Did Your God Die?
April 2nd, 2010 by Angela
This Sunday, most churches spread across the land, will be celebrating Easter Sunday, with perhaps a Sunrise service, or a traditional breakfast, and most definitely a sermon that centers around the fact that Jesus died and was resurrected from the dead. But, what they say they are celebrating, does it really jive with their theology that they profess?
You see, you might not have ever thought about this before, but most churches believe and expect you to believe also, the doctrine of the Trinity. This is basically a belief that states that God is really one God made up of three different persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; a doctrine that was created by a council of bishops who met together in the Roman Empire back in 325 a.d., and a few more times, as they ironed out this doctrine, resulting in what they would call ‘orthodoxy.’ The problem with this Trinity doctrine is, there are all kinds of holes in it. One of which, is saying that Jesus is God, but yet professing at the same time, that he died on the cross for our sins. They are, in fact, teaching that God died on the cross for your sins. The problem with this teaching is, the Scriptures tell us in I Timothy 6:16 that God “alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see.” You see, if the Scriptures say that God is immortal and cannot die, then how could Jesus have died on the cross for our sins, if he was God and can’t die? It’s definitely a problem for all Trinitarian churches.
Immortality is something that was given to Jesus (he didn’t previously possess it before he was resurrected from the dead by God, or he wouldn’t have obviously been able to die) and is what will be given to us as well, when we will be resurrected from the dead at his return to the earth to set up his rule and reign over all the earth. I Corinthians 15:43 says, “For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.” Jesus was a mortal man, who died, and was raised immortal. Jesus was the first one to be raised from the dead to live forever, and “after that, those who are Christ’s at His coming.” I Corinthians 15:23.
When we see Jesus, we get a foreshadowing of what awaits us. He wasn’t (isn’t) a supernatural God-man elevated and exalted to ‘God-dom’, but a supernaturally conceived man, who was obedient to His God, so that he was exalted and given every name and authority and power that was God’s, to be his as well. Extraordinary!
This Easter, many preachers will stand in their pulpits to proclaim that Jesus died for our sins, which he did, of course! However, they will not explain how they want you to believe that Jesus was God the Son, opposed to the Son of God. They won’t detail their theory of dual nature (which if you find this in Scripture, please note your reference, because I can’t find it anywhere), where Jesus is sometimes acting as a man, (where he can die), but Jesus is also acting sometimes as God (where he didn’t really die), yet still 100% man and 100% God, because it is so confusing, they don’t teach it. They only have this theory available, for those of us who ask, and wonder how Jesus could be both a man and the Almighty God, yet die and not die? It really is a mess, if you start delving into it. They will attempt to explain that as Jesus, the man, his body died. But, as Jesus, our God, his spirit did not die, so he didn’t really die, and can still be God. They believe this, because they teach we never die either, if you buy into this “spirit never dying Platoism” that is not supported by Scripture. Most churches will teach you that your body dies, but your soul or spirit (many use these words interchangeably although there is a difference) goes to either heaven or hell, until the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead. The problem with this is, that makes all of us immortal and none of us ever really die, thus we are buying into the deception that Satan told Eve in Genesis 3:4, “You surely shall not die!” This explanation also makes our hope for the resurrection rather pointless, since we have already been rewarded with immortality and supposedly already dwelling with God in heaven. The Christian hope subtly changes to going to heaven when you die, rather than what Jesus and the apostles preached ~ the resurrection of the dead.
The truth of the matter is found clearly in Scripture:
- Jesus was uniquely born, by God begetting (creating) him in the womb of Mary (Luke 1:35);
- Jesus was a man when he died on the cross and a man after he was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of God to be our mediator (I Timothy 2:5);
- Jesus really did die. (Romans 8:34).
- God raised Jesus up from the dead (Acts 3:32).
- Our hope isn’t that our soul will fly off down under or up to heaven, but a solid one: the resurrection of the dead (I Corinthians 15:12-14) because, sad as it is, we really will all die, and we will need to be brought back to life, awakened from the sleep of the dead.
