Inseparable whole

The sufferings of Our Lord, which culminated in His death upon the cross, seem to have been conceived of as one inseparable whole from a very early period. Even in the Acts of the Apostles (i, 3) St. Luke speaks of those to whom "shewed himself alive after his passion" (meta to mathein autou). In the Vulgate this has been rendered post passionem suam, and not only the Reims Testament but the Anglican Authorized and Revised Versions, as well as the medieval English translation attributed to Wyclif, have retained the word "passion" in English. Passio also meets us in the same sense in other early writings (e.g. Tertullian, "Adv. Marcion.", IV, 40) and the word was clearly in common use in the middle of the third century, as in Cyprian, Novatian, and Commodian. The last named writes:

"Hoc Deus hortatur, hoc lex, hoc passio Christi
Ut resurrecturos nos credamus in novo sæclo."

St. Paul declared, and we require no further evidence to convince us that he spoke truly, that Christ crucified was "unto the Jews indeed a stumbling-block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness" (1 Corinthians 1:23). The shock to Pagan feeling, caused by the ignominy of Christ's Passion and the seeming incompatibility of the Divine nature with a felon's death, seems not to have been without its effect upon the thought of Christians themselves.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My question is on the first sentence of the above.

.....as one inseparable whole from a very early period.

Is it grammatical to say 'one inseparable whole' ?

It would be correct to say 'His death on the cross seem to have been conceived as ....

I can't fathom out to say that 'it conceived as one inseparable whole'.