UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:This is somewhat difficult language, but it is saying that human nature and the Divine nature were united in the person of Jesus Christ: they were not fused to become one nature. What belongs to the human nature still belongs to the human nature; what belongs to the divine nature still belongs to the divine nature.
the union of the human nature with the Divine was effected in the Person, in the hypostasis, in the suppositum, yet observing the distinction of natures; so that it is the same Person and hypostasis of the Divine and human natures, while each nature retains that which is proper to it
quote:Again, difficult language. But Thomas says that the person of Jesus Christ (both human and divine) died according to the human nature, not according to the divine nature. But Jesus didn't stop being God: he remains both true God and true man; he dies in all his fullness. As the Second Council of Constantinople wrote, "everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject".
And therefore, as stated above (Question 16, Article 4), the Passion is to be attributed to the suppositum of the Divine Nature, not because of the Divine Nature, which is impassible, but by reason of the human nature.
quote:You were doing well up to this point. But "God" is a correct label / address for Christ as individual, not just for the "collective" of the Trinity. Hence it is correct, though somewhat imprecise, to say "God died". This is short for "God as human died." Whereas "God as God died" would be incorrect. As Basilica mentioned already, calling Mary "Mother of God" works on the same principle.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
'God died' is not fine, as 'God' refers to all three persons collectively.
quote:This is both false and spiritually misleading. There is no mechanistic reason for the resurrection. It was the Father's personal acceptance and affirmation of His Son's sacrifice, an exercise of Divine will not metaphysical necessity, that He was resurrected as the human being Jesus Christ. And Christ did not "descend to hell" as a prisoner, but as a conqueror. Also we are not talking about "hell, the outer darkness" anyhow. For what reason would Jesus have gone there, or worse, have had to go there? What is meant there according to tradition is actually the gathering of the just faithful from Adam and Eve to John the Baptist who could not get into heaven without Christ's resurrection opening its gates. They were waiting in the "Limbo of the Fathers", formally perhaps a part of hell if you wish, but a place of happiness and light that was "hellish" only as far as any delay of the beatific vision is "hellish".
Originally posted by Enoch:
Because Jesus is Son of God, when he descended into hell, hell could not contain him. The darkness could not comprehend him. The resurrection was both the greatest miracle and completely inevitable. 'The third day he rose again'. It is what happens if you kill the son of God.
quote:Isn't that what they call The Conservation of Mass?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
No nature can die.
quote:So I'm a heretic. I follow what I understand Moltmann to say, which is that Jesus died, but all parts of God suffered, felt the pain on the cross. God the father endured the agony of the cross.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I know Patripassianism, the teaching that the Father died or that the Father suffered on the cross, is a heresy (related to modalism).
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.quote:Maybe we should also say that death does not equal extinction. Death is a state of being that is not life in this world. When God died he did not cease his eternal being, he just died in time and space as experienced in this world.
Amazing love! How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
quote:The big change that Moltmann makes (which differs from Patripassianism classically speaking) is to say that God suffers according to his divinity. That is to say, even without the assumption of human nature in the Incarnation, God was capable of suffering. As Mudfrog writes, Moltmann's classic formulation of this is to say that, while God the Son suffers the agony of the Cross, God the Father suffers separation from the Son.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:So I'm a heretic. I follow what I understand Moltmann to say, which is that Jesus died, but all parts of God suffered, felt the pain on the cross. God the father endured the agony of the cross.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I know Patripassianism, the teaching that the Father died or that the Father suffered on the cross, is a heresy (related to modalism).
And the body of Jesus, which was two natures in one suffered and died. So both human and divine aspects of him suffered (the division into natures is not really very Jewish, just a Western way of trying to understand his being)
Did God die? No, but God in all parts suffered the pain of physical human death. That is not the same thing.
quote:You and Basilica are of course quite correct. I'd overlooked the Theotokos usage.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:But "God" is a correct label / address for Christ as individual, not just for the "collective" of the Trinity. Hence it is correct, though somewhat imprecise, to say "God died". This is short for "God as human died." Whereas "God as God died" would be incorrect. As Basilica mentioned already, calling Mary "Mother of God" works on the same principle.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
'God died' is not fine, as 'God' refers to all three persons collectively.
quote:
[O]ne is “allowed” to recite the lawyerly formulations of the Athanasian Creed, but if you stray at all from that narrow path or attempt to say anything more — any positive statements, clarifications, analogies, applications — you’re screwed. And as that video shows, this doctrine creates so many different ways in which you can be screwed that it’s hard not to suspect this was the intention — a doctrine more useful for generating and then condemning heresies than for avoiding error.
quote:I'm somewhat puzzled by this. It's precisely because Jesus is God that we can say "God suffers". But I'd say that Jesus suffers according to the human nature, not the divine. I'd say that God suffers according to the human nature assumed in the Incarnation, not according to his eternal divine nature.
