Do you agree with the doctrine that says JESUS died spiritually?

[Butch5]

The verses right before verse 16 says this is talking about Jesus. The statement that says no man has seen Him dwelling in the Light is exactly what it means. It is talking about seeing God (Christ) in all His Light or glory. For the disciples asked to see the Father, and Jesus said they already seen the Father. This is because the Father dwells in the Son and vise versa. Meaning, that the disciples seen the Father just as they had seen the Son, but the disciples did not see the Father dwelling in all His glory; Nor did they see the Son dwelling in the Light in all His glory.

It's talking about Jesus showing who is the only potentate, the one who no man has seen nor can see. People have seen Jesus, so it's not speaking of Him. One has seen no can see the Father.

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. (Joh 6:46 KJV)

Jesus said no man has seen the Father. So, when Jesus said, if you have seen me you have seen the Father, He obviously didn't mean that literally. I would submit that they are in unison and Jesus is the representation of the Father, so seeing Jesus they are see just what the Father is like.

KJV Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (Heb 1:1-3 KJV)

 

[Butch5]

God's Spirit in behavior, in essence and being and in having power did not change. Jesus Christ still had power as God during His Earthly ministry (of which I already mentioned). The true teaching on the Kenosis (Philippians 2:6-9) is in Christ being emptied of rank or position. Jesus did not empty his divine attributes. Christ merely had a blind fold on temporarily with His Omniscience in being suppressed during His Earthly ministry. Christ still had His Omniscience. This attribute was not eliminated. In other words, I don't become any less of who I am if I temporarily choose to where a blind fold. My eyes still would exist and function the next day when I took the blind fold off.

You're assuming He had omniscience and also assuming that it was limited. The Scriptures say neither. You're trying to say that Kenow means limit but it doesn't it means empty.

 

[jb]

Jesus didn't die spiritually he died physically and went to heaven...

Further to my post in #193, you might also want to have a look Here as well...

Yahweh Shalom

 

[Butch5]

Glad we can agree on this point. Some folks might say Jesus is Holy, but they believe Jesus could have sinned. Which I believe is a contradiction and really wrong to suggest such a thing. Jesus is Holy and perfect and was incapable of sin.

If He wasn't capable of sin then He wasn't temped in all ways as were are. It's no great thing to be sinless if one can't sin. What makes Him so great is that He could sin and didn't.

It should be obvious that Christ was not referring to the internal part of Himself that was God or that which was Spirit inside His body that they could not see. The disciples were afraid that it might have been a ghost or apparition. Christ was assuring them that He had the same physical body He always had during His life. This was not a denial of His deity or the true part of Himself that was Spirit inside the body.

Your argument assumes this Greek or Gnostic idea that there is a separation of Christ the man and spirit. As I said, this is a dangerous place to be.

There is no separation, the Christ is not a spirit, He is a man, the man Jesus.

He was talking about Himself, He said, 'a spirit does not have flesh and bone as you see I have'. He wasn't speaking about part of Himself while ignoring another part. Jesus is a man, not a spirit.

 

[Butch5]

1 John 5:7 says there are THREE that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these THREE are ONE.

That's the Trinity or as the Bible calls it, the Godhead. In fact, God refers to Himself in the plural form a few times in Scripture.

Actually, there is quite a debate over the Johanine comma. Most people don't think it is original as it can only be found in very late manuscripts. It is thought by some that Erasmus added it.

As for Jesus saying the Father is greater than Him: This is in relation to the hierarchy of the Godhead. It is talking about how the different persons within the Godhead function and operate as a whole in being one God.

There is no thing called the Godhead. Godhead is old English for Godhood. Just as there was fatherhead, or fatherhood. It just means Godhood.

If you don't understand the concept of more than one person that make up one being, then just think about siamese twins (Not that God is an exact parallel of siamese twins mind you).

.

You finally said it. The words person and being are interchangeable, In essence what you're saying is that three persons are one person, that is not the Trinity, it is a logical contradiction. Three persons cannot be one person, it's not possible. It's also not what the Christian faith taught in the beginning. As I said that idea came into the faith in the fifth century, somewhere around 450 AD. I believe.

