Son of Man

I don't understand some of the remarks given here:
Regarding the blood:
God required a sacrifice. The blood was offered on the alter for sin. The blood of lambs couldnot give permanent atonement for the people. In itself, it was corruptible. The sign of the virgin..... yes, for the Jews who did not accept it, for the gentiles, yes, who did not understand it implications. The Bible tells us that the life is in the blood and this is the way God views it. The blood of the lamb of God is pure because he was innocent of sin... not because there is any scientific explanation. However, there being a scientific explanation for the uniqueness found in Jesus Christ should be an encouragement to inquiry for those who seem to depend on logics and tangible reasonnings and facts before they can open to the possibilities of the miracle of salvation and mystery concerning the Godhead. I suppose the 'gnostic' arguement could be used at every point where science ....such as archeology, seems to proffer agreement with the scriptures in its accounts. My faith doesn't depend on such accounts, but some may not begin to have faith until they are first stimulated by some proof which draws them into considering and studies of the scriptures after they have lived so much of their lives surrounded by atheistic doctrines and so called science refuting any thing Biblical....

I do know that early on..... God told us it would be the seed of woman who destroys the head of the serpent. It is impossible, therefore, for the Son of Man/Son of God to have been naturally conceived between a woman and a man. (This would also give rise to concepts of man saving himself.... which is impossible.) While today there may be medically interventions which can make possible a virgin having a child it still requires the seed of man. The first Adam was a creation of God. The second Adam was already God and present at the creation of the first Adam but was not revealed until his birth by a virgin and the completion of his earthly ministry ending in sacrifice, death, and resurrection.

Hebrews 8 is a wonderful chapter on the blood of the Lamb of God and its permanence and perfection in atonement for sin.

 

I don't see 'sin' as being 'organic' either and don't understand this interpretation presented in this discussion. Sin and its penalty has to do with the spiritual nature but its judgement is passed also upon all of flesh. If God views the life is in the blood....... or perhaps (I'm not sure here.... a private interpretation) life is represented by the blood: Also, 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin' then there is something spiritual associated with or represented by blood, which is significant. I do believe the blood of Jesus was pure and perfect, (whether because of his innocence or whether by his Father, or by a combination..... or other mystery beyond our understanding) and satisfied the judgement of a Holy God to cover the sins of many.

 

I see two distinct aspects. I would say that pre fall that man had the perfect freedom to choose between sin and not to sin. Post fall that perfect freedom is tainted in that we are predisposed to choose sin. Also, the fall did not affect just man but everything else to include physics. Thus you put a pre fall man into our world and whether or not he sinned he could become sick with a virus and die. The environment now is different then at the time of creation and a tenuous balance has been lost that may have kept our bodies from decaying. Yet now everything works against our very lives. So Jesus doesn't need our corruptable nature to feel the sting of death and decay. Nor does Jesus need our predisposition to fall everytime a choice is offered to obey or disobey God to be tempted as we are. Given the choice we choose sin everytime unless God does something. Jesus doesn't need that aspect of our nature to be tempted. The very fact he is a man living in our world in or pre-fall condition means he is tempted but he has perfect freedom to choose unlike ourselves. That doesn't mean it isn't a tough choice what it does mean is its not an automatic outcome of sin.

 

Romans 8:3 - "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh"

Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh. He had a real body like ours in every way except that He did not have our sinful nature.

 

Yes thats what I am basically saying.

 

Human nature is tainted by sin. If Jesus truly had a human nature, He had the same nature you and I do. If not, He was not truly 100% man as well as 100% God.

Thinkingstuff, Scripture states death entered the world through sin. Adam and Eve pre-fall couldn't get sick and die like you stated.

 

So Paul was wrong?

 

It also states that nature or creation became corrupted by man's sin as well.

. The only reason Adam and Eve didn't get sick an die is because the environment was controlled by God in such a way as not permit age and death. However, because of mans disobedience nature fell with him and thus if you were to place pre sin man in our environment he would age and die. Or get sick or many other corrupt things. Just like if I were to place you on the moon you would immediately die. I personally believe that we were protected from certain radiation from space that collapsed after the fall but particularily during the flood. Jesus thus does not have to be a spotted sinner to suffer like us. I am certain If you took a sword and pierced the heart of Adam before the fall he would have died. Yet that could not have happened because God protected him. Much of that protection vanished with our sin. So place Jesus in our environment and he can die. Jesus had no sin or taint of sin.

 

Because there are some things here far beyond our understanding, we are likely to cause a confusion in ourselves or amongst our selves if we cannot accept that some things are mystery, known only to God.

