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

[Eliyahu]

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.

God can use another dust, but in case of Egg of Mary, it was affected by the sin natures. Egg of Mary was not designed for the Word, but for the Sperm. If the Word has to be fertilized with the Egg, then it should have provided another 23 chromosomes which means becoming a Sperm. Word became Sperm first?

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.

Bible Says " Sinful Flesh" and mentions the Lusts of Flesh, Sins of Flesh, Did the Flesh of Jesus have Lusts and Sins?

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.

Yes, Flesh can mean the human beings in general. But in this case, the context tells us the Flesh as it is.

Read the Bible Ro 8:1-4 thoroughly.

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.

Flesh is not neutral and Egg cannot be an exception. You sound like Women do not pass any sin nature to the offspring but only men transmit the sinfulness. Then the Bible is wrong in Romans 3

 

[annsni]

Where would the Bible be wrong in Romans 3?

 

[Eliyahu]

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

1. Liable or subject to death.

Yes.

This is the Huge Difference in Theology between yours and mine.

I want to hear from TCGReek, DHK, Brother Bob, Cowboymatt because you are disagreeing each other too.

My belief is this:

We all are mortal. Adam was not mortal before the FALL. Adam was Immortal as long as he would have not committed the sin.

Jesus had the immortal flesh and body, the sinless body, but weak to temptation too, but never committed the sins,

Adam failed but Jesus didn't! won the victory for us.

 

[Eliyahu]

Where would the Bible be wrong in Romans 3?

9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved F13 both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.


Does it mention any exception for Women?
www.crosswalk.com


Can they produce the profitable fruits, sinless fruits?

 

[Eliyahu]

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

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.

Do you believe that God sent His Son as the Sinful Human Being?

I ask this because you interpret that the Flesh means the human being, then the adjective there is the Sinful. If you apply that to the human being, you are saying Jesus came as a sinful human being. Are you claiming this?

You cannot get out of the ditch as long as you hold onto that Jesus came in the Egg of the human being.

 

[annsni]

Do you believe that God sent His Son as the Sinful Human Being?

I ask this because you interpret that the Flesh means the human being, then the adjective there is the Sinful. If you apply that to the human being, you are saying Jesus came as a sinful human being. Are you claiming this?

You cannot get out of the ditch as long as you hold onto that Jesus came in the Egg of the human being.

I am not saying that flesh means the human being. I'm saying that, in context, it can mean either the body (blood, bones, skin, etc.) or it can mean the human nature. In the Romans passage, it is speaking of the human nature - the sinful human nature - because Jesus came in the LIKENESS of sinful nature but we know that He had a body just like us. In Matthew 13:53-58, those in His own hometown Nazareth didn't know where Jesus got all of His wisdom and was able to do the miracles. He looked no different than any one of us but they saw that He was different because of His wisdom and miracles - not because of His physical nature. In other words, He came in a body just like ours in it's physical attributes, it's ability to be hurt and injured, die and to act on the prompting of the will. If Jesus did not come as such, He would not be fully human as well as fully God.

No - God did not send His Son as a sinful human being. That's just preposterous. You cannot get around the idea that God, in His might, power and strength, can create a body for Christ through the egg of Mary. I can believe that He could do it any way He wanted to but Scripture says that He would be of the seed and lineage of David and of the seed of woman - pointing to the fact that He would have a special birth. Being born of the seed of woman COULD have caused Him to have had a sin nature - if He were also born of a man, but instead, the Holy Spirit was the one who overshadowed Mary and allowed her to conceive a holy Son of God. I don't know how the chromosomes worked because Scripture doesn't say but I know that God is all powerful and can overcome sin and cause a sinless Messiah to grow inside of Mary.

 

[Eliyahu]

I am not saying that flesh means the human being. I'm saying that, in context, it can mean either the body (blood, bones, skin, etc.) or it can mean the human nature. In the Romans passage, it is speaking of the human nature - the sinful human nature - because Jesus came in the LIKENESS of sinful nature but we know that He had a body just like us. In Matthew 13:53-58, those in His own hometown Nazareth didn't know where Jesus got all of His wisdom and was able to do the miracles. He looked no different than any one of us but they saw that He was different because of His wisdom and miracles - not because of His physical nature. In other words, He came in a body just like ours in it's physical attributes, it's ability to be hurt and injured, die and to act on the prompting of the will. If Jesus did not come as such, He would not be fully human as well as fully God.

So, you admit that God sent His Son in the LIKENESS of the Sinful Flesh, which means that God didn't send His Son in the Sinful Flesh but in its similitude, right?

