How did Jesus keep from sinning?

[TrevorL]

Greetings again CrowCross,

Kinda says the same thing. We could say in place of us.

Except it does not match what actually happened to Jesus and the faithful. You seem to be hedging in substitution terms.

Rev 20;14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
What about that death?

The second death is at the end of the 1000 years. Relevance?

So does a newborn baby. Why does the grave hold them?

They partake of the mortality and weakness and disease inherited from Adam. Relevance?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Arial]

Arial amen​

Welcome to the forum Speak 2 My Heart.

 

[CrowCross]

Greetings again CrowCross,

Except it does not match what actually happened to Jesus and the faithful. You seem to be hedging in substitution terms.

The second death is at the end of the 1000 years. Relevance?

They partake of the mortality and weakness and disease inherited from Adam. Relevance?

Kind regards
Trevor

How are they not relevant? Let's stick with the second death....this is the death we are saved from...NOT physical death.

 

[Arial]

I take this to say that he needed to be saved from death.

He did need to be saved from death in order to be our Savior. But that is not the same thing as being saved by death. And he did die, and he knew he would die. He was saved from death by rising from the dead. He conquered death. He defeated the power of death over those he went to the cross for. Not as a representative. A representative could not do that and neither could a creature. He went to the cross actually bearing their sins on his body. He carried them into the maw of death, and because of his deity, his holiness utterly destroyed the power of sin to condemn and kill those whose sins he carried with him. He rose again to life and those who are in him through faith will also rise again to eternal incorruptible life.

This is where I differ. The penalty for sin is death, but we still die and therefore Jesus is not our substitute. Jesus did not suffer so that we do not suffer. We suffer.

1 Cor 15 That is my response to your misunderstanding of Scripture. I will highlight a few statements from it rather than quoting the entire thing, but to get the full impact, you need to ponder it all put together. That is, if you are actually interested in what the Bible says instead of only what you have been taught. Compare what you have been taught to what God says in his word.


16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope[b] in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.


23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.


42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

 

[CrowCross]

He did need to be saved from death in order to be our Savior. But that is not the same thing as being saved by death. And he did die, and he knew he would die. He was saved from death by rising from the dead. He conquered death. He defeated the power of death over those he went to the cross for. Not as a representative. A representative could not do that and neither could a creature. He went to the cross actually bearing their sins on his body. He carried them into the maw of death, and because of his deity, his holiness utterly destroyed the power of sin to condemn and kill those whose sins he carried with him. He rose again to life and those who are in him through faith will also rise again to eternal incorruptible life.

Well say....as they say, that'll preach.

 

[Arial]

Our sins were not transferred to Jesus by some magic formula, nor did Jesus enact some mystical ritual to purge our sins and satisfy an angry God.

When someone resorts to the use of such disconnected statements as you present above by the use of "magical", "enact some mystical ritual", in order to demean an opposing belief, it is an appeal to emotion fallacy. It is usually used in order to stir up offense in the other poster and send the topic off track into a heated argument instead of a discussion of those differences. It is as weightless as air, and always, not just sometimes, indicates that the one using them has no legitimate way to counter what has been said except through indoctrinated opinion. I say that as a cautionary tale.

Our sins were not transferred to Jesus. He took the punishment they deserve in order to meet the justice of God against them. That is a substitute. He faced the consequences of God's wrath against sin on his own body, so that those God was giving to him would not have to face his wrath. That is a substitute. Jesus knew this as the Son of God, and he did it willingly, in order to purchase a people for God, to conquer sin and death, and ultimately to destroy them and their author completely and forever. Only a substitute, giving himself as a ransom, can do this. A created man who only represents perfect righteousness for mankind, cannot do this. The cross would have had no actual accomplishment. Not even any actual purpose.

