Redemption from Death through Death?

[Dima 26]

This not your typical question you'll hear asked among Christians but yet to me it seemed worthwhile to ask as it promotes us to consider many important aspects of the Christian faith, such as death, life, atonement, redemption, resurrection, glorified body, and life eternal.

In fact, at first glance, this appears totally basic Christian doctrine: Christ redeemed us from death through death. And certainly, there is no uncertainty here, in the sense of the Lamb of God Who removes the sins of the world. The question arises when we look beyond the primary purpose of His advent, which being His passion, His days were cut short by the hands of the wicked. But now, what if His days were prolonged far beyond that: would He also eventually taste death (exclusively: the destruction of the body) like the rest of mankind? Now I know hypothetical questions are usually not given much credit, therefore I'll try to put it in a present tense sense - regarding His actual days on earth. Did Jesus Christ have the same mortal body (Him being called the Son of Man after all) that is subject unto death in itself - aging, decay, and deterioration - and not just through outward means such as the passion?

If He did than that would mean that death had partial power (in the sense of tasting it, and not so as to hinder His resurrection) even over Christ Who had no sin. This would mean that the body (whether ours or His) is not truly subject to life in the Spirit (since He was always alive in the Spirit) and inherited death from Adam in a non-reconcilable way: being able to be redeemed from death only through experiencing it (death). This is significant in that death itself is commonly used as a testimony of us being under the power of sin, but if Christ Who had no sin was also subject unto death as we are, than what now to make of this great testimony against us sinners?

Some will say that it doesn't matter whether the Son of Man was subject unto death or not, and that this question is hid and not worth looking into, alluding to Psalm 131:1 and Deuteronomy 29:29. I can understand this answer and I'll leave you with it. I myself am not sure which I believe at the moment, only that I'm not content with not searching, otherwise I would not have asked it.

To those who would contend that Jesus was not subject unto death from within and was capable of living indefinitely in His body, I would ask: on what basis? By the virtue of His body that was made different than ours or by the virtue of His Spirit that by consequence made His body subject to Himself - which would be life? If the latter, than that would mean that our flesh (and His for that matter) is morally neutral and the blame lies within us, that is, our spirit/soul which determines who we are - effecting the flesh also. If the former, than how is Christ said to be the Son of Man, apart from Him being made from the same body owned by man?

Now I know most people will go with the former option, thinking that the key to understanding the noticeable difficulties lies somewhere within the virgin birth. True, He was born of a virgin, but the same Mary was still made from both man and women. In other words, Jesus Christ, according to the flesh, was still from the same fallen progeny of Adam and Eve. The apparent difficulties lie only within the faulty notion that sin (or evil) which is a non-material/physical thing (as opposed to the body), being either disobedience or a deviation of what is good, somehow dwells in a tangible and physical manner in our flesh. How much more accurate is it to rather ascribe sin to our spirit/soul, which is directly associated with our mind, will, understanding/reason, and the seat of all the other divine attributes? Is not our body subject to our mind/soul/spirit? And is this not how Christ the Lord Himself was justified before heaven and earth, when He condemned sin in the flesh - being alive in the Spirit? (Romans 8:3, 4)

 

[BobRyan]

This not your typical question you'll hear asked among Christians but yet to me it seemed worthwhile to ask as it promotes us to consider many important aspects of the Christian faith, such as death, life, atonement, redemption, resurrection, glorified body, and life eternal.

In fact, at first glance, this appears totally basic Christian doctrine: Christ redeemed us from death through death. And certainly, there is no uncertainty here, in the sense of the Lamb of God Who removes the sins of the world. The question arises when we look beyond the primary purpose of His advent, which being His passion, His days were cut short by the hands of the wicked. But now, what if His days were prolonged far beyond that: would He also eventually taste death (exclusively: the destruction of the body) like the rest of mankind?

Christ was dying in Gethsemane BEFORE the mob showed up.

He was sweating great drops of blood - while as yet not a single hand was laid on Him.
He stated "my soul is sorrowful even unto death" - while as yet not a single hand was laid on Him.

