Why did Jesus?

[Carbon]

Adam's curse; and Jesus was a son of Adam. We die because of ADAM's sin. Not just our own.

So Jesus had no choice?

 

[makesends]

So Jesus had no choice?

No choice about what? Dying?

As a human, no, he was under the curse laid out in Genesis 3; he was made of dust and to dust his body would have returned, had God relegated him to corruption ("decomposition"). It is only speculation, but it could be argued that if he hadn't been killed, he would have died of disease or old age or accident or any of the ways anyone dies.

 

[ReverendRV]

Adam's curse; and Jesus was a son of Adam. We die because of ADAM's sin. Not just our own.

That's one reason I call Jesus the son of Mary. Jesus bypassed the Curse of Original Sin, by not being a son of Adam...

Paternal Traducianism...

 

[fastfredy0]

As a human, no, he was under the curse laid out in Genesis 3

The penalty of sin is death. Jesus did not sin and therefore is not under the curse. Because Christ is born of the Spirit Adam's sin was not imputed to Christ.

It is only speculation, but it could be argued that if he hadn't been killed, he would have died of disease or old age or accident or any of the ways anyone dies.

Again, I was 'guess' Christ would never die because He never sinned nor was Adam's sin nature imputed to him.

 

[makesends]

The penalty of sin is death. Jesus did not sin and therefore is not under the curse. Because Christ is born of the Spirit Adam's sin was not imputed to Christ.

Again, I was 'guess' Christ would never die because He never sinned nor was Adam's sin nature imputed to him.

Christ's nature was human, and as such was subject to human temporal death, by the curse against Adam and his progeny. It has no relationship to any personal sin Christ 'could have' committed. His being without sin guaranteed him eternal life, and it implies that sin was never imputed to him*, but it did not guarantee him continued temporal life.

*It seems logical to me that he never needed to be "born again" in the sense we do.

 

[fastfredy0]

*It seems logical to me that he never needed to be "born again" in the sense we do.

Hmmm ...
Premise 1: Born again means one who was spiritually dead (separated from God) and is now spiritually alive (not separated from God)
Premise 2: Matthew 27:46 ... Jesus to God, why have you foresaken me, means Christ's human nature was spiritually separated from God
Premise 3: Christ's human nature is currently at the right hand of God
Conclusion: Christ was born again
Aside: I want at least 50 to 1 odds if I have to bet on my conclusion *smile*

Christ's nature was human, and as such was subject to human temporal death,

Why? Death is the penalty for sin and Christ had no sin and thus not liable to death. Similarly, Adam's human nature as originally created was not subject to death, but Adam "blew it". (Aside: Thanks Adam ... though Adam blowing it did give some the ability to be one with God which is a big plus)
(aside: any created thing is subject to change so all speculation is just that; God determines how/if/when we change, what our human nature is and what it will be)

His being without sin guaranteed him eternal life, and it implies that sin was never imputed to him*, but it did not guarantee him continued temporal life.

Agreed. We are all guessing here based on the assumption that the observed rules of the game based on observation do not change. Unless God promises "X" or "Y" we have no assurance of anything based on the past.

Aside: We need to deal with an easier thread like: How many toes did Christ have ....my mind works better in a simpler realm.

 

[Deleted member 5]

Christ's nature was human, and as such was subject to human temporal death, by the curse against Adam and his progeny.

His nature would be human and Divine, correct?

It has no relationship to any personal sin Christ 'could have' committed.

Yes, His Divine nature cannot sin, Christ was and will ever be without sin.

His being without sin guaranteed him eternal life,

I'm not sure about that, given the fact He has always existed and remains eternal forever. His accomplishment on the cross didn't guarantee Him eternal life, but it certainly gave eternal life to those for whom He died.

and it implies that sin was never imputed to him*, but it did not guarantee him continued temporal life.

Not sure what you mean here, perhaps you can elaborate. He did bear our sins in His body; 1 Peter 2:24, and sin was condemned in the flesh, Romans 8:3.

*It seems logical to me that he never needed to be "born again" in the sense we do.

I agree that Jesus never needed to be born from above. Sacrifices are not "born again."

 

[Arial]

But we can’t split his natures. He is the God man. Completely holy and sinless. If the human nature ages and gets weary. Why?
Because of sin.


But Jesus had no sin.

My two cents.

The Redeemer had to be of the same type as those He redeemed. Human. But He was not created, was not born of the seed of Adam, therefore did not have a sin nature as we do, but had the moral or natural ability to sin just as Adam did at creation.

