Saint Moses the Black
Saint Moses the Black
Saint John the Theologian
Saint John the Theologian
Facebook Badge
Subscribe
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Monday, August 8, 2011
St. Cyril’s Scriptural Christology
1:04 AM | 
Posted by
Jnorm |
A Paper by David B
The Link:
http://ohtasteandsee.blogspot.com/2010/05/scriptural-christology-of-st-cyril-of.html
To read the rest please visit Oh Taste and See
The Link:
http://ohtasteandsee.blogspot.com/2010/05/scriptural-christology-of-st-cyril-of.html
Quote:
"The treatment of communicatio idiomatum is nowhere more overt in St. Cyril’s writing than when he speaks about the Eucharist, for he makes clear that an exchange of properties takes place between natures based on their common point of union, namely, that they are both proper to the one, divine Son and Word of God. Thus we can see that statements like “the radiance of the divine and ineffable glory of God the Father shines “in the face of Jesus Christ”[36] can be made without fear, for ““the Word who is God can introduce the life-giving power and energy of his own self into his very own flesh,”[37] though without thinking “that the divine nature of the Word had changed into something which formerly it was not…or that the flesh was changed by some kind of transformation into the nature of the Word himself.”[38] The bread which is his flesh, then, is “living bread,” the flesh of life broken on the cross, and no mere man’s flesh, unable to communicate life as can the “holy and life-giving” flesh of the Word, “full of divine energy.”[39] Thus, as Keating concludes, “Cyril’s theology of the Eucharist appears to be quite straightforward: by eating of the consecrated bread, we in fact partake of the flesh of Christ, and so receive into ourselves the life that is in Christ through the medium of his very flesh, flesh which has become life-giving by virtue of the ineffable union of the Word to this flesh.”[40] It is evident, then, that the One who offers this flesh on the cross must be the divine Son and Word of God Himself; a mere taking of a man alongside the Word would not allow for a communication of the life of God through the sacrificed, vivified, and energized flesh given to us in the Eucharist."
To read the rest please visit Oh Taste and See
Labels:
Monday, May 16, 2011
Lecture 11: The Doctrine of the Incarnation
Dr. Phillip Cary's lecture on the Doctrine of the Incarnation
The 3rd and 5th councils accepts Saint Cyril's ussage of the term, but I'm not gonna get into that right now. I enjoyed the lecture. It was very informative, especially when one looks at the fact that he only has 30 minutes to talk about the issue.
The 3rd and 5th councils accepts Saint Cyril's ussage of the term, but I'm not gonna get into that right now. I enjoyed the lecture. It was very informative, especially when one looks at the fact that he only has 30 minutes to talk about the issue.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
KabaneTheChristian: On the Historicity of Jesus
He's responding to someone else on Youtube:
Monday, December 14, 2009
Jesus - The Resurrection
This is from the podcast The Names of Jesus by Fr. Thomas Hopko
As seen from the website:
"What does it mean to say that Jesus is "The Resurrection"? Today Fr. Tom dives deeply into the significance of the Gospel as it relates to the resurrection of Christ."
Play Audio
ICXC NIKA
As seen from the website:
"What does it mean to say that Jesus is "The Resurrection"? Today Fr. Tom dives deeply into the significance of the Gospel as it relates to the resurrection of Christ."
Play Audio
ICXC NIKA
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Perry asks Turretinfan a question about Christology
This is from the Energetic Procession blog:
"A recent fracas between Jay Dyer and Turretinfan has yeilded some results that bring to mind a biblical narrative as well as events in church history. There’s no need to reherse the the biblical narrative in Judges 12. The application in church history has been key technical terms to root out advocates of heterodoxy. Heretics of many ages past have sought to cloak themselves behind ambiguous terms or the rejection of terms adopted by the church to encircle a divine truth to hide their heresy . As Francis Turretin, the esteemed Reformed scholastic of the seventeenth century wrote,....."
To read the rest, please goto the webpage.
I thought the question was interesting. In the comment section of the post, they talk more about some of the other implications this Nestorian Christology has on Reformed doctrine.
