Unanswered Question of the Day!

[Tangible]

Apparently, Jesus no longer has blood.

Argument from silence?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I agree.

Am I to understand you that the Reformers did not deviate on this?

Honestly, I don't think they really cared much, so it's hard to tell how long the consensus held. It seems to me that when the patristic binary opposition of nature vs. grace was replaced with the late medieval and reformation binary opposition of grace vs. works the whole question was ignored until it was resurrected after the Darwinian bombshell. When evolution became the question of the day, fundamentalism led the way in asserting the natural mortality of Adam and Eve, and this view was retrojected onto the reformation era systems, whether Lutheran or Reformed.

In my experience the Christology of the reformers is just assumed at best and sloppy at worst. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all did some work in the field, but Martin Chemnitz was the only serious student of Christology among them. I'd be willing to be he believed that Adam and Eve's immortality was by grace and not nature, and that had the fall not happened the Logos would still become incarnate in order to perfect that grace. But that's just a guess based on his familiarity with the Christology of Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, and John of Damascus, and his response to errors of the otherwise impeccable reformer Matthias Flacius (cf. SD I).

All can say for certain is that there was a debate involving the Franciscan (Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure) and Dominican (Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas) of the high medieval scholastics involving both the question of a counterfactual incarnation and the natural mortality of Adam and Eve. Thomas Aquinas definitely believed in a natural mortality of Adam and Eve, but I forget which side definitely believed in a counterfactual incarnation (with the church fathers). So I suppose a least one side in the high medieval debate broke with the patristic logic on that question, but I can't think of any instances later and certainly none earlier. My suspicion would be that if the reformers thought of it at all, the wouldn't see the importance of the question and would regard it as trivial (again, because the nature vs. grace question of no longer their controlling thought structure).

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Died as we do, or in a different way?

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”
(John 10:18 ESV)

If Jesus was immortal by nature, then he would have to become something other than human to die, in which case we are not redeemed. Surely his death is not the result of being something other than human, but by not extending to his humanity the divine grace of immortality.

But was that nature essentially mortal or immortal?

If it was immortal, than human nature changed after the fall. But if it changed after the fall, then our present mortality is due to the fall, due to sin. But if what has changed is sin, then a human without sin (Christ) would be immortal. But he wasn't he was killed. No matter who did it or caused it to happen, he, with a fully human nature, died. Ergo, our mortality is deeper than our sin.

 

[Tangible]

To me it makes more sense that essential human nature is immortal, that after the fall we have been subjugated to sin and death which is the consequences of sin and foreign to our essential nature, and that post-resurrection we will again take up our essential immortality.

Christ being without sin was immortal, though being God, could voluntarily lay down his life and take it up again. This ability, like his omniscience, was part of his divine nature, not his human nature, and though we share in his human nature, we do not share his divine nature.

Can this be disproven?

 

[SummaScriptura]

deleted

 

[SummaScriptura]

Argument from silence?

I will repost 2 verses and add 1.

The way things are now:
Leviticus 17:11, The life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.

The incompatibility of our bodies with heaven:
1 Corinthians 15:50, Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

The way Jesus describes his heavenly body:
Luke 24:39, See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. (NASB)

 

[sculleywr]

I will repost 2 verses and add 1.

The way things are now:
Leviticus 17:11, The life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.

The incompatibility of our bodies with heaven:
1 Corinthians 15:50, Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

The way Jesus describes his heavenly body:
Luke 24:39, See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. (NASB)

However, the bodies we have will be remade. In the Greek, when the Bible says we will receive a "new body" the word for "new" was a crafter's word to mean "remade" or "renewed". The old body will be taken, cleansed of all impurity, and made worthy of the new heaven and new Earth that Christ will establish.

 

[SummaScriptura]

However, the bodies we have will be remade. In the Greek, when the Bible says we will receive a "new body" the word for "new" was a crafter's word to mean "remade" or "renewed". The old body will be taken, cleansed of all impurity, and made worthy of the new heaven and new Earth that Christ will establish.

Two questions:

1. Are you saying our resurrected bodies will contain nothing of our original body?
2. Are you saying the resurrection body of Jesus was not a "new body" or "remade" or "renewed"?

 

[sculleywr]

Two questions:

1. Are you saying our resurrected bodies will contain nothing of our original body?
2. Are you saying the resurrection body of Jesus was not a "new body" or "remade" or "renewed"?

3. I am saying that our bodies will be resurrected and cleansed of all impurities, at least, if I am to base my beliefs on the original concept. This is the reason that Clement, in his commentary on the resurrection of the Dead, used the imagery of the phoenix to help a person visualize resurrection. The body may decay, but from the dust of that old body, God will recreate us in a new, remade, glorified and perfected body that is worthy of heaven

 

[SummaScriptura]

3. I am saying that our bodies will be resurrected and cleansed of all impurities, at least, if I am to base my beliefs on the original concept. This is the reason that Clement, in his commentary on the resurrection of the Dead, used the imagery of the phoenix to help a person visualize resurrection. The body may decay, but from the dust of that old body, God will recreate us in a new, remade, glorified and perfected body that is worthy of heaven

Then we agree.

 

[FredVB]

Tangible had the best response and this Romans passage used is good to see for this too. There was no death before the fall, death came by one man. All this world is subject to the corruption, with death, from that. And the natural order groans with that and all life waits for the redemption. Animals are not made simply with the purpose to die, they suffer with creation from the corruption from the fall, that brought death. It is not their fault. The redemption that is anticipated is with the redeemed, the unredeemed of humanity that would not respond favorably to the grace of Yahweh God will not come to that, but Yahweh will restore creation as it was meant to be, the animal life that anticipates it will be there within Yahweh's perfect plan, there will never be death again. See Isaiah 11:6-9, it is significant enough for the theme to be repeated, Isaiah 65:25. I can answer, though I do not know as fact such scripture and the gracious goodness of the Creator of all makes me very sure, animals now will be given life again then, they were not meant for just the suffering and will not have just that on account of our fall, but will have that which is said they anticipate. Believers caring for their pets might have a sense of that.


