Once,I used to be angry if one is still indulging in sins ! But wen I got d revelation of Christ Jesus 2wards sinners,I started loving them WHILE been very careful wit them. Follow this link http:///F4jGcj to read. As us read,I pray d Almighty God opens ur eyes in d name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Once,I used to be angry if one is still indulging in sins ! But wen I got d revelation of Christ Jesus 2wards sinners,I started loving them WHILE been very careful wit them. Follow this link http:///hOHwhk to read. As us read,I pray d Almighty God opens ur eyes in d name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Once,I used to be angry if one is still indulging in sins ! But wen I got d revelation of Christ Jesus 2wards sinners,I started loving them WHILE been very careful wit them. Follow this link http:///hOHwhk to read. As us read,I pray d Almighty God opens ur eyes in d name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Please follow the link http:///hOHwhk and read,then and understand before you start making comments ! Jesus Christ came for sinners and commanded us to continue doing same while He left.Please read the content in the link well,then post your comments if any.We learn every day ! Its not about arguement

Once,I used to be angry if one is still indulging in sins ! But wen I got d revelation of Christ Jesus 2wards sinners,I started loving them WHILE been very careful wit them. Follow this link http:///hOHwhk to read. As us read,I pray d Almighty God opens ur eyes in d name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Please follow the link http:///hOHwhk and read,then and understand before you start making comments ! Jesus Christ came for sinners and commanded us to continue doing same while He left.Please read the content in the link well,then post your comments if any.We learn every day ! Its not about arguement

mbaemeka:

Romans 5:14 But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.

The bible says, sin and death reigned through even those who didn't physically commit a sin like Adam. How was it possible? Because man is a spirit, that has a soul and lives in a body so he will always reproduce himself in the same way having the same spirit, soul and body. Jesus said so:

6 That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit, is spirit.

And the spirit of a man is what God looks at to determine if he is a sinner or not.

Proverbs 20:27King James Version (KJV)
27 The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly.
Romans 8:27King James Version (KJV)
27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit. . .

The word heart was at times used by translators in referring to the spirit of a man. God is the person who searches the spirit. So if any man is a sinner it is because of the type of spirit he has and if he is righteous it is the same reason- his spirit. for example,

Genesis 6:5King James Version (KJV)
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

God saw that after the fall, men's spirits became evil and conceived only evil things to do.

Ephesians 2:2King James Version (KJV)
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

The evil one- or the devil, is the prince of the power of the air and he is the spirit that works in the children of disobedience- sinners. Compare that to the spirit that works in the obedient children- The Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 6:17King James Version (KJV)
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.



The ONLY way you can truly know a man's nature is by his spirit because that is the real man.

1 Corinthians 2:11King James Version (KJV)
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is IN HIM?

So when you see for example in 1 John 3:5 that Jesus had no sin IN HIM you can tell that John was referring to his spirit. Also look at what Jesus said about a man's heart i.e spirit in Matthew 15

18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

And juxtapose it with what Paul said about sinful nature in Galatians 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

We can see that what Jesus described as act's that proceed from the spirit is what Paul calls works of the flesh of the unregenerate man (because he said the man will not inherit the Kingdom of God) thereby proving that the unregenerate man is the spirit with a sinful nature. Notice Paul said works/acts of the flesh. Now, what controls the flesh to act? The spirit of a man does. In the case of a righteous man his spirit causes his flesh to act right while the sinners sinful spirit causes him to act sinfully.



The flesh that sinners (all men) have. The one the bible describes as corruptible or mortal. The one that can yield to sin if used as such. The same one susceptible to dents, defects, diseases and death.



When Paul was a sinner his [sinful]spirit caused his members[flesh] to commit sin e.g Oversee Stephen's death. Even though in his soul (mind) he knew the law of God said "Thou shall not kill".



Yes sir, they are the same flesh. One just used his to obey God while the other disobeyed God with his.



Jesus had the same flesh sinners had but he lived free of sin while in it.



It was the exact same flesh sinners had.



1 Corinthians 11:24King James Version (KJV)
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Why was his body broken? because all the sins of men were imputed on his mortal body (spirits are immortal) so God had to destroy that body once and for all men. Each thing he suffered was to solve a particular issue. Isaiah said so in Chapter 53.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

This is why Jesus needed a mortal flesh-same as all men. Because only a mortal flesh could accommodate all these and then die.

You end up making a lot of inferences apparently in a bid to make the scripture you quote line up with your perceived position.

You must know that you really did not directly answer a number of my questions. Rather you ‘READ’ your assumed position into your answers. In other words, instead of answering the questions what you did was to just give ‘answers’ from your assumed position. I had said that I will appreciate your simple clear answers.

For example:
I asked – “Can you show me the scripture that says Adam’s sin is received through other men’s spirit?”
Your answer – you went at length to talk about man being a spirit, that has a soul and lives in a body. How does this answer the question of providing the scripture.
Again I asked – “Before Jesus’ flesh qualified because he didn’t yield to sin was it a sin-stained flesh?”
Your answer was – “It was the exact same flesh sinners had”
The question was not whether Jesus’ body was the same flesh sinners had. It was not a comparison between his body and those of sinners. The question was whether ON ITS OWN it was a sin-stained body.

So it is clear that you are either trying to evade the question or you are trying to be ‘SMART’ in answering in such a way that you can later on DECIDE to interpret your answer however you want.

I also asked – “Is a flesh that can sin but has no sin the same as a flesh that has sin?”
Your answer – “Yes sir, they are the same flesh. One just used his to obey God while the other disobeyed God with his.”
I am sure a good English language secondary school student would do better. If I were to ask you ‘Is a rich man in the same category as a poor man?’ maybe your answer will be ‘Yes, only that one is rich and the other is poor’. What an answer that would be.
So to you a flesh that has NO sin is the same as a flesh that has sin. Interesting!

When Paul addressed the Corinthian Christians and told them they were carnal, people of the flesh, etc were they regenerate? Yes. So when you say works of the flesh is of unregenerate man, how does that line up with this? Again one sees an attempt to make scripture align with your held position.

Like I’ve pointed out in the past, words have meaning. You are therefore not at liberty to make words mean what you want them to mean. For example, it would appear that your definition of sinful (given your answer to my question on ‘sinful flesh’) is ‘corruptible’ or ‘mortal’, ‘susceptible to dents, defects, diseases and death’. So these are what the word ‘sinful’ means to you. When you quote Hebrew and Greek words do you do so to make your readers know that those words have specific meaning? Now, who gave the meaning to them? Mbaemeka or the people of those languages? When the phrase ‘sinful flesh’ is therefore to be looked at, how should it be understood? Is it in the way it is conveyed in simple English or the way Mbaemeka WANTS it to be seen?

Mbaemeka, what every single progeny of Adam gets at physical birth is CONDEMNATION from God as a result of Adam’s sin. That is really what ‘in Adam all die’ means. Did Jesus at his physical birth get the same verdict? NO!
Just as Adam didn’t die physically immediately after he sin yet ‘died’ that same ‘death’ is now the lot of every single member of the human race. This ‘death’ resides in the human body. Note that if Adam and Eve did not sin their ‘flesh’ would have continued to live indefinitely. But their sin and condemnation by God reversed this. In Jesus no such imputation took place.

trustman:

You end up making a lot of inferences apparently in a bid to make the scripture you quote line up with your perceived position.

You must know that you really did not directly answer a number of my questions. Rather you ‘READ’ your assumed position into your answers. In other words, instead of answering the questions what you did was to just give ‘answers’ from your assumed position. I had said that I will appreciate your simple clear answers.

For example:
I asked – “Can you show me the scripture that says Adam’s sin is received through other men’s spirit?”
Your answer – you went at length to talk about man being a spirit, that has a soul and lives in a body. How does this answer the question of providing the scripture.
Again I asked – “Before Jesus’ flesh qualified because he didn’t yield to sin was it a sin-stained flesh?”
Your answer was – “It was the exact same flesh sinners had”
The question was not whether Jesus’ body was the same flesh sinners had. It was not a comparison between his body and those of sinners. The question was whether ON ITS OWN it was a sin-stained body.

