Can deity die?
- Thread starter LovePink
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Next time maybe you'll be more open to reason then oldhermit when I say such things as no scholar would bet his life on it, instead of raging blindly on how my exegesis is completely false and simply can't stand, something made up to support a false doctrine. It was good of you to come out with your finding though rather than stop replying as some have the custom, you have to understand though my defensiveness in my comments, it was an insult on my intelligence (a small as it is) to claim the things in the manner in which you did. Hopefully you'll be more open to reason concerning other things.
Your not wrong, I have my interpretation of the texts, and you have yours. Its up to you what you want to believe even if there isn't much evidence for it, and I respect that.
Your not wrong, I have my interpretation of the texts, and you have yours. Its up to you what you want to believe even if there isn't much evidence for it, and I respect that.
After spending all afternoon researching and reviewing all the arguments on Lk. 23:43 regarding the placement of the comma, it is now apparent that I had no right to be as dogmatic in my defense of the placement of the comma before "Today". It seems that the body of scholarship whose opinions I have reviewed are split on this matter. There are good arguments grammatically defending both sides of the issue even in the area of similar internal comparisons. I have attempted to prove both sides of the issue and cannot prove either side conclusively. It would seem that no matter which theological opinion one may hold, it can neither be proven or disproven by this text. My apologies to all for my dogmatic approach on this text.
B
LINGUISTIC VALENCE
By Oldhermit
Divine triadic function is a harmonic. Totally continuous and twice differentiable indeed.
Scripture reveals God in three hypostatic distinctions. These three distinct functions involve,
a) intelligent design, Perfection to the holiest degree
b) active cause, Meaningful purpose throughout creation
c) organization. God's optimal order & accuracy is our survival.
Roger. Copy. Your paragraph is pretty cool.
These positional functions of each appear to be exclusive. In all of my 40 plus years as a student of scripture, I find it quite interesting that I have been unable to find a single textual example where one member of the Triadic Unity is seen operating in the function of another member. For example, we never seem to find the Third Position functioning as the active cause or the Second Position functioning as the linking agent. Each member of the triadic unity always appears to function within the parameters of his exclusive dynamic. Alluring & quite interesting observations there.
...
However, we must acknowledge the fact that it is impossible to create a definitive model of something we cannot see. How does one reduce God to a diagram on a piece of paper?
By Oldhermit
Divine triadic function is a harmonic. Totally continuous and twice differentiable indeed.
Scripture reveals God in three hypostatic distinctions. These three distinct functions involve,
a) intelligent design, Perfection to the holiest degree
b) active cause, Meaningful purpose throughout creation
c) organization. God's optimal order & accuracy is our survival.
Roger. Copy. Your paragraph is pretty cool.
These positional functions of each appear to be exclusive. In all of my 40 plus years as a student of scripture, I find it quite interesting that I have been unable to find a single textual example where one member of the Triadic Unity is seen operating in the function of another member. For example, we never seem to find the Third Position functioning as the active cause or the Second Position functioning as the linking agent. Each member of the triadic unity always appears to function within the parameters of his exclusive dynamic. Alluring & quite interesting observations there.
...
However, we must acknowledge the fact that it is impossible to create a definitive model of something we cannot see. How does one reduce God to a diagram on a piece of paper?
If the simple things of God humans are inclined to hate, now image what greater condemnation humans would reap if we understood all the beautifully holy treasures of the mind of God and then bluntly reject Him just the same. Hence, we stand without excuse, and we desperately are in great need of a Savior.
Death is no more than separation of spirit from body. The death of Christ was defined to be the giving up of his spirit. Hypostatitions however do not talk (only) about the spirit of Christ being divine but about the fusing of the human and divine "natures" to create someone fully God and fully man.
"Nature" comes from natural, meaning of this world. Thus "Divine nature" is oxy-moronic as divinity exists only as spirit.
Even to adopt this sort of language is sinful IMO. The bible knows nothing of it. It derives from human philosophy. Should signing up to human philosophy be made a test of orthodoxy? I know of no biblical injunction for it, but plenty of verses that deride human philosophy as mere vanity.
1Cr 3:18 "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise."