Related links:
A Deformed Christ
JNORM888
"A recent fracas between Jay Dyer and Turretinfan has yeilded some results that bring to mind a biblical narrative as well as events in church history. There’s no need to reherse the the biblical narrative in Judges 12. The application in church history has been key technical terms to root out advocates of heterodoxy. Heretics of many ages past have sought to cloak themselves behind ambiguous terms or the rejection of terms adopted by the church to encircle a divine truth to hide their heresy . As Francis Turretin, the esteemed Reformed scholastic of the seventeenth century wrote,....."
To read the rest, please goto the webpage.
I thought the question was interesting. In the comment section of the post, they talk more about some of the other implications this Nestorian Christology has on Reformed doctrine.
Related links:
A Deformed Christ
JNORM888
Friday, January 16, 2009
Maximos the Confessor: On the Free Will of Christ
This was taken from the monachos website.
"The soteriological need for reciprocity
Carlyle's mother may have hit the nail only halfway on the head. In that memorable quotation in which she rebukes young Thomas' claim that as a preacher he would simply tell his parishioners to go out and do what they knew they ought, hers was the memorable question: 'Would you tell them how?' Yet perhaps her comment would have been even more full had she brought into play another feature of discussion that her son seems to have left out: the crucial question of why. To know the what and the how of an issue are essential requirements for an accurate knowledge of its character, but without a grasp of the why which underlies them, the meaningfulness of such an issue cannot be fully grasped.
The question of 'why?' is at the centre of our current discussion on Maximos the Confessor. It is of peculiar note that the body of modern scholarship on Maximos, thorough and insightful though it is in many respects, seems to deal very little with this very question. Even such a masterful and monumental work as Lars Thunberg's Microcosm and Mediator, perhaps the most complete exposition of the Confessor's thought, tends to focus principally on the technical 'how' of his theology and anthropology. Without wishing to discount the great importance and insight of such studies, our concern in this short paper is not so much the technical explanation of Maximos' understanding of Christ's free will, as it is the theological motivations which pushed him to give such importance to this doctrine.
The lack of attention paid to the question of why cannot be blamed wholly upon modern scholars. Indeed, the case seems to be that our author himself spoke much less of it than he did of the doctrine's technical exposition. Maximos spends much time and spills much ink in defence of the two wills of Christ and His ultimate freedom of will, and he does a remarkable job of 'proving' them logically and philosophically. He spends much less time speaking of the theological background which was to give these concepts their pronounced importance. This unbalanced emphasis is in fact logical enough, given the circumstances surrounding the monothelete controversy with which Maximos was faced: it was not the notion of salvation that was being questioned, but rather the ontological and theological possibility of a single person (Christ) possessing a duality of will. It was a controversy over the how, and thus it is reasonable and expected that Maximos would devote the majority of his work to dealing with this very question. Yet in the present day, with the monothelete controversy long passed and the dythelete position having been accepted as a basic tenet of orthodoxy, the question of why this idea was of such central importance to so important a figure as Maximos becomes of heightened interest.
It is precisely because the Confessor presents us with a remarkable insight into this very question, that he has remained so influential a theologian throughout Christian history. For buried deep within his many layers of technical investigation lies a concept of salvation that has its heart in a true soteriology. This soteriological heart is, for Maximos, the notion of reciprocity, of mutual exchange and interaction in the process of human salvation -- a notion that by no means finds its first patristic expression in Maximos, but which finds in him perhaps the most poignant presentation and emphasis of the theme in the early Church. It was Maximos' investigations into and clarifications of this relational concept of salvation in Christ that was to link his name so closely to the topic throughout the centuries to follow.
The Reciprocal Nature of Salvation in the Incarnation.