As to an angry God: Do you think it is not a necessity that God, who does not simply possess his attributes but IS those attributes. all in equal measure at all times, everyplace, and in all situations, should not and would not be angry at what we have done as his image bearers? What we have done with our having been given dominion over creation to tend and care for it according to his own moral character?

But it is not his anger that Jesus was satisfying. It was his justice. That God is perfectly just is one of those attributes that is always who he is. And he justly declared that if Adam transgressed his command, he would die. He justly declared that the penalty for sin is death. No human can escape that penalty on their own. We are trapped. Bound in chains in the kingdom of darkness by our sins. The only way out is if a ransom is paid for our release. And that ransom can only be paid by one who has no sin----not even in their nature----and who also possesses, as his own what is being purchased in this case. And that is eternal life for those he sheds his blood for. He cannot give what he does not have. The one who gives himself as a ransom must also be of the same type, the likeness of, those he ransoms. Rams and bulls cannot do it.

Jesus is our representative only in the same sense that Adam is the representative of all flesh born after him; in the sense of federal headship. Not as another Adam, of the earth. Another as the head of all who are given to him and that he dies for on the cross. On the cross he was not a representative creature (created man) but as outlined above----as a substitute.

 

[Arial]

Rather Jesus in his trials, sufferings, crucifixion and death suffered from real sins, the sins of his contemporaries, and these are typical of ALL the sins that have been and will be committed.

That is not what Scripture says he suffered from. It says it is what he suffered for. And not for all sin, but for the sins of those he was preparing to lay down his life for. (John 10:11-13,14-18, 25-30). In doing this, he conquered the power of sin to condemn to death for those sheep, and ultimately will destroy all sin and evil, and its author, from off the planet and he will again dwell among us and he will be our God and we will be his people. (Is 11; Rev 21)

In the process of his crucifixion he asked for the forgiveness of those who crucified him, and God accepted his prayer, and we partake of this forgiveness when we believe into him in accepting ALL that was accomplished in his death and resurrection.

He was not praying that for all people or even for all people who will believe, but for those who crucified him---probably the Roman soldiers, and not the Jews who demanded that he be crucified. The Romans did not know what they were doing. The Jews that demanded he be crucified did. Not only that but they called down a curse on themselves. (Matt 27:25) That last portion of the statement is true. But you have indicated by your statements and your denial of the eternal deity of the Son, and your view of what his death and resurrection accomplished, that you do not know who he is or what he accomplished. Not yet, but as long as we have breath, there is hope.

Jesus had a fallen human nature, and yet he did no sin, so the grave could not hold him. This was because God raised him for His love of His Son, and the fellowship which He shared with Jesus, and also the grave could not hold him as there was a reversal of God's arrangement made in Eden that Adam and his descendants would return to the dust because of sin and the potential to sin

Is a fallen nature not a sinful things that always produces sin? You need to support that there was a reversal of God's arrangement made with Adam in Eden. And I throw a previous argument you made against Jesus having defeated death in his death by saying that he didn't because we still die. We all still turn to dust when we die, so that has not been reversed.

We need to be careful how we apply the figure of "ransom". We need to consider what was paid and what was released. The reason why Jesus died is that he was mortal, a descendant of Adam, and he volunteered to die.

Ransom isn't a figure. I am considering what was paid for and what was released. I have told you. It is you neither understands "ransom" or "descendant of Adam" as given in actual Scripture. How can Jesus be a descendant of Adam if no human is his father?

There are many Psalms that use extravagant language and ideas that record the thoughts and feelings of David at particular stages of his life, but they are inspired and find their real fulfillment in Christ, e.g. Psalm 22. Psalm 21:1-4 are a prophecy concerning Jesus and his sufferings and resurrection, which encompasses his salvation.

The fact that some of them are Messianic Psalms because they have ultimate application to Jesus in view does not take away that which was spoken by a human and also applied to that person and that time. Psalm 21 is not Messianic. What is said of David and by David also holds true for Christ as King. It is a king's song.

