Judy quotes Zodhiates as saying: >>> 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 Miller wrote: >> In the past you have argued against the eternal Sonship >> doctrine, but here you quote Zodhiates in support of it! Judy wrote: > Where do you get this from? His point was that "likeness" is used because he never ceased being the Son of God. He was the Son of God, then became the Son of Man. There is an inconsistency here, however, because he acknowledges that Jesus became man, and the use of the word likeness in Phil. 2:7 does not diminish this one bit for him. Judy wrote: > Are you a Greek scholar David? Yes, Judy, I have applied myself to study Greek. However, I am not putting my Greek scholarship above Zodhiates. I just know enough to disagree with him on this point, the same way any student might disagree with his professor on some particular point. Judy wrote: > 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. 2 Corinthians 5:21 (21) For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. David Miller wrote: >> 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." Judy wrote: > 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. You are missing my point. It is a logical point about the word "likeness." If Phil. 2:7 says Jesus "was made in the likeness of men," and yet we agree that Jesus was truly a man and not just an imitation or resemblance of a man, then we know that the word "likeness" used in Romans 8:3 might be used in the same way. Therefore, you should acknowledge that this is a possible way to read this passage. From my perspective, the word "likeness" is actually emphasizing the sameness of Christ's flesh to ours rather than suggesting that it was a counterfeit or imitation flesh. If Romans 8:3 had left out the word "sinful" which modifies flesh, I don't think you would be arguing the way you are now about this word "likeness." You would just be saying, "yeah, he was made in the likeness of human flesh, and he was human flesh. So what. That does not mean his flesh was sinful." The Holy Ghost inspired the word "sinful" to be put there. We need to understand why. We need to hear his message to those who have ears to hear. Judy wrote: > Along with the fact that I can not figure out > why this is so important to you. It is important to Jesus. If you had humbled yourself and walked in a contemptible body of flesh with temptations that you had to resist every day when you were previously the Lord of glory and did not have any such suffering to endure, you would not like it if others testified that you had never experienced such suffering. That would be like me training for years to compete in an iron man competition, and then when future commentators talk about my win, they embellish and say, "oh, David Miller, he was born a natural athelete, he had no chance of losing, it was a cakewalk for him, he didn't even break a sweat. No athelete should ever compare themselves to him or consider anything he did to win the race. He is in a category all by himself. Why, he isn't even human." Sound familiar? Judy wrote: > Likeness is not exact sameness. There are connotation differences between these words, but the word likeness draws us to consider similarity and sameness, not the concept of differences. What passage of the Bible teaches you that the flesh of Jesus was different? This concept has infiltrated our culture through Roman Catholicism and Calvinism in their teachings about original sin and redemption. Where in the Bible are we taught that the flesh of Jesus was made different from the flesh of other men living during his time? On the contrary, we are taught instead that in regards to the flesh, he was made like us in every way. His uniqueness had to do with his identity as the Son of God. David Miller wrote: >> 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. Judy wrote: > 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. Zodhiates said, "as Rom 8:3 says, not the flesh of sin, but sinless flesh." Romans 8:3 says nothing of the sort, but just the opposite. Romans 8:3 says, "sending his own Son in the likeness of SINFUL flesh." This is the opposite of Zodhiates, who said, "SINLESS flesh." He is quoting Romans 8:3 here. A mistake has been made, either a typo or an error in reason. 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.
