Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmer G. White
|
I have a question about His innards. Although Jesus consumed victuals, The Bible explains that they weren't really necessary:
John 4:32-34a But [Jesus] said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me
Does God's work require animalcules (whether in the gut or otherwise) such as leprosy, typhus, Mycoplasma pneumoniae
or. genitalium, polio and such like to eradicate sin? Death results from sin and various theories proclaim microbes as the cause. If Christ was without sin then surely He'd be without microbes? There'd be no sin for them to mediate, no need for an immune system and no mechanism for corruption of the flesh.
II Kings 13:14a, 20-21 Now Elisha was fallen sick of his sickness whereof he died.….And Elisha died, and they buried him. And the bands of the Moabites invaded the land at the coming in of the year. And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.
Here we see that although God's revivifying authority is mediated through the bones of a deceased person (whom they did not revive) the gut bacteria were operating as was whatever killed Elisha. Now, in the Age of Grace, so-called "relics-of-saints" have no effect (except for demonic manifestations) because The Holy Spirit is active in the world. Yet those bones revived a corpse and Jesus was a corpse without bacteria (if bacteria, which kill us, are caused by sin) so if Jesus was without bacteria, would He have been consumed?
Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Did Christ have microbes?