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

[AlexDTX]

That disagree's with scripture. It says He was raised up by the Father and it was the sign that the Father had accepted Jesus sacrifice for in and the sin debt is paid.

Can you check scripture again on this?

P.S. As an aside I seem to remember, but cannot verify via scripture at this moment, Jesus saying He could have raised Himself but to give the Father His Glory He wanted the Father to do it. Something like that if memory is correct.

I don't see your point. What part of what you quoted me disagrees with Scripture?

 

[AlexDTX]

But like I said, or if I didn't, I meant to, we'll never know. It can't be proved one way or the other.

Of course it can't be proved, nor am I trying to prove it. The point of my thread is to stimulate thought and discussion.

 

[AlexDTX]

But he did have a human nature. You seem to me to keep wanting to have something of one nature be your explanation for some things dealing with Christ...and then have the other explain other matters.

Albion, of course he had a human nature, but he did not have a fallen human nature. He had the perfect human nature that Adam had before his fall.

 

[AlexDTX]

I suggest that Jesus' body was indeed "fallen". From Romans 8:

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,...

Although not definitive, this text seems to imply that Jesus had a body composed of "sinful flesh". Did He sin? Of course not, but if the incarnation did not involve Jesus having a "fallen body" how can the New Testament claim that he was "tempted as we are tempted"?

Jesus came to "where we are" to deal with sin. And "where we are" is trapped in sinful flesh.

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.

One does not need a fallen body to be tempted. Adam and Eve were perfect without sin when God created them. Yet they were tempted and fell. Temptation is a matter of choice, not drive. Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness and had real need - he was hungry, tired and alone - yet he chose to trust in God not in his own resources.

 

[AlexDTX]

Good thinking.

In this case, the only problem would be: why not 18 years old? The factor of limitation is on: what is the age of a fully grown person? After that age, any new cell produced is only to replace the old cells. If the number of cells a fully grown person has can be reached in 15 year, then according to your argument, the biological age of Lord Jesus would remain to be 15 years old.

I agree with your thinking, Juvenissun, and as stated to others, realize that range could be between 14 and 28. However, that is not my point. My point is that Jesus would not show the signs of aging as we understand it because his body worked perfectly.

 

[AlexDTX]

I see your point. Jesus has no sin, so His cells and His biological age are forever young. That is OK.
But it would also give problems on the other aspects. People would say: If so, then Jesus is not a full human.

Has Jesus ever sinned? For example, Has Jesus ever been greedy or envy in His boyhood?
If not, then He is NOT a full human. Because a human IS sinful and WILL sin.

See, now your biological question becomes entangled with social, behavior and emotional questions.

I like your young biological age model. But if so, we need to answer the question whether Jesus ever sinned in His boyhood. If He did not, then He is almost like an alien and is not a full human.

Why do so many think that being human means being fallen? I don't believe that is God's definition. Fallen man is Bizarro world to God. Being fully human means being the perfect man that God created in Adam which was in full image of God. Jesus was that full image, so much so that he said if you see me you see the Father. Is God a fallen human, too? How absurd that is. Jesus displayed the perfection of God himself.

 

[All4Christ]

It is our sin. If you do not understand this point, then you do not understand salvation. We are all Adam at birth. Consider what the writer of Hebrews had to say about Levi tithing inside Abraham. In Hebrews 7:5 the writer tells us that when Abraham tithed to Melchisedek that Levi also tithed to Melchisedek while in his loins. Likewise we were all in Adam when Adam sinned and brought the curse into the whole world. This is why God had to become the man Jesus to redeem us since there was no sinless man on Earth. This is what an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth meant. A perfect man (Adam) caused us all to sin (Rom 5) therefore a perfect man (Jesus) had to redeem us all.

I heartily agree here. This is amazing

I believe there is a core misunderstanding here in our view of original sin vs ancestral sin. The eastern view is very different than the western view - and I believe you are misunderstanding our viewpoint. When you understand original sin in the context of ancestral sin, everything makes sense without trying to come up with reasons to make everything fit together. Many Traditional Christians have an understanding of the eastern view, though we differ to an extent. It is an interesting topic to discuss and learn from each other. However, many non-Traditional Christians (though not all) do not understand our view.

I disagree with your statement that I don't understand salvation. I have studied it significantly - and all I believe fits with Scripture.

As this is Traditional Theology, and early church fathers are accepted as valid sources to compare our views (so long as they don't contradict with scripture), I will post a few quotes from Christians in the first couple hundred years of the church. I hope you consider them and don't discount them immediately, especially considering the forum in which you posted this thread.

