What purpose is Jesus both God and Man Union?

What purpose is Jesus both God and Man Union?​


Hello there,

I don't believe anyone has mentioned the necessity that the Lord Jesus Christ should become, 'a Kinsman-Redeemer', in order to have the right to redeem. He had to take on the form of a man, for that purpose. Also to become a second Adam, in order to nullify the effect of the failure of the first.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
Powerful.

by Pastor Cornelius R. Stam​



“Either his uncle… or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him, or, if he be able, he may redeem himself” (Lev. 25:49).

Under Old Testament law one who had failed in business could sell himself, or be sold, into slavery, his master paying off his debts in lieu of salary. The slave could be redeemed, however, by his uncle or any near relative who could afford to pay off his debts, or, says our passage: “if he be able, he may redeem himself.”

“If he be able”! Significant qualification, for what bankrupt slave was ever able to redeem himself!

In this way God would teach us an important lesson about salvation from sin. All of us have failed in business, as it were. We have amassed a huge debt of sin against God and our fellowmen, and have become morally and spiritually bankrupt.

We have many who are “nigh of kin” to us, but they are unable to redeem us because they themselves are bankrupt sinners. There is One, however, who has an infinite store of righteousness with which to pay our debt and redeem us. Indeed, He did pay the penalty for all our sins when He, the Holy One, died in shame and disgrace as a sinner on Calvary’s cross.

He, the Lord Jesus Christ, is our blessed Kinsman Redeemer, for as Adam’s children “are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same” (Heb. 2:14) that He might redeem Jew and Gentile; “made [for] a little [while] lower than the angels for the suffering of death …that He by the grace of God, should taste death for every man” (Heb. 2:9).


There are many, alas, who will not face up to their condition. They somehow think that they can still redeem themselves. To them God says: “Do it, if you are able!” To the rich young ruler who asked, “What must I do to inherit eternal life,” the Lord said “You know the law… this do, and you will live.”

But who of us has perfectly kept the law of God? Who of us is not a repeated law-breaker in the sight of God? Who is able to redeem himself? Why not then turn from self to Christ, our rich Kinsman Redeemer, “In whom we have redemption, through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Eph. 1:7).
 
'For since by man came death,
by man came also the resurrection of the dead,
For as in Adam all die,
even so in Christ shall all be made alive.'

(1Cor 15:21)

'And so it is written,
The first man Adam was made a living soul;
the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural;
and afterward that which is spiritual.
The first man is of the earth, earthy:
the second man is the Lord from heaven.'

(1 Cor.15:45-47)

Praise God!
 
Well....

Maybe if I asked this way?
Someone will see what I was getting at.

What does John 1:18 tell us about Jesus?

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship
with the Father, has made him known." [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be
seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known].


Could that be done if Jesus had only one nature?
 
Well....

Maybe if I asked this way?
Someone will see what I was getting at.

What does John 1:18 tell us about Jesus?

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship
with the Father, has made him known." [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be
seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known].


Could that be done if Jesus had only one nature?
No-messiah became something He was NOT before-2Aorist-in the likeness of man and tabernacled for a short while with them.
Tired now and might make mistakes-so I'll come back tomorrow-God willing.

Joh 1:14 And the Dvar Hashem took on gufaniyut (corporeality) and made his sukkah, his Mishkan (Tabernacle) among us [YESHAYAH 7:14], and we [Shlichim, 1Y 1:1-2] gazed upon his Kavod [SHEMOT 33:18; 40:34; YESHAYAH 60:1-2], the Shechinah of the Ben Yachid from Elohim HaAv, full of Hashem's Chesed v’Emes.
Joh 1:15 And Yochanan gives solemn edut (testimony) about him and has cried out, This was he about whom I said, Hu HaBah (He who comes [Gn 49:10; Ezek 21:27]) after me is really before me in priority, because, before I came to be, he was (Yn 8:58).
Joh 1:16 For from the kol melo (all the plentitude) of him we all received Chesed upon Chesed.
Joh 1:17 Because the matan Torah (giving of the Torah) was graciously bestowed through Moshe [Rabbeinu] [DEVARIM 32:46 SHEMOT 31:18; 34:28], but Chesed and Emes of Hashem came through [Rebbe,] Melech HaMoshiach Yehoshua [Ex 34:6; Ps 25:10; 40:11; 85:11; Yochanan 1:49].