In the early 300's AD. the Arian controversy arose. Arius taught that Christ was a created being. The orthodox church argued against this idea and it became a big problem. In 325 AD. Constantine convened a council to determine that nature of Christ. What the church came up with became known as the Nicene Creed which says this.

[h=1]Nicene Creed[/h][HR][/HR]I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

This is what the Christian faith believed and it was what was called the Trinity. However, later on as men began to speculate and try to understand things we find that some different ideas began to enter into the church. One of those ideas was that there are three coequal, co-eternal beings that are one God.


9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

As you can see this quite different than what the earlier Christians believed, they said, I believe in one God the Father, not one God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This Anthanasian Creed is what most modern Christians believe yet it is a product of the fifth or sixth century it is not what the Jesus and the apostles taught.



Jesus is the Light that shines out the darkness. Jesus is the Savior. Only God Almighty is the Light and the Savior because the OT Scriptures say that there is no Savior beside Him (i.e. God). John 1 and John 3 says Jesus is the Light. Revelation says the Lamb will be the Light thereof in the Eternal New Earth. 1 John 1:5 says God is Light. So Jesus is God.

No, this is not saying Jesus can't do certain things. This is a verse that supports the Trinity because the Son thinks and moves in perfect will and harmony within the Godhead. For Jesus says He always does what pleases the Father (Hence, why the Son said He can do nothinng of Himself). This is because the Father and the Son are both a part of the Godhead. For God cannot disagree with Himself. Jesus said He and the Father are one. The Jews considered this blasphemy because Jesus was claiming to be as equal footing as God by saying that.

It's intersting that in other posts you tell me that you just take the plain straightforward reading of the text, yet when replying to my plain straightforward reading of the text you keep saying, no, it's not saying that.

Jesus said, 'of myself I can do nothing," He also said that it was the Father who was doing the works.

KJV John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (Joh 5:19 KJV)

BGT John 5:19 Ἀπεκρίνατο οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲν ἐὰν μή τι βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα· ἃ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ. (Joh 5:19 BGT)

He said the "Son can do nothing." I've bolded both the KJV and the Greek, the Greek literally says, "no power the Son to do." Jesus literally said that He didn't have the power to do the works.

 

[Butch5]

God bless these people. Jesus is not Spirit, wow just wow. Are you not a spiritual being?

No, I'm not a spirit being, I'm man created from the dust of the ground.

 

[Butch5]

There is something to think about for those who hold to this modern understanding of the Trinity. Jesus gave all glory to the Father. However, if there is a being who consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he would be greater than all three since each is only a part of him. Who's ready to say there is one greater than the Father?

 

[Butch5]

Dear Butch:

I spent all day replying to your one post with a lot of thought and care (Involving the Scriptures). There is a chance that I may get back to what you had written by tomorrow. However, if I feel you are not really open to hearing anything I say with Scripture, I may not reply back, my friend.

Peace be unto you.
And may God bless you.

Jason,

I understand the amount of time the goes into these posts, it can be quite lenghty. If you would like we can pick one area to work with and go from there we can. I think my post showing the two creeds really answers the question because it shows where this idea of one God, three persons, came from. However, if you'd like to take your strongest argument we can start there and try to work through this

 

[Butch5]

Butch, be careful, He's trying to snare you with your own words.

Hi Chopper,

It's ok, I've Had this discussion several times. I've looked at this for quite a while and have seen where the idea came into the faith. What it comes down to is that the idea didn't come along until hundreds of years after Christ and t he apostle preached the Christian faith.

 

[Jason0047]

I have had this discussion many times, too. The difference between us is that I can say Scripture can be trusted (i.e. example you don't believe 1 John 5:7 can be trusted). Another difference between us is that I can say I don't ignore the plain straightforward meaning of a passage that ignores other cross references (For example, while the word "everlasting" can be temporal, other cross references let us know that Jesus did not have a beginning). Another difference between us is that I am upfront about what I believe and I have no need to hide what churches my beliefs most resemble.