So it is clear that you are either trying to evade the question or you are trying to be ‘SMART’ in answering in such a way that you can later on DECIDE to interpret your answer however you want.

I also asked – “Is a flesh that can sin but has no sin the same as a flesh that has sin?”
Your answer – “Yes sir, they are the same flesh. One just used his to obey God while the other disobeyed God with his.”
I am sure a good English language secondary school student would do better. If I were to ask you ‘Is a rich man in the same category as a poor man?’ maybe your answer will be ‘Yes, only that one is rich and the other is poor’. What an answer that would be.
So to you a flesh that has NO sin is the same as a flesh that has sin. Interesting!

When Paul addressed the Corinthian Christians and told them they were carnal, people of the flesh, etc were they regenerate? Yes. So when you say works of the flesh is of unregenerate man, how does that line up with this? Again one sees an attempt to make scripture align with your held position.

Like I’ve pointed out in the past, words have meaning. You are therefore not at liberty to make words mean what you want them to mean. For example, it would appear that your definition of sinful (given your answer to my question on ‘sinful flesh’) is ‘corruptible’ or ‘mortal’, ‘susceptible to dents, defects, diseases and death’. So these are what the word ‘sinful’ means to you. When you quote Hebrew and Greek words do you do so to make your readers know that those words have specific meaning? Now, who gave the meaning to them? Mbaemeka or the people of those languages? When the phrase ‘sinful flesh’ is therefore to be looked at, how should it be understood? Is it in the way it is conveyed in simple English or the way Mbaemeka WANTS it to be seen?

Mbaemeka, what every single progeny of Adam gets at physical birth is CONDEMNATION from God as a result of Adam’s sin. That is really what ‘in Adam all die’ means. Did Jesus at his physical birth get the same verdict? NO!
Just as Adam didn’t die physically immediately after he sin yet ‘died’ that same ‘death’ is now the lot of every single member of the human race. This ‘death’ resides in the human body. Note that if Adam and Eve did not sin their ‘flesh’ would have continued to live indefinitely. But their sin and condemnation by God reversed this. In Jesus no such imputation took place.

There's no need to repeat myself. I believe I made my points very clear which is something I cannot say for you. You never answered any of my questions and you repeated all the verses you had started with without giving any biblical supported interpretation to it.

The only thing worth responding to in your post is why Paul called some Corinthian Chrisians carnal and the reason is clear. They had the Holy Spirit of God within, they had the new man within, they came behind in none of the gifts of the spirit etc. BUT they hadn't renewed their minds by the word of God. That's why some of them drank the wine during the communion till they were drunk, some had immoral sex acts, some others took themselves to court, while others kept visiting the temples of idols etc.

Paul told them how can you be so carnal? How can you know God and still be conscious of idols and demons? How can you defile the body and blood of Jesus by taking it in an unworthy manner while not discerning what the real body is? Why do you listen to those who say I am deceiving you? Why do you let the old way of thinking dominate you now that you are in Christ?

These things haven't changed much from what obtains today. In fact, it is worse off. The carnal ones now frown upon anything that has to do with the supernatural. They get irked when they see the gifts of the spirit in demonstration. They water-down the word of God to believable levels. They insult dignitaries with reckless abandon. They side with naysayers and mockers of the faith to disparage the body of Christ. Bringing God's people to the public scorn.

Come out and be separated from them because the time is short. God is doing a quick work and very soon they would be a shaking that all those involved in this will feel the wrath even though some to more pronounced levels than others.

If I see anything else interesting and worthy of my response I might reply. Other than that I rest my case.

mbaemeka:

There's no need to repeat myself. I believe I made my points very clear which is something I cannot say for you. You never answered any of my questions and you repeated all the verses you had started with without giving any biblical supported interpretation to it.

The only thing worth responding to in your post is why Paul called some Corinthian Chrisians carnal and the reason is clear. They had the Holy Spirit of God within, they had the new man within, they came behind in none of the gifts of the spirit etc. BUT they hadn't renewed their minds by the word of God. That's why some of them drank the wine during the communion till they were drunk, some had immoral sex acts, some others took themselves to court, while others kept visiting the temples of idols etc.

Paul told them how can you be so carnal? How can you know God and still be conscious of idols and demons? How can you defile the body and blood of Jesus by taking it in an unworthy manner while not discerning what the real body is? Why do you listen to those who say I am deceiving you? Why do you let the old way of thinking dominate you now that you are in Christ?

These things haven't changed much from what obtains today. In fact, it is worse off. The carnal ones now frown upon anything that has to do with the supernatural. They get irked when they see the gifts of the spirit in demonstration. They water-down the word of God to believable levels. They insult dignitaries with reckless abandon. They side with naysayers and mockers of the faith to disparage the body of Christ. Bringing God's people to the public scorn.

Come out and be separated from them because the time is short. God is doing a quick work and very soon they would be a shaking that all those involved in this will feel the wrath even though some to more pronounced levels than others.

If I see anything else interesting and worthy of my response I might reply. Other than that I rest my case.

I can see that you are really not willing to let the scripture speak to you. 
First, as usual you shift your faults on the other person. Psychologists have a name for that. 
Then even where I clearly showed that you didn't answer my questions you now come up with this excuse of not "giving biblical supported interpretation to" the verses I quoted, whatever that means. 

Remember the core issue we've both been focussing on is whether Jesus had SINFUL FLESH.

You want biblical interpretation? Let's start with:
Romans7:22-23
" For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members."

What is Paul saying here? 
1. He delights to do the will of God in his inner being. He takes pleasure in the law of God. Not as an unbeliever because the unsaved cannot exhibit this extreme gratification to do God's will. Also the carnal Christian will not walk like this - see Romans 8: 6-8. 
2. His mind is involved in this delight in the will of God. V. 23
3. But 'in his members' i.e. his flesh (his body) he sees something working in opposition to what his mind wants to do i.e. to please God. 
4. The mind is 'inside' his body. This other law at war with his desire to please God is also in his body. They are two different things. 
5. This thing or 'flesh'(because of its close affinity with the human body) or 'old man' - Ephesians 4:22 (because of its old or ancient origin- via Adam: 1 Corinthians 25:22 " For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." is the sin nature we are talking about. 
6. This sin imputation each member of the human race receives at birth from Adam is the reason for the many conflicts we experience. 
7. This sin imputation automatically  makes every one born into this world a 'sinner' EVEN WITHOUT committing any single act of sin - mental, verbal or overt. 
8. IF Jesus had this same imputation he would have been 'like us" in this regards i.e. a 'sinner' from day one of his life. But he did not have this imputation. Jesus would NEVER have made that statement that Paul made. 
9. God bypassed the mode of transmission of this sin nature - man, and brought into the world another 'Adam' ( 1 Corinthians 15:45)
10. So from birth, not at or after the cross, Jesus was already this last Adam. He was already an acceptable sacrifice from birth as a result of the fact that he was the "uniquely born" one (monogenes in the Greek). The issue for him would be whether he would remain so throughout the incarnation. 
11. Jesus therefore, by virtue of the fact that he was uniquely born, and as a result DID NOT inherit the 'old man' from Adam did not have a SINFUL FLESH. There was no  'SIN' in his 'FLESH' to make him have a sinful flesh. 
12. ANY TEACHING THAT HE HAD IS NOT ONLY UNSCRIPTURAL BUT BLASPHEMOUS.

Let me help you out again. In the same Chapter Paul said I AM EVIL, SOLD UNDER SIN, UNDER THE LAW. Please can you show me how a Christian can be all 3 and if so why did bother condemning the Corinthian church? (Please bear it in mind that he wrote the book of Corinthians before he wrote the book of Romans)

Also, when a Man gets born again what changes (becomes new instantly) about him:is it his flesh, soul or his Spirit?