One may begin with a rather lengthy, but extremely important, quote from Lars Thunberg's shorter work on the Confessor, Man and the Cosmos:
As in the Eastern tradition in general, Maximus puts strong stress on the Incarnation as an effective instrument of salvation, of which--at least from one point of view--the reconciling death is only a logical consequence. Thus the different aspects are complementary; the sacrificial aspect occupies no exclusive place. The incarnation itself is the supreme act of divine grace, which manifests and carries into effect the salvific relationship between God and man. But stating this, we must always remember that incarnation has to be understood in terms of the doctrine of Chalcedon. This means that incarnation does not only imply God's becoming flesh, generally speaking, but God's becoming flesh in uniting himself hypostatically with man in Christ, true God and true man, fully united but without change or fusion. In other words, incarnation is always understood by Maximus as an aspect of reciprocity. The act of salvation understood in this way is not a one-sided act so that God, as it were, "forces" His salvation on man. Nor is it a divided act so that Christ as man reconciles God the wrathful Father, as in the predominant Western tradition, but a cooperative act, an act of reciprocity, a concerted act, and it has to be understood in this way. [1]
One finds in this remarkable paragraph the heart of Maximos' understanding of the relational aspect of salvation. He is unwilling to look at it as a one-sided act on the part of God, somehow forced upon man from above. Promulgation of such a notion of 'forced salvation' would be to lose sight of the fact that man freely fell, a concept of which Maximos often spoke. The Fall was the work of humanity, stemming from the free choice with which it had been endowed as an aspect of its creation in the image of God. The first sin was, as all wilful choices are, the free choice of a free creature. To Maximos, such a reality intimately tied the will and the Fall together: the latter was bound up in the former, was indeed caused by it. Thus a salvation could not simply be a redemption of body or even of mind as a purely intellectual agent. It must needs be a salvation of will, for this is the element of most severe corruption in fallen humanity.
Thus the question logically becomes, 'what is Maximos' conception of human will?', and it is to this question that one must turn before an examination into the Confessor's conception of the human will in the person of Christ can be attempted."
To read the rest please go to monachos.net.
JNORM888
"The soteriological need for reciprocity
Carlyle's mother may have hit the nail only halfway on the head. In that memorable quotation in which she rebukes young Thomas' claim that as a preacher he would simply tell his parishioners to go out and do what they knew they ought, hers was the memorable question: 'Would you tell them how?' Yet perhaps her comment would have been even more full had she brought into play another feature of discussion that her son seems to have left out: the crucial question of why. To know the what and the how of an issue are essential requirements for an accurate knowledge of its character, but without a grasp of the why which underlies them, the meaningfulness of such an issue cannot be fully grasped.
The question of 'why?' is at the centre of our current discussion on Maximos the Confessor. It is of peculiar note that the body of modern scholarship on Maximos, thorough and insightful though it is in many respects, seems to deal very little with this very question. Even such a masterful and monumental work as Lars Thunberg's Microcosm and Mediator, perhaps the most complete exposition of the Confessor's thought, tends to focus principally on the technical 'how' of his theology and anthropology. Without wishing to discount the great importance and insight of such studies, our concern in this short paper is not so much the technical explanation of Maximos' understanding of Christ's free will, as it is the theological motivations which pushed him to give such importance to this doctrine.
The lack of attention paid to the question of why cannot be blamed wholly upon modern scholars. Indeed, the case seems to be that our author himself spoke much less of it than he did of the doctrine's technical exposition. Maximos spends much time and spills much ink in defence of the two wills of Christ and His ultimate freedom of will, and he does a remarkable job of 'proving' them logically and philosophically. He spends much less time speaking of the theological background which was to give these concepts their pronounced importance. This unbalanced emphasis is in fact logical enough, given the circumstances surrounding the monothelete controversy with which Maximos was faced: it was not the notion of salvation that was being questioned, but rather the ontological and theological possibility of a single person (Christ) possessing a duality of will. It was a controversy over the how, and thus it is reasonable and expected that Maximos would devote the majority of his work to dealing with this very question. Yet in the present day, with the monothelete controversy long passed and the dythelete position having been accepted as a basic tenet of orthodoxy, the question of why this idea was of such central importance to so important a figure as Maximos becomes of heightened interest.
