"God died on the cross."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My view professes that Jesus has come in the flesh. Evangelicals clearly and emphatically denies that He came in the flesh.

I do proclaim that Jesus came in the flesh. I just do not say that the flesh is that of an ordinary man or that it became special and extra-ordinary only at the ascension.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When asked for a verse reference to support his assertion that "God died" Evangelical refused because interpretations of scripture can be so troubling.

A prime example of interpretations being troubling rather than the scripture itself, is how yourself and the box person both claim to use scripture only yet both disagree.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When asked how the immortal God dies he is silent.

It's a mystery, but I lean towards believing that God's divine nature did not die. However since "nothing is impossible for God" is true, I can't rule it out - I equally believe that God could kill his own divinity if He wanted to and bring his own divinity back to life. Being able to do the unthinkingly impossible is what the word God means.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When asked what the NT means when it says Jesus was made lower than the angels so that He could suffer death -- he is silent.

OK I can answer that now. Economically Jesus was made lower than the angels for the purpose of suffering death. Ontologically Jesus was equal with the Father. As you are a Trinitarian you might agree that Jesus was always equal with the Father even when He was suffering death? I'm hoping.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Evangelical denied that "the word tabernacled with us" refers to Jesus but rather that it referred to the church.

The body of Christ, to be precise, which is the church.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When I quoted Witness Lee saying that God died not in His own death but in another's he is silent.

Lee clearly taught that God died, or that both God and man died, not just one or the other.

Lee said:

You can take a person’s belongings, but you cannot take away his human nature since this is an intrinsic part of his being. Jesus is constituted with the divine essence and the human essence, and these essences could never be taken away from Him since they are an intrinsic part of His divine and human being. We should not forget that the One who died on the cross for us was both God and man—the God-man.

"God died on the cross in order to be released."

blood,” as the blood of God, proves the fact that God died on the cross. More than two centuries ago, Charles Wesley wrote a hymn that speaks of God dying for us. In this hymn Wesley says: Amazing love! How can it be That thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

Luther said:

For in His nature God cannot die; but now that God and man are united in one person, it is correctly called God's death

When Lee wrote “God died in man. God died not in His own death but in another One's death.” I understand this to mean as Luther wrote "For in His nature God cannot die;"

Witness Lee, Luther and Wesley are matching.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I quoted Witness Lee saying that Jesus was made Lord and Head at the ascension and asked Evangelical how His body could be God prior to the ascension yet not Lord and Head? According the NT God is above all, yet Evangelical's teaching denies this. Again, silence.

This is answered by understanding the difference between the ontological and the economical Trinity. Witness Lee did not introduce these terms, they are theological terms, eg see

https://carm.org/ontological-and-economic-trinity

I do not expect the Box person to accept this, but I thought it would be clear to a Trinitarian such as yourself.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I do proclaim that Jesus came in the flesh. I just do not say that the flesh is that of an ordinary man or that it became special and extra-ordinary only at the ascension.

OK, you claim Jesus came in "extraordinary" flesh, divine flesh.

I claim Jesus came in "the" flesh.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A prime example of interpretations being troubling rather than the scripture itself, is how yourself and the box person both claim to use scripture only yet both disagree.

This is an example that there are mysteries in the Bible that no one truly understands. Triune God is the perfect example of that.

Once you leave the word of God you are completely unlimited as to what you can say. Words like trinity and incarnation are derivative of many verses. They are "Bible based" but removed from the word by one level. You should never use these terms unless you can clearly refer back to the Scriptural basis. Otherwise your interpretation of what "incarnation" means can deviate from "the word tabernacled among us".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's a mystery, but I lean towards believing that God's divine nature did not die. However since "nothing is impossible for God" is true, I can't rule it out - I equally believe that God could kill his own divinity if He wanted to and bring his own divinity back to life. Being able to do the unthinkingly impossible is what the word God means.

Yes it is a mystery, which is why I lean towards not saying anything that the Bible does not say. The Bible says "Jesus was made lower than the angels" and that "Jesus was God come in the flesh". I say both of those. The Bible does not ever say that Jesus flesh on the cross was "God" or that "God died" on the cross, so I don't say it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OK I can answer that now. Economically Jesus was made lower than the angels for the purpose of suffering death. Ontologically Jesus was equal with the Father. As you are a Trinitarian you might agree that Jesus was always equal with the Father even when He was suffering death? I'm hoping.

Yes we both agree that "economically Jesus was made lower than the angels for the purpose of suffering death". Where we disagree is that I understand that this means the Son of God took on a mortal, human body identical to mine only without sin. You on the other hand do not explain what you mean that "economically he was made lower".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee clearly taught that God died, or that both God and man died, not just one or the other.

Lee said:

You can take a person’s belongings, but you cannot take away his human nature since this is an intrinsic part of his being. Jesus is constituted with the divine essence and the human essence, and these essences could never be taken away from Him since they are an intrinsic part of His divine and human being. We should not forget that the One who died on the cross for us was both God and man—the God-man.

