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

[ImaginaryDay]

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".

On what scriptural basis? If one bears the stain of original sin, he is not sinless. Why must a perfect Man be rendered imperfect? Is it to satisfy some need to make Him more like us (or the opposite?) What is it, really?
Glad for the thread move...

 

[ViaCrucis]

On what scriptural basis? If one bears the stain of original sin, he is not sinless. Why must a perfect Man be rendered imperfect? Is it to satisfy some need to make Him more like us (or the opposite?) What is it, really?
Glad for the thread move...

In a nutshell the Western Christian concept of Original Sin is that all human beings inherit from Adam the fallen, sinful humanity of Adam and with it concupiscence (basically selfish desire). In Lutheran language this is referred to as nature-sin or person-sin, it is the inborn sin and sinfulness which we have on account of our being Adam's progeny. Christ, uniquely, was conceived and born without this, not only did He not commit personal sins but was free from being conceived and born a sinner--but, nevertheless, He bore in His body what we might refer to the scar of Original Sin. Meaning, like us, His flesh was corruptible, His body was passable, He was mortal.

The stain of original sin is its consequences: again, mortality, corruptibility, passability, etc; but He was not born sinful and neither did He commit sin. He was uniquely free of Sin, but nevertheless bore--as St. Paul says--our sinful flesh. He Himself was sinless, but the humanity in which He shares is our humanity, not some kind of foreign or alien humanity; He shares in our humanity in order that He can redeem our humanity. The great Cappadocian Father, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, wrote, "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole. Let them not, then, begrudge us our complete salvation, or clothe the Saviour only with bones and nerves and the portraiture of humanity." (Letters, Division I, Ep. CI)

The Scriptural basis? "For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh," (Romans 8:3)

Christ is not rendered imperfect on account of sharing in our humanity, He remains true God and true sinless man; nothing is lost in the Incarnation. But He has become one of us in order that we might be saved; otherwise we fall into any number of assorted errors:

The Docetists taught that Christ had no humanity at all, no body, no corporeality; He only appeared or seemed to be human but was in fact a purely divine being, a kind of divine hologram or phantasm. St. John writes against them and the Cerinthians (the followers of Cerinthus, an ancient heretic) in his letters.

The Apollinarians taught that Christ did not have a human mind or soul, but rather the Divine Logos took the place of the mind and soul; this is actually the occasion for the above quote from St. Gregory, it is written against the Apollinarians who said Christ did not have a human mind or a human soul. Problematically, if Christ had no human mind then He was not really human, and if Christ had no human soul then He wasn't really human. Christ, rather, was fully and actually human.

The Apthartodocetae or Julianists, which I've mentioned several times already in this thread, taught that Christ's body only had the appearance of being able to suffer, but was in fact completely incorruptible even before the resurrection.

The Monothelites taught that Christ had but a single will, a divine will, lacking a human will at all. This, again, is a problem for the same reasons given for Apollinarianism.

So the orthodox position is explicit and firm: Jesus Christ was human, truly human, and like us in all ways but without sin. This statement "in all ways" is rather absolute. He had a mortal, corruptible, passable human body, a human soul, a human mind, and a human will. The author of Hebrews even says He was tempted in all ways like us, but still never sinned (and I believe this deserves to be connected to St. Paul's statements concerning Christ as the second Adam, that by His obedience He has undone what Adam did). Jesus could stub His toe, He could wake up with bed hair, He probably had a pimple or two when going through puberty (which, means, yes He went through puberty which means Jesus had an awkward phase where His voice broke). If it was cold outside He probably caught the sniffles. If He didn't bathe He would probably smell bad. When Mary changed His diapers, well, those didn't smell particularly great either.

He was human. Actually human. Not just with the appearance of being human, but indeed like us in all ways but without sin.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Much more cohesive. Thank you.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

On what scriptural basis? If one bears the stain of original sin, he is not sinless. Why must a perfect Man be rendered imperfect? Is it to satisfy some need to make Him more like us (or the opposite?) What is it, really?
Glad for the thread move...

Simple, God told Adam and Eve that they would die if they disobeyed God; since they disobeyed God, they brought death to humanity. Physical death is that stain. If Christ did not inherit that "stain" from the Blessed Virgin Mary, he, like Adam would have had to be created mature, and like Adam before the fall, would not have been able to die, yet He was.

 

[mnorian]

Mod Hat On
This is a

Small Mod Hat
To remind You That This Forum Has Different
Rules Then Traditional Theology
And The Main one Is
Non-Nicene unorthodox Christian topics may only be discussed in the Controversial Christian Theology forum.
_Non-Trinitarianism may only be discussed in the _Christianity & World Religion forum and the _Debate Non-Christian Religions forum.
The Sop is Here:http://www.christianforums.com/thre...istian-theology-statement-of-purpose.7878699/
Carry On​

 

[AlexDTX]

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).

