David Miller wrote: > Consider the next one too: > Hebrews 2:9-18 > (9) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than > the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory > and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste > death for every man. (10) For it became him, for whom > are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many > sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect > through sufferings. (11) For both he that sanctifieth and they > who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not > ashamed to call them brethren, (12) Saying, I will declare thy > name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing > praise unto thee. (13) And again, I will put my trust in him. > And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. > (14) Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and > blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through > death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, > the devil; (15) And deliver them who through fear of death were > all their lifetime subject to bondage. (16) For verily he took not > on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. > (17) Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto > his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in > things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the > people. (18) For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, > he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Judy wrote: > Remember David that this is written AFTER the cross ie "he that > sanctifieth and they who are sanctified" - New Birth - Holy Spirit > - we are one in the same way that He and the Father were one > during His earthly ministry. Sorry, Judy, but you are reading with rose colored glasses. Read the passage. Let it speak to you. I don't disagree with what you are saying, but that is not the point of this passage. This passage is trying to say that Jesus and me are of the same race, according to the flesh. Read the whole passage several times. Follow his thinking as he leads us from the idea of Jesus being made lower than the angels, to suffer, to taste death, to partake of flesh and blood, that he might destroy him that had the power of death, showing us that his NATURE was not that of angels, but of the SEED of Abraham... BEING MADE LIKE UNTO HIS BRETHREN that he might make reconciliation for sins... why? because sin is in the flesh (Romans 7). Go back and read the whole passage five times. Meditate on it. Let it speak to you. Judy wrote: > Yes he had a flesh and blood body with the same limitations > as the ones we have only he was not "just like us" David. > The difference is one of heart/holiness and God gave the Spirit > without measure to Him (John 3:34) We have nothing > like that going on. True enough, but now you are talking about his spirit. He was unique in his spirit, he was the Son of God, but in his flesh, that is what he shared with us. His obedience and faithfulness enabled him to be given the Spirit without measure. Yes, he was different in this way. As I said before, I am not taking away from his uniqueness (the monogenes that we talked about before). Judy wrote: > His mind didn't have to be renewed - at the age of 12yrs > He knew more than the teachers at the temple and there > is no record that he was ever physically sick. It doesn't say that he actually knew more than the teachers at the temple, but he surely knew enough to discuss with them. There is a record that he experienced sickeness in the writings of Isaiah, but I would have to get into the Hebrew with you if you want to learn that. Let me know if you are interested. None of what you say here discounts the teaching of Scripture that Jesus' flesh was the flesh of man, descended from Abraham and David, the same kind of flesh that every man had, which brought with it weakness and temptations. Judy wrote: > David I still do not accept that "likeness" is same as > the real thing, or even that it was necessary that He > have the same weak Well, let us revisit the passages I had raised before. Let's start with one passage. Phil. 2:7 says that he was made in the likeness of men. Do you accept that he was really a man? Judy wrote: > Yes He condemned sin in the flesh by fulfilling the Law > in his own life following which He lay down His physical > life for us on a sinner's cross so that ultimately He became > an eternal sacrifice. If He came with the same flesh weakness > that we have inherited he wouldn't have kept the law either. > Think about it. Jesus living in Romans 7 along with Paul. No, he would not have experienced Romans 7, because his spirit was strong. He was and is God. That is exactly Paul's point. Please consider Romans 6, 7, & 8 together. They really need to be considered together as a whole. Romans 7 establishes once and for all a duality in man. With the flesh, man serves the law of sin and death. With his mind he serves the law of God. He establishes this duality with a purpose in mind. To introduce Jesus Christ and manifest how it is that we can overcome the flesh by walking in the spirit. The key to this is Christ coming in the likeness of sinful flesh. If sin dwells in the flesh, and if in the flesh dwells no good thing (Romans 7), then Jesus Christ conquering the flesh by the power of his spirit is very important. He then gives us his spirit, that same spirit that conquered the flesh during the days of his fleshly existence, and we are able to live victoriously by walking in his spirit rather than in the flesh. Judy wrote: > The seed of Abraham is not flesh it is spiritual. Not in this instance, Judy. Read the Heb. 2 passage again. Paul is talking about the nature of angels versus the nature of Abraham, and his point is the same as Phil. 2, that Jesus humbled himself as was made a man. His point about the "seed of Abraham" deals with genetics, the sperm of Abraham, if you will allow me to be explicit about it. Abraham's genes were passed down through generations to Mary and ultimately to Jesus. If we found some blood on the old cross in Israel and could do some genetic testing, and we had some hair from Mary, we would find physical evidence that Jesus and Mary were related physically. Judy wrote: > Isaac is the seed of Promise and Christ is the > fulfillment of that promise. Ishmael is the fleshly > seed and they are still warring against one another > just like the Spirit and flesh do in us. What you are doing now is drawing from an analogy that Paul made in Galatians and trying to use the analogy to interpret what Paul is saying here. There is nothing wrong with the analogy, but it is not the