I could debate this further, but I don't think it would help you, my friend. You believe the way you do and I dont think there is a verse or passage that can change your mind or help you at this time.

Peace be unto you.
And may God bless you.

 

[seed_time_harvest]

The thought that Jesus died spiritual shows biblical ignorance. Not even the wicked die spiritually, the live forever in the lake of fire.

Maybe the question should be...was there a time on the cross when the eternal Son was separated from the eternal Father?

I think the Question should have been asked like crossnote said

 

[Butch5]

I have had this discussion many times, too. The difference between us is that I can say Scripture can be trusted (i.e. example you don't believe 1 John 5:7 can be trusted). Another difference between us is that I can say I don't ignore the plain straightforward meaning of a passage that ignores other cross references (For example, while the word "everlasting" can be temporal, other cross references let us know that Jesus did not have a beginning). Another difference between us is that I am upfront about what I believe and I have no need to hide what churches my beliefs most resemble.

I could debate this further, but I don't think it would help you, my friend. You believe the way you do and I dont think there is a verse or passage that can change your mind or help you at this time.

Peace be unto you.
And may God bless you.

I can say all the same things. I think one problem is that your'e relying solely on the translators of the English Bible. They are not infallible. The Scripture weren't written in English, therefore they had to be translated and translators make mistakes and they have bias. In order to translate something you have to know what it says. If the translator doesn't have a firm grasp on what the text says, he may not translate it properly. These theologians that translate the Scriptures all have their theological biases. The Calvinist believes one thing the Methodist another, the two men are not going to translate every passage the same. So, that leaves the English reader reading someone's interpretation of the Scriptures. Granted they are correct for the most part, however, they are not infallible.

I gave you two clear passages showing that Owlam cannot mean everlasting, that was Scripture not my opinion. You said you take the plain straightforward meaning of the text. If that is the case then you should have taken the plain straightforward reading of the passages I posted and realized that there is a problem translating Owlam as everlasting.

You posted Micah 5:2 from the Masoretic text which translates Owlam as everlasting even though other passages show it cannot mean that. The Septuagint reads a bit differently, it says,

LXT Micah 5:1 καὶ σύ Βηθλεεμ οἶκος τοῦ Εφραθα ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν Ιουδα ἐκ σοῦ μοι ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα ἐν τῷ Ισραηλ καὶ αἱ ἔξοδοι αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος (Mic 5:1 LXT)

The bolded says 'ruler in the Israel and the departures of Him from beginning out of days age.

That's what the Septuagint say, it says days of the age, not everlasting.

Even if you look at other translations of the Hebrew Masoretic text you can see that other besides the KJV translate it more along the lines of the Septuagint.

Young's Literal Translation:

YLT Micah 5:2 And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah, Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth -- to be ruler in Israel, And his comings forth are of old, From the days of antiquity. (Mic 5:2 YLT)

The NET Bible:

NET Micah 5:2 (5:1) As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,6 seemingly insignificant7 among the clans of Judah – from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf,8 one whose origins are in the distant past.10 (Mic 5:2 NET)

CJB Micah 5:1 But you, Beit-Lechem near Efrat, so small among the clans of Y'hudah, out of you will come forth to me the future ruler of Isra'el, whose origins are far in the past, back in ancient times. (Mic 5:1 CJB)


These are different, we can take the plain straightforward reading of the text and and understand that it wasn't everlasting.

The bottom line is that it's not as simple as just taking a verse in the English Bible and say that it is the end all of the discussion.

Regarding the church it's irrelevant. I'll tell you up front that I am not JW, if that is what you were thinking. I don't align myself with any denomination because I believe they a sin. Denominations divide the body of Christ. So I am simply a Christian. I attend a Christian church that holds most of the typical doctrines that are espoused in modern Christianity so, I am not in agreement with much of what they teach.

 

[popeye]

There is something to think about for those who hold to this modern understanding of the Trinity. Jesus gave all glory to the Father. However, if there is a being who consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he would be greater than all three since each is only a part of him. Who's ready to say there is one greater than the Father?

Who's ready to say there is one greater than the Father?