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen Hashem [Ex 33:20]. It is Elohim the Ben Yachid [who shares the nature of Hashem, the Chochman Ben Elohim at his side, see very importantly Mishle 8:30; 30:4)], it is he, the one being in the kheyk (bosom) of HaAv, this one is Hashem's definitive midrash (exegesis).

Hath declared (ἐξηγήσατο)
Or, rendering the aorist strictly, He declared. From ἐκ, forth, and ἡγέομαι, to lead the way. Originally, to lead or govern. Hence, like the Latin praeire verbis, to go before with words, to prescribe or dictate a form of words. To draw out in narrative, to recount or rehearse (see Act_15:14, and on Luk_24:35). To relate in full; to interpret, or translate. Therefore ἐξήγησις, exegesis, is interpretation or explanation. The word ἐξηγητής was used by the Greeks of an expounder of oracles, dreams, omens, or sacred rites. Thus Croesus, finding the suburbs of Sardis alive with serpents, sent to the soothsayers (ἐξηγητὰς) of Telmessus (Herodotus, i. 78). The word thus comes to mean a spiritual director. Plato calls Apollo the tutelary director (πατρῷος ἐξηγητής) of religion (“Republic,” 427), and says, “Let the priests be interpreters for life” (“Laws,” 759). In the Septuagint the word is used of the magicians of Pharaoh's court (Gen_41:8, Gen_41:24), and the kindred verb of teaching or interpreting concerning leprosy (Lev_14:57). John's meaning is that the Word revealed or manifested and interpreted the Father to men. The word occurs only here in John's writings. Wyc. renders, He hath told out. These words conclude the Prologue.
The Historical Narrative now begins, and falls into two general divisions:
I. The Self-Revelation of Christ to the World (1:19-12:50)
II. The Self-Revelation of Christ to the Disciples (13:1-21:23)
VWP

Other designations assigned to the new man are: the inner man, the (new) heart, the mind, and the spirit. The believer then has both an old and a new nature. We take exception with the argument that if the believer has two natures, he then has dual personalities. But there is evidence to the contrary; did not our Lord Himself have a human nature and a divine nature, and who will dispute, in one person. Why then is it so hard to believe the same could be true of us, and indeed it is, albeit our human nature has been tainted with sin. Soon after we are saved we realize that there is an inner conflict within our members, as the flesh (old man) lusts against the spirit (new man), “and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” (Gal. 5:17).

Advocates of one-naturism deny that this warfare is present within us, stating that those who believe there is a conflict between the old and new natures are admitting defeat. This, they say, is why these believers struggle in the Christian life and tend to be carnally minded. We disagree, of course, on two fronts: first, this is contrary to the Scriptures, and second, it denies experience.

“Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God” (Rom. 6:12,13).

In essence, the apostle is instructing us not to allow the sin nature to have dominion over us. You are dead to sin, positionally, therefore you should not obey the lust of the flesh. Neither yield your members as instruments (Greek hoplon, weapons) of sin against God. Rather, yield yourself to God, put yourself at His disposal, bearing in mind that you are alive from the dead by the resurrection of Christ. Yield your members as weapons of righteousness to the praise of His glory. Surely this portion demonstrates that there is a warfare within our members (See also Romans 7:14-25). This inner struggle may be illustrated accordingly:

The conflict between the two natures may be compared to a ship, on which a new Captain has been put on board by the owners. The old Captain has so long held command, and his enmity to the owners is so great, that he has practically treated the vessel as his own; and kept the crew in perfect bondage. The crew has submitted to it, never having known any other authority, or understood what real liberty of service was. From time to time they have heard of it; they have passed other vessels which they saw at once were very different from their own.

But, now that the new Captain is in authority they begin to find out what the difference is. The new Captain henceforth always has control of the helm and the charge of the ship. The ship is the same, the crew is the same. Even the old Captain remains on board. The book of instructions which the new Captain has brought on board tells that the old Captain has been judged and condemned: but the sentence cannot be executed except by the proper judicial authorities, when they reach port.

