M
Michael19682
Guest
The quick fix is that it is a mystery we cannot comprehend until we face physical death.
There are also odd facts here and there which can be pieced together to form a proof that contradicts the assertion which goes against the traditional belief in his absolute death.
Look at adam, his deep sleep, his rib, then eve’s creation. the new testament uses sleep and great sleep for death. It draws attention to the question of what it means to be dead. pumping heart, and having breath make us think of life. so the only distinction between a dead person and a living person is animation (not to mention subsequent decomposition). Jesus lost animation. He was said to be dead. God breathed into adam and thus he was alive. The relevant point here, and it is simply my opinion, is that God held back the fullness of life from adam and hence also from his derivative, eve. If God had breathed full life into adam, then adam could not have sinned because God who is love cannot sin. In other words, adam would have been equivalent to Jesus. Since all men and women derive from these two, from whom God withheld his spirit (selfless love) but not his gift (life), they were not truly born. The generations thereafter can be said to be mere derivatives of adam. Their deaths are not true death, but a simple return to dust.
Jesus was the first person ever born at birth because he was conceived by this power, which is true birth and cannot be called derivation. God is derived from no one.
Since the human form is sacred above all creation, and since the blood and breath together distribute and bring in the yet to be assimilated parts of creation, they are in material transition to higher formation. They will become body. What doesn’t is expelled from the body and as Jesus says is no real offense to anyone. (This in effect reveals the arrogance of dietary rules, which, though given as an ancillary command, became presumably an obstacle to assimilation of the gentiles into God’s covenant. Because these rules were misinterpreted to mean that parts of creation are not good, whereas clearly God saw what he made and that it was good; the point is not that certain foods are unhealthy, but that preoccupation and judgment of others on the basis of diet generalizes to arrogance because what a person eats is assimilated into the sacred human form. Jesus says that it is what comes from the heart that offends. So he also defends his people’s tradition. Dietary rules can presumably be approached without offense.)
Thus when Jesus breathed his last and his blood was spilled, and even the water from his side was spilled, it looks like he was the sacred human form again with no possible further assimilation of material creation.
From the logical standpoint, the line between death and life is blurred. The eye contains liquid, but Jesus had already said it is the lamp of the body, perhaps as a means of imparting hope. The new body is light, and if light is in the eye itself, the new body has some continuity with the old body. (Jesus cured the blind man by a compound of his own spittle fluid and mud).
But Jesus takes the problem to its most significant level. He says that his words are spirit and life. By the time of his death and last breath, he had said all he would say of his impending resurrection. The only difference between him and others (on that point) is that he knew he would rise on the third day whereas the others for whom life was all about the body, new and old, this fact could only be apprehended by sight. Thomas, for example, was blinded by his own doubt .
As I see this, Jesus therefore died to the world (that’s us!) in that no one could have known he would rise. Faith in his resurrection, yes. But not knowledge, which by definition requires the passage of time to cure. Yet he remained alive in God not only because of his knowledge, but because of his words. If his resurrection is a word, then it was spoken somehow, and those who speak are not dead. So it cannot be said that he died on account of his speaking of with his death. He used his death, therefore, to communicate the message of life. His death, therefore, is his our eternal life.
He then lived normally among the people, including eating with them, for some time. If he reintroduced material creation to his body of light, by eating, then there is proof that eating alone cannot signify a body which has never died – since he ate and had died. This blurs the line again between life and death. The only thing therefore that should prevent someone from knowing (in this instant) that this life is not heaven is having no memory of death. (that is psychologically sound reason to baptize infants, who will not remember it). Even if a person remembers his death as “the hour [he] first believed”, it need not spoil the teachings of Jesus insofar as enjoyment of life is concerned. The reason is NOT because we see others die! Let the dead bury their dead, as he said. I believe it is because my death should be like something spoken, and hence there should be some control over it. Since you cannot baptize yourself, your death is not (or was not) under your control.
Even if you were to die outside of baptism, and do so intentionally, say, by falling into a ravine, you should remember it clearly.
Some might object by saying that if Jesus never died, then why did he say he would be put to death. The answer is easy to formulate. He spoke to them in words they could understand. Some might argue that this would make him condescending, or worse, a liar which is not possible. In fact, just the opposite is true. If he had spoken of his death as if it were nothing at all, he would have implied that they were released upon hearing and seeing him from the punishment God imposed on their progenitors, toil in fields and pain of childbirth (and enmity between she and the serpent).