All were herbivorous, we were vegetarian according to Yahweh's perfect design. The language first used surely said what death is.

So you believe Adam predated all carnivorous animals, like dragonflies for instance?

I believe what is said, from the first chapters of Genesis and with things relating to them repeated in other places in the Bible. Adam the first man, who was our ancestor, and his wife, were made in the first week, when life was made. Animals were not carnivorous then, I can believe that as death was not ever yet introduced, as is stated, and know of examples of recent carnivorous animals that avoid eating meat and are determined vegetarians in behavior. In spite of the posts saying otherwise, the vision of the restotration of creation is with no death for any creature, as shown in the Isaiah passages mentioned, and so it was in the original design of creation.


I have scriptures I can use for support of what i say, this time and previously, but a number of posts are stating things with no scripture behind them, but just one's own thinking. Such scriptures for my posts I really expect to be known and are rather cluttering, but can be shown if there really no recognition of it.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I believe what is said, from the first chapters of Genesis and with things relating to them repeated in other places in the Bible. Adam the first man, who was our ancestor, and his wife, were made in the first week, when life was made. Animals were not carnivorous then<snip>

I think it sould be obvious that not everyone agrees with your assumption that the Scriptures clearly answer this question. To infer conditions before the fall from conditions after the coming of the Messianic Age is a leap AFAIC.

By the way, I believe what is said in Genesis too.

 

[FredVB]

I believe what is said, from the first chapters of Genesis and with things relating to them repeated in other places in the Bible. Adam the first man, who was our ancestor, and his wife, were made in the first week, when life was made. Animals were not carnivorous then, I can believe that as death was not ever yet introduced, as is stated, and know of examples of recent carnivorous animals that avoid eating meat and are determined vegetarians in behavior.

I think it sould be obvious that not everyone agrees with your assumption that the Scriptures do not clearly answer this question. To infer conditions before the fall from conditions after the coming of the Messianic Age is a leap AFAIC.

By the way, I believe what is said in Genesis too.

I think what was meant was not everyone agrees with assumption that the Scriptures do clearly answer the question, I do not say they do not, and indeed it seems obvious to me not all agree, but here in foriums I think many, who are believers, beleive what the Bible says about it. I do not know all the letter abbreviation of phrases, you will have to spell out the meaning of AFAIC, sorry if I am too ignorant about it, but I am not as ignorant on Bible teaching. The conditions you say are "inferred" are what there is from the Bible to say about it, even before the coming of the Messiah.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Not only does the Bible not clearly eliminate the possibility there was death before the Fall, neither does it clearly eliminate the possibility there will be a food chain with predators during the Millenium. "The lion shall lie down with the lamb", is within the scope of "in all my holy mountain" in Isaiah 11.

Also, the chapters 2 and 3 of Genesis can be seen to describe conditions within the scope of Garden of Eden, not necessarily the world in general. The Hebrew used is "ha aretz" which can be translated with "the earth" or "the land" depending on the context. The context of Adam's pre-fall environment is definintely within the garden and thus "ha aretz" may simply be describing Edenic conditions, not worldwide.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

To me it makes more sense that essential human nature is immortal, that after the fall we have been subjugated to sin and death which is the consequences of sin and foreign to our essential nature, and that post-resurrection we will again take up our essential immortality.

Christ being without sin was immortal, though being God, could voluntarily lay down his life and take it up again. This ability, like his omniscience, was part of his divine nature, not his human nature, and though we share in his human nature, we do not share his divine nature.

Can this be disproven?

So your argument is that Christ's death was made possible by his divine nature, not his human nature.

Doesn't this seem backwards??

 

[FredVB]

Not only does the Bible not clearly eliminate the possibility there was death before the Fall, neither does it clearly eliminate the possibility there will be a food chain with predators during the Millenium. "The lion shall lie down with the lamb", is within the scope of "in all my holy mountain" in Isaiah 11.

Also, the chapters 2 and 3 of Genesis can be seen to describe conditions within the scope of Garden of Eden, not necessarily the world in general. The Hebrew used is "ha aretz" which can be translated with "the earth" or "the land" depending on the context. The context of Adam's pre-fall environment is definintely within the garden and thus "ha aretz" may simply be describing Edenic conditions, not worldwide.

The conditions go on beyond the Millennium for eternity, whatever is initially limited will be the condition for all the world that is to come for the redeemed in Christ. See Romans 5:17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

 

[Albion]

How many times must the cannonballs fly before they're forever banned?

I dunno. I guess the answer's just blowin in the wind.

 

[Tangible]

Something in the wind has learned my name, and it's telling me that things are not the same.

 

[Tangible]

So your argument is that Christ's death was made possible by his divine nature, not his human nature.

Doesn't this seem backwards??

Counterintuitive, perhaps.

I think it harmonizes two facts presented in scripture that

A) death is a consequence of sin (alone?), and
B) Christ could lay down and take up his life at will.

As Christ was without sin he was not subject to death. In order to give his life as an atoning sacrifice he surrendered himself to agony and suffering, but willed himself to die and then later to rise again.

(I'm probably committing some great heresy in there somewhere.)

 

[SummaScriptura]

So your argument is that Christ's death was made possible by his divine nature, not his human nature.

Doesn't this seem backwards??

It does to me.