To be one of us in all other respects, to be tempted a we are, it was necessary for Him to come through woman "the Seed of the woman will crush your head,"and grow from a baby into adulthood as we do. He paralleled us.

He did not get old. There is no record of Him ever being sick or injured. He did not deteriorate. He felt the same things we do hunger, thirst, tiredness, grief, etc. but it does not indicate in scriptures that He ever was incapacitated by aging. He bore no marks of sin, until He went to the cross, and there He took them full force, not for Himself and not because of Himself, but for us in our stead, and because of us.

 

[Eleanor]

We all know that we die because of sin, we get sick because of sin, and we age because of sin.

Question?

Jesus was holy, pure and sinless.
So, why did he age?

Is to say that "we age because of sin" to say that the development of the baby into an adult is because of sin?

 

[Carbon]

Is to say that "we age because of sin" to say that the development of the baby into an adult is because of sin?

If Adam never sinned, would anyone have grown into adulthood?

 

[Eleanor]

If Adam never sinned, would anyone have grown into adulthood?

And mankind would have ended with no reproduction.

 

[Carbon]

And mankind would have ended with no reproduction.

Personally, I don't think so. All things went according to plan. Even the fall was meant for good and to glorify God. If Adam never sinned I can only assume no one would age, scripture does not teach otherwise. To think anything beyond scripture is mere speculation.

 

[Eleanor]

Personally, I don't think so. All things went according to plan. Even the fall was meant for good and to glorify God. If Adam never sinned I can only assume no one would age, scripture does not teach otherwise. To think anything beyond scripture is mere speculation.

Yep. . .agree.

 

[makesends]

Premise 3: Christ's human nature is currently at the right hand of God

This is another one I tend to agree with, but that has not been proven to me. Something always seems missing from the proof, though I can't always tell

Hmmm ...
Premise 1: Born again means one who was spiritually dead (separated from God) and is now spiritually alive (not separated from God)
Premise 2: Matthew 27:46 ... Jesus to God, why have you foresaken me, means Christ's human nature was spiritually separated from God
Premise 3: Christ's human nature is currently at the right hand of God
Conclusion: Christ was born again
Aside: I want at least 50 to 1 odds if I have to bet on my conclusion *smile*

Seems like I might've answered this, but not sure. I'm not sure the conclusion follows, even if the premises are accepted. But maybe I would agree if ALL "born again means" is relief from spiritual separation from God.

Why? Death is the penalty for sin and Christ had no sin and thus not liable to death. Similarly, Adam's human nature as originally created was not subject to death, but Adam "blew it". (Aside: Thanks Adam ... though Adam blowing it did give some the ability to be one with God which is a big plus)
(aside: any created thing is subject to change so all speculation is just that; God determines how/if/when we change, what our human nature is and what it will be)

Not so sure. Physical death is the natural result of the curse upon the physical, due to Adam's sin.

Agreed. We are all guessing here based on the assumption that the observed rules of the game based on observation do not change. Unless God promises "X" or "Y" we have no assurance of anything based on the past.

We do know God does not change.

Aside: We need to deal with an easier thread like: How many toes did Christ have ....my mind works better in a simpler realm.

Ha!

 

[makesends]

His nature would be human and Divine, correct?

Yes, sometimes I speak too quickly or too succinctly. I didn't mean to imply he had no divine nature also.

Yes, His Divine nature cannot sin, Christ was and will ever be without sin.

I'm not sure about that, given the fact He has always existed and remains eternal forever. His accomplishment on the cross didn't guarantee Him eternal life, but it certainly gave eternal life to those for whom He died.

This is simple application of the Scriptural principle, and that, as applies to his human nature —if he had no sin, he would not die eternally.

My two cents.

The Redeemer had to be of the same type as those He redeemed. Human. But He was not created, was not born of the seed of Adam, therefore did not have a sin nature as we do, but had the moral or natural ability to sin just as Adam did at creation.

To be one of us in all other respects, to be tempted a we are, it was necessary for Him to come through woman "the Seed of the woman will crush your head,"and grow from a baby into adulthood as we do. He paralleled us.

He did not get old. There is no record of Him ever being sick or injured. He did not deteriorate. He felt the same things we do hunger, thirst, tiredness, grief, etc. but it does not indicate in scriptures that He ever was incapacitated by aging. He bore no marks of sin, until He went to the cross, and there He took them full force, not for Himself and not because of Himself, but for us in our stead, and because of us.

