was!

When I started learning Hebrew and could read the passages in the original language, my eyes were open to a totally new understanding of what I thought I knew.

I hope this is helpful.

NORM

[NormATive]

I'm "Christian (other)" in the postbit, Adoptionist not Trinitarian.

As long as people believe that Jesus is the everlasting King promised to David in 2 Samuel 7:12+ that administers the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31, and tries to adhere to the basic concepts of the NT, I'm open to accepting their status as a Christian.

Then you would be in line with Christianity prior to the 3rd Century CE. The Apostle's Creed would sum up your faith, then?

NORM

[Chavak]

I NEVER miss Purim!!! :ale:
Purim is great fun!



. According to the local Rabbi, if I wanted to convert I would not be required to go through -gulp- adult circumcision.
If you are already circumsized, this is true....all you would need is a pin prick.
If you aren't.....sorry to be the bearer of bad news, LOL :teeth:
(not to get too personal or anything)

The Rabbi has been very helpful and understanding of my religious evolution.
Excellent! That can at times be a difficult situation for rabbis.

[John Goddard]

Two things come to mind. First, "atheist Jews" are cutting themselves off by intermarrying
and disappearing. They don't need our help to destroy themselves.

Also, I would also rather try to bring back said atheist Jews to G-d and Torah than
cut them off. We can take action and also pray that they do teshuvah.

I'm not saying you have to treat them badly or stop counseling them, only that it is deceptive to keep acknowledging atheists as Jews since many people around the world still consider Jews to be God's Chosen People.

Do you see the contradiction, atheists = God's Chosen People?

[John Goddard]

Then you would be in line with Christianity prior to the 3rd Century CE. The Apostle's Creed would sum up your faith, then?

NORM

As interpreted this way:

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

God's only son that is also the Messiah of David. Nothing to do with incarnation or God being born a man, but born entirely human. Adoption by God, increasing the power of Jesus to the point of being godlike himself.

2 Samuel 7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son...

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Zechariah 12:8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

Birth miracle like Adam or Isaac, resurrected into the womb of Mary having been the firstborn of David and Bathsheba who died for David's sins.

2 Samuel 12:13-14 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

Ezekiel 37:4-5 Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:

Quran 3:59 Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is.

John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

Jesus was on the cross, but no one killed him, the power of God killed him on the cross.

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Quran 4:157-158 And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.

5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.

Purgatory.

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Jonah 2:2 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

Hebrews 5:7-9 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,

Being a Christian in general.

10. the forgiveness of sins,

With repentance.

11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and the life everlasting.
Amen.

[EphremHagos]

As interpreted this way:

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

God's only son that is also the Messiah of David. Nothing to do with incarnation or God being born a man, but born entirely human. Adoption by God, increasing the power of Jesus to the point of being godlike himself.

2 Samuel 7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son...

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Zechariah 12:8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

Birth miracle like Adam or Isaac, resurrected into the womb of Mary having been the firstborn of David and Bathsheba who died for David's sins.

2 Samuel 12:13-14 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

Ezekiel 37:4-5 Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:

Quran 3:59 Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is.

John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

Jesus was on the cross, but no one killed him, the power of God killed him on the cross.

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Quran 4:157-158 And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.

5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.

Purgatory.

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Jonah 2:2 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

Hebrews 5:7-9 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,

Being a Christian in general.

10. the forgiveness of sins,

With repentance.

11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and the life everlasting.
Amen.
With authorship postdating the Apostles by more than 200 years and without testing the validity and reliability of the soundness of its contents, the so-called “Apostolic Creed” leaves a lot to be desired.

Most importantly, the Creed suppresses the supernatural and life-transforming knowledge of God based on endless and empirical (experiential) vision in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross! Not only is the term “Apostolic Creed” a misnomer, with pretence of apostolic origin, it is formulated to serve the institutional interests and power of the secular church.

To return back to the dilemma, isn't a public demonstration and distribution of self-sufficient life or immortality at death, itself produced exclusively by Jesus Christ himself, sufficient qualification for Messiahship? Such credentials are not beyond questioning and checking out! I anticipate to read about the results of your authentication in due time.

[John Goddard]

With authorship postdating the Apostles by more than 200 years and without testing the validity and reliability of the soundness of its contents, the so-called “Apostolic Creed” leaves a lot to be desired.

Most importantly, the Creed suppresses the supernatural and life-transforming knowledge of God based on endless and empirical (experiential) vision in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross! Not only is the term “Apostolic Creed” a misnomer, with pretence of apostolic origin, it is formulated to serve the institutional interests and power of the secular church.

I think it is covered ok with "10. the forgiveness of sins" since that is a huge concept all on its own, with much background of life changing and repentance before you can be forgiven, according to what Jesus taught.


To return back to the dilemma, isn't a public demonstration and distribution of self-sufficient life or immortality at death, itself produced exclusively by Jesus Christ himself, sufficient qualification for Messiahship? Such credentials are not beyond questioning and checking out! I anticipate to read about the results of your authentication in due time.

He also has to be descended from David, and in my book, there can be no gap between David and this son. David has a throne that lasts forever:

2 Samuel 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

That throne is the throne of his own son:

2 Samuel 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

So for example it can't skip from Solomon to Jesus having generations without kings, in the traditional views that Jesus either receives kingship from Solomon or Nathan. It must be from generation to generation, from David to that Messiah.

Which is why I believe that Solomon is not an ancestor of Jesus, but actually his younger brother, both the sons of David and Bathsheba. With Solomon being the model for Antichrist who turns from God to seek power from other gods.

[mitzi]

NormATive;2631311 Nope. The trinity is just weird. More than just Jews have problems with that one! Even among Christians, the debate is hardly settled.

You mean to tell me that Christians have a problem with the fact that God has three personas? Or in other words; the fact that there are three divinities but yet one God? I thought all Christians believed that Jesus was God in human form? Are you saying that the Jews don’t have a problem with that one?


Normative: I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that the "we" is G-d and Jesus? OK, but that contradicts the trinity. It should read "I" created... with the Hebrew word - wait - there is no Hebrew word for two / three persons in one.

Normative, the controversy starts with Genesis 1:1 versus the passages in John 1:1.
In the beginning (as Genesis states) the Spirit of God hovered over the water to create life then God said “Let there be light,” and there was light. God spoke for the first time to creation and gave a command and at this point creation in turn realized God’s present into the world. Like God’s Spirit who hovered over the water to create the beginning of all things; the Book of Genesis it is said that God ‘breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life' and that ‘man became a living being'. Thus man's life began as a breath given by God and the world began when the Spirit hovered over the waters. Thus we read in John 1:1 two things:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. In John’s passage it seems separate from Genesis 1:3 God’s first spoken words (again) to creation was “Let there be light” and there was light-it was a command; creation realize the existence of God and it complied. Because if you read the book of Proverbs it state:

Does not wisdom call, does not understanding raise her voice? ... I, wisdom, dwell in prudence, and I find knowledge and discretion...The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth; before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabite world and delighting in the sons of men. And now, my sons, listen to me: happy are those who keep my ways. Hear instruction and be wise, and do not neglect it. Happy is the man who listens to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting beside my doors. For he who finds me finds life and obtains favor from the LORD; but he who misses me injures himself; all who hate me love death." Proverbs 8:1, 12, 22-36 RSV

And the second is: 3All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In the Book of Genesis it is said that God ‘breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life' and that ‘man became a living being'. Thus man's life began as a breath given by God and then God's Spirit hovered over the waters to create life (like with man) into the world. But (again) these passage in John seem separate from Genesis and seem more from Proverbs. John must be referring Jesus to the Wisdom of God because the passage above state the fact that Wisdom was created before the earth as does John 1. So "is" God's Wisdom (which was created before the earth) and God (Word) and Spirit separate but yet "ONE"

Thus we read how sin enters into the world and God's judgment. At that exact moment the redemption process begins.

[NormATive]

You mean to tell me that Christians have a problem with the fact that God has three personas?

Yup. Ever since Jesus was crucified, there have been at least two camps. Something had to be done when the leader of the pack is dead.

I thought all Christians believed that Jesus was God in human form?

Nope. There are enough Christians in the world who don't. Of course, they think that you aren't a Christian and vice versa.

Are you saying that the Jews don’t have a problem with that one?

I'm saying that Jews could care less about Christian's quarrels with each other.

Normative, the controversy starts with Genesis 1:1 versus the passages in John 1:1... So "is" God's Wisdom (which was created before the earth) and God (Word) and Spirit separate but yet "ONE"

You do realize that Proverbs is poetry. As such, it uses highly figurative and symbolic language such as "Wisdom" being personified, for example.

If you really want to wrap it up in a neat bow, you should then refer to Colossians 1:15-20.

The problem, of course, is that the New Testament text was written AFTER the idea of a trinity (however primitive) and the divinity of Jesus was already conceived. Therefore, all one had to do was make sure what you were writing corresponds to the Tanakh and fulfills all the requisite prophecy. Add in some trinity-divinity quips from Jesus, and wallah!

No offense, but I can use scripture to prove Kermit the Frog is G-d.

NORM

[mitzi]

QUOTE=NormATive;2635895 Yup. Ever since Jesus was crucified, there have been at least two camps. Something had to be done when the leader of the pack is dead.



"If Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless" (1 Cor. 15:14)

If it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep

1 Corinthians 12-19


NormATive: Nope. There are enough Christians in the world who don't. Of course, they think that you aren't a Christian and vice versa.

and "they" now want to discuss the Jewish dilemmas. It's still not restricted to the Christian faith...The Who's Who in Religion, hmm



NormATive:I'm saying that Jews could care less about Christian's quarrels with each other.

and is that a vice versa-too? .....


NormATive: You do realize that Proverbs is poetry. As such, it uses highly figurative and symbolic language such as "Wisdom" being personified, for example.

If you really want to wrap it up in a neat bow, you should then refer to Colossians 1:15-20.

....It started this conversation. see above

NormATive: The problem, of course, is that the New Testament text was written AFTER the idea of a trinity (however primitive) and the divinity of Jesus was already conceived. Therefore, all one had to do was make sure what you were writing corresponds to the Tanakh and fulfills all the requisite prophecy. Add in some trinity-divinity quips from Jesus, and wallah!

No offense, but I can use scripture to prove Kermit the Frog is G-d.

Kermit? So you'll be explaining that one to your child the next time you two sit down. You must be having some pretty good discussions. How well did the explanation go with Abraham and Isaac, well I hope (gulp)

[John Goddard]

Add in some trinity-divinity quips from Jesus, and wallah!

The Tanach supports the idea of a divine Messiah.

Zechariah 12:8 ...the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

[EphremHagos]

I think it is covered ok with "10. the forgiveness of sins" since that is a huge concept all on its own, with much background of life changing and repentance before you can be forgiven, according to what Jesus taught.



He also has to be descended from David, and in my book, there can be no gap between David and this son. David has a throne that lasts forever:

2 Samuel 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

That throne is the throne of his own son:

2 Samuel 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

So for example it can't skip from Solomon to Jesus having generations without kings, in the traditional views that Jesus either receives kingship from Solomon or Nathan. It must be from generation to generation, from David to that Messiah.