1 John 2:2 His death was supernatural "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins - and not for our sins only - but for the sins of the whole world".

John points to Him saying "behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world".

Christ came to be the great atoning sacrifice - He did not need a Jewish soldier or a Roman soldier to do that.

The Romans where shocked to learn that He had died in only 3 hours. Death by crucifixion lasted much longer than that.

 

[RandyPNW]

I have a little trouble understanding the various options you provide, so I'll just shorten my reply by giving you what I think. I think the physical human body was originally designed to live indefinitely, but only as a kind of "seed." Eventually, there would be a transition to something more beautiful, more wonderful, and eternal, no longer designed to produce babies.

So I think the original body was designed to multiply to the extent mankind filled the earth, and then there would be a kind of transition, just as a caterpillar becomes a butterfly. On the other hand, Man sinned and this started in motion a reproduction of physical human bodies that decay until death. Jesus was not afflicted with such a body, having been born apart from the cycle of sinful human reproduction.

The infection of sin in the human body is not a physical program, but rather, a spiritual program. So, once the spirit is poisoned with corrupting agents, the body gradually deteriorates until death.

So had Jesus not died on the cross, he would've lived indefinitely until his transition to something else. Being susceptible to injury, though not for his own wrong-doings, he would likely be healed, once God no longer wanted him to bear suffering on our behalf.

If it was not to suffer on our behafl, he would not have suffered any scratch on his body or wound from insects at all. This being unlikely, he would at the very least have been instantly healed, though any suffering at all would be on our behalf and not caused by his own sins, which he did not have.

The process of dying is what a mortal body means. We are born with bodies with a spiritual seed planted that has a "time bomb" attached. Gradually, our DNA fails to reproduce perfect copies, and our organs break down, or we become susceptible to serious diseases. Since we have sin, we may suffer due to what we deserve, or like Christ we may suffer unjustly from the influence of others.

 

[Dima 26]

I have a little trouble understanding the various options you provide, so I'll just shorten my reply by giving you what I think. I think the physical human body was originally designed to live indefinitely, but only as a kind of "seed." Eventually, there would be a transition to something more beautiful, more wonderful, and eternal, no longer designed to produce babies.

So I think the original body was designed to multiply to the extent mankind filled the earth, and then there would be a kind of transition, just as a caterpillar becomes a butterfly. On the other hand, Man sinned and this started in motion a reproduction of physical human bodies that decay until death. Jesus was not afflicted with such a body, having been born apart from the cycle of sinful human reproduction.

The infection of sin in the human body is not a physical program, but rather, a spiritual program. So, once the spirit is poisoned with corrupting agents, the body gradually deteriorates until death.

So had Jesus not died on the cross, he would've lived indefinitely until his transition to something else. Being susceptible to injury, though not for his own wrong-doings, he would likely be healed, once God no longer wanted him to bear suffering on our behalf.

If it was not to suffer on our behafl, he would not have suffered any scratch on his body or wound from insects at all. This being unlikely, he would at the very least have been instantly healed, though any suffering at all would be on our behalf and not caused by his own sins, which he did not have.

The process of dying is what a mortal body means. We are born with bodies with a spiritual seed planted that has a "time bomb" attached. Gradually, our DNA fails to reproduce perfect copies, and our organs break down, or we become susceptible to serious diseases. Since we have sin, we may suffer due to what we deserve, or like Christ we may suffer unjustly from the influence of others.