"Nature" comes from natural, meaning of this world. Thus "Divine nature" is oxy-moronic as divinity exists only as spirit.
Even to adopt this sort of language is sinful IMO. The bible knows nothing of it. It derives from human philosophy. Should signing up to human philosophy be made a test of orthodoxy? I know of no biblical injunction for it, but plenty of verses that deride human philosophy as mere vanity.
1Cr 3:18 "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise."
Yes there may be a difference in grammar but that does not nullify the fact that on a contextual basis the rendering "Truly I tell you today" is the more accurate translation.
As you can see from this board people either believe the Paradise in the verse to be in the Heavens or another adobe we go to much like Hades. This though is false and contradictory to the entire way of thinking of Christ and the evildoer. Jesus never taught nor thought paradise to be a subdivision of the realm of the dead, but rather the restoration of a paradise on earth. The thief too wouldn't of though Paradeisos was in Heaven or part of the realm of the dead, but rather a paradise like the one in Genesis 2:8.
By the reviewing the context of the Bible in it's entirety it is clear to see the only thing Jesus meant by his statement was that he was reassuring the thief at that moment in time that he'd would be with the thief in Paradise, which is to come in the immanent future (Psa 37:11,29).
What is your belief regarding Luke 23:43, what do you think Jesus meant by his words to the man?
As you can see from this board people either believe the Paradise in the verse to be in the Heavens or another adobe we go to much like Hades. This though is false and contradictory to the entire way of thinking of Christ and the evildoer. Jesus never taught nor thought paradise to be a subdivision of the realm of the dead, but rather the restoration of a paradise on earth. The thief too wouldn't of though Paradeisos was in Heaven or part of the realm of the dead, but rather a paradise like the one in Genesis 2:8.
By the reviewing the context of the Bible in it's entirety it is clear to see the only thing Jesus meant by his statement was that he was reassuring the thief at that moment in time that he'd would be with the thief in Paradise, which is to come in the immanent future (Psa 37:11,29).
What is your belief regarding Luke 23:43, what do you think Jesus meant by his words to the man?
Excellent!
1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
God has likened death to a deep unconscious sleep throughout the pages of His word. Here He shows that Christ was dead, unconscious and "asleep' for three days and three nights.
Yep, He really did love us enough to DIE for us.
1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
God has likened death to a deep unconscious sleep throughout the pages of His word. Here He shows that Christ was dead, unconscious and "asleep' for three days and three nights.
Yep, He really did love us enough to DIE for us.
E
sorry my friend. I am not here to try to belittle your language skills. But the laws of language does not support you in the greek or english.
If we use today as you are interpreting it. Today would be in the noun form, as it was used in acts. it is not. it is in the adverbial form. So he can not possibly be saying, Truly I tell you today (noun) he is literally saying, Today (adverb) you will be with me in paradise.
If we use today as you are interpreting it. Today would be in the noun form, as it was used in acts. it is not. it is in the adverbial form. So he can not possibly be saying, Truly I tell you today (noun) he is literally saying, Today (adverb) you will be with me in paradise.
B
It seems that 100% of folks participating in this thread all agree that the body of Jesus did, in fact, die. The discrepancy among you is in regards to whether the Spirit of the Lord Jesus died or not. Well, would you all agree in the following facts, please?
1. The Spirit of God is eternal since the Spirit of God already existed before Heaven & Earth were created. Genesis 1.
2. Jesus, the human baby, was born directly from the Spirit of God. Matthew 1:20.
3. Jesus, the adult Man, was baptized "and the Spirit of God" descended upon Him. Matthew 3:16.
4. Jesus acknowledges, while crucified, that His Spirit is being committed (safe guarded) to God. Luke 23:46.
5. In order of a Will (a Testament) to take effect, the testator (person making the Will) must first die for the heirs to have a claim. Hebrews 9:16-17.
Would you agree that Jesus was always full of the glory of God, and in order to the rest of us sinners to inherit from God, Jesus would have to die first as our Atonement?
Consequently, in order for sinners to inherit among the Living, Jesus would Himself need to be alive, which brings us back to the beginning: the Spirit of God never dies.
That's the value of the Holy Spirit in Christ, which raised Him from the dead, and the promise we have from Christ. The Lord is good.
