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

[TCGreek]

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.

Eliyahu,

1. Jesus, being the second Adam, was perfect as far as His nature was concern.

2. Jesus was wrapped in the likeness of sinful flesh, but this must be understood externally in reference to Jesus, for He didn't have a sin nature like the rest of us.

3. His body was like us, yet not like us.

4. As DHK outlined, "Jesus was the perfect God-man."

 

[Eliyahu]

Even the body of Adam was created Mortal, then what God said must have been preposterous.


Genesis 2

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


If the body of Adam was already Mortal before the FALL, the commandment of God must have been absurd.

 

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu,

1. Jesus, being the second Adam, was perfect as far as His nature was concern.

2. Jesus was wrapped in the likeness of sinful flesh, but this must be understood externally in reference to Jesus, for He didn't have a sin nature like the rest of us.

3. His body was like us, yet not like us.

4. As DHK outlined, "Jesus was the perfect God-man."

Now you have returned from the previous TCGreek who said this:

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.


Why did you say these? Wasn't it because you wanted to emphasize that the flesh of Jesus was the same as those of all other human beings?

The problem is the Bible clearly say that the flesh of the human being is Sinful while Jesus didn't offer the Sinful Flesh to God. How can you explain this? This is why I asked you to clarify your stance. God knows your heart !

 

[Eliyahu]

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

I already showed many Bible verses mentioning the sinfulness of the flesh, read them all.

Do you think Jesus had such sinful flesh as well?

You must distinguish between the Flesh of Adam before the FALL and that after the FALL. Do you think both the fleshes were the same?

 

[Eliyahu]

Did Jesus have this type of flesh and therefore work very hard to overcome the Lusts of the flesh?

Galatians 5

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19 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.

 

[TCGreek]

Now you have returned from the previous TCGreek who said this:

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.


Why did you say these? Wasn't it because you wanted to emphasize that the flesh of Jesus was the same as those of all other human beings?

The problem is the Bible clearly say that the flesh of the human being is Sinful while Jesus didn't offer the Sinful Flesh to God. How can you explain this? This is why I asked you to clarify your stance. God knows your heart !

And how did I contradict myself?

At one level the body of Jesus was like ours, yet at another level it wasn't. Hear Paul: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Col 2:9, NIV)

 

[annsni]

And all the people say, Amen!

Amen! :applause:

 

[DHK]

Did Jesus have this type of flesh and therefore work very hard to overcome the Lusts of the flesh?

Galatians 5

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19 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.

Yes.
He was tempted in all points such as we are.
Satan tempted him in the wilderness with some of those very things. In every way Christ was tempted. The difference was that Christ did not sin when he was tempted. To be tempted is not sin. To give into the temptation is sin. Christ never gave into the temptation. He always overcame it. He always had the victory over sin.

 

[Eliyahu]

Ann mentioned that the flesh of Jesus was sinless

Now does everyone agree that the flesh of Jesus was sinless?

If yes and still you believe the Egg of Mary was used, how can you explain that
the fruit of a sinful person could become a sinless flesh?

Ann mentioned that the Egg of Mary may have been sanctified in a certain way of God's doing.

Does everybody agree to this idea?

 

[Eliyahu]

Yes.
He was tempted in all points such as we are.
Satan tempted him in the wilderness with some of those very things. In every way Christ was tempted. The difference was that Christ did not sin when he was tempted. To be tempted is not sin. To give into the temptation is sin. Christ never gave into the temptation. He always overcame it. He always had the victory over sin.

Nothing wrong can be found in your statement at all.

But the question was whether Jesus carried such flesh which cause the lusts etc? Because Galatians 5 explains the nature of the flesh there.

We must distinguish between the sinfulness of the flesh after the FALL and the weakness of the flesh vulnerable to the sins Before the FALL.

Did Jesus have the flesh of the Adam after the FALL?

 

[DHK]

Ann mentioned that the flesh of Jesus was sinless

Now does everyone agree that the flesh of Jesus was sinless?