I'm both impressed and relieved to find someone who shares a similar interest in the significance of looking to the beginning so as to better understand the present state of things and the end. The way you've presented your view aligns in many respects with how I've developed mine as of late. Most don't care to go beyond anything other than that humans were made to live without dying. Once one is willing to actually think that God made all things very good so as to truly work out should humans have chosen the right way, than the first thing one must do to make any sense of the work of God is to exalt wisdom to its proper place of working life. Wisdom is a concept under great atrophy in our modern time. I believe that's what the tree of life signified, since wisdom is commonly compared with life. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a harder puzzle, since wisdom at its core is that which leads in the way of good as opposed to evil. However, it may immediately be countered: what need of knowing evil was there for Adam in the first place, especially in his infancy? Should he not have rather strive to grow in understanding and remain a child (not literally) in evil? (1 Corinthians 14:20, Romans 16:19) For being brought up by the Lord in the way of life and good, he would also be able to recognize evil where it might come up - should that be the case. Whatever the meaning of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, nakedness, clothing for coverings, and the cherubim guarding the way to the tree of life might be, it could not be imagined that man may have been able to cultivate the garden, be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth so as to subdue it and exercise dominion over the creation without wisdom. If there is intelligence, ingenuity, instrumentation, the building of homes and cities, than there is also danger and safety, right way and wrong way, than there is wisdom or the lack of it. Animals lack such things but obviously we were not made animals, but rather in the image and likeness of God Himself. Wisdom encompasses all the divine things in the unity of one - wisdom.

But anyways, there is just too much to explore in a single post with regarding to God's original design for creation. The main part I wanted to emphasize was that I similarly share your viewpoint with regard to humans having been designed to attain a more glorified state of being, perhaps what a glorified body may now entail? If we can attain this now through the grace of God in Christ, but yet through the destruction of our current bodies, how much more so with those bodies that had no death present in them, neither saw destruction? It also seems unreasonable to imagine humans living thousands of years and never ceasing to rear children - in an individual sense. With humans being faithful in the earthly things (comparatively speaking, since this would include the instruction of righteousness as sought after today) in filling and subduing the earth per the will of God, then they would stand ready for the more heavenly things as the design of God may have entailed. If immortality may be given through death now, how much more through life then?

You mention healing. In fact, the Lord is our healer. (Exodus 15:26, Psalm 103:3, 4, Proverbs 4: 22) Again, if He may heal us now, how much more then when the body - that was full of liveliness and restoration - yield itself to healing when through some folly or misfortune it suffered injury?

Now obviously, all this is a bygone aspiration that is only wishful thinking now. The certainty of death leads us to look for the hope of life in Him Who has power over death - Jesus Christ. Hence why I asked the important question whether or not Christ Himself was subject unto death in His body or not. You say that He was not, and I want to agree, and mostly do. The theological implications if He wasn't seem too uncertain and perplexing otherwise. Regardless, Christ manifested the life of God in the flesh so as that death had no power over Him; as such, we also must clothe ourselves with the Spirit so that death in our mortal bodies does not subdue us.

You say, "Jesus was not afflicted with such a body, having been born apart from the cycle of sinful human reproduction." I agree that on the surface, there seems like something about His miraculous virgin birth that would produce a "more holy body". One may reasonably posit: why else would it need to be so? For me however, a large part of the virgin birth had to do with Christ having a divine origin. If it was through normal union between man and women, how can He be said to come from heaven to save mankind? Would not His origin be through the will of the flesh? Perhaps there is something deemed unholy with act of human copulation itself. I'm not bothered by that so long as that may bring further virtue to Christ's holy conception. The problem however is that none of this changes the fact that Christ was still made of a women, who herself was made from both man and women, who were fallen like herself. In other words, Christ, according to the flesh was still made of the fallen progeny of Adam and Eve. He did not come in a heavenly body or a pre-Adamic body - of which there is no such thing. I would like to speak of how (or why) sin is said to dwell in the flesh, and how the lineage of the righteous has a positive effect on their descendants even according to the flesh - thus benefiting even Christ Himself. However, I don't want to burden you with a post that is already so lengthy, and would like to give you the opportunity to answer or comment, particularly, if you want to elaborate on how you understand how the miraculous conception undid the power of sin over Christ.

 

[Dima 26]

Christ was dying in Gethsemane BEFORE the mob showed up.

He was sweating great drops of blood - while as yet not a single hand was laid on Him.
He stated "my soul is sorrowful even unto death" - while as yet not a single hand was laid on Him.

