Jesus died as a 21 year old(moved from Traditional Theology)

[All4Christ]

I have read the church fathers and take what they say with a grain of salt. This does not mean they understood everything.

Even those who were disciples of the apostles, appointed by the apostles to be leaders, and teaching at the same time as the apostles?

Certainly we can agree to disagree, but I (and most here on TT) take the writings of the early church fathers seriously - especially if they don't contradict Scripture. Again, these are the people who helped determine the canon of Scripture.
It especially seems important when the vast majority agreed.


ETA: Do you read any modern authors today? Any commentaries? Perhaps listen to a pastor's sermon to help interpret scripture? If so, do you put any stock in those, or do you take them as a grain of salt and only accept your interpretation and understanding?

Again, we can agree to disagree - though I don't quite understand why many can just consider the earliest Christian's opinions to be a grain of salt...it honestly doesn't make sense - especially when people take the writings of modern Christians seriously. (No offense intended).

 

[expos4ever]

You can say whatever you like. But you can deny a fact.
Our body gets old because of our sins.
Jesus's body gets old because of ???

You can not answer does not mean there is no answer.

Jesus body gets old because His body is composed of sinful flesh.

That does not make him a sinner.

You have, I believe, provided no Biblical or other argument to support your claim that "our body gets old because of our sins". How do you know that our bodies would not get old even if we did not sin? I suggest our bodies get old because they are "fallen" - damaged by the sin of Adam. That is not quite the same thing as suggesting that we age due to sin.

 

[expos4ever]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. It said, "in the likeness" not the same sinful flesh. In other words, he was fully human as God intended when God created Adam before his fall.

I don't see how this reasoning works. Paul says that Jesus was sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh".

You are reading this as "in the likeness of non-sinful, pre-fall flesh".

Do you see the problem?

I think you are trying to squeeze too much mileage from the arguable "openness" of the concept "in the likeness of". I agree, to say that Jesus was sent in the likeness of human flesh is not the same statement as "Jesus was given a sinful body". But, I suggest, it clear that this is indeed what Paul must mean. How misleading of Paul it would be to say that Jesus was in the likeness of sinful flesh, while intending us to understand that He was sent in a non-fallen body. If He had written "in the likeness of human flesh", then you might have a point - it could be a reference to pre-fall Adamic humanity. But Paul specifically refers to sinful flesh and says Jesus was sent in its likeness. Very hard to read this as a sent in form that is entirely devoid of the predisposition to sin.

The problem can be seen from an analogy. I am almost 60 and weigh 160 pounds dripping wet. Suppose someone said “Expos4ever has a body in the likeness of young athletic flesh”.

Yes, I have a body just as a young athlete has a body. But it is certainly not “in the likeness” of a young athlete.

Temptation is a matter of choice, not drive.

Jesus was tempted - this is clear. Are you saying he chose the path of temptation?

 

[expos4ever]

One does not need a fallen body to be tempted.

I think you are obviously correct here - Adam and Eve gave in to temptation prior to the fall. Having said this, I still see every reason to believe that Jesus has a "fallen" body. In other words, one cannot make this argument:

1. Adam and Eve were tempted while they had non-fallen bodies;
2. Jesus was tempted;
3. Therefore, Jesus must have had a non-fallen body.

This argument is obviously not valid - just because one can be tempted while inhabiting a "non-fallen" body does not mean that anyone who is tempted must have a non-fallen body.

 

[juvenissun]

The fact that our body gets older is not a fact that Jesus's body would have aged, either. Those are not facts at all.

I am not sure on what you said. What are not facts?

 

[juvenissun]

Without Christ, no, with Christ we are closer.

Jesus becomes one of us. Is this idea correct?
If yes, and if we are not full human, then why should Jesus become a full human?
Jesus is God and is a full human. But (according to you) we are not even full human. See the problem?

If all humans are not full human, then why not bump everyone up and call every human full human, but call Adam (before sin) a super human? Why do we want to call everyone on the earth subhuman?

Well, this is your thread. I appreciate your idea in the OP. But when elaborated, some problems seemed show up.

 

[juvenissun]

Jesus body gets old because His body is composed of sinful flesh.

That does not make him a sinner.

You have, I believe, provided no Biblical or other argument to support your claim that "our body gets old because of our sins". How do you know that our bodies would not get old even if we did not sin? I suggest our bodies get old because they are "fallen" - damaged by the sin of Adam. That is not quite the same thing as suggesting that we age due to sin.

Because Adam did not become older before sin.
And, are you suggesting that Jesus has a sinful flesh?
And are you suggesting that a newborn with a sinful flesh could be sinless?

 

[expos4ever]

Because Adam did not become older before sin.

Agree

And, are you suggesting that Jesus has a sinful flesh?

Yes, I believe Paul strongly implies this in Romans 8 and it otherwise makes "theological sense".

And are you suggesting that a newborn with a sinful flesh could be sinless?

