The Word became Flesh and dwelt among us ( Jn 1:14)

[cowboymatt]

Christ could not have condemned sin had He taken on a flesh of sin, else He would have been condemning Himself.

There you go again, equating sinful flesh with sin. That is the entire problem of your position, you think that flesh is damnably sinful, which is not a biblical doctrine.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by standingfirminChrist
Christ could not have condemned sin had He taken on a flesh of sin, else He would have been condemning Himself.

HP: The plain truth is that sin does not reside in the flesh or the sensibilities, but lies within the will of man. The flesh indeed, through the sensibilities, provides a formidable influence to sin, or a proclivity to sin, a temptation to sin, but sin is not conceived, as James states, until we yield our will in accordance to it. Sin is willful disobedience to a known commandment of God.

Having sinned, as all have, the whole human race can in common parlance be denoted as ‘sinful flesh,’ in that all residing in the flesh have sinned. That again in no wise denotes the actual flesh and blood as sinful. As DHK and others have pointed out, the flesh, in and of itself is not nor can it be sinful.

Sin takes an act of the will to be conceived. The will is where it is formed and the spirit or soul of man is where it remains and resides, of course until one is washed clean by the blood of the Lamb.

 

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu, I believe that God sent Jesus in the same sort of flesh as all of us have, which is what Rom 8.3 is saying. God did so because the popitiation had to be of a sacrifice that is like us. If Jesus had different flesh than us, then his sacrifice was void because he was different than us. But Rom 8.3 says that Jesus was like us, he was sent in "flesh of sin" (the literal translation from the Greek), which seems to mean flesh that has the propensity to sin, which we all can admit to being true. Jesus defeated this propensity in his flesh, which is why he could be our sin offering as Rom 8.3 states. By doing this for us, we have been saved and we too can begin to live like Jesus did: "not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (Rom 8.4).

Taking the one phrase "sinful flesh" out of its context in Rom 8.3 is what has lead you and many others to claim that Jesus' flesh was different from ours. But the text plainly states that his flesh was like our flesh, emphasizing the likeness not not-likeness!

So I can state that God sent Jesus in sinful flesh because that is exactly what Rom 8.3 says!

Anyone who argues that Jesus had a different flesh than every other human faces the impossible problems. Namely that if Jesus' flesh was different from our then his sacrifice was void, his example tainted, and his sharing in our sufferings a fraud.

Then you must be believing that Jesus offered the Sinful Flesh to God for the Sacrifice, right?

One thing you may have overlooked in my posts is the distinction between

1) Sinful Flesh which applies to the human flesh, All the flesh after the Fall

2) Sin-sensitive,Vulnerable to Sin, Inclined to Sin, which applies to the Flesh of Adam before the FALL, and the Flesh of Jesus.
This flesh is weak to sin, have the propensity to Sin, however it is Sinless. Adam was not created in the Sinful Flesh, but was in the Sinless Flesh. The Sin entered thereafter, and as the result, the Death reigned over the Flesh and the Sin reigned over the Flesh as Gal 5 says.

This distinction is important and I mentioned this several times before.

God didn't send His Son in the Sinful Flesh, nor did Jesus offer the Sinful Flesh to God.

My distinction need deeper thoughts than yours but doesn't contradict any other truth.

 

[cowboymatt]

Then you must be believing that Jesus offered the Sinful Flesh to God for the Sacrifice, right?

One thing you may have overlooked in my posts is the distinction between

1) Sinful Flesh which applies to the human flesh, All the flesh after the Fall

2) Sin-sensitive,Vulnerable to Sin, Inclined to Sin, which applies to the Flesh of Adam before the FALL, and the Flesh of Jesus.
This flesh is weak to sin, have the propensity to Sin, however it is Sinless. Adam was not created in the Sinful Flesh, but was in the Sinless Flesh. The Sin entered thereafter, and as the result, the Death reigned over the Flesh and the Sin reigned over the Flesh as Gal 5 says.

This distinction is important and I mentioned this several times before.

God didn't send His Son in the Sinful Flesh, nor did Jesus offer the Sinful Flesh to God.

My distinction need deeper thoughts than yours but doesn't contradict any other truth.

I understand your distinction but I don't think you can PROVE it from Scripture. And that's the point, right?