 

[Arial]

Our sins are not transferred by some magical formula, and if he suffered our penalty, then why do we still die?

Straw man fallacy. Appeal to emotion fallacy. I have already covered that in post #44 and post #46.

I like the translation "sin's flesh", not "sinful flesh".

Sin doesn't have flesh.

Jesus had the same nature and lusts as we possess, but NEVER succumbed to these lusts, and instead of his body being governed by "SIN" (metonymy), he never submitted to these lusts. SIN never owned the body of Jesus. Jesus was a descendant of Adam through Mary and shared their fallen human nature.

Wasn't it Jesus who himself said that if a man lusts after a woman in his heart, he has already committed adultery? You might want to rethink what you say about the very Son of God.

Also the Bible never says sin came into the world and into humanity by one man and one woman. It says through one man. It never refers to humanity as being the sons (and daughters) of Eve. Only Adam. This is by God's decree. How the mechanics of this are involved or even if there are no mechanics of descendancy no one knows. All we know for sure is that it is so because God says it is so. Therefore we can also make an argument from silence that the reason Jesus was born of Mary had nothing to do with her being in Adam. It was the father that determined that, and God, not Adam, was Jesus' Father.

Jesus did not have to sacrifice for his nature. He did no sin.

If he had a fallen nature as you say, he would have had to. A fallen nature is a nature in rebellion with God.

I consider one of the important lessons is that Jesus crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts - our Representative.

Jesus didn't crucify himself and he had no sinful lusts. He wasn't working his way to heaven to the Father, in order to represent us. That is where he came from. He was working to substitute for those who cannot work their way to God and who are sinning sinners.

You seemed to stress that God would have disqualified Jesus if he had fallen Adamic nature.

It would have disqualified him. That is why no mere man can do what Jesus did. God would not because he could not send a a man, a creature to boot, who had a fallen nature to either represent or substitute for humans who also have a fallen nature.

Maybe the concept of substitution does have some effect on those that adhere to this concept, but I consider the whole representative picture is very motivating and substantial.

Even atheist can be motivated to good behavior. Even Islamists, and Buddahist, and Christian Scientist, Divine Scientist, New Age, anti religionists can get motivated to good behavior by reading the Bible. That good behavior does not even dent the gates of hell that are waiting to devour. The good behavior does nothing. Neither does simply believing in Jesus' existence and that he was a good man. What breaks those iron bars, and snaps the chains of the captive is believing in what Christ has already done. Substituted his own life and body on the cross to pay our debt.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again CrowCross,

Let's stick with the second death....this is the death we are saved from...NOT physical death.

The term "the second death" occurs in the following two references and I consider these refer to the end of the 1000 years:

Revelation 20:14 (KJV): And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Revelation 21:8 (KJV): But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

"The second death" encompasses more aspects than simply the death of individuals, but the title comes from the fact that most of the individuals that suffer this fate will be suffering their second death. Their first death is the death that the descendants of Adam suffer, dying from a number of causes, but each of us are destined to not last much more than 70 or 80 years. I will be 81 soon. Those that suffer the second death come under the same Divine justice that was imposed on all the descendants of Adam after Eden.

I consider that the following are much the same, except I believe the specific unfaithful who live before the return of Jesus will suffer their second death after their resurrection, judgement and rejection at the start of the 1000 years.

Revelation 20:6 (KJV): Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Revelation 2:11 (KJV): He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

YES, physical death.

Man does not have an immortal soul.
Genesis 3:17-19,22–24 (KJV): 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Arial,

When someone resorts to the use of such disconnected statements as you present above by the use of "magical", "enact some mystical ritual", in order to demean an opposing belief, it is an appeal to emotion fallacy. It is usually used in order to stir up offense in the other poster and send the topic off track into a heated argument instead of a discussion of those differences. It is as weightless as air, and always, not just sometimes, indicates that the one using them has no legitimate way to counter what has been said except through indoctrinated opinion. I say that as a cautionary tale.

