Judy wrote:
> I do stand corrected in that Romans 8:3 does use
> the term "sinful flesh" to describe us - not Him.
Read it again, Judy. The sinful flesh is being descriptive of Jesus. "God
sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh..."
Judy wrote:
> I don't know where you got this idea
>From the Bible, Judy.
Judy wrote:
> ...and you don't have a whole lot of company in it.
I know. Jesus didn't have a lot of company in his doctrines either.
> I do stand corrected in that Romans 8:3 does use
> the term "sinful flesh" to describe us - not Him.
Read it again, Judy. The sinful flesh is being descriptive of Jesus. "God
sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh..."
Judy wrote:
> I don't know where you got this idea
>From the Bible, Judy.
Judy wrote:
> ...and you don't have a whole lot of company in it.
I know. Jesus didn't have a lot of company in his doctrines either.
I do not know why DM surrenders this point. Almost all commentaries today agree with David's point !!!
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 21:11:40 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus
Judy wrote: > He was made in our "likeness" without the sin. That's not what Romans 8:3 says. It says he was made in the likeness of SINFUL flesh. Jesus never sinned, but he was made in the likeness of SINFUL flesh, and he became sin though he had commited no sin. Judy wrote: > I do stand corrected in that Romans 8:3 does use > the term "sinful flesh" to describe us - not Him. Read it again, Judy. The sinful flesh is being descriptive of Jesus. "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh..." Judy wrote: > I don't know where you got this idea >From the Bible, Judy. Judy wrote: > ...and you don't have a whole lot of company in it. I know. Jesus didn't have a lot of company in his doctrines either. Judy wrote: > I can't find one study Bible with notes that > say what you are saying What? I thought you wanted to stick with the Bible. You ask me to stick with Scripture only as our guide, and here you are running off to read what everyone else has to say. You are doing the very exact thing for which you have criticized Bill Taylor. Judy wrote: > - the Living Bible says "We aren't saved from sin's > grasp by knowing the commandments of God, > because we can't and don't keep them, but God > put into effect a different plan to save us. He sent his > own son in a human body like ours - except that > ours are sinful - and destroyed sin's control over us > by giving himself as a sacrifice for our sins...." Rom 8:3 LB > They all say much the same. So where do you get this > extreme teaching?? I get it from reading my BIBLE. You asked me not to bring what others teach about it into the discussion. Are you changing your mind about that? I want to stick with the Bible. I don't care about the doubting commentaries that you consult, or the paraphrased versions like the Living Bible. David Miller wrote: >> Romans 8:3 >> (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: Judy wrote: > You just can't get by that "qualifier" David; > if his flesh was the same as ours it just didn't > have to be there and yet it is even part of the > NIV who dropped more than 60,000 words > - wouldn't you think those three would have been > some of them if they really were not needed? I can't believe what I'm reading here. Kevin, are you reading this? Judy is going to the Living Bible and now the NIV to make her case! She has been reading her Bible notes diligently. What happened to reading the KJV and sticking with the Bible? David Miller wrote: >> The adjective "sinful" is right there, Judy. Read it. >> Believe it. Jesus Christ the Son came in the likeness \ >> of SINFUL flesh, and FOR SIN. Judy wrote: > Again - it's always "the likeness" rather than the actual > thing David, we just can't get away from that qualifier > can we? I'm trying my best to make sure you don't get away from that qualifier. It is an important qualifier. You read it as UNLIKE SINFUL FLESH. I read it as LIKE SINFUL FLESH. If I were to say that he was made in the likeness of God or that he was the image of God, I would mean that he expressed characteristics LIKE God, not UNLIKE God. In like manner, if we read that he came in the likeness of sinful flesh in order to destroy the power of sin in the flesh, that means that his flesh was LIKE sinful flesh, not unlike it, and he fought with it and WON every time! Hallelujah! David Miller wrote: > In 2 Cor. 5:21, it goes further and says > that Jesus was MADE SIN for us. Judy wrote: > Yes He was, and this is where He took > our sin upon Himself, at Calvary. And so if you accept that he was made sin, why do you revolt at the idea that he was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh? Judy wrote: > He tasted all of this during that three hours of > darkness on the cross. David. He was not walking > around constantly pushing and straining against > a rebellious and deceitful heart along with the iniquity > of his fathers. I think you use way too much hyperbole here. He put his flesh to death daily just like we do who walk in the spirit of Christ. It is not a constant pushing and straining against a rebellious and deceitful heart. Is that how you would characterize your every day life? If you read Isaiah 53:3 (in the original language), you will see that he tasted sickness before that last three hours. Your beliefs may not be Docetism exactly, but they have that leaning with all this emphasis on his victory over sin only taking place on the cross. Judy wrote: > The seed of Abraham and David is their spiritual > seed David; it does not have to do with the old > Adamic flesh nature at all Where did you get this idea from? Somebody forgot to tell the apostle Matthew this bit of information. Read Matthew 1:1 ff. Judy wrote: > Sanctification for us is a lifetime affair; > it was not so for Him. What does the following passage mean? Hebrews 5:8-9 (8) Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; (9) And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Judy wrote: > If it were He would not have been accepted as a sacrifice > and who would have been a sacrifice before God for Him? He would not have been an acceptable sacrifice if he was not human like the rest of us. If he were not in the likeness of sinful flesh, that would have been a problem. Judy wrote: > Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb by the Holy Spirit > or don't you believe in the virgin birth either David? Yes, I believe the virgin birth, but being born filled with the Spirit from the womb is spoken about concerning John the Baptist. Jesus was filled with the Spirit at his baptism. My point is that your argument is a non sequitur. You are grasping for whatever you can. David Miller wrote: >> Are you going to argue based upon this that >> John the Baptist also was born with a flesh >> that lacked the sinful nature? Judy wrote: > No, John was just like us and he said he was not worthy > to tie the latchet of Jesus' shoe. I don't believe this was > a false humility. Then drop the argument that the Spirit's presence in Jesus' life indicates that he did not come in the likeness of sinful flesh. Judy wrote: > John thought he should be set apart David and so did > all of the men and Mary who fell at his feet and worshipped > Him. I've not met anyone in sinful flesh so far who inspires > God's ppl to want to do that. Well, I've seen it, and Scriptures speak about Paul and Barnabas having that effect on people too. Jesus will be the only one who truly deserves such. Judy wrote: > No I am not denying John 14:12; I believe it is possible > for born again spirit filled men, who have reckoned the > old man dead and who walk in newness of life to do the > works of Jesus. But I don't believe any one man > will do everything Jesus did for the simple reason that > we each have a measure and He walked in the fullness > of the Holy Spirit. No matter which way it is spun. > He is not exactly like us. He is God. We are flesh. You say, "He is not exactly like us. He is God. We are flesh." The Scriptures are very clear that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. 2 John 1:7 (7) For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 1 John 4:2-3 (2) Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: (3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Judy wrote: > ... I don't think we should be carried away with > strange doctrines ... The strange doctrine is the one that says Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh. I may not be able to convince you, but I will continue to stick with what the Bible teaches on this subject. 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.
