What is a "perfect genome?"

But those do not constitute indignity!

Of course it’s appropriate – those wounds are His glory; they declare just Who He is! That’s a chunk of why the ancient church along with much of the modern church looked at the Crucifixion as Christ’s coronation, even His enthronement. Those are, as the old hymns say, His trophies, His strength –

Crown him the Virgin’s Son!
The God Incarnate born,–
Whose arm those crimson trophies won
> Which now his brow adorn!
Fruit of the mystic Rose
As of that Rose the Stem:
The Root, whence mercy ever flows,–
The Babe of Bethlehem!

Crown Him the Lord of Love:
Behold His hands and side;
> Rich wounds yet visible above
> In beauty glorified:
No angel in the sky
Can fully bear that sight,
But downward bends his burning eye
At mysteries so bright.

What He earned on the Cross in time He bears triumphant in eternity.

We, you and I, respectfully disagree. The hymn is lovely, but falls short of proof f what it alleges. Christ’s glory is in the blood and life shed on the cross. But when he ascends to the Father.

NIV John 20:17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

How does one interpret eating fish and being touched by Thomas. with this passage?

We eat and drink Jesus’ flesh and blood continually throughout our lives. I find it simpler to understand Jesus returned to his full godhead original state, rather than remain in an imperfect body.

He never left it.

Why would it be an imperfect body?

You seem to be doing the kind of thinking that led to the idea of Mary as ever-Virgin, that it’s just “more fitting”. Being in His own human body is perfect. His wounds declare what it means to be God! Thomas Aquinas initially made the same error, writing that it wasn’t fitting for Christ to still have His wounds when He rose again – but noted He did anyway, as something to ponder later. Those wounds are the badge of victory, not a sign of defeat, the badge of triumph, not of something gone wrong. They are not flaws, they were chosen!

Do they show vulnerability? Of course they do – choosing the Cross was choosing the ultimate vulnerability; God died on that Cross, turning death from darkness to light! Jesus showed us that to be God means to be vulnerable, and as John in the Apocalypse tells us that we worship a Lamb that has been slain.

Those wounds proclaim that here is the Crucified One, whose death overturned death and made it a path to life. They are an occasion for praise not just now but in eternity.

1 Like

Because it uses DNA and needs sleep, food, air, water, and much more.

Your argument is imprecise enough to apply in both directions.

What I hear is an elevation of physical evidence to a level of importance that has already been satisfied in the realm of spirit.

So?

Why? He was able to show up in rooms without using a door.

But it wasn’t “satisfied in the realm of spirit”, it was satisfied in the physical realm, the blood of the Incarnate Logos shed on the Cross.

The Incarnation wasn’t a sort of fling the Second Person of the Trinity went on, He didn’t just sort of dress up in human clothes –

the WORD

BECAME

FLESH.

Through God the Son, the Trinity has been eternally united with humanity. He didn’t leave His human nature behind when He ascended, He took it along because what He entered into was and remains a union of substances.

Why would He throw away the marks of victory?

wink

It appears his body after resurrection was what it needed to be. St. Roymond mentioned the ability to appear in locked rooms, but also it must have had a different appearance on the road to Emmaus. Guys being guys, perhaps they would not have noticed the dude next to them had big holes in his hands, but you would think they would have noted his voice and face along the way were it not different. And then the vanishing thing again. And perhaps even at breakfast on the shore of Galilee, Jesus’ appearance seemed to be a little hard for the disciples to determine at first.

1 Like

Rule of thumb: a text without a context is a pretext for a proof text
That said, the writer of Hebrews mentions in passing (Hebrews 5:7 ESV)

In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.

That writer, whether or not the apostle Paul, felt it unlikely that the Son retained Christ’s flesh after going up into Heaven.

Sorry, but–

For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.

This is the beginning of that passage about Christ, and it includes Him among “every high priest chosen from among men”, since He “offer[ed] gifts and sacrifices for sins”.

He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness.

This is a qualification for being high priest: “he himself is beset with weakness”.

So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed…

Here we see that Christ was made high priest, and thus must fit the above qualifications.

he says also in another place,
“You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."

So we see that Christ remains a priest, and thus must retain the qualifications given. This is in accord with being “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek”, since Melchizedek was a man, and the high priest must be a man. Since Christ is high priest forever, He thus must remain a man. Thus

in the days of his flesh

cannot mean that He no longer has flesh, since that would mean He can no longer be high priest. Indeed we are told what this means:

when he offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death

The “days of His flesh” is “when He offered up prayers and supplications”, and when He did so “with strong crying and tears”, and in the time when He could suffer death. And in fact, when

he learned obedience through what he suffered.

Then the writer goes back to Melchizedek:

And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

“Being made perfect” refers back to verse four’s mention of Aaron; if we read in the Septuagint in Exodus about Aaron being made a priest we find that the same verb used here refers to a priest being ordained; in fact that is its meaning all through Exodus and Leviticus! So the writer here tells us that Jesus was ordained as high priest through His obedience in suffering, and reminds us that He is not just any priest, but a priest “after the order of Melchizedek”.

Thus “in the days of His flesh” is the time when He could suffer, when He was subject to death, when He was “beset by weakness”. It does not mean He no longer has flesh, since to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek requires being a man, and Christ is still a priest after the order of Melchizedek. In fact at the end of the next chapter, we find:

where a forerunner on our behalf has entered, namely Jesus, according to the order of Melchizedek…

It says that “a forerunner on our behalf”, one “according to the order of Melchizedek”, has entered ahead of us, and informs us that this forerunner is Jesus – and Jesus is a man, as He must be in order to be a priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

This should have been plain anyway; as the writer tells us,

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

If Christ were no longer human, how could He sympathize with our weaknesses? God cannot be tempted, yet He was tempted – and if not human, how could He remember what it was to be tempted?

The main theme of two chapters of Hebrews rests on the Second Person of the Trinity being Jesus, and Jesus is a man; the theme surfaces again in later chapters.

Jesus is Redeemer because He is both God and man; were He no longer man He would no longer be Redeemer, since a redeemer must be close kin to the parties involved. His human nature did not dissolve when He ascended, but is exalted on high and will be manifested again on this earth when He returns. He remains the Logos, and the Logos became flesh; He did not put on a man-suit but took human nature into Himself forever.

Thank you for this outlay of energy. But this one statement is merely assertion shaped to support a prior conviction.

interestingly the capacity for eternal life is not transmitted genetically but metaphysically :slight_smile:

No, it’s analysis of the vocabulary, the grammar, and the flow of thought.

You are presenting a Christ who is no longer Redeemer.

I hear conviction seeking confirmation, not the other way around.