Is the Flesh Sinful?

Not without the "breath of life" the flesh is not sinful. Dead men tell no "tales".

You are talking about the flesh. If you remove the "breath of life" the flesh is still here, I know because I preach a lot of funerals and they are just laying there. I see no sin whatsoever about them.

You need to include more than the flesh itself to come up with sin!!

Corruptable means they are perishing and going back to dust, not sinning. We don't sin after we die. According to the statement you just made you seem to thing the natural dead sin also.

BBob,

 

You judge the other posters following the multitute ( Exodus 23:2) and ignore the Bible, and never explained the fundamental statement of the Bible such as the Word became Flesh and the Sinful Flesh.

The Bible clearly mentioned the Sinful Flesh in Ro 8:3 and also the Sin in the flesh ( Ro 8:3)

The flesh can mean the human beings or other general term for overall personality. But the meaning should be decided considering the context.

Is Ro 8:3 talking about the overall human person?

The context is very clear, that God sent His Son in the Human Flesh but that Human Flesh was similar to the Sinful Flesh, not the same Flesh and is expressed as " LIKENESS". Therefore the verse doesn't mean that Jesus was sent in the sinful flesh, but only in the similitude of the sinful flesh while the Sinful Flesh actually exist, common to all the human race.

If there is NO Sinful Flesh, how could the Bible mention " Sinful Flesh" ?

Billions of human beings cannot erase the word " Sinful Flesh" from the Bible. It will still witness to you in my absence in the future. Why does the Bible say " the Sin in the Flesh" ( there is the in that phrase of Greek texts)
It was because the Flesh is sinful that the body of Jesus had to be crucified at the Cross. It shows that the flesh had to be nailed there.
Our flesh had to die for the sins, but the flesh of Jesus didn't have to for Himself, but died in our stead, then His flesh could not get corrupted because His flesh was sinless. Is it normal that the flesh doesn't get corrupt for 3 days and 3 nights? The body of Lazarus stunk, but I don't think the body of Jesus stunk. There was the difference between the flesh of Lazarus and the flesh of Jesus. The first was the flesh having the sin nature or sin inherited, while the latter was the sinless flesh like the flesh of Adam before the FALL. The difference may be unrecognizable but there was the difference actually.

Jesus didn't offer the Sinful Flesh to God for the Sacrifice, but the spotless and blemish body was sacrificed.

We can read the Bible saying " Sinful Flesh" and "the Sin in the Flesh" in Ro 8:3 here:

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 the sin in the flesh:

The latter phrase ' condemned the sin in the flesh' doesn't rule out the possibility of the interpretation as " condemned the sin by the flesh ( by His flesh) but it is more likely that God sent His Son in the similitude of the sinful flesh of the human race, then condemned the Sin of the human flesh by allowing His Son die at the Cross.

Again, the Sin in the Flesh indicate that the Flesh can be sinful again.

On the other hand, there would be the Flesh having no sin at all like the one of Adam before the FALL.

Galatians 5 and many other verses indicate the Flesh is the source of the sins and lusts as well. Why does it happen? Because the sin natures are carried over thru the fleshes.
How could the sin nature pass from the parent to the children? Only thru the education? or airborne bacteria? The basic transmission is done thru the flesh, thru genetic transmission. Why does the OT emphasize the blemish and spotless lambs and oxen so much? Because they symbolize the sinless and spotless person of Jesus and the spotless body of Jesus as well.

Jesus didn't offer the sinful flesh for the sacrifice. I am sure Jesus offered the Blood of Leukemia at the Cross.
But Mary was a sinner and the flesh of Mary was not sinless, but she had the sin nature in her flesh ( Read Ro 8:3). Therefore in order that Jesus was born sinless, He should not have taken any part of her body or the fruit of her body ( Ovum) because the Eggs are the media which transmit the sins to the next generation.

We do not know the more details but can imagine some plausible ways how God did for the flesh of Jesus.

Jesus the Almighty God who appeared many times in the flesh during OT times could have minimized His flesh to the size of the Embryo with the assistance of the Holy Spirit as the Word Himself had the Life in Him ( Jn 1:3), another possibility is that God prepared the Body for Jesus in a certain way of avoiding any sins in the flesh. So, the use of the Egg of Mary can be thought but encounters the problem with the sinfulness of the flesh. Therefore any material like another dust can be used for the flesh of Jesus. This thought can be based on Hebrews 10:5 because it says God prepared His body. The person Jesus was looking up the body in which He would be enfleshed, and therefore this is a totally a separate issue from the Deity of Jesus. Jesus Himself was God and Creator before the Incarnation, but when He was enfleshed, He could have another created flesh as Adam had before the FALL. This doesn't mean that Jesus was created, nor deny the Deity of Jesus Christ.
However, even in case of the first alternative, the Flesh could have been prepared by God and therefore such new flesh could have evolved from the Word of Life. These are the plausible scenarios.

Therefore, the claim that the Flesh is neutral is groundless and denying the corruption of the flesh of the human race since the FALL.

1) Before the FALL, the flesh of Adam was sensitive to sin, vulnerable to sin, but was Sinless. He didn't have any sin nature inside the flesh. The flesh was not polutted with the sin.

