Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

That is no different than saying God did not need flesh to come to earth as a human through Jesus.

---

A CORRECT and ACCURATE statement!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

Why would that be saying Jesus sinned? Do you know what a soul is?

---

This was a follow-up to the person who said that the 'sacrifice' was that God experienced sin, which the poster defined as separation of the soul. This indicates 1) Jesus was not God because he had a soul, something God has no need for; 2) Jesus sinned -- If the 'sacrifice' was that God experienced sin, and the claim is made that Jesus was God, then this is the same thing as saying "Jesus sinned."

Show me how I am not correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Death is a separation of body and soul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZachZ

This is interesting. So what use does God have for a 'soul'? A soul is something that only humans need.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZachZ

Christ’s soul slept. This indicates again that Jesus was not God. Only humans have souls. God has no need for a soul.

---

---

I think I can resolve both these objections with one explanation. Once again, your objection is probably my failure for not being clear.

In my first post I stated that Christ was a Man and as such had both a body and a soul. I also said that God IS. I don’t think I’ve got the wherewithal to define God – nor does anybody.

The Man that was, is, and always will be, Christ died; by definition of death, it entailed a separation of the body from the soul. For three days the body continued in corruption. The soul descended into Sheol for the same three days, a place Jewish faith holds to be a waiting place for souls. Descending to Sheol was always referred to in Scripture as being asleep.

We take Christ’s soul to be rather different in that it was pure and in perfect communion with God. Nevertheless, Christ’s soul went to Sheol until the resurrection where it was re-united with the body. Upon the ascension, the resurrected Man called Christ, body and soul, re-established its communion with God; who is a Triune of three persons, God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Christ sat at the right hand of God.

So, yes only humans have souls as did Christ who was human. The second person of the Trinity has, among other things, a human soul. I’m assuming you’re not denying Christ his humanity? I don’t believe I implied that God (the fist person in the Triune) had a soul, what was said was that God IS.

"Therefore, both Jesus the man and Jesus the God were crucified."

JoeT

Yes soul does not equal sin Adam and Eve had a soul before they sinned.


defining spirit, soul, and body

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

Yes soul does not equal sin Adam and Eve had a soul before they sinned.


defining spirit, soul, and body

---

You lost me.

OP seems to think soul = sin

Jesus is a separate person from God. He is God's son, He is not God. Genesis tells how Jesus was created by God as the first fruit of His Creation, how God was especially fond of him, but as for Jesus, his thoughts were with {he was fond of} the humans God created on Earth. The angels in heaven are also called God's sons, Jesus, his firstborn, is also the Archangel Michael. When Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, eating the fruit off God's tree of Knowledge, in order to prevent them from also eating from the tree of life God put them out of the garden. Jesus calls Himself the tree of life. Was He actually there in the garden at the beginning of creation too? When Abram was tested, he offered up his son as a sacrifice. Did God kill his son? No, he basically said, that's all right, I will accept this ram caught in the thornbushes as your sacrifice. When God offered up His own son, what did man do? He killed God's son. In the Old Testament David is called God's son, God says I will become his father, and he will become my son. David at this point had already been born, so how could he now have a different father? It was similar to the born again arrangement, David was to become a new person entirely.

Zach you are ignoring what the point of my response was. You are trying to logically understand something that is spiritual. Maybe you never operate on a spiritual level which is truly sad. You can't answer a spiritual question with the physical mind which you are apparently proud to be stifled by

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wildandblue

Jesus is a seperate person from God. He is God's son, He is not God.

---

You are either declaring your polytheism, or you admit that Jesus is not God here -- I am not sure which, your response is unclear. Either response puts you outside the stated beliefs of normative Christianity, and so you're not addressing my original question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pnkrkmama

Zach you are ignoring what the point of my response was. You are trying to logically understand something that is spiritual. Maybe you never operate on a spiritual level which is truly sad. You can't answer a spiritual question with the physical mind which you are apparently proud to be stifled by

---

The 'point' of your response seems to be: I admit my beliefs are illogical and self-contradictory, but because this is a "spiritual" subject, logic does not apply. You are still saying: Answer C: My beliefs are self-contradictory and illogical.

This may be satisfactory for you, but not for me or any other sensible person who doesn't feel that one must abandon all logic and reason when studying Torah. God gave me a sharp, inquisitive and logical mind, and I see no reason to throw away these gifts that God gave me when my thoughts turn to Him and His Torah.

Read sentence three of my original response--Jesus is not God. He is God's son. Once resurrected, He sat down at the right hand of the Father. Told, sit at my right hand, I will make a footstool out of your enemies for you to rest your feet on. Was God looking in a mirror here? Was He talking to Himself? Of course not. God sent His perfect son as a ransom sacrifice for the sin of the imperfect man Adam. This is all in the Bible. How does pointing this out not make me a Chistian? I was trying to help, not annoy you. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

I think I can resolve both these objections with one explanation. Once again, your objection is probably my failure for not being clear.

