Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | God can't die or look on sin! | Matt 27:46 | CDBJ | 225394 | ||
Jesus Christ in Him hypostatic union is 100 percent God and at the same time 100 percent man. Scripture tells us that there was darkness from the sixth hour to the ninth hour and that Jesus screamed out. Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? It is assumed by most evangelicals, i.e. born again believers, that God the father during that period of time poured out the sins of the world on His Son, Jesus Christ. 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Jesus was made sin at that point in time and God can’t look on sin, 2 Cor. 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. i.e. Thanatos in the Koine Greek or what we call in the English, spiritual death or separation from God. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Jesus is the most important person who has ever lived since he is the savior, God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully divine and fully man. In other words, Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human. Jesus is the Word who was God and was with God and was made flesh, (John 1:1,14). This means that in the single person of Jesus is both a human and divine nature, God and man. The divine nature was not changed when the Word became flesh (John 1:1,14). Instead, the Word was joined with humanity (Col. 2:9). Jesus' divine nature was not altered. Also, Jesus is not merely a man who "had God within Him" nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle." He is God in flesh, second person of the Trinity. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word," (Heb. 1:3). Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together," (Eutychianism) nor are they combined into a new God-man nature (Monophysitism). They are separate yet act as a unit in the one person of Jesus. This is called the Hypostatic Union. Now here comes the question and the problem, as it were! Since Jesus is 100 percent God as well as man what did the second person of the trinity do at the moment Christ was made sin for us? CDBJ |
||||||
2 | God can't die or look on sin! | Matt 27:46 | lionheart | 225395 | ||
CDBJ, Well let me take a stab at this. Two things come to mind for me. First the weight of baring all of mankind's sin and even more crushing was being separated from the Father. Up to this point Jesus had never been separated from the father. The immensity of this is unimaginable. In Him, lionheart |
||||||
3 | God can't die or look on sin! | Matt 27:46 | CDBJ | 225397 | ||
The problem isn’t the obvious grief that Jesus was suffering; the place where I am stuck is, what was the Deity of the second person of the trinity doing when Christ was made sin for us. Deity can’t look on sin or have anything to do with it, other then judge it! 2 Cor. 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Jesus was not only seperated from the Father but the Holy Spirit as well but what about the Word of God or what we call the second person since it is a hypostatic union with the body of Jesus? CDBJ |
||||||
4 | God can't die or look on sin! | Matt 27:46 | lionheart | 225404 | ||
CDBJ, Merry Christmas brother. Lets what we can figure out here. I know the meaning of hypostatic union but I must say I'm not too versed on the subject that you are discussing here. The one thing I do understand is that this was all part of Gods plan for our salvation. Lets see what we can come up with. In Him, lionheart |
||||||
5 | God can't die or look on sin! | Matt 27:46 | CDBJ | 225407 | ||
Greetings and Merry Christmas, I ‘m not real sure we will find a suitable answer; I’ve asked my pastor along with numerous others and know one has come up with a plausible solution. CDBJ |
||||||
6 | God can't die or look on sin! | Matt 27:46 | Beja | 225416 | ||
CDBJ, Honestly I think we are missunderstanding what is being taught. What are we saying in that God can't look upon sin? Are we saying He isn't aware of it? Ofcourse not. Are we saying that he is physically turning his face away? How can He when he isn't physical? The notion that this is teaching that God can't in some way be aware of sin or turns his face is an error in my estimation. The point is that he can't stand by idly. He can't just look at it; He must judge sin. He must deal with it. Which is exactly what He did. There is therefore no puzzle to be answered. What was the second person of the trinity doing while the Father imputed sin upon Christ? He was suffering and dying for that sin. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
7 | God can't die or look on sin! | Matt 27:46 | CDBJ | 225417 | ||
Hi Beja, I think you are getting close to something if we can make the following fit. 2 Cor. 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. My point is how, since Christ is a hypostasis, can Jesus be made sin without infecting the deity, which we know is imposable? We know for a fact that it actually happened but how? CDBJ |
||||||
8 | God can't die or look on sin! | Matt 27:46 | following him | 225418 | ||
Hello CDBJ; It's been years since I have posted, and have recently started looking in again and saw your posting here. In response to your question, I think it may be important to look at whose sin it was. The sin He became was not His it was ours. On the cross while dieing for our sins and taking them on Himself He was still Holy, blameless and without sin of His own. He has never committed sin and therefore is uncontaminated by carring and suffering for ours. Does this sound reasonable? God Bless Aaron Erberich |
||||||
9 | God can't die or look on sin! | Matt 27:46 | CDBJ | 225422 | ||
Greetings FM and welcome back to the forum. I would guess it depends largely on which camp one’s concept of the hypostasis resides. I’m not even sure that my thoughts on the subject would totally fit entirely in any of the sections that I’ve listed but I would say the Apollinaris view would likely be the closes therefore causing the problem in my previous post. 2 Cor. 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. The words (made him) in the previous verse would argue against The Apollinaris view of the hypostasis since deity can’t be made sin, as it were. Example from Wikipedia Apollinaris of Laodicea was the first to use the term hypostasis in trying to understand the Incarnation. Apollinaris described the union of the divine and human in Christ as being of a single nature and having a single essence - a single hypostasis. The Nestorian Theodore of Mopsuestia went in the other direction, arguing that in Christ there were two natures (dyophysite) (human and divine) and two hypostases (in the sense of "essence" or "person") that co-existed. The Chalcedonian Creed agreed with Theodore that there were two natures in the Incarnation. However, the Council of Chalcedon also insisted that hypostasis be used as it was in the Trinitarian definition: to indicate the person and not the nature as with Apollinarius. Thus, the Council declared that in Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one subsistence and in one single person As the precise nature of this union is held to defy finite human comprehension, the hypostatic union is also referred to by the alternative term "mystical union." The Oriental Orthodox Churches, having rejected the Chalcedonian Creed, were known as Monophysites because they would only accept a definition that characterized the incarnate Son as having one nature. The Chalcedonian "in two natures" formula was seen as derived from and akin to a Nestorian Christology. Contrariwise, the Chalcedonians saw the Oriental Orthodox as tending towards Eutychian Monophysitism. However, the Oriental Orthodox have in modern ecumenical dialogue specified that they have never believed in the doctrines of Eutyches, that they have always affirmed that Christ's humanity is consubstantial with our own, and they thus prefer the term Miaphysite to refer to themselves (a reference to Cyrillian Christology, which used the phrase "mia physis tou theou logou sesarkomene"). I hope you stay with us a while, CDBJ |
||||||