It is precisely because the Confessor presents us with a remarkable insight into this very question, that he has remained so influential a theologian throughout Christian history. For buried deep within his many layers of technical investigation lies a concept of salvation that has its heart in a true soteriology. This soteriological heart is, for Maximos, the notion of reciprocity, of mutual exchange and interaction in the process of human salvation -- a notion that by no means finds its first patristic expression in Maximos, but which finds in him perhaps the most poignant presentation and emphasis of the theme in the early Church. It was Maximos' investigations into and clarifications of this relational concept of salvation in Christ that was to link his name so closely to the topic throughout the centuries to follow.
The Reciprocal Nature of Salvation in the Incarnation.
One may begin with a rather lengthy, but extremely important, quote from Lars Thunberg's shorter work on the Confessor, Man and the Cosmos:
As in the Eastern tradition in general, Maximus puts strong stress on the Incarnation as an effective instrument of salvation, of which--at least from one point of view--the reconciling death is only a logical consequence. Thus the different aspects are complementary; the sacrificial aspect occupies no exclusive place. The incarnation itself is the supreme act of divine grace, which manifests and carries into effect the salvific relationship between God and man. But stating this, we must always remember that incarnation has to be understood in terms of the doctrine of Chalcedon. This means that incarnation does not only imply God's becoming flesh, generally speaking, but God's becoming flesh in uniting himself hypostatically with man in Christ, true God and true man, fully united but without change or fusion. In other words, incarnation is always understood by Maximus as an aspect of reciprocity. The act of salvation understood in this way is not a one-sided act so that God, as it were, "forces" His salvation on man. Nor is it a divided act so that Christ as man reconciles God the wrathful Father, as in the predominant Western tradition, but a cooperative act, an act of reciprocity, a concerted act, and it has to be understood in this way. [1]
One finds in this remarkable paragraph the heart of Maximos' understanding of the relational aspect of salvation. He is unwilling to look at it as a one-sided act on the part of God, somehow forced upon man from above. Promulgation of such a notion of 'forced salvation' would be to lose sight of the fact that man freely fell, a concept of which Maximos often spoke. The Fall was the work of humanity, stemming from the free choice with which it had been endowed as an aspect of its creation in the image of God. The first sin was, as all wilful choices are, the free choice of a free creature. To Maximos, such a reality intimately tied the will and the Fall together: the latter was bound up in the former, was indeed caused by it. Thus a salvation could not simply be a redemption of body or even of mind as a purely intellectual agent. It must needs be a salvation of will, for this is the element of most severe corruption in fallen humanity.
Thus the question logically becomes, 'what is Maximos' conception of human will?', and it is to this question that one must turn before an examination into the Confessor's conception of the human will in the person of Christ can be attempted."
To read the rest please go to monachos.net.
JNORM888
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Jesus Is The Christ
This is taken from the podcast Christ the Eternal Kalimat by Fr. Daniel Byantoro.
Jesus Is The Christ: (42 minutes)
Play Audio
Direct Link
Christ Explicates God: (36 minutes)
Play Audio
Direct Link
Christ The Self-Revelation Of God: (36 minutes)
Play Audio
Direct Link
Christ The Fullness Of Grace And Truth: (28 minutes)
Play Audio
Direct Link
You can support his ministry at the Friends of Indonesia website.
JNORM888
Friday, December 12, 2008
The Second Coming
This is from the podcast Theologically Thinking.
As seen from the website:
Play Audio
Jnorm888
As seen from the website:
"This week on Theologically Thinking, popular author T.L.
Frazier. takes a second look at The Second Coming. Given the preoccupation of so
many Americans with the End Times, Orthodox Christians need to educate
themselves on the true teachings of the Church concerning the Second Coming of
Jesus."
Play Audio
Jnorm888
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Christ The Redeemer Of Our Nature
As seen from the Podcast "Christ the Eternal Kalimat"
As seen from the website:
"Fr. Daniel continues his study of the Gospel of John with an examination of John the Baptist and putting on Christ in Baptism."
Play online:
online
Download:
download
Direct link:
direct
JNORM888
As seen from the website:
"Fr. Daniel continues his study of the Gospel of John with an examination of John the Baptist and putting on Christ in Baptism."
Play online:
online
Download:
download
Direct link:
direct
JNORM888
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
The Logos
Thanks to JB, I was able to put this on here.
