[TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus

[Judy Taylor]

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy, you did not answer my question.  I could give you many answers to the new questions you raise, but I don't want to move on until we have some agreement about the word "likeness" in Romans 8:3.   jt: That word is used in other places besides Romans 8:3 and it always means the same thing ie "likeness"  It never means "exactly the same as"   If Romans 8:3 can ONLY mean that the flesh of Jesus only looked like sinful flesh but was really not sinful flesh, there will be nothing else that I could say that could change your mind.   jt: I don't know David. I believe our fundamental difference is in the way we view sin. I don't believe it is a "physical flesh" problem to start with; the body just follows along it follows orders unless one is paraplegic or something like that..    However, if you acknowledge that it is possible that the passage means that he truly did have a body of sinful flesh, then some further discussion might be worthwhile.    jt: You will need to describe for me what you mean when you say "a body of sinful flesh"   Do you agree with me, based upon the Phil. 2:7 passage and your acknowledgement that Jesus was truly a man that Roman 8:3 might be understood to mean that Jesus had sinful flesh?    jt: That would mean He had two natures - I believe he came in the "likeness" of man and that He layed aside some aspects of divinity which meant that he had physical limitations but he was always "holy"  He was Emmanual or God with us. To me it is ludicrous to even imply that God and sin are compatible except in fallen humanity.  The first Adam made a choice.  The second did not until it came time to go to the cross and that caused him to sweat great drops of blood (because of his humanity).   Again, this does not mean that he sinned.  It means that he had a flesh with desires that would tempt him to sin.   jt: I believe that the temptations in the wilderness were genuine along with the temptation to avoid the cross in the garden of Gethsemane.   Peace be with you. David Miller.   From: Judy Taylor From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   Hi Judy.  I would like to continue our dialogue about the humanity of Jesus. We discussed Romans 8:3 before.   Romans 8:2-4 (2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. (3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.   In past discussion, you say that the word "likeness" here means like but not the same as.  I pointed out how this same word is used in Phil. 2:7 where it says he was made in the likeness of men.  In this Philippians passage, I would not argue that Jesus is similar to a man in appearance but is not really a man.  I believe that you had agreed with me that Jesus was indeed truly a man.   jt: I haven't ever meant that he was not really a man; just that he was not born with "inherited iniquity" through the fathers because when he came in the flesh his father was God the Holy Spirit.   So although the word "likeness" might mean what you say, not the same as but only a superficial resemblance, it also could mean the in the form of.   jt: It was what was working on the inside rather than what he was in the outward form of.  The same word is used in Acts where these ppl thought Paul and Silas were their pagan gods in the form of men.   If he came in the likeness of men, he was a man, and if he came in the likeness of sinful flesh, then he had sinful, corruptible flesh.  My question to you is this.  Is it possible for the passage to mean this when taken alone?   jt: Why do you automatically assume that if He had flesh it had to be sinful, corrupted flesh?  I see some contradictions because by the same token you say that babies are not born in sin until they actually perform a sin.  Scripture says otherwise. David said he was brought forth in iniquity and in sin his mother conceived him.  But at birth Jesus is called "that holy thing" which is something none of the rest of us can lay claim to.   I'm not asking if you agree that it means this right now.  I am only asking you if this is a possible interpretation of this passage if nothing else were considered?  I am wondering if I would show you from other passages in the Bible that this is how this passage should be read, if it might be possible for you to change your mind about how you presently interpret this word "likeness."   I don't know David. Look at the description of Jesus as a child in Luke 2:40, 52 To begin with He was given a full measure of the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb (not true for any of us) and we are told "And the child gres and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom and the grace of God was upon Him ... V52 "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men"  Then above and beyond this he was anointed by the Holy Spirit for ministry at His baptism in the Jordan River. Now what do you see in any of this that likens Him to the rest of humanity. We are born rebels with hearts prone to deceitfulness and there is a different spiritual kingdom with ground and authority over us.  judyt   ---------- "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.