If yes and still you believe the Egg of Mary was used, how can you explain that
the fruit of a sinful person could become a sinless flesh?

Ann mentioned that the Egg of Mary may have been sanctified in a certain way of God's doing.

Does everybody agree to this idea?

I believe Ann agrees to the concept that the egg was sinless in that it was not sinful or sinless. If I show you a pencil and ask "is it sinful?" What an absurd question to ask. How can a pencil be sinful. It is amoral. So is the egg of Mary. It is neither sinless or sinful. It is neither. It is a cell. You can't look at it and find sin or the absence of it. It can't be described with sin. Since the characteristic of sin cannot be applied to an egg, it therefore is sinless. That is all that Ann means. Therefore you are speaking past each other. Is the color green, black or white?

 

[TCGreek]

Nothing wrong can be found in your statement at all.

But the question was whether Jesus carried such flesh which cause the lusts etc? Because Galatians 5 explains the nature of the flesh there.

We must distinguish between the sinfulness of the flesh after the FALL and the weakness of the flesh vulnerable to the sins Before the FALL.

Did Jesus have the flesh of the Adam after the FALL?

Gal 5 is speaking to those of us with a sin nature. Therefore Incarnate one is not in view. This is where I think the NIV is correct in its rendering of sarx.

My own view, is prior the fall.

By the way, "flesh" in and of itself is not sinful.

 

[Eliyahu]

And how did I contradict myself?

At one level the body of Jesus was like ours, yet at another level it wasn't. Hear Paul: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Col 2:9, NIV)

Didn't you quote Acts 14:15 as an illustration that Homoiowpatheis is the same as the one in Ro 8:3( Homoiowmati).

Acts 14:15 tells that the nature of Paul and Barnabas were the same as the other human beings.
Therefore, what you interpretted Romans 8:3 was that LIKENESS meant exactly the same, which means The Sinful Flesh. God sent His Son in the Sinful Flesh !

The similarity in Acts 14:15 is exactly the same 100%
the similarity in Romans 8:3 is 99% which means difference between 2 ( Sinful Flesh and Sinless Flesh but similar)

You should be honest there. Otherwise, you had no reason to argue against me because I was telling all the time the Flesh of Jesus was Sinless.

 

[annsni]

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

The definition of flesh is dependent on the context. You need to explain the context in order to know which flesh you're speaking of.

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.

Interesting - but this is your narrow belief - and not the topic of this thread.

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

I'm with a 5 and 7 year old all day. It's better to say silly than stupid. In this case, it's quite appropriate.

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

But "human cells" in verse 1 and you see in the context of the passage that human cells are not the definition of "sinful flesh" in this passage.

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

You mean that a red blood cell has a sin nature? How can it sin? Does it even have it's own desire - or is it just a cell?

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

Again, a body can not lust. It's what the nature INSIDE does. If it is a body that sins, then why are we not given brand new bodies when we are saved? Why are they not regenerated and glorified? Because it's not in the body that we are saved. We know that when one comes to Christ, he is "a new creation - the old is gone, the new has come" but I don't see any evidence of that in a body when someone comes to Christ. They are the exact same on the outside but they are changed inside.

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.

Your accusations make no sense.

 

[annsni]

I believe Ann agrees to the concept that the egg was sinless in that it was not sinful or sinless. If I show you a pencil and ask "is it sinful?" What an absurd question to ask. How can a pencil be sinful. It is amoral. So is the egg of Mary. It is neither sinless or sinful. It is neither. It is a cell. You can't look at it and find sin or the absence of it. It can't be described with sin. Since the characteristic of sin cannot be applied to an egg, it therefore is sinless. That is all that Ann means. Therefore you are speaking past each other. Is the color green, black or white?

Well, atleast I know I make sense to SOMEONE! DHK has it right on. The egg was NOT sinless - nor was it sinful. It was a cell. Plain and simple. Cells are not sinful.

 

[Eliyahu]

Gal 5 is speaking to those of us with a sin nature. Therefore Incarnate one is not in view. This is where I think the NIV is correct in its rendering of sarx.

My own view, is prior the fall.