 

[All4Christ]

But also free from the sin nature that we are all born with.

Again, our core understanding of Original Son vs Ancestral Sin is one reason for our differences, though many who disagree with ancestral sin do not come to the same conclusions you have.

 

[AlexDTX]

With all due respect, the logic you employ is even more absurd. Why 21; why not 8 or 39? Youthful appearance is never mentioned in Scripture, nor by the ECFs nor is He depicted as an overly-youthful adult by any iconographers.

First, my logic is that aging and maturing are not synonyms. No, Scripture does not tell us what he looked like, and this is speculation on my part, which I have repeatedly stated. Who cares what the iconographers draw. They were not there and have no idea what he looked like. In fact, I had read somewhere that the long hair depicted in those drawings were cult drawings originally. I am not saying they are cult drawings, only that is one opinion on the matter. As for the possible appearance of 21, maturation clear begins at 14 and, as another poster pointed out, may end at 28 when the brain completes maturing. My point is that once maturation is complete then the cells would perfect replace each other in those 7 year cycles, thus his appearance in age would remain the same.

 

[All4Christ]

Give me a break! What a nitpicky point. I meant during his public ministry.

It's a key point. It is not only while Jesus was dying, but also before He was crucified. Your premise states that He took on our sins while He was crucified. To say He took on our sins upon the end of His public ministry is pure speculation - unless you have some additional related scriptures to support this conclusion?

 

[AlexDTX]

No, He wasn't. He was like us in all ways but without sin.



1. God worked miracles through many people as can be seen in the biblical record.
2. Jesus was, and is, God.



He absolutely was mortal, if He wasn't then He couldn't have died. He is immortal now, after the resurrection; just as we will be after we are raised up from the dead at His Parousia. But He was conceived and born a mortal human being, like you and me.



Yes He was.



Scripture says that by one man's disobedience death came to all men. Jesus, being a human being, was therefore subject to death the same as all men. "For as in Adam all die" applies to Christ, but Christ changed the game, for by His obedience and His work He undid what Adam had done, therefore in Christ all are made alive, and through the Second Adam's obedience has come resurrection of the dead to all men.



He died because He was born a mortal man of the progeny of Adam, which is also why we die. Indeed, death isn't exclusive to human beings, perhaps you've noticed that animals, plants, and fungi also die. Death, in fact, applies to the whole of creation. If we only die because we sin, then you may want to ask yourself what sin that banana you ate the other day committed, or what sin your niece's recently departed goldfish committed.



He's the Second Adam because He undid what Adam had done, He is the second Adam by His death and resurrection by which, in Him, we have been freed from Adam's curse having the hope and promise of resurrection and eternal life.



That's heretical, Jesus is the very eternal and uncreated Logos, He is God the Son, and therefore one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. God does not deny God. God did not turn away from Christ, the Spirit did not leave Him; He remained in death eternal and Almighty God, the Uncreated Creator of all things, one in Being with the Father and the Spirit. The Holy Trinity cannot be divided.

So your view of what transpired on the cross is not just problematic, it's heretical.

-CryptoLutheran

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.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

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.

 

[All4Christ]

It is our sin. If you do not understand this point, then you do not understand salvation. We are all Adam at birth. Consider what the writer of Hebrews had to say about Levi tithing inside Abraham. In Hebrews 7:5 the writer tells us that when Abraham tithed to Melchisedek that Levi also tithed to Melchisedek while in his loins. Likewise we were all in Adam when Adam sinned and brought the curse into the whole world. This is why God had to become the man Jesus to redeem us since there was no sinless man on Earth. This is what an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth meant. A perfect man (Adam) caused us all to sin (Rom 5) therefore a perfect man (Jesus) had to redeem us all.

I heartily agree here. This is amazing

Ignatius of Antioch, 35-107 AD Bishop of Antioch in Syria.A disciple of the Apostle John and appointed as Bishop of Antioch by the Apostle Peter.

