Peter

Paul’s exposition of the remedy is that the solution lies in a death (and a rebirth). Jesus died on the cross as the representative of the last Adam. He rose from the dead as the representative of the new humanity. Our participation in this new humanity depends on a death, not a choice.

I agree with this absolutely. But the whole thrust of your statement here seems to rely upon Jesus being related to Adam, whilst being at the same time a forerunner of redeemed humanity. This is the point I’ve been trying to make all along. The texts you cited from Romans seem to affirm this. There is nothing there to say that Messiah had to be God to die for our sins.

It’s a reasonable inference from our experience and from the observation that God provided the sacrifice through himself in the form of His Son that sin is indeed something profoundly rooted in our human Adamic identity.

This is circular reasoning. You believe that our sins are something so profoundly rooted that only God could die for them, based upon your belief that it was God who died for our sins.

A further inference which seems to underlie many statements made in the discussion so far is that, if Jesus is not divine, then God sacrificed less. Clearly God created something and sacrificed it on the cross. We seem to be disagreement over what he or it was.

Either it was a body he had prepared for himself, occupying the place where the man’s personal centre would be. In which case, when God forsook the Son on the cross, all he did was shed a body and return to heaven.

Or else it was a complete man, the beloved Son of God. That being the case, the Son gave his all and the Father sacrificed much more than just the recently added and lowest part of himself.

"Unique normality"- apart from JAT Robinson, where in the bible are any of the concepts you propose in this paragraph substantiated?

Jesus’ uniqueness is based upon the fact that so far, he alone has lived out the righteousness, intimacy with God and spiritual maturity that will be the norm for humanity in the age to come.

He alone never sinned, neither will anyone in the new heavens and earth. The Father shared all his intimate counsel with the Son, showing him ‘all the things he does’, as he will with the rest of humanity when we see him face to face. He is unique today in that he is the lone prototype of what we all will be in the kingdom.

Your comments which I quoted at the beginning of this message chime in very well with this so I don’t understand why you object to it.

Were there two acts of creation in which the heavens and earth of Genesis preceded an act of creation of heavens and earth by Jesus?

Firstly, notice the wording here. "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth.” It is not the creation of heavens and earth that are in view here, but things in them. Paul then goes on to specify what they are: “visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all [these] things were created by him, and for him."

Next, notice the strong parallel between the list in this text and Ephesians 1:20-23, which I cited.

Jesus is due for some further promotion in the future (Psalm 110:1; Heb 2:8), which he will share with others (Luke 22:29-30; 2Tim 2:12). As a result of Jesus’ work, men will be elevated above angels (1 Cor 6:3; Heb 2:5). This is some sort of a cosmic shake-up which began with the ascension of Jesus to God’s right hand and will culminate in the creation of new (Or possibly renewed) heavens and earth, with Jesus as the agent through which God will do this. So what Paul was describing in Colossians 1:16 is the creation through Christ of a new governmental order and perhaps, by extension the new heavens and earth.

Ponder on John 19:7. To claim to be ‘Son of God’ is not a capital offence, in the traditional use of the term.

Son of God was a royal title in both Judea and Rome (2 Samuel 7:14; John 1:49). Surely this political connotation is preferable in the context of a deliberate attempt to arouse the wrath of a deputy of Caesar.

There is no law in Judaism against a man claiming to be God Almighty. Perhaps because such a though would not even have occurred to them. See Mars-Hill’s comments to this effect. I find his observation absolutely crucial to this discussion and have expanded on this point in my most recent post.

You also need to answer the criticisms I made of your interpretation of John 8 in the ‘I am …’ post. In the meantime, take a look at Hebrews 1:6, 8, 10. Any comments?

Please see the response, which I have finally posted and which also leads on to another thread.