In Nestle's Greek text (27 th edition), John 1:1 appears as follows:
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος. ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον
A proper translation of the passage is as follows:
1 1 2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
It can also be translated like this:
1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Divine.
2. He was in the beginning with God.
1 [1-18] The prologue states the main themes of the gospel: life, light, truth, the world, testimony, and the preexistence of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Logos, who reveals God the Father. In origin, it was probably an early Christian hymn. Its closest parallel is in other christological hymns, Col 1:15-20 and Philippians 2:6-11. Its core (John 1:1-5, 10-11, 14) is poetic in structure, with short phrases linked by "staircase parallelism," in which the last word of one phrase becomes the first word of the next. Prose inserts (at least John 1:6-8, 15) deal with John the Baptist.
2 [1] In the beginning: also the first words of the Old Testament (Genesis 1:1). Was: this verb is used three times with different meanings in this verse: existence, relationship, and predication. The Word (Greek logos): this term combines God's dynamic word (Genesis), personified preexistent Wisdom as the instrument of God's activity (Proverbs), and the ultimate intelligibility of reality (Hellenistic philosophy). With God: the Greek preposition here connotes communication with another.
In Aramaic it is as follows:
1ܒ݁ܪܺܫܺܝܬ݂ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܘܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܠܘܳܬ݂ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ ܘܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܂
2ܗܳܢܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܒ݁ܪܺܫܺܝܬ݂ ܠܘܳܬ݂ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ܂
or As seen here
In Aramaic, the “Word” is translated as “miltha- ” In Syriac-Aramaic, Jesus’ language, “miltha” is the word which translated into Greek became Logos. Miltha means "mind energy," the essence of Mind.
Also in Greek, the word "Logos" also means "Plan", "Reason", "Logic", but in English, we mostly translate it as "Word". But the Ancients understood it as being much more than just "Word".
JB & JNORM888
In Nestle's Greek text (27 th edition), John 1:1 appears as follows:
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος. ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον
A proper translation of the passage is as follows:
1 1 2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
It can also be translated like this:
1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Divine.
2. He was in the beginning with God.
1 [1-18] The prologue states the main themes of the gospel: life, light, truth, the world, testimony, and the preexistence of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Logos, who reveals God the Father. In origin, it was probably an early Christian hymn. Its closest parallel is in other christological hymns, Col 1:15-20 and Philippians 2:6-11. Its core (John 1:1-5, 10-11, 14) is poetic in structure, with short phrases linked by "staircase parallelism," in which the last word of one phrase becomes the first word of the next. Prose inserts (at least John 1:6-8, 15) deal with John the Baptist.
2 [1] In the beginning: also the first words of the Old Testament (Genesis 1:1). Was: this verb is used three times with different meanings in this verse: existence, relationship, and predication. The Word (Greek logos): this term combines God's dynamic word (Genesis), personified preexistent Wisdom as the instrument of God's activity (Proverbs), and the ultimate intelligibility of reality (Hellenistic philosophy). With God: the Greek preposition here connotes communication with another.
In Aramaic it is as follows:
1ܒ݁ܪܺܫܺܝܬ݂ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܘܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܠܘܳܬ݂ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ ܘܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܂
2ܗܳܢܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܒ݁ܪܺܫܺܝܬ݂ ܠܘܳܬ݂ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ܂
or As seen here
In Aramaic, the “Word” is translated as “miltha- ” In Syriac-Aramaic, Jesus’ language, “miltha” is the word which translated into Greek became Logos. Miltha means "mind energy," the essence of Mind.
Also in Greek, the word "Logos" also means "Plan", "Reason", "Logic", but in English, we mostly translate it as "Word". But the Ancients understood it as being much more than just "Word".
JB & JNORM888
Did Jesus go to Hell?
This is an answer to a question asked on "HCR".
quote:
Originally Posted by sonshine
"i know it isnt true but lets discuss it."
I hope my style doesn't sound mean to you. If it does, please let me know.
My goal is simply to get one to think about the issues. And why they believe the way they do, as well as why one believes one view over another.