1 John 2:2 His death was supernatural "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins - and not for our sins only - but for the sins of the whole world".

John points to Him saying "behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world".

Christ came to be the great atoning sacrifice - He did not need a Jewish soldier or a Roman soldier to do that.

The Romans where shocked to learn that He had died in only 3 hours. Death by crucifixion lasted much longer than that.

You bring up some useful thoughts and passages, but I'm still not sure if you are either trying to say that He was subject unto death from within (not imposed from without) or that He wasn't.

 

[RandyPNW]

I'm both impressed and relieved to find someone who shares a similar interest in the significance of looking to the beginning so as to better understand the present state of things and the end. The way you've presented your view aligns in many respects with how I've developed mine as of late. Most don't care to go beyond anything other than that humans were made to live without dying.

Well, I think you've asked a legitimate, interesting question. We shouldn't be afraid to try to address it.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a harder puzzle, since wisdom at its core is that which leads in the way of good as opposed to evil. However, it may immediately be countered: what need of knowing evil was there for Adam in the first place, especially in his infancy? Should he not have rather strive to grow in understanding and remain a child (not literally) in evil? (1 Corinthians 14:20, Romans 16:19) For being brought up by the Lord in the way of life and good, he would also be able to recognize evil where it might come up - should that be the case.

Yes, I've asked myself a lot of questions about this. I have defaulted to the simple, Evil preexisted Man's Fall. Therefore, Man was presented with the reality that Evil offered in the form of trespassing in God's garden. Man and Woman could just ignore the offer of evil, but it was much more tempting to be presented with a mix of good and evil. They could eat of the garden fruit, which was good. But in ignoring God's command not to eat of *that particular tree,* they learned evil.

I suppose the same temptation existed for free agent humans as existed for free agent angels. There is the temptation when being told what to do, and you're free, to choose freedom from authority, to be one's own god, so to speak. And so, Man fell just as Satan did. The one mitigating difference is that Mankind fell due to duress brought on by the trespass of Satan. And so, some are redeemed who confess their sin and repent. Others, who wish to have their independence, like Satan, will be lost.

Whatever the meaning of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, nakedness, clothing for coverings, and the cherubim guarding the way to the tree of life might be, it could not be imagined that man may have been able to cultivate the garden, be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth so as to subdue it and exercise dominion over the creation without wisdom. If there is intelligence, ingenuity, instrumentation, the building of homes and cities, than there is also danger and safety, right way and wrong way, than there is wisdom or the lack of it. Animals lack such things but obviously we were not made animals, but rather in the image and likeness of God Himself. Wisdom encompasses all the divine things in the unity of one - wisdom.

Well, I think wisdom was always a part of human thinking, who was called to live in the image of God. To know how to live like God one has to have wisdom to know who God is and what He is like. One does not have to know foolishness to know wisdom. But once corrupted by foolishness, one can learn the difference between wisdom and foolishness.

But anyways, there is just too much to explore in a single post with regarding to God's original design for creation. The main part I wanted to emphasize was that I similarly share your viewpoint with regard to humans having been designed to attain a more glorified state of being, perhaps what a glorified body may now entail? If we can attain this now through the grace of God in Christ, but yet through the destruction of our current bodies, how much more so with those bodies that had no death present in them, neither saw destruction?

Yes, death was a punishment for sin. Without sinning Man and Woman would've obtained from the Tree of Life a choice for eternal, glorified bodies. I have no clue how that would've evolved!

It also seems unreasonable to imagine humans living thousands of years and never ceasing to rear children - in an individual sense. With humans being faithful in the earthly things (comparatively speaking, since this would include the instruction of righteousness as sought after today) in filling and subduing the earth per the will of God, then they would stand ready for the more heavenly things as the design of God may have entailed. If immortality may be given through death now, how much more through life then?

Quite simply, the plan was for humans to multiply chldren in God's image until the earth was filled. At the point where the obedience was completed, God wouldn't ended the production factory. Again, I don't have a clue how God would've resolved all this, lacking any fall into sin?