There are also odd facts here and there which can be pieced together to form a proof that contradicts the assertion which goes against the traditional belief in his absolute death.
Look at adam, his deep sleep, his rib, then eve’s creation. the new testament uses sleep and great sleep for death. It draws attention to the question of what it means to be dead. pumping heart, and having breath make us think of life. so the only distinction between a dead person and a living person is animation (not to mention subsequent decomposition). Jesus lost animation. He was said to be dead. God breathed into adam and thus he was alive. The relevant point here, and it is simply my opinion, is that God held back the fullness of life from adam and hence also from his derivative, eve. If God had breathed full life into adam, then adam could not have sinned because God who is love cannot sin. In other words, adam would have been equivalent to Jesus. Since all men and women derive from these two, from whom God withheld his spirit (selfless love) but not his gift (life), they were not truly born. The generations thereafter can be said to be mere derivatives of adam. Their deaths are not true death, but a simple return to dust.
Jesus was the first person ever born at birth because he was conceived by this power, which is true birth and cannot be called derivation. God is derived from no one.
Since the human form is sacred above all creation, and since the blood and breath together distribute and bring in the yet to be assimilated parts of creation, they are in material transition to higher formation. They will become body. What doesn’t is expelled from the body and as Jesus says is no real offense to anyone. (This in effect reveals the arrogance of dietary rules, which, though given as an ancillary command, became presumably an obstacle to assimilation of the gentiles into God’s covenant. Because these rules were misinterpreted to mean that parts of creation are not good, whereas clearly God saw what he made and that it was good; the point is not that certain foods are unhealthy, but that preoccupation and judgment of others on the basis of diet generalizes to arrogance because what a person eats is assimilated into the sacred human form. Jesus says that it is what comes from the heart that offends. So he also defends his people’s tradition. Dietary rules can presumably be approached without offense.)
Thus when Jesus breathed his last and his blood was spilled, and even the water from his side was spilled, it looks like he was the sacred human form again with no possible further assimilation of material creation.
From the logical standpoint, the line between death and life is blurred. The eye contains liquid, but Jesus had already said it is the lamp of the body, perhaps as a means of imparting hope. The new body is light, and if light is in the eye itself, the new body has some continuity with the old body. (Jesus cured the blind man by a compound of his own spittle fluid and mud).
But Jesus takes the problem to its most significant level. He says that his words are spirit and life. By the time of his death and last breath, he had said all he would say of his impending resurrection. The only difference between him and others (on that point) is that he knew he would rise on the third day whereas the others for whom life was all about the body, new and old, this fact could only be apprehended by sight. Thomas, for example, was blinded by his own doubt .
As I see this, Jesus therefore died to the world (that’s us!) in that no one could have known he would rise. Faith in his resurrection, yes. But not knowledge, which by definition requires the passage of time to cure. Yet he remained alive in God not only because of his knowledge, but because of his words. If his resurrection is a word, then it was spoken somehow, and those who speak are not dead. So it cannot be said that he died on account of his speaking of with his death. He used his death, therefore, to communicate the message of life. His death, therefore, is his our eternal life.
He then lived normally among the people, including eating with them, for some time. If he reintroduced material creation to his body of light, by eating, then there is proof that eating alone cannot signify a body which has never died – since he ate and had died. This blurs the line again between life and death. The only thing therefore that should prevent someone from knowing (in this instant) that this life is not heaven is having no memory of death. (that is psychologically sound reason to baptize infants, who will not remember it). Even if a person remembers his death as “the hour [he] first believed”, it need not spoil the teachings of Jesus insofar as enjoyment of life is concerned. The reason is NOT because we see others die! Let the dead bury their dead, as he said. I believe it is because my death should be like something spoken, and hence there should be some control over it. Since you cannot baptize yourself, your death is not (or was not) under your control.
Even if you were to die outside of baptism, and do so intentionally, say, by falling into a ravine, you should remember it clearly.
Some might object by saying that if Jesus never died, then why did he say he would be put to death. The answer is easy to formulate. He spoke to them in words they could understand. Some might argue that this would make him condescending, or worse, a liar which is not possible. In fact, just the opposite is true. If he had spoken of his death as if it were nothing at all, he would have implied that they were released upon hearing and seeing him from the punishment God imposed on their progenitors, toil in fields and pain of childbirth (and enmity between she and the serpent).