In my first post I stated that Christ was a Man and as such had both a body and a soul...

---

You are still providing Answer B: No sacrifice. Without the death of God, what true sacrifice was there? The entirety of the Christian idea of 'grace' is that God died for your sins. The narrative you provided shows that God did NOT die, for any purpose. All that can be said is that God created a human being (at no expense to Himself) and sent this human being to die in an un-kosher manner for a purpose prohibited by Torah. Such a 'sacrifice' is invalid and meaningless.

The closest I can make sense of the trinity is like a triangle with three dots within it.
It is ONE triangle yet three dots.

Your right I don't have an answer... but then I don't feel the need

There are many things in life that I as a mere mortal do not understand.

Our brains cannot comprehened all things... I personnaly don't think we are meant to

But for the Grace of God...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 0rphan

Your right i don't have an answer...Our brains cannot comprehened all things

---

Thank you for your honest answer.

Well first of all jesus is all things
He is god the father the son therefor when he died on the cross for our sins he did actually die for our sins
All together he is one and so that means that he resurected himself because as I said he is everything the father and the son

I don't know for a fact but that is what I think and to tell you the truth I think you need to just believe and take it as that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Sure. But before we do so, lets talk logic. Do you know the definition of a "loaded question"?

---

I sure do! And I am happy to talk logic! I feel we sure could use some here. So let's get started:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

...every answer which you can possibly conceive will justify or confirm your presupposition.

---

My question is only "loaded" problematically IF I am making an incorrect assumption. Such as in your example:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

"have you stopped beating your wife?"

---

the question can only be shown to be "loaded" and therefore invalid if the underlying assumption--that the person you are asking is indeed beating his wife--can be shown to be untrue.

Therefore my question back to you is: What is the underlying assumption in my question that you can demonstrate not to be true?

RE: definition of death:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

your spirit separates from your body and you are dead because your body is no longer animated by your spirit.

---

I have no problem with your definition, let's use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

your spirit continues to live in the after life

---

fine...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

So, what happened to Jesus on the Cross? Jesus died because His body was no longer animated by His Spirit. Yet His Spirit continued to live ...

---

You are still providing Answer B: No sacrifice. God sent a man He created to go get himself killed. No negative effects reached God Himself. So what real sacrifice was there? No true sacrifice = no atoning death possible.


If mine is a 'loaded question' you still have to show me what my incorrect underlying assumption is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fixxs

i dont know for a fact but that is what i think and to tell u the truth i think u need to just believe and take it as that

---

Answer C: Willful self-delusion.

It seems to me nothing is going to please u so if u really want a good and true answer why not go and ask your paster

It seems to me nothing is going to please u so if u really want a good and true answer why not go and ask your paster
__________________
Fixxs

Exactly what I was getting ready to say. With some people even God himself in person face to face would not convince them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZachZ

You are still providing Answer B: No sacrifice. Without the death of God, what true sacrifice was there? The entirety of the Christian idea of 'grace' is that God died for your sins. The narrative you provided shows that God did NOT die, for any purpose. All that can be said is that God created a human being (at no expense to Himself) and sent this human being to die in an un-kosher manner for a purpose prohibited by Torah. Such a 'sacrifice' is invalid and meaningless.

---

No the entire idea of Christianity is that Christ (second person) died for our sins. Why do you want to keep killing God (first person)?

Begotten not made. When Christ was conceived his soul was infused with the 2nd person of the Trinity. Chrsit was not created.

I'll still stand with my response.

JoeT

According to the origianal post, you seem to be trying to disprove trinitarian doctrine, in favor of what? I'm sure you know this, but will post it anyway, as it seems to have relevance to the question.

430 'elohiym (el-o-heem');(Found in Genesis many times.)

plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:

KJV-- angels, X exceeding, God (gods)- dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

According to the origianal post, you seem to be trying to disprove trinitarian doctrine, in favor of what?

---

In favor of the truth of the ONE God of Israel--ONE as enumerated in Torah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

I'm sure you know this, but will post it anyway, as it seems to have relevance to the question.

430 'elohiym (el-o-heem');(Found in Genesis many times.) ...

plural of 433

---

You are quoting Strong's concordance numbers, which is a concordance of the Hebrew to the 1611 Christian King James translation. These numbers prove nothing other than what the 1611 Christian King James translators were thinking. They are of no use when studying Torah itself.

However this is actually a side-track from my original question, which highlights the internal contradiction of Christian explanation of the resurrection. If you'd like to discuss 'Elohim' and how we know its use to be purely and exclusively SINGULAR when referring to God, please open up a thread about that in the Jewish forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZachZ

The narrative you provided shows that God did NOT die, for any purpose. All that can be said is that God created a human being (at no expense to Himself) and sent this human being to die in an un-kosher manner for a purpose prohibited by Torah. Such a 'sacrifice' is invalid and meaningless.

