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

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Eliyahu: Interpret Romans 8:3.

Ro 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

HP: This is my first attempt, but I will give it a shot.

The law had no power to save anyone from sin, nor could it. The law condemned the person guilty of breaking it and set the penalty of eternal separation from God as its sanction. God, sent His Son into the world in the same flesh as is common to all sinful men, and for the saving of men, and by His sinless example of holiness condemned sin that was committed by all others in the flesh.

 

[Eliyahu]

1. Jesus did not just look human; he was human--in fact, the only perfect human.

Could He become perfect by taking the Egg of Mary?

2. Jesus was both a slave (doulos, Phil 2:7) and a Son.

3. Not because I do not share your understanding of a text means that I'm confuse. In fact, I'm seeking the same truth that you're seeking.

4. I'll answer you per Scripture:

"Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.

5. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation" (Heb 5:7-8, NASB).

6. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for sin and he pleased the Father is so doing. Now this is quite adequate for me.

Where did your theology guide you to?

Do you know how to interpret Heb 5:7-9?

Jesus was perfect before the Cross, but became perfect again. How come? Including all the believers.

All the other issues will be cleared if you answer my Q

" Did Jesus offer the Sinful Flesh as the Sacrifice to God?"

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Eliyahu: All the other issues will be cleared if you answer my Q

HP: By the way, have you stopped beating your wife? I want a yes or a no answer only!

 

[Eliyahu]

Ro 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

HP: This is my first attempt, but I will give it a shot.

The law had no power to save anyone from sin, nor could it. The law condemned the person guilty of breaking it and set the penalty of eternal separation from God as its sanction. God, sent His Son into the world in the same flesh as is common to all sinful men, and for the saving of men, and by His sinless example of holiness condemned sin that was committed by all others in the flesh.

You are extremely confused!

You are now betraying the above post of your own. Check your statement.
You said " Jesus didn't come in the sinful flesh" in the above post, not you are saying Jesus came in the same flesh as all the sinful men.

You must clarify them, then you will get the whole answers to this issue.

 

[Eliyahu]

HP: By the way, have you stopped beating your wife? I want a yes or a no answer only!

No, I didn't do it and therefore didn't stop it.

You are in the Impasse and desperate to escape the contradiction. But the truth is there. You are in ditch now.

I am very clear about this issue.

1. Jesus didn't come in the sinful flesh, but in the sinless flesh.

2. Jesus offered the Sinless flesh to God as the Sacrifice.

 

[annsni]

DHK, TCGreek, Annsni,

Are you there?

I am waiting for your eloquent answer, the clear and wise answer to the following question.

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

Is it possible - just slightly possible that the flesh in this passage is in actuality THIS definition? "the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God" I know it's the last definition but I think when we're speaking of "sinful flesh" in the KJV, "sinful nature" in the NIV, this definition makes a lot more sense. I think this because of the first verse in this chapter - "[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." How can we walk after our body - and how can we, after we are saved, no longer walk after the body but walk after the Spirit? I have walked a lot in my life - which way did the Spirit go? Is it down near the beach or up the hill? If we are using this passage to speak of a physical body (skin, hair, legs, toes), then the first verse doesn't make sense.

BTW - I was out with my kids doing a homeschooling group thing. I DO have other things to do.

So my answer is that Jesus was perfect - but He also had a human body that was subject to pain, bruising, bleeding, injury and death. He offered ALL of Himself - His physical body that was just like all of us, and His Spirit which was far different than all of us in that it was NOT sinful, and which suffered greatly knowing what was going on - to the Father as a sacrifice.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Eliyahu: You are extremely confused!

HP: This may be one you have to chew on for a while. False presuppositions are indeed hard to work around once firmly entrenched.

 

[Eliyahu]

All of DHK, Annsni, TCGReek, HP,Cowboymatt, Brother Bob

Your theology is poorer and more miserable than that of Roman Catholic.

In case of RCC, they have Immaculate Conception.

That resolve such problem with the Sinful Flesh.

Biological Motherhood cannot stand without Immaculate Conception or something similar before the Conception.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: So my answer is that Jesus was perfect - but He also had a human body that was subject to pain, bruising, bleeding, injury and death. He offered ALL of Himself - His physical body that was just like all of us, and His Spirit which was far different than all of us in that it was NOT sinful, and which suffered greatly knowing what was going on - to the Father as a sacrifice.

HP: Your post offers excellent insight into truth Ann. :thumbs:

 

[DHK]

So, you are condemning the Bible is wrong as it says

"Sinful Flesh"

Yet, your theology cannot answer my question clearly.

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

Can your theology give you the answer?

Once you can properly define "sinful flesh" then maybe one can answer your question. But not until then. Words have meanings. But we are obviously speaking past each other. Define "sinful flesh," for "flesh" in and of itself has no sin. Pluck a hair and examine it. How much sin did you see?

 

[Eliyahu]

HP: This may be one you have to chew on for a while. False presuppositions are indeed hard to work around once firmly entrenched.