Which is why I believe that Solomon is not an ancestor of Jesus, but actually his younger brother, both the sons of David and Bathsheba. With Solomon being the model for Antichrist who turns from God to seek power from other gods.
Only in post-apostolic times is forgiveness of sins an over-simplified matter covered "ok" in a formal confession. This is completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ which no Apostle has adulterated.

If Jesus Christ (eternal "king over all the earth" as still demonstrable through firsthand visions at his death on the cross) is, in the flesh, a descendant of David, what is your problem? All you need, like the rest of us, is a prayer based vision-reality check.

GOD BLESS YOU ALL AS YOU OBSERVE THE CRUCIFIXION AND DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST IN A COMPLETELY NEW LIGHT

[EphremHagos]

If the definition of the Messiah or the "Son of the living God", as immortal (John 12:34), rests on the verifiable manner of his death on the cross just as described in the four gospels, how well would Jesus Christ score?

(Any reasons for low scores, if any, are most welcome)

[John Goddard]

Only in post-apostolic times is forgiveness of sins an over-simplified matter covered "ok" in a formal confession. This is completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ which no Apostle has adulterated.

It's just a list of key concepts from the NT, each can be expanded on greatly. It doesn't say a priest is going to forgive your sins or anything in all that.

[EphremHagos]

It's just a list of key concepts from the NT, each can be expanded on greatly. It doesn't say a priest is going to forgive your sins or anything in all that.
Outside their immediate and distant contexts defining the spiritual laws at work, your "key concepts" lose completely their significance.

One simple example is #3 "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit" --a language captured in Joseph's dream amplifying, on the one hand, the unlimited power of God; and, on the other hand, the basic Biblical principle that no one can know who Jesus Christ is unless he is born spiritually of the Spirit (Gen. 2: 7-8; John 3: 5-6; 1 Cor. 12:3) even as it applied to Mary and Joseph! Any other connotations are caused by out of context applications of "key concepts".

As far as we are concerned, one should not lose sight of the contemporary applications of the power of the Holy Spirit, in principle and practice, based on the "glory" in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross and (John 3: 14-21; 19: 30-37) whose verification admittedly requires much more than "key concepts" and contexts, viz.: firsthand and personal vision of Jesus Christ in terms of his awesome power!!!!!!!!!

HAPPY GOOD FRIDAY!

[EphremHagos]

I guess I still don't see it as a "Jewish" dilemma.
The OP asked:

If Jesus Christ (the Messiah) is immortal, How could he suffer death on the cross? (Matt. 16: 13-28)

To me that is a problem for Christians, not Jews. It is a conflict-how can immortality
die, and if one believes Jesus is G-d, then how can G-d die?

I can see a conflict for Christians, but not Jews.

But maybe I'm just dense, LOL
I assure you that we all are so "dense" without exception that Jews as much as Christians require "the light" to see the Messiah ("Son of the living God") in Jesus Christ.

In any case, forgive me for my oversight in not responding at once to your reply to my post. Now, to the question: The dilemma retroactively is more Jewish than Christian.Let us look at some of the evidence.

1) Simon Peter, who failed the dilemma in principle (Matt. 16: 13-28)and practice (Matt. 26: 69-75) was Jew as were the rest of the disciples who, with the exception of two, left Jesus and ran away at his self-surrender and arrest (Matt. 26: 47-56).
2) When Jesus spoke in public about his upcoming Messianic death, the Jewish crowd contradicted him with what is written in their Law (John 12: 27-36).
3) When the High Priest put Jesus on oath to ask him if he were the Messiah ("the Son of God"), Jesus answered in the affirmative providing an imminent, timeless and infallible proof (Matt. 26: 57-64).

There is no doubt whatsoever that the dilemma was and is first and foremost Jewish!

HAPPY GOOD FRIDAY!

[John Goddard]

Outside their immediate and distant contexts defining the spiritual laws at work, your "key concepts" lose completely their significance.

One simple example is #3 "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit" --a language captured in Joseph's dream amplifying, on the one hand, the unlimited power of God; and, on the other hand, the basic Biblical principle that no one can know who Jesus Christ is unless he is born spiritually of the Spirit (Gen. 2: 7-8; John 3: 5-6; 1 Cor. 12:3) even as it applied to Mary and Joseph! Any other connotations are caused by out of context applications of "key concepts".

As far as we are concerned, one should not lose sight of the contemporary applications of the power of the Holy Spirit, in principle and practice, based on the "glory" in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross and (John 3: 14-21; 19: 30-37) whose verification admittedly requires much more than "key concepts" and contexts, viz.: firsthand and personal vision of Jesus Christ in terms of his awesome power!!!!!!!!!

HAPPY GOOD FRIDAY!

If you are able to derive all that out of #3 why is it a bad thing and losing significance? I'm not following...

Happy GF too.

[EphremHagos]

If you are able to derive all that out of #3 why is it a bad thing and losing significance? I'm not following...

Happy GF too.
Do you think that I derived all that out of #3? No, way!

What anybody gets out of this "key concept" taken literally, including invariably in sermons, is always something inappropriate bordering on the sexual between the divine and a young maiden as in Greek mythologies. Am I wrong?

That's how wide the difference is!

[NormATive]

Jews as much as Christians require "the light" to see the Messiah ("Son of the living God") in Jesus Christ.

In any case, forgive me for my oversight in not responding at once to your reply to my post. Now, to the question: The dilemma retroactively is more Jewish than Christian.Let us look at some of the evidence.

1) Simon Peter, who failed the dilemma in principle (Matt. 16: 13-28)and practice (Matt. 26: 69-75) was Jew as were the rest of the disciples who, with the exception of two, left Jesus and ran away at his self-surrender and arrest (Matt. 26: 47-56).
2) When Jesus spoke in public about his upcoming Messianic death, the Jewish crowd contradicted him with what is written in their Law (John 12: 27-36).
3) When the High Priest put Jesus on oath to ask him if he were the Messiah ("the Son of God"), Jesus answered in the affirmative providing an imminent, timeless and infallible proof (Matt. 26: 57-64).

There is no doubt whatsoever that the dilemma was and is first and foremost Jewish!


All of the events you describe happened BEFORE Jesus' crucifixion. All of the events you describe were discussions among fellow Jews as you rightly point out.

Once Jesus was killed, however, the argument was over as far as the Jews were concerned. A dead Messiah is not a True Messiah (it was always understood that the Messiah would be HUMAN).

Thus, it no longer was a Jewish dilemma. Now the newly formed CHRISTIAN community created the back-story to Jesus as a "supernatural" Messiah by having him rise from the dead. Then came the trinity. Then came "saved by faith."

Etc....

Whether or not one believes in the resurrection, these are Christian issues, not Jewish because the resurrection of the dead messiah is a particularly Christian belief.

If a Jew were to believe these things, he or she would CEASE to be a Jew.

I really don't understand why this is such a difficult thing to grasp.

NORM

[EphremHagos]

All of the events you describe happened BEFORE Jesus' crucifixion. All of the events you describe were discussions among fellow Jews as you rightly point out.

Once Jesus was killed, however, the argument was over as far as the Jews were concerned. A dead Messiah is not a True Messiah (it was always understood that the Messiah would be HUMAN).

Thus, it no longer was a Jewish dilemma. Now the newly formed CHRISTIAN community created the back-story to Jesus as a "supernatural" Messiah by having him rise from the dead. Then came the trinity. Then came "saved by faith."

Etc....

Whether or not one believes in the resurrection, these are Christian issues, not Jewish because the resurrection of the dead messiah is a particularly Christian belief.

If a Jew were to believe these things, he or she would CEASE to be a Jew.

I really don't understand why this is such a difficult thing to grasp.

NORM
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is more a misrepresentation than a concotion by post-apostolic Christianity.

The Resurrection constitutes nothing less than a once-and-for-all, deeply mysterious, powerful and life-transforming self-revelation of God in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross just as anticipated by the Jewish prophets, taught by Jesus Christ and witnessed by the Apostles. It is also working for me since more than 34 years!

The dilemma, based on the universal "tree of life" and far from any hearsay, is very well and alive today with power to save all peoples (Luke 2: 30-32) and liberate mankind from the fetters of all boundaries of religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. (John 4: 21-24)!!!!!

THIS IS SOMETHING NEITHER TO BE ACCEPTED NOR TO REJECTED AT FACE VALUE. IDEALLY, EACH ONE OF US HAS TO CHECK IT OUT ON A NEED BASIS! GOD BLESS YOU!

[disciple100]

All of the events you describe happened BEFORE Jesus' crucifixion. All of the events you describe were discussions among fellow Jews as you rightly point out.

Once Jesus was killed, however, the argument was over as far as the Jews were concerned. A dead Messiah is not a True Messiah (it was always understood that the Messiah would be HUMAN).

Thus, it no longer was a Jewish dilemma. Now the newly formed CHRISTIAN community created the back-story to Jesus as a "supernatural" Messiah by having him rise from the dead. Then came the trinity. Then came "saved by faith."

Etc....

Whether or not one believes in the resurrection, these are Christian issues, not Jewish because the resurrection of the dead messiah is a particularly Christian belief.

If a Jew were to believe these things, he or she would CEASE to be a Jew.

I really don't understand why this is such a difficult thing to grasp.

NORM

It's not like we don't know Jesus was not what the Jews expected for their messiah. The entire time Jesus was talking about dying and being raised up, the disciples weren't quite grasping what He was saying.

Luke 18:31-34

31Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.

32For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:

33And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.

34And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

The pharisees were expecting some sort of politician warlord messiah, one who make Rome crumble and all that. It's not like we can accuse them of interpreting meaning into the texts or anything, nobody has ever done that before. :teeth:

And hey, if Jesus hadn't been raised, it would indeed be a 'dead' issue. :hehe:

[NormATive]

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is more a misrepresentation than a concotion by post-apostolic Christianity.

What do you mean?

Either way, it is doubtful it happened, IMO.

The Resurrection constitutes nothing less than a once-and-for-all, deeply mysterious, powerful and life-transforming self-revelation of God


Why would G-d need to be "self-revealed?" Why, the very "stones will cry out" the wonders of G-d. (Jesus said that! -Luke 19)

The dilemma, based on the universal "tree of life" and far from any hearsay, is very well and alive today with power to save all peoples (Luke 2: 30-32) and liberate mankind from the fetters of all boundaries of religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. (John 4: 21-24)!!!!!

THIS IS SOMETHING NEITHER TO BE ACCEPTED NOR TO REJECTED AT FACE VALUE. IDEALLY, EACH ONE OF US HAS TO CHECK IT OUT ON A NEED BASIS! GOD BLESS YOU!

Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth. - John 4:21-24Keep the Law. The L-rd our G-d is ONE (not a trinity). Worship the L-rd with all of your heart, mind and strength.

There is no dilemma as far as the Jew is concerned. Jesus said it all: salvation is FROM THE JEWS.

'Nuff said.

NORM

[NormATive]

It's not like we don't know Jesus was not what the Jews expected for their messiah. The entire time Jesus was talking about dying and being raised up, the disciples weren't quite grasping what He was saying.

It's simply amazing how often Christians insist that Jews don't know what they believe!

