A Human Sacrifice that Saves Those Under the Law by the Shed Blood of the Son of God

No, that is not correct (in terms of Scripture alone anyway).

Scripture only speaks of two natures - that which is flesh and that which is spirit. The flesh brings forth flesh and the spirit brings forth spirit. The flesh dies, but Christ became a life giving Spirit.

I am not interested in getting into a philosophical discussion at this time. But thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

 

Scripture speaks only of two natures- the "spirit" and the "flesh". To be our Christ Jesus had to be both.

 

I see what you are saying, but you seem to be making assumptions not present in Scripture. The point of Christ coming in "corruptible flesh", of God sending Him in the likeness of "sinful flesh" is that He shared in our nature (the flesh), yet without sin. That is Scripture - two natures, flesh and spirit.

I appreciate your willingness to share your view, but I lost interest in the philosophical arguments years ago.

 

Scripture only speaks of two natures - the "flesh" and the "spirit". The flesh begets flesh, the spirit begets spirit. The Logos became flesh. Jesus became a life giving spirit.

At one time I would have enjoyed the philosophical arguments about a hypothetical third nature. I find, however, that as I grow older I am less inclined to such musings. So I stick to Scripture's offering of "flesh" and "spirit", knowing there are much cooler ideas out there.

 

I see God as sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and becoming man He was tempted as we are yet without sin. The Bible teaches that there are two natures - that which is of the flesh and that which is of the spirit. That's good enough for me.

But I do understand why it is not good enough for others. It's just that the older I get the less I appreciate the wisdom of man when it comes to these things. I am content to rest in what I know is true (that Jesus became flesh and shared in the same humanity to which I was born so that I could be born of the Spirit) because Scripture says it is true, without relying on hypothetical ideas (like a second human nature that is of the flesh) or philosophical reasonings (like how sin is a physical issue passed down genetically). Those things just don't interest me.

 

I see God as sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh like us so that we can be spiritually reborn in His likeness. Scripture only speaks of these two natures (the "flesh" and the "spirit"). Insofar as your hypothetical third nature, I don't see it either way; I am trying to stay away from vain philosophies.

 

Jesus came in the flesh just like we are - "corruptible" flesh (hence He would not have lived forever had He not been murdered/laid down His life). He was tempted in the flesh just as we are. He didn't sin. Those are the biblical facts. Insofar as what you may or may not do with those facts, I'm not interested. When I was younger I found various theological traditions important, but as I get older I see them more as a distraction and much too often as a tweaking of Scripture to bend it to itself. I'm simply not interested in philosophical arguments. Scripture says there are two natures - the "flesh" and the "spirit". That's enough for me.

 

I am not exactly sure that you understand what I am trying to communicate. We can ask questions, such as how can God be hungry, or feel pain, or cry for His friends. These are philosophical musings. Scripture simply tells us that Jesus is God and that Jesus hungered, suffered, and cried for His friends. Likewise Scripture teaches us that there are two natures - the flesh and the spirit. The Logos (Jesus) was at one time not flesh, but He became flesh and dwelt among men. Two natures: 1) Flesh 2) Spirit. Anything other than this is an addition to Scripture - it is hypothetical. (Like if God is all powerful surely He could create a square circle). I am not interested in discussing the hypothetical (I am not interested in square circles or additional natures philosophy may ascribe to man). At one time I loved philosophy. Now I only like it when applied to sarcasm.

That said, I don't begrudge you your ideas nor your freedom to share them here. I just have no desire to play in that playground. The older I get the more think Scripture takes priority and the more I believe it is complete in and of itself.

 

Jesus was included in the category of "us" so that we could be included in the category of "Him".