2) After the FALL, the sin entered the world, entered the souls and spirit of the human race, entered the flesh of the people.
the Sin natures of Flesh would lead the flesh to die. The sins were transmitted thru the flesh to the next generation, the Sperms and the Ovums were the reproductive media to transmit the sin natures.
The sin natures also caused the physical weakness, cancer genetics, genetic diseases like Leukemia, Down Syndrome, etc. Mental weakness too as the brains are the part of the flesh too.
However, nobody has been free from any single defect of the flesh

3) Jesus didn't come in the Sinful Flesh, but in the LIKENESS of Sinful Flesh. He was sinless and spotless, but died on our behalf at the Cross. If He had been in sinful flesh, He could not have paid the price for our sins, but had to pay the price for His own flesh, and His flesh would have got corrupted. His Flesh didn't see the corruption ( Ac 2)
His body was like the one of Adam before the FALL, but He didn't yield to the temptation though Adam did.

Galatians 5 mentions lots of the sins and lusts from the Flesh, but I don't think Jesus had a hard time to control them in His Flesh, because His flesh didn't cause such problem, though His flesh was weak to the temptations etc. I don't think He committed the adultery in His mind at all. His flesh was weak to many illness too, but I am sure that He was never sick and ill at all as one of the above posters stated.

In other words, since the FALL, our fleshes started to have the cookies of Satan as the computers have such cookies to be recognized by the web sites.

The EGG of Mary belonged to the Adam's race after the FALL, contaminated with the sin. Therefore it could not be used for the Flesh of Jesus, nor is it fit for the words " the Word became Flesh" ( Jn 1:14)

I hope this clarifies many points, but I would not respond to you guys any more ( I am not paid for that:thumbs: )

 

I still don't think that you are interpreting Rom 8.3 correctly. "Likeness" points to congruity with us, not difference. Paul is saying that Jesus came in flesh like ours, sinful flesh, flesh that is under the powerful influence of sin. God sent Jesus in this manner as a sin offering (indicating that Jesus did not give in to the propensity to sin) to condemn sin in the flesh. This last phrase ("to condemn sin in the flesh") simply points to the fact that Jesus dealt with sin as a humn being just like us.

Now if you can prove to me that "likeness" points not to congruity but discongruity, then I might jump on your bandwagon!

 

Jesus Christ truly came "in the flesh" (John 1:14; 1 John 4:2), but only in the "likeness" of "sinful" flesh. Outwardly the flesh of His human body was exactly like that of other human bodies, but it had been preserved free from inherent sin by His miraculous conception and virgin birth, then kept free from actual sin by His sinless life. Thus His flesh was sinless flesh.
Footnotes from the KJV Defender's Bible on Romans 8:3

 

So are we guilty at birth of Adam's sin?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

I have bolded all the statements where you have made "would have," "could have," "if," and such opinions, and from such conjectural statements have drawn "therefore" conclusions. It is illogical to draw conclusions from an unproven supposition. One must start with fact before they can draw conclusions. The whole post here is unscriptural for it is all based on guesses, conjectures, what ifs, etc. There is no foundation in fact. Where is your foundation in saying these things? It is not in the Bible.

 

We are guilty at birth because of Adam's disobedience.

I know DHK and others have a hard time grasping the reality of this verse, but I must post it again...

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Man is born in inherent sin. He cannot escape it. The Word declares the flesh to be sinful.

 

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?
Job 25:6 How much less man, who is a worm! The son of man, who is a worm!"

Is the son of man a worm?
Is Jesus a worm?

Don't take Scripture out of its context.

 

The word "prepared" here [Greek katartizo] is the same word translated "framed" in Hebrews 11:3. That is, God formed the human body of His Son with the same mighty power and wisdom with which He had formed the universe. This can only mean that the body of Jesus, like that of Adam, was a special creation, not formed by the normal process of genetic inheritance.

Footnotes from the KJV Defender's Bible on Hebrews 10:5

 

That doesn't mean a thing. You know very well that context defines a word. Tell me. Does the word wine mean alcoholic wine in every place that it is used, or does context determine the definition whether it is alcoholic or not? Context determines the meaning of words.

 

No, Bildad the Shuhite was pointing out to Job that mankind, he who is born of a woman, is unclean. We all are unclean. That is a fact.

I never called Jesus Christ a worm. Nor did I call Him unclean. Bildad was referring to mankind when he spoke of the son of man.

 

A body thou hast prepared me...

What is the context? He was speaking of a better sacrifice than that of sinful flesh.

A lamb in Old Testament sacrifices had to be without blemish in its wool, its skin, its blood.

Christ was that better sacrifice the lamb of the Old pointed to. The Old testifies of the New. The New is a witness of the Old. Christ not only was without blemish on the outward (a requirement in the Old sacrifices), but He was also without blemish inwardly (a requirement for sin to be taken away).

 

Now I can endorse this brief analysis. :thumbs:

 

You seem to forget that Job 25:4 is in the Bible. It is Scripture. It is inspired.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

You can choose to believe DHK. I choose to believe what God has shown me through the Scripture

 

I studied Job in seminary and I must agree with DHK here.

We need to remember that most of Job is poetic and must be interpreted accordingly.

The poetic genre must be respected and not rejected.

 

I think in one of the other 56 threads on this issue I answered your Job 24 usage sfiC.

Found it here.

Here is my previous statement:

"Let me see if I have the references correct: Job 15.14 and 25.4. Clearly in both of those verses "born of a woman" is parallel to "man" and should be understood simply as "human." Parallelism is a common part of Hebrew poetry (and DHK is right, genre is hugely important when interpreting the Bible, as is context).

Secondly, the point of both passages is that humans are not righteous or pure. What makes humans unrighteous and impure? Sin, i.e., disobedience. Not flesh, being human, sinful nature, sex, nor genetics. Want proof? 1 Peter 3.18a "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous..." So what makes someone unrighteous? Not flesh, being human, sinful nature, sex, nor genetic. Nope; committing sins make one unrighteous!

So the verse from Job aren't good enough to prove the idea of damnable sin being passed down through genetics!"