Did jesus Come In the "Likeness" Or "Exactness" of Human Flesh?

[percho]

Is it OK to re-post for the new readers?

He came exactly as we are a living soul which is sinful flesh. However. God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: And he was was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.
Now the sin of the first man Adam brought death to all men even when sin is not imputed they still died for they were sinful flesh derived from the first man Adam, who was the figure of him that was to come. The Word made flesh. Jesus, the Word made made in the likeness of sinful flesh, a living soul
Phil. 2:7 but emptied himself. Emptied himself of what? How about life in himself? Eternal life? balance of Phil. 7,8 and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Heb. 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death. You cannot die if you have eternal life. Rom. 5:8 Christ died for us. John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. Is this glory eternal life, life in oneself and the Holy Spirit? John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; John 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth 1 Cor. 15:46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural;(the first Adam the figure and Jesus) and afterward (after the resurrection)that which is spiritual. V:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit, It was the Word made in the likeness of sinful flesh that died that was regenerated and given the Holy Spirit, renewed to his former glory. And it is by the washing of his regeneration that we shall be saved. Rom. 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death (washed in his blood) of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.(His regenerated life)

 

[revmwc]

Ok first, being born of a virgin would not prevent one from inheriting a sin nature, virgins are sinners just like everyone else. The Catholics recognized this, and so invented the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception that teaches by a special grace of God that Mary was born without original sin. See what happens when you invent one false doctrine? You have to invent another and another to cover problems that arise.

Jesus did share Mary's nature, the fact that he could be tempted proves this, as God cannot be tempted with evil (Jam 1:13).

Let's first take this and one by look at your theory.

"being born of a virgin would not prevent one from inheriting a sin nature" But you see it would look at 1 Tim. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
4 things seen here:
1. Adam being created first became the head of mankind and through him would come all the inhereitence for the children.
2. Adam (male) was not deceived he sinned willingly but the Eve (female) was deceived and therefore was part of the transgression.
3. Because the father passes the inheritence to the children then the earthly father would therefore pass on the old sin nature.
4. Since the woman was deceived and because she was not the head that passes down the inheritence then she could not pass down the Old Sin Nature to the child.

Therefore Jesus would not have inherited the Old Sin Nature from Mary and His father was God, the Old Sin Nature was bypassed in Him.

 

[revmwc]

Babies are difficult to explain for everyone. I believe the scriptures show babies innocent, having done neither good or evil. We see this with Esau and Jacob when they were in Rebecca's womb.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having DONE any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

So, babies are not sinners. Does this mean they do not need Christ? NO.

Babies need Christ for two reasons I believe. #1 they are under the curse God pronounced in Gen 3:17-19. This curse did pass on everyone, just as a careless bus driver who drives off a cliff and kills all the passengers on his bus. Sin has consequences that often affects others around us, thus the sin of the father visiting to the third and fourth generations. Bad (or good) decisions and sins we commit today affect our children, grandchildren, and even our great grandchildren. I live a good life in America today because of the decisions of my great great grandparents to come to America.

Babies are born in innocence, that doesn't mean they don't have an Old Sin Nature. The OSN doesn't codemn them nor us, it is rejection of Christ that condemns all.
Adam and Eve were not guilty of sin until they commited the act. When they came to the knowledge of good and evil, that was the tree they ate from. When they gained the knowledge of good and evil they became accountable for their rejection of God's standard. Just as children they aren't held accountable until they come to that realization. When does someone come to the point of accountablitiy, when they begin to realize good from evil, many arrive theri at 4 or 5 very rare but they do, others 6 to 8 but at some point they come to that knowledge and become accountable. So if they die before they come to the accountable stage they are not condemned to sepration from God. Adam and Eve weren't condemn until they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and therefore became accountable. God had to offer a sacrifice for them and promised a redeeemer would come. They believed in the redeemer to come for salvation.

 

[revmwc]

I just can't accept that Jesus has a sin nature. I do not like that term, it is never mentioned in scripture even once. The scriptures say we are flesh, and that Jesus is come in the flesh.

I don't like to say we have a propensity to sin either. I rather believe we are weak, or easily tempted. Remember when the disciples could not stay awake and pray they not enter into temptation? Jesus said their spirit was indeed willing, but the flesh was weak.

And Adam and Eve prove you do not have to have a sin nature to sin, they were created very good, yet both were easily tempted and sinned. They were flesh, and they were weak.

