[TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sinful flesh that we have

[Judy Taylor]

Welcome to TT Bill Taylor -  From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sinful flesh that we have You write in part: This is not a new teaching; indeed the early Church was quite comfortable with it. It was only late in the formative centuries of the Church that it came under attack. You seem to have a real good grasp of the Scriptures in this area. I am writing to assure you that history is on your side as well.   Judy: I'd like you to show me where this is in scripture Wm.  If it is in there as you claim.  I've yet to see it.   Bill: A great resource for this discussion is T. F. Torrance. Are you familiar with him? In case you are not, he is a Scottish theologian, who taught for many years at the University of Edinburgh. He is currently 91 years old. Torrance has researched this topic more than anyone in recent times. In his great little book The Mediation of Christ, he introduces his handling of the Incarnation with these words: "Perhaps the most fundamental truth we need to learn in the Christian Church, or rather relearn since we have suppressed it, is that the Incarnation was the coming of God to save us in the heart of our fallen and depraved humanity, where humanity is at its wickedest in its enmity and violence against the reconciling love of God.   Judy: Mr. Torrance's language tells me he is a misguided Calvinist and when one begins with a faulty premise......   Bill: That is to say, the Incarnation is to be understood as the coming of God to take upon himself our fallen human nature, our actual human existence laden with sin and guilt, our humanity diseased in mind and soul in its estrangement or alienation from the Creator. This is a doctrine found everywhere in the early Church in the first five centuries, expressed again and again in the terms that the whole man had to be assumed by Christ if the whole man was to be saved, that the unassumed is unhealed, or that what God has not taken up in Christ is not saved" (39).   Judy: Then where is it in scripture?  I don't find God in the flesh becoming fallen and depraved until he hung on the cross at Calvary and it was at this point that God hid his face.    Bill: After establishing the historicity of these beliefs and attaching their origin to the writings of the Apostles, he (Mr. Torrance) then goes on to state, "before long in the fourth century there began a revolt against the idea that Christ took our fallen humanity including our depraved mind upon himself in order to redeem it from within. Thus there developed especially in Latin theology from the fifth century a steadily growing rejection of the fact that it was our alienated, fallen, and sinful humanity that the Holy Son of God assumed, and there was taught instead the idea that it was humanity in its perfect original state that Jesus took over from the Virgin Mary....   Judy: We are not to depend on history to lead us into all truth, this is why Jesus sent us the Holy Spirit and this is not a 5th century development. This is the teaching of scripture ... Jesus is the "eternally begotten Son of God" as well as the "only begotten Son of God" - Modern translations such as the (RSV, NIV, NEB and others) dilute key verses like John 3:16 by changing "only begotten son" to "only son" which makes the Bible contradict itself.  Jesus was not the only son of God. (a) Adam was a son (Lk 3:38)  (b) Angels are sons (Job 1:6)  (c) All believing Christians are sons (Jn 1:12).  But Jesus is the "only begotten" Son of God which makes Him different.  The Greek word is monogenes which clearly means "only generated" and this word is used only 6x in the NT.  Five times referring to Jesus and once in Hebrews 11:17 where it refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son" indicating that he is a type of Christ (a son of promise).  1 John 1:14 says God sent his only begotten son into the world indicating that he was God's only begotten son BEFORE he came into the world.  When was he begotten? "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was" (Prov 8:22)   Bill: It seems to me that Christians should be able and willing to ask the question, What has happened to influence my thinking in this area? Why did early Christians accept this teaching, when I am unable even to consider it?   Judy: I don't know who these "early Christians" are but they are not apostles or this concept could be seen in both gospels and epistles; also it would have been prophesied in the OT and there would be no need for a "virgin birth"  The preacher wrote in Ecc 1:9 that there is no new thing under the sun which is now even recognized as a scientific law and this includes the work of human reproduction. However because of man's sin God began the work he had foretold in ancient times which included a promise that "the seed of the woman" (Gen 3:15) would come someday to accomplish a work of reconciliation and since all normal reproduction requires the male seed such a miracle would mean God would have to create a new thing (prophesied in Isa 7:14; 9:6-7and Jer 31:22).  God would create, by His mighty power, a new thing, a perfect human body, without inherited sin or physical blemish, and with no contribution from either male or female, in the womb of a specially called virgin. She would compass that "holy thing" (Luke 1:35) with warmth and love for nine long months as it grew in her womb .  Then in the fullness of time, "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman" (Gal 4:4) to "save His people from their sin" (Matt 1:21).   This is why I believe the way I do Bill, if you can show me in the scriptures where I am missing it, I will be glad to pray about it and reconsider. However, IMO it is a waste of time to try and understand truth by way of what different persons or groups think about this and that, even well meaning theologians can be wrong.  Only God's Word endures. Judyt