They've only been doing it for over 5,000 years.

The pharisees were expecting some sort of politician warlord messiah, one who make Rome crumble and all that.

Where do you get this stuff? Did you just make that up?

It's not like we can accuse them of interpreting meaning into the texts or anything, nobody has ever done that before. :teeth:

Sure. Just like Christians, Jews read things into their holy books that aren't there.

And hey, if Jesus hadn't been raised, it would indeed be a 'dead' issue. :hehe:

As long as Christians focus on the hocus-pocus, Jesus' words will go unheeded.

Fortunately, there are enough good people who can see the truth of Jesus' teaching and aren't blinded by religiosity.

NORM

[EphremHagos]

What do you mean?

Either way, it is doubtful it happened, IMO.




Why would G-d need to be "self-revealed?" Why, the very "stones will cry out" the wonders of G-d. (Jesus said that! -Luke 19)



Keep the Law. The L-rd our G-d is ONE (not a trinity). Worship the L-rd with all of your heart, mind and strength.

There is no dilemma as far as the Jew is concerned. Jesus said it all: salvation is FROM THE JEWS.

'Nuff said.

NORM
POWER IN GOD'S SELF-REVELATION

Here is why God would need to be self-revealed. It is the exceedingly great power in the self-revelation of God in Christ that tore the Temple curtain from top to bottom; shook the earth; split apart the rocks; broke open the graves; raised to life God’s people who had died; and moved the army officer at the crucifixion to praise God with the words: “He really was the Son of God” (Matt. 27: 51-54).

In short, there is no firsthand and personal knowledge of God, as promised in the terms of the "new covenant" (Jer. 31: 31-34) without his self-revelation!

Jesus’ partial human nature, in the form of a Jew, makes Jews more liable rather than exempt them from the dilemma. I believe that the the question is settled by Jesus’ answer to Pilate in self-defense at his death sentence: “The man who handed me over to you is guilty of a worse sin” (John 19:11). The dilemma stands in that proportion!

[John Goddard]

Do you think that I derived all that out of #3? No, way!

What anybody gets out of this "key concept" taken literally, including invariably in sermons, is always something inappropriate bordering on the sexual between the divine and a young maiden as in Greek mythologies. Am I wrong?

That's how wide the difference is!

Depends on how it is framed, the elaboration of a denomination/church/preacher/etc. doesn't mean the concept is bad, it means their characterization of it is.

If it is, Jesus is the physical offspring of God and Mary, then that can be bad, as the Quran points out.

But if it is that Jesus is conceived of the Spirit in the same way Adam or Isaac were conceived in a birth/creation miracle, then that's fine and biblical.

[John Goddard]

It's simply amazing how often Christians insist that Jews don't know what they believe! ...There is no dilemma as far as the Jew is concerned. Jesus said it all: salvation is FROM THE JEWS.

You stopped a little short there.

John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Reflected here:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Wrapping it up here:

Romans 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

So in context, Jews first, but Gentiles too -- as accepting Jesus.

1 John 2:22-23 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Message being, those who worship God without Jesus don't really know what they worship.

[disciple100]

It's simply amazing how often Christians insist that Jews don't know what they believe!

They've only been doing it for over 5,000 years.



Where do you get this stuff? Did you just make that up?

Here's a link to what the Jews basically believed about their Messiah (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/messiah.html).

But here's a quick snippet.

"Most significantly, Jewish tradition affirms at least five things about the Messiah. He will: be a descendant of King David, gain sovereignty over the land of Israel, gather the Jews there from the four corners of the earth, restore them to full observance of Torah law, and, as a grand finale, bring peace to the whole world."

And here's a more in depth site (http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/messiah.htm).

And an in depth snippet, my emphasis added.

Rise of Popular Belief in a Personal Messiah.

Not until after the fall of the Maccabean dynasty, when the despotic government of Herod the Great and his family, and the increasing tyranny of the Roman empire had made their condition ever more unbearable, did the Jews seek refuge in the hope of a personal Messiah. They yearned for the promised deliverer of the house of David, who would free them from the yoke of the hated foreign usurper, would put an end to the impious Roman rule, and would establish His own reign of peace and justice in its place. In this way their hopes became gradually centered in the Messiah. As evidence that in the Roman period the Messianic hope had become universal among the Jews may be adduced: (1) Jesus' conviction that he was the Messiah, a conviction inspired in him by the current belief in a Messiah, as is shown by the fact that on his entry into Jerusalem the populace hailed him as such; (2) the testimony of Josephus ("B. J." vi. 5, § 4), Tacitus ("Hist." v. 13), and Suetonius (Vespasian, iv.) regarding the Messianic belief of the Jewish people at that time; (3) the fact that even in Philo's picture of the future, in spite of its moralistic tendency, the Messianic king has a place (comp. "De Præmiis et Pœnis," § 16). It may be noted in this connection that the "Prayer for the Coming of the Messiah," as the version of it given both in the Babylonian and in the Palestinian recensions of the Shemoneh 'Esreh shows (see Nos. 14 and 15 respectively), can not have become an integral part of the daily prayers later than the time immediately following the destruction of the Temple, for in that period the "Shemoneh 'Esreh" received its present form. Hillel's assertion (Sanh. 98b) that there would be no future Messiah for Israel since the latter had had its Messiah in the days of Hezekiah, can have no weight as a contrary argument, as Hillel lived in the reign of Herod the Great, at the beginning of the period which marks the development of the popular belief in the Messiah.

So, I think they were definitely looking for someone to kick some butt.

Sure. Just like Christians, Jews read things into their holy books that aren't there.

Agreed.

Fortunately, there are enough good people who can see the truth of Jesus' teaching and aren't blinded by religiosity.

NORM

:huh: Religiosity? Isn't that what Jesus was teaching?

emphasis mine

Luke 10:26-28

26He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

27And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

28And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Sounds like He wanted us to be pretty devoted to me.

As long as Christians focus on the hocus-pocus, Jesus' words will go unheeded.

And see, here's the problem. Without the Resurrection, or as you so lovingly refer to it as hocus-pocus, there is no Christianity.

If Jesus was not raised, what does that say about the rest of His teachings? If it all ended at the cross and He was dead and gone, what does that make Him? He talked of His death and Resurrection. Jesus claimed to be God. Either He was and was rose again, or He wasn't. If He was wrong, wouldn't that make Him a false prophet? A liar? A raving lunatic who should be ignored? If the madman is killed off, wouldn't his pretty sayings and teachings die with him?

[NormATive]

POWER IN GOD'S SELF-REVELATION

Here is why God would need to be self-revealed. It is the exceedingly great power in the self-revelation of God in Christ that tore the Temple curtain from top to bottom; shook the earth; split apart the rocks; broke open the graves; raised to life God’s people who had died; and moved the army officer at the crucifixion to praise God with the words: “He really was the Son of God” (Matt. 27: 51-54).

In short, there is no firsthand and personal knowledge of God, as promised in the terms of the "new covenant" (Jer. 31: 31-34) without his self-revelation!

Jesus’ partial human nature, in the form of a Jew, makes Jews more liable rather than exempt them from the dilemma. I believe that the the question is settled by Jesus’ answer to Pilate in self-defense at his death sentence: “The man who handed me over to you is guilty of a worse sin” (John 19:11). The dilemma stands in that proportion!

Whatever. That's a Christian dilemma, not a Jewish one.

That's different from the G-d of Abraham. G-d does not need a human shell to be glorified. G-d is spirit and we worship G-d in spirit.

NORM

[NormATive]

Here's a link to what the Jews basically believed about their Messiah (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/messiah.html).
So, I think they were definitely looking for someone to kick some butt.
Agreed.

Not quite. I've read Telushkin, and that's not what Jews expected of the Messiah.

You said:

The pharisees were expecting some sort of politician warlord messiah, one who make Rome crumble and all that. The very same source you Googled says:


The Jewish belief that the Messiah's reign lies in the future has long distinguished Jews from their Christian neighbors who believe, of course, that the Messiah came two thousand years ago in the person of Jesus. The most basic reason for the Jewish denial of the messianic claims made on Jesus' behalf is that he did not usher in world peace, as Isaiah had prophesied: "And nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore" (Isaiah 2:4 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Isaiah2.html)). In addition, Jesus did not help bring about Jewish political sovereignty for the Jews or protection from their enemies. So, your characterization that Jews expected the Messiah to "kick some butt" is just wrong.

There were radical groups outside of the mainstream that wanted a violent political upheaval. Eventually they did provoke a war with Rome - and lost.


:huh: Religiosity? Isn't that what Jesus was teaching?

If you mean by religiosity keeping the Law, then; yes. But Jesus taught, as did David before him, that the Law is freedom. It is a "lamp unto [his] feet."


And see, here's the problem. Without the Resurrection, or as you so lovingly refer to it as hocus-pocus, there is no Christianity.

Right.

I wasn't talking about Christianity. Jews don't believe in the resurrection. It isn't kosher.

If Jesus was not raised, what does that say about the rest of His teachings?

The resurrection doesn't influence the power of his teaching one way or the other as far as I'm concerned. It's the words that are important, not what the spin doctors accomplished afterward.

If it all ended at the cross and He was dead and gone, what does that make Him?

A person who changed the world with the power of his ideas and his love.

He talked of His death and Resurrection. Jesus claimed to be God. Either He was and was rose again, or He wasn't. If He was wrong, wouldn't that make Him a false prophet? A liar? A raving lunatic who should be ignored? If the madman is killed off, wouldn't his pretty sayings and teachings die with him?

Can't you guys come up with original arguments? At least credit C.S. Lewis for cryin' out loud.

As far as your comment about "if the madman is killed off, wouldn't his pretty sayings and teachings die with him?"

Ever hear of Abraham Lincoln?

NORM

[NormATive]

.

Message being, those who worship God without Jesus don't really know what they worship.


Sure. From a Christian perspective.

But from a Jewish perspective, you don't really worship the G-d of Abraham.

NORM

[disciple100]

Not quite. I've read Telushkin, and that's not what Jews expected of the Messiah.

You said:

The very same source you Googled says:

So, your characterization that Jews expected the Messiah to "kick some butt" is just wrong.

There were radical groups outside of the mainstream that wanted a violent political upheaval. Eventually they did provoke a war with Rome - and lost.


OK, not every Jew agreed on their ideal messiah. But tell me this, how else would the age of peace be brought upon other than a 'violent political upheaval'? So far, the only one who fits the bill would be Jesus. Hadn't he fulfilled all the other Messianic Prophecies to a T? And if He is still alive today and has only yet to fulfil the last of the prophecies, what's the problem?

If you mean by religiosity keeping the Law, then; yes. But Jesus taught, as did David before him, that the Law is freedom. It is a "lamp unto [his] feet."

Yeah, Jesus was a Jew after all and believed alot of the same things the Pharisees did. But Jesus had a better grasp of things, like the Sabbath being made for man rather than man for the Sabbath.


Right.

I wasn't talking about Christianity. Jews don't believe in the resurrection. It isn't kosher.

If you could clarify, are you talking about Jesus' Resurrection, Humanity's eventual Resurrection, or both?