point that the writer of Hebrews is making here. To do so would be like trying to argue that there was no real passover lamb ever sacrificed because the passover lamb was Jesus, or that the sabbath was never really observed because the sabbath is really the rest that belongs to the people of God. Please try to hear what I am saying here. Read the Heb. 2 passage carefully, and see his point. Why does he point to the seed of Abraham? Why? What is the context? He is saying that Jesus was not taking on the nature of angels, but rather the nature of man! Think about it. Judy wrote: > Both spiritual concepts the body isn't darkness, it > makes no decisions - it does what we tell it to do. Oh, but our bodies do tell us what to do. This is where my background in biology helps me have some understanding about this word flesh. Ethology is the study of animal behavior, and in that area of study there is much research about why animals behave the way that they do. There truly is a physical basis for animal behavior, and Paul saw this even in his day, so he speaks about the flesh, pointing out the kind of behavior which originates physically in our genes. People easily grasp how the body might tell them to get a drink when they are thirsty, or to eat when they are hungry, but there is much more for which the physical body is responsible. Judy wrote: > Oh no David. Here we go with the mystery. This is a > favorite ploy of those following the RCC Church Fathers > and their teachings. Every time they get in a mess they > call it a mystery. LOL. I hear you Judy, but I had Scripture in mind when I said this. 1 Timothy 3:16 (16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. David Miller wrote: >> I will grant you that my biology background has helped >> me tremendously to understand how the flesh is the source >> of selfish behavior in ways that probably surpasses the apostle >> Paul. Judy wrote: > Not the body by itself David; flesh in the sense > of soul or mind, will, emotions. No, no, Judy. The soul is not the flesh and the flesh is not the soul. In regards to the mind, the brain is the fleshly source of the mind, but both the soul and the spirit also have a mind. The emotions for most people are deeply seated in the flesh, but there also are emotions associated with both spirit and soul. The brain also serves as the fleshly seat for the emotions of men. Please try to break away from the idea that flesh is a metaphor for bad behavior. The word flesh in Scripture is much more than that. The body itself is the source for selfish emotions and desires. There are centers in your brain that can be stimulated with electricity and cause you to feel angry, to feel upset, to experience hatred even. These sources of temptation can come upon you just by electrical stimulation of your brain. If you accept that this is true, it should not be that hard for you to understand how natural stimulation of the brain might give rise to such sources of temptation, having an entirely physical basis. Judy wrote: > I am definitely not buying into anything Augustine or Calvin > were teaching about all this. I see spiritual death happening > to A&E in the garden but what I am talking about is not the > same thing Augustine promoted or Calvin after him... The Roman Catholics and Calvin agree on the idea of original sin and that we are born guilty. You did not answer my questions about this. Do you believe in this kind of concept of original sin? I know you go to a Presbyterian church, and they are drenched in this doctrine. You are probably so bombarded with it that you don't realize how it influences the way you read the Bible. Judy wrote: > and about this idea of Jesus being our brother. > I see this as a post Resurrection truth - that is, > after we have received the Promise of the Father > and we are one with Him because of the Spirit. > This is the whole idea of the New Creation in Him. > We reckon the old man dead - put off the old and > put on the new. I don't disagree with what you are teaching about our post resurrection relationship with Christ, but that is not the point of Heb. 2 when it speaks of Jesus being our brother. Please read the passage again, at least 5 times, letting the passage speak to you. Do not gloss over any words or phrases. Try to allow the passage to speak to you. The context of the brethren statement has to do with flesh, death, suffering, being made like us. Please read the passage in total and see his connecting thoughts. Judy wrote: > All this talk about everyone's old man (the whole world) > being assumed and resurrected is worse than the immaculate > conception and just as heretical. Well, you won't get much argument from me about this. I don't see that either, but the humanity of Christ is something that we should be able to see together. Judy wrote: > To me this negates God's holiness which is what separated > Him from humanity. I know on occasion He spoke with ppl > such as Job, Abraham, and the prophets but look at all they > had to go through to approach him when he was Father/Husband > to Israel, all the washings. It took them three days to prepare. > Think about Isaiah the first thing out of his mouth in God's > presence "I am a man of unclean lips" So are we David - > because we have a heart problem. Jesus didn't, in fact all > of His words were Spirit and Life. He spoke no death at all. > This can not be said of us. Not any of us. So I'm sorry I just > can not see Him the same way that you do; because to me > there are some huge issues. I agree that Jesus was unique in regards to his heart. The heart is a word that also means "center." The center of man is his spirit, not his flesh. So by speaking about Christ's uniqueness and holiness in regards to his spirit, you are not countering anything I have said about his flesh. Jesus was righteous and holy. He never sinned. However, his flesh was the flesh of man. If the flesh of man has a sin principle within it, then so did the flesh of Jesus. This does not mean that Jesus sinned or that he was a sinner or that he was not holy. It means that he had a source of temptation within him that tempted him to act selfishly. When those temptations came, he conquered them by doing what was right instead of what was wrong. I see nothing in my perspective or Bill's that would negate the holiness of God. Nothing at all. The fact that Jesus was holy while in human flesh is a testimony that we can be holy while yet in our human flesh. It is a testimony to the fact that any of us who does righteousness is righteous even as he is righteous. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "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.