I'm also doing this to show that the view(interpretation) I hold to, can authentically come from scripture.
Now you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonshine
"i know it isnt true but lets discuss it."
Why isn't it true? And how do you know it's not true?
Is it because of the Renaissance movement? Is that why it's not true?
Is it because of the BRITISH CIVIL war? Is that why it's not true?
or
Is it because of the Enlightenment movement? Is that why it's not true?
There is a history to everything, but if you want to look at the scriptures, then I would say:
"Scripture makes it seem he went there"
Let's look at a passage.
KJV
Acts 2:31
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
If we look at the blue letter Bible, we will see:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-b...version=KJV#31
The word soul is "psuche" and according to the Blue letter Bible website, it means:
The word flesh is "sarx" and according to the same source it means:
And according to the King James Bible, it said that his "Soul" was not left in Hell.
And in this context, the greek word for Hell is "Hades", and according to the same source, it says:
Now the reason why I presented it this way, is because in modern times, people like to use the argument that "Hades" simply means "the grave".....as in a physical grave yard.
One of the problems to this interpretation is, we are not talking about a "physical grave yard".
If we were, we would be talking about his flesh, not being left in the grave yard. But that is not what the text says.
It says his soul, will not be left in Hades. So we are not talking about a physical place, but a spiritual one.
Remember, we are talking about his Soul, not his flesh.
Take care, and have a good day.
I hope I wasn't mean or rude.
You said:
Based on what David L, and myself have shown. I don't think you can say that. At best, the onlything you can say is "scripture doesn't say Jesus went to Gehenna.
But based on Acts chapter 2, his Soul, did go to Hades. And if we look at Rev 1:18. We will see an implicit conformation that he went to Hades. For he has the keys of both "death & Hades".
KJV
Revelation 1:18
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Also, I would like to make known, that "Word of Faith" Preachers are not the only ones who believe Jesus went to HELL.
Now I wouldn't say the word "HELL". Instead, I would use the word "HADES".
But this is from a Lutherian blog:
http://weedon.blogspot.com/2008/03/on-descent.html
Why would you say that? Did Jesus actually die?
Remember, that verse said Jesus had the keys to both Hades & death.
KJV
Revelation 1:18
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
To say that Jesus has the key of Hades without actually being in Hades while dead, is to say that Jesus has the key of death without actually dying.
I don't think it would be wise to say that.
JNORM888
quote:
Originally Posted by sonshine
"i know it isnt true but lets discuss it."
I hope my style doesn't sound mean to you. If it does, please let me know.
My goal is simply to get one to think about the issues. And why they believe the way they do, as well as why one believes one view over another.
I'm also doing this to show that the view(interpretation) I hold to, can authentically come from scripture.
Now you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonshine
"i know it isnt true but lets discuss it."
Why isn't it true? And how do you know it's not true?
Is it because of the Renaissance movement? Is that why it's not true?
Is it because of the BRITISH CIVIL war? Is that why it's not true?
or
Is it because of the Enlightenment movement? Is that why it's not true?
There is a history to everything, but if you want to look at the scriptures, then I would say:
"Scripture makes it seem he went there"
Let's look at a passage.
KJV
Acts 2:31
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
If we look at the blue letter Bible, we will see:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-b...version=KJV#31
The word soul is "psuche" and according to the Blue letter Bible website, it means:
Quote:
"1) breath
a) the breath of life
1) the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing
a) of animals
b) of men
b) life
c) that in which
there is life
1) a living being, a living soul
2) the soul
a) the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart,
soul etc.)
b) the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by
the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and
secure eternal blessedness, the soul regarded as a moral being designed for
everlasting life
c) the soul as an essence which differs from the body
and is not dissolved by death (distinguished from other parts of the
body)"
The word flesh is "sarx" and according to the same source it means:
Quote:
"1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body,
which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
2) the body
a) the body of a man
b) used of natural or
physical origin, generation or relationship
1) born of natural
generation
c) the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature"
1)
without any suggestion of depravity
2) the animal nature with cravings
which incite to sin
3) the physical nature of man as subject to
suffering
3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh)
whether man or beast
4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the
earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin
and opposed to God
And according to the King James Bible, it said that his "Soul" was not left in Hell.