There's not a single question you have asked me on this thread that I didn't respond to. What you can say is that I didn't give you the answer you wanted. But you on the other hand are yet to answer any questions of mine. Besides, we didn't get her to discuss whether Jesus' flesh was SINFUL or not (no matter how you try to captionalize it). We came here because you tried to claim Jesus' had a different flesh from the rest of us and as a result could be used by the Holy Spirit to perform the miracles he performed. This is even a shift from your earliest stance in which you maintained he did so with inherent power (such that a deity would have) even when I showed you clear scriptures stating that Jesus functioned as a man.

At least, now you have agreed he needed the Holy Spirit. But when I said any other man born of the human flesh can do same if he had the Holy Spirit, you objected to it and claimed Jesus' flesh was different- to which I said that is a blatant lie. And I have shown you more than 15 scriptures to effect it but you could not show a single one. Instead, you were showing me 1 John 3:5 that says "there was no sin IN HIM" and I recall I kept telling you that the verse was referring to his spirit but you refused to concede even in the face of staggering evidence one of which is 2 Cor 2:11 that tells us expressly that.

I have told you and every other person on this thread that the real man is the spirit. That the flesh of man has no part to play in kingdom of God because the flesh is physical and the kingdom is spiritual.I told you how Paul kept saying the life 'I' live in the flesh and how that 'I' was his spirit. I told you how that when a man dies the bible says it is his Spirit that left the body (James 2:26) and also that it is people's spirits that go to heaven or hell. If you cannot see that the spirit of a man is what God looks at to tell if he is a sinner or not (Pro 20:27). Then I am sorry. I cannot help you.

That should be with exception of Jesus I trust?

mbaemeka:

I have told you and every other person on this thread that the real man is the spirit. [b]That the flesh of man has no part to play in kingdoms of God because the flesh is physical and the kingdom is spiritual.[/b]I told you how Paul kept saying the life 'I' live in the flesh and how that 'I' was his spirit. I told you how that when a man dies the bible says it is his Spirit that left the body (James 2:26) and also that it is people's spirits that go to heaven or hell. If you cannot see that the spirit of a man is what God looks at to tell if he is a sinner or not (Pro 20:27). Then I am sorry. I cannot help you.

mbaemeka:
Let me help you out again. In the same Chapter Paul said I AM EVIL, SOLD UNDER SIN, UNDER THE LAW. Please can you show me how a Christian can be all 3 and if so why did bother condemning the Corinthian church? (Please bear it in mind that he wrote the book of Corinthians before he wrote the book of Romans)

Also, when a Man gets born again what changes (becomes new instantly) about him:is it his flesh, soul or his Spirit?

There's not a single question you have asked me on this thread that I didn't respond to. What you can say is that I didn't give you the answer you wanted. But you on the other hand are yet to answer any questions of mine. Besides, we didn't get her to discuss whether Jesus' flesh was SINFUL or not (no matter how you try to captionalize it). We came here because you tried to claim Jesus' had a different flesh from the rest of us and as a result could be used by the Holy Spirit to perform the miracles he performed. This is even a shift from your earliest stance in which you maintained he did so with inherent power (such that a deity would have) even when I showed you clear scriptures stating that Jesus functioned as a man.

At least, now you have agreed he needed the Holy Spirit. But when I said any other man born of the human flesh can do same if he had the Holy Spirit, you objected to it and claimed Jesus' flesh was different- to which I said that is a blatant lie. And I have shown you more than 15 scriptures to effect it but you could not show a single one. Instead, you were showing me 1 John 3:5 that says "there was no sin IN HIM" and I recall I kept telling you that the verse was referring to his spirit but you refused to concede even in the face of staggering evidence one of which is 2 Cor 2:11 that tells us expressly that.

I have told you and every other person on this thread that the real man is the spirit. That the flesh of man has no part to play in kingdom of God because the flesh is physical and the kingdom is spiritual.I told you how Paul kept saying the life 'I' live in the flesh and how that 'I' was his spirit. I told you how that when a man dies the bible says it is his Spirit that left the body (James 2:26) and also that it is people's spirits that go to heaven or hell. If you cannot see that the spirit of a man is what God looks at to tell if he is a sinner or not (Pro 20:27). Then I am sorry. I cannot help you.

1) Paul is simply stating here that the flesh, which is an ally of the sin nature, has subjected him to a state where he is unable to keep the law he truly wants to keep.

He shows the tension that exists between the sin nature and a self (inner being) that wants to do what is good. [Many today can identify with this: they really want to live a sin-free life but continually find themselves wanting to or yielding to sin]. Adam’s sin resulted in this state for all men. Man therefore has to see that on his own he cannot keep the law which is holy (v. 7) because there is a nature in him that has a propensity toward disobedience to God. This condition continues to be there for the Christian. That is why he still commits sin – he would go against Philippians 2: 3, 4 for example without blinking an eye lid; without thinking it is an act of disobedience to divine mandate: “Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others”.

Any Christian who allows the control of his soul by the sin nature will behave like any unbeliever. That was the lot of the Corinthians.

When Paul said in 1 Timothy 1: 15 “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost” he was speaking with the recognition of what he had been (no thanks to what the sin nature can do in and through man).

This understanding of the sin nature antagonism should make anyone see that the only solution to this perpetual conflict lies in the only one who neither had this sin nature nor commit any act of sin – Jesus Christ.

2) When a man is born again he is given a human spirit which enables him have a relationship with God. His flesh remains the same (no change). His mind (a part of the soul) needs to be renewed by the Word of God so that he can think the mind of Christ.

The above (1) & (2) are answers to your questions in case you missed out noting so. You however never answered most of mine. For instance, when I asked: “Before Jesus’ flesh qualified because he didn’t yield it to sin, was it a sin-stained flesh?”
Your answer that: “It was the exact same flesh sinners had” did not answer the question. The question was not whether Jesus’ body was the same flesh sinners had. It was a comparison between his body and those of sinners. The question was whether on its own it was a sin-stained body.
A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer will do for a start.

If you claim 1 John 3:5 was referring to Jesus’ spirit, on what basis? Why spirit alone? Why not spirit, soul and body? How does 2 Corinthians 2: 11 “So that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs” confirm your position? Even if you meant 1 Corinthians 2:11 “For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God” how does this confirm your explanation that 1 John 3:5 was referring to Jesus’ spirit ALONE?

You remember you had said that the inside (mind) does not matter but the spoken words.

As per "God considers the heart more important than the words spoken" there could be no greater lie than that.

That was here: https://www.nairaland.com/1790500/word-faith-movements-doctrine-proponents/20#25851608
Now you are here telling us that the inside matters. Where do you stand?

However we are even talking here about what God looks at to tell a sinner or not. We are looking at whether Jesus’ body (flesh) had the sin nature that the rest of mankind has. And it is evident from scripture that he did not. That is PART of what qualified him in his humanity to be the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.

Benny Hinn may teach that “Jesus became sin” and “became one with the nature of satan”.
Kenneth Hagin may say that he (Jesus) had ‘satan’s nature’.
Kenneth Copeland may say Jesus “accepted the sin nature of satan”.
Your MoG may have followed their thinking and teaching.
But the issue for every Christian (including you) should always be; ‘What does the word of God say?’ and ‘Whose report will you believe- God’s or man’s?’

Recall that you said:
Jesus had a sinful flesh

In typical Trustman style you keep recycling the same issues and giving your own interpretations of my statements then giving your purported "correct" interpretations regardless of how ridden with contradictions they are. For instance, I have maintained all through that Jesus (the man) was unique in that he had a SINLESS SPIRIT and SINLESS BLOOD but his FLESH was a sinful one and therefore subject to the temptations of sin.

In scripture the word flesh is used not just for the physical body but encompassing the influence of sin on the body as a result of the imputation of Adam’s original sin on every single person born. So, beyond the physical issues of the human body there is the power sin exerts on the human soul/body in a way that shows its close affinity with the body, hence the use of the word ‘flesh’ for it in many places.
Psalm 51:5 “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me”

I then showed you that his (Jesus’) birth was unique.
If God wanted him to have what you called the ‘EXACT’ body like every other human being he would have allowed a man to be involved in Jesus’ conception. But this was not the case: God bypassed man in bringing about the conception/birth of Jesus.