The resurrection doesn't influence the power of his teaching one way or the other as far as I'm concerned. It's the words that are important, not what the spin doctors accomplished afterward.

Spin doctors, what? :huh:

Jesus is quoted as saying:

John 14:6
6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

And this:

Luke 18:32-34

32For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:

33And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.

34And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

Paul said:

1 Corinthians 15:15-17

15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

I'm guessing you're saying that Jesus taught some things, and then later people added the whole 'raising up' business to spicin things up? Is that it? How can you tell?

You can't say that He was a nice teacher and completey overlook Him saying over and over to His Jewish disciples that He was going to be raised up on the third day. 'Meh, He was just wrong about that one.' :hrm:

A person who changed the world with the power of his ideas and his love.

Yet if he hadn't been raised from the dead, this would never have happened. As I recall it, when Jesus was taken, beaten, and crucified, His merry little group was disbanded and in despair at the time, correct?

Can't you guys come up with original arguments? At least credit C.S. Lewis for cryin' out loud.

:hehe: I was wondering if you'd catch that. I still don't see how the argument is wrong.

As far as your comment about "if the madman is killed off, wouldn't his pretty sayings and teachings die with him?"

Ever hear of Abraham Lincoln?

NORM

:twitch: I might be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure Abraham Lincoln did not ever in his entire life claim to be God, God's Son, or the Saviour of humanity. If he had, he probably would have been shot alot sooner.

[John Goddard]

Sure. From a Christian perspective.

But from a Jewish perspective, you don't really worship the G-d of Abraham.

NORM

I'm not a Trinitarian. But from a Jewish perspective, many rabbis regard shituf -- worship of other gods along with the God of Abraham -- as a tolerable form of avodah zarah for Gentiles. The idea being that worship of other gods along with the true God is better than nothing, and also that other gods may serve as stepping stones for Gentiles to realize the true God.

If you weren't so busy lumbering around here with a club for Christians, you would have known that.

[NormATive]

OK, not every Jew agreed on their ideal messiah. But tell me this, how else would the age of peace be brought upon other than a 'violent political upheaval'? So far, the only one who fits the bill would be Jesus. Hadn't he fulfilled all the other Messianic Prophecies to a T? And if He is still alive today and has only yet to fulfil the last of the prophecies, what's the problem?

Moshiach will bring in an era of peace much like the non-violent way David was ushered to power. His kingship was not a result of a violent overthrow of the government, but a people anxious to subjugate themselves to a benevolent ruler. This is why the prophecy says he will be from the line of David.

Jesus is not from the house of David according to Matthew and Luke's Gospel because the gospels trace Joseph's lineage to David, not Mary's. If Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, as the architects of the modern Christian faith say, and not by the seed of Joseph, then Jesus is not a descendant of David, thus; not the Messiah. The lineage in the gospels only make sense if Jesus was born a natural birth to Joseph and Mary (this is my understanding).

Besides, being dead definitely takes Jesus out of the running. There is no prophecy of Moshiach being raised from the dead.

Also, the passages in Isaiah that Christians interpolate to refer to Jesus is actually talking about the "house of Israel" - the "suffering servant" of G-d. I actually studied that part (Isa. 53) in the original Hebrew and the pronoun "his" where it says "by his stripes we are healed" is referring to the subject at the beginning of the passage: Israel. It is common to refer to the descendants of Israel by the pronoun of "his" name. It is certainly understandable why Christian scholars would grasp onto this misunderstanding of Hebrew language idosyncracies.


Yeah, Jesus was a Jew after all and believed alot of the same things the Pharisees did. But Jesus had a better grasp of things, like the Sabbath being made for man rather than man for the Sabbath.

Actually, the Sabbath being made for man is a Pharasaical idea. See, this is where Christian's ignorance of Judaism trips them up. The Sadducees were more like fundamentalist Christians - they believed in the literal interpretaton of the Torah. This is why the Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife. It is not mentioned at all in the Torah. The Pharisees did believe in an afterlife, but were very liberal in their teaching. They taught, for example, that the Oral traditions were on an equal par with the written Law.

Of course, the Sadducees always get the bad rap because they died out after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE while the Pharisees moved on - and wrote about the Sadducees!

Reform Judaism represents the heritage of the Pharisees.

If you could clarify, are you talking about Jesus' Resurrection, Humanity's eventual Resurrection, or both?

In that instance, I was referring to Jesus' resurrection.


I'm guessing you're saying that Jesus taught some things, and then later people added the whole 'raising up' business to spicin things up? Is that it? How can you tell?

Yes. I base this on how far afield the whole "Christian Story" deviates from 4,000 years of Jewish worship and practice. Most of the words attributed to Jesus conform to Pharisaical teaching (in particular - Hillel) of the time. It takes a sharp turn to mystical pagan religions after the crucifixion.

You can't say that He was a nice teacher and completey overlook Him saying over and over to His Jewish disciples that He was going to be raised up on the third day. 'Meh, He was just wrong about that one.' :hrm:

Even if Jesus did go all metaphysical, it doesn't detract from the message he was giving to the planet. If you are going to take one thing from the experience of Jesus, why choose the mystical over the teaching that changed the world?

Yet if he hadn't been raised from the dead, this would never have happened. As I recall it, when Jesus was taken, beaten, and crucified, His merry little group was disbanded and in despair at the time, correct?

Yeah, but they got their act together and constructed the mystique around Jesus and milked the controversy to spread Jesus' message. Pretty clever marketing if you ask me. Paul was a freakin' genius. Tent maker, you know. Tents were sold to very wealthy business travelers. Paul was circulating among the upper crust. That's how Christianity made it to the modern age. It was adopted by the upper classes.

:twitch: I might be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure Abraham Lincoln did not ever in his entire life claim to be God, God's Son, or the Saviour of humanity. If he had, he probably would have been shot alot sooner.

Yes, that's the whole point! You don't have to walk on water or raise the dead for your words and actions to have meaning and substance.

Abraham Lincoln shaped the cultural identity of our country more than any other man in American history. Lincoln died as a consequence of the moral position he preached.

Sound familiar?

NORM

[NormATive]

I'm not a Trinitarian. But from a Jewish perspective, many rabbis regard shituf -- worship of other gods along with the God of Abraham -- as a tolerable form of avodah zarah for Gentiles. The idea being that worship of other gods along with the true God is better than nothing, and also that other gods may serve as stepping stones for Gentiles to realize the true God.

Avoda zara by someone who rejects all other possibilities is disingenuous. Therefore, you don't gain any mitzvahs for the world to come.

Sorry.

If you weren't so busy lumbering around here with a club for Christians, you would have known that.

Hah! Good one.

NORM

[John Goddard]

Avoda zara by someone who rejects all other possibilities is disingenuous. Therefore, you don't gain any mitzvahs for the world to come.

The point you evaded is that some rabbis view the Trinity model in terms of shituf, and do acknowledge that Gentiles can still worship the God of Abraham in that way.

While for Jews, shituf is still avoda zara and thus forbidden.

But we're talking about Gentiles right now.

[NormATive]

The point you evaded is that some rabbis view the Trinity model in terms of shituf,

Very few. I don't know of any personally. I'm not avoiding anything. There are always those whose theology runs contrary to the majority view.

When I generalize about any religion, I am stating the majority view.

Obviously, I don't fit in that camp in either the Christian or Jewish world.

While for Jews, shituf is still avoda zara and thus forbidden.

But we're talking about Gentiles right now.

Gentiles have never been forbidden a place in the World to Come providing they, at the minimum, satisfy the Noachide Laws:


Do not murder.
Do not steal.
Do not worship false gods.
Do not be sexually immoral.
Do not eat a limb removed from a live animal.
Do not curse G-d.
Set up courts and bring offenders to justice.which you see at point number 3, includes avoiding "false gods." That would include Jesus whether you believe in the trinity or not.

In Judaism, it matters what you do IN THIS WORLD, not what your religion is regarding an afterlife. Christianity is almost entirely focused on the afterlife.

This is the major point of departure for Jews and Christians, and why the answer to the OP is that it is a Christian dilemma, not a Jewish one.

NORM

[John Goddard]

Very few. I don't know of any personally. I'm not avoiding anything. There are always those whose theology runs contrary to the majority view.

When I generalize about any religion, I am stating the majority view.

Obviously, I don't fit in that camp in either the Christian or Jewish world.

I don't know about very few, but if it is a minority then it nullifies the idea that "all Jews think Christians don't worship the God of Abraham" to paraphrase implications of your statement. It's relevant to note that some Jews believe Christians worship the same God, albeit in an unacceptable manner for Jews when it comes to Trinity. Example:

5. According to many authorities, a Noahide is not warned about the concept of "partnership with God."[5] The concept of partnership is the acknowledgment of the existence of the God of Israel in combination with the belief in the possibility and existence of a deity (independent will) other than God. So long as ascribing power to a deity other than the Creator remains conceptual, it is permissible to the Children of Noah according to many authorities[6]. But worship of this independent being is clearly idolatry. The danger of the concept of partnership is that it frees people to act in accord with nonexistent gods and opens a doorway to actual idolatry. Most recent authorities agree that Children of Noah are forbidden to believe in a partnership. But even according to these, the Children of Noah are permitted to swear by the name of an idol in combination with God (to swear by the Lord of Hosts and a Hindu deity, for example). (http://www.moshiach.com/action/morality/idolatry.php)

In Judaism, it matters what you do IN THIS WORLD, not what your religion is regarding an afterlife. Christianity is almost entirely focused on the afterlife.

Both my ex-wives are Catholic and I rarely hear anything about the afterlife, it's mostly about doing good works. I'm not much of a churchgoer but I go to a Foursquare Gospel church with some friends every week and that church incorporates 12 Step programs into biblical teachings, so they are also mostly about improving this life here and now. While, my relatives have been Pentecostal and JW and they do focus a lot on the afterlife. So it's not all that black and white that Christianity is more focused on the afterlife than this one, it depends on the Christian.

However, Judaism and Jews also tend to be more secular than Christians. Many Jews are even atheist but still participate in and influence theology in Judaism.

So if Jews mostly ignore the afterlife, I'm not convinced it's because they are more concerned with doing good things for other humans than Christians are.

I think it's just because a lot of Jews don't even believe in afterlife, or God either for that matter.

[NormATive]

I don't know about very few, but if it is a minority then it nullifies the idea that "all Jews think Christians don't worship the God of Abraham" to paraphrase implications of your statement.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth. I most definitely avoid making statements like "all Jews...., or all Christians..." I have been very careful and intentional about this.

It is my observation, based on 7 years of intensive study of and with Jews (Conservative, Reform and Orthodox), that as a general rule they (we) worship a G-d very different from the Christian God.

It's relevant to note that some Jews believe Christians worship the same God, albeit in an unacceptable manner for Jews when it comes to Trinity.

I don't know how many Shabbats you've attended, or how many minyan groups you've taken part in, but it is my experience that very few would associate the God of Christianity (Jesus) with the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

They are quite aware of, and mildly annoyed with, the increased interest by Christians in exploring their "Jewish" roots. Some have expressed the opinion that Christians ought to be required to remove the Torah from their Bibles. This sentiment is more often expressed by the more Orthodox groups - particularly the Hasidim.

