2 readers online now  |  69 million page views

...pong...

Reader comment on item: This Time, the Far-Left Surge Might Succeed
in response to reader comment: The Flesh was Destroyed on the Cross - That's the Point Of His Death

Submitted by Michael S (United States), Sep 28, 2020 at 23:04

Tovey, I will grant you this -- at least you responded to what I said. Convinced Jesus = God types usually just ignore what I say, and fire another round.

John wrote down exactly what he saw: TWO entities, side-by-side, explicitly said to be Jesus and God. Stephen saw the same thing, in a clear vision.

Concerning the type of flesh Jesus came in, Paul explains:

Rom.1
[1] Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
[2] (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
[3] Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
[4] And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Jesus was definitely a man, not a woman. Humans have two sex chromosomes, one from each parent; and in Jesus' case the "y" chromosome could not have come from Mary; it had to come from Joseph -- who has two genealogies, one obviously natural and one adoptive. Both come from David, which secures his claim to the legitimate "son of David" and therefore Messiah How he acquired his genetic make-up was explicitly said to be miraculous, not involving sexual union between Joseph and Mary. This puts him in the same category as Isaac, Samuel and others who were born by extra-natural means

Jesus was therefore a man, a human male. His fleshly ancestry qualified him to be a Messianic candidate; but his ADOPTION as the "Son of God", i.e. the "Messiah" was proclaimed at his baptism (by an entity OTHER than himself, namely, God) and, as Paul said, by his resurrection from the dead.

This is not convoluted thinking; it accords with the whole body of the Bible. Variations of interpretation (such as the standard Catholic doctrines) are, of course, possible; but they do not accord with all scriptures.

John said,

2Jn 1:
[7] For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

The original Greek for "flesh" is Strong's Greek: 4561. σάρξ (sarx) -- flesh. Biblehub explains it thus:

[4561 /sárks ("flesh") is not always evil in Scripture. Indeed, it is used positively in relation to sexual intercourse in marriage (Eph 5:31) – as well as for the sinless human body of Jesus (Jn 1:14; 1 Jn 4:2,3). Indeed, flesh (what is physical) is necessary for the body to live out the faith the Lord works in (Gal 2:20).]

The same word is used, whether the flesh is "sinless" or "sinful"; the Greek makes no distinction between the two. John emphasized strongly, that the brethren understand that Jesus had an ordinary, MORTAL body -- contrary to Gnostic doctrine, and also to the later Islamic doctrine. I emphasized "mortal", because that was the point that needed to get across: Jesus died like a human; his body completely died with the shedding of his blood.

GOD, on the other hand, is eternal and cannot die; and if Jesus were indeed the same as God, then God Himself would have been in the grave with Jesus; but Paul said,

"(Jesus was) declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:"

I was raised Roman Catholic, and taught an illogical construct that there were three entities, "God the Father". "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit". I do not claim that there were not three separate entities, who, as you know, were "one" in the sense that we are also "one" with Jesus and, if we indeed are in Christ, with one another.

I therefore have no quarrel with this doctrine, as it was taught to me as a boy. What I am VERY opposed to, however, along with most observant Jews, is the notion that Jesus and God were somehow chimerically fused as what one pastor called a "god-man". That doctrine is completely non-Biblical, and is rightly criticized as such by devout and studious Jews. It does, however, accord with pagan legends such as that of Achilles, who had a divine body but a human heel.

I hope you see my point. The distinction is important, in that the "Jesus = God" concept is alien to Torah and to the best of Torah scholars. It permanently excluded Jews from ever embracing the Christian (extra-Biblical) doctrine -- not because of false Jewish teaching (Torah) nor by stubbornness, but because God expressly forbids them from embracing it. I also have noted that wherever these things are argued, they are followed by acrimonious division in the church.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to ...pong... by Michael S

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2020 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)