No - God did not send His Son as a sinful human being. That's just preposterous. You cannot get around the idea that God, in His might, power and strength, can create a body for Christ through the egg of Mary. I can believe that He could do it any way He wanted to but Scripture says that He would be of the seed and lineage of David and of the seed of woman - pointing to the fact that He would have a special birth. Being born of the seed of woman COULD have caused Him to have had a sin nature - if He were also born of a man, but instead, the Holy Spirit was the one who overshadowed Mary and allowed her to conceive a holy Son of God. I don't know how the chromosomes worked because Scripture doesn't say but I know that God is all powerful and can overcome sin and cause a sinless Messiah to grow inside of Mary.

Why didn't God sanctify all the Eggs of the women in the world and the sperms of the men in the world to be holy and sinless so that all human beings can be born sinless after He succeeded with the Egg of Mary? That would have saved all the pains and death of Jesus Christ suffered at the Cross? How come God followed such foolish way?

Even after the FALL God could have done this, then He could have saved billions of souls, right?

 

[Eliyahu]

Do you still believe that the Flesh is neutral, neither Sinless nor Sinful?

 

[annsni]

So, you admit that God sent His Son in the LIKENESS of the Sinful Flesh, which means that God didn't send His Son in the Sinful Flesh but in its similitude, right?

In the likeness of sinful flesh as Romans 8:3 says. He was fully human and fully God.

Why didn God sanctify all the Eggs of the women in the world and the sperms of the men in the world to be holy and sinless so that all human beings can be born sinless after He succeeded with the Egg of Mary? That would have saved all the pains and death of Jesus Christ suffered at the Cross? How come God followed such foolish way?

Because that was God's plan and who am I to question His ways? His ways are higher than yours or my ways and His thoughts are higher than your or my thoughts. To call God's way "foolish" is kind of scary, honestly. Don't you think God could have fixed everything in the garden or do you think that God has other/better ways than what we can come up with? God set forth His path before we were ever born and it is not for us to ask "why". Why do babies die painful deaths? Why do innocent people end up as vegetables because of a drunk driver? Why, why, why? Because it's God's will.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

In the likeness of sinful flesh does not mean He was in sinful flesh, but rather that His body resembled sinful flesh.

It was not sinful flesh.

 

[annsni]

In the likeness of sinful flesh does not mean He was in sinful flesh, but rather that His body resembled sinful flesh.

It was not sinful flesh.

Amen, SFIC! While a small thing, we do agree on this - but I think our definitions are different. LOL!

 

[Eliyahu]

Amen, SFIC! While a small thing, we do agree on this - but I think our definitions are different. LOL!

Yes, that is what I and SFIC have been saying all the time.
In that aspect, TCGreek brought the profound knowledge of Greek to deny it !

 

[Eliyahu]

In the likeness of sinful flesh as Romans 8:3 says. He was fully human and fully God.

It gives more information there.

1) The human flesh is Sinful.
2) Jesus looked like coming in the Sinful Flesh because the appearances were similar, but He was not in the Sinful Flesh because He didn't offer the Sinful Flesh to God.

Because that was God's plan and who am I to question His ways? His ways are higher than yours or my ways and His thoughts are higher than your or my thoughts. To call God's way "foolish" is kind of scary, honestly. Don't you think God could have fixed everything in the garden or do you think that God has other/better ways than what we can come up with? God set forth His path before we were ever born and it is not for us to ask "why". Why do babies die painful deaths? Why do innocent people end up as vegetables because of a drunk driver? Why, why, why? Because it's God's will.

You are pleading with mysterious God's Will. I remember you are in support of Calvinism which is another heresy. ( I would not go in detail here)

According to your theology, God and Jesus performed a showmanship when Jesus prayed so much earnestly at Gethshemane sweating like blood.

As I said many times, there are some things that the Almighty God cannot do. God cannot contradict Himself and cannot force or torture the people to believe Him.
God cannot forgive the sins of any living without the Redemption and without the faith of the recipients. God planned to receive the glory from the human beings thru their volition to honor God. Without such volition based on the faith, the forcing the people is against the lovingkindness and mercy of God Himself.

God cannot do such work of sanctifying the eggs and sperms, and therefore Nobody has been sanctified in such way. You may claim Jesus was the only one whose egg was sanctified by God. When there was a sin in the flesh, it must have been redeemed by someone else, by a Sinless person, Jesus Christ. He was coming to this world for that purpose. He needed a flesh to offer to God, the sinless flesh ( not the sinful flesh) for God. The Egg of Mary needed such sinless flesh. You may argue and question " Does the Egg of woman need a sacrifice?" There was no such thing in the world history, but if you insist that the Egg can be sanctified, then it need a sacrifice-Redemption by sinless flesh. Where was it at tha time. Nobody was sinless spiritually or physically before the birth of Jesus, then there could have been no sanctification for the egg of Mary.

