On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 02:07:34 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nearly all my
commentaries are exegetical (words studies and all of that sort of
thing).
What Gk word studies do you own? Please don't say W.E. Vine
!!!!! In times past
you have condemned all such things.
jt: JD if only you would stop misrepresenting
ppl. That will be my prayer for you.
I have not ever condemned Bible Helps and Study Aids. It is the writings of tradition,
Church Fathers, (which the rcc has elevated to
the level of scripture) and weirded out
theologians who promote all kinds of mixture that I
do not care to entertain.From: Judy Taylor <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:19:00 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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: Then maybe we should dig a little deeper JD because the qualifier
does not
appear to be penetrating some of you. 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 don't know where you got this idea
>From the Bible, Judy.
jt: What Bible JD? I have a house full of them and they all say
the same.
Judy wrote: ...and you don't have a whole lot of company in it (I have
not found any so far)
DM: 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
!!!
jt: Probably why I don't waste any money on Commentaries. I am speaking
of Study Bibles
None of them agree with David's point, they agree with my
Gk Word Study Dictionary.
JD
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.