If they lived in a pure world yet were so easily tempted and sinned, is it any wonder that we who are born into a very wicked world are easily tempted and sin?

And in my view, this is what David meant when he said he was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did his mother conceive him. He was speaking of being born into a sinful world. I have read that this is exactly what the ancient Jews interpreted this verse to mean.

The bible does say we have a nture to sin,
Ephesians 2: 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

Notice the bolded print I put on verse 3.
I have explained in depth how the Old sin Nature would not have passed to Christ in previous post. Verse 3 says we were by nature the children of rath, so if not and Old Sin Nature then what nature would that be?

 

[Winman]

Those verses do not say we were BORN with a sin nature, it says we walked in them, had our conversation in them. That is performance.

Were Adam and Eve created with a sin nature? No. Could they be tempted and sin? Yes. Did they have a sin nature afterward? Yes.

I believe that actually committing sin is what causes us to have a sin nature. Once you sin, it is easier to sin again. Jesus said those who sin are the servants of sin, he did not say we sin because we are servants to sin. Read and see.

Was Satan created evil? No. Did he have an evil nature after he sinned? Yes.

The problem with saying the sin nature is only passed by the father is that it does not explain how Jesus could be tempted. The scriptures say God cannot be tempted with evil. If Jesus only had his Father's nature he could not be tempted. No?

This also contradicts scripture that says Jesus took upon himself the NATURE of the seed of Abraham. It says in ALL THINGS he was made like unto his brethren, and that in ALL POINTS he was tempted like us, yet without sin. The scriptures say he SUFFERED being tempted.

It is obvious that this ability to be tempted and suffer could not be received from the Father, so he must have inherited this ability from his mother.

If not, then please explain from scripture.

So, if having the ability to be tempted equals having a sin nature, then Jesus was born with a sin nature. But I have already proved that a sin nature is not required to be tempted or sin, Adam and Eve, and even Satan himself prove this.

Trust me, I have given all of this careful consideration for many years. Doesn't mean I am correct, but I believe teaching that the sin nature is inherited from our earthly father is seriously flawed.

I completely agree with DHK that Jesus was born of a virgin as a sign and to fulfill scripture.

 

[convicted1]

Those verses do not say we were BORN with a sin nature, it says we walked in them, had our conversation in them. That is performance.

Were Adam and Eve created with a sin nature? No. Could they be tempted and sin? Yes. Did they have a sin nature afterward? Yes.

I believe that actually committing sin is what causes us to have a sin nature. Once you sin, it is easier to sin again. Jesus said those who sin are the servants of sin, he did not say we sin because we are servants to sin. Read and see.

Was Satan created evil? No. Did he have an evil nature after he sinned? Yes.

The problem with saying the sin nature is only passed by the father is that it does not explain how Jesus could be tempted. The scriptures say God cannot be tempted with evil. If Jesus only had his Father's nature he could not be tempted. No?

This also contradicts scripture that says Jesus took upon himself the NATURE of the seed of Abraham. It says in ALL THINGS he was made like unto his brethren, and that in ALL POINTS he was tempted like us, yet without sin. The scriptures say he SUFFERED being tempted.

It is obvious that this ability to be tempted and suffer could not be received from the Father, so he must have inherited this ability from his mother.

If not, then please explain from scripture.

So, if having the ability to be tempted equals having a sin nature, then Jesus was born with a sin nature. But I have already proved that a sin nature is not required to be tempted or sin, Adam and Eve, and even Satan himself prove this.

Trust me, I have given all of this careful consideration for many years. Doesn't mean I am correct, but I believe teaching that the sin nature is inherited from our earthly father is seriously flawed.

I completely agree with DHK that Jesus was born of a virgin as a sign and to fulfill scripture.

The major difference in Adam's and Eve's flesh pre-fall, was this; the ground that they were made from was before God cursed the ground. We inherit our sin nature because we come from the same ground, but the post-fall ground that was cursed by God. That is why a baby dies. The only thing that brings death is sin. If Jesus had not been betrayed, He'd be alive to this day. He was not a sinner, never knew sin, never gave in to the temptation of sin, etc. He was tempted in all ways, just as we are, but He never succumbed to that temptation. He was the perfect sacrifice.

The reason why Jesus never sinned, nor had a sin nature??

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

This is why: He was God manifested in the flesh!!

