David Miller wrote: >> So your idea is that Jesus was created in the same >> condition as the first Adam? Here are some problems >> with this idea: >> >> 1. If Jesus was in the same condition as the first >> Adam BEFORE the fall, then having never sinned, Jesus >> would be immortal and incapable of being killed.
Judy wrote: > He was incapable of being killed. When the Jews tried > to stone Him he walked right through their midst. > Noone took His life from Him. He willingly layed it down. I certainly agree that Jesus laid down his life on his own, but if he was like Adam prior to the fall, I don't believe he could have done even that. Can God the Father be killed? Can angels lay down their lives and be killed? I don't think so. One must first be mortal before he can lay down his life for others. What Jesus walked in was the protection of Psalm 91. This psalm concerns those who dwell in the secret place of the Most High, who make the Lord their refuge and fortress, who abide under the shadow of the Almighty and trust in Him. David Miller wrote: >> 2. The Scriptures teach that Jesus was of the seed of >> Abraham and of the seed of David (Heb. 2:16, 2 Tim. 2:8, >> John 7:42, Romans 1:3). This would not be true if Jesus >> was created de nouveau as a unique creature. Judy: > The word "seed" in scripture #4060 in Strongs comes from > the Greek word sperma (the male sperm) and we know there > was no male sperm involved in the birth of Jesus. He was > 'born of the woman' and fathered by God. As with our discussions on women and feminism, you seem to have a penchant for explaining away the meaning of Scriptures as if they were spoken as opinion by someone else. I know you deny this, but it constantly appears that way to me. This is another case in point. The Scriptures say that Jesus WAS of the seed of Abraham and David, but you argue that seed means male sperm and there was no male sperm involved in the birth of Jesus. You leave us with skepticism and disbelief in the Scriptures because the Scriptures do say that he was born of their seed. Some Mormons try to say that God provided the sperm, either directly through physical copulation with Mary, or through some artificial means. I suppose God could have even taken some of Joseph's sperm and artificially inseminated Mary, or he may have provided his own genetically engineered sperm. Alternatively, he may have simply modified Mary's genetic material directly and created Jesus through some method of parthenogenesis. While I don't know exactly how God did it, I do believe the Scriptures that say he was of the seed of Abraham and of the seed of David. Genesis 3:15 also tells us that Jesus was of the seed of Eve: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Genesis 3:15 KJV) Now based upon my understanding of genetics, this is all very easy to understand. The genetic material of Eve, Abraham, and David all existed within Mary because she was descended from them. The sperm of Abraham contained genetic material which was passed on to his progeny, and the sperm of David likewise was so passed on. Therefore, the male sperm of these men existed within Mary and were incorporated into the physical body of Jesus Christ. That's how I understand these passages of Scripture which say that Jesus was of their seed. How do you understand these passages? Do you just want us to think that these Scriptures cannot be true because you do not believe that there was any male sperm involved with the birth of Jesus? David Miller wrote: >> 3. If Jesus was as you suggest, he would be >> genetically perfect and beautiful, without moles, >> freckles, or genetic mutations of any kind. >> The Scriptures indicate that Jesus physically was >> not more beautiful or desirable than other men. >> "For he shall grow up before him as a tender >> plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath >> no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, >> there is no beauty that we should desire him" >> (Isaiah 53:2 KJV). Furthermore, the Scriptures are >> suggestive that in his resurrected state, his >> physical appearance was somewhat different >> (Luke 24:31-32, John 21:12). Judy wrote: > I wouldn't think his physical appearance would have > much to do with anything the genetic effect of sin > has a debilitating effect on the human body much > worse than moles and freckles. The point I was trying to make is that Jesus was not genetically perfect. Jesus was morally perfect, but he was not physically a perfect specimen of humanity. He had all the same genetic defects that the rest of us have. His flesh was infirmed and below the standards of the original creation. If his flesh was like the rest of us and we understand that the tendency for sin exists in our flesh and emanates from our flesh, then Jesus also suffered the same temptations from his flesh. James says that every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed. We must understand that this verse applies to Jesus if Jesus was a man of the same flesh as the rest of us. If we understand that the flesh of Jesus was like the rest of us and contained genetic mutations, that means that he aged like the rest of us. That means that he became hungry like the rest of us and had a sexual drive like the rest of us. If his flesh was like the rest of us, that means that he suffered the same kind of infirmities that many of us suffer. He knows what a headache feels like, what a sore muscle feels like, what a sprained ankle feels like, what it feels like to have a board dropped on his toe or to have his thumb smashed under a hammer, etc. He was tempted to cuss in frustrating situations because he had the same flesh as we do, but he never did cuss. He overcame. David Miller wrote: >> 4. If Jesus was made in a unique un-fallen state, this >> would lead us to think that perhaps he should start a >> new race of people through physical reproduction. >> He did not do this. Instead, it appears that he was made >> with the same flesh as the rest of us, so that those who >> would believe upon him would be delivered spiritually >> immediately with the hope of a physical salvation to come >> later through the resurrection. Judy wrote: > It's not our flesh he came to redeem; He died on the > cross and paid the price for our redemption so that > we could be born of the Spirit, and led by the Spirit > becoming part of a new creation. a spiritual priesthood > zealous of good works. Jesus taught that people were born of the Spirit BEFORE he ever died on the cross (Mat. 11:11-13). Maybe we should discuss the atonement more and what it actually means. David Miller wrote: >> 5. If Jesus was not like the rest of us, then his >> resurrection from the dead is not really a firstfruits >> from among men (1 Cor. 15:20-23). ... <snip> ... Judy wrote: > It is the firstfruits from among men because without > his death, burial and resurrection there would be no > new creation and the body we now live in will not go > to heaven, we receive a transformed body. You are describing atonement but not the doctrine of firstfruits as expounded upon in the Hebrew Scriptures. The idea of firstfruits is that the first of the crops is given to the Lord. This was extended to the firstborn also of both men and beasts (Exodus 13). It is to show the close relationship Christ has to the rest of us, that he is actually one of us; he is our brother. Judy wrote: > The reason Jesus could not have the same flesh as us > is because the life of the flesh is in the blood. > He would not have been fit to be the sacrifice > with Adamic blood running through his veins. > His blood had to be pure, holy, precious. His blood > cleanses the consciences and washes white as > snow. All other blood defiles. All other blood does NOT defile. We know full well from the Hebrew Scriptures that even the blood of base animals has sanctifying power. How much more would the blood of a morally upright man sanctify. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 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? (Hebrews 9:13-14 KJV) Furthermore, look at the effect of this blood. It is not physically applied to us, but rather something applied upon our conscience. In other words, it is something that effects us internally similar to how the Israelites looked upon the brazen serpent in the wilderness. I would put forth for your consideration that Jesus had to be physically descended from Adam, Abraham, and David in order to qualify for being made the perfect sacrifice for us. The purity requirements of sacrifice in the Hebrew Scriptures were to show us that Jesus had to be morally pure, spiritually pure, but it was not to insist that Jesus had to have a flesh that was alien from the rest of us. Perhaps you can explain your understanding of atonement more for us because I don't understand how the atonement has any meaning if the blood of Jesus was not like the rest of us, neither do I understand the meaning of Christ's moral uprightness if he did not share the same weak flesh as the rest of us. Is there any Bible verse anywhere that has taught you that in order for Jesus to sanctify us his blood had to be unlike our own? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