Yes.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

I politely suggest you are "spinning" this - trying to imply that my position makes Jesus out to be a sinner. Let me be clear: I see no reason why proposing that Jesus had a body which shares all the "fallen" characteristics of human bodies makes him a "sinner". Put simply: Unlike you and me, Jesus successfully resisted the temptations to sin that His all-too-human body generated. I also suggest that unless Jesus comes to the place where sin lives - the fallen human body - He is not in a position to defeat that sin.

Christ did not have to "successfully resist" a thing. Being God and man does not imply some separation in being

 

[expos4ever]

Christ did not have to "successfully resist" a thing. Being God and man does not imply some separation in being

I don't follow your logic. On what Biblical basis do you conclude that Jesus did not need to resist temptation?

Your argument seems to be:

1. God does not need to resist temptation;
2. Jesus is God;
3. Therefore, since Jesus and God are effectively "one", Jesus does not need to resist temptation.

But that argument clearly does not work in general:

1. God does not need to eat food;
2. Jesus is God;
3. Therefore, since Jesus and God are effectively "one", Jesus does not need to eat food.

See the problem? Yes, there is obviously a sense in which "Jesus = God", but there are many other senses in which the two have different properties / attributes.

 

[expos4ever]

Temptation is not a product of the body, but of the heart on what one dwells upon.

I think this is a questionable distinction. It is clear, for example, that sexual temptation is connected to hormone levels. Of course, one can resist the urging of the hormones, but it seems clear that temptation can have a "bodily" component.

We are a salt less and dark generation of believers because sorry doctrines are believed such as thinking Jesus had the body of fallen humanity. It is an excuse for lack of discipleship on the vast majority of believers who justify themselves for not controlling their thought lives. Controlling our thoughts is the heart of discipleship, and too many are reckless and careless with what they think.

You are sermonizing. Not the place for this - you need to actually substantiate your position before lecturing others.

A man does commit adultery nor fornicate simply because they have natural sexual urges. It is because their thoughts continually dwell upon it.

Strawman - I never claimed that a man commits adultery simply because they have sexual urges.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

I don't follow your logic. On what Biblical basis do you conclude that Jesus did not need to resist temptation?

The arguments being raised here are that Jesus had the capacity to sin (i.e. had a 'fallen body', to use your metaphor), but chose not to. That is not orthodox, traditional theology. That is a recent development based on a false reading of Romans 8 that you adhere to.

I am not saying he did not need to resist temptation. You would conclude it was due to his capacity to sin, but making a choice not to. I would echo the writer of Hebrews when he said:

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

"Without" definition:

Without association with sin, i.e. without yielding to sin, without becoming stained with it
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5565&t=KJV

 

[expos4ever]

The arguments being raised here are that Jesus had the capacity to sin (i.e. had a 'fallen body', to use your metaphor), but chose not to. That is not orthodox, traditional theology. That is a recent development based on a false reading of Romans 8 that you adhere to.

Even if my position is not the "traditional" tradition, that in and of itself does not make my position incorrect.

I would echo the writer of Hebrews when he said...:

Please explain how the verse from Hebrews is evidence against my position - I read it as merely asserting that Jesus did not sin, something I agree with (of course). I suspect you are stretching the meaning of "staining" too far in the provided definition of "without". My position is entirely consistent with the definition of "without" are you provided:

1. Jesus did not yield to sin (I agree with this, of course);

2. Jesus did not become stained by sin (I agree that since Jesus did not sin, He was not "stained" by sin). I think you understand this to preclude the possibility that Jesus had a sin nature - that to have a sin nature means one is
"stained" by sin. Well that is highly debatable - I think the Biblical concept of "staining" refers to sins committed, not to "sin nature". But, we probably cannot settle that difference. In any event, if you are reading "stained" in the way I think you are, I believe you are placing far too much weight on a questionable nuance of language - as I have stated before (although not made a case for yet), I think there is a much more reliable reason to believe Jesus had a sin nature. Basically the argument is this:

1. Biblically, sin "lives" in fallen human beings;
2. One key aspect of the atonement is that sin is defeated / condemned at the Cross;
3. If Jesus does not "go to the place where sin lives" - fallen human flesh - sin cannot be defeated / condemned.

This is very loosely stated but I suspect you get the gist of what I am claiming.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

In any event, if you are reading "stained" in the way I think you are, I believe you are placing far too much weight on a questionable nuance of language - as I have stated before (although not made a case for yet), I think there is a much more reliable reason to believe Jesus had a sin nature.

This is the meat of where we disagree, and I think traditional Christian history would bear things out as I have presented them. This does not make me right, it's just a more traditional understanding. I presented a link earlier in the thread where the alternate understanding of Romans 8 came from, and it is relatively new.

Basically the argument is this:

1. Biblically, sin "lives" in fallen human beings;
2. One key aspect of the atonement is that sin is defeated / condemned at the Cross;
3. If Jesus does not "go to the place where sin lives" - fallen human flesh - sin cannot be defeated / condemned.

This is very loosely stated but I suspect you get the gist of what I am claiming.

