[TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus

[Judy Taylor]

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy wrote: He didn't go from holy to sinful and then back to holy again.   David Miller wrote: 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.   Judy wrote: He layed all of our sin and iniquities upon Him at Calvary David and our righteousness is based upon the blood of the cross.   But you said he did not go from holy to sinful and then back to holy again. Have you changed your mind or simply your definitions?   jt: I haven't changed anything. We are talking about two different things You are talking about Jesus resisting flesh during his earthly ministry. I am referring to when he became a curse for us by hanging on a tree. Other than this He was under no curse.   David Miller wrote: >> 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.   Judy wrote: > 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.   I'm only asking you to accept this as a possible interpretation of Romans 8:3 when considered alone.  It is important to see if you can accept this as a possibility, to see if you know how to think outside your present paradigm.   jt: I don't believe so David.  My present paradigm says that God is holy and that his only begotten son - the Promise of the Father, is by nature holy also.   What you are doing is hanging on to a model that has a lot of baggage with it.  You refuse to hear me because it is contrary to a model that you already have in your mind, something formed in your mind for over 30 years.   jt: So you don't think I have changed in over 30yrs?  Thanks a lot. I'm glad you are not infallible. The only way you can consider a different model is to be open to some different definitions and a different model.  I can't cause you to consider another model all at once.  Your mind can't process it all.  Rather, you must consider your assumptions on how you read certain passages one by one.   jt: I don't depend on the processing of my mind.  Nor do I look to logic and mens philosophies.  Spiritual truth can only be apprehended spiritually. In this case, I am looking for an honest analysis of Romans 8:3.  I think you should be able to agree that based upon consideration of this passage alone, it is possible that Jesus was sent in the form of sinful flesh.    jt: I don't think it wise to put Jesus in a body of sinful flesh and make a sinful flesh doctrine concerning Him based on what the word "likeness" means.   Once you agree about the acceptability of this interpretation, we will deal with the other passages that seem to lean you toward the other interpretation of this passage.   Judy wrote: > God did not make the first Adam sinful, neither did He provide > a sinful body for the second Adam. Everything God makes is > good.   God did not directly make Jesus out of the dust of the ground.  His Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and caused HER to develop a child through normal means.  The only unnatural aspect of it was that she did not conceive her child through sexual intercourse with a man.    jt: If we were honest David we would admit that we do not know how God formed his Son in the womb of Mary.   Rather, through a mystical surgery of the Holy Spirit, her egg began the process of development into a male body.  As I have said many times, there is no reason to assume that Jesus was NOT genetically related to Mary.    jt: And there is no reason to assume that He was even though he was just as much a son since she gave birth to Him and raised Him.  I don't believe God has a natural mother.  That is a rcc doctrine.   Based upon numerous passages of Scripture, I believe he was related to Mary, and that he was genetically related to his brother James, and to his other brothers and sisters as well. If we trace it back, I believe he was genetically related to David, to Abraham, to Noah, and to Adam.   jt: Well that can be your theory but it can not be proven any more than the theory of evolution.  Scripture juxtaposes the child of flesh and the child of promise all through scripture and now you are trying to trace Jesus through the flesh.   So God did not directly make the flesh of Jesus.  God directly made Adam, and Jesus was descended from Adam.  The body of Jesus ultimately came from Adam.  Read the geneaology of Luke 3 for evidence of this.   jt: I don't agree. If God wanted Jesus to be genetically related to Adam then Mary and Joseph could have had Him by procreation.  He wasn't born this way for a purpose and that having to do with responsibility for the fall.  God held Adam responsible in a way that Eve was not. Possibly because Adam was the one who received the command not to eat of that tree.  She was deceived. He was not. He chose to sin and this is where the responsibility lies.  This is why it is the seed of the woman who bruised the serpent's head.   David Miller wrote: >> 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."   Judy wrote: > The Holy Ghost put it there to describe us, not Him. We are sinful flesh and He came in our likeness.   The prepositional phrase "in the likeness of sinful flesh" is modifying the word "Son."  We are not mentioned anywhere in this verse.  The passage (Rom. 8:3) says, "God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh..."  You are mangling the verse and inventing a noun that is not there.  The subject is the Son, whom God sent, and he was sent in the likeness of flesh.  What kind of flesh?  Sinful flesh.  Whose flesh?  The flesh of the Son of God.  You keep repeating that it describes us, not Him, but this is not true.  Read the text.  There is no way for this text to be talking about us.  It is talking about JESUS.  We were not sent by God in the likeness of sinful flesh in order to condemn sin in the flesh.  Jesus was.   jt: David, you are making it so complicated that I know an ignorant fisherman could never understand.  I don't see Paul using these kinds of exercises to explain truth. He used great plainness of speech.   Judy wrote: > 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"   Yes, Judy, now you are catching on.  Jesus came under the curse, and was made a curse for us.  This is how he defeated the curse for us, because when all was said and done, he did not deserve the curse.  The Justice of God brought deliverance.   jt: So now you have a curse being made a curse.  Give me a break David. Nowhere in scripture does it say this.  He became a curse when he chose to hang on a sinners cross for you and for me.   Judy wrote: His flesh was under no such curse -   Now you are going back to your unbiblical model.   jt: I will refrain myself from stating the obvious.   Judy wrote: 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   Death could not hold him, but not because death was breaking the law by trying to take him.  Rather, Jesus simply conquered death just like he had first conquered sin.  In order to conquer death, Jesus came in the form of mortal flesh.  In order to conquer sin, Jesus came in the form of sinful flesh.   jt: If He was walking around in sinful flesh death would have had a cause. This is why He could say "the prince of this world cometh and hath nothing IN ME" IOW His being was holy and undefiled which is more than can be said for us no matter how perfected we think we are.   Judy wrote: 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.   I'm sorry I came up with that analogy now.  I did not mean to say that Jesus overcame by the power of his flesh.  He overcame by his spirit, and he overcame both the devil and his flesh.    jt: So out there in the wilderness Jesus had to overcome his own "sinful" flesh as well as the devil?    The analogy was just meant to illustrate how he might feel about the struggle he experienced in the flesh, and the diminshing of this victory that some people on this list make of it.    jt: If you were walking in the kind of power he was walking in you wouldn't know you had a flesh body David.  Mystics do that kind of stuff all the time empowered by the other spirit.   Jesus truly struggled and learned obedience through his struggles, just like we do.  His life was not a cakewalk anymore than ours is.    jt: I don't see it as such a fleshly thing David. I think being a man of sorrows and aquainted with grief had more to do with rejection and the obdurance and ignorance of the people around Him.  From what you write I'm thinking that for you it is more of a manly man thing.  But remember women are also to be conformed to His image.   He constantly denied himself and did only what he saw his Father doing.  This pleased the Father and perfected faith in him.  He is truly our example in everything, and we may walk just as he walked, if we believe in him and put our confidence and trust in him.   jt: Since He and the Father have always been ONE; I can't see how taking on a body would have made His will any different than the will of the Father. He said it was "His meat" to do the will of the Father.