---

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Psa 22:1 [To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David.] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring?

Do not these two verses look similar? Could jesus, a human, have been quoting the old testament psalm, written by david, hundreds of years before? Isn't the rest of the psalm similar to the circumstances around jesus' crucifixion? Why is that? Perhaps david prophesied jesus' crucifixion, without even knowing he had done so. Perhaps jesus knew this was about himself, and repeated it for remembrance. Perhaps jesus WAS sent by god, and was a sacrifice for mans' sin. Perhaps we should accept the old testament as an account of the coming savior god planned.
Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Italics mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cogs

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Psa 22:1 [To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David.] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring?

do not these two verses look similar? could jesus, a human, have been quoting the old testament psalm, written by david, hundreds of years before?

---

Yes, if Jesus were a Jew, he surely would have been instructed by his teachers in the Psalms and so he would have known that psalm and could have quoted it. Just as YOU have been taught verses of your sacred texts and can quote them here. I see nothing remarkable about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cogs

isn't the rest of the psalm similar to the circumstances around jesus' crucifixion?

---

This is going off into another irrelevant tangent. We can argue about the subject of Psalm 22 in a different thread, including "like a lion" and the similarities (or lack thereof) to crucifixion. But I don't see how this psalm addresses in any way the inherent internal contradiction surrounding the Christian explanation of the resurrection.

Ironically enough, perhaps -- the quote Matthew echoes from the Psalm emphasizes the SEPARATION of the character Jesus from God. How can God forsake Himself? This is more evidence from the Greek writings themselves that Jesus cannot be God.

Look forward to you addressing my original question.

A bit of topic but in reply to your conclusion above

Tenakh/Hebrew Scriptures

Old Testament prophecies of Jesus Christ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZachZ

Yes, if Jesus were a Jew, he surely would have been instructed by his teachers in the Psalms and so he would have known that psalm and could have quoted it. Just as YOU have been taught verses of your sacred texts and can quote them here. I see nothing remarkable about this.
This is going off into another irrelevant tangent. We can argue about the subject of Psalm 22 in a different thread, including "like a lion" and the similarities (or lack thereof) to crucifixion. But I don't see how this psalm addresses in any way the inherent internal contradiction surrounding the Christian explanation of the resurrection.
Ironically enough, perhaps -- the quote Matthew echoes from the Psalm emphasizes the SEPARATION of the character Jesus from God. How can God forsake Himself? This is more evidence from the Greek writings themselves that Jesus cannot be God.
Look forward to you addressing my original question.

---

Jhn 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he sent, him ye believe not.
Jhn 5:39 Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me;
Jhn 5:40 and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.

Jesus here, was speaking to the jews who did not accept him as messiah. As far as your op, I am answering to the intent behind it, which I believe I know. You are being like the jews here, that's why I posted the previous scripture, as well as this. If you won't accept jesus' mission that god sent him for, then you do not want to know why we think jesus is god. You only want to disprove that he was sent as the messiah, by couching it in doubt of his divinity. I'm not mad at you. Just trying to convert you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cogs

... by couching it in doubt of his divinity. i'm not mad at ya. just trying to convert you.

---

Not taking it as anger at all, don't worry. I can't accept any kind of philosophy that has the obvious internal contradiction I pointed out in the OP. If your intent is to 'convert' you'd have to be able to address it. Can you? If you can't address it, how can you believe in such a lie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZachZ

Not taking it as anger at all, don't worry. I can't accept any kind of philosophy that has the obvious internal contradiction I pointed out in the OP. If your intent is to 'convert' you'd have to be able to address it. Can you? If you can't address it, how can you believe in such a lie?

---

do you not doubt that in the old testament, jesus' atonement for mans' sin is prophesied?

Let me take a more proactive approach: the old testament predicts a messiah. That is the reason in the new, the jews had so much trouble believing jesus was that predicted messiah. They reasoned that no messiah could come out of galilee. On these technicalities of scripture, they erred, even when they saw jesus doing miracles, which required power from somewhere. They decided that he was from the devil, because they couldn't accept the alternative. This was ironic, because the one purpose of all of their religious life, was in front of them. It's like not seeing the forest for the trees. So they cut off their nose to spite their face, so to speak. They carried out the very prophesy they thought they knew so well, through scripture study. How did this happen? The same way that it's happening between you and I. you're really missing the point of scripture if you deny jesus is the messiah predicted in the scripture you study.

Jesus was both fully God and fully man. He was the Father sent to the Earth to take our place. He who was sinless took our sins upon Himself and took the separation from the Father at death to give us the way to the Father. If you are looking to tear apart the Word you will never be able to find the Truth. If you seek Him with all your heart, He will be found.