 

[Eliyahu]

1. I'm in no way a docetist. I accept the Scripture as it is. Do I understand in an intricate manner every aspect of the Incarnation? Absolutely not!

2. Jesus' likeness of Rom 8:3 is the same likeness of Phil 2:7. Paul uses the same Greek term in both cases: homoiwmati from homoiwma.

3. And we have Paul and Barnabas using a form of this Greek word in Acts 14:15: "We are also men of the same nature [homoiopaqhs]as you."

4. The Hebrew writer says that Jesus partook of flesh and blood like the rest of us (Heb 2:14).

5. How am I guilty of blasphemy? Quite a serious charge against another brother in the Lord.

If you recall the above statement, you explained all the cases of Homoiowmati.

So, didn't you mean that God sent His Son in the Sinful Flesh ( Ro 8:3)?

You are changing the statements after you made them ambiguously.
That's why I asked you Yes or No in many questions.

Again let me ask you the questions on Romans 8:3

1) Did God send His Own Son in the Sinful Flesh? or

2) Did God send His own Son only in the Likeness of the sinful flesh but actually in the Sinless Flesh?

Please answer by 1) or 2).

I believe 2) definitely. Your turn to answer!

 

[Eliyahu]

I understand your distinction but I don't think you can PROVE it from Scripture. And that's the point, right?

It is self explanatory.

As for the Sinless Flesh before the Fall, we can believe it.

Now the main question is whether Flesh is Sin-neutral but can be subdued by the soul, either by sinful soul or by righteous soul.

HOwever, the Bible itself mentions " Sinful Flesh" in Ro 8:3 and therefore the word Sinful Flesh is not invented.

Another support comes from Galatians and many other verses like Corinthians etc.

Gal 5:14- commends us not to follow the flesh ( the sinful flesh inherited from Adam) but follow the Holy Spirit.

The flesh itself was affected since the Fall and therefore the lifetime was reduced and various genetic diseases occurred.

 

[Eliyahu]

One thing that one can hardly deny is that our bodies are different from that of Adam's before the FALL.

 

[Eliyahu]

1. I'm in no way contradicting DHK, for we are both make the same point but from a different angle.

2. Neither do I believe He did. Read my posts carefully.

3. Whatever that means

4. You'll find no disagreement in me.

5. What happended to you? Then reread my posts.

You guys are contradicting each other, and sometimes betray yourselves. When I asked you some clear-cut quesations, you never answered.

 

[Eliyahu]

Romans 8:3

God sent His own Son in the Likeness of the Sinful Flesh

Did Jesus offer the Sinful Flesh to God for the Sacrifice?

I am still waiting for your honest answer to my questions:


1. Are you admitting that Jesus didn't come in the Sinful Flesh?

2. Are you admitting that Jesus came in the Sinless Flesh?

3. Do you admit that there is the Sinful Flesh according to the Bible Romans 8:3?

4. Are you admitting that Mary was a Sinner?

5. Do you admit that any part or fruit of Body of Mary is the flesh of Mary?


6. Was the Egg of Mary Sinless?


My answers:

1. Jesus didn't come in the Sinful Flesh

2. Jesus came in the Sinless Flesh

3. There is the Sinful Flesh according to Ro 8:3

4. Mary was a Sinner

5. The Egg of Mary was the Flesh of Mary.


6. The Egg of Mary was sinful.




Now it is your turn to answer the Questions

 

[Eliyahu]

So far the most famous statements are made this way

DHK : Sin is not inherited thru women, but thru Male.

Ann: Egg became Word.

( according to a great New Millennium Bible)

I am waiting for the answer and confirmation from TCGreek whether Jesus came in the Sinful Flesh.

If confirmed, that will be added to the Famous Words too.

 

[cowboymatt]

It is self explanatory.

As for the Sinless Flesh before the Fall, we can believe it.

Now the main question is whether Flesh is Sin-neutral but can be subdued by the soul, either by sinful soul or by righteous soul.

HOwever, the Bible itself mentions " Sinful Flesh" in Ro 8:3 and therefore the word Sinful Flesh is not invented.

Another support comes from Galatians and many other verses like Corinthians etc.

Gal 5:14- commends us not to follow the flesh ( the sinful flesh inherited from Adam) but follow the Holy Spirit.

The flesh itself was affected since the Fall and therefore the lifetime was reduced and various genetic diseases occurred.