OK

By the way, "flesh" in and of itself is not sinful.

The Bible terms Sinful Flesh, Lusts of Flesh, Sin of Flesh, Body of Sin .

Can it be possible when the Flesh is neutral?

When you say Flesh is neutral, it means Flesh is sinless eventually.

Bible doesn't follow your theology.

If the Flesh is neutral, why does the Bible say that we should not follow Flesh?

 

[TCGreek]

Didn't you quote Acts 14:15 as an illustration that Homoiowpatheis is the same as the one in Ro 8:3( Homoiowmati).

Acts 14:15 tells that the nature of Paul and Barnabas were the same as the other human beings.
Therefore, what you interpretted Romans 8:3 was that LIKENESS meant exactly the same, which means The Sinful Flesh. God sent His Son in the Sinful Flesh !

The similarity in Acts 14:15 is exactly the same 100%
the similarity in Romans 8:3 is 99% which means difference between 2 ( Sinful Flesh and Sinless Flesh but similar)

You should be honest there. Otherwise, you had no reason to argue against me because I was telling all the time the Flesh of Jesus was Sinless.

I only quoted Acts 14:15 to show that the root homoio was also present there as in Romans 8:3.

I hardly elaborated on what sense Jesus in flesh was like the rest of us.

How can I think that Jesus had sinful flesh when I'm on record as saying that His flesh was that of Adam before the fall (reread my earlier posts).

 

[TCGreek]

OK



The Bible terms Sinful Flesh, Lusts of Flesh, Sin of Flesh, Body of Sin .

Can it be possible when the Flesh is neutral?

When you say Flesh is neutral, it means Flesh is sinless eventually.

Bible doesn't follow your theology.

If the Flesh is neutral, why does the Bible say that we should not follow Flesh?

Question: How is the term flesh used in Scripture? Is it confined to one meaning?

 

[Eliyahu]

The definition of flesh is dependent on the context. You need to explain the context in order to know which flesh you're speaking of.
Interesting - but this is your narrow belief - and not the topic of this thread.

I'm with a 5 and 7 year old all day. It's better to say silly than stupid. In this case, it's quite appropriate.

Sadly you are quite stubborn.

But "human cells" in verse 1 and you see in the context of the passage that human cells are not the definition of "sinful flesh" in this passage.

Does Cell belong to the spirit or soul? It is a part of Flesh !

You mean that a red blood cell has a sin nature? How can it sin? Does it even have it's own desire - or is it just a cell?

It is not that uniformly defined. All cells together form a body, each one has a certain nature from the sins. That's why there are some deformities like Leukemia

Again, a body can not lust. It's what the nature INSIDE does. If it is a body that sins, then why are we not given brand new bodies when we are saved? Why are they not regenerated and glorified? Because it's not in the body that we are saved. We know that when one comes to Christ, he is "a new creation - the old is gone, the new has come" but I don't see any evidence of that in a body when someone comes to Christ. They are the exact same on the outside but they are changed inside.
Your accusations make no sense.

The Bible disagrees with you. Read the verses that I quoted. Of course the body is used by the soul. But the body itself carries the lusts, and subjugated to the sins. Brain is a part of the flesh too.

I advise you that you should teach God if you have found a much better way than the way God did with Jesus Christ at the Cross.
It might be glorofying your god.

Your god can sanctify the eggs of the woman, and on an equal basis he could have sanctified the sperms as well, then he could reproduce billions of sinless people out of the fertilization between sinless sperms and sinless eggs, and thereby billions of people could have been born sinless, and could go to the Heaven.

However, your god doesn't do it though he can do it even now if he wills.

Therefore all the evils, sins, crimes of this world could have been prevented if your god wanted to prevent them by producing billions of sinless people from the sanctified sperms and sanctified eggs, but he never did it, except for Mary.
That god must take the responsibility for all the crimes and sins of the world and he should go to the hell if he really exists.

 

[annsni]

Question: How is the term flesh used in Scripture? Is it confined to one meaning?

I think this is the key to understanding this argument.