From: "David Miller" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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... and the Spirit quickens mortal
bodies.
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.
jt: Have you forgotten David that I believe we were
originally created in God's image as spirit beings who have a soul and
live in a body?.
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).
jt: He was given the Spirit without measure before
he was obedient and faithful; he was filled with the Spirit from his
mother's womb and anointed for ministry at His Baptism at the River
Jordan. We are also given our "measure" before we are obedient and
faithful because He has been promised.
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.
jt: Well they were astonished at his insight and
they were asking him questions. Yes I would be interested in any
scripture that says Jesus was sick - are you sure it is not our infirmities
and sickness that he took upon himself?.
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.
jt: I don't believe the cause of our weakness and
temptation was ever in Jesus or would have been willing to approach him
other than when he was at a total disadvantage after fasting for so
long.
Judy wrote: David I still do not accept that
"likeness" is same as the real, or even that it was necessary that He
would have to
have the same weaknesses to become a sacrifice and
lay down his life for us. He overcame because He walked after the
Spirit in obedience to the Father and because He was not born a "rebel from
the womb". He was not replicating the first Adam in his
entirety.
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 the
eternal sacrifice and this is where He defeated and condemned sin and
darkness. If He came with the same flesh weakness that we have
inherited and was born like us - a rebel from the womb (Isa 48:8, Ps 58:3)
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.
jt: I don't see it that way David; Paul wrote
Romans 7 after he had been a believer for 20yrs and he is telling us that
for him it is still a daily battle because with his MIND he wants to do
God's will but there is another law working in his members which is the law
of sin and death. I say that Jesus the Lord of Life did not have this
law of sin and death working in His members.
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.
jt: I see Romans 6 describing baptism which
symbolizes the work of the cross, ie: dying to the old flesh man and being
raised to newness of life to walk after the Spirit. Romans 7 describes
the daily battle with flesh that does not want to die and Romans 8 shows us
how to walk free from condemnation and how to overcome the
flesh by walking after the Spirit. However, for us this is
a process and a learning curve and I don't see this process in the life
of Jesus at all. He didn't need to repent, His baptism was only to
fulfill all righteousness -(like OT Priests washings before the start
of ministry). John who was also filled with the Holy Spirit from
his mother's womb knew right away that Jesus didn't need a baptism of
repentance and said he needed to be baptized by Him.
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.
jt: David haven't you ever wondered why the word
"likeness" is always used when speaking of Jesus and flesh? Why?
This word is a qualifier Strongs #3667 Homoima meaning "A form, resemblance,
made like to, likeness, shape, similitude.
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.
jt: Probably so David, you know a lot more about
genetics than me; however sin is a spiritual problem that ultimately effects
our
genetic makeup and inherited sin always comes down
through the father/fathers. I understand that women have fathers also
but then Jesus didn't come to reproduce by procreation did
He?
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.
jt: Taking the form of man has to do with Jesus'
humility and servanthood David and since scripture interprets scripture -
what is wrong with the analogy from Galations? We are not
reading different men trying to get their own philosophies across
because the same Holy Spirit who inspired all of scripture wrote both
Galatians and Hebrews and the difference between Jesus as a lamb and the OT
sheep, bulls, and goats is also spiritual - in
fact Hebrews tells us that the blood of bulls and goats and the
ashes of a heifer only sanctified to the purifying of the flesh .. but the
blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered
himself without spot to God, purges the conscience from dead works so that
we can serve the living God (Heb 9:13,14)
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.
jt: Right here is probably the crux of the
problem David. Although your secular education says that mankind is
part of the animal kingdom - God who is a Spirit tells us that we are
different. We are spiritual beings created in His image, even our
flesh is not the same (1 Cor 15:39).
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.
jt: Scripture teachesus that animals are led
by instinct; mankind is not. We are the only species who must be
taught for at least 18yrs before we can make it. Scripture likens the
wicked and those who are led by sensuality to "brute beasts" which IMO is an
apt description (Jude 10; 2 Peter 2:12) and at death the spirit of man goes
upward (Ecc 3:21) while that of the beast goes downward to the earth;
the spirit returns to God who gave it (Ecc
12:7)
.
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.
jt: Biological needs are one thing and they are not
sin but King David's body didn't tell him to seduce another man's wife. Look
at the fruit of the flesh - how many of them are biology alone?
Animals don't have these problems.
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.
jt: I hope this is so only in the lives of
"brute beasts" David - However, since Science now teaches men they
evolved from monkeys - who knows and why would we be surprised if they begin
acting like them :)
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.
jt: Oooh David you are dangerously close to the
doctrine of Benny Hinn who once taught that the trinity consisted of nine
persons because each member had a body, soul, and spirit. This is not
what you are saying is it? I understand that scripture refers to "the
mind of the spirit" because we think inwardly as well as with the
brain.
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.
Whatever it is Jesus taught that "the
flesh profits nothing" (John 6:63) and Paul taught that "in the flesh
dwells no good thing" (Romans 7:18); our Kingdom walk is one of cleansing
the filthiness of both flesh and spirit we either aquired or
inherited.
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.
jt: I don't believe this is ever natural David.
Australian Nobel Prize winner John Eccles said the "brain is a machine that
any ghost can operate" and because we are a fallen people many have been
working at it. This is why we are to take every thought into captivity
to the "obedience of Christ"
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.
jt: Oh I am not bombarded David. I examine their
teachings very carefully and disagree with much of it. I don't believe
Augustine/Calvins construct of fallen man or that grace is irresistable, or
that being Sovereign makes God responsible and the cause of everything bad
that happens as well as all sin. But these days there is not a whole
lot to choose from as you well know.
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.
jt: I agree He is our brother but only post
resurrection. Before the cross we were His enemies - having flesh in
common did not bridge the gap.
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.
jt: Yes if I can find a quiet moment before the 3yr
old grandson arrives :)
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 whole thing 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
perceive Him in 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.
jt: I may be wrong but I get the idea that when you
speak of flesh you narrow it down to the physical entirely which is what the
word sarx conveys but there is another aspect which is the flesh nature
having to do with all that the "old man" represents and this is what is so
alien to God. The fallen nature the evil heart/disposition.
Jesus did not come with these and he died to save us from their presence as
well as their power.
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.
jt: Making Him into the same flesh as us negates
His holiness because our flesh is filthy and his is holy to put it
bluntly. The cross condemned and destroyed the Old Creation. Bill and
Lance have it being assumed with Christ into heaven which totally ignores
the reality of the demonic. I mean Jesus
and the 70 went around Israel who were God's Covenant ppl at that time
casting them out with the finger of God and now the Jews are alienated from
God and walking in darkness but for a few who see the light. What
sense does it make that the gentiles can just all ascend and take theirs
with them?
Devil's sure having the last laugh on this
one. judyt