They cannot put him ashore, or throw him overboard. But, he no longer “holds the helm or guides the ship.” He tries from time to time to get hold of the wheel, but in vain. He succeeds sometimes in putting forth his old influence by creating disaffection in some of the members of the crew; for he knows them and their weaknesses well from his former complete control of them. He occasionally bribes or deceives some of them into acts of insubordination which they afterwards deeply regret. But the old Captain cannot get at the “ship’s papers.” They are now put quite out of his reach, where he cannot touch them. He cannot succeed in altering the ship’s course, or change the port for which she is now bound. He does not read the book of instructions; and if he looks at it, he does not understand it (I Cor. 2:14).

The ship’s crew was once his executive, and carried out only his will; but there is now no obligation for any of them to obey his orders, or to recognize his authority. They are released from it; and henceforth they are under the orders of the new Commander. They are to “reckon” the old Captain as already condemned; and the sentence as only waiting to be carried out. As to his power over them, they are to reckon themselves “as good as dead” so far as he is concerned. (The Two Natures in the Child of God, E.W. Bullinger, D.D., published by Bible Doctrines to Live By, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Pages 26,27.)

“Seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him” (Col. 3:9,10).

It is essential to note that the verbs in this passage “put off” and “put on” are past tense in the original language, as well as in the English. The Colossians were to understand that God has addressed the matter once-for-all in the life of the believer. Now the apostle says, you need to put into practice what you already know to be true. Believe it and apply it!
 
Last edited:
No-messiah became something He was NOT before-2Aorist-in the likeness of man and tabernacled for a short while with them.
Tired now and might make mistakes-so I'll come back tomorrow-God willing.

Joh 1:14 And the Dvar Hashem took on gufaniyut (corporeality) and made his sukkah, his Mishkan (Tabernacle) among us [YESHAYAH 7:14], and we [Shlichim, 1Y 1:1-2] gazed upon his Kavod [SHEMOT 33:18; 40:34; YESHAYAH 60:1-2], the Shechinah of the Ben Yachid from Elohim HaAv, full of Hashem's Chesed v’Emes.
Joh 1:15 And Yochanan gives solemn edut (testimony) about him and has cried out, This was he about whom I said, Hu HaBah (He who comes [Gn 49:10; Ezek 21:27]) after me is really before me in priority, because, before I came to be, he was (Yn 8:58).
Joh 1:16 For from the kol melo (all the plentitude) of him we all received Chesed upon Chesed.
Joh 1:17 Because the matan Torah (giving of the Torah) was graciously bestowed through Moshe [Rabbeinu] [DEVARIM 32:46 SHEMOT 31:18; 34:28], but Chesed and Emes of Hashem came through [Rebbe,] Melech HaMoshiach Yehoshua [Ex 34:6; Ps 25:10; 40:11; 85:11; Yochanan 1:49].

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen Hashem [Ex 33:20]. It is Elohim the Ben Yachid [who shares the nature of Hashem, the Chochman Ben Elohim at his side, see very importantly Mishle 8:30; 30:4)], it is he, the one being in the kheyk (bosom) of HaAv, this one is Hashem's definitive midrash (exegesis).

Hath declared (ἐξηγήσατο)
Or, rendering the aorist strictly, He declared. From ἐκ, forth, and ἡγέομαι, to lead the way. Originally, to lead or govern. Hence, like the Latin praeire verbis, to go before with words, to prescribe or dictate a form of words. To draw out in narrative, to recount or rehearse (see Act_15:14, and on Luk_24:35). To relate in full; to interpret, or translate. Therefore ἐξήγησις, exegesis, is interpretation or explanation. The word ἐξηγητής was used by the Greeks of an expounder of oracles, dreams, omens, or sacred rites. Thus Croesus, finding the suburbs of Sardis alive with serpents, sent to the soothsayers (ἐξηγητὰς) of Telmessus (Herodotus, i. 78). The word thus comes to mean a spiritual director. Plato calls Apollo the tutelary director (πατρῷος ἐξηγητής) of religion (“Republic,” 427), and says, “Let the priests be interpreters for life” (“Laws,” 759). In the Septuagint the word is used of the magicians of Pharaoh's court (Gen_41:8, Gen_41:24), and the kindred verb of teaching or interpreting concerning leprosy (Lev_14:57). John's meaning is that the Word revealed or manifested and interpreted the Father to men. The word occurs only here in John's writings. Wyc. renders, He hath told out. These words conclude the Prologue.
The Historical Narrative now begins, and falls into two general divisions:
I. The Self-Revelation of Christ to the World (1:19-12:50)
II. The Self-Revelation of Christ to the Disciples (13:1-21:23)
VWP