I accept the rebuke, but I find the substitution ideas very confusing, and my perspective is because of the associated Trinity ideas, immortal souls and most probably a range of other doctrines

Our sins were not transferred to Jesus. He took the punishment they deserve in order to meet the justice of God against them. That is a substitute. He faced the consequences of God's wrath against sin on his own body, so that those God was giving to him would not have to face his wrath. That is a substitute.

I cannot accept that God's wrath was in any way expended on Jesus. Many of the faithful have suffered similar circumstances, before and after the crucifixion of Jesus. Were these also the punishment by God. Have you given adequate consideration of the themes in the Book of Job?

Is a fallen nature not a sinful things that always produces sin?

Jesus always overcame the lusts of the flesh, God through Jesus "condemned sin in the flesh" Romans 8:3.

How can Jesus be a descendant of Adam if no human is his father?

Jesus was a descendant of Adam through Mary, David and Adam.

Psalm 21 is not Messianic. What is said of David and by David also holds true for Christ as King. It is a king's song.

I suggest that it is Messianic and can only truly apply directly to Jesus.

Sin doesn't have flesh.

"Sin" is a personification or a metonymy in many of the verses of Romans 7 and 8.

How the mechanics of this are involved or even if there are no mechanics of descendancy no one knows. All we know for sure is that it is so because God says it is so.

I consider the fact that Mary is descended from Adam is very clear, and why muddy the waters and avoid the obvious?

Jesus didn't crucify himself and he had no sinful lusts.

Jesus voluntarily submitted to crucifixion.

That is why no mere man can do what Jesus did.

Jesus was not a mere man, he was the Son of God, an especially prepared vesse to accomplish the work of salvation.

What breaks those iron bars, and snaps the chains of the captive is believing in what Christ has already done.

Yes.

Kind regards
Trevor

.

 

[Arial]

I accept the rebuke, but I find the substitution ideas very confusing, and my perspective is because of the associated Trinity ideas, immortal souls and most probably a range of other doctrines

This would be an opportunity to listen and learn then. Check what is said and the scriptures that are used to support what is said---what is presented as the meaning of those scriptures ------ from within the Bible. There must be a beginning understanding of who God is and what he is doing within the pages of our Bible. He is sovereign over all his creation, has a purpose in everything, is giving us from beginning to end in his word, the history of redemption, the Redeemer is always the central focus and goal, even in Gen 3 when the serpent is cursed and a promise to humanity and creation is made. And he is revealing who he (God) is. And everything in the Bible as to truths must be absolutely consistent with itself.

All of us have a tendency to dismiss what we do not believe already. Change is a scary and uncomfortable thing. Especially when we are dealing with the most important thing in our life. But these things that we do not understand and are confusing to us, especially those teachings that have been the foundation of Christianity for 2000 years or more, deserve to be pondered in a diligent manner, whether we ultimately agree with them or not.

I cannot accept that God's wrath was in any way expended on Jesus. Many of the faithful have suffered similar circumstances, before and after the crucifixion of Jesus. Were these also the punishment by God

That is a false equivalency.

Have you given adequate consideration of the themes in the Book of Job?

Of course I have. But you would need to tell me what it is exactly that you are trying to say. Job is a big book.

Jesus always overcame the lusts of the flesh, God through Jesus "condemned sin in the flesh" Romans 8:3.

That does not at all answer the question: Is a sinful nature in itself sinful?

 

[CrowCross]

The term "the second death" occurs in the following two references and I consider these refer to the end of the 1000 years:

So do I.

I'll die physically if I haven't been raptured by then. I also will no see the second death.

 

[Mr GLee]

I would offer.

Remember. The appointment called hell\suffering we are carrying out in these earthen bodies of death, it is to die once, No retrial or double jeopardy.

He promised never to leave us never forsake us. Promise if he has begun the good teaching work in us, he will finish.