- There will no longer be any death only when the Kingdom of God is established, the earth is made new, and when God will finally dwell with mankind (Revelation 21:4). This has yet to occur.
The Bible teaches us that there will be two resurrections.
- The first one, at the return of Christ Jesus, of all those who belong to Jesus, and who are asleep (dead) at his return. These will be resurrected from the dead, brought back to life, just as Jesus was, to live eternally from that point on. (I Corinthians 15).
- Then there will be a second resurrection (Daniel 12:2) after Christ’s millennium rule, where the wicked and righteous will both be raised from the dead, one to a resurrection of eternal life, the other to judgment and death in the lake of fire (John 5:29; Revelation 20:4-5).
You see, the Spirit of God who “raised Jesus from the dead, will also give life to our mortal bodies, through His Spirit who indwells you.” (Romans 8:12). Our hope as believers in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, is that we will inherit eternal life in the kingdom of God. Our hope is based on being resurrected from the dead (unless we are still alive at his coming), to be changed in the twinkling of an eye, to become imperishable and immortal, to never die again.
This Sunday, at our church and I hope at yours as well, we will be teaching the basic Bible truths for which Paul was imprisoned for: Jesus Christ and the resurrection of the dead (Acts 24:15, 21). We will teach what Scriptures teach: That Jesus, the Son of God, died for our sins. We will teach the resurrection of the dead, for without this resurrection of Jesus, and this future hope of ours, our faith is in vain. We have no hope. We have no future. We have no reason to be saved from our sins. It all hinges on the fact that Jesus really did die, that God raised him from the dead to eternal life, and that this is our hope as well. Without it, the story is only westernized Plato folklore, that distorts what God asks us to believe and hope in and wait for. Until that day, I will stick to what Paul preached and longed for ~ that Jesus is truly the Messiah sent from God, who will return and we will be resurrected from the dead to reign with him on this earth. This is the Easter message. This is the Good News. This is the Gospel that we are to share and shout from the roof tops and proclaim with confidence and boldness. This same Jesus, who died for our sins on a cross, really truly died. Our God raised Him from the dead! We will be raised, too, and this we hope for, live for, die for. This is our prayer: Come Lord Jesus, Come, for we are longing for this day! We are longing for the resurrection of the dead!
“Now God has not only raised the Lord Jesus, but will also raise us up through His power.“
I Corinthians 6:14
Angela,
GREAT JOB! Very nicely done! And AMEN!
Yes, opposite of the Trinitarians and Oneness believers, my God doesn’t die – or put on a big act of doing something totally disingenuous of sacrificing his human “shell”. My Messiah, my Christ is the one who died. This true 2nd Adam succeeded where the first failed. As God’s only begotten son he perfectly subjected himself to the will of his God instead of his own. His death paid for my sins and the rest of humanity if we will only believe in him and follow/obey him as the way to be reconciled to his Father and our Father – his God and our God – the only one who is truly God (John 17:3).
And yes you’re exactly right. It should be shouted from every rooftop that Jesus’ resurrection is THE proof, THE guarantee that those that are Christ’s will also be resurrected to immortality. But the KEY is the when. And you listed that “when”. My favorite verse in 1 Cor. 15 – verse 23. It plainly says that we will gain our immortality “AT HIS COMING”. Amen come Lord Jesus!
Angela
I’m just curious. What’s the difference between a soul and a spirit??
Doubting
I’d say none, see my other posts on other threads to see why.
Doubting Thomas,
According to Scripture a Soul = a living mortal being. Souls sin, die, etc. A living person is a living soul. Soul = person.
