Jesus forsaken? - Page 5

DividedThigh · #41 01-22-2009, 02:36 PM

i personally believe that Jesus chose in his divinity to feel the feelings and hurt of being deserted and alone to face the sin and pain in our stead, his compassion is boundless, and he is familiar with our hurts, shame, and pain, the Ideal Savior, dt

mfblume · #42 01-22-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yes exactly but that idea that Christ had to die Spiritually has led the WOF folks to claim that as part of that death we were destined for hell and in order to redeem us from that Christ also had to go to hell.

Yes, that WOF idea is error, to be sure.

Quote:

Which is why I don't believe Jesus had to spiritually die or be literally separated from God

But I think there must have been a spiritual death for the Son of God as I described, at least, involved, because we were in spiritually death and were also doomed to physical death. Christ dealt with both deaths, I believe. To die as us He must have experienced spiritual death since we did, no?

Praxeas · #43 01-22-2009, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Yes, that WOF idea is error, to be sure.

But I think there must have been a spiritual death for the Son of God as I described, at least, involved, because we were in spiritually death and were also doomed to physical death. Christ dealt with both deaths, I believe. To die as us He must have experienced spiritual death since we did, no?

To spiritually die is to be separated from the life of God. Does the bible say he had to die spiritually for us?

pelathais · #44 01-23-2009, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

My thoughts. As I said I think what was meant was Christ was made to be a sin offering.

My problem with HE was made Sin is, it does not make sense. Sin isn't a thing one can become. We can become sinners. The problem I see theologically is this tends to support the word of faith movement's assertion that Jesus had to spiritually die for us in order for us to be reconciled. That view has led some of them to assert Jesus went to hell and suffered.

If Jesus is God and Jesus literally was spiritually dead then that presents a theological conundrum. How can someone be God, and be separated from God? That is spiritual death, to be literally separated from the Life of God. Yet it is the life of God that makes the Son "God".

Also that division would also mean Christ was not only NOT God in nature but NOT God in person, but a separate Person.

The "sin offering" makes better sense. Also too "God treated him as though he were a sinner", but make more sense but still leads to the spiritual death conundrum.

I agree, but given the fact that it's been stated as "he hath made him to be sin for us..." since at least 1611, we have to allow for folks to quote and reference that phrasing.

Aquila · #45 01-23-2009, 06:56 AM

I believe he felt my forsakenness as my sins were laid upon him.

BobDylan · #46 01-23-2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Unique Begotten is sort of a redundancy. Monogenes is the greek word. Translated as "begotten" in the KJV and as "Unique" or "Only" in more modern translations. Thus it is one or the other, not both

monogenes is translated as "only begotten", or "uniquely begotten"... I think you read into, or past what I was saying. It's not either "unique" or "Begettoen"... it's the combination... I just looked it up. In Textus Receptus, monogenes is translated "only begotten"...

I think we're talking past each other here....

Praxeas · #47 01-23-2009, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobDylan

monogenes is translated as "only begotten", or "uniquely begotten"... I think you read into, or past what I was saying. It's not either "unique" or "Begettoen"... it's the combination... I just looked it up. In Textus Receptus, monogenes is translated "only begotten"...

I think we're talking past each other here....

It's Translated as "Only Begotten" in the KJV and in modern english as "Only" or "Unique", that's all I meant

mfblume · #48 01-23-2009, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe he felt my forsakenness as my sins were laid upon him.

Amen. THAT is true vicarious suffering. And that is the point of the whole work of the cross.

mfblume · #49 01-23-2009, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

To spiritually die is to be separated from the life of God. Does the bible say he had to die spiritually for us?

Since we died spiritually, I think yes.

TK Burk · #50 01-23-2009, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

"JESUS" refers to the single person of God. SON is a manifestation of that person aside from the other manifestations of Father and Holy Ghost of the same Person.

So, JESUS is omniscient.

However, the SONSHIP involved lack of omniscience, as per His humanity but not the deity

Mark 13:32 KJV But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Would you agree this verse indicates my claim? How do you explain this verse in lieu of your question?

I believe in One God. I do not believe in separate persons or separate Gods. I also do not believe that Jesus was/is imperfect. Nor do I believe that He suffered schizophrenia or dissociative identity disorder.

You do believe Jesus’ Mount Olivet Discourse (Mat 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) speaks of the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem, correct? You also believe that these chapters include Jesus explaining to His disciples that their generation would see all of these prophecies fulfilled, right? If so, how then are we to believe that within Mark’s account Jesus all of a sudden stops and says that He really does not know when this is to take place? If He did not know, how could He know it was to happen within their generation (Mat 24:34, Mat 23:36; Mark 13:30; Luke 11:50, Luke 21:32; Acts 2:40)? How would He know that some standing there would live to see it happen (Mat 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27)? How can Jesus have understanding of all that was to happen, and even that it was to happen within their generation, and then claim that He did not know when it was to take place?

I believe the key to understand Mark 13:32 is found in another mentioning of Jesus' statement.

Mat 24:36
(36) But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

This account does not have Jesus not knowing, but instead says it is man. Such thought agrees with these accounts: Mat 24:42, Mat 25:13; Mark 13:33, Mark 13:35; Acts 1:7.

All Scripture was inspired by the same author – God Almighty! Therefore, since Jesus is God, and since He knew all about the Olivet Discourse, how did He not know about the timeframe in which it was to occur? To me, to believe Jesus did not know the day or the hour is inconsistent with Him being the omniscient God.

Your argument could also be used to give credence to the claim that there is a gap in the Olivet Discourse. Of course nowhere in Mat 24, Mark 13, or Luke 21 does such a passage exist. However, your line of reasoning does leave open the idea that Jesus may have also missed the timeframe for the Dispensationalist’s gap. After all, if He did not know about the day or the hour, who’s to say if He knew about this gap? Hey, one error always leads to another….

The Bible clearly has Jesus knowing all things. Therefore I believe Mark 13:32 is not saying that Jesus did not know the time or the hour for this fulfillment, but instead that man (God’s son/child) did not know.

Jesus' best!