Receiving the end of our new born again faith from the beginning

I would think the focus would be on the letter of the law death as it is written. Thou shall not or suffering hell and death..

The death of death the second along with its daily suffering's hell. The letter will not rise up and condemn to death a whole creation .Old things will not be remembered or ever come to mind.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Arial,

Were these also the punishment by God. Have you given adequate consideration of the themes in the Book of Job?

One major question that is addressed in Job is why do the faithful suffer, and in the context, why was Job suffering. The answer to this is given in the course of the whole book and narrative. The overall perspective is really an introduction to the sacrifice of Christ, as a representative not a substitute.

Is a sinful nature in itself sinful?

No. Sin is the transgression of the Law. I object to the term "sinful nature" being applied to Christ, without understanding that He came in the likeness of sin's flesh.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Arial]

One major question that is addressed in Job is why do the faithful suffer, and in the context, why was Job suffering. The answer to this is given in the course of the whole book and narrative. The overall perspective is really an introduction to the sacrifice of Christ, as a representative not a substitute.

The first chapter of Job tells us why Job was suffering. What follows until chapters 38-41 are:

1. The condemnation of Job as suffering because he had committed egregious sins. (Judgmental people who think they know it all and use God as their backup in sitting as judge.)

2. Job's defense of himself to his friends.

3. Job's lament that he could not defend himself to God and get an answer from him.

4. Job's desperation at not being able to understand why he was suffering.

In chapters 38-41 God speaks to Job telling of his greatness and sovereignty over all creation, and the arrogance and smallness of Job.

After hearing this, in verse 42:1-6 Job breaks. God became more to him than simple knowledge. He had been blind, but now he saw.

As an aside: That very same thing happened to me early in my Christian walk, reading God's voice in 38-41 and coming to 42. I had been in those blessed days God often gives to the new convert, of having all their prayers answered on the spot as a way of assuring them that yes, he is real, yes he hears and sees and knows. But I had been praying for something (rain to save my vegetable garden, a simple but very necessary thing, and that is how simple and childlike my faith was at the time) for weeks. I had been talking back to God in frustration and anger. Every night there was thunder and streaks of rain all around me, but no rain fell on my land. Even that night there was the distant rumble of thunder. I was in awe as I read those chapters starting in 38, stunned, and broke as Job had when I read his words of 42. I wept (and I am not one who cries easily) and asked forgiveness for my anger at him. And it began to rain. That was a wake up call. Time to begin growing up.

In 42:7 God rebukes Job's friends. After the Lord had spoken these words to Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite: "My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.

There is no representation or substitution of Christ in the book of Job as a perspective. Someone has read Job and looked for application but not meaning (and probably a presupposed application) and misapplied the application that is in the book----and you have believed them.

No. Sin is the transgression of the Law. I object to the term "sinful nature" being applied to Christ, without understanding that He came in the likeness of sin's flesh.

It is you who have said that Jesus had a sinful nature. Flesh is in and of itself not sinful. That is a Gnostic belief. God created flesh. Sinful flesh does not mean flesh is sinful and sin does not have flesh. It means we have flesh and we sin.

 

[Mr GLee]

Greetings again Arial,

One major question that is addressed in Job is why do the faithful suffer, and in the context, why was Job suffering. The answer to this is given in the course of the whole book and narrative. The overall perspective is really an introduction to the sacrifice of Christ, as a representative not a substitute.

No. Sin is the transgression of the Law. I object to the term "sinful nature" being applied to Christ, without understanding that He came in the likeness of sin's flesh.

Kind regards
Trevor

I would offer,

Many do not view the propmised three day and night demonstration of the finished work of lamb slain from the six days the Father did work

We can enter that rest yoked with Him .

Flesh signified as sinful was needed to do what the letter of the law (death) could do, give new born agin life . A theophany like that of Mechisdek could do. A gospel sign to the whole world was needed to fulfill the prophecy of the Lamb slain .