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
I'm with Moltmann, Mudfrog and EE on this one.
If God didn't die, but Jesus did, then by inference one is saying that Jesus wasn't God, which is the route towards ebionitism.
It would also leave the doctrine of atonement rather short of its role in soteriology.
quote:I am well aware that the history of Christian theology is littered with attempts to impose philosophical formulations on God (usually drawn from Greek philosophy), and draw conclusions, which appear to undermine all that is essential to our normal understanding of personhood and personality. Are we really permitted to do this? It may be that the biblical expressions which suggest that God feels pain, is grieved, is pleased, rejoices and weeps are mere anthropomorphisms, and therefore a concession to our limited minds, but exactly the same argument could be put concerning the philosophical formulations of scholastic theology. If our minds are finite (which of course they are), then we have no more right to call Him 'impassive' than we have to say that "He suffers"!
Originally posted by Basilica
I'm somewhat puzzled by this. It's precisely because Jesus is God that we can say "God suffers". But I'd say that Jesus suffers according to the human nature, not the divine. I'd say that God suffers according to the human nature assumed in the Incarnation, not according to his eternal divine nature.
The question really is "is suffering proper to the divine nature?" I, along with Thomas Aquinas and most of the Christian tradition, would say "no", but obviously "yes" is a very popular answer in modern theology. In fact, I read a book a few years ago that said, "theopaschitism is the new orthodoxy"!
quote:Impassible, not impassive. "Impassive" implies "doesn't care"; "impassible" implies "cannot suffer".
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am well aware that the history of Christian theology is littered with attempts to impose philosophical formulations on God (usually drawn from Greek philosophy), and draw conclusions, which appear to undermine all that is essential to our normal understanding of personhood and personality. Are we really permitted to do this? It may be that the biblical expressions which suggest that God feels pain, is grieved, is pleased, rejoices and weeps are mere anthropomorphisms, and therefore a concession to our limited minds, but exactly the same argument could be put concerning the philosophical formulations of scholastic theology. If our minds are finite (which of course they are), then we have no more right to call Him 'impassive' than we have to say that "He suffers"!
quote:Ah yes, God-in-the-image-of-man. Why is personality (as understood in the twentieth-first century; quite a modern concept) to be read into God more than, say, arms?
I think it is fair to say that when we say "God is love", we are talking about a being with personality. And since we are made in the image of God, then I think we can draw some pretty likely conclusions about the nature of God from what we know about the mechanics of personality. Impassibility is not one of them!
quote:Unhelpful rhetoric. Also, inaccurate rhetoric.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would go as far as to say that those who believe that God the Father is impassive at the cross are going further down the line of the 'cosmic child abuse' accusation, levelled by feminist/womanist theologians and their love-child Steve 'I-don't-believe-anything-anymore' Chalke, than any of their accused substitutionary atonement evangelicals.
quote:You're supposing an odd view of the doctrine of the Trinity, which basically seems to be tending towards tri-theism. Scholastic theology (e.g. Maximus the Confessor) says that there is one will (thelma) for each nature (ousia). So there are two wills in Christ (the human and the divine) but there is only one divine will. There are not three divine wills any more than there are three divine natures or indeed three divinities. So the Father and the Spirit are not uninvolved in the Incarnation, but equally they are not themselves incarnate.
If God the Father merely stands unmoved, untouched, uninterested in the suffering of the Son, then that is indeed a callous and calculating God.
If however the Father grieves and mourns as the Son makes atonement by his substitutionary suffering and death, then we have a more rounded picture of the Godhead in the act of atonement.
quote:No, it's not modalism, it's arianism or possibly adoptionism. If he's divine but not God, is he a lesser divine being?
Originally posted by Boogie:
Jesus died on the cross.
God didn't.