Now, we know that he did not go to the river because He stood in need of baptism, or of the descent of the Spirit like a dove; even as He submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such things, but because of the human race, which from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of which had committed personal transgression. For God, wishing both angels and men, who were endowed with freewill, and at their own disposal, to do whatever He had strengthened each to do, made them so, that if they chose the things acceptable to Himself, He would keep them free from death and from punishment; but that if they did evil, He would punish each as He sees fit./ Dialogue: 88

But neither shall the father perish for the son, nor the son for the father; but every one for his own sin, and each shall be saved for his own righteousness.—Furthermore, I have proved in what has preceded,” that those who were foreknown to be unrighteous, whether men or angels, are not made wicked by God’s fault, but each man by his own fault is what he will appear to be./ Dialogue: 140Neither do we maintain that it is by fate that men do what they do, or suffer what they suffer. Rather, we maintain that each man acts rightly or sins BY HIS FREE CHOICE….Since God in the beginning MADE THE RACE OF ANGELS AND MEN WITH FREE WILL, they will justly suffer in eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they have committed. (c. 160, E), 1:190

God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall certainly be punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably (wicked), but not because God created them so. So if they repent all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God. / Dialogue cxli

Clement of Alexandria (Titus Flavius Clemens) 150–215 AD. A theologian who taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Among his pupils were Origen and Alexander of Jerusalem.

Neither promises nor apprehensions, rewards, no punishments are just if the soul has not the power of choosing and abstaining; if evil is involuntary. (c. 195, Vol. 2, p.319)

Their estrangement is the result of free choice. (c. 195, Vol. 2, p. 426)

Theses are just a few writings - all before the canon of Scripture was established.

 

[AlexDTX]

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.

Nor would he be in the position to bring redemption. Temptation is not a product of the body, but of the heart on what one dwells upon. Yes there are natural urges that are God given. Jesus being hungry in the wilderness was not a temptation he dwelt upon the natural need for the body to have food. We know he resisted the temptation to dwell on his natural hunger by his rapid answer to Satan, Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. No doubt he dwelt upon that while in the wilderness.

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.

A man does commit adultery nor fornicate simply because they have natural sexual urges. It is because their thoughts continually dwell upon it. The psalmist said that the thoughts of the righteous dwell upon what is right, but God in not continually in the thoughts of the wicked.

I am not spinning your words, I am refining the point.

 

[AlexDTX]

I believe there is a core misunderstanding here in our view of original sin vs ancestral sin. The eastern view is very different than the western view - and I believe you are misunderstanding our viewpoint. When you understand original sin in the context of ancestral sin, everything makes sense without trying to come up with reasons to make everything fit together. Many Traditional Christians have an understanding of the eastern view, though we differ to an extent. It is an interesting topic to discuss and learn from each other. However, many non-Traditional Christians (though not all) do not understand our view.

I disagree with your statement that I don't understand salvation. I have studied it significantly - and all I believe fits with Scripture.

As this is Traditional Theology, and early church fathers are accepted as valid sources to compare our views (so long as they don't contradict with scripture), I will post a few quotes from Christians in the first couple hundred years of the church. I hope you consider them and don't discount them immediately, especially considering the forum in which you posted this thread.

I don't take your point of view lightly. And I am grateful that you share it. I still disagree with your view, but I am not going to try and convince you otherwise. The bottom line is very simple. We all need salvation and Jesus, God who became a man, brought us that salvation. When one believes in the gift, then the Holy Spirit comes into one's heart bringing the new birth. All who understand this are my brothers and sisters in Christ. All the rest is academic.

 

[juvenissun]

Why do so many think that being human means being fallen? I don't believe that is God's definition. Fallen man is Bizarro world to God. Being fully human means being the perfect man that God created in Adam which was in full image of God. Jesus was that full image, so much so that he said if you see me you see the Father. Is God a fallen human, too? How absurd that is. Jesus displayed the perfection of God himself.

Are we fully human?

 

[AlexDTX]

It's a key point. It is not only while Jesus was dying, but also before He was crucified. Your premise states that He took on our sins while He was crucified. To say He took on our sins upon the end of His public ministry is pure speculation - unless you have some additional related scriptures to support this conclusion?

Frankly, I disagree again. He did not become sin who knew no sin until after he cried out on the cross, My God, My God why have you forsaken me? Prior to that, the scourgings and nailing to the cross was the wicked affliction of sinful leaders.

 

[AlexDTX]

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.

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.

 

[AlexDTX]

Ignatius of Antioch, 35-107 AD Bishop of Antioch in Syria.A disciple of the Apostle John and appointed as Bishop of Antioch by the Apostle Peter.



Clement of Alexandria (Titus Flavius Clemens) 150–215 AD. A theologian who taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Among his pupils were Origen and Alexander of Jerusalem.



Theses are just a few writings - all before the canon of Scripture was established.

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

 

[AlexDTX]

Are we fully human?

Without Christ, no, with Christ we are closer.