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

[cowboymatt]

Romans 8:3 states Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh.

It does not state He came in sinful flesh

Christ was not made to be sin for us until He hung on the cross. His flesh was not sinful.

The word of which you speak, homoiomati, can mean either something which has direct congruence with something else or that something is similar but different from something else. One has to utilize context to determine which it is. In this case the rest of verse 3 makes the case for congruity. God "condemned sin in the flesh," that is the flesh of Jesus, the same flesh that all of us have. God sent Jesus in our likeness (expressing similarity, not difference) so that sin could be condemned in Jesus' flesh, so that (according to verse 4) the requirement of the Law will be fulfilled in us.

In other words, in order for the just requirement of the Law to be fulfilled in us, God condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus, a flesh that is like ours, not different from it. So Romans 8.3 does not actually support your position that Jesus' flesh was different from ours, it actually does just the opposite.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I disagree. He did not become sin until the cross.

There was no sin in the flesh of Jesus.

 

[cowboymatt]

And I disagree that the Bible teaches there is damnable sin in anyone's physical body. Is there a propensity to sin? Yes! I believe that Jesus had this propensity too and the he defeated it, thus being a valid sacrifice for us, giving us a possible example to follow, and truly sharing in our suffering.

If Jesus' flesh was not like ours then nothing he did mattered.

 

[annsni]

Jesus' body was not corruptible. Scripture states that God would not allow Him to see corruption. If His body was corruptible, He would have seen corruption.

The Scriptures that speak of Christ's body not seeing corruption are speaking of decay after death. His body did not see decay after death because of being raised from the dead physically.

Psalm 16:10 "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."

Acts 2:27 "Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."

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."

Acts 13:34 "And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David."

Acts 13:37 "But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption."


So Jesus' body wasn't corruptable in that sense but it was still subject to death as is all of ours. His body was exactly like ours - subject to pain, suffering, etc., - but the divine nature would not allow it to be sinful.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

In Old Testament sacrifices, the lamb was examined carefully. If there was one blemish in his coat, or one streak, he was not accepted.

That was a type and shadow of Christ. That flesh Christ had could not be blemished in the least.

Scripture clearly tells us the flesh is wicked, Paul referred it to 'sinful flesh' and 'our vile body'.

Christ's body was not blemished with the stain of sin that was passed down from the fall of man.

Christ was the second man, the Lord from heaven.

 

[Matt Black]

You apparently don't know what docetism means.

It means that Jesus only appeared to be human as we are. That's what you're arguing. Therefore the charge of docetism stands as you have not retracted your statement that Jesus Christ was human as we are.

 

[TCGreek]

You are greatly mistaken as many of others are in their human theology.

1. So, do you believe Ro 8:3 means Sending His Own Son in the sinful flesh? You are omitting the meaning of Likeness there.

2. Could Jesus offer the Blemish, Spotless, Sinless Sacrifice with the Sinful Flesh? Read 1 Peter 1:19

3. Do you think Jesus could offer this Sacrifice by the sinful flesh?
Hebrews 9:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Jesus offered His Sinful Flesh to God? It is horrible Blasphemy to Jesus and to God ! Your theology must be scrutinized again !

Why did such mistake happen?
IMO, you misunderstood the difference between Sinful and Sin-sensitive ( Vulnerable to Sin).

Look at the difference:

Adam before the Fall : He was Sin-sensitive, weak to sin, vulnerable to sin. However, Adam was not sinful before the Fall, He was sinless!

Adam after the Fall : He was Sinful, He was much more Sin-sensitive, weak to sin, vunerable to sin, He was sinful.

Jesus : same as Adam before the Fall, came in Flesh, weak to sin, vulnerable to sin, Sin-sensitive, but never comitted sin, never failed as the First Adam did. Jesus was never Sinful, Spotless, Blemish !

Your theology is a Horrible Blasphemy to God !

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.

 

[TCGreek]

The key word there is 'likeness'. It is translated 'resemblance'. Jesus' flesh resembled sinful flesh, but it was not sinful flesh by far.

My own belief in that Jesus' Incarnational appearance took on the form of flesh that Adam had before the fall.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

My own belief in that Jesus' Incarnational appearance took on the form of flesh that Adam had before the fall.

TCGreek,

I would agree. It was a perfect flesh... sinless.

After the fall, a curse was pronounced upon all flesh. Christ' flesh was fashioned as the flesh before the fall and therefore, was no sinful flesh.

 

[DHK]

In Old Testament sacrifices, the lamb was examined carefully. If there was one blemish in his coat, or one streak, he was not accepted.

That was a type and shadow of Christ. That flesh Christ had could not be blemished in the least.

Scripture clearly tells us the flesh is wicked, Paul referred it to 'sinful flesh' and 'our vile body'.

Your definition of flesh is way off base.
Paul was not referring to "flesh (meat) and bone."
There is nothing sinful about a human cell. Pluck a hair off your head (or if there isn't any there, off your arm). Examine it. Do you see the sin? Would it be possible to see sin, even under a microscope on any cell, group of cells, that which makes up flesh? Of course not! Flesh, per se, is not sinful. It is just matter, a conglomerate of chemicals put together in an orderly fashion. That is what you are made up of except for the fact that you also have a spirit and soul.

