Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus

[Judy Taylor]

It sounds like we are a long ways apart on this issue Izzy.  I don't believe Jesus can be defined physically so it makes no sense to me.  We know he had a physical body because we are told - but noone knows what he looked like and scripture gives no physical description of him other than to say that he was not "good looking".  I wonder why?    Neither did his teaching focus on flesh like our "self help" Christian bookstore fare does today.  I checked a book out of our local library that I had to take back (because there is too much going on and I won't have time to read it), maybe I can get it out again later - but it's thesis addressed the fact that in spite of our "self help" society we are in worse shape than we have ever been. So we are apparently missing something.  At it's root sin is a spiritual problem.  Jesus said "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life"  (John 6:63)     On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:19:37 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: David is using his biological background to define something that is very physical, which makes sense to me.  The flesh is not spirit.  David is not saying that Jesus was born with “sinful” flesh the way you are thinking of it.  I believe he is saying that Jesus’ flesh contained the same fallen-nature-sin-tendency that you and I have.  We also COULD not ever sin.  We just never have, because we have CHOSEN to sin.  Jesus chose NOT to sin, in spite of that fleshly nature that ALL human beings are born with.  He has shown us a better way.  And we can only go that better way through Him!  By abiding in Him!  But once we are IN Him we, too, can walk without sin, just as He did!!! Now isn’t that something? izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor   I'm not sure if you are saying the same as David Izzy - sometimes everything gets so muddled.  David is looking at it in a purely genetic and biological way; I am not. My belief is that God is a Spirit and the Bible which is His revelation of Himself to humankind is a spiritual book.  Saying Jesus had "sinful" flesh is saying that Satan had a hook in Him which scripture denies and which I cannot accept.   On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:31:32 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Of course I am not saying that.  Why would you think such a thing? That has nothing to do with the point.  I am saying He could never have been tempted like we were as a human if He was above it all, and it was a piece of cake.  That’s why He was the perfect sacrifice—He did what no other human being had ever done—was fully human, yet never, ever sinned.  The unblemished Lamb. Get it? izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 2:37 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus     jt: I'd like to see "he was fully human as we are" spelled out in some other way and places other than Romans 8:3. In the words of two or more witnesses should every word be established, also it should be plain from OT scripture and it is not.  "In the likeness of sinful flesh" means just what it says Problem is we are dull of hearing and not really aware of just how unclean we are or just how holy and selfless He is.  His sacrifice phony??   You mean the Creator, the God of glory condescending to even come here and walk among us was not a huge sacrifice?  Not to mention the abuse he endured; being willing to take the sin of the whole world upon himself as he hung naked on a sinners cross....     On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:26:27 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The crux of the debate is whether or not Jesus could have chosen to sin because he was in all ways tempted as we are, and was fully human as we are.  Otherwise and His sacrifice was phony, because it was much easier for Him to walk in obedience, because it was impossible for Him to have sinned. izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor   jt: Then the crux is choice just like it was in the garden - rather than the kind of flesh He was getting about in?   On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:08:35 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: You are correct and have proved my point.  Jesus could have chosen to sin.  However, He did not.  izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Any human is able to sin.  Having "sinful" flesh isn't a requirement.  The first Adam did not have sinful flesh and he managed - Jesus could have chosen the same way he did - and this doesn't make Him any less of a Savior & He is just as Wonderful -   judyt   On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:12:54 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy, if you don’t have sinful flesh you are not a man.  You are another creature altogether. Sinful flesh does NOT make one a sinner, or impure.  It makes one VULNERABLE to sin.  Sin is an ACT.  Every human being has succumbed to sinful acts because of our sinful, vulnerable flesh EXCEPT for Jesus.  THAT is what makes Him our Wonderful Savior!!!  Halleluia!!!   izzy     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.