Whereas the Spirit (when talking about the spirit of man) is the God-given spark of life – the energy/lifeforce that animates us. At least that is the formula presented in Genesis (2:7). Adam didn’t become a living being until God breathed “the breath of life” into the Adam’s created body. It was God’s “Ruach” (breath) that made Adam come alive. This is also what returns to God “the spirit shall return to God who gave it” (Ecc. 12:7) at death. God’s breath/animating energy returns to God because it is His! Personally I believe that this is how God remembers us at The Resurrection. That energy that animates us also contains the data that makes us – us. Like the 1′s & 0′s of a computer hard drive. It all is automatically uploaded to God for “cloud” storage until needed at The Resurrection!
Ron S.
Thanks for taking the time to explain that to me. I love your word parody using computer terminology. I love word plays/parodies…
I believe Ron S. did a superb job answering the question asked above, about the difference between “soul” v. “spirit.” I concur with his thoughts and will add Psalm 146:4: “His spirit (Ruach) departs, he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” I think this is an excellent verse that dispels the theory for those who believe their spirit is living in heaven with God after their death. Can a spirit think without thoughts? Can a spirit think without a brain and a body? Obviously not. Instead, it reinforces the truth that when one dies, one’s breath returns to God, and you are no longer conscious. You are dead. Jesus likens it to ‘sleeping’ and we will someday “awaken” at our resurrection.
I’m sure you’ve hear this quote, but it goes along with our discussion: Martin Luther wrote these words in his commentary on Ecclesiastes: “Just as one who falls asleep and reaches morning unexpectedly when he awakes, without knowing what has happened to him, so we shall suddenly rise on the last day without knowing how we have come into death and through death. We shall sleep, until He comes and knocks on the little grave and says, ‘Doctor Martin, get up!’ Then I shall rise in a moment and be happy with Him forever.”
Angela
Thanks for the quote from Psalms that certainly sounds clear to me…
Guys,
As per His creatures, Yahweh is also described as having a “soul” [nephesh] & “spirit” [ruach]. See Isaiah 1:14; 42:1; Jeremiah 32:41.
When scripture describes YHWH in such terms it should teach us that we are dealing with a Personal, indivisible being, and not some abstract, ethereal “spiritual life force”, as this debate often leads people to believe.
When it comes to the Holy Spirit, it is the spirit of the particular individual whose name is YHWH. From scripture we see that Yahweh also has a spirit in Him. It gets a little confusing because the same English word is used for spirit that describes what Yahweh is made of, and the spirit of Yahweh which is His character or mind which can communicate with believers. Yahweh is a spirit and Yahweh has a spirit.
Our YHWH God, the Father of the lord Messiah Jesus, is not an abstract idea like all pagan religions would like us to believe [beginning with the aberrant Trinitarian concept of the "triune nature of God"] but a personal, unified being like ourseleves.
It is obvious that just beacause YHWH God is described as being a soul and spirit [hence a "person", in the biblical sense of the words] He is unlike His creatures in so far as He is not a human, animal or angel as such.
Nonetheless, YHWH, the God and Father of our lord Messiah Jesus, is a Person!
I believe I Timothy 6:16 is speaking of Jesus, saying “…who only hath imortality…”. There is imortality in no other. No man has it in himself but Jesus. Those who have Jesus have eternal life. Those who have his spirit have a bright future in him. He dwells in God’s presence. He lives forevermore. If we hope to live we must live in him. Outside of Jesus there is nothing good. In him is life everlasting. Everything good is in Jesus. There is no darkness in him at all.
Hi there
The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon gives the definition of nephesh:
soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
a. that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
b. living being
c. living being (with life in the blood)
d. the man himself, self, person or individual
e. seat of the appetites
f. seat of emotions and passions
g. activity of mind
h. activity of the will
i. activity of the character
The word more frequently refers to the whole living being (human or animal). The other occurences have related meanings, nevertheless.
It is, however the first time I read that nephesh means breath. Etymologically it means “breather.” I was under the impression that breath is neshamah. In fact, Genesis 2:7 says that neshamah was breathed into the corpse, and Adam was created.