You mention healing. In fact, the Lord is our healer. (Exodus 15:26, Psalm 103:3, 4, Proverbs 4: 22) Again, if He may heal us now, how much more then when the body - that was full of liveliness and restoration - yield itself to healing when through some folly or misfortune it suffered injury?

Jesus was guilty of nothing, and would never be subject to any curse, whether sickness, accident, or human abuse. However, he came into the world to bear human sin and an environment created by that sin. So, in theory, had he not come to suffer sin, he could choose to suffer accident or not, and if afflicted for any reason it could just as easily be healed. He was healed, in a sense, at the resurrection, which I think was in his old body. I think he received his glorified body when he ascended to his Father in heaven.

Now obviously, all this is a bygone aspiration that is only wishful thinking now. The certainty of death leads us to look for the hope of life in Him Who has power over death - Jesus Christ. Hence why I asked the important question whether or not Christ Himself was subject unto death in His body or not. You say that He was not, and I want to agree, and mostly do. The theological implications if He wasn't seem too uncertain and perplexing otherwise. Regardless, Christ manifested the life of God in the flesh so as that death had no power over Him; as such, we also must clothe ourselves with the Spirit so that death in our mortal bodies does not subdue us.

Legally, sin can no longer impose a permanent death sentence upon us. Christ won our future resurrection. Jesus' body was made vulnerable like our own bodies, so that he could suffer. The future immortal bodies cannot, I think, suffer.

Even though Jesus could suffer he would not have either suffered or died had he not come to bear our sins.

You say, "Jesus was not afflicted with such a body, having been born apart from the cycle of sinful human reproduction." I agree that on the surface, there seems like something about His miraculous virgin birth that would produce a "more holy body".

Well, I think it was the same kind of body we humans have. He did not have any physical deformities and illnesses within his body. The spiritual element we call "sin" was not in his body, and it is this element that causes damage to our bodies, and causes our bodies to degrade and ultimately die. Not having that sin he would have to *choose* to experience death by the abuse of others who are sinful.

One may reasonably posit: why else would it need to be so? For me however, a large part of the virgin birth had to do with Christ having a divine origin.

In biblical terms, Jesus was a verbal expression of God producing His personality in the form of a human person. In seeing him as a man we could also see God, his Father in heaven. This meant he was true man and true God. He was holy only in terms of his 100% consecration to God as God's word itself.

We can also be holy by consecrating ourselves to God. We just aren't an expression of God's Person Himself, nor are we without spiritual sin in our bodies.

If it was through normal union between man and women, how can He be said to come from heaven to save mankind? Would not His origin be through the will of the flesh?

Exactly. He had to be born from a virgin so as to not be a work of sinful Mankind. Mary was a passive mother of Christ, and not able to yeild, by her own virtue, the divine Christ.

Perhaps there is something deemed unholy with act of human copulation itself.

I don't think so, except that the spiritual sin within us taints everything we do and causes it to result in flawed production, whether good or evil. Reproduction was originally a pure work of God without sin. Entering sin into the mix and is becomes something perverted, which can be somewhat corrected by resisting sin in the limited ways we can.

I'm not bothered by that so long as that may bring further virtue to Christ's holy conception. The problem however is that none of this changes the fact that Christ was still made of a women, who herself was made from both man and women, who were fallen like herself. In other words, Christ, according to the flesh was still made of the fallen progeny of Adam and Eve. He did not come in a heavenly body or a pre-Adamic body - of which there is no such thing.

God used the flesh of Mary, but not the flesh of Adam. Inasmuch as she was the passive recipient of divine seed Mary had nothing whatsoever to do with what kind of flesh Christ was clothed with. However, I think God did use Mary's DNA in producing the unblemished flesh of Christ.

I would like to speak of how (or why) sin is said to dwell in the flesh, and how the lineage of the righteous has a positive effect on their descendants even according to the flesh - thus benefiting even Christ Himself. However, I don't want to burden you with a post that is already so lengthy, and would like to give you the opportunity to answer or comment, particularly, if you want to elaborate on how you understand how the miraculous conception undid the power of sin over Christ.