Other designations assigned to the new man are: the inner man, the (new) heart, the mind, and the spirit. The believer then has both an old and a new nature. We take exception with the argument that if the believer has two natures, he then has dual personalities. But there is evidence to the contrary; did not our Lord Himself have a human nature and a divine nature, and who will dispute, in one person. Why then is it so hard to believe the same could be true of us, and indeed it is, albeit our human nature has been tainted with sin. Soon after we are saved we realize that there is an inner conflict within our members, as the flesh (old man) lusts against the spirit (new man), “and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” (Gal. 5:17).

Advocates of one-naturism deny that this warfare is present within us, stating that those who believe there is a conflict between the old and new natures are admitting defeat. This, they say, is why these believers struggle in the Christian life and tend to be carnally minded. We disagree, of course, on two fronts: first, this is contrary to the Scriptures, and second, it denies experience.

“Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God” (Rom. 6:12,13).

In essence, the apostle is instructing us not to allow the sin nature to have dominion over us. You are dead to sin, positionally, therefore you should not obey the lust of the flesh. Neither yield your members as instruments (Greek hoplon, weapons) of sin against God. Rather, yield yourself to God, put yourself at His disposal, bearing in mind that you are alive from the dead by the resurrection of Christ. Yield your members as weapons of righteousness to the praise of His glory. Surely this portion demonstrates that there is a warfare within our members (See also Romans 7:14-25). This inner struggle may be illustrated accordingly:

The conflict between the two natures may be compared to a ship, on which a new Captain has been put on board by the owners. The old Captain has so long held command, and his enmity to the owners is so great, that he has practically treated the vessel as his own; and kept the crew in perfect bondage. The crew has submitted to it, never having known any other authority, or understood what real liberty of service was. From time to time they have heard of it; they have passed other vessels which they saw at once were very different from their own.

But, now that the new Captain is in authority they begin to find out what the difference is. The new Captain henceforth always has control of the helm and the charge of the ship. The ship is the same, the crew is the same. Even the old Captain remains on board. The book of instructions which the new Captain has brought on board tells that the old Captain has been judged and condemned: but the sentence cannot be executed except by the proper judicial authorities, when they reach port.

They cannot put him ashore, or throw him overboard. But, he no longer “holds the helm or guides the ship.” He tries from time to time to get hold of the wheel, but in vain. He succeeds sometimes in putting forth his old influence by creating disaffection in some of the members of the crew; for he knows them and their weaknesses well from his former complete control of them. He occasionally bribes or deceives some of them into acts of insubordination which they afterwards deeply regret. But the old Captain cannot get at the “ship’s papers.” They are now put quite out of his reach, where he cannot touch them. He cannot succeed in altering the ship’s course, or change the port for which she is now bound. He does not read the book of instructions; and if he looks at it, he does not understand it (I Cor. 2:14).

The ship’s crew was once his executive, and carried out only his will; but there is now no obligation for any of them to obey his orders, or to recognize his authority. They are released from it; and henceforth they are under the orders of the new Commander. They are to “reckon” the old Captain as already condemned; and the sentence as only waiting to be carried out. As to his power over them, they are to reckon themselves “as good as dead” so far as he is concerned. (The Two Natures in the Child of God, E.W. Bullinger, D.D., published by Bible Doctrines to Live By, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Pages 26,27.)

“Seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him” (Col. 3:9,10).