Hi All4,
Yes, I have read the church fathers, apocrypha, and many later writers. I also consider reading those works as worth my time since it lets me know what the early disciples and early church thought.

However, this is what I mean by taking their writings with a grain of salt. It is a natural mind set to assume that since they were closer to the time of the apostles that they would more accurately understand Christ and his followers. This is the same logic that says a copy of the New Testament that is oldest will be more accurate and this is not true.

I grew up listening to the Beatles, for example. I heard those first recordings, but frankly, it has been many decades later when I understood what they were saying in their lyrics. My understanding required maturing on my part.

Paul had to rebuke Peter for his hypocrisy when he ate non kosher food with the gentiles then pretended to not do so when the messianic Jews were near him. Jesus told the apostles and his disciples repeatedly that he had to be crucified but then would be raised from the dead before it happened but they did not understand him because they did not want to believe him.

Just because the church fathers may have been disciples of the apostles, such as Clement, does not mean they understood better than later believers. Millions of people have God in their hearts yet are very bad at hearing God. Understanding Scriptures is a spiritual discernment that is based in understanding the heart and character of God himself.

I do not throw the baby out with the bath water, however. The canon of Scripture was determined because the majority of believers sensed the inspiration of the Spirit in those letters but not in others. So I have read and do read the early fathers of our faith because they do share time honored faith that bears witness with the Spirit. But they also say many things that do not agree with the Spirit which is why their writings are not in the canon of Scripture.

The book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses are a good examples. I was fascinated that Jude quotes these documents and Jude's epistle made the canon of Scriptures. However when you read those two aforementioned works you get a spotty sense of the Spirit. In some passages you can tell their is inspiration, but in others they are clearly fabrications of man's imagination.

This is what I mean by taking them with a grain of salt.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Simple, God told Adam and Eve that they would die if they disobeyed God; since they disobeyed God, they brought death to humanity. Physical death is that stain. If Christ did not inherit that "stain" from the Blessed Virgin Mary, he, like Adam would have had to be created mature, and like Adam before the fall, would not have been able to die, yet He was.

Thanks for clearing that up. I don't see the fact that Christ had a physical body, subject to age and eventual death (which I don't deny), as participating in/inheriting any 'stain' of sin. But thanks for that.

 

[juvenissun]

Simple, God told Adam and Eve that they would die if they disobeyed God; since they disobeyed God, they brought death to humanity. Physical death is that stain. If Christ did not inherit that "stain" from the Blessed Virgin Mary, he, like Adam would have had to be created mature, and like Adam before the fall, would not have been able to die, yet He was.

I don't think so. God's creation activity has long been finished. There is no more creation since the 7th DAY.

Nevertheless, I do think the body of Jesus is mortal like that for everyone of us. The idea of the OP is interesting, but, unfortunately, is not likely to be true. However, this thinking does echo my another thought: Jesus might have sinned just like all of us before He was baptized.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

I have been thinking about this for some time and would love everyone's feedback. All the pictures of Jesus I have seen painted always portray him as a 33 year old, and I believe this is incorrect.

Science tells me that it takes 7 years for every cell in the body to be replaced. In the first 3 cycles of 7 years we see the transformation of a infant to child; child to teen, and teen to adult. After 21 the growth process ends and the 7 year cycles are to replace the cells.

I realized when I first understood this that this is the reason we age. Because of sin in us our bodies do not replicate the cells exactly right and are a little off. Similar to a copy machine making copies of copies you get a deterioration in picture quality that eventually no longer looks like the first picture. Likewise with us; with each passing cycle of 7 years we age and look older until the cycle is so far off we die of natural causes.

Even with children growing to adulthood the effect of sin on their bodies is evident with blemishes, pimples, moles, etc. They just are not as noticeable due to the extreme changes occurring with their maturation.

But not so with Jesus. He was sinless from birth. Therefore he never had pimples or any other blemish, nor any sickness. When he reached twenty one, the next 7 year cycle would have perfectly replaced their cells, so at 28 he still looked 21. Likewise when he died at 33, five years into his next 7 year cycle, he would have still looked 21.

If God still uses this system when we get our glorified bodies, then we will all look 21 for ever.

BTW, as a side note, if men can say they are women trapped in a man's body, I think I am a 21 year old trapped in a 63 year old body, and I should get special rights .

Perhaps I'm missing your point, but Scripture tells us Jesus began His public ministry at the age of 30, right? (Luke 3:23)

 

[AlexDTX]

I'm calling heresy what is heresy.

-CryptoLutheran

If we take the literal meaning of the Greek word "hairesis", used only once in the New Testament by the Pharisees who called Paul a heretic in Acts 24:14, it means a sect or division. The current connotation of the word is error. But it does mean error, only division. From that point of view, every denomination is heretical since it divides the unity of the Spirit in the body of Christ. Lutherans are just as heretical as any other, which makes you a heretic, too. Truth is determined by men, but comes from God.