Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus

[Judy Taylor]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:12:46 -0400 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy wrote: I believe you are adding your theorizing (for whatever reason) to Rom 8:3; could be time for a Gk refresher. Likeness in Rom 8:3 is #3667 Strongs which my GkWord 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 withoutsin (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...   David: In the past you have argued against the eternal Sonship doctrine, but here you quote Zodhiates in support of it!    jt: Where do you get this from?  Above Zodhiates says "Jesus Christ whose essential preincarnate form was Spirit (pneuma 4151)"  I have no problem with this.  Before the incarnation He was God The Word.  Even if Zodhiates does believe in "eternal sonship" and I don't know for sure that he does This would not change the meaning of these Gk words would it?   What you do not seem to understand is that this is not a Greek definition, but an expanded commentary by a  Greek scholar.  Unfortunately, he is introducing his Christology here and  is going far beyond defining the Greek language.   jt: Are you a Greek scholar David?   Phil. 2:7 says, "made in the likeness of men."  Zodhiates says the  word  "likeness" is used here because Jesus was always the Son of God from before  his incarnation.  I say hogwash.  Likeness has a more broad use that  Zodhiates is allowing for here.   jt: He was God before the incarnation and He is the same "yesterday, today, and forever"  He didn't go from holy to sinful and then back to holy again. Phil. 2:7 says "likeness of men," but Jesus was more than just like a man.  He was a man.  1 Timothy 2:5 says, "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."  Romans 5:15 says, "the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ."   jt: Noone is arguing this point David, I think we all agree that he was a man. It is the "sinful" flesh that is causing the problem.  Along with the fact that I can not figure out why this is so important to you. Have you been attending those "manly man" Conferences or whatever they are called? In like manner, Romans 8:3 says in the likeness of sinful flesh, but other passages say that Jesus was flesh.  John 1:14 says that the Word was made flesh.  1 John 4:2-4 likewise teaches this.   jt: Adam and Eve were flesh also but they were not "sinful" flesh until after they fell. Now I am not taking the position that the word likeness cannot be used to express the likeness of a counterfeit or imitation that would deceive someone.  Rather, I am simply saying that this word is not always used in this way.  The word can be used to refer to true likeness and similarity, to  emphasize its sameness.  This is what Phil 2:7 does, because we know that Jesus was a man, yet he uses the word likeness in his phrase, "likeness of men."  It is not because Jesus was a counterfeit or imitation man.  It is because he was emphasizing the sameness.   jt: Likeness is not exact sameness. Judy wrote: 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??   A study Bible brings along with it much theological baggage.  I personally have no problem with you reading them and consulting them, but ultimately you cannot hold their notes above the authority of Scripture.  Sometimes you have to depart from them when their theological paradigm unduly  influences their comments.  Whether you realize it or not, you are doing  something similar to both Bill and me when we quote from sources.  The primary difference is that we quote from sources with which you are unfamiliar. Most of my quotes are from primary historical sources, not from  commentaries or even a study Bible's notes.  I never quote such as an authority, as you have done here.  I might share their comment for consideration, but not as an authority that defines once and for all what a particular passage means.   jt: Nor am I doing this David - would you please give me a break.  I read Romans 8:3 in the light of other scripture. I have been student of the scriptures for 30yrs now so am not a complete novice... and believe it or not the Holy Spirit has been helping me all the time. I used the Gk dictionary more for you than for me. I don't have to convince myself but at times I don't find it easy to communicate what I know.   Zodhiates actually changed the phrase "sinful flesh" to "sinless flesh."  I don't know if that was a typo at the publisher or an overzealous mind.  I actually read somewhere (I don't remember where) the argument that he did not have a flesh of sin but a sinful flesh, so I suspect there was a typo or misreading somewhere along the line.   jt: He is saying that Jesus' flesh was not born in sin David. Same as the rest of scripture. He was conceived in purity and holiness; the rest of us are conceived in sin and iniquity This is the difference.   Judy wrote: 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.   I certainly agree that we will not be him, but only like him, but  surely you  are not going to argue that we are going to be a counterfeit Jesus or an  imitation Jesus that only superficially resembles him like a zircon does a  diamond, are you?   jt: Yes, we will always be us.  We are not Him and the best we can do is reflect His glory as we are washed and cleansed by His Word.