When refering to self or to someone’s own experience of something, the word nephesh is also used. Since Yahweh’s experiences and dealings are often described in anthropomorphic terms, He refers to his deepest emotions and Himself as “his soul,” as humans would.
ruach does refer to the invisible active force, hence it’s basic meaning of wind or spirit. It does not, however possess consiousness (as can be seen in Angela’s reference to Psalm 146:3, where man’s “thoughts perish.”)
I agree, good article.
Jaco
Guys [and gals]
Could I get your comments on my article? An expansion of my previous post regarding “person, spirit”:
http://www.focusonthekingdomagazine.com/2010/04/god-is-person.html
Xavier,
I agree with your article. But, man, it’s difficult to describe God in philosophical terms. It’s so easy to derail into mystical word-acrobatics. But, as a whole, I think, did the conclusion of your article stick to the concept of God as a person as we find in the Bible.
To me, from a Biblical perspection alone, God’s having emotions (feelings), being described in anthropomorphic terms, and we being in His image (as persons), are conclusive proof that God is a “person.”
Regards,
Jaco
Jaco
Thanx for the comment. I agree, the Nicene-Chalcedonian construct as we know has been a poltergeist that will not leave.
However, your observation raises an interesting question…how would you answer someone who might argue against our faith by saying that God is just a man-made concept? Like the Devil etc?
Xavier
I thought it was a good article. Short and to the point…
Doubting
Thanx…
Xavier
Very nicely done and to the best of my knowledge very accurate.
robert
kuddos…
Xavier,
That’s also a good question. Obviously one side of the coin would be to say that God is a human creation…The other side of the coin would be to say that, since God is not human, and wants to be understood, along with people desiring to understand Him, it would only be understandable and fair to reveal Himself in terms corresponding to our frame of reference.
I’d like to relate to you how a missionary had to explain “perfection” to a native tribesman in Namibia. Our worldview allows for a lot of abstract associations. We even have a rich range of synonymous concepts for this word “perfection.” Well, in some African tribes there is none! So, by facilitating the tribesman’s point of reference, the missionary used the condition of a peach once it’s reached its full ripeness. This conceptional reference made the “penny drop” and the abstract notion was conveyed. God doing it any differently would indeed have more serious implications than His doing it the way he did.
It’s one thing to say that a perception is man-made…it’s something completely different to say that referrences to a reality are man-centered.
Regards,
Jaco
Jaco
But some might say that what dictates our understanding of “reality” is based on our particular perception. It’s the old Descartes construst of “I think therefore I am”.
In other words, we shape our own “reality” into what we want it to be. That is, what meaning it may have for us as individuals and society. Like the study case you just made an example of.
Xavier,
Yes, ascribing to God an identity as a mere “fiction of human imagination,” or a projection of what we want God to be like, has made many think about who He really is.
Countless pages have been written on this from scientific, philosophical and religious perspectives. I think that from creation we see evidence of God. His existence and Creatorship is assumed when intricacies and intelligence are observed in their design.
I do believe that God revealed Himself to the nation of Israel. Maybe not as they might have expected, but nevertheless. Finally He revealed Himself through His image, Christ Jesus. There is simply so much one can say about this.
I do think, however, that the key here is to reason consistently. If “I am because I think,” and I as a reality is accepted, then the existence of God should also be excepted on basis of the same premise. If, however, I accept the existence of things because they are regarded as real, and not merely phonomenologically accepted to be such, then with consistent assumptions, taking evidence at face value, the One who purposefully designed everything should also be behind my design. Philosophically the Greater brings into existence the lesser. If the Greater is to be understood by the intelligent lesser, it can only be in terms the intelligence of the lesser can process.
I really do not want to fall into the trap many early believers did by attempting to describe God in philosophical and mystical terms. It can so easily derail into endless speculations, specifically because, phenomenologically, we have not experienced God as the Hebrews have. Accepting their world-view as the basis for understanding God is the key.
Regards,
Jaco
I was listening to a Christian radio broadcast today – they were interviewing Franklin Graham, and he said, quote: “We don’t have to die for God. God died for us.”
REALLY?