It is essential to note that the verbs in this passage “put off” and “put on” are past tense in the original language, as well as in the English. The Colossians were to understand that God has addressed the matter once-for-all in the life of the believer. Now the apostle says, you need to put into practice what you already know to be true. Believe it and apply it!
Suggestion:

Have you ever heard of my Pastor Teacher - R.B. Thieme, Jr?

He exegeted from the Greek and Hebrew all the time.

But, just citing a Greek tense is not good here unless we are also simultaneously taught what the Greek tenses actually mean, rather than just citing what the tense is.
 
Suggestion:

Have you ever heard of my Pastor Teacher - R.B. Thieme, Jr?

He exegeted from the Greek and Hebrew all the time.

But, just citing a Greek tense is not good here unless we are also simultaneously taught what the Greek tenses actually mean, rather than just citing what the tense is.
No-haven't heard from him @GeneZ -this is how I study.

Joh 1:18 ΘεὸνG2316|N-ASM|God οὐδεὶςG3762|A-NSM|no one ἑώρακενG3708|G5758|V-RAI-3S|has seen πώποτεG4455|ADV|ever yet; μονογενὴςG3439|A-NSM|[the] only begotten ΘεὸςG2316|N-NSM|God, ὁG3588|T-NSM|the [One] ὢνG1510|G5723|V-PAP-NSM|being εἰςG1519|PREP|in τὸνG3588|T-ASM|the κόλπονG2859|N-ASM|bosom τοῦG3588|T-GSM|of the ΠατρὸςG3962|N-GSM|Father, ἐκεῖνοςG1565|D-NSM|He ἐξηγήσατοG1834|G5662|V-ADI-3S|has made [Him] known.

So I concur-we need to know the Greek Tenses and Morphologies and not just word studies. Does it make sense? Since I am tired I might have misread your suggestion.
Some are mature and others not-so we cater God's message so that a child can understand it-although not
compromising the message itself and since God has gifted you with talents and others, we make use of it and redeem the little time we have.
But I don't want to derail your thread.
Shalom.
 
Last edited:
No-haven't heard from him @GeneZ -this is how I study.

Joh 1:18 ΘεὸνG2316|N-ASM|God οὐδεὶςG3762|A-NSM|no one ἑώρακενG3708|G5758|V-RAI-3S|has seen πώποτεG4455|ADV|ever yet; μονογενὴςG3439|A-NSM|[the] only begotten ΘεὸςG2316|N-NSM|God, ὁG3588|T-NSM|the [One] ὢνG1510|G5723|V-PAP-NSM|being εἰςG1519|PREP|in τὸνG3588|T-ASM|the κόλπονG2859|N-ASM|bosom τοῦG3588|T-GSM|of the ΠατρὸςG3962|N-GSM|Father, ἐκεῖνοςG1565|D-NSM|He ἐξηγήσατοG1834|G5662|V-ADI-3S|has made [Him] known.

So I concur-we need to know the Greek Tenses and Morphologies and not just word studies. Does it make sense? Since I am tired I might have misread your suggestion.
Some are mature and others not-so we cater God's message so that a child can understand it-although not
compromising the message itself and since God has gifted you with talents and others, we make use of it and redeem the little time we have.
But I don't want to derail your thread.
Shalom.
You're fine. I was just think that you would adore my pastor's teaching. It would put meat on the bones .....
 
I realize that in the way I presented the OP of this thread, that it could been taken in other ways than what I intended...

So? I wish to present a different perspective using the same passage, to see what thoughts some here may have,,,

This was the main verse I used....
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship
with the Father, has made him known.[He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen;
He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known]. John 1:18​

I wish to ask a question.

If there were no Son of God who is both human nature and God in union?
Could we know God?

If so? How?
If not? Why?

Here it is again .....

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship
with the Father, has made him known.[He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen;
He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known]. John 1:18​


grace and peace ...........
 