You could say "Let there be" and "there was a lamb of God".

Romans 8:3 For what the law (death) 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:

The Law of faith life

Hebrews 6 seems to speak of those who say one demonstration is not enough

Hebrews 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

 

[Mr GLee]

Sin doesn't have flesh.

I would offer.

Flesh represents sin. The body of death

Romans 8:3For 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:

No flesh no gospel. . the restoring of the flesh

Used in a gospel parable

Exodus 4:7And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh

First time to represent leprosy dead no sensitivity the second restored .

Jesus prophesied to Nicodemus. . Dying mankind must be born again marvel, wonder not .

Lepers to sons of God Christians

 

[Arial]

Flesh represents sin. The body of death

Flesh does not represent sin. God created us with flesh. A human is distinct parts but not separate parts. Adam as flesh and blood (human) life, sinned. So now all sin in this same flesh. That is all the Bible means. It is never saying that flesh in and of itself IS sin, only that it does sin. And it is not the flesh sinning on its own accord, but US.

 

[Mr GLee]

Flesh does not represent sin. God created us with flesh. A human is distinct parts but not separate parts. Adam as flesh and blood (human) life, sinned. So now all sin in this same flesh. That is all the Bible means. It is never saying that flesh in and of itself IS sin, only that it does sin. And it is not the flesh sinning on its own accord, but US.

Thanks

I would agree created us with, subject, to the letter of the law (death) .Thou shall not or dying leading toward a end , dust returning to earth and temporal spirit given under the letter return to the father .Believer are given a new sprit that will never die they await the new body .Not a body of sin corruption

Yes flesh does not sin, it reveals the lying deadly power

I think that is what Galatians is saying the flesh cannot claim to be the source of power by which we can believe the unseen eternal things of God .He created flesh. He is not flesh and blood as informed in Job 9 and neither is there any infalible interpreter (Pope) that sits between our invisible head and dying mankind.

Like Jesus said of his own flesh it profits for nothing revealing what does profit words of Spirit life giving words

Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

In that way whatsoever we do we do it yoked with him .All truth is God truth .

Hebrew 6 informs us of it calling it; the better thing that accompanies salvation .God promises he will not forget the good works we miraculously can according to the power of His name

1 Corinthians 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
Hebrews :9-10 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Arial,

What follows until chapters 38-41 are:
1. The condemnation of Job as suffering because he had committed egregious sins.

I liked your overall dissertation on Job and found your personal experience interesting. Yes, the above is an important theme used by Job's three friends, but this is answered during the course of the book. This answer is that God has placed the descendants of Adam under suffering, disease and the sentence of death. God's arrangement is for the ultimate outworking of his purpose, and the purifying of a remnant who will ultimately populate and inherit the earth. Job's suffering and ultimate understanding and reconciliation to God is a pattern of the trials and suffering of the faithful. It is God's design and it is very effective in its outcome. There is no hint that Job was suffering because of God's anger against sin.

There are very many other examples of the suffering of the faithful, and a good example is Joseph, and as well as his sufferings there is the ultimate result of his trials, including the repentance of his brethren. Again there is no hint that Joseph was suffering because of God's anger against sin.

The sufferings, death and resurrection of Jesus is of a similar pattern to the sufferings of Job and Joseph, but far greater in its detail and results. There is definitely no hint that Jesus was suffering to satisfy God's anger against sin. God's justice, mercy and righteousness, and love have been revealed through the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus.

It is you who have said that Jesus had a sinful nature. Flesh is in and of itself not sinful. That is a Gnostic belief. God created flesh. Sinful flesh does not mean flesh is sinful and sin does not have flesh. It means we have flesh and we sin.

There is a difference in Adam before and after his fall. We and Jesus inherited Adam's nature after his fall. We sin, Jesus never sinned. Jesus had the same flesh as us, but never sinned.

Kind regards
Trevor