Was Christ (in that actual flesh) without blemish as you claim? No he was not. They placed a crown of thorns on his head which caused bleeding and scarring. They, without any mercy, scourged him, lashing him with a whip which dug in so deep that it exposed some of his organs. Do you still think he was without blemish? When they got finished the OT prophecies describe him as unrecognizable. Do you still think that he was without blemish? And this is all before he was actually sacrificed, that is put on the cross to die. How can you dare say that his body was without blemish, when he was a bloody, scarred, beaten, almost unrecognizable person before he had even been sacrificed?? Your statements, in the light of Scripture, don't even start to make sense.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Up until His arrest, torture and hanging on the cross, He was without blemish.

Sorry you disagree.

BTW, show me where His organs were exposed in the Word of God. I think you are reading into the Word what is not there.

 

[TCGreek]

Up until His arrest, torture and hanging on the cross, He was without blemish.

Sorry you disagree.

BTW, show me where His organs were exposed in the Word of God. I think you are reading into the Word what is not there.

If I may chime in:

The animal sacrifices were only symbolic of the perfect Substitute, and should not be forced to the point of committing that analogical fallacy.

Jesus even before the Passion week lived in a "vile body", for he even became hungry and need to sleep and so on.

 

[DHK]

Up until His arrest, torture and hanging on the cross, He was without blemish.

Sorry you disagree.

BTW, show me where His organs were exposed in the Word of God. I think you are reading into the Word what is not there.

Read and study carefully the account of the events leading up to the crucifixion of Christ in the gospels. Do a thorough study on what it meant to be scourged by a Roman. There may be parts of Mel Gibson's "The Passion" that you disagree with, but he does portray the sufferings of Christ with some degree of accuracy. Even so, that bloody, marred and scarred body was not unblemished was it?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

If I may chime in:

The animal sacrifices were only symbolic of the perfect Substitute, and should not be forced to the point of committing that analogical fallacy.

Jesus even before the Passion week lived in a "vile body", for he even became hungry and need to sleep and so on.

Jesus ate after His resurrection. Are you trying to say that He was vile after the resurrection too?

I disagree with you. God would not have indwelt a vile body to be a clean sacrifice.

 

[DHK]

Jesus ate after His resurrection. Are you trying to say that He was vile after the resurrection too?

No, in fact if you had read my previous posts you would know that that is not what I believe. When the resurrection took place Christ received a glorified body. And so will we. He lived in a human body like us. At the resurrection he received a glorified body and was able to appear before the disciples even though they were in a room with locked doors. He was able to appear and disappear at his own wish. His resurrection proved his deity. His resurrection gives hope and surety to every believer.

 

[cowboymatt]

Jesus ate after His resurrection. Are you trying to say that He was vile after the resurrection too?

I disagree with you. God would not have indwelt a vile body to be a clean sacrifice.

Your entire point is based on the unbiblical doctrine that damnable sin comes through procreation. Since this is not supported anywhere in the Bible, I simply cannot accept it. You can say that death came through genetics or even that a propensity to sin did; however, you cannot support the idea that damnable sin came through genetics biblically. Its not possible. Ever since Augustine used this argument against Pelagius people have been trying to support Augustine biblically...but they have all failed to do so because the Bible simply does not say this.

 

[TCGreek]

Jesus ate after His resurrection. Are you trying to say that He was vile after the resurrection too?

We'd have to prove that all eating is because of our lowly bodies, and since this is not the case, then Jesus eating after His resurrection doesn't prove He had a lowly body.

Afterall, we'd be at the table in the Eschatological banquet (Rev 19).

I disagree with you. God would not have indwelt a vile body to be a clean sacrifice.

By "vile body" I mean lowly, earthly body, subject to corruption.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

He did not receive His Glorified Body at the Resurrection. He did not receive the Glorified Body until He presented Himself to the Father.

His being able to appear and disappear does not mean the body was glorified. Not sure where you read that it means it was.

Had Christ's body been vile before His arrest, torture, and capture, His blood would have been vile as well, for the life of the flesh is in the blood.

He had to be that Lamb sacrifice without blemish and without spot as Peter wrote. Had He a vile body as you claim, then His sacrifice was not sufficient to satisfy the Father... and not one person on this earth would be saved today.

 

[DHK]

I disagree with you. God would not have indwelt a vile body to be a clean sacrifice.

God dwells in my vile body. Does he dwell in yours?

 

[TCGreek]

He did not receive His Glorified Body at the Resurrection. He did not receive the Glorified Body until He presented Himself to the Father.

His being able to appear and disappear does not mean the body was glorified. Not sure where you read that it means it was.

Had Christ's body been vile before His arrest, torture, and capture, His blood would have been vile as well, for the life of the flesh is in the blood.

He had to be that Lamb sacrifice without blemish and without spot as Peter wrote. Had He a vile body as you claim, then His sacrifice was not sufficient to satisfy the Father... and not one person on this earth would be saved today.

And where do you read that Jesus only got His glorified body after His ascension?