The more tragedy is that you do not realize what contradiction exist between your statements.

The most tragedy is that you do not admit your own contradiction either.

 

[annsni]

All of DHK, Annsni, TCGReek, HP,Cowboymatt, Brother Bob

Your theology is poorer and more miserable than that of Roman Catholic.

In case of RCC, they have Immaculate Conception.

That resolve such problem with the Sinful Flesh.

Biological Motherhood cannot stand without Immaculate Conception or something similar before the Conception.

LOL

Biological motherhood can certainly stand with God's hand.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Eliyahu: Your theology is poorer and more miserable than that of Roman Catholic.

HP: Now that is a real piece of useful debate reasoning. I am not certain of a proper rebuttal though. :laugh:

 

[Eliyahu]

Is it possible - just slightly possible that the flesh in this passage is in actuality THIS definition? "the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God" I know it's the last definition but I think when we're speaking of "sinful flesh" in the KJV, "sinful nature" in the NIV, this definition makes a lot more sense. I think this because of the first verse in this chapter - "[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." How can we walk after our body - and how can we, after we are saved, no longer walk after the body but walk after the Spirit? I have walked a lot in my life - which way did the Spirit go? Is it down near the beach or up the hill? If we are using this passage to speak of a physical body (skin, hair, legs, toes), then the first verse doesn't make sense.

I am not talking about the limited capacity of the human flesh, but the sinfulness of it.

Can you not clearly say that Jesus offered the Sinful Flesh or Sinless Flesh? NIV is a little better than the novels.
Sarks is translated " Flesh" even in John 1:14, and everywhere.

BTW - I was out with my kids doing a homeschooling group thing. I DO have other things to do.

It is a great job, may God bless you there.

So my answer is that Jesus was perfect - but He also had a human body that was subject to pain, bruising, bleeding, injury and death. He offered ALL of Himself - His physical body that was just like all of us, and His Spirit which was far different than all of us in that it was NOT sinful, and which suffered greatly knowing what was going on - to the Father as a sacrifice.

You mean Sinful Flesh in Romans 8:3?

I wanted you to be very clear ! Do you believe God sent Jesus in the Sinful Flesh?

 

[Eliyahu]

HP: Now that is a real piece of useful debate reasoning. I am no certain of a proper rebuttal though. :laugh:

HP,

Therefore I believe, RCC is the biggest Shopping Mall for the ordinary people, selling all the heresies attractive to all.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Eliyahu: The more tragedy is that you do not realize what contradiction exist between your statements.

The most tragedy is that you do not admit your own contradiction either.

HP: You stated what you felt was a contradiction, but as I recall you offered only your own misunderstanding of what I had said, omitting any evidence that it actually was.

Try again. Possibly you could add some illustration or something to help us see the contradiction you say exists.

 

[Eliyahu]

The Sinless Sacrifice of Jesus by Sinless Flesh could be possible by having the Sinless Flesh directly from God.

That is why the Word became Flesh.

This may be interpretted in this way:

God enfleshed the Word with the Sinless Flesh by His Words.


If Jesus was eveolved from the Egg of Mary, then the Egg must have been Immaculate ( Sinless). Otherwise, the Sinless Flesh cannot be evolved from the sinful flesh (Egg). The Egg is a part of the flesh.

 

[Brother Bob]

The Sinless Sacrifice of Jesus by Sinless Flesh could be possible by having the Sinless Flesh directly from God.

That is why the Word became Flesh.

This may be interpretted in this way:

God enfleshed the Word with the Sinless Flesh by His Words.


If Jesus was eveolved from the Egg of Mary, then the Egg must have been Immaculate ( Sinless). Otherwise, the Sinless Flesh cannot be evolved from the sinful flesh (Egg). The Egg is a part of the flesh.

You make it up as you go don't you???

BBob,

 

[annsni]

I am not talking about the limited capacity of the human flesh, but the sinfulness of it.

Can you not clearly say that Jesus offered the Sinful Flesh or Sinless Flesh? NIV is a little better than the novels.
Sarks is translated " Flesh" even in John 1:14, and everywhere.


You mean Sinful Flesh in Romans 8:3?

I wanted you to be very clear ! Do you believe God sent Jesus in the Sinful Flesh?

Are you asking if Jesus was in a sinful body? Is there Scripture to say that a body - the skin (LOL - I just typed that out as 'sin'), bones, ligaments, tendons, etc. - is sinful?

Can sarx have more than one meaning? Where the meaning needs to be pulled out of the context? Why is that definition that I posted as one of the definitions of sarx? One of the definitions is also "the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature"" and I certainly wouldn't use THAT to describe Jesus.

It is a great job, may God bless you there.

Thanks - It's such a tremendous blessing to be able to homeschool the kids. I love being with them all day! They're just FUN. I wish my older 2 were still home too but God encouraged us to send them to school and He's blessed that decision. It was tough though!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Eliyahu, where is the evidence in what you have given so far that the flesh, in and of itself, is sinful?