And in this context, the greek word for Hell is "Hades", and according to the same source, it says:
Quote:
"1) name Hades or Pluto, the god of the lower
regions
2) Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead
3)
later use of this word: the grave, death, hell
Now the reason why I presented it this way, is because in modern times, people like to use the argument that "Hades" simply means "the grave".....as in a physical grave yard.
One of the problems to this interpretation is, we are not talking about a "physical grave yard".
If we were, we would be talking about his flesh, not being left in the grave yard. But that is not what the text says.
It says his soul, will not be left in Hades. So we are not talking about a physical place, but a spiritual one.
Remember, we are talking about his Soul, not his flesh.
Take care, and have a good day.
I hope I wasn't mean or rude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonshine
"I see
where you are coming from but does Scriptre plainly come out and say that he
went to hell?
In the context i am bringing into discussion, i didnt ask
did the scriptures make it seem like Jesus went to hell? no not my point.
My point is I have heard many preachers say this but with no scriptural
basis, such as when i was recieving letters from Kenneth Copeland one of the
letters said: Jesus went to hell for your peace! so that you dont have to be
worried of fearful.
i should have stated this in the begining but this
topic has been brought up before and i wanted to discuss it, because i find it
not true because i have yet to see it plainly laid out in scripture, and if it
isnt there then it cant be true becuase the Scriptures are a believers FINAL
AUTHORITY"
You said:
"Quote:
Originally Posted by sonshine
there is no "Jesus went to hell"
anywhere in scripture. thats why i didnt post much scripture becuase i couldnt
find it"
Based on what David L, and myself have shown. I don't think you can say that. At best, the onlything you can say is "scripture doesn't say Jesus went to Gehenna.
But based on Acts chapter 2, his Soul, did go to Hades. And if we look at Rev 1:18. We will see an implicit conformation that he went to Hades. For he has the keys of both "death & Hades".
KJV
Revelation 1:18
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Also, I would like to make known, that "Word of Faith" Preachers are not the only ones who believe Jesus went to HELL.
Now I wouldn't say the word "HELL". Instead, I would use the word "HADES".
But this is from a Lutherian blog:
http://weedon.blogspot.com/2008/03/on-descent.html
Quote:
"Our Lord Christ did descend into hell, battered
hell open, overcame the devil, and delivered those who were held captive by the
devil. (Blessed Martin Luther: House Postil I:480)
Christ has crushed
hell, opened up heaven, bound and taken captive the devil, and delivered the
prisoners. (Blessed Martin Luther: House Postil I:480)
The soul, having
obtained union with the Word; descended into hell; but using its divine power
and efficacy, it said to the ones in bondage, "Go forth!" (St. Cyril of
Alexandria, as cited in Catalog of Testimonies VI)"
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonshine
thats what i
was saying.
now theres a whole other discussion.
Jesus having
the keys to hell and actually going to hell is a completely different thing wont
you agree?"
Why would you say that? Did Jesus actually die?
Remember, that verse said Jesus had the keys to both Hades & death.
KJV
Revelation 1:18
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
To say that Jesus has the key of Hades without actually being in Hades while dead, is to say that Jesus has the key of death without actually dying.
I don't think it would be wise to say that.
JNORM888
Saturday, August 2, 2008
The Fullness of Christ in the Gospel of John
In the podcast "Christ the Eternal Kalimat", Ft. Daniel talks about "The Fullness of Christ in the Gospel of John". His main website is "friends of indonesia". This is where you can find him most of the time. I was able to meet him twice. Once at my Parish, and I also was able to meet him again at the "African American & Ancient Christianity conference".
JNORM888
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Did Jesus really exist?
Dispite the obvious answer to the question, I still find some Atheists and agnostics on myspace that believe he never existed, and that outside of the Bible there is no evidence that he actually existed.