John 8:18-20 (New King James Version)
18 I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.”
19 Then they said to Him, “Where is Your Father?”
Jesus answered, “You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.”

Matthew 11:27
All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

John 10:30
I and My Father are one.”

John 17:20-22 (New King James Version)
Jesus Prays for All Believers
20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will[a] believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one:

1 Corinthians 8:6
Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

Ephesians 2:18
For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cogs

do you not doubt that in the old testament, jesus' atonement for mans' sin is prophesied?

---

I'll answer this if you can show how it addresses my original question... otherwise this is off-topic, although I'd be happy to take it up in another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cogs

let me take a more proactive approach:

---

I can absolutely address every point you brought up, but again -- off topic from the original question. Can you answer the OP?

Start a new post I would look forward to seeing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savedsinner7

Jesus was both fully God and fully man. He was the Father sent to the Earth to take our place. He who was sinless took our sins upon Himself and took the separation from the Father at death to give us the way to the Father.

---

You are being unclear! You use the word 'He' a lot without clarifying who you're talking about. How can I understand your explanation? And you don't address the resurrection at all, which was the central subject of my original question. Can you not answer the question?

None of the quotes you provided from the Greek scriptures seem to address the resurrection at all either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savedsinner7

If you are looking to tear apart the Word you will never be able to find the Truth. If you seek Him with all your heart, He will be found.

---

You say that intense bible study is NOT the way to understand Torah? I disagree.

Why must "seeking Him with all my heart" EXCLUDE careful reading of the Torah?


Why is the only Christian answer ever "Don't try to understand it"! Can't ANYONE address my question? :(

so what's the point of your religion? Why even follow the bible if you cannot prove god exists, that you actually are forgiven of sin by animal sacrifice, that the miracles happened, that the bible was even written by men inspired of god? How much more than the whole point of scripture being jesus himself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZachZ

You say that intense bible study is NOT the way to understand Torah? I disagree.

Why must "seeking Him with all my heart" EXCLUDE careful reading of the Torah?

:(

---

I don't get that out of this,

Originally Posted by savedsinner7
Jesus was both fully God and fully man. He was the Father sent to the Earth to take our place. He who was sinless took our sins upon Himself and took the separation from the Father at death to give us the way to the Father.

In fact I get that she IS saying to do an intense bible study
By tearing it apart means to do a really through Bible study.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cogs

so what's the point of your religion? why even follow the bible if you cannot prove god exists, that you actually are forgiven of sin by animal sacrifice, that the miracles happened, that the bible was even written by men inspired of god?

---

This is not a problem that Christians can attack Jews on, because both Jews and Christians agree that the Tanakh is the word of God. You cannot be a Christian without taking the Tanakh as true first, just as Jews do. The problem comes when Christians try to "deform" the meaning of the Tanakh and introduce internally contradictory concepts like trinity and the resurrection and claim the Tanakh supports them. When Christians get called on it, the answer seems to be either to deny the trinity (as several have here), or claim "unfathomable mystery" (as the others have). Occam's razor: There is no point to introduce a novel "unfathomable mystery" that is unsupported by Tanakh when a much simpler explanation suffices: God is ONE, and no man is God (plain meanings, straight out of Torah).

cogs, seriously ask yourself: Why must you adhere to a faith that requires you to believe in the inherently illogical?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

in fact I get that she IS saying to do an intense bible study
by tearing it apart means to do a really through Bible study.

---

She actually said the opposite. She said "If you are looking to tear apart the Word you will never be able to find the Truth." (emphasis mine).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZachZ

This is not a problem that Christians can attack Jews on, because both Jews and Christians agree that the Tanakh is the word of God. You cannot be a Christian without taking the Tanakh as true first, just as Jews do. The problem comes when Christians try to "deform" the meaning of the Tanakh and introduce internally contradictory concepts like trinity and the resurrection and claim the Tanakh supports them. When Christians get called on it, the answer seems to be either to deny the trinity (as several have here), or claim "unfathomable mystery" (as the others have). Occam's razor: There is no point to introduce a novel "unfathomable mystery" that is unsupported by Tanakh when a much simpler explanation suffices: God is ONE, and no man is God (plain meanings, straight out of Torah).

cogs, seriously ask yourself: Why must you adhere to a faith that requires you to believe in the inherently illogical?

---

Yes, we agree that the tanakh is the word of god, and it's written first anyway, so it should support the latter, as a foundation. Yes, no man is god. Also, thank you for your question, and I'll answer it: I think that the old testament supports a coming messiah, because there has to be a purpose to sacrifices, and we have to begin to live according to god. As far as miracles, both testaments have them. It just shows how powerful god is. I cannot understand how to live your faith, without an end to sacrifices for sin. And to accept the new testament, with books like revelation and john, that are supported by old testament books like daniel and isaiah, seems good to me.