If man were involved in Jesus’ conception (note conception – the process of Mary becoming pregnant) the JUSTICE of God would have had to IMPUTE Adam’s sin on the baby Jesus. If that had happened, Jesus’ body would not have been sin-free to start with. Even if he were then able (or God helped him) to live a sin-free life, the fact of that initial imputation of Adam’s sin at his birth would still have made him a sinner. What we would then have would be a sinner going to the cross for the sins of other sinners. That would not be the perfect sacrifice required to propitiate God.

When I mentioned the case of a body with Ebola and one without it you shrugged it off. But what I was getting at was that a human body that is diseased CANNOT FUNCTION the same way as one that is free from disease. In the same way the flesh contaminated by the sin nature CANNOT be said to be EXACTLY the same as one that is free from the influence/control of the sin nature.
I gave you Romans 6:6 to let you know how the scripture links the sin nature to our body and the solution: “We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin”

Romans 7:14 “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.” is telling us that there is nothing wrong with the law on its own but our enslavement or if you prefer marriage to the sin nature is the problem. This is why Paul used the illustration of marriage to drive home his point on this.

Hebrews 7:26 “For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.” shows us how distinct this our High Priest is from the rest of us. Look at the adjectives used to describe him.

Jesus knew he was this distinct from others before the cross and did not say “Any man can be the Saviour” or anything to that effect rather what he said was:
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (John 5:51).

Jesus body (his flesh) did not have the sin nature residing in it which is unlike the rest of us who do. It was only if he had committed an act of sin that this would have changed just as Adam knew a change had taken in him when he sinned. But he (Jesus) never sinned. So his sin-free body (the container God chose to have man in rather than a spiritual body like that of angels) because he was UNIQUELY BORN, not having inherited the ‘old man’ from Adam and his sinless life qualified him to be mankind’s sin-bearer.
There was no “SIN” in his ‘FLESH’ to make him have a sinful flesh.

trustman:
[size=7pt][/size]

1) Paul is simply stating here that the flesh, which is an ally of the sin nature, has subjected him to a state where he is unable to keep the law he truly wants to keep.

He shows the tension that exists between the sin nature and a self (inner being) that wants to do what is good. [Many today can identify with this: they really want to live a sin-free life but continually find themselves wanting to or yielding to sin]. Adam’s sin resulted in this state for all men. Man therefore has to see that on his own he cannot keep the law which is holy (v. 7) because there is a nature in him that has a propensity toward disobedience to God. This condition continues to be there for the Christian. That is why he still commits sin – he would go against Philippians 2: 3, 4 for example without blinking an eye lid; without thinking it is an act of disobedience to divine mandate: “Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others”.

How did Adam's sin result in that state for all men? Did Adam have such propensity before he sinned? If his flesh was "not tainted" by sin why did he still sin? After all, he had "SINLESS" flesh, sinless soul and sinless spirit yet he still SINNED. The aspect in emboldened blue fonts is absolute hogwash. It is this incoherent gibberish that some are fed with that continues to confuse their walk with God. Do you agree that Paul wrote to the Corinthians before he wrote to the Romans? So why is he saying A to the Romans and B to the Corinthians? I am even going too far by referring to his writings to the Corinthians. Let us see what he said in the Chapter 6 of the book of Romans before he even got to the Chapter 7.

2. . .How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin. 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body 13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin.

Now tell me how this same Paul that has just finished saying the above will then have this to say: "sin that dwelleth in me", "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing", "I am carnal, a slave to sin" etc. If he was not referring to his old spirit- the one that was crucified with Christ? Or what do you think he meant in Galatians 2:20?

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

The "I" that was crucified is the old man- the old spirit that was born bearing the sin-nature. Paul is saying that man is dead- non-existent. So Paul had no conflicts whatsoever.

You however never answered most of mine. For instance, when I asked: “Before Jesus’ flesh qualified because he didn’t yield it to sin, was it a sin-stained flesh?”
Your answer that: “It was the exact same flesh sinners had” did not answer the question. The question was not whether Jesus’ body was the same flesh sinners had. It was a comparison between his body and those of sinners. The question was whether on its own it was a sin-stained body.
A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer will do for a start.

What is a sin stained flesh if not a flesh that has been stained by sin? and what does it mean for the flesh to be stained by sin except that the owner of the flesh stained it with sin? I told you ad nauseam that what Paul referred to as SINFUL flesh in Romans 8:3 referred to the flesh that all men have- the flesh that is susceptible to sin and can yield to it; mortal flesh; corruptible flesh etc AND THIS WAS THE SAME FLESH JESUS HAD.

If you claim 1 John 3:5 was referring to Jesus’ spirit, on what basis? Why spirit alone? Why not spirit, soul and body? How does 2 Corinthians 2: 11 “So that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs” confirm your position? Even if you meant 1 Corinthians 2:11 “For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God” how does this confirm your explanation that 1 John 3:5 was referring to Jesus’ spirit ALONE?

Because when the bible says IN HIM it means just like 1 Corinthians 2:11-the spirit of that person, which is in him. In other words, when Paul or John made reference to IN HIM they referred to the INNER MAN- the one that lives INSIDE the flesh. Kindly tell us who that INNER MAN is?

You remember you had said that the inside (mind) does not matter but the spoken words.

Thrash and misappropriated. If you want to quote me better quote me well or just forget it if it is over you. This is what I said:

As per "God considers the heart more important than the words spoken" there could be no greater lie than that. Surely, what is to be spoken must first be believed in the heart but (you will not experience the reality of it) until you speak it forth.

So I never said the HEART (SPIRIT) and not MIND does not matter. I said it works hand in hand with the speaking forth and Paul corroborated such a notion in Roman 10:9-10. Maybe if you read my post's well you would not bother with alot of things that you say but alas the same thing you accuse me of repeatedly, you are ever so culpable of.

However we are even talking here about what God looks at to tell a sinner or not. We are looking at whether Jesus’ body (flesh) had the sin nature that the rest of mankind has. And it is evident from scripture that he did not. That is PART of what qualified him in his humanity to be the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.

I have said it on many occasions that Jesus didn't have the unrighteous/sin-tainted spirit/ sin-nature that other men had. BUT He had the same flesh that they had. That has been my position since. I even told you that his flesh wasn't impervious to sin like you were trying to insinuate. If he let it sin it would have sinned. But he had a righteous spirit that wasn't subject to the prince of the air- the one that works in all men until they receive christ.

Recall that you said:
Jesus had a sinful flesh

NO again. This is what I said:

but his FLESH was a sinful one and therefore subject to the temptations of sin.

I explained what I meant by SINFUL flesh as used in Romans 8:3 (before I showed it to you) so that you would not misconstrue my words to mean that Jesus SINNED. But the very thing I sought to correct- you accused me of. How mischievous.

In scripture the word flesh is used not just for the physical body but encompassing the influence of sin on the body as a result of the imputation of Adam’s original sin on every single person born. So, beyond the physical issues of the human body there is the power sin exerts on the human soul/body in a way that shows its close affinity with the body, hence the use of the word ‘flesh’ for it in many places.
Psalm 51:5 “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me”

I can write a page on the meaning of sarx as used by the writers to refer to flesh. That word means exactly flesh/body and nothing else BUT by synecdoche it can be stretched to mean different things based on the context. I have explained this before to another poster not too long ago. It does not mean spirit, soul and body in all contexts. For instance when Paul said the life I live in the "flesh" in Galatians 2 the word sarx only meant BODY or FLESH there and not spirit because the spirit was the I. The same way Paul said I bring my "Sarx" under subjection in Corinthians he was referring to only the Body and not the "totality of humanity". That is the same way the sarx as used in Romans 8:3 ONLY referred to Jesus' flesh and not his spirit or soul regardless of the confusion of translations that a few versions gave.