Both my ex-wives are Catholic and I rarely hear anything about the afterlife, it's mostly about doing good works.

Yes, it is true that Catholics have more of an emphasis on doing good works in the here and now, but the end-game is still heaven in the afterlife.

Catholic teaching emphasizes the mysteries of G-d, and therefore relieves the average penitent from trying to figure out if the intellectual exercise of their religious belief system squares with "spiritual reality." IOW, they are not concerned with rightly dividing the word of truth, but instead trust that the historic Church (with a capital C) is on the same page as the Creator.

They do the good works - with the encouragement of clergy - in an effort to impress G-d. Now, this is an oversimplification, but the endgame is heaven: the afterlife.

This is strikingly different from the Jewish example. Many Jews truly believe that THEY are the hope of the Messiah. It is up to them to bring about what Moshiach was supposed to do. Many came to this conclusion following the Holocaust.

I'm not much of a churchgoer but I go to a Foursquare Gospel church with some friends every week and that church incorporates 12 Step programs into biblical teachings, so they are also mostly about improving this life here and now. While, my relatives have been Pentecostal and JW and they do focus a lot on the afterlife. So it's not all that black and white that Christianity is more focused on the afterlife than this one, it depends on the Christian.

I'm still not buying it. The endgame is life after death in heaven no matter how you slice it. Most evangelicals will actually tell you that they perform good works because they are hoping that non-Christians will notice and become convinced that their faith is the reason for the good works. Again, why? So that they too can "spend eternity in heaven."

However, Judaism and Jews also tend to be more secular than Christians. Many Jews are even atheist but still participate in and influence theology in Judaism.

Since historic Judaism does not hold to a belief in the afterlife nor a separation between sacred and secular, I am not surprised.

From my perspective, I would rather a religious group was more focused on trying to make the world a better place than trying to earn points to get into heaven. Actually, belief in an afterlife somewhat diminishes the value of human life. In some cases, so much so that strapping dynamite to yourself in the name of {insert supreme being here} is seen as a pious act.

I think it's just because a lot of Jews don't even believe in afterlife, or God either for that matter.

I still prefer this to radical fundamentalists.

NORM

[disciple100]

Moshiach will bring in an era of peace much like the non-violent way David was ushered to power. His kingship was not a result of a violent overthrow of the government, but a people anxious to subjugate themselves to a benevolent ruler. This is why the prophecy says he will be from the line of David.

Jesus is not from the house of David according to Matthew and Luke's Gospel because the gospels trace Joseph's lineage to David, not Mary's. If Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, as the architects of the modern Christian faith say, and not by the seed of Joseph, then Jesus is not a descendant of David, thus; not the Messiah. The lineage in the gospels only make sense if Jesus was born a natural birth to Joseph and Mary (this is my understanding).

Besides, being dead definitely takes Jesus out of the running. There is no prophecy of Moshiach being raised from the dead.

Also, the passages in Isaiah that Christians interpolate to refer to Jesus is actually talking about the "house of Israel" - the "suffering servant" of G-d. I actually studied that part (Isa. 53) in the original Hebrew and the pronoun "his" where it says "by his stripes we are healed" is referring to the subject at the beginning of the passage: Israel. It is common to refer to the descendants of Israel by the pronoun of "his" name. It is certainly understandable why Christian scholars would grasp onto this misunderstanding of Hebrew language idosyncracies.

Really? I was under the impression that Mary and Joseph were both descendants of David (http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/lk1-36.html).

Whether the Mother of Mary was the sister of Elizabeth or the sister of Elizabeth's Father, making Elizabeth either an aunt or a cousin of Mary, there is no problem for Elizabeth to be a descendant of Aaron and Mary from the tribe of Judah, and descendant of David.

And that it the Biblical testimony, since we read in Luke 1:



30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary,
you have found favor with God.
31 You will be with child and give birth to a son,
and you are to give him the name Jesus.
32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.
The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever;
his kingdom will never end."
34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.
36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child
in her old age, and she who was said to be barren
is in her sixth month.
37 For nothing is impossible with God."


Since the angel just announced that this child will not have any earthly father and Mary is not even married, the statement that God will give him the throne of his father David only makes sense when Mary is a descendant of David herself, since otherwise how will her son be descendant of David?

And also, I believe Isaiah 52 to 53 goes alittle more like this:

Isaiah 52:13-15

13Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.

14As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

15So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

Isaiah 53:1-12

1Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

It most certainly does not sound like the subject is Israel. How is it by Israel's stripes we are healed? Israel has been beaten and bruised for our iniquities? It sounds a great deal more like Jesus's persecution account. But hey, whatev.

Actually, the Sabbath being made for man is a Pharasaical idea. See, this is where Christian's ignorance of Judaism trips them up. The Sadducees were more like fundamentalist Christians - they believed in the literal interpretaton of the Torah. This is why the Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife. It is not mentioned at all in the Torah. The Pharisees did believe in an afterlife, but were very liberal in their teaching. They taught, for example, that the Oral traditions were on an equal par with the written Law.

Of course, the Sadducees always get the bad rap because they died out after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE while the Pharisees moved on - and wrote about the Sadducees!

Reform Judaism represents the heritage of the Pharisees.

If the Pharisees were so liberal, why were they getting on Jesus's case when His disciples were picking grain from a field to eat?

Mark 2:23-27

23One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
25He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

27Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

You would think liberals would be more chill about these things.

In that instance, I was referring to Jesus' resurrection.

K. :teeth:


Yes. I base this on how far afield the whole "Christian Story" deviates from 4,000 years of Jewish worship and practice. Most of the words attributed to Jesus conform to Pharisaical teaching (in particular - Hillel) of the time. It takes a sharp turn to mystical pagan religions after the crucifixion.

But, as far as I know, there is no resurrection claims in any of the pagan religions before Jesus' time, and I mean dying a physical death and coming back in a physical body resurrection, not a 'spiritual' coming back, one that some also call a hallucination. Honestly, you almost sound like a Christ-Myth follower the way you attribute things like the Resurrection to pagan religions.

Even if Jesus did go all metaphysical, it doesn't detract from the message he was giving to the planet. If you are going to take one thing from the experience of Jesus, why choose the mystical over the teaching that changed the world?

Where is this coming from? When did I say that His death was the only thing worth mentioning? The reason we talk about the resurrection is because it was something that He brought up in His teachings in the NT and was quite a miraculous event. Also when He raised Lazarus. Do you deny this happened as well?

Yeah, but they got their act together and constructed the mystique around Jesus and milked the controversy to spread Jesus' message. Pretty clever marketing if you ask me.

Why? What would be the point? Last I heard, it didn't go so well for them.....

Paul was a freakin' genius. Tent maker, you know. Tents were sold to very wealthy business travelers. Paul was circulating among the upper crust. That's how Christianity made it to the modern age. It was adopted by the upper classes.

Wasn't he the guy who persecuted Christians until Jesus knocked him off his horse? And didn't he die after living under two years of house arrest?

Yes, that's the whole point! You don't have to walk on water or raise the dead for your words and actions to have meaning and substance.

Abraham Lincoln shaped the cultural identity of our country more than any other man in American history. Lincoln died as a consequence of the moral position he preached.

Sound familiar?

NORM

And Jesus died because He claimed to be God.

What you're doing is picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you agree with, and which you don't, which is nonsense. What gives you more authority than the scholars who agree that over 95% of the Bible that we have today is the original stuff? You may as well chuck the whole thing!

I understand that you are making the case that 'what does it matter whether Jesus was resurrected or not, as long as you follow His good teachings?' I never said there was a problem with the teachings. They're great. The time Jesus spent on this earth was meant to basically teach us how to live. The problem we seem to have here is with the Resurrection being a part of the teachings.

You choose to cherry pick, saying that the disciples in a fit of marketing genius decided to pass off the Resurrection and other miracles as mystical and magical and added teachings to spicin the faith up to attract followers and cash. Why on earth would they do such a thing to end up penniless and dead?

Let me say this also. I have working on developing the mentality that one should do good things simply because they are good. I do believe in after life. But I do not hold strong belief in these riches that people keep on about, because in the end, we all fall short, so what exactly do we deserve here? We are lucky enough to be in God's prescence.

The verses Luke 17:7-10 come to my mind.

7But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?

8And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?

9Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.

10So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

[John Goddard]

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth. I most definitely avoid making statements like "all Jews...., or all Christians..." I have been very careful and intentional about this.

Seemed like you implied ALL:

Sure. From a Christian perspective. But from a Jewish perspective, you don't really worship the G-d of Abraham.

Maybe "from some or most perspectives" would have been clearer.

At any rate, from a Chabad-Lubavitch perspective -- as one Jewish group taking the lead in bringing Gentiles to Noahide -- their view of shituf acknowledges that Gentiles can conceptualize the same God of Abraham along with other god persons.


It is my observation, based on 7 years of intensive study of and with Jews (Conservative, Reform and Orthodox), that as a general rule they (we) worship a G-d very different from the Christian God.

If you put it that way, I agree, based on our Christian texts.

John 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

1 John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.


I don't know how many Shabbats you've attended, or how many minyan groups you've taken part in, but it is my experience that very few would associate the God of Christianity (Jesus) with the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

They would not do that for themselves of course, since they would likely see that as idolatry for Jews as I've cited. But the issue is association for Gentiles in the form of shituf.

Just to note, prophecy says the House of David will be as God:

Zechariah 12:8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

I suppose that Messiah of David might also be as God too. So why are Jews puzzled that Gentiles might see Jesus as God? Further, who does Malachi 1:11-12 refer to and in what context, in your view?


They are quite aware of, and mildly annoyed with, the increased interest by Christians in exploring their "Jewish" roots. Some have expressed the opinion that Christians ought to be required to remove the Torah from their Bibles. This sentiment is more often expressed by the more Orthodox groups - particularly the Hasidim.

Some of us expect this will be reality someday, along with other enforcement of Noahide Laws interpreted to be hostile to Jesus, per Revelation 20:4 and other verses.


Yes, it is true that Catholics have more of an emphasis on doing good works in the here and now, but the end-game is still heaven in the afterlife.

The more unbiased view is that some Jews and Christians focus more on afterlife/world to come, and some focus more on this life. But we seem to agree that since Jews are more secular and atheist, of course they are going to focus on this life more.

Further, some Christians and Jews are out more for personal reward, some are more altruistic.


This is strikingly different from the Jewish example. Many Jews truly believe that THEY are the hope of the Messiah. It is up to them to bring about what Moshiach was supposed to do. Many came to this conclusion following the Holocaust.

But other more secular and atheist Jews may just be playing off their Chosen People status for personal rewards. Again, to look at all sides.


I'm still not buying it. The endgame is life after death in heaven no matter how you slice it.

The more unbiased position is this:

Those who believe in afterlife no matter what religion are going to be somewhat motivated by reward of it, along with being motivated by personal rewards through religion here and now (blessings of good crops, good health, happiness, etc.). We're all selfish to some degree, that's just being human.

But those who are secular or atheist and don't believe in afterlife are just going to be somewhat motivated by what they can get for themselves here and now.