A lot to cogitate on there. Off the cuff, and not that you said otherwise, but I don't think him being born of woman is all that is required for him to be tempted as we are.

Also, the fact there is no record of it does not mean he did not deteriorate. One might even infer from the fact that he grew tired, that indeed the same principles that apply to tiredness apply to aging and he did age. Likewise, the fact the was tempted as we are implies that the reasons behind the fact his temptations were like ours, is that he suffered aging of sorts as we do.

But yes, to this day it is most curious to me, how could he have been tempted in every way as we are, yet without a sin nature to fight?

makesends said:
and it (being without sin) implies that sin was never imputed to him*, but it did not guarantee him continued temporal life.

Not sure what you mean here, perhaps you can elaborate. He did bear our sins in His body; 1 Peter 2:24, and sin was condemned in the flesh, Romans 8:3.

I do think our sin was imputed to him, but not until the cross. I was speaking of his life before his sacrifice.

I agree that Jesus never needed to be born from above. Sacrifices are not "born again."

Good way to put that!

 

[Arial]

A lot to cogitate on there. Off the cuff, and not that you said otherwise, but I don't think him being born of woman is all that is required for him to be tempted as we are.

That isn't what I said unless you leave out the pertinent comma. It was necessary for Him to be tempted as we are---comma---to be born of a woman,----

It was in the curse God pronounced upon the serpent. "And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her Seed; your hall bruise His heel but He will crush your head."

Also, the fact there is no record of it does not mean he did not deteriorate. One might even infer from the fact that he grew tired, that indeed the same principles that apply to tiredness apply to aging and he did age. Likewise, the fact the was tempted as we are implies that the reasons behind the fact his temptations were like ours, is that he suffered aging of sorts as we do.

One might infer all those things but there is no reason to.

 

[Arial]

Seems like I might've answered this, but not sure. I'm not sure the conclusion follows, even if the premises are accepted. But maybe I would agree if ALL "born again means" is relief from spiritual separation from God.

I will interject something here. Replace the close up lens for a wide angle one for a moment.

This focus on spiritual death and spiritual separation, though not entirely unfounded in what our condition could be called, seems to me to put us at the center of things at the expense of the edges of the bigger picture being blurred.

We are born again by God that we might believe what without that is foolishness to us. And this enmity we have with God----we seeing Him as our enemy and we being His enemies--- is what is being dealt with in redemption. It is God restoring us to Himself, sending Christ to do the work of making peace between us and God by removing our sins. He does this by taking sins penalty on Himself instead of us having to bear that penalty ourselves. Which is the wrath of God, and never being reconciled to Him. The issue is His holiness and our sinfulness. That is what separates us. The problem that must be dealt with is our sin. Not our spiritual deadness or spiritual separation from Him.

God----Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the center and all of this. They are the big picture. We are still the creatures being redeemed---not our spirituality, whatever that is.

 

[makesends]

That isn't what I said unless you leave out the pertinent comma. It was necessary for Him to be tempted as we are---comma---to be born of a woman,----

It was in the curse God pronounced upon the serpent. "And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her Seed; your hall bruise His heel but He will crush your head."

Yes, thanks. Good point.

One might infer all those things but there is no reason to.

Nor is there reason to assume it is not, as far as I can tell.

 

[makesends]

I will interject something here. Replace the close up lens for a wide angle one for a moment.

This focus on spiritual death and spiritual separation, though not entirely unfounded in what our condition could be called, seems to me to put us at the center of things at the expense of the edges of the bigger picture being blurred.

We are born again by God that we might believe what without that is foolishness to us. And this enmity we have with God----we seeing Him as our enemy and we being His enemies--- is what is being dealt with in redemption. It is God restoring us to Himself, sending Christ to do the work of making peace between us and God by removing our sins. He does this by taking sins penalty on Himself instead of us having to bear that penalty ourselves. Which is the wrath of God, and never being reconciled to Him. The issue is His holiness and our sinfulness. That is what separates us. The problem that must be dealt with is our sin. Not our spiritual deadness or spiritual separation from Him.

God----Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the center and all of this. They are the big picture. We are still the creatures being redeemed---not our spirituality, whatever that is.

Of course! But I'm not sure what the relevance is to what we are discussing. WHAT exactly was being missed by using the close-up lens? I'm not getting your point.

 

[Arial]

Nor is there reason to assume it is not, as far as I can tell.

Why would one assume that Jesus deteriorated? What reason would there be that was pertinent to anything?