I then showed you that his (Jesus’) birth was unique.
If God wanted him to have what you called the ‘EXACT’ body like every other human being he would have allowed a man to be involved in Jesus’ conception. But this was not the case: God bypassed man in bringing about the conception/birth of Jesus.

The father of a baby is responsible for the babies blood (and in spiritual terms spirit) while the mother is responsible for the body/flesh. Jesus had to be a Jew; from David's lineage; totally human and to have a human body that was why he needed a mother or else God would have simply spoke him into being without having any earthly parents. That would have been the only way he would have come in another flesh and in that case he NEVER would have died.

If man were involved in Jesus’ conception (note conception – the process of Mary becoming pregnant) the JUSTICE of God would have had to IMPUTE Adam’s sin on the baby Jesus. If that had happened, Jesus’ body would not have been sin-free to start with. Even if he were then able (or God helped him) to live a sin-free life, the fact of that initial imputation of Adam’s sin at his birth would still have made him a sinner. What we would then have would be a sinner going to the cross for the sins of other sinners. That would not be the perfect sacrifice required to propitiate God.

Nonsense. Adam's flesh made no one a sinner because Adam sinned before his flesh was corrupted or stained with sin- he didn't sin as a result of a fallen flesh (Oh I hope you catch this!). The spirit of a man is what makes him a sinner like Adam. Paul said sin and death passed through to all men including those WHO DIDN'T SIN IN THE SIMILITUDE OF ADAM'S SIN. This means without even having a flesh to sin like Adam did sin and death was already accredited to one's account. So there's nothing unscriptural about Jesus having the exact flesh with Adam et al. The issue would have been if I have claimed that he sinned and I didn't!

When I mentioned the case of a body with Ebola and one without it you shrugged it off. But what I was getting at was that a human body that is diseased CANNOT FUNCTION the same way as one that is free from disease. In the same way the flesh contaminated by the sin nature CANNOT be said to be EXACTLY the same as one that is free from the influence/control of the sin nature.

A Caucasian and a Negroid both have the same flesh even though they might "appear" different in color. Jesus had the same flesh. A flesh contaminated by sin would mean that the inner man within the flesh was born with sin. Jesus wasn't born with sin in his inner man.

I gave you Romans 6:6 to let you know how the scripture links the sin nature to our body and the solution: “We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin”

Hahaha, this verse proves what I have been saying only you didn't see it. Both sin-nature and righteous-nature are linked to the flesh. For the latter we are asked to use the righteous spirit to subdue the flesh while when we had the sin-nature we yielded our flesh to do the desires of our sin-stained spirit. Paul said our Old man WAS CRUCIFIED meaning the sin-stained spirit is dead so that it is now possible for us to walk without committing sin in our mortal body like. . .Jesus!

Romans 7:14 “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.” is telling us that there is nothing wrong with the law on its own but our enslavement or if you prefer marriage to the sin nature is the problem. This is why Paul used the illustration of marriage to drive home his point on this.

lol, Paul is saying: [When I was a sinner] I was a slave to sin (My spirit was unrighteous) and as such was disobedient to the law even though I knew that the law was good.(Ephesians 2). I used my flesh to work sin as against working righteousness which I knew was the right thing to do.

Hebrews 7:26 “For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.” shows us how distinct this our High Priest is from the rest of us. Look at the adjectives used to describe him.

He was separated in what sense? He was Holy in what sense? He was innocent in what sense? He had a righteous spirit (righteous nature) and he didn't sin. It says nothing about him having a different flesh from sinners. Absolutely nothing. If in doubt see this in Hebrews 2:

10 For it was an act worthy [of God] and fitting [to the divine nature] that He, for Whose sake and by Whom all things have their existence, in bringing many sons into glory, should make the Pioneer of their salvation perfect [should bring to maturity the human experience necessary to be perfectly equipped for His office as High Priest] through suffering.

17 So it is evident that it was essential that He be made like His brethren in every respect, in order that He might become a merciful (sympathetic) and faithful High Priest in the things related to God, to make atonement and propitiation for the people’s sins

He was made like us in every respect only that he had the divine/righteous nature/ righteous spirit; a spotless blood; and he didn't sin.

Jesus knew he was this distinct from others before the cross and did not say “Any man can be the Saviour” or anything to that effect rather what he said was:
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (John 5:51).

What a struggle of a point. Nobody has said any man can save us the way Jesus saved us. But now that we are saved we can do the same miracles he performed because he told us so and we have the same holy spirit that he had. Period.

Jesus body (his flesh) did not have the sin nature residing in it which is unlike the rest of us who do. It was only if he had committed an act of sin that this would have changed just as Adam knew a change had taken in him when he sinned. But he (Jesus) never sinned. So his sin-free body (the container God chose to have man in rather than a spiritual body like that of angels) because he was UNIQUELY BORN, not having inherited the ‘old man’ from Adam and his sinless life qualified him to be mankind’s sin-bearer.
There was no “SIN” in his ‘FLESH’ to make him have a sinful flesh.

Another struggle. I have never said Jesus had a sin nature- unrighteous spirit. His body was not housed by such a spirit like it was for other men before his birth. The "old man" he didn't inherit from Adam was the "sin-stained spirit". But he inherited the same body like Adam- no difference and as such it was a body subject to sin like every other man's and that is what I have consistently said all through.

mbaemeka

You are moving off again.
You seem to love it too.

How did Adam's sin result in that state for all men? Did Adam have such propensity before he sinned? If his flesh was "not tainted" by sin why did he still sin? After all, he had "SINLESS" flesh, sinless soul and sinless spirit yet he still SINNED. The aspect in emboldened blue fonts is absolute hogwash. It is this incoherent gibberish that some are fed with that continues to confuse their walk with God. Do you agree that Paul wrote to the Corinthians before he wrote to the Romans? So why is he saying A to the Romans and B to the Corinthians? I am even going too far by referring to his writings to the Corinthians. Let us see what he said in the Chapter 6 of the book of Romans before he even got to the Chapter 7.

2. . .How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin. 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body 13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin.

Now tell me how this same Paul that has just finished saying the above will then have this to say: "sin that dwelleth in me", "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing", "I am carnal, a slave to sin" etc. If he was not referring to his old spirit- the one that was crucified with Christ? Or what do you think he meant in Galatians 2:20?

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

The "I" that was crucified is the old man- the old spirit that was born bearing the sin-nature. Paul is saying that man is dead- non-existent. So Paul had no conflicts whatsoever.

Have you truly been able to obey Philippians 2: 3 & 4? Yes or No will be ok.

I can see you trying to run away from my question again. I asked for a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to make things clearer but you still went round in circles. You made a statement and I ask you a question on the statement and you can’t give a simple response to it. I take it then that you are not able to answer the question.

What is a sin stained flesh if not a flesh that has been stained by sin? and what does it mean for the flesh to be stained by sin except that the owner of the flesh stained it with sin? I told you ad nauseam that what Paul referred to as SINFUL flesh in Romans 8:3 referred to the flesh that all men have- the flesh that is susceptible to sin and can yield to it; mortal flesh; corruptible flesh etc AND THIS WAS THE SAME FLESH JESUS HAD.

Because when the bible says IN HIM it means just like 1 Corinthians 2:11-the spirit of that person, which is in him. In other words, when Paul or John made reference to IN HIM they referred to the INNER MAN- the one that lives INSIDE the flesh. Kindly tell us who that INNER MAN is?

Thrash and misappropriated. If you want to quote me better quote me well or just forget it if it is over you. This is what I said:

So I never said the HEART (SPIRIT) and not MIND does not matter. I said it works hand in hand with the speaking forth and Paul corroborated such a notion in Roman 10:9-10. Maybe if you read my post's well you would not bother with alot of things that you say but alas the same thing you accuse me of repeatedly, you are ever so culpable of.