Thus eliminating afterlife doesn't really do anything for measuring a person's level of altruism, since personal gain is always going to be present as a motivator, and that's the mistake you are making with this line of reasoning.


Actually, belief in an afterlife somewhat diminishes the value of human life. In some cases, so much so that strapping dynamite to yourself in the name of {insert supreme being here} is seen as a pious act.

On the flip side, people can be as immoral as they want with no threat of Judgment in the afterlife. So people might use belief in afterlife, as well as lack of belief in afterlife, to excuse immoral behavior.

:shrug:

[barnasha]

There is a time when one's whole life is laid open before his own eyes, the moment which is "after life". It is not until that time that people reflect on their lives in the great scheme of things - their want for money, sex, power, all fade.

If only I could go back, each must think, and do something better.

we have the ability to realize the inevitable in this moment, and live our lives to the fullest the way we should, rather than wallow in a regret above all regrets for that eternal moment. great men realized the usefulness of this concept to help put people in a proper perspective...

[EphremHagos]

Depends on how it is framed, the elaboration of a denomination/church/preacher/etc. doesn't mean the concept is bad, it means their characterization of it is.

If it is, Jesus is the physical offspring of God and Mary, then that can be bad, as the Quran points out.

But if it is that Jesus is conceived of the Spirit in the same way Adam or Isaac were conceived in a birth/creation miracle, then that's fine and biblical.
As a very careful examination of the Principle and Practice involved in the unique supernatural birth of Jesus Christ shows (Luke 1: 26-38), its details are altogether different from those of the miraculous births of Adam, Isaac and, John the Baptist, too!

Proceeding from an order of existence beyond what is known and subject to Mary’s personal faith to be produced by the promised Spirit and power of God, she was to conceive -- as the angel spoke-- a son to be named “Jesus” and called “the Son of the Most High God”, or “Immanuel”(Luke 1: 26-38; Matt. 1: 18-25). The timing of conception is made most clear in the KJV, LB and RSV ("behold!) and implied in substance in the other translations of the New Testament.

In short, the birth of Jesus Christ was a supernatural birth involving no less than the God’s incarnation which Mary was not expected to believe on the strength of the angel’s hearsay and without firsthand enablement by the Spirit and power of God himself (John 3: 3, 5) “for there is nothing that God cannot do” (Luke 1:37)! Mary conceived right there and then upon her acceptance of the option offered without any reservation and fear of consequences (Matt. 1: 19-20).

The miraculous births of Adam, Isaac and John have absolutely nothing in common with the supernatural birth of Jesus Christ!

[barnasha]

doesn't the bible say god's word became flesh - not god itself?

[John Goddard]

In short, the birth of Jesus Christ was a supernatural birth involving no less than the God’s incarnation...The miraculous births of Adam, Isaac and John have absolutely nothing in common with the supernatural birth of Jesus Christ!

That's a Trinitarian interpretation.

My Adoptionist interpretation is that Jesus was this child of David and Bathsheba, and the older brother of Solomon:

2 Samuel 12:13-14 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

He also died for David's sin, so that David may live. Something he later did for the whole world on the cross.

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

Then he was resurrected by a miracle of the Spirit to be born again, through the womb of Mary:

Matthew 1:18 ...she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

This would be just another birth miracle of the Spirit like that of Isaac or John the Baptist.

Ezekiel 37:5 Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:

Quran 3:59 Verily, the likeness of 'Iesa (Jesus) before Allâh is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" - and he was.

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

Then as Jesus gave up his own human will in the face of persecution and martyrdom, it was replaced by the Spirit. That's how he was glorified and perfected to God status as human mediator between God and man, because he was obedient to God. Not born a God.

Hebrews 5:8-9 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

[EphremHagos]

Whatever. That's a Christian dilemma, not a Jewish one.

That's different from the G-d of Abraham. G-d does not need a human shell to be glorified. G-d is spirit and we worship G-d in spirit.

NORM
Where in my post did I suggest that "G-d needs a human shell to be glorified"? On the contrary, I never even thought of it!

Of course, G-d is Spirit. What we are missing today is that His once-and-for-all and free-from-any-religious frontiers worship in Spirit and truth was made possible precisely at the death of Jesus Christ on the cross! The teaching of Jesus confirms this. The simultaneous tearing of the Temple curtain from top to bottom is also a relevant clue.

[EphremHagos]

There is a time when one's whole life is laid open before his own eyes, the moment which is "after life". It is not until that time that people reflect on their lives in the great scheme of things - their want for money, sex, power, all fade.

If only I could go back, each must think, and do something better.

we have the ability to realize the inevitable in this moment, and live our lives to the fullest the way we should, rather than wallow in a regret above all regrets for that eternal moment. great men realized the usefulness of this concept to help put people in a proper perspective...
"A time when one's whole life is laid open before his own eyes" is probably more a moment of here-and-now, Spirit-based judgment and deep repentance.

The experience of the "after life" is what comes next, viz.: seeing the salvation of God in the power and glory of Jesus Christ at his death on the cross introducing one, at once, to a new and abundant life or immortality (John 3: 1-21; 10:10; 11: 25-26). END OF THE DILEMMA!

[EphremHagos]

doesn't the bible say god's word became flesh - not god itself?
One meaning of "Word" is the gospel message; esp. the Scriptures, as a revelation of God. The "word" becomes the expression of God even as it is of men of honor and integrity. Isn't that why the Fourth Gospel rightly begins with "The Word ... with God ... the same as God , the Creator ... the Word became flesh" (John 1: 1-5, 14). Therefore, the one who became flesh is God himself who, in his proverbial be-attitude of utter humility referred to himself as the Son whom the Father sent.

[EphremHagos]

That's a Trinitarian interpretation.

My Adoptionist interpretation is that Jesus was this child of David and Bathsheba, and the older brother of Solomon:

2 Samuel 12:13-14 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

He also died for David's sin, so that David may live. Something he later did for the whole world on the cross.

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

Then he was resurrected by a miracle of the Spirit to be born again, through the womb of Mary:

Matthew 1:18 ...she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

This would be just another birth miracle of the Spirit like that of Isaac or John the Baptist.

Ezekiel 37:5 Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:

Quran 3:59 Verily, the likeness of 'Iesa (Jesus) before Allâh is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" - and he was.

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

Then as Jesus gave up his own human will in the face of persecution and martyrdom, it was replaced by the Spirit. That's how he was glorified and perfected to God status as human mediator between God and man, because he was obedient to God. Not born a God.

Hebrews 5:8-9 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
I wonder what you found in my post to label as "Trinitarian Interpretation". For the record, I do not believe in the Tinity at all because it is merely a theological construct without full justification from the Holy Bible. So, why don't we agree to abandon all theological interpretations altogether and obey instead the direct teachings of Jesus Christ alone to know the liberating truth. If we don't, we will keep being blown by every wind of theological doctrine until we will be left with nothing at all (John 8: 31-32; Matt. 13: 11-12).

[John Goddard]

I wonder what you found in my post to label as "Trinitarian Interpretation". For the record, I do not believe in the Tinity at all because it is merely a theological construct without full justification from the Holy Bible. So, why don't we agree to abandon all theological interpretations altogether and obey instead the direct teachings of Jesus Christ alone to know the liberating truth. If we don't, we will keep being blown by every wind of theological doctrine until we will be left with nothing at all (John 8: 31-32; Matt. 13: 11-12).

Here:

"the birth of Jesus Christ was a supernatural birth involving no less than the God’s incarnation"

Jesus being a person of God from birth is often a Trinitarian idea. Do you instead believe Jesus is the Father God and not a Son person of the Trinity? Maybe you can clarify.

I don't interpret that Jesus taught an incarnation from birth, at any rate.

[disciple100]

Here:

"the birth of Jesus Christ was a supernatural birth involving no less than the God’s incarnation"

Jesus being a person of God from birth is often a Trinitarian idea. Do you instead believe Jesus is the Father God and not a Son person of the Trinity? Maybe you can clarify.

I don't interpret that Jesus taught an incarnation from birth, at any rate.

This wasn't directed at me, but maybe you can answer something for me as well.

For awhile I was under the belief that Jesus was with God since the beginning because of the way John 1:1 is usually interpreted.

John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And then made flesh John 1:14

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

What I belief is that though Jesus is a separate entity, or personality, He inherits the name God since Jesus is God's only begotten Son. How else could He have gotten the title "only begotten Son"? While it is true that other men in the Bible have been called sons of God, Jesus is the only one born of a virgin. Jesus inherits His humanity from His mother, and His Godliness from His Father.

I am open to the idea that Jesus's personality didn't exist until He was born, but I am definitely under the impression that He is divinely incarnated, rather than the reincarnation of David and Bathsheba's love child.

Jesus hails from David's lineage because of His mother, so what's the problem? Aren't all the male descendants of David's line called 'sons of David'?

Just wondering. :smile:

[John Goddard]

This wasn't directed at me, but maybe you can answer something for me as well.

For awhile I was under the belief that Jesus was with God since the beginning because of the way John 1:1 is usually interpreted.

And then made flesh John 1:14

For me it would just be God commanding creation, and then later, God dwelling in the man Jesus to speak God's Word -- God's Word made flesh. Something like this:

Exodus 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou (MOSES) shalt be to him instead of God.

I made a decision a while back not to argue against Trinity since I think Christians have some good reasons for adhering to it. So I'll try to make this about my own beliefs, not about Trinity.

How else could He have gotten the title "only begotten Son"?

The first was Adam:

Luke 3:38 ...Adam, which was the son of God.

But he became a Son of Satan, because that's who Adam chose to follow. So the inheritance goes to Jesus instead as the only Son who obeyed God completely.

Jesus hails from David's lineage because of His mother, so what's the problem? Aren't all the male descendants of David's line called 'sons of David'?

The Bible never says who Mary descended from.

But my interpretation of these:

2 Samuel 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

2 Samuel 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

2 Samuel 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

1 Kings 9:5 Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.

Is that David must always have a son who is king, with an unbroken kingship from David to his own sons. No lapse in generations.

Since 1000 years and many generations lapsed between David, the last king in good standing over entire Israel, and Jesus, the prophecy and promise to David doesn't seem to work.

Unless of course one of David's other immediate sons was resurrected 1000 years later to take the throne directly from David. This is one reason for my belief.

[disciple100]

For me it would just be God commanding creation, and then later, God dwelling in the man Jesus to speak God's Word -- God's Word made flesh. Something like this:

Exodus 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou (MOSES) shalt be to him instead of God.

I made a decision a while back not to argue against Trinity since I think Christians have some good reasons for adhering to it. So I'll try to make this about my own beliefs, not about Trinity.



The first was Adam:

Luke 3:38 ...Adam, which was the son of God.

But he became a Son of Satan, because that's who Adam chose to follow. So the inheritance goes to Jesus instead as the only Son who obeyed God completely.



The Bible never says who Mary descended from.

But my interpretation of these:

2 Samuel 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

2 Samuel 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

2 Samuel 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

1 Kings 9:5 Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.

Is that David must always have a son who is king, with an unbroken kingship from David to his own sons. No lapse in generations.

Since 1000 years and many generations lapsed between David, the last king in good standing over entire Israel, and Jesus, the prophecy and promise to David doesn't seem to work.

