The Word became Flesh and dwelt among us ( Jn 1:14)

The word of which you speak, homoiomati, can mean either something which has direct congruence with something else or that something is similar but different from something else. One has to utilize context to determine which it is. In this case the rest of verse 3 makes the case for congruity. God "condemned sin in the flesh," that is the flesh of Jesus, the same flesh that all of us have. God sent Jesus in our likeness (expressing similarity, not difference) so that sin could be condemned in Jesus' flesh, so that (according to verse 4) the requirement of the Law will be fulfilled in us.

In other words, in order for the just requirement of the Law to be fulfilled in us, God condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus, a flesh that is like ours, not different from it. So Romans 8.3 does not actually support your position that Jesus' flesh was different from ours, it actually does just the opposite.

 

I disagree. He did not become sin until the cross.

There was no sin in the flesh of Jesus.

 

And I disagree that the Bible teaches there is damnable sin in anyone's physical body. Is there a propensity to sin? Yes! I believe that Jesus had this propensity too and the he defeated it, thus being a valid sacrifice for us, giving us a possible example to follow, and truly sharing in our suffering.

If Jesus' flesh was not like ours then nothing he did mattered.

 

In Old Testament sacrifices, the lamb was examined carefully. If there was one blemish in his coat, or one streak, he was not accepted.

That was a type and shadow of Christ. That flesh Christ had could not be blemished in the least.

Scripture clearly tells us the flesh is wicked, Paul referred it to 'sinful flesh' and 'our vile body'.

Christ's body was not blemished with the stain of sin that was passed down from the fall of man.

Christ was the second man, the Lord from heaven.

 

It means that Jesus only appeared to be human as we are. That's what you're arguing. Therefore the charge of docetism stands as you have not retracted your statement that Jesus Christ was human as we are.

 

1. I'm in no way a docetist. I accept the Scripture as it is. Do I understand in an intricate manner every aspect of the Incarnation? Absolutely not!

2. Jesus' likeness of Rom 8:3 is the same likeness of Phil 2:7. Paul uses the same Greek term in both cases: homoiwmati from homoiwma.

3. And we have Paul and Barnabas using a form of this Greek word in Acts 14:15: "We are also men of the same nature [homoiopaqhs]as you."

4. The Hebrew writer says that Jesus partook of flesh and blood like the rest of us (Heb 2:14).

5. How am I guilty of blasphemy? Quite a serious charge against another brother in the Lord.

 

My own belief in that Jesus' Incarnational appearance took on the form of flesh that Adam had before the fall.

 

TCGreek,

I would agree. It was a perfect flesh... sinless.

After the fall, a curse was pronounced upon all flesh. Christ' flesh was fashioned as the flesh before the fall and therefore, was no sinful flesh.

 

Your definition of flesh is way off base.
Paul was not referring to "flesh (meat) and bone."
There is nothing sinful about a human cell. Pluck a hair off your head (or if there isn't any there, off your arm). Examine it. Do you see the sin? Would it be possible to see sin, even under a microscope on any cell, group of cells, that which makes up flesh? Of course not! Flesh, per se, is not sinful. It is just matter, a conglomerate of chemicals put together in an orderly fashion. That is what you are made up of except for the fact that you also have a spirit and soul.

Was Christ (in that actual flesh) without blemish as you claim? No he was not. They placed a crown of thorns on his head which caused bleeding and scarring. They, without any mercy, scourged him, lashing him with a whip which dug in so deep that it exposed some of his organs. Do you still think he was without blemish? When they got finished the OT prophecies describe him as unrecognizable. Do you still think that he was without blemish? And this is all before he was actually sacrificed, that is put on the cross to die. How can you dare say that his body was without blemish, when he was a bloody, scarred, beaten, almost unrecognizable person before he had even been sacrificed?? Your statements, in the light of Scripture, don't even start to make sense.

 

Up until His arrest, torture and hanging on the cross, He was without blemish.

Sorry you disagree.

BTW, show me where His organs were exposed in the Word of God. I think you are reading into the Word what is not there.

 

If I may chime in:

The animal sacrifices were only symbolic of the perfect Substitute, and should not be forced to the point of committing that analogical fallacy.

Jesus even before the Passion week lived in a "vile body", for he even became hungry and need to sleep and so on.

 

Read and study carefully the account of the events leading up to the crucifixion of Christ in the gospels. Do a thorough study on what it meant to be scourged by a Roman. There may be parts of Mel Gibson's "The Passion" that you disagree with, but he does portray the sufferings of Christ with some degree of accuracy. Even so, that bloody, marred and scarred body was not unblemished was it?

 

Jesus ate after His resurrection. Are you trying to say that He was vile after the resurrection too?

I disagree with you. God would not have indwelt a vile body to be a clean sacrifice.

 

No, in fact if you had read my previous posts you would know that that is not what I believe. When the resurrection took place Christ received a glorified body. And so will we. He lived in a human body like us. At the resurrection he received a glorified body and was able to appear before the disciples even though they were in a room with locked doors. He was able to appear and disappear at his own wish. His resurrection proved his deity. His resurrection gives hope and surety to every believer.

 

Your entire point is based on the unbiblical doctrine that damnable sin comes through procreation. Since this is not supported anywhere in the Bible, I simply cannot accept it. You can say that death came through genetics or even that a propensity to sin did; however, you cannot support the idea that damnable sin came through genetics biblically. Its not possible. Ever since Augustine used this argument against Pelagius people have been trying to support Augustine biblically...but they have all failed to do so because the Bible simply does not say this.

 

We'd have to prove that all eating is because of our lowly bodies, and since this is not the case, then Jesus eating after His resurrection doesn't prove He had a lowly body.

Afterall, we'd be at the table in the Eschatological banquet (Rev 19).

By "vile body" I mean lowly, earthly body, subject to corruption.

 

He did not receive His Glorified Body at the Resurrection. He did not receive the Glorified Body until He presented Himself to the Father.

His being able to appear and disappear does not mean the body was glorified. Not sure where you read that it means it was.

Had Christ's body been vile before His arrest, torture, and capture, His blood would have been vile as well, for the life of the flesh is in the blood.

He had to be that Lamb sacrifice without blemish and without spot as Peter wrote. Had He a vile body as you claim, then His sacrifice was not sufficient to satisfy the Father... and not one person on this earth would be saved today.

 

God dwells in my vile body. Does he dwell in yours?

 

And where do you read that Jesus only got His glorified body after His ascension?