And you are also good at giving your own meaning even to your own clearly stated words. For goodness sake how is anyone to understand this your statement:
“As per “God considers the heart more important than the words spoken” there could be no greater lie than that.”
I guess our readers will be the judge here.
You chose to emphasize or highlight the second part of the statement you made about Jesus flesh. What does this part i quoted from you mean?

I have said it on many occasions that Jesus didn't have the unrighteous/sin-tainted spirit/ sin-nature that other men had. BUT He had the same flesh that they had. That has been my position since. I even told you that his flesh wasn't impervious to sin like you were trying to insinuate. If he let it sin it would have sinned. But he had a righteous spirit that wasn't subject to the prince of the air- the one that works in all men until they receive christ.

NO again. This is what I said:

I explained what I meant by SINFUL flesh as used in Romans 8:3 (before I showed it to you) so that you would not misconstrue my words to mean that Jesus SINNED. But the very thing I sought to correct- you accused me of. How mischievous.

Your saying ‘but his flesh was a sinful one and therefore subject to the temptations of sin’ when put in another way is just as if you are saying “His flesh is subject to the temptations of sin because it was a sinful one”. Like I’ve said repeatedly English words have meaning. There is no way, apart from being cunning and deceitful, that you can interpret this your statement differently. That was why I also said you can admit your error. But you are apparently too ‘big’ to do that. Another word for that is arrogance. You are the one being mischievous here, not me yet you are trying to put that tag right on me! Again I have mentioned this about you some time ago.
Paul did not make this statement, you did. But you are now attempting to ‘use’ Paul’s statement to justify your position. The words ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh’ of Romans 8:3 IS A COMPARISON and not EXACTNESS.

I can write a page on the meaning of sarx as used by the writers to refer to flesh. That word means exactly flesh/body and nothing else BUT by synecdoche it can be stretched to mean different things based on the context. I have explained this before to another poster not too long ago. It does not mean spirit, soul and body in all contexts. For instance when Paul said the life I live in the "flesh" in Galatians 2 the word sarx only meant BODY or FLESH there and not spirit because the spirit was the I. The same way Paul said I bring my "Sarx" under subjection in Corinthians he was referring to only the Body and not the "totality of humanity". That is the same way the sarx as used in Romans 8:3 ONLY referred to Jesus' flesh and not his spirit or soul regardless of the confusion of translations that a few versions gave.

The father of a baby is responsible for the babies blood (and in spiritual terms spirit) while the mother is responsible for the body/flesh. Jesus had to be a Jew; from David's lineage; totally human and to have a human body that was why he needed a mother or else God would have simply spoke him into being without having any earthly parents. That would have been the only way he would have come in another flesh and in that case he NEVER would have died.

Nonsense. Adam's flesh made no one a sinner because Adam sinned before his flesh was corrupted or stained with sin- he didn't sin as a result of a fallen flesh (Oh I hope you catch this!). The spirit of a man is what makes him a sinner like Adam. Paul said sin and death passed through to all men including those WHO DIDN'T SIN IN THE SIMILITUDE OF ADAM'S SIN. This means without even having a flesh to sin like Adam did sin and death was already accredited to one's account. So there's nothing unscriptural about Jesus having the exact flesh with Adam et al. The issue would have been if I have claimed that he sinned and I didn't!

I don’t know what you are getting at here. First, I NEVER said Adam sinned because he had a fallen flesh. I was NOT even talking directly about Adam or his flesh here. I was talking about Jesus. So I don’t know what you are asking me to catch. You seem to get so excited when you think you ‘know’ some ‘secret things’ the other person does not know. Read that portion again very carefully. It will help you.

A Caucasian and a Negroid both have the same flesh even though they might "appear" different in color. Jesus had the same flesh. A flesh contaminated by sin would mean that the inner man within the flesh was born with sin. Jesus wasn't born with sin in his inner man.

I talk about a diseased body and one without disease not functioning the same way and the next thing you bring up is Caucasian and Negroid. Ok, lets go by this your presentation. The body of a very sick Caucasian cannot be as fit as that of a healthy, disease-free Negroid. Right? In the same way the flesh contaminated by the sin nature CANNOT be said to be EXACTLY the same as one that is free from the influence/control of the sin nature. Do you get it now?

Hahaha, this verse proves what I have been saying only you didn't see it. Both sin-nature and righteous-nature are linked to the flesh. For the latter we are asked to use the righteous spirit to subdue the flesh while when we had the sin-nature we yielded our flesh to do the desires of our sin-stained spirit. Paul said our Old man WAS CRUCIFIED meaning the sin-stained spirit is dead so that it is now possible for us to walk without committing sin in our mortal body like. . .Jesus!

lol, Paul is saying: [When I was a sinner] I was a slave to sin (My spirit was unrighteous) and as such was disobedient to the law even though I knew that the law was good.(Ephesians 2). I used my flesh to work sin as against working righteousness which I knew was the right thing to do.

He was separated in what sense? He was Holy in what sense? He was innocent in what sense? He had a righteous spirit (righteous nature) and he didn't sin. It says nothing about him having a different flesh from sinners. Absolutely nothing. If in doubt see this in Hebrews 2:

10 For it was an act worthy [of God] and fitting [to the divine nature] that He, for Whose sake and by Whom all things have their existence, in bringing many sons into glory, should make the Pioneer of their salvation perfect [should bring to maturity the human experience necessary to be perfectly equipped for His office as High Priest] through suffering.

17 So it is evident that it was essential that He be made like His brethren in every respect, in order that He might become a merciful (sympathetic) and faithful High Priest in the things related to God, to make atonement and propitiation for the people’s sins

He was made like us in every respect only that he had the divine/righteous nature/ righteous spirit; a spotless blood; and he didn't sin.

What a struggle of a point. Nobody has said any man can save us the way Jesus saved us. But now that we are saved we can do the same miracles he performed because he told us so and we have the same holy spirit that he had. Period.

Another struggle. I have never said Jesus had a sin nature- unrighteous spirit. His body was not housed by such a spirit like it was for other men before his birth. The "old man" he didn't inherit from Adam was the "sin-stained spirit". But he inherited the same body like Adam- no difference and as such it was a body subject to sin like every other man's and that is what I have consistently said all through.

I am interested in knowing how you arrived at your comment that Paul was referring to when he was a sinner in Romans 7: 14.

You are the one actually struggling to make what you said mean something else. First you talk about ‘flesh’ then you shift to ‘spirit’. And then you claim the ‘old man’ is ‘the sin-stained spirit’. You sure have your way of making words mean what you want!

Let me close for now with this:
“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” – 1 John 1: 8

Mbaemeko,
Why are you still regurgitating this nonsense that a child's blood comes from the mother?
Stretch this further, where did half of Jesus DNA come from? Was it Divine? Every part of an animal/man including blood comes from information coded in DNA which is contributed equally by BOTH parents. So, was half of Jesus' biology/body divine?

Why stop at the blood what extends to his entire body? The reason is to maintain the heresy of 'divine blood of Jesus' at the expense of his 'badly blemished flesh'. You can't have components of the Man Jesus answering to Divine while others answer to humanity. That's a contradiction in science and has no basis in scriptures.

The teaching came from sincere hearts in the age of ignorance but it was never biblical in the first place. You mbaemeko carry DNA that code for your blood half of which came from your mother and the other half your father. Once conceived, you went about manufacturing your own blood based on this DNA. so when you say the blood does not come from the mother, you are half right; it comes from the fetus based on BOTH parents' DNA. You are half wrong in claiming it comes from the father

And who told you the spirit of man is transmitted by the father through the blood? You may be right but you have no proof, it is pure speculation and you would do well to call it thus instead of spewing it with authority. If this speculation is based on the belief that the father is the source of blood, then it is based on a WRONG premise. If the spirit follows DNA, then both parents' spirits contribute to the infant's spirit. What if whatever we observe in the lab is a manifestation of the spiritual?