I believe that Jesus was totally filled with God's Spirit, more than any human before or since. So he was the divine human, but not God.
God suffered imo - but didn't die.
(Is that modalism? If so that's OK, I've been called worse)
quote:Agreed, it's closest to Adoptionism.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, it's not modalism, it's arianism or possibly adoptionism. If he's divine but not God, is he a lesser divine being?
quote:Does this mean that God had to commit suicide in order to sort out the muddle in his head between justice and love?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If however the Father grieves and mourns as the Son makes atonement by his substitutionary suffering and death, then we have a more rounded picture of the Godhead in the act of atonement.
quote:No - He's a human being.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:No, it's not modalism, it's arianism or possibly adoptionism. If he's divine but not God, is he a lesser divine being?
Originally posted by Boogie:
Jesus died on the cross.
God didn't.
I believe that Jesus was totally filled with God's Spirit, more than any human before or since. So he was the divine human, but not God.
God suffered imo - but didn't die.
(Is that modalism? If so that's OK, I've been called worse)
quote:Impassive - 1) not revealing or affected by emotion; reserved. 2) calm; serene; imperturbable. 3) (rare) unconscious or insensible. (Collins)
Originally posted by Basilica
Impassible, not impassive. "Impassive" implies "doesn't care"; "impassible" implies "cannot suffer".
quote:The immutability of God has to be understood in a 'weak' sense of His character not undergoing change. If we take the extreme 'strong' sense, then clearly God cannot act at all, and therefore has to be reduced to some singularity which is far less than man. 'God' in that sense would simply be a totally inert backdrop to the universe, and certainly not a being capable of creating, relating and loving. Perhaps that's the kind of God the sophists (errm, I mean the philosophers) want?
Also, the biblical witness is hardly unequivocal on the matter. E.g. Malachi 3.6.
quote:Well, if we cannot assume that God has personality, then should we assume that He (or rather It) is impersonal? But then that would be projecting impersonality onto God, and that would be highly presumptuous, wouldn't you say? In fact, could we not agree that we can say absolutely nothing about God, even that "whatever-it-is" should even be referred to as 'God'? We could just say that there could be something behind reality called "The Single Immutable Thing Behind Reality". It doesn't sound very inspiring, but at least it might satisfy the sophists.
Ah yes, God-in-the-image-of-man. Why is personality (as understood in the twentieth-first century; quite a modern concept) to be read into God more than, say, arms?
quote:Intellect and body are not the only components which need to be considered. What about 'spirit'? Is that reducible to mere intellect? I don't think so.
Patristic and scholastic theology was always very clear in locating the imago Dei precisely in the intellectual nature of the human being, i.e. the ability to understand and love God, who is intellect, not body.
quote:The distinction is between what is apprehensible by the senses and what is apprehensible by the intellect. The image of God lies principally in the intellectual, rational, spiritual, noetic aspect of the human being, not in the sensible, visible, fleshy bit.(NB that intellectual is not about cleverness.) This doesn't in itself imply immutability, but it does mean you can't just go around willy-nilly saying that whatever we are God is too. That is just silly.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Intellect and body are not the only components which need to be considered. What about 'spirit'? Is that reducible to mere intellect? I don't think so.
Originally posted by Basilica
Patristic and scholastic theology was always very clear in locating the imago Dei precisely in the intellectual nature of the human being, i.e. the ability to understand and love God, who is intellect, not body.
I feel sure you are misreading the Fathers. Perhaps you would like to support your claim with some citations?
quote:IngoB I feel obliged to reply to this, even if to say no more than that you seem to have misunderstood what I was saying, and to be approaching this whole subject in a very binary way, which I don't think takes us far enough.
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is both false and spiritually misleading. There is no mechanistic reason for the resurrection. It was the Father's personal acceptance and affirmation of His Son's sacrifice, an exercise of Divine will not metaphysical necessity, that He was resurrected as the human being Jesus Christ. And Christ did not "descend to hell" as a prisoner, but as a conqueror. Also we are not talking about "hell, the outer darkness" anyhow. For what reason would Jesus have gone there, or worse, have had to go there? What is meant there according to tradition is actually the gathering of the just faithful from Adam and Eve to John the Baptist who could not get into heaven without Christ's resurrection opening its gates. They were waiting in the "Limbo of the Fathers", formally perhaps a part of hell if you wish, but a place of happiness and light that was "hellish" only as far as any delay of the beatific vision is "hellish".