Though often taught from the pulpit and widely accepted within Christianity, there is a common misnomer that God cannot look upon sin.
Would the fact that the Father, in a sense, turned away from his Son at Calvary? Not because God couldn't look upon sin, but because it was necessary for Jesus to die alone in order to meet the requirements of the law. A death without hope, a death without the promise of resurrection to life. The second death in other words. Jesus had to die the death that all men would die except they repent. Interestingly, and not many people I have known have addressed this, but Jesus didn't need to suffer eternal torment in order to effect redemption. Why is that? After all, we know He paid the full ransom. Right down to the last drop. Satan cannot charge God with cheating. Jesus took the absolute full punishment we deserve, that we might have the full life that He deserves. So then, what of ECT? What happened to that? Or wasn't it there to begin with?
 
So then, what of ECT? What happened to that? Or wasn't it there to begin with?

The same accusation can be leveled back at annihiliationists, because to take a 1 to 1 justice equivalence, Jesus would need to be completely annihilated for our sins—forever.

But with ECT we do have a logical solution with an infinite being taking in finite time, what a finite being takes for infinite time—there is no logical contradiction with this.
 
Would the fact that the Father, in a sense, turned away from his Son at Calvary? Not because God couldn't look upon sin, but because it was necessary for Jesus to die alone in order to meet the requirements of the law. A death without hope, a death without the promise of resurrection to life. The second death in other words. Jesus had to die the death that all men would die except they repent. Interestingly, and not many people I have known have addressed this, but Jesus didn't need to suffer eternal torment in order to effect redemption. Why is that? After all, we know He paid the full ransom. Right down to the last drop. Satan cannot charge God with cheating. Jesus took the absolute full punishment we deserve, that we might have the full life that He deserves. So then, what of ECT? What happened to that? Or wasn't it there to begin with?

An irony is? .... If God could not look upon sin (as many assume it should mean?)

Then God would have not have been able to know our personal sins as to pour on the body of Jesus so we could be saved.

God can not be one with sin. God can not fellowship with someone walking in sin.

But, God can sure as all heck see when we sin. For He must in order to discipline us as sons.
 
Where in the law does Jesus have to die alone to meet the laws requirements ?
Would we not have to die alone except we repent? Who would hold your hand as you stand before the Father in judgement? Who would accept responsibility for your transgressions and take the punishment required by the law in your place? No man can do this. But the Son of God, in the form of flesh in your place, stands guilty before the Father because you have repented of all your sin. The wages of sin is death. Therein is the just requirement of the law. A death from which there is no resurrection... The second death. All must die the first death, unless in exceptional circumstances, yet we must accept death to self in order to qualify for redemption and discipleship, and thus be born again. Annihilation is simply death without resurrection, and the destruction of the body when Jesus prepares the new earth for recreation.
But with ECT we do have a logical solution with an infinite being taking in finite time, what a finite being takes for infinite time—there is no logical contradiction with this.
Philosophical reasoning and human illogic. Sorry, but it's nonsense.
The same accusation can be leveled back at annihiliationists, because to take a 1 to 1 justice equivalence, Jesus would need to be completely annihilated for our sins—forever.
He died in our place. He did not sin Himself, therefore death could not hold Him. Thus, resurrection. If He has sinned, there would be no resurrection, He would have remained in the grave and be dust forever.
 
Would we not have to die alone except we repent? Who would hold your hand as you stand before the Father in judgement? Who would accept responsibility for your transgressions and take the punishment required by the law in your place? No man can do this. But the Son of God, in the form of flesh in your place, stands guilty before the Father because you have repented of all your sin. The wages of sin is death. Therein is the just requirement of the law. A death from which there is no resurrection... The second death. All must die the first death, unless in exceptional circumstances, yet we must accept death to self in order to qualify for redemption and discipleship, and thus be born again. Annihilation is simply death without resurrection, and the destruction of the body when Jesus prepares the new earth for recreation.

Philosophical reasoning and human illogic. Sorry, but it's nonsense.

He died in our place. He did not sin Himself, therefore death could not hold Him. Thus, resurrection. If He has sinned, there would be no resurrection, He would have remained in the grave and be dust forever.
You said the following so where is any verse that even hints at this ?

“But the Son of God, in the form of flesh in your place, stands guilty before the Father”
 
Back
Top Bottom