And you are yet to answer me why you are yet to revive a 4 days old corpse Lazarus style out of your own faith

Am certain your beliefs mirror DeHaan's
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_MR_DeHaan/Chemistry/04.htm

mbaemeka:

The father of a baby is responsible for the babies blood (and in spiritual terms spirit) while the mother is responsible for the body/flesh. Jesus had to be a Jew; from David's lineage; totally human and to have a human body that was why he needed a mother or else God would have simply spoke him into being without having any earthly parents. That would have been the only way he would have come in another flesh and in that case he NEVER would have died.

He was made like us in every respect only that he had the divine/righteous nature/ righteous spirit; a spotless blood; and he didn't sin.

What a struggle of a point. Nobody has said any man can save us the way Jesus saved us. But now that we are saved we can do the same miracles he performed because he told us so and we have the same holy spirit that he had. Period.

Book marking to read the 33 pages later. Where have I been for heaven's sake?

@Sir John/Joag, I request that you Whatsapp me whenever I'm mentioned...so as I do not have too many pages to read at once.

Trustman,

You are still struggling with moot points and really it is getting boring. Many times I have to filter through the irrelevancies to arrive at where I know you are heading at. If you could clearly read and understand my points then some of your questions would be unnecessary. For example, you cannot be asking me about a flesh that has a disease and one that doesn't when trying to make a disparity of fleshes. It makes absolutely no sense in logical and even medical terms let alone spiritual. Whether a flesh has diseases or not IT IS THE SAME FLESH.

As per my rebuttal of your statement "God considers the heart more important than the words spoken" if you want to prove that you misunderstood me then please bring all my posts on that thread where I explained myself more than 3 times. How it was able to fly over you only shows how gravely dishonest you lot are. How can my statement that "God considers our heart and words to go together" now be interpreted to mean that I said "the heart doesn't matter"? What sort of wicked distortion is that? This is the same way I clearly stated that Jesus had the same SINFUL FLESH that men had MEANING that his flesh was subject to the temptations of sin like other men and now you are trying to claim I said Jesus had a sinful nature. Even when I repeatedly told you that sinful nature is not the flesh regardless of what you or a few translations think. When Paul said he was made in likeness of sinful flesh Paul meant Jesus had the EXACT SAME FLESH that sinners had- and that's what I said.

I am responsible for what I say but not how you choose to interpret it. So get it right ok?

Concerning Adam and what you said, the only people you would deceive with your "you didn't say sin passed through the flesh or what not" are those who are going to support you no matter how many verses have been put against what you believe. You and at least 2 of your brethren here have maintained that the flesh of a man is sinful (meaning born with sin) to which I have told you its all bogus nonsense. That even Jesus had the same flesh but his spirit and the way he subjected the flesh made him holy and unreprovable in God's sight. That's why I told you repeatedly that all your references to the flesh make absolutely no sense but I know you would not see it because understanding hasn't been granted you.

You claim you want to know how I arrived at my understanding of Romans 7 but you know how I did only that you want me to keep repeating myself. Paul wrote Romans 6 before he wrote Romans 7 abi? How can he who is dead to sin in Romans 6 now wrestle with the same sin in Romans 7? How can he who is dead to the law in Romans 6 now be wrestling to obey it in Romans 7? How can Paul say a born again man is sold under sin, under the law and evil? Ok if he is claiming he is Carnal in verse 14 of Romans 7 then why was he correcting the Corinthian church about being carnal years before and why does he say that the carnal mind is enmity against God when he himself is Carnal? In fact, what moral or spiritual right did he have to correct another given that he too was subject to the same carnality?

No, No a thousand times No. Paul (the new man) was not carnal, sold under sin or what not. Paul was describing himself when he was practicing Judaism. He was proving to the Jews that even they who had the law were still sinners because the law (righteous as it is) could not make any man righteous. Instead the law made one sin more because the problem was in the spirit of men and that spirit controlled the flesh negatively I.e to disobey God even though they know what is right by the law.

lol @ first I talk about the flesh then I moved to the spirit. You guys are impossible. I have NEVER and I will NEVER need to change what I have said because I am 100% sure I am right. If you can find any of my entire post's on NL that seems to suggest I have had a contrary belief then please bring it all out. I dare you! The only people who have continued to change their positions are you and your ilk. You need to see the embarrassment they are facing on the thread about trinity all because they want to maintain 2 conflicting teachings side by side even if it flies in the face of logic or God's word. Another of such conflicting teachings is the nonsense you are trying to veer off to with your 1 John 1:8 reference. Please help us out and relate what you are trying to say with 1 John 3 especially verses 6,8 and 9 and let us see how it adds up. Then you would know the importance of understanding who some things are written to and why they were ever written at all.

I will wait.

mbaemeka
You are still struggling with moot points and really it is getting boring. Many times I have to filter through the irrelevancies to arrive at where I know you are heading at. If you could clearly read and understand my points then some of your questions would be unnecessary. For example, you cannot be asking me about a flesh that has a disease and one that doesn't when trying to make a disparity of fleshes. It makes absolutely no sense in logical and even medical terms let alone spiritual. Whether a flesh has diseases or not IT IS THE SAME FLESH.

The feeling is mutual.
If you think a very sick body will FUNCTION the same way (– be as strong, have good appetite, jump up and down easily, etc) as a very healthy body would then I don’t know what logic would think that way when experience itself teaches us that it is not so.
A basic difference is this: A diseased flesh (body) has its normal functioning IMPAIRED. Some damage has taken place. There is a diminishing of some sort in some material respect. There is blemish, some flaw, some spoilage. In short, the flesh can be said to be COMPROMISED. THEREFORE A DISEASED FLESH CANNOT BE SAID TO BE EXACTLY THE SAME AS A HEALTHY ONE.

As per my rebuttal of your statement "God considers the heart more important than the words spoken" if you want to prove that you misunderstood me then please bring all my posts on that thread where I explained myself more than 3 times. How it was able to fly over you only shows how gravely dishonest you lot are. How can my statement that "God considers our heart and words to go together" now be interpreted to mean that I said "the heart doesn't matter"? What sort of wicked distortion is that?

I clearly pasted your own statement. I didn’t even state it but lifted it just like you posted it. If however you retracted it in some other post then you may say so or point out such post. I NEVER referred to the statement “God considers our heart and words go together”. You are the one being dishonest in now claiming that that is what I interpreted. You are again shifting your fault on others. What I referred to was your statement that: “As per “God considers the heart more important than the words spoken” there could be no greater lie than that.”


You are the one distorting my presentations. It is easy to see through your subtlety.

This is the same way I clearly stated that Jesus had the same SINFUL FLESH that men had MEANING that his flesh was subject to the temptations of sin like other men and now you are trying to claim I said Jesus had a sinful nature. Even when I repeatedly told you that sinful nature is not the flesh regardless of what you or a few translations think. When Paul said he was made in likeness of sinful flesh Paul meant Jesus had the EXACT SAME FLESH that sinners had- and that's what I said.

I am responsible for what I say but not how you choose to interpret it. So get it right ok?

If you ‘clearly stated that Jesus had the same SINFUL FLESH’ but your meaning of the word SINFUL is different from what the English language says it is then there is a problem. And I don’t think the problem is with the English language. I think it is with the person using it – you! Sinful is sinful. You cannot come now and claim that you meant ‘so and so’ by that word. If you had simply said Jesus had the same flesh as other men no one will fault you. BUT when you QUALIFY his flesh by the word SINFUL, that, Mbaemeka, is something else!

When Jesus said in John 6: 63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all” was the flesh mentioned there a reference to the physical body of man or man’s ‘spirit’?
In the same way when the word ‘flesh’ is used in relation to the sin nature do you think it is referring to ‘sin-stained spirit’?

The passage I explained to you – Romans 7: 22, 23 clearly talked about ‘in my inner being’ and ‘in my members’. These are two distinct things. The use of the word ‘flesh’ to emphasize it should show that a specific issue is being brought to light. God’s decision to bypass the use of man in the conception of Jesus should equally tell us something. God imputes human life to biological life. If it was only in the realm of the soul that ‘no sin’ was required then any man could have fathered Jesus while God imputes the soul life. So when you now disregard these issues “regardless of what you (Trustman I guess) or a few (?) translations think” then I suppose there is nothing that can be done to make you accept it.