I agree with this. Jesus has both essences, and they are now both part of the Triune God.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"God died on the cross in order to be released."

Although I feel this is very poorly worded I somewhat agree with some caveats. God, in the form of Jesus, the ark of the covenant that tabernacled with us, went to the cross and died. as a result the way to the Holy of Holies was opened. I agree that since Jesus is the Son of God He experienced death on the cross and I have said this as well. So if you look at God today He clearly experienced death on the cross, I said that as well. What I disagree with is the idea that Jesus human body was God. At most I believe the Bible would equate Jesus human body with the human body prior to the fall.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

blood,” as the blood of God, proves the fact that God died on the cross. More than two centuries ago, Charles Wesley wrote a hymn that speaks of God dying for us. In this hymn Wesley says: Amazing love! How can it be That thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

Luther said:

For in His nature God cannot die; but now that God and man are united in one person, it is correctly called God's death

When Lee wrote “God died in man. God died not in His own death but in another One's death.” I understand this to mean as Luther wrote "For in His nature God cannot die;"

Witness Lee, Luther and Wesley are matching.

This is answered by understanding the difference between the ontological and the economical Trinity. Witness Lee did not introduce these terms, they are theological terms, eg see

https://carm.org/ontological-and-economic-trinity

I do not expect the Box person to accept this, but I thought it would be clear to a Trinitarian such as yourself.

I see the economical trinity as taking on human flesh so that through incarnation, human living, death and resurrection man could become part of the Godhead in Jesus Christ. That is what "mingling" refers to in the type.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes we both agree that "economically Jesus was made lower than the angels for the purpose of suffering death". Where we disagree is that I understand that this means the Son of God took on a mortal, human body identical to mine only without sin. You on the other hand do not explain what you mean that "economically he was made lower".

So the main point of disagreement is the nature of Christ's fleshly body, is it "identical to mine"?

Perhaps your interpretation is correct and is what Lee taught. I may lean towards what I believe is the traditional view because of my background in more traditional denominations prior to the Recovery.

I believe that once God united human nature to Himself (as it was in a full and complete way in Christ), that human nature became life-giving, since it is united with eternal life itself.

This view comes from the Scripture where Christ's flesh is life-giving, and therefore not ordinary flesh like ours:

John 6: 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And this bread, which I will give for the life of the world, is My flesh.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

To me this says Christ's flesh is special. Only Christ's flesh can impart life because only Christ's flesh is united with eternal life by the Incarnation. Even though the Spirit of God indwells us as believers, my flesh and your flesh can never impart life to others. If others "eat" our flesh, they will not receive life.

I thought Lee taught similar, such as Life-Study of Exodus: Messages 23-41

"the flesh of the Passover lamb ...signifies Christ's ..life.
"My flesh is true food"

1 John 1:1 to me suggests that the life itself had human form, and was touched and handled:

1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

When a person touched the flesh of Christ, they were touching eternal life itself in human form, or "God in the flesh". So God could be physically touched in a real sense when a person touched the body of Jesus. I believe that "Jesus is God" refers to Jesus as a whole person. We cannot say the spirit or soul of Christ is God but the flesh is not.

I guess my biggest concern with your view, is that it means when a person touched Christ, they weren't actually touching God, they were touching a tent which God was always hiding within. But if we believe Christ's flesh is as much God as His spirit, then a person touching him can actually say they touched God, as Thomas did "my Lord and my God".

Romans 9:5 says, "Whose are the fathers, and out of whom, as regards what is according to flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all"


If I am not mistaken, your view sees only the Spirit inside of Christ as life-giving, the flesh as "profiting nothing", but seems to neglect what Scripture says about Christ's flesh being life giving.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

This sounds like Jesus was teaching cannibalism and vampire-ism. How literal should we take this? Transubstantiation? Is that how we become gods?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

This sounds like Jesus was teaching cannibalism and vampire-ism. How literal should we take this? Transubstantiation? Is that how we become gods?

I would think that someone who supports every kind of human right there is would be more accepting of cannibals and vampires.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

This sounds like Jesus was teaching cannibalism and vampire-ism. How literal should we take this? Transubstantiation? Is that how we become gods?

Cannibalism and vampirism is what people accused the early Christians of, so if you have obtained that interpretation from my posts then I know I am correct.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I guess my biggest concern with your view, is that it means when a person touched Christ, they weren't actually touching God, they were touching a tent which God was always hiding within. But if we believe Christ's flesh is as much God as His spirit, then a person touching him can actually say they touched God, as Thomas did "my Lord and my God".

Romans 9:5 says, "Whose are the fathers, and out of whom, as regards what is according to flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all"


If I am not mistaken, your view sees only the Spirit inside of Christ as life-giving, the flesh as "profiting nothing", but seems to neglect what Scripture says about Christ's flesh being life giving.

Peter said "to whom can we go, you have the words of eternal life". When they touched Jesus speaking they touched God.