Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
When you do quote a verse in context (a somewhat rare occasion) you seem to be confused, as if the supposed "contradictions" are something to revel in. If you don't want to be accused of a lack of knowledge then I suggest you don't make ignorant statements such as "the Father... never forsaking him" - the exact words which are recording for us in said verse. That must of been an embarrassing slip for you.
But then you made a nice recovery with this:
See, I knew you could do it!
-
|
That is not my recovery or embarrassing to me, that has been my position all along - my view respects the hypostatic union, Christ as the Son of God and also as the Son of Man.
How can you say I am ignorant about Matthew 27:46, when in my post #2 I present both sides - the Father not leaving Christ, but also the Father forsaking Him. I said this:
Not only is this denying the omnipresence of God, but Christ's own words: "John 8:29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.". I believe Lee is right when he says the Father sent the Son but also was present with the Son. Christ also said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" indicating that the Father's presence departed from him.
You accused me of lack of knowledge, thinking that I did not know about Matthew 27:46, when in fact I had mentioned it in post #2 and again in post #47. That is embarrassing for you. I knew about this verse and its meaning, and was discussing it from the beginning.
Then again in post #47 I referred to God forsaking Christ as the Son of Man:
Matt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
After this point, Jesus was like any other condemned sinner - completely separated from God.
Some, may think that God forsaking Christ, was not an actual departure of the Father and the Spirit's presence. But other passages in scripture prove that to be forsaken is for God to leave - e.g. Hebrews 13:5.
Then a few posts ago I emphasized the fact that the hypostatic union was not broken when Christ died on the cross and that Christ did not stop being the Godhead in the flesh when he went to the grave.
What makes you and others on here look ignorant is the fact that I am not even quoting from Lee/Nee here, but using freely available online bible commentaries.
For example, when I inferred that the Godhead dwelt in Christ on the cross, I was paraphrasing John Gill's exposition of the Bible which says:
"When he is said to be "forsaken" of God; the meaning is not, that the hypostatical union was dissolved, which was not even by death itself; the fulness of the Godhead still dwelt bodily in him"
When I mentioned the Father not forsaking Christ because Christ always pleased the Father I was paraphrasing Barnes's notes on the Bible:
This expression is one denoting intense suffering. It has been difficult to understand in what sense Jesus was "forsaken by God." It is certain that God approved his work. It is certain that he was innocent. He had done nothing to forfeit the favor of God. As his own Son - holy, harmless, undefiled, and obedient - God still loved him.In either of these senses God could not have forsaken him.
It must be embarrassing for you that a "Lee-follower" is beating you at your own game, using the words of freely available bible commentaries to show that the matter of God "forsaking" Christ is not so clear cut, and to show what is essentially the same doctrine as Lee's.
The footnote in Matthew 27:46 Recovery Version, says "God forsook Christ on the cross".
But in LIFE-STUDY OF MARK,MESSAGE FORTY-EIGHT THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF THE SLAVE-SAVIOR FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT
OF GOD’S REDEMPTION Lee explains how Christ was never separated from the God, yet in some sense God left him. Lee explains that it was the anointing of the Spirit that left Christ, not the divine essence. God forsaking Christ does not mean that Christ no longer had the divine nature. That is similar to what Gill's commentary says.
All good bible scholars admit the difficulty in explaining the exact nature of God forsaking Christ on the cross and its implications in regards to the Trinity.