Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus

[Judy Taylor]

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.   jt: I believe you are adding your theorozing (for whatever reason) to Rom 8:3; could be time for a Gk refresher.  Likeness in Rom 8:3 is #3667 Strongs which my Gk Word Study Dictionary defines as follows:   "In His essence (morphe) He was God, but took upon Himself, in addition to His deity, the likeness of men (with a true human nature in a real body), yet without sin (Heb 4:15). For this reason we ae told that he was made en homoiomati anthropon, "in the lineness of men," not merely that He became man.   In Phil 2:7 the second word used is homoioma, "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness (homoioma) of men.  Paul declares here that Jesus Christ whose essential preincarnate form was Spirit (pneuma 4151), emptied Himself and took upon Himself the form of man, But His was, as Rom 8:3 says, not the flesh of sin, but sinless flesh. He became man so that He could die for the sin of man.  It was as the Son of God that Christ became the Son of Man, He never ceasing to be the Son of God...   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..."   jt: See definition above...   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.   jt: I am not "doing the very exact thing" you and Bill are doing David. A Study Bible with historical notes and that kind of background is not denominational, tradition, or a theological commentary.  Where did that accusation come from??   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.  The rest of them are all 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?    jt: No I haven't changed my mind about that and I have checked the following: The KJV Study Bible The NIV Study Bible The Thompson Chain Reference Study Bible The Defender's Study Bible The NAS Stucy Bible The Living Bible (Alphabetical Edition) Oh and let's not forget the Dakes Annotated Bible   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.   jt: I am aware that the Living Bible is a paraphrase but on this it does not take away from the plain meaning of the text. Nor do any of the others. Why do you insist that Jesus must have sinful flesh David? As Dake notes: This flies in the face of God's law of reproduction in Genesis 1:22,28.  Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost.  God is holy and can not produce sinful offspring. I don't possess "doubting" commentaries.   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?   jt: The KJV is one of the list above - I've not forsaken it :) Nor do I have to read Bible Notes to know what Romans 8:3 and Phil 2:7 are saying.  I wanted to see if the consensus really was with you on this one.  It is not.  I think you have placed yourself among the "Incarnationist" crowd on this since they are the only ones with a doctrine that necessitates such an outlandish idea.   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 escape 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!   jt: Like is just what it says David; a zircon is LIKE a diamond but is not the real thing.  Jesus may have looked LIKE sinful flesh, but who He was in the inside is who He was/is and always will be.  We are to be conformed to the image of Christ.  This will not make us Him.  At best we will be LIKE Him.   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 when 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?   jt: Because "sinful flesh" is not who He was ever.  He came into this world as a "pure and holy Son of God" who took on the form of man for a purpose which was to bring us salvation's plan.   continued...