Unless of course one of David's other immediate sons was resurrected 1000 years later to take the throne directly from David. This is one reason for my belief.

Thanks for clarifying. :thumb:

But the concept of both Mary and Joseph being descendants of David is not new. (http://www.inplainsite.org/html/genealogy_of_jesus.html)

Dr. Charles Ellicott writes, regarding Luke's genealogy, "the more probable view is that we have here the genealogy not of Joseph, but of Mary" (Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 6, p. 262). After all, the apostle Paul stated that Jesus "was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3). That could only have been Mary, because Jesus had no connection with Joseph "according to the flesh." Thus, Mary would need to be shown also to be a descendant of David, and this is done in Luke's genealogy. Luke declares Mary to have come from David's son Nathan (Luke 3:31), whereas Matthew shows Joseph to have come from David's son Solomon (Matt. 1:6). The fact that these two genealogical records trace through two different sons of David also seem to attest to them being of different persons (Joseph and Mary), rather than of one person (both being of Joseph).

· One should also not overlook the overall context of Luke's first three chapters. The focus is largely on Mary throughout. Thus, it would not be unusual for the genealogy here to be of her as well. Bro. H. Leo Boles wrote, "If Heli was Mary's father, it is clear that Joseph was his son-in-law; the assumption that this relationship is here designated agrees with the facts of the case, or at least is not contradicted by them" (A Commentary on the Gospel according to Luke, p. 88). The Pulpit Commentary points out that the questions pertaining to the differences between the two lists "can only be answered by showing that Luke's list is a list not of Joseph's ancestors, but of Mary's, who was in very truth the mother of Jesus" (vol. 16). This was also the view of the great reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546), and the bulk of scholars since that time.

[John Goddard]

Thanks for clarifying. :thumb:

But the concept of both Mary and Joseph being descendants of David is not new. (http://www.inplainsite.org/html/genealogy_of_jesus.html)

Your cite is one explanation for it, although it is still just speculation since Mary's lineage is never given in the Bible.

My belief is also just a gut feeling. Although it has an advantage in my view since it eliminates any gaps between generations from David to Messiah, both required to have the same everlasting thrones.

Without such a solution, NT lineages offer either Solomon as a failed king of a fractured Israel who lost his promise of an everlasting throne, or Nathan who is never given any promises in the Tanach.

So I disregard the NT lineages as being indicative of how Jesus gets to be king, or what his true biological lineage is.

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

I just have faith Jesus was resurrected into the womb of Mary to accept his rightful inheritance initially lost to younger brother Solomon.

To paraphrase my position:

John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

[EphremHagos]

TO: NormATIVE

Never enough on the resurrection, at least to me!

By "misrepresentation", I mean the resurrection-proper as a standing test of Jesus Christ's immortality (John 8: 21-28) in the unique way he died right at the cross wherein there still is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the deeply mysterious, powerfully life-transforming, and once-and-for-all self-revelation of God in Christ in a far greater sense than the type in Moses' vision of the burning but unconsumed bush (Ex. 3: 1-15); and as anticipated by the prophets (Luke 9: 28-36).

Easter Sunday is nothing less than "looking for the living among the dead" (Luke 24:5).

There is evidence that such is the understanding of the Apostles in the 1st Century and the opportunity for firsthand and personal exxperience today!

[EphremHagos]

Here:

Jesus being a person of God from birth is often a Trinitarian idea. Do you instead believe Jesus is the Father God and not a Son person of the Trinity? Maybe you can clarify.

I don't interpret that Jesus taught an incarnation from birth, at any rate.

My answers are in the AFFIRMATIVE on both counts. First, Jesus is indeed God the Father ("I Am Who I Am"), as demonstrable his death on the cross (John 8: 21-28), and not at all the second person in the trinity (a mere theological construct).

If Jesus is, therefore, God Almighty in person behind the inspiration of all Scriptures, he taught an incarnation from birth when one prophet wrote "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel'" --which means God is with us (Isa.7:14; Matt. 1:20-23).

Are any alternative interpretations possible?

[John Goddard]

My answers are in the AFFIRMATIVE on both counts. First, Jesus is indeed God the Father ("I Am Who I Am"), as demonstrable his death on the cross (John 8: 21-28), and not at all the second person in the trinity (a mere theological construct).

If Jesus is, therefore, God Almighty in person behind the inspiration of all Scriptures, he taught an incarnation from birth when one prophet wrote "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel'" --which means God is with us (Isa.7:14; Matt. 1:20-23).

Are any alternative interpretations possible?

A good comparison for me is the presence of God with Moses:

Exodus 4:15-16 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.

So Moses was going to be in the stead of God to humans, because God was with him -- God is with us. Of course not to the same extent Jesus was, but still indicating Jesus could be born 100% human and still have God come to dwell in him fully, making God also present with us.

Thus it's a progressive glorification of Jesus to deity status in his role as mediator as he remained obedient, not an immediate one at birth. In other words, he was perfected by his obedience, not made perfect through an incarnation.

Hebrews 5:8-9 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Also indicated here in a progressive glorification from one who is feeble to one who appears as God to the people:

Zechariah 12:8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble (Suffering Servant Isaiah 53) among them at that day shall be as David (Obedient Hebrews 5:8-9 First Coming); and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them (Revelation 19:11 Second Coming).

So on one hand I agree that the Father present in Jesus obsoletes a need for another deity person, on another I don't see any need for an incarnation at birth when God can simply dwell fully in any human, and when it is Jesus was perfect by obedience as a man, not by birth condition as an infant.

For some reason this also brings to mind the practice of baptizing infants, rather than adults deciding to be baptized to seek God for themselves.

[NormATive]

Seemed like you implied ALL:



Maybe "from some or most perspectives" would have been clearer.

No, it wouldn't. There is a difference between the "official" fundamentals of the Christian faith and with how individual Christians define it.

From an "official" Christian perspective, Jews (adhering to traditional beliefs) worship a different G-d than Christians.

At any rate, from a Chabad-Lubavitch perspective -- as one Jewish group taking the lead in bringing Gentiles to Noahide -- their view of shituf acknowledges that Gentiles can conceptualize the same God of Abraham along with other god persons.

I've only met a couple Lubavitchers, and they were really into Kabbalah. They didn't seem to think a Christian perspective was valid. They believed in a sort of "rational mysticism" if you can wrap your mind around that.

I have some Jewish friends from Brooklyn, and they seem to think the Lubavitchers are nuts. I don't really know enough about them to give you an informed opinion. So, I guess it's possible you are correct.



Just to note, prophecy says the House of David will be as God:

Zechariah 12:8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

I suppose that Messiah of David might also be as God too. So why are Jews puzzled that Gentiles might see Jesus as God? Further, who does Malachi 1:11-12 refer to and in what context, in your view?

That's an interesting passage. I will bring that up at the next minyan and see what happens.

I never said that Jews don't understand why Christians see Jesus as a god, because they do. They understand Hellenistic philosophy because it nearly destroyed their ancestral faith. My contention is that Jews who embrace their faith would not be tempted to worship Jesus because it would be a violation of the first commandment.

The book of Malachi is the last of the "Trei-Asar" (twelve) prophetic writings. The "Twelve" refers to a group of Prophets who prophesied over a period of about two hundred years beginning towards the end of the Kingdom of Israel (not Judah), in about 722 BCE until and including the time of "Shivat Zion," the "Return to Zion" and the rebuilding of the First Temple in Jerusalem (ca. 516 BCE).

Rabbi Telushkin writes of the Trei-Asar:

As a group, they rebuked the Jewish People about their continuous idol-worship and, possibly worse, for their worship of HaShem with the proper outward trappings, but with none of the required inwardness, reducing their great religion to a mockery and a meaningless shell of ritual.
They also harshly criticized the People for their lack of social justice, whereby they trampled upon the rights of the underprivileged. And yet another great theme was their reliance on foreign nations for their salvation, rather than upon HaShem, Who had stood by them always and had saved them from Egypt, the Seven Nations, Amalek and on and on.
But they also had immortal words of comfort for their People, of Redemption and Salvation to come, if the People of Israel would only do "Teshuvah," return to HaShem with all their heart and all their soul.
...some Jews and Christians focus more on afterlife/world to come, and some focus more on this life. But we seem to agree that since Jews are more secular and atheist, of course they are going to focus on this life more.

Further, some Christians and Jews are out more for personal reward, some are more altruistic.

Agreed.

But other more secular and atheist Jews may just be playing off their Chosen People status for personal rewards. Again, to look at all sides.

This is a basic human weakness that affects us all.



The more unbiased position is this:

You mean "my opinion is..." :ahem:

Those who believe in afterlife no matter what religion are going to be somewhat motivated by reward of it, along with being motivated by personal rewards through religion here and now (blessings of good crops, good health, happiness, etc.). We're all selfish to some degree, that's just being human.

But those who are secular or atheist and don't believe in afterlife are just going to be somewhat motivated by what they can get for themselves here and now.

That is an unnecessarily pessimistic view of secular / atheist persons. Not all are motivated by "what they can get for themselves here and now." My grandfather was an atheist (so he professed), and during the Depression allowed several homeless families to camp on his farmland and share his food. He was a very unselfish person - in fact; one of the most selfless people I've known.

Thus eliminating afterlife doesn't really do anything for measuring a person's level of altruism, since personal gain is always going to be present as a motivator, and that's the mistake you are making with this line of reasoning.

I believe that it necessarily does because it FORCES you to have to get along with others in order to make this world a better place. Those focused on the afterlife are less concerned with relieving the plight of the poor, for example, since it will all be taken care of in the afterlife.



On the flip side, people can be as immoral as they want with no threat of Judgment in the afterlife. So people might use belief in afterlife, as well as lack of belief in afterlife, to excuse immoral behavior.

:shrug:

Or, cheap grace.

NORM

[NormATive]

TO: NormATIVE

Never enough on the resurrection, at least to me!

By "misrepresentation", I mean the resurrection-proper as a standing test of Jesus Christ's immortality (John 8: 21-28) in the unique way he died right at the cross wherein there still is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the deeply mysterious, powerfully life-transforming, and once-and-for-all self-revelation of God in Christ in a far greater sense than the type in Moses' vision of the burning but unconsumed bush (Ex. 3: 1-15); and as anticipated by the prophets (Luke 9: 28-36).

Easter Sunday is nothing less than "looking for the living among the dead" (Luke 24:5).

There is evidence that such is the understanding of the Apostles in the 1st Century and the opportunity for firsthand and personal exxperience today!

I don't view the parable of the burning bush as G-d being "self-revealing." The imagery is for human understanding only. G-d does not NEED to "reveal" itself. G-d just IS.

So, I wouldn't interpret Jesus' connection with G-d as G-d revealing Itself in him. Rather, I would characterize it as Jesus being filled with the Spirit of G-d. More radically; an "indwelling" of G-d's character in Jesus.

The burden is on us to discover G-d's overwhelming "revelation" in all of Creation. A billion stars in the sky declares the wonder of G-d.

NORM

[John Goddard]

From an "official" Christian perspective, Jews (adhering to traditional beliefs) worship a different G-d than Christians.
...
That's an interesting passage. I will bring that up at the next minyan and see what happens.
.