If you ever run into any silly comments like that just mention:
Josephus. He mentions Jesus and his brother James, now some Atheists will try to deny that by saying it was christian forgery by christian monks, but the truth is the first christian monk was Saint Anthony. And he lived around 270 A.D.
And people knew of Josephus's mentioning of Saint James and Jesus long before then. Alot of modern scholars .......even some Jewish ones believe that those statements were indeed authentic.
One can also mention The early second century Roman historian Tacitus. He not only mentions Jesus, but also mentions that He was put to death by Pontius Pilate, the procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius Ceasor.
One can also add to that the pagan critic Celsus. Origen gave rejoinders for his arguments so we still have what this christian hating pagan had to say......and he never doubted the existence of Jesus.
So where does this doubt come from? It comes from Germany!!!
In the mid to late 18 hundreds the German highercritical/philosophical naturalistic scholar Bruno Bauer invented the argument that Jesus never existed. The idea is less than 150 years old. It was a naturalistic reconstruction of history.
Today, most modern scholars will not risk their reputation by saying something silly like "Jesus never existed". Most modern scholars believe Jesus was a real historical person.
So if you ever run into someone that thinks Jesus never existed....... give them the facts, pray for them, so that God will open up a window of oppurtinity by giving them eyes to see & ears to hear, then share Jesus with them so they too can know His ever-Existence.
JNORM888
If you ever run into any silly comments like that just mention:
Josephus. He mentions Jesus and his brother James, now some Atheists will try to deny that by saying it was christian forgery by christian monks, but the truth is the first christian monk was Saint Anthony. And he lived around 270 A.D.
And people knew of Josephus's mentioning of Saint James and Jesus long before then. Alot of modern scholars .......even some Jewish ones believe that those statements were indeed authentic.
One can also mention The early second century Roman historian Tacitus. He not only mentions Jesus, but also mentions that He was put to death by Pontius Pilate, the procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius Ceasor.
One can also add to that the pagan critic Celsus. Origen gave rejoinders for his arguments so we still have what this christian hating pagan had to say......and he never doubted the existence of Jesus.
So where does this doubt come from? It comes from Germany!!!
In the mid to late 18 hundreds the German highercritical/philosophical naturalistic scholar Bruno Bauer invented the argument that Jesus never existed. The idea is less than 150 years old. It was a naturalistic reconstruction of history.
Today, most modern scholars will not risk their reputation by saying something silly like "Jesus never existed". Most modern scholars believe Jesus was a real historical person.
So if you ever run into someone that thinks Jesus never existed....... give them the facts, pray for them, so that God will open up a window of oppurtinity by giving them eyes to see & ears to hear, then share Jesus with them so they too can know His ever-Existence.
JNORM888
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Blogs: Eastern Orthodox
-
-
Why Not Use Ancient Rites?6 years ago
-
-
When Everyone Is Watching1 month ago
-
-
-
It’s Time to Say Goodbye4 years ago
-
About the Mystagogy Resource Center1 month ago
-
-
Orthodox Life15 years ago
-
-
Resurrection Sunday 20263 months ago
-
-
The End of This Work7 months ago
-
-
The end of Pious Fabrications12 years ago
-
-
Bending Toward Bethlehem2 years ago
Blogs: Oriental Orthodox
-
Why I don't care about the church anymore6 months ago
-
Restoration of The Son10 years ago
Blogs: Roman Catholic
-
-
-
-
-
-
A Brief Update12 years ago
-
-
-
My Sister's New Blog15 years ago
-
Blogs: Anglo-Catholic/ACNA
-
SIXTH SUNDAY AFTER TRINITY 20262 weeks ago
-
Hello world!2 years ago
-
-
-
Blogs: Lutheran Protestant
Blogs: Mostly Arminian Protestant
-
Book Review: Grace for All10 years ago
-
-
Denah Rumah Type 36 Luas Tanah 728 years ago
-
Christian Rappers and Collaborations14 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NOT Independence Sunday17 years ago
-
Blogs: Reformed Protestant
-
-
Do Not Disavow2 years ago
-
-
This Blog Has Moved!!!12 years ago
-
-
Is Peter the Rock of the Church?16 years ago
-
-