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[Winman]

Willis, I have always respected you, because you seem to be a very honest searcher for truth, but your argument is flawed also. Jesus received his flesh (or at least half) from Mary, and Mary was made of the same cursed dust we are. I cannot say if Jesus would still be alive, he aged like any man.

And I do not know if Adam and Eve could have lived forever without the tree of life. What truly insured that Adam and Eve would physically die was that God prevented them from eating of this tree. And we are also told that the tree of life will be in the New Jerusalem in Revelation 22:2. I believe this shows we will always be dependent upon God for everlasting life, even in our new incorruptable bodies. It even says the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations, which seems to imply we will need to eat of this tree to maintain health. So, it isn't like we will be self-sufficient as God is.

 

[convicted1]

Willis, I have always respected you, because you seem to be a very honest searcher for truth, but your argument is flawed also. Jesus received his flesh (or at least half) from Mary, and Mary was made of the same cursed dust we are. I cannot say if Jesus would still be alive, he aged like any man.

Well, Brother, I don't know if it's flawed or not, meaning, that there is a lot about Jesus that we will never know in our finite minds. A lot of things are a mystery to us, and this is where faith comes in. If we knew it all, we would not have to have faith. As far as my belief of Jesus being alive today if he hadn't been betrayed? What is the one thing that brings death? Sin. Jesus was sinless, therefore, He could not have died, IMHO.

And I do not know if Adam and Eve could have lived forever without the tree of life. What truly insured that Adam and Eve would physically die was that God prevented them from eating of this tree. And we are also told that the tree of life will be in the New Jerusalem in Revelation 22:2. I believe this shows we will always be dependent upon God for everlasting life, even in our new incorruptable bodies. It even says the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations, which seems to imply we will need to eat of this tree to maintain health. So, it isn't like we will be self-sufficient as God is.

We need God's grace every second of our lives to live. I am not for sure if the tree of life in Rev. is literal, or if it is referring to Jesus. If we eat of the tree of life, we will live forever. Jesus said except you eat of my flesh, and drink of my blood, you have no life in you. When it comes to Rev., I try to stay away from those debates.....it's WAAAAYYY over my head, for the most part!!!

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[HankD]

winman has made some good sounding points but scripture and experience IMO speak against his points.

He has not explained the meaning of the phrase "passed upon all men" in relation to the sin and death of Romans 5:12.

Animals die because of the curse, granted, but they are of an unlike kind.
They have not the image and likeness of God and are not mentioned in Romans 5:12, only humanity is addressed.

Even nature points to the fact of a human inherited propensity to sin. My children and all children did not and do not have to be taught to sin because it is an unlearned behavior and universal in humankind.

Christ was like us in all points except His virgin birth which seems directly related to the fact that He is/was HOLY.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.​

I think we should end it here, no one is going to be convinced and sooner or later the inevitable name calling and innuendo will begin.

HankD

 

[percho]

Was not Adam created that upon sinning , disobeying God , he would be subject to death? Was it not the foreknown conclusion that he would sin being the Lamb was considered slain before Adam was created? If the answer is yes which I believe it to be could we not conclude that Adam was created to become just what he became for some purpose of his creator. If this be so was he created as sinful flesh or did he become sinful flesh after he sinned. I believe the first in that he was created of flesh that was subject to sin. Now the big question. Was he not created in a manner that he would have to be born again or did that just become plan B after he sinned? Once again I say the former. After all in the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus there is not one word said about sin. We have added that in our minds. Adam was flesh and blood and his life (translated from the word for soul) is in the blood. He was created a mortal soul of corruptible flesh taken from the dust of the ground.
He was going to have to be born again sin or not. The Word who was God and was with God, with life in himself, eternal life of Spirit and he gave that up and was made/came in the likeness of sinful flesh for the purpose of death, that is to die. Eternal things cannot die. Christ (God in the flesh) died for us.
The meaning of Titus 3:5 is We are clean because Christ (God in the flesh) died (Shed blood) and Christ was regenerated (Given life again because he had given his eternal life up to die) and renewing of the Holy Spirit. By washing of regeneration. It is the regeneration that allows the blood to wash us clean. HE HAD TO BE RAISED FOR HIS BLOOD TO HAVE MATTERED. sEE 1 cOR. 15.

Christ (Jesus) died for us. John 5:21 1st part For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth. 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. By his resurrection Jesus is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; The beginning of the new man the last Adam. At our resurrection/change into his image he will be the firstborn of many brethren.
We will be born again as he is. That in all [things] he might have the preeminence.