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

 

[popeye]

These are qualities of God, but it doesn't answer the question, what do you mean by God? You asked me if I believe Jesus is God and I asked you to define what you mean by God. Some of these qualities do pertain to Jesus some don't.



Yes, He's eternal.



No, He himself said that He did not know the hour of His return.

[/FONT] 32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. (Mar 13:32 KJV)



NO, He Himself said the power came from the Father.

[/FONT] 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
(1Co 15:25-27 KJV)



Yes, He is righteous.



No, Scripture says He was here and He went there. If He traveled from here to there then it's obvious He isn't everywhere.

[/FONT] 14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.
15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.
16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. (Luk 4:14-16 KJV)



No, Paul said the Father alone has immorality.

13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; {confession: or, profession}
14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. (1Ti 6:13-16 KJV)



No, Scripture says He was in the form of God and emptied Himself taking on the form of a servant, that's change.

7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. (Phi 2:7 NAS)



Yes He is Holy.



No, He Himself say a spirit does not have flesh and bone as you see I have.

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luk 24:39 KJV)



No, one being is not three beings.

28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (Joh 14:28 KJV)



[/FONT]Yes, He is light



No, Jesus Himself said that He couldn't do some things.

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (Joh 5:19 KJV)

No, He Himself say a spirit does not have flesh and bone as you see I have.

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luk 24:39 KJV)

Jesus is both. Fully spirit,yet having flesh,organs etc.
It is not 'either or" it is both.

No, Jesus Himself said that He couldn't do some things.

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (Joh 5:19 KJV)

"can't do" would also be an atribute of the father. ..eg,he can't do unholy works...he can't renig on his law...he can't lie,etc.
has nothing to do with his power.It knows no bounds.

"The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."
This speaks of the one-ness of the 2. That is all

 

[popeye]

Scripture only matters when taken in context.

Jesus said it was complete. finished, paid in full BEFORE ANY OF THOSE THINGS OCCURRED.

thus those passages are NOT in context of what we are speaking of.

ps. I am a non deniminational christian. So thinks for your prideful remark, which is false.

Ok,This "it is finished" statement is not what you think it is.

Jesus was also the Priest,as well as the sacrifice. That day there were 3 on the crosses. At the same time,there were 3 sacrifices in the temple. The levitical priesthood,Chiaphus,and Annas,and the priesthood of Judah (David) which was Jesus.
The priest,when he emerged from the HOH with a successful sacrifice cried "it is finished". That is the basis for what we see on the cross.

Btw,JT Baptist was the actual Priest,through his Father. See the farce the Jews were left with? Chiaphas tore his robe,which would have recused him from any oficiating as a priest,thus Annas most likely took over. Chiaphus was a roman appointee.

 

[Butch5]

Jesus is both. Fully spirit,yet having flesh,organs etc.
It is not 'either or" it is both.

Even though Jesus said otherwise? John said, 'the Word became flesh.'

"can't do" would also be an atribute of the father. ..eg,he can't do unholy works...he can't renig on his law...he can't lie,etc.
has nothing to do with his power.It knows no bounds.

"The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."
This speaks of the one-ness of the 2. That is all

I think that is speculation. However, Jesus said that He didn't have the power to the miracles.

 

[secularhermit]

To me that "doctrine" is as new as TOMORROW: I never heard about it.

 

[secularhermit]

Jesus didn't die spiritually he died physically and went to heaven and came back and rose again in his body. And then went back up into the clouds to heaven

I already read about what you believe of Jesus... but here I agree with you, He didn´t die spiritually, except dying be considered a sort of suffering or a painstaking experience those who died knew only. For me, dying is that event where the spirit leaves the body and, as you said, Jesus left His bady until He was resurrected but, according to my belief, God (your Father) (and mine, if He wills) "died" with Jesus also, because God´s Holy Spirit left Jesus´ body first (His living temple on earth) and soon after, our Lord Jesus died too.

The moment God "experienced" death was when He left His own Son´s body and that was the moment Jesus said part of Psalms 22 ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?").

So, death is that painstaking moment we feel spiritually, emotionally and viscerally in the mind and body. just see what jesus said: Mat 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."