1. The Spirit of God is eternal since the Spirit of God already existed before Heaven & Earth were created. Genesis 1.
2. Jesus, the human baby, was born directly from the Spirit of God. Matthew 1:20.
3. Jesus, the adult Man, was baptized "and the Spirit of God" descended upon Him. Matthew 3:16.
4. Jesus acknowledges, while crucified, that His Spirit is being committed (safe guarded) to God. Luke 23:46.
5. In order of a Will (a Testament) to take effect, the testator (person making the Will) must first die for the heirs to have a claim. Hebrews 9:16-17.
Would you agree that Jesus was always full of the glory of God, and in order to the rest of us sinners to inherit from God, Jesus would have to die first as our Atonement?
Consequently, in order for sinners to inherit among the Living, Jesus would Himself need to be alive, which brings us back to the beginning: the Spirit of God never dies.
That's the value of the Holy Spirit in Christ, which raised Him from the dead, and the promise we have from Christ. The Lord is good.
Nor was that my intent, I was coming from a purely contextual point of view, context at times over rules what people to believe is the correct grammatical rendering. I was merely using the power of elimination to work out the correct rendering, from a biblical standpoint as far as I'm aware there are three different interpretations when sēmeron is rendered "today".
1)The Paradise referred to a undead realm
2)The Paradise referred to Heaven
3)The Paradise referred to Paradise/Garden
Using reason and scriptural evidence anyone can deduct 1 and 2 from the list leaving only one possible outcome 3. That being the case the rendering which makes sense is the one I have been proposing.
You are incorrect. "Today" in most cases can modify the verb that precedes if it. However this isn't the case if it's forced by a grammatical construction (e.g hoti) into a following clause. It's my belief this is demonstrated in Luke 23:43 with scriptures such as Acts 26:29 proving it. In Luke 23:43, the adverb "today" could grammatically modify either the verb preceding it or the verb following it.
Literally translated without punctuation:"but also all those hearing me today to become even as I am."
Grammatically, "today" could modify "hearing" or "become." If it is the former, then Paul said:
"but also those hearing me today, to become even as I am."
If it is the latter, then Paul said:
"but also those hearing me, today to become even as I am."
As you can see, without ANY grammatical features that force "today" to modify either verb, its down to the reader or translator to determine by context the meaning of the verse, in most cases it defaults to it modifying the verb that comes BEFORE it. As I have stated before both interpretations of Luke 23:43 are grammatically correct since there was no punctuation in the NT. Therefore, no one can prove either interpretation from grammatical considerations, it can only be done by reviewing context of the scriptures.
You may not respond and I respect that, please just don't say its grammatically impossible for it to be translated the way I say it should be, since scholars alike agree that grammatically it can be translated either way.
1)The Paradise referred to a undead realm
2)The Paradise referred to Heaven
3)The Paradise referred to Paradise/Garden
Using reason and scriptural evidence anyone can deduct 1 and 2 from the list leaving only one possible outcome 3. That being the case the rendering which makes sense is the one I have been proposing.
You are incorrect. "Today" in most cases can modify the verb that precedes if it. However this isn't the case if it's forced by a grammatical construction (e.g hoti) into a following clause. It's my belief this is demonstrated in Luke 23:43 with scriptures such as Acts 26:29 proving it. In Luke 23:43, the adverb "today" could grammatically modify either the verb preceding it or the verb following it.
Literally translated without punctuation:"but also all those hearing me today to become even as I am."
Grammatically, "today" could modify "hearing" or "become." If it is the former, then Paul said:
"but also those hearing me today, to become even as I am."
If it is the latter, then Paul said:
"but also those hearing me, today to become even as I am."
As you can see, without ANY grammatical features that force "today" to modify either verb, its down to the reader or translator to determine by context the meaning of the verse, in most cases it defaults to it modifying the verb that comes BEFORE it. As I have stated before both interpretations of Luke 23:43 are grammatically correct since there was no punctuation in the NT. Therefore, no one can prove either interpretation from grammatical considerations, it can only be done by reviewing context of the scriptures.
You may not respond and I respect that, please just don't say its grammatically impossible for it to be translated the way I say it should be, since scholars alike agree that grammatically it can be translated either way.