1. Anguish of body is not necessarily the same as anguish of spirit. Christ’s anguish resulted in bodily phenomena, such as blood coming through his pores. But the anguish he suffered was not mere physical agony. It was something more. Not quite the same as physical anguish, not quite the same as mental anguish. It was suffering of spirit. It’s something I don’t fully grasp, but it seems to be outside the bounds of physical limitations.

2. Christ’s body was not the same as other men’s. No ordinary human being could fast for 40 days and 40 nights without dying. No ordinary human would have to CHOOSE to render up his spirit as Christ did. Since this is the case, we can’t assume that his capacity for physical suffering was the same as that of an ordinary man.

“Add…in the left direction” is meaningless. Adding in the negative direction isn’t adding, it’s subtracting—unless you mean adding a negative number, which is the same thing. Either way, it doesn’t alter the fact that a number to the left of 27 is, by the very mathematical definition of “less,” less than 27.

You seem to be denying that a number further in the negative direction of the “number line” is “less than” a number that is further in the positive direction. If you deny this, then there can be no meaningful definition at all of “lower” or “less than” or “higher” or “greater than.”

As to the second part, did you not even read what I already wrote above? Yes—Jesus’ resurrection was for “all men on our world.” But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t also for someone else.

Exactly my point. And using the above examples, 14 extends in only one direction from 27 on a number line, and in order to get to it you need to add 13 to 27 in the left direction.

“Fourteen is ALWAYS less than 27”

Fourteen is only less if you are quantifying objects, or if you define moving in the negative direction as being less (despite the fact that you have to add to get to ‘lower’ number in that direction).

“The definition can be exactly the same in both occurrences in 1 Cor. 15:22.”

Which is precisely my point, and which is why I said that your comment “Adam’s designation as the first of all men may simply mean first of all men on our world” must also be applied to Jesus. If this supposition is true, then it must also be true that Jesus’ resurrection was for “all men on our world”.

Numbers are expressed as points on a “number line.” The line extends infinitely in both directions, yes. But “greater than” means extending only in one direction from a given point. The infinite set of whole numbers greater than 27 NEVER includes 27, 26, 25, 24, and so on, because those numbers are on the “other side” of the limit of 27. If you don’t accept that definitional limit of “greater than,” then you can’t meaningfully discuss addition, subtraction, or negativity and positivity of numbers. You also can’t have a zero.

So when you’re discussing a set of numbers that is “greater than” any given number, you aren’t considering “both directions.” You’re considering only those numbers that extend in the positive direction, away from the given number. The set of whole numbers greater than 27 is an infinitely large set; it has no end. But it does have a lower limit: It excludes every number extending in the negative direction (usually shown as left on a graphic representation of a number line) from 27.

Fourteen is ALWAYS less than 27, because it is always further in negative direction of the number line than 27.

“It’s only a non sequitur if you are using separate definitions for each occurrence of “all” in that verse.”

Wrong. The definition can be exactly the same in both occurrences in 1 Cor. 15:22. Let’s render it this way: “Because of Adam’s fall, everyone on earth is subject to death, but because of Christ’s resurrection, everyone on earth is freed from death.” Now, does that statement limit Christ’s resurrection to ONLY those on earth? No. It’s like saying, “Everyone on my block is a Mormon.” That doesn’t mean that everyone who’s a Mormon lives on my block. Everyone on Earth is freed from death by Christ’s resurrection. That doesn’t mean that everyone who’s freed by Christ’s resurrection lives on Earth.

As for the definition of infinity, interestingly my dictionary here includes “very great or many”. So it would seem we could argue semantics, but it’s probably impossible to know exactly what the prophets meant when they used the word that was later translated into the English word “infinite”. Thus, since we can’t really establish the exact definition of the word here, it seems kind of meaninless to debate over WHAT the word is referring to (ie number of people vs amount of time).

However, if we are to believe God ensured that the BOM was translated in a manner that would sufficiently inform us of what we need to know, I can only assume that once again, the term infinite is simply a reassurance to us that it does not really matter how many sins are commited by how many people. In other words, “infinite” in this case, refers to the POWER of the atonement to redeem being boundless, but not necessarily the amount of souls involved or the amount of time involved.

“when he acheived the perfection he now posesses, he became free from the constraints of time”

Yes, but God was NOT freed from the constraints of time before achieving perfection, and how can he achieve that perfection, (the prerequisite to the freedom from the constraints of time) without having an already existing Saviour? It is indeed a paradox. The paradox may not disprove you theory, but I see no reason to accept such a convoluted concept if there are other plausable options to choose from.

I still don’t see how you are more comfortable with the idea that previous Gods could be redeemed, resurrected and exalted BEFORE any savior had fulfilled justice or been resurrected. Do you really favor this concept, or you just having fun arguing that it’s possible?