Leaderboard

No one would suggest Christ experienced the 2nd death as that is the term used for the ultimate and final status of the reprobate sinner, the Beast & False Prophet who's names are absent from the Book of Life. After the General Judgment when the lost are thrown into the lake of fire (no coming back from that) THAT's what's referred to as the 2nd death.

2 Corinthians 5:21 "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." I've never understood what those words mean - "to be sin", as if "sin" is something one may literally become, rather than something one does. The text also says that righteousness is something we may "become". We do have the word "guilty", which is something one "is" or "is not". To "be" guilty, reminds me of "to be sin" - the words used in 2Cor 5:21. The Complete Jewish Bible puts it a different way, that I can wrap my head around a little better. 2 Corinthians 5:21 "God made this sinless man be a sin offering on our behalf, so that in union with him we might fully share in God's righteousness." (CJB) Reading the verse in this version, I can understand that Christ fully shared our sinfulness/filthyness, so that we could fully share His righteousness. His Father treated Him as a sinner - as guilty of sin. He separated Himself from His Son. We don't know (except from EGW) that this literally caused His death. He may simply have died in a state of separation from God. Though such an awareness would certainly have hastened His death. Cardiac rupture and pericardial effusion were actually common in victims of crucifixion. Here is a link to an article describing such. https://www.apu.edu/articles/15657/ There are several wicked persons mentioned in Scripture, who died separated from God - because of their own sins. Saul comes to mind, and Korah. SDA's believe those people will be resurrected to face judgment, and will then die the "second death" in the Lake of Fire. Why could not Jesus have died of crucifixion, while also in a condition of separation from God His Father? The Lake of Fire is obliteration. God erases His own memory of such, so they can never be resurrected again. I don't believe He did that with His "memory" of His own Son.

Rachel: Yes, I have begun several discussions on the Trinity. I have done so because I believe it to be an important topic. I have not confined the present discussions on the Trinity to the reserved section of this forum, as was once done, because I do not believe that the present discussions need to be so confined. You, as well as the others who participate in this discussion are welcome to continue to do so.

You have started a good many trinitarian/nature of Christ type discussions lately Gregory. I'm glad. I read through the article couple of times. Can certainly see why it's only Part One. From your article: Sproul reasoned that “if the being of God ceased for one second, the universe would disappear. It would pass out of existence, because nothing can exist apart from the sustaining power of God. If God dies, everything dies with Him. Obviously, then, God could not have perished on the cross [emphasis mine].”[5] The apostle Paul appears to have seen matters similarly. He avoided talking about a dying deity. He insisted in 1 Timothy 6:16 that the Judeo-Christian deity is immortal. Need I stress the obvious that anyone immortal cannot die?[ Rachel again: As most everyone here knows, I am not a Trinitarian. I believe God is "the Father" and "the Father" is "the only true God". He is "head of Christ". I believe that God literally beget a Son (a second divine being) so that He could die in the person of His Son, because He could not die Himself (being immortal). I believe the Son of God set aside His divine powers, in order to take the form and the nature (mortal) of Abraham, in order to overcome as a man, in order to receive the promises of the covenant, including dominion. When He died, He died physical death - as a man. No part of Him did not die. If there were so, then God's gift of His Son was incomplete. As for "first death" and "second death" - I do not personally believe that EGW was an infallible interpreter of Scripture, therefore I do not need to take her word that Christ's humanity died the "second death". Jesus did not seem to believe that He was about to die "the second death" in "the lake of fire". He said, "into Thy hands I commit my spirit". He didn't seem to indicate that His spirit was about the be annihilated forever in "lake of fire which is the second death" (Rev 20:14). This entire argument is based upon the belief (of most) that Christ's death was substitutionary - that He died as some sort of payment to God His Father. I do not hold that view. I believe His death was simply the end point in a long battle. It was the battle leading up to His death, that held importance. He was "obedient unto death striving against sin". It was the fact that He lived without sinning - up to the point of death, that defeated Satan. I don't think His death was Satan's goal. Once He died, the battle would be over. Why would Satan want to end it, short of breaking Him somehow.

5 Things You Probably Didn't Know About Billy the Kid_3 On August 17, 1877, the legendary Billy the Kid, whose real name was Henry McCarty, killed his first man, an Arizona blacksmith named Frank Cahill. Think you know Billy the Kid? Here are five of the most interesting facts about the young outlaw who died at age 21... The Kid’s First Theft Involved Clothing Billy the Kid may have had a reputation as a killer back in the Old West, but he first got into trouble in 1875 under his real name of Henry McCarty when he and another guy called “Sombrero Jack” stole some clothing from a laundry. Although he was arrested after being turned in to the sheriff by his landlord, he scrambled up a chimney to escape and began his short life of crime. The same year he killed an Arizona blacksmith in a saloon dispute and changed his name to William H. Bonney but soon picked up the nickname “Billy the Kid.” No, He Wasn’t Left-Handed For many years, people thought that Billy the Kid was left-handed because of a photograph that showed his gun holster strapped on his left side. However, because the photo was made around 1880, there was a technical error, and it was flipped when it was printed. Now it is thought that he was either right-handed or ambidextrous. His Reputation as a Gunslinger Developed During the Lincoln County War The Kid participated in the Lincoln County War in New Mexico in 1878 when he was hired by John Tunstall, a rancher, to provide protection for his property against two Irish tycoons that held a monopoly over cattle trading and dry goods in the area. After Tunstall was murdered on the orders of the local sheriff, the Kid and other ranch hands formed a group called “The Regulators,” who acted as vigilantes seeking revenge for the murder of their employer. Killing the sheriff led to a firefight in Lincoln that lasted for five days, where the Kid earned his reputation as a gunslinger. A Wanted Poster Was Never Issued for Billy the Kid Replicas of a “Wanted” poster for the capture of Billy the Kid are common but are all fakes. No wanted poster was ever issued for the Kid. However, the governor of the New Mexico Territory, Lew Wallace, did post an ad in the Las Vegas Gazette offering $500 reward for anyone who could capture William Bonny, and the name was even misspelled. Billy’s Reputation Might Have Been Exaggerated Billy the Kid might have killed nine people, and five of those deaths happened while he was a Regulator during the Lincoln County Wars. Even that high a number is questionable since evidence only exists that he was personally responsible for the deaths of four people, including two prison guards. While he participated in the killing of five others, there is no proof that he was the one who pulled the trigger.

Hi Gregory and Gustave, Great posts! I think that's easy to see with our 20/20 hindsight. But I doubt that many Israelites participated in these sacrifices thinking "this foretells of the Messiah to come". They were looking for a conquering Messiah; not a meek and poor One who would end up dying on a cross. The 10 Commandments have a much broader application than "Thou shalt not ..." They provide a global moral compass that separates right from wrong for us. Without that moral compass, who is there to determine what is right and wrong. Look at what ignorance (willful or unconscious) of the 10 Commandments has brought us - a celebration of all forms LGTBQ+, laws allowing abortions up to the point of birth, racial hatred (much of it for no reason), increasing persecution of believers, etc. God gave us the Law because it is GOOD! It is not meant to be restrictive; it is meant as a guide on how to live in complete freedom and security. satan has placed in our psyche the notion that the best way to exercise our free will is to violate God's Law - to show Him that we do indeed have a free will; and we don't have to do what He wants. He never mentions the fact that a better way to exercise our free will is to choose to accept Go's Law and His rulership. I'm not preaching legalism here. None of us will keep God's Law in Spirit perfectly for the rest of our lives (unless you die while reading this). Where is our heart? What do we consult as our moral compass?