quote:Can a physical body belong to the divine nature, which is incorporeal, invisible, and uncircumscribable? It is only in taking on the human nature that the Second Person of the Trinity became flesh, visible, and able to be identified with a particular time and place in creation.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And the body of Jesus, which was two natures in one suffered and died. So both human and divine aspects of him suffered
quote:Where two meanings of a word in a dictionary are separated by numbers, that means that they're separate meanings. You can't claim that if 'impassible' can sometimes be used to mean 'impassive' it therefore always does.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Impassive - 1) not revealing or affected by emotion; reserved. 2) calm; serene; imperturbable. 3) (rare) unconscious or insensible. (Collins)
Originally posted by Basilica
Impassible, not impassive. "Impassive" implies "doesn't care"; "impassible" implies "cannot suffer".
Impassible - 1) not susceptible to pain or injury. 2) impassive or unmoved. (Collins)
So both words directly relate to the subject under discussion.
Clearly someone who is impassible is also, in one of the senses of the word, impassive.
quote:To worship anything less than the backdrop of the universe is idolatry. That's the difference between classical Abrahamic religion and, say, a god who is merely Nobodaddy/ Urizen. Urizen is a figure of great power, but he exists within a space-time continuum for which he is not responsible, and therefore his claims to authority are usurpation. Urizen ultimately as a merely personal being is just one more person with rights and responsibilities; the mere fact that he has greater supernatural power and wisdom than Caesar does not make him any more worthy of worship than Caesar is. To worship either is to alienate myself from myself. Only God who is closer to me than I am to myself may be worshipped.
If we take the extreme 'strong' sense, then clearly God cannot act at all, and therefore has to be reduced to some singularity which is far less than man. 'God' in that sense would simply be a totally inert backdrop to the universe, and certainly not a being capable of creating, relating and loving.
quote:This assumes that the choices are personal as we understand it or impersonal. The classical Christian tradition is that we call God personal only because our language and our comprehension have no way of grasping a mode of existence that is infinitely further from impersonality than we are. By comparison with God personhood as we understand it and an impersonal rock are pretty much of a muchness.
Well, if we cannot assume that God has personality, then should we assume that He (or rather It) is impersonal?
quote:It is central to the Christian tradition to assert that our only true knowledge of God is in the cloud of unknowing. All our speech about God is simply an attempt to point into the cloud of unknowing.
In fact, could we not agree that we can say absolutely nothing about God, even that "whatever-it-is" should even be referred to as 'God'?
quote:Are you sure you can say that 'only' with conviction? What about Col 1:15 speaking of course of Jesus?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... It is central to the Christian tradition to assert that our only true knowledge of God is in the cloud of unknowing. All our speech about God is simply an attempt to point into the cloud of unknowing. ...
quote:
He is the image of the invisible God.
quote:It's a nice thought but it's not the Scriptural view. Jesus' death was necessary for the atonement. It wasn't the unfortunate result of his activities that God made good. Yes of course there were human factors and the whole thing was engineered by self-serving people, but the death of Christ was eternally planned and purposed.
Originally posted by no prophet:
It seems pretty evident that people suffer and die, and that God doesn't. You can stick nails into a person, and you can't into a god. Gods being spirit and all. Doesn't seem too much to really debate.
There are some pretty weird ideas that God wanted Jesus to die. I don't think that's true. I just think it was inevitable because Jesus said and did disruptive things, he being a shitdisturber and all. People killed the man because he really pissed them off. Then God is alleged to have taken the bad of that killing and to have transformed it into something else that is good. God does stuff like that. It's a hopeful story that really bad things like being tortured to death by being crucified can be turned into something good. Many of us wish other bad things were turned into good things.
Or at least this was the explanation I heard one Sunday at Stanley Mission, Saskatchewan some 20 years ago from a very nice kokom when we stopped at the church when travelling by canoe. (Kokom - sort means grandmother in Cree, but extends this: also a respected elder who is kind of like a mother figure to many, and also seems to reflect her offering to others of hospitality.)
quote:God is Spirit.