As I have argued ad nauseum already, I don't think that the two passages you are using as support actually say what you are saying that they say.

 

[annsni]

Ann: The egg became Word

No - The egg was utilized by God to create the body that He prepared for the Word. The Word became flesh when it indwelt in it. There is nothing contradicting Scripture in that statement. You are stuck on this idea that YOU came up with that the Word became flesh means that there couldn't be any part of anything existing prior to the flesh being created because that would be wrong. However, we know that God creates human bodies by utilizing already existing material - that's consistent with Scripture. With Adam, he was made from the dust of the earth. Eve was made of the rib of Adam. We know that there is a reason for each of these. It is the same with God utilizing the egg of Mary to create the body that the Word would inhabit. The Word was not in that egg - the Word became flesh when that egg was somehow fertilized by the Holy Spirit. Don't see the problem here.

You guys are all desperate in the Impasse !

Who's getting all uptight and using size 4 type here to scream at us? Sounds desperate to me.

Don't Move !


You guys are contradicting the other guys each other, then betray your own posts!

1. Are you admitting that Jesus didn't come in the Sinful Flesh?


2. Are you admitting that Jesus came in the Sinless Flesh?

3. Do you admit that there is the Sinful Flesh according to the Bible Romans 8:3?

4. Are you admitting that Mary was a Sinner?

5. Was the Egg of Mary Sinless?

1. Jesus did not come in sinful flesh because sinful flesh as you are forcing it to mean does not exist. Cells are not sinful. But the nature and soul inside the person IS sinful - or in the case of Jesus, not sinful.

2. Again, Jesus did not come in sinless flesh because then that's saying that flesh can be sinful. It cannot.

3. There IS sinful flesh according to Romans 8:3 but it is not skin and bones. It is the nature of man as the definition of sarx is in the Strongs - "the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God" If you do not take verse 3 out of context, and go back to verse 1 and put in "body", then it doesn't make sense. How can I physically stop following my "body" and start physically following the "Spirit"? Does that not mean no longer following our human, earthly nature and now following the Spirit? If you insist on putting skin and bones in as flesh in this passage, you make it make absolutely no sense.

4. Yes, Mary was a sinner - she was just as one of us. But God chose her for a very special role - to be the mother of the earthly Jesus.

5. The egg of Mary was neither sinless or sinful. If it had been fertilized by the sperm of a man, it would have been only a human who had a human nature - and therefore would have become a sinner. However, it was fertilized miraculously by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit and the body that it became would carry the Divine nature of the Son of God, the Messiah, the Holy One. Jesus was conceived, gestated, born, grew, lived and died sinless.

 

[Eliyahu]

Was the Flesh of Jesus Mortal ?


2 Cor 4
11 For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. 12 So then death worketh in us, but life in you.

 

[Eliyahu]

As I have argued ad nauseum already, I don't think that the two passages you are using as support actually say what you are saying that they say.

Hope you start to notice the difference between the Flesh of Jesus and that of our human beings after the FALL.

 

[annsni]

Hope you start to notice the difference between the Flesh of Jesus and that of our human beings after the FALL.

Can I see your Scriptural evidence for this?

 

[Eliyahu]

A Huge Ignorance is here:

Is the Flesh neutral for Sin?

1Co 15:39 - Show Context
All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

Ga 5:16 - Show Context
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Ga 5:19 - Show Context
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Did Jesus have these Lusts in Him? Was He full of Lusts but overcame them?


( quotes from Crosswalk.com)

 

[Eliyahu]

Is the Flesh Neutral to the Sins?

Then the Bible must be wrong here:


Ro 7:25 - Show Context
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Eph 2:3 - Show Context
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.

Col 2:11 - Show Context
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

2Pe 2:18 - Show Context
For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.

1Jo 2:16 - Show Context
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.



IS the Flesh still Sin-neutral ?
[FONT=바탕] [/FONT]

 

[Eliyahu]

Can I see your Scriptural evidence for this?

Jesus had no Sin in His flesh.

Heb 4:15 - Show Context For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
1Pe 1:19 - Show Context But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:(crosswalk.com)


Compare this with the above posted verses.

 

[Eliyahu]

Was the Body of Jesus Mortal?

 

[annsni]

Was the Body of Jesus Mortal?

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
mor·tal (môr'tl) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Liable or subject to death.

Yes.