[TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus

[Judy Taylor]

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Imagine a holy God having a sinful only begotten Son?   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.   jt: He layed all of our sin and iniquities upon Him at Calvary David and our righteousness is based upon the blood of the cross.   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."   jt: Yes, the resurrected Christ is a risen man - a holy man in a transformed body who sits at the RH of the Father in heaven.   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.   jt: I find it impossible to accept this one point based on logic when it flies in the face of the rest of God's revealed Word.  God did not make the first Adam sinful, neither did He provide a sinful body for the second Adam. Everything God makes is good.   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.   jt: The Holy Ghost put it there to describe us, not Him.  If his flesh were exactly like ours then it would mean his flesh was sinful because our flesh is under the curse of Genesis 3:19 "Dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return" and Heb 9:27 "It is appointed to men once to die and after that the judgment" His flesh was under no such curse - Death couldn't legally hold Him and "God did not allow His holy one to see corruption" Ps 16:10, Acts 2:27, 13:35   Judy wrote: I can not figure out why His flesh 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?   jt: I thought this had something to do with "manly men" or some such thing. Jesus did not overcome by the power of his flesh David. He had to rely on God because "It's not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit says the Lord"  Jesus took upon himself our limitations (minus sin) and depended on the Father.  Noone could touch Him until He willingly layed his life down.   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?    jt: The contrast between the first and the last Adam. First the natural and then the spiritual.  The first Adam was of the earth, earthy (Gen 2:7, 3:19) and the second Adam is the Lord from heaven (Jn 3:13)  We are born into this world in the image of the first.  But flesh and blood can not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50) which is why we must be "born again" or born of the Spirit and conformed to the image of the second.  Flesh alone profits nothing. But his flesh was different in that it was holy and never did see corruption. Ours will.   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?   jt: To start with he was "born of a woman"  The rest of us have two natural parents.  His Father was God the Holy Spirit.  Are you saying that this makes no difference at all?  I don't believe the rcc conjured that up, nor did they make up the curse of Genesis 3:19.   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.   jt: You want to believe the above David I am aware that nothing I say will make any difference  - sigh!!   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.