Originally posted by no prophet:
It seems pretty evident that people suffer and die, and that God doesn't. You can stick nails into a person, and you can't into a god. Gods being spirit and all.
quote:Yes. I think so. Jesus is God projected into human existence. So we can say that when God became human God looked like Jesus and not like Henry VIII. But we don't know from that what God looks like in God's self. Our imaginations can't abstract away the human nature to see the divine nature in itself. It's as in Plato's cave, we know that Jesus is the shadow on the wall, but we don't know what is casting the shadow. Or as mathematically we know that this stack of blocks is the three dimensional model of the six dimensional solid, yet we still can't imagine the six dimensional solid in itself. By love may God be comprehended; by thought never.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Are you sure you can say that 'only' with conviction? What about Col 1:15 speaking of course of Jesus?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... It is central to the Christian tradition to assert that our only true knowledge of God is in the cloud of unknowing. All our speech about God is simply an attempt to point into the cloud of unknowing. ...
quote:
He is the image of the invisible God.
quote:I never thought I would sympathise with one of Croesos' posts (on a theology / philosophy thread).
Originally posted by Croesos
I've long suspected that the doctrine of the Trinity is simply a method by which Christianity generates heresies.
quote:
[O]ne is “allowed” to recite the lawyerly formulations of the Athanasian Creed, but if you stray at all from that narrow path or attempt to say anything more — any positive statements, clarifications, analogies, applications — you’re screwed. And as that video shows, this doctrine creates so many different ways in which you can be screwed that it’s hard not to suspect this was the intention — a doctrine more useful for generating and then condemning heresies than for avoiding error.
quote:Let's put it like this. If someone is suffering they deserve sympathy and compassion, yes?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Common sense will tell any reasonable person that a father suffers when his child suffers.
quote:Then God is the guilty of being an accessory to the killing right? That it was inevitable that Jesus would be killed has nothing to do with it being eternally planned. Scripture being a starting point and requiring reading in context. The NT has lots of allegorical connections to the sacrificial life of the OT that are probably not quite true or simply self serving to provide the pedegree of ancient so important in the Roman world. If God did engineer and ordain prior to Jesus' birth that he was going to be involved in his killing, then I would reject God as evil.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:It's a nice thought but it's not the Scriptural view. Jesus' death was necessary for the atonement. It wasn't the unfortunate result of his activities that God made good. Yes of course there were human factors and the whole thing was engineered by self-serving people, but the death of Christ was eternally planned and purposed.
Originally posted by no prophet:
It seems pretty evident that people suffer and die, and that God doesn't. You can stick nails into a person, and you can't into a god. Gods being spirit and all. Doesn't seem too much to really debate.
There are some pretty weird ideas that God wanted Jesus to die. I don't think that's true. I just think it was inevitable because Jesus said and did disruptive things, he being a shitdisturber and all. People killed the man because he really pissed them off. Then God is alleged to have taken the bad of that killing and to have transformed it into something else that is good. God does stuff like that. It's a hopeful story that really bad things like being tortured to death by being crucified can be turned into something good. Many of us wish other bad things were turned into good things.
Or at least this was the explanation I heard one Sunday at Stanley Mission, Saskatchewan some 20 years ago from a very nice kokom when we stopped at the church when travelling by canoe. (Kokom - sort means grandmother in Cree, but extends this: also a respected elder who is kind of like a mother figure to many, and also seems to reflect her offering to others of hospitality.)
quote:That's not a definition of death.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Cease to be.
quote:Isn't that the principle of 'double effect". I don't buy it. The idea of doing a great evil because it causes a greater good. Though I suppose Joshua's conquering genocide is biblical.
Originally posted by Truman White:
@ No Prophet. In response to your If God did engineer and ordain prior to Jesus' birth that he was going to be involved in his killing, then I would reject God as evil. here's a thought for you.
At what point does act that causes harm cease to be "evil" because it results in a greater good?
quote:Double effect is not doing a great evil because it causes a greater good. It's doing a greater good with an evil as a side effect.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Isn't that the principle of 'double effect". I don't buy it. The idea of doing a great evil because it causes a greater good. Though I suppose Joshua's conquering genocide is biblical.
quote:Not pining. Passed on. No more. Has ceased to be. Expired and gone to meet his maker. A stiff. Bereft of life, rests in peace. Pushing up the daisies. Metabolic processes are now history. Off the twig. Kicked the bucket, shuffled off the mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleeding choir invisible.