A perfect God can make Himself in the likeness of human flesh ("go to the place where sin lives"), yet still be sinless. That's hard to grasp, but possible nonetheless. An attempt to make sense of it in the way some have (you're not alone) is an attempt to 'humanize' Christ in a way that is not borne out in scripture or in Christian history.
In any event, I can see this back and forth going on for too long, so I'm bowing out. God bless!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You're very quick to stamp heresy on what you disagree with. Most of what you say, I do not disagree with. However, God is our savior only through the perfect humanity of Jesus. Jesus died voluntarily, his mortality was his choice and was his mission, but not a foregone conclusion without the cross. His redemption is for all creation, not just humanity since death, brought in by Adam, permeates all creation.

Well... Orthodoxy has always maintained orthodoxy by identifying heresy and avoiding it; such is why it's called "orthodox theology" rather than "heterodox theology"; mind you, there is more than enough of that to go around.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I have read the church fathers and take what they say with a grain of salt. This does not mean they understood everything.

Yet quite a number were only a few generations removed from our Lord.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Jesus body gets old because His body is composed of sinful flesh.

That does not make him a sinner.

You have, I believe, provided no Biblical or other argument to support your claim that "our body gets old because of our sins". How do you know that our bodies would not get old even if we did not sin? I suggest our bodies get old because they are "fallen" - damaged by the sin of Adam. That is not quite the same thing as suggesting that we age due to sin.

Yes, we agree that Christ did not sin; but His human fleshy body being truly human bore (as we Lutherans would say) the "stain of original sin". When Christ "put on our flesh, He got it all; including that "stain".

 

[mnorian]

Mod Hat On
This

To Controversial Christian Theology
As Staff decided it would fit
The Statement of Purpose
Better.
Mod Hat Off

​

 

[ViaCrucis]

You're very quick to stamp heresy on what you disagree with.

I'm calling heresy what is heresy. Aphthartodocetism was a 6th century heretical position proposed and taught by Julian of Halicarnassus which taught that Christ, before the resurrection, did not have a corruptible body but always had an incorruptible one. The term "Aphthartodocetism" comes from two words, aphthartos meaning "incorruptible", literally "unable to decay" and dokeo meaning "to seem"; an earlier heresy Docetism had taught that Christ only "seemed" or "appeared" to be human but was in fact an entirely divine being, a kind of divine hologram or phantasm who had no real body at all (this is the heresy which St. John is combating in his epistles, these are the ones he calls "antichrists" who deny that Jesus came in the flesh). Thus the Aphtartodocetae taught that Jesus only "seemed" to have a body that could suffer, it only seemed mortal, but was in fact an entirely immortal and incorruptible body that could not suffer and it was only by a specific extraordinary occasion that He was able to be crucified and die.

I'm not calling this heresy because it simply disagrees with what I personally believe; I'm calling this heresy because it's heresy and has been a recognized heresy for nearly 1500 years.

I also charged your statement about God turning away from Christ and the Spirit departing Christ heretical, because it fundamentally undermines and goes against the fundamental teachings of the Trinity in which is confessed that Jesus, as the only-begotten Son of God the Father is homoousios--of one being/nature/substance/essence--with the Father. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are united in their one indivisible and inseparable Divine Essence. The Spirit can't depart Christ because the Spirit and Christ are united together in the unity of their Being with the Father--one God. The Son was never without the Father or the Spirit. By saying that the Father turned away from Christ, or that the Spirit departed from Christ is to say that there existed a division, a severing, of the unity of God's own Essence. And that's a major problem. It is a major Triadological error to say that the Father ceased to be united to the Son; the Father did not turn away from the Son, that isn't why He cries "Eli Eli, lama sabacthani!"--for one Christ is quoting Psalm 22, and for another we merely need to recognize that Christ, being both God and man was able to feel, to suffer, and experience those things common to all men. Our Lord Jesus, though very God, one in being with the Father from all eternity, none-the-less was human (just like you and I) for this reason He could experience joy, sadness, and even the dread of the cross.

So, yes, on these two accounts I stated that what you were promoting was heresy, because these are directly at odds with orthodox Christian teaching.

Most of what you say, I do not disagree with. However, God is our savior only through the perfect humanity of Jesus. Jesus died voluntarily, his mortality was his choice and was his mission, but not a foregone conclusion without the cross.

And that encompasses the entirety of the Incarnation, not just one brief moment. He was conceived a mortal human being, the same as you and I. The only difference between Him (as far as His humanity is concerned) and us is that He did not sin; but He was still subject to the stain of sin that exists among all of us--and indeed, the reality of it as it is present throughout all creation.

His redemption is for all creation, not just humanity since death, brought in by Adam, permeates all creation.

Bingo. Which is why saying that in order for Jesus to be mortal required that He be sinful is false, He was not sinful; and when he bore the weight of our sin on the cross it was not because He suddenly became a sinner on the cross, it is that the full weight of human sin fell upon Him and He, even in dying, crucified it and rendered it inert and inept and by His rising destroying the power of sin, death, and hell and granting to us salvation, eternal life, and resurrection.

Christ is risen from the dead,
Trampling down death by death,
And to those in the tombs,
Bestowing life.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[~Anastasia~]

Unsubscribing, so I won't see any comments regarding my posts unless quoted. Just don't want to seem to be ignoring.