I agree with you that death had not entered into the world until sin entered in and death and judgement was pronounced on all creation.

webdog, I believe it is the position in the Bible that Jesus was as much man as the original man, Adam was before the fall, and is as much God as God is. (And my verbage may be incorrect here.) And I think there is a passage I've read, in the Pauline epistles, I believe, that expresses the importance of knowing Jesus after the spirit and not after the flesh..... as there were in that day some who had met Jesus and known him as a man. I believe it is because some get tangled up in this mystery that they fall into confusions such as certain cults which believe the end result is that man can become like gods.

Clearly, we may have questions but if the Bible is not clearly explicit in the answers it has given to us, it is in our best interest to be able to say 'I don't know. And maybe some areas I can't know. It's a mystery known only to God. He has given me all that I should know for my good. I believe His Word is true and have faith that He will give me that which is important for my need." Paul said that for now we look through a darkened glass but a day will come when we shall see clearly.

 

Paul did not address His nature.

I have thought about this some more, and tend to agree with windcatcher. Christ is referred to as the "second Adam", and this being the case, it would seem His nature would be as Adam's was. However, Adam had a sinful nature after the fall as well. The mystery is how Christ could die since Adam could not die without sinning. It is definitely a mystery.

 

So the phrase "likeness of sinful flesh" didn't speak of His nature? What then did it speak of? Paul elsewhere states that He came in a body, a real body, so he can't be saying Jesus came in the likeness of a body. That's akin to what the old gnostics believed. He must be referring to His nature.

 

It speaks to more than the nature, the whole of what it is to be human.

 

2 Cor. 5:16

 

Clarify, please. Are you stating that Christ's human nature was tainted by sin?

 

Jesus did come in a real human body; he had to in order to pay the penalty for sins of man, which is one reason he did not die for the (fallen) angels (Heb. 2).

But since Jesus was also 100% God, he could not have a sinful nature by definition, or he would not be God.

I think this is the mystery: Jesus was both God and man and could die as man, but did not have a sin nature. The nature of God and Christ have certain mysteries we cannot fathom since we are not God.

 

I don't know what Christ's nature consists of. All I know is once sin entered into the world, man's nature was changed and passed on to all men and death entered into the world.

 

Hey Web, no time no speak

I appreciate your frustration in trying to work this out, been there myself.

While I agree with you that "once sin entered into the world, man's nature was changed and passed on to all men and death entered into the world", I believe we must also remember that the 'death' spoken of here consists of both physical and spiritual. Thus the 'death' referenced is all encompassing with respect to the full and total change that has happened to man and by extension, creation itself.

I know we disagree on original sin, but we both agree that man is born with a sin/ful nature. However with that in mind, I wish to ask you a question with respect to your statement to Marcia here:

Consider if you will?

If physical death comes by sin/ning, and you beleive that infants and young children have no sin, how then can they die?

 

You may have misunderstood my post to Marcia, or I may have not been real clear what I meant (not a first )
Physical death spread to all men from Adam to the present as part of the curse on mankind. Man does not have to sin in order to die physically as is evidenced by Jesus' physical death. Spiritual death occurs in the same manner it occurred with Adam and each man since then, by transgressing God's law, which Jesus did not do.

We have the curse on man placed on Christ post fall, and that is the tension and mystery I cannot wrap my mind around. Adam's nature was not sinful, and he was created to be imortal. Every human not named Jesus Christ has a sin nature, and dies physically (and spiritually upon sinning). Jesus? He died physically, yet did not sin, so He was not dead spiritually. If His nature was that of Adam, He could not die physically, as Adam's death occurred upon sinning.

I think the original sin position has the problem of: if Christ is 100% human, and all humans are created spiritually dead, how can Christ be 100% human? In that instance, all humans are spiritually dead upon creation, and even Christ would have to be included in this in order to be 100% human. If not, He cannot be 100% human.

 

It seems your view that man is not born spiritually dead (separated from God) is informing your view here. But Christ, although man, was unique. He was totally man but did not have 2 human parents, yet the Bible says he was totally man.

Man is born spiritually dead; Christ was not born spiritually dead just as he had no human father (and I believe, no sin nature). So Christ can still be 100% man even without all the conditions men are born in, simply because he's the "unique" Son of God.

 

I see you are confused.
Also it may be that you're looking too close to the picture to see the whole.

Jesus was as fully human as Adam was before the fall.
Your statement says 'all humans are created spiritually dead'..... but the first human, Adam, was not created spiritually dead. Physical and spiritual death passed upon all humanity since Adam because of his choice to sin.

Jesus, the second 'Adam', kept the innocence of his estate by never sinning.

The first Adam wasn't created to die, but with the law (thou shalt not eat) came the judgement (in the day that you do, you will die). Being made after the first Adam, and inheriting (from him) our predisposition to rebell against God by our will, we do sin because of choice and are sinners by predisposition of our heart.