Originally posted by Truman White:
Just remind me, in the context of this discussion what do we mean by "die"?
quote:Well, that's not historically the point of Trinitarianism, which is the means of making sense of our affirmation that the Son is God and yet is not the Father, and that the Spirit is God and yet is neither the Father nor the Son.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:I never thought I would sympathise with one of Croesos' posts (on a theology / philosophy thread).
Originally posted by Croesos
I've long suspected that the doctrine of the Trinity is simply a method by which Christianity generates heresies.
quote:
[O]ne is “allowed” to recite the lawyerly formulations of the Athanasian Creed, but if you stray at all from that narrow path or attempt to say anything more — any positive statements, clarifications, analogies, applications — you’re screwed. And as that video shows, this doctrine creates so many different ways in which you can be screwed that it’s hard not to suspect this was the intention — a doctrine more useful for generating and then condemning heresies than for avoiding error.
The tortured, nit-picking history of Trinitarianism seems to miss the whole point of the Trinity, which is simply that "God is love" and love can only operate in community. Yes, there are a few other inferences we can make, but that's about the sum of it, really.
But I agree, this doctrine seems to be designed to generate heresies, as well as provide us with the opportunity to show off our lexicon of technical and abstruse '-isms'.
quote:Common sense would also tell you that fathers are male and therefore have penises. Presumably you'd ascribe those properties to God the Father as well?
Common sense will tell any reasonable person that a father suffers when his child suffers. It's a no-brainer. But apparently Greek philosophy knows better and seems to delight in condescending to tell us ignorant mortals that the normal operation of love is just a crude anthropomorphism unworthy of the "Great It Behind Reality (Whatever It is)" (of course, laughably failing to see the herd of elephants in the room, namely that they, by the standards of their own thinking, have no more right to draw their conclusions about God than anyone else, unless they think they are somehow more than merely human!).
quote:No prophet I think you are ignoring perichoresis. It is impossible to separate the members of the Trinity as though the Father didn't somehow know or was not involved in, what was about to happen to Jesus.
Originally posted by no prophet:
... Nope, I think God transforms and doesn't interfere. We can well predict Jesus' demise, but not God setting him up for it. ...
quote:Forgiveness is only costly in that the person who forgives gives up the right to recompense for whatever wrong was done to them. It also involves giving up or trying to give up on any internal anger and grudges. That takes effort, but it's beneficial to the forgiver to do so. The real point is that it results in restored relationships, or at least in resetting the tit-for-tat count on feuds to zero. That too is a benefit to the forgiver. (Neither of the above is a benefit to God, who doesn't hold internal anger and who would automatically win any feuds. What's going on in the atonement isn't God forgiving us; it's God restoring us, which only happens because God has already forgiven us.)
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And the point of forgiveness is that it is costly to the person who forgives.
quote:Yes, as will we all.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Whether or not God "died" on the Cross or not, when Jesus Christ entered into glory, his humanity was glorified, so his death and resurrection has entered the life of God.
quote:Yes - 1 Peter 3:18-19 - my mistake.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Where in the 25 verses of Jude does it describe that? Does it describe Jesus preaching to the 'souls in hell', your paraphrase, of verse 6?
And did you mean I Peter 3:19? Not 2 Peter 2:4?
quote:I still struggle to see how you reconcile Christianity with disbelief in life after death. Or perhaps I'm misreading you?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Indeed. Not a problem leo. Neither is your take on it, which is a traditional one and God bless you in it and continue to work with you to bless from it. It just can't work for me at all as my reconciliation of all those references is more minimal, analytical in every way.
quote:I'm no theologian, but have some lay familiarity. The problem resides I think that if Jesus fully knew his fate and exactly what was to come, then he isn't human completely.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:No prophet I think you are ignoring perichoresis. It is impossible to separate the members of the Trinity as though the Father didn't somehow know or was not involved in, what was about to happen to Jesus.
Originally posted by no prophet:
... Nope, I think God transforms and doesn't interfere. We can well predict Jesus' demise, but not God setting him up for it. ...
That way also lies Arianism.
quote:We're promised eternal life rather than everlasting life?
Originally posted by Basilica:
I still struggle to see how you reconcile Christianity with disbelief in life after death.
quote:Sabellianism is the early version of modalism proposed by Sabellius.
Originally posted by leo:
I think it was Sabellianism that thought that God the Father died.