Sinful flesh...

[FWI]

In Romans 8:3-4, it is stated: "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit (KJV).

Therefore, the idea of Paul stating that the Christ came in "the sinful flesh," which has convinced many that the Son would be subject to death, just like "all others" who are in the flesh, seems out of context. It is my position that the premise is invalid, because this would negate the purpose of the Christ coming into existence (in the first place) and negate God's law of: those who sin shall die. Hence, he who did not sin, should not die…

So, was the Christ subject to death, because he came in the likeness of sinful flesh, even though he didn't sin?

[DPMartin]

In Romans 8:3-4, it is stated: "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit (KJV).

Therefore, the idea of Paul stating that the Christ came in "the sinful flesh," which has convinced many that the Son would be subject to death, just like "all others" who are in the flesh, seems out of context. It is my position that the premise is invalid, because this would negate the purpose of the Christ coming into existence (in the first place) and negate God's law of: those who sin shall die. Hence, he who did not sin, should not die…

So, was the Christ subject to death, because he came in the likeness of sinful flesh, even though he didn't sin?

yes

He made Himself subject to all things the sons of man are subject to in respect to the flesh.

in other words He walked the walk of men, though He did not sin in the flesh the flesh is the place of sin in the case of the sons of man, the life of the Son of man is condemned, like anyone else's.

the Life of Christ the Son of God didn't die nor is it condemned, the resurrection of Christ proves that.

He came in to the world of the condemned and fulfilled what the Son of God in the flesh of the condemned to His Father's satisfaction. now via baptism of the Holy Spirit the "faithful' can receive the Life Christ and give.

Jesus came to fulfill in the place where its suppose to be fulfilled, such as the law that no other man could fulfill.


hence if you are condemned to hang and they hang you and you live, they must set you free. which is basically what Jesus has given us the power to do through and in His Life that can't be condemned though the flesh experiences death.

[FWI]

[Replying to DPMartin]

In Romans 8:3 Paul purposely uses the term: "in the likeness of sinful flesh," making the distinction between sinful flesh and flesh that was not sinful. This is a very critical point. So, the Christ "did not" come in sinful flesh. The idea that the Christ had any connection to sin is false doctrine and must be rejected.

Hence, the idea that human beings are saddled with sin, at birth, is also false doctrine. Humans are sinful, not by birth, but through the practice of sin. So, could we actually saddle a newborn or a young child with sin? No, we can't.

The Christ came into being to achieve perfection as a man. He came to fulfill the whole will of God, to obey God's every commandment and to fulfill all righteousness. This would not be possible if he came in sinful flesh or that sin was accounted to him, because of Adam and Eve. This also would not be possible if the Christ was saddled with all of mankind's sins (Ezekiel 18 clearly outlines this).

Therefore, Paul is not using the term "likeness" to suggest any unrealistic aspect of the Christ's human nature, he is under the necessity of using this word, because he uses the word "sinful flesh" and he could not have said that the Christ was sent in sinful flesh, which would have contradicted the claims that the Christ was sinless, which the N.T. states and is jealously guarded by the Christians.

Paul is concerned and wanted to show that the Father sent the Christ into this world of sin, in a manner that brought him into the closest relationship with sinful mankind, as possible. While, not becoming: sinful himself.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by FWI]

Did Jesus himself ever claim to have been "without sin"?

Also, the notion that "flesh" is inherently sinful is a Gnostic idea, not a Judaic one.

Paul's theology is replete with Gnostic style dualism.

[Overcomer]

Elijah John wrote:

Paul's theology is replete with Gnostic style dualism.

Could you please cite some examples for us and explain how you see them as Gnostic?

Thanks! O.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 4 by Elijah John]

Did Jesus himself ever claim to have been "without sin"?

No, he didn't and rightfully so…

The Christ's condemnation of self-righteousness was clearly exhibited in his interactions with the Pharisees and scribes. In Matthew 23, he admonishes them six times for their acts of self-righteousness. So, it would be unrealistic for the Christ to chastise the Pharisees and scribes for self-righteousness and then to proclaim or imply self-righteousness himself.

When the Christ yielded to John the Baptist (relating to water baptism), while fully knowing that this type of baptism would be replaced with a new and better baptism. He was showing humbleness and after this event his Father stated: This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. There are other examples, as well, of the humbleness of the Christ, which would relate to his rejection of self-righteousness such as: Matt. 20:28, Luke 22:27, John 13:5 and Rom. 15:1-3 (to name a few).

Therefore, it wasn't necessary or in God's will to have His Son claim himself being sinless. There were others who did this.

Also, the notion that "flesh" is inherently sinful is a Gnostic idea, not a Judaic one.

It doesn't matter whose idea it is that human flesh is inherently sinful. This is a false doctrine.

[Elijah John]

Elijah John wrote:

Paul's theology is replete with Gnostic style dualism.

Could you please cite some examples for us and explain how you see them as Gnostic?

Thanks! O.

Gnosticism generally holds that the Universe as we know it was created by an evil God, and so they say that matter in innately evil. Salvation is obtained by the "Gnosis" (knowledge) that the Christ, who is pure Spirit and descends from the realm of pure Spirit, saves us from the trap of matter.

Substitute the word "flesh" for the word "matter" and Paul's Gnostic style dualism becomes pretty clear. Paul often pits the Spirit vs the "flesh". He says they are at war. He admonsishes the reader/hearer to "walk in the Spirit so as to not fulfull the lusts of the flesh." Instead of teaching that the flesh can be in harmony with the Spirit, Paul teaches that the flesh is to be opposed. Doesn't he teach that we must "crucify the flesh and it's desires"?

Not saying that Paul was, in fact, a Gnostic. There are important differences. Unlike the Gnostics, Paul does not see the Father as an "evil" God. And salvation in Paul's world comes when the seeker identifies by faith with the blood-atonement of Christ on the cross. Gnostics, by contrast see salvation as enlightened knowledge that lifts one above the world, the flesh and the devil (though I am not sure what they think of the Devil, per se). By setting one's mind and heart on Christ and his teachings, especially as enumerated in the Gospel of Thomas, one can attain enlightenment and salvation.

The Gospel of Thomas is a "sayings Gospel" with no birth, miracle or crucifixion narrative. There are some overlapping maxims of Christ listed in the GoT, but some of them just seem odd. The familiar ones can also be found in the Synoptics, but not so with the weird ones.

"Odd", and "weird" to many of us who have been raised in conventional Christianity, that is.

Consider this, Thomas 7

Jesus said, lucky is the lion that the human will eat. so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human.

But then there are familiar sayings which find their echo in the Synoptics, such as this from Thomas 32:

A city built on a high hill and fortified cannot fall, nor can it be hidden.