tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post5368896111271452080..comments2024-03-24T05:54:23.612-05:00Comments on Weedon's Blog: Commemoration of Joseph of ArimatheaWilliam Weedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-87974797673388003202009-04-10T10:46:00.000-05:002009-04-10T10:46:00.000-05:00Sure, all you need is the distinction between conc...Sure, all you need is the distinction between concrete and abstract. It would be heresy and error to say in abstraction "Divinity died." But it would also be heresy and error to deny in concrete: "God died upon the cross" for the Eternal Word made flesh IS God.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-86921297595273297512009-04-10T10:17:00.000-05:002009-04-10T10:17:00.000-05:00Many years ago, when a now sainted professor was s...Many years ago, when a now sainted professor was speaking of Christ's death on our place, he noted that Catherine Winkworth's translation of this 17th century hymn was inaccurate... or at least could be translated differently. This professor gave the translation which now appears in the LSB, noted above, in the second stanza. "O sorrow dread, our God is dead..." This is GOD dying in our place, I believe he said, and I wondered, being a beginning student in theology. The TLH translation by Winkworth rendered the German, "Got selbst ist tot" as "God's Son is dead." In the communication of attributes, however, the divine does not take on the attributes of the human, if I understand the doctrine correctly. Could anyone properly render both the German of Johann Rist (Friedrich vonSpec wrote only the first stanza), and the correct application of the genus maiestaticum to this matter?Ken Larson kenlarson@hotmail.comnoreply@blogger.com