Did Jesus decompose?

[tackattack]

@Gae Bolga I agree the camps representing both visions of Christ were very much distinct from each other, but they ended up getting grafted together in the fullness of time due to compelling interests. I just disagree with your interests. Marcionites, Gnostics and even Ebionites are all still pretty heretical today. Can't we take good from the bad? We do this every day. A lot of the best lies contain truth, and those groups methodology was to reject certain scripture. I believe there are differing denominations by design. Each part preserving some truth but none grasping the whole. It's the denominations that reject scriptures and focus on what divides us that give a poor name to the word Christian.

I wasn't trying to understand the wrong phenomena. I was attempting to explain a presumed paradox you establised

---

If jesus were incapable of sinning then the temptation of christ, a narrative that the authors saw important enough to include in matthew, mark, and luke, would be reduced to contrived drama. In a similar vein, if jesus were not fully human his sacrificial value would be diminished. He had to suffer.

OFC any paradox can be conceptually resolved by simply affirming one side or the other..but in the case of christology the issue becomes the theological equivalent of a hydra. You chop off one head, two more appear. This intractability is why the proto-christian authorities punted on the issue and decided to include two contradictory camps, declaring it a "mystery".

You're not supposed to be able to resolve it, and any attempt -to- resolve it erodes some other christological concept.

---

The fact that your moving the goalposts now to say it's not that they are paradoxical but because "there is no resolution to that because there was no christ" and then moving on to why and how the belief solidified in a newly formed body of believers is a minor point (and a bit disingenuous, IMO) but it was my main one. I wouldn't deny that people fuddled with understanding the Creator's nature during the foundation of what we now call Christianity. I also won't claim that we all have it all right 2000 years later. My only point, and the only reason I stepped into another's conversation, was to say that the 2 natures aren't paradoxical.