You ask some good questions, and I'm trying. Thanks.

 

[BobRyan]

You bring up some useful thoughts and passages, but I'm still not sure if you are either trying to say that He was subject unto death from within (not imposed from without) or that He wasn't.

He was supernaturally suffering from the lake-of-fire second-death debt owed for all the sins committed in all time by all humans according to 1 John 2:2 and this was occurring before he met one single person from the mob. He was already "paying the price" even before the mob.

so then "yes" it was a supernatural event - not visible to human eyes even before the outward "passion of the Christ" the one that deals with mere outward forms of mobs, and spears, and whips and insults of men.

 

[Dima 26]

Lots of interesting comments and things you bring up, a lot of which I can relate to and agree. I'd like to follow up on them but might do that later in a separate post. For now, I thought it more beneficial to take this conversation further in the direction of understanding Christ's conception and its implications on His body. You say the following below:

God used the flesh of Mary, but not the flesh of Adam. Inasmuch as she was the passive recipient of divine seed Mary had nothing whatsoever to do with what kind of flesh Christ was clothed with. However, I think God did use Mary's DNA in producing the unblemished flesh of Christ.

I cannot agree that "God used the flesh of Mary, but not the flesh of Adam" is an accurate statement. Otherwise, His most common title to emphasize His humanity - which He Himself commonly used, "The Son of Man", doesn't make much sense. Replacing it instead with "The Son of Woman" somehow just doesn't sound right, would you agree? Now I know some would try to allude to Joseph, how a great importance and attention was given him in being of the lineage and house of David without him being the actual father of Jesus, so as to compare this same paradox (in the view of the one who brings it) of this title given Him in a similar fashion: only in titular and formal fashion, and not in its proper sense of what such a title could only mean. That, I think, is absurd (please don't take offense, friend; I'm not even saying you think this, just trying to anticipate the minds of some). If Jesus is the Son of God in His non-human origin, than to say "Son of Man" can only refer to His human origin, otherwise, how else can He be said to be the Son of the patriarchs, the Son of David, and finally the Son of Mary? For in His pre-incarnate origin, He is the Son of no one but His Father, therefore to say that He is the Son of Man means nothing else but His human origin. Besides, Mary's lineage in every sense goes back to Adam and Eve, therefore she was made of the blood of both man and women, which had to in turn be imparted to Christ. How else may it be said by the Apostle Paul, "Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh"? Mary was a woman and woman was taken from man - without man there is no woman (Genesis 2:23). Woman received her glory from man, and man was made in the image of God (1 Corinthians 11:7 - 9), thus, the only way for Christ to have partaken of that body (since Adam was just as much to reflect God's likeness in a spiritual sense) that was made in God's image was to be also made (at least indirectly) from man. Therefore, since Mary received God's image through man, she - as the direct agent from which Christ receives His body - imprints again that image of God back to Him that she received herself from man.

When we say "the divine seed", this is merely a way of humanizing, or materializing (for a lack of better terms), what otherwise is purely spiritual, for God obviously has no "seed" other than the Holy Spirit in this sense, hence Jesus being conceived of the Holy Spirit. I'm sure your aware of this, but just thought it's worth mentioning.