Ok.

That is an unnecessarily pessimistic view of secular / atheist persons. Not all are motivated by "what they can get for themselves here and now."

Meaning that we all have some motivation for what we can get for ourselves in this life. Christians may simply have an additional motivation of personal gain in the afterlife.

It's not saying that atheists are always and only out for themselves. It's saying we all are to some degree. Along with better motives of helping others in this life, ideally.


I believe that it necessarily does because it FORCES you to have to get along with others in order to make this world a better place.

I see no evidence that it forces anyone. Maybe your own personal conscience forces you. Some people are more altruistic, atheist and theist. Others are more complacent, or even take advantage of the poor. Atheist and theist. Once again, the unbiased view...


Those focused on the afterlife are less concerned with relieving the plight of the poor, for example, since it will all be taken care of in the afterlife.

A flip side again is that some atheists may be more inclined to abuse the poor if they don't accept what Jesus said about helping them, or if they don't have any fear of punishment in the afterlife for not being charitable.

[Cupofwrath.com]

Jesus died in the flesh, but he also suffered spiritual death.

As Jesus, bore the sins of the world, he went down into hell, only to break from its cords. This is similar to Jonah in the belly of the sea creature, as type for Christ descending into death and ascending into life.

Jesus overcame spiritual death, and this is why we are baptized into his resurrection or life.

[EphremHagos]

Only if you can come out of your personal comfort zone of RIGHT OF OPINION, into the common area of SCRIPTURES, can we begin to exchange constructive replies!

In the meantime, I assure you there is a world of difference between, on the one hand, firsthand, personal knowledge and, on the other hand, the second-hand, hearsay knowledge of Jesus Christ allowed and denied in the Holy Bible, respectively.

[EphremHagos]

Jesus died in the flesh, but he also suffered spiritual death.

As Jesus, bore the sins of the world, he went down into hell, only to break from its cords. This is similar to Jonah in the belly of the sea creature, as type for Christ descending into death and ascending into life.

Jesus overcame spiritual death, and this is why we are baptized into his resurrection or life.

Only if you can come out of your personal comfort zone of RIGHT OF OPINION, into the common area of SCRIPTURES, can we begin to exchange constructive replies!

In the meantime, I assure you there is a world of difference between, on the one hand, firsthand, personal knowledge and, on the other hand, the second-hand, hearsay knowledge of Jesus Christ allowed and denied in the Holy Bible, respectively.

[John Goddard]

Only if you can come out of your personal comfort zone of RIGHT OF OPINION, into the common area of SCRIPTURES, can we begin to exchange constructive replies!

In the meantime, I assure you there is a world of difference between, on the one hand, firsthand, personal knowledge and, on the other hand, the second-hand, hearsay knowledge of Jesus Christ allowed and denied in the Holy Bible, respectively.

The Days of Awe (http://www.jewfaq.org/holiday3.htm) shadow the spiritual period of Temporary Hell of Purgatory or Gehenna, preceding Judgment and final Lake of Fire and Death of Revelation.

The ten days starting with Rosh Hashanah and ending with Yom Kippur are commonly known as the Days of Awe (Yamim Noraim) or the Days of Repentance. This is a time for serious introspection, a time to consider the sins of the previous year and repent before Yom Kippur...One of the ongoing themes of the Days of Awe is the concept that G-d has "books" that he writes our names in, writing down who will live and who will die, who will have a good life and who will have a bad life, for the next year. (http://www.jewfaq.org/holiday3.htm)

Revelation 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

Revelation 20:14-15 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

I've had personal spiritual experience and revelation of these ideas.

[Cupofwrath.com]

Only if you can come out of your personal comfort zone of RIGHT OF OPINION, into the common area of SCRIPTURES, can we begin to exchange constructive replies!

In the meantime, I assure you there is a world of difference between, on the one hand, firsthand, personal knowledge and, on the other hand, the second-hand, hearsay knowledge of Jesus Christ allowed and denied in the Holy Bible, respectively.

Well what do they SCRIPTURES say? Did Jesus spend 3.5 days with his Father in Paradise, or did he descend into Hades?

"in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison" (1st Peter 3.19).

Therefore he didn't just taste physical death, but also spiritual death, because he bore the sins of the world, just as during the ritual of the "scapegoat" in the OT, the sins of the people were symbolically transferred to it, and it was released into the wilderness

"About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI ?" that is, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME ?" (Matthew 27.46)

"Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. (James 1.15)

However death could not hold him, "But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power". (Acts 2.24)

"but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2nd Timothy 1.10). He abolished it, for those that believe upon him, because he defeated it, because he is the Son of God, and blameless.

This is why Jesus has the keys of death and Hades, "and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. (Revelation 1.18).

Other people have come back to life in the flesh, before Jesus, but he defeated both physical death and spiritual death, rising out of the heart of the Earth,

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12.40)

So let's not shortchange what Christ accomplished on the cross, which goes beyond a physical resurrection on many levels.

[NormATive]

Ok.



Meaning that we all have some motivation for what we can get for ourselves in this life. Christians may simply have an additional motivation of personal gain in the afterlife.

It's not saying that atheists are always and only out for themselves. It's saying we all are to some degree. Along with better motives of helping others in this life, ideally.



I see no evidence that it forces anyone. Maybe your own personal conscience forces you. Some people are more altruistic, atheist and theist. Others are more complacent, or even take advantage of the poor. Atheist and theist. Once again, the unbiased view...



A flip side again is that some atheists may be more inclined to abuse the poor if they don't accept what Jesus said about helping them, or if they don't have any fear of punishment in the afterlife for not being charitable.

Good points all.

It has truly been a pleasure debating this topic with you John.

NORM

[NormATive]

The Days of Awe (http://www.jewfaq.org/holiday3.htm) shadow the spiritual period of Temporary Hell of Purgatory or Gehenna, preceding Judgment and final Lake of Fire and Death of Revelation.

The ten days starting with Rosh Hashanah and ending with Yom Kippur are commonly known as the Days of Awe (Yamim Noraim) or the Days of Repentance. This is a time for serious introspection, a time to consider the sins of the previous year and repent before Yom Kippur...One of the ongoing themes of the Days of Awe is the concept that G-d has "books" that he writes our names in, writing down who will live and who will die, who will have a good life and who will have a bad life, for the next year. (http://www.jewfaq.org/holiday3.htm)



I've never totally understood the concept of forgiveness until I took part in Yom Kippur with my Jewish community. I went through the whole process. It was the most spiritually significant event in my religious life.

The Book of Life was totally different from what I thought it was in the Christian faith. I used to think that the Book of Life was where your name was written when you accepted Jesus. But it's not. It is a recording of all your deed s- good and bad. Your name remains in the Book of Life until you repent, and then it is wiped clean until next year. This is why Jews do not honor the Gregorian calendar. The New Year is TRULY a new beginning - a chance to begin fresh with G-d who remembers your sins no more: they are as far as the east is from the west.

On one Yom Kippur service, the Rabbi had us write out our major sins of the past year on little pieces of special rice paper. We then took them down to the river behind the Synagogue and watched them disappear from view and eventually dissolve into nothing. It was a powerful illustration of G-d's forgiveness.

NORM

[EphremHagos]

IN RESPONSE TO POST #163 BY JOHN GODDARD

“Progressive Glorification”

If our model, the Apostle Paul, like the other Apostles of his time, considered firsthand and direct “gospel from the glorious and blessed God” as exclusive source of “sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1: 10-11), [a practice unfortunately discontinued in post-Apostolic Christianity at great loss], why should we continue to fish in secondary sources like Exodus, Hebrews, Zechariah, etc.?

The concept of “progressive glorification”, applicable as it may be for the truly born again, is highly misleading, spurious and indefensible, when used to qualify Jesus Christ who is himself the eternal Spirit for our experiencing firsthand, in the context of his death on the cross --the world-stage for the revelation of his glory (John 8: 21-28; 12:32; 17: 1-5)!

The personification of “the first and the last … the living one … once dead, but now alive for ever and ever” (Rev. 1: 17-18), on the other hand, does not allow “progressive glorification”.

[EphremHagos]

IN REPLY TO POST NormATive

Two Great Mysteries: the Bush and the Cross

The question

The question is in which of the following two ways does the text (Ex. 3: 1-15) view “the flame coming from the middle of a bush … that did not burn up” unlike any other common bush fire in the desert?

• According to Moses: a clear first time application of the principle laid down in John 6:63, or demonstration of the complete uselessness of matter when pitted against God’s Spirit resulting in powerful, deeply mysterious, life-transforming, and face-to-face encounter with the Almighty God in self-revelation? Or
• According to NormATive: “only a parable and imagery for human understanding”?

The Evidence

The answer depends on the weight of evidence in the incident and its greater aftermath. Besides Moses, present was, in person, the very “God of the living”, i.e., of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, as explained by Jesus Christ in Matt. 22: 23-33. That is why it was necessary to declare as “holy” the ground Moses was standing on. The evidence includes the commissioning and empowering of Moses, in the name of God, as “I Am Who I Am”; and laying down the terms of reference for making God known, firsthand and personally, to all future generations by the same application of the principle of absolute superiority of Spirit over matter (John 6:63) as applied in the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ (John 8: 21-28)!

By way of personal testimony, the power of my conviction comes from firsthand experience of the mystery of the cross of Christ more than 34 years ago and from full confirmation in Scriptures!

MAY GOD REVEAL TO YOU THE TRUTH IN THE MYSTERIES OF “THE BUSH ON FIRE” AND “THE CROSS OF CHRIST”!

[John Goddard]

Good points all. It has truly been a pleasure debating this topic with you John...

...I've never totally understood the concept of forgiveness until I took part in Yom Kippur with my Jewish community. I went through the whole process. It was the most spiritually significant event in my religious life.

Thanks you too. That's one thing Gentile Christians miss out on, too bad they took up Santa Claus and Easter eggs instead of the Jewish holidays. I can't argue you with you on that point.

[EphremHagos]

IN REPLY TO CUPOFWRATH #171

Thank you! Now, we can we begin the exchange of constructive ideas.

If Nathaniel’s confession of faith based on hearsay from Jesus Christ himself was questioned as unacceptable (John 1: 47-50), how can ours fare any better if based on the words of Peter, Matthew, James, Luke, Paul and John? This is a very radical thought, indeed, but one based entirely on the teachings of Jesus Christ on the relative value of witnesses (John 5: 30-47).

Jesus has provided his disciples of all time the highest standard of evidence possible, viz.: the witness of his unique works over and above his own words and the witness of others (Ibid, 5: 31-36; 10: 37-38). Only this option gives us a great opportunity for investigative Bible study of identifying and testing the reliability and validity of the vision-producing works of Jesus, associated with his death on the cross, for a sound basis of firsthand and personal knowledge of him and sustainable faith (Matt. 16: 13-28). This is the essence of the hard-to-learn discipleship training in which the fortunes of the first disciples Apostles are witness!

All other options are misleading including your reply in Post #167 and #171.

[EphremHagos]

doesn't the bible say god's word became flesh - not god itself?

Of course, the Bible says that the Word, who is the same as God, beccame a human being (John 1: 1,14).