 

[annsni]

It gives more information there.

1) The human flesh is Sinful.
2) Jesus looked like coming in the Sinful Flesh because the appearances were similar, but He was not in the Sinful Flesh because He didn't offer the Sinful Flesh to God.

Define "flesh"

You are pleading with mysterious God's Will. I remember you are in support of Calvinism which is another heresy. ( I would not go in detail here)

Do you know God's will in everything? Why do babies suffer terribly and die? And as for Calvinism being heresy, that's your opinion and not the opinion of God.

According to your theology, God and Jesus performed a showmanship when Jesus prayed so much earnestly at Gethshemane sweating like blood.

HUH?

As I said many times, there are some things that the Almighty God cannot do. God cannot contradict Himself and cannot force or torture the people to believe Him.
God cannot forgive the sins of any living without the Redemption and without the faith of the recipients. God planned to receive the glory from the human beings thru their volition to honor God. Without such volition based on the faith, the forcing the people is against the lovingkindness and mercy of God Himself.

God cannot do such work of sanctifying the eggs and sperms, and therefore Nobody has been sanctified in such way. You may claim Jesus was the only one whose egg was sanctified by God. When there was a sin in the flesh, it must have been redeemed by someone else, by a Sinless person, Jesus Christ. He was coming to this world for that purpose. He needed a flesh to offer to God, the sinless flesh ( not the sinful flesh) for God. The Egg of Mary needed such sinless flesh. You may argue and question " Does the Egg of woman need a sacrifice?" There was no such thing in the world history, but if you insist that the Egg can be sanctified, then it need a sacrifice-Redemption by sinless flesh. Where was it at tha time. Nobody was sinless spiritually or physically before the birth of Jesus, then there could have been no sanctification for the egg of Mary.

But where is it said in Scripture that a cell is sinful? It is not a human being - filled with human nature. It's a cell without a soul. It is not sinful nor does it need a Savior. If it is, then there are billions and billions of little eggs floating around hell after they die each month. That's just silly.

 

[Eliyahu]

Define "flesh"

I explained you there. You cannot understand it. Seeing not seeing.

Do you know God's will in everything? Why do babies suffer terribly and die? And as for Calvinism being heresy, that's your opinion and not the opinion of God.

The god of Calvinism decreed billions not to believe in Jesus and thereby to go to the Hell even though God could have decreed them to believe in Jesus if He wanted. But He didn't save them but send them to the Hell. That god must be the source of all evils and unbeliefs and therefore he should go to the Hell if any. You are believing what you don't know very much.

But where is it said in Scripture that a cell is sinful? It is not a human being - filled with human nature. It's a cell without a soul. It is not sinful nor does it need a Savior. If it is, then there are billions and billions of little eggs floating around hell after they die each month. That's just silly.

YOu are quite in the habit of uttering SILLY. It is not the first time to hear from you the word.

Human Cells are Flesh, and the Bible says " Sinful Flesh" ( Ro 8:3)

The Flesh has the sin nature even though itself cannot fulfill its own will alone.

You can read many times such expressions in the Bible.

I hope you are not condemning the Bible.

Read them here again:


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.

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.

crosswalk.com

You must have taught God to adopt your ways, instead of Death of Jesus at the Cross.

Simply it is not the way of God's doing.

 

[Eliyahu]

Does everyone believe that the Body of Jesus was Mortal as Ann said?

 

[DHK]

Does everyone believe that the Body of Jesus was Mortal as Ann said?

If Jesus did not have a mortal body then he did not take upon himself a human body and was not qualified to die for our sins.
But He did. He was the perfect sinless Son of Man. He was completely man and completely God at one and the same time: the God-Man.

 

[TCGreek]

If Jesus did not have a mortal body then he did not take upon himself a human body and was not qualified to die for our sins.
But He did. He was the perfect sinless Son of Man. He was completely man and completely God at one and the same time: the God-Man.

And all the people say, Amen!

 

[Eliyahu]

If Jesus did not have a mortal body then he did not take upon himself a human body and was not qualified to die for our sins.
But He did. He was the perfect sinless Son of Man. He was completely man and completely God at one and the same time: the God-Man.

Again, this is an exceptional case. Jesus died for our sins. If the term Mortal is " subject to any death" then yes. But the death is the result of the sin. Jesus would not have died if He lived alone.

Our bodies were stricken with sins, and therefore are doomed to die. But the body of Jesus had no sin at all and had no reason to die for Himself. However, He took all the sins of ours and died on behalf of us.

 

[cowboymatt]

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

Why? The Bible doesn't make a distinction between the two; so why should I?