Hence this all leads me to the main point of this. We were made both body, soul, and spirit. In separating one from another we unintentionally disrupt God's original design for humanity, thus leading to confusion. Not that it isn't beneficial, even necessary at times, to separate one from another to so as to teach certain truths, but that the ultimate aim for us in the unity of all three - human. Accordingly, what is the body without the spirit/soul but the dust that it returns to? When humans beget humans, they do so as humans - body, soul, and spirit. The body on its own makes no sense here. Like you said, sin is a spiritual program; not that it excludes the body (or soul for that matter), but insomuch that our spirit/soul is what controls or body. And so, our soul either chooses to clothes itself with the spirit or with the flesh. But because our spirit became poor pertaining to the things of God, it is therefore said to be mindful of the things of man (1 Corinthians 2:11, 12). We were not made independent of God therefore our spirit is that which should reflect the things of God (His Spirit). Being found lacking in the things of God we are said to be dead spiritually and thus lacking in spirit. As such, we are said to be carnal - lacking spiritual things. Consequently, the world being found devoid of the Spirit of God, man naturally works the things of man - repeating, feeding on, and multiply error and ignorance. Having developed bad habit and experience in the persistence of wrong, we've made it our source of security and assurance, our soundness if you will - not knowing the better ways (at least forgetting them). In this sense sin is said to dwell in our flesh; for if you remove spirituality from humanity, you get carnality. Thus, our soul, being found stripped of the spirit looks to be clothed with the flesh - the things of the world that come so naturally to us so as, as it were, residing in us. Alas, poor soul! How much better would it be for you to clothe yourself with the Spirit of God so that your spirit may revive and your body be saved also?

Not so with the heavenly Man (1 Corinthians 15:47); but not in the sense so as to contradict what I said earlier, that there was no other man for Christ to become man from but the Adamic race. This is because Adam failed to reflect that image of God that he was made in. For he died in the spirit - after which his body was to follow suit; and since man consists of spirit, soul, and body, he cannot bear the heavenly image without the unity and life of the three - man. Thus, Christ took our human nature while clothing Himself wholly with the things of His Father - from conception to death - being said to be conceived of the Holy Spirit Himself. But human nature primarily in the sense of the incarnation, for He came to transfer our earthly and fallen nature into the heavenly nature from which He came. When I say heavenly nature, I do not mean that which was unattainable unto Adam: for wisdom removed itself from the earth and took its place in the heavens, even the Lord Himself. The heaven and earth (as concepts beyond their immediate meanings) were never made to be at enmity with each other. Christ the Lord unites the heaven with earth again, as in the beginning (Genesis 3:8). Thus, Christ fulfilled that which Adam was made to be and leads us to attain that which he was supposed to attain - by means of delivering us from death. He condemned sin in the flesh, that is, being made like us (by means of the incarnation) He overcame that which overcame us so as to lead us victorious over sin that ruled over us. No need to narrow sin down to the flesh, rather, let the spirit simply have the preeminence over the flesh - as it should of always been.

Unfortunately, this post has grown to large for me to speak of the positive effect on the flesh that the lineage of the righteous has. Due to the difficulties to express oneself properly on such complex and important doctrines, I ran out of time and place. Thanks for your patience; I hope you may find this post insightful. Perhaps, depending on you willingness, I can speak to that in the next post, or whenever else convenient to do so.

 

[jonojim1337]

I AM NOT

 

[Dima 26]

He was supernaturally suffering from the lake-of-fire second-death debt owed for all the sins committed in all time by all humans according to 1 John 2:2 and this was occurring before he met one single person from the mob. He was already "paying the price" even before the mob.

so then "yes" it was a supernatural event - not visible to human eyes even before the outward "passion of the Christ" the one that deals with mere outward forms of mobs, and spears, and whips and insults of men.

By saying "Yes, it was a supernatural event", in what way does that bear on whether Christ was subject unto death from within His body (in the sense the original post expressed) or not? Of course I can see how the anticipation of the passion caused suffering even before it came, and how this too was because of our sins. Further, it may be inferred that the very act of entering into this sinful world is already a form of bearing our sins, with all the ways of death expressed in it as opposed to wisdom and life. Anyways, this is a hard question, the original post; I can see why some might not want to bother themselves with it.

 

[Dima 26]

I AM NOT

I won't pretend to be a mind reader.

 

[jonojim1337]

I won't pretend to be a mind reader.

God's Name is I AM

Well one of them is because the other is YHWH, and the two are in agreement.

But in any case, so as to not use his Name in vain, safer to say I AM NOT.

 

[Dima 26]

God's Name is I AM

Well one of them is because the other is YHWH, and the two are in agreement.

But in any case, so as to not use his Name in vain, safer to say I AM NOT.

One cannot cause another to hunger - that's up to them.