Every man born of a woman has a flesh that is DISEASED because of sin. Jesus’ flesh DID NOT have this same condition. How you can then say it is “EXACT SAME FLESH” is up to you to figure out.

Concerning Adam and what you said, the only people you would deceive with your "you didn't say sin passed through the flesh or what not" are those who are going to support you no matter how many verses have been put against what you believe. You and at least 2 of your brethren here have maintained that the flesh of a man is sinful (meaning born with sin) to which I have told you its all bogus nonsense. That even Jesus had the same flesh but his spirit and the way he subjected the flesh made him holy and unreprovable in God's sight. That's why I told you repeatedly that all your references to the flesh make absolutely no sense but I know you would not see it because understanding hasn't been granted you.

Maybe you should go back and re-read what I said. What I have consistently said is that Jesus was “uniquely born” (monogenes in the Greek), and as a result DID NOT inherit the ‘old man’ from Adam and so DID NOT have a SINFUL FLESH. In other words, there was no ‘SIN’ in his ‘FLESH’ to make him have a sinful flesh.

You claim you want to know how I arrived at my understanding of Romans 7 but you know how I did only that you want me to keep repeating myself. Paul wrote Romans 6 before he wrote Romans 7 abi? How can he who is dead to sin in Romans 6 now wrestle with the same sin in Romans 7? How can he who is dead to the law in Romans 6 now be wrestling to obey it in Romans 7? How can Paul say a born again man is sold under sin, under the law and evil? Ok if he is claiming he is Carnal in verse 14 of Romans 7 then why was he correcting the Corinthian church about being carnal years before and why does he say that the carnal mind is enmity against God when he himself is Carnal? In fact, what moral or spiritual right did he have to correct another given that he too was subject to the same carnality?

No, No a thousand times No. Paul (the new man) was not carnal, sold under sin or what not. Paul was describing himself when he was practicing Judaism. He was proving to the Jews that even they who had the law were still sinners because the law (righteous as it is) could not make any man righteous. Instead the law made one sin more because the problem was in the spirit of men and that spirit controlled the flesh negatively I.e to disobey God even though they know what is right by the law.

I asked you to check up on some words sometime ago. I don’t think you did. One word – ‘Positional’ – answers your confusion here. It is not a matter of Paul writing Romans 6 before 7. It is in understanding a Christian’s position in Christ in relation to his experiential state. For example, in Ephesians we are said to seat with Christ in heavenly places. Are we physically there in heaven? NO. But, positionally? Yes.

So Paul in Romans was stating things regarding our positional status vis-à-vis our experiential status.
Please DO NOT add to what Paul did not say. He never said he was describing himself when was practicing Judaism. That is your own addition. Whenever he needed to talk about his time in Judaism he clearly did so. Even in the book of Romans he clearly differentiated between Jews, Greeks, Gentiles, etc.

lol @ first I talk about the flesh then I moved to the spirit. You guys are impossible. I have NEVER and I will NEVER need to change what I have said because I am 100% sure I am right. If you can find any of my entire post's on NL that seems to suggest I have had a contrary belief then please bring it all out. I dare you! The only people who have continued to change their positions are you and your ilk. You need to see the embarrassment they are facing on the thread about trinity all because they want to maintain 2 conflicting teachings side by side even if it flies in the face of logic or God's word. Another of such conflicting teachings is the nonsense you are trying to veer off to with your 1 John 1:8 reference. Please help us out and relate what you are trying to say with 1 John 3 especially verses 6,8 and 9 and let us see how it adds up. Then you would know the importance of understanding who some things are written to and why they were ever written at all.

I will wait.

I really don’t know what you are waiting for. So unless you are more specific I do not know what to respond to.

You don't seem to get do you? There is nothing like a flesh stained with sin except the spirit living within the flesh has been stained with sin i.e born with sin. So I don't know what sort of cockery about being impaired or well-functioning Jesus' flesh was than say, Peters. Any man that was born into this world had the same flesh that Adam had and that flesh would sin and suffer the consequences of sin if it was subjected to such conditions. Jesus was no different in that very regard. Period.

You didn't just paste my statement. You pasted it and gave your distorted interpretation of it. You said "You said that the Heart doesn't matter" and I NEVER SAID SO. I said the HEART of a man and his WORDS must go together when you said the heart is more important than the words. In other words, I said the heart is not "more important" per se. Now tell me how that means "the heart doesn't matter" which is the prevarication you made.

I can give any interpretations that I choose to give based on the construction Paul made in greek in Romans 8:3. If that were not the case then explain why not all the translations given said the same things with most of them even agreeing with my own interpretation. So if there is any one with a problem, it is solely you. You cannot be the judge and jury in the same case. If someone says ABC means All Boys Catch you cannot say no you are wrong ABC means Apple Books Cap. You are therefore implored to deal with the verse and stop telling me about dictionaries or what not.

If all you have been saying is that Jesus didn't have the old man then why are we having this conversation except that your definition of "Old man" has nothing to do with the bible or can you prove me wrong by telling us what you always referred to as the old man? It will be interesting to add up what you would have to say with all you have been saying since.

You think you have anything to teach me about positional references and you keep ceasing not to amaze me. So you think that when Ephesians 2 says we are seated with Christ in heavenly places it means we are not currently there? Lol. Because 'heavenly places' to you in that verse means Heaven abi? Hahahaha. No wonder there is so much confusion and conflation of the scriptures.

Romans 7 is too easy to understand if only we just take the word of God for what it says without trying to dilute it. The "I" Paul described all through the Chapter 7 was Under the Law; A slave to sin; sold to sin; Evil and Carnal. Please relate it to the born again man that he repeatedly described in other books and let's see how your interpretation adds up. That's all I expect you to do. But you won't, instead you would repost isolated instances that seem to confuse you further. For example, vv 22-23 Paul said For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. But we would get confused if we do not realize that in vv 17 he already said "it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me". He is explaining how that sin that dwells in his BODY or FLESH is what causes him to sin. And I told you that the man in the body is his spirit- the inner man. That's why he said even when the inner man knows what is right to do meaning his spirit knows the law of God. His members aren't tamed and so they still disobey the same law (recall a christian is already dead to the law so there's no need to obey it thus proving he was referring to someone who is still UNDER the law).

Why do his members disobey the law? Because they are controlled by the spirit that is unregenerate- the old man; the one cannot obey God.

You said I should not add to what Paul said? I should be telling you that. Paul started Chapter 7 by saying I AM WRITING TO YOU WHO KNOW THE LAW AND ARE UNDER IT. Abeg who is this person if not a Jew- a practicing one? You guys just speed-read vital aspects of the scriptures thereby missing them to your own peril.

Then the parts you wrote about realm of soul totally flew over me. It seems you don't understand me so I would repeat some point again for the last time. Spirit's give birth to spirits and flesh gives birth to flesh. So if Jesus had an earthly father he would have been of the same Spirit with his father and he would have shared the same flesh with his mother. That's what science says. Jesus was a pure spirit because he had no earthly father but Jesus' flesh was THE EXACT SAME FLESH with that of all men. That's what the bible says repeatedly. Being uniquely born means he didn't have a dad and he was born of a virgin plus he wasn't born out of the will of man. He didn't also float from heaven neither did he stay in the womb for less than the normal time.

Of course, you don't know what I am asking you to respond to because the verses I posted to you are at variance with what you thought you were showing to me in that John on one hand says if we say we have no sin we lie and yet in another verse he says one who is born of God has no sin in him and cannot even sin. So it is either one of John's statements was wrong or that the interpretation you are giving to any of them is wrong if the two statements were written to the same people (which they weren't).

mbaemeka:
You don't seem to get do you? There is nothing like a flesh stained with sin except the spirit living within the flesh has been stained with sin i.e born with sin. So I don't know what sort of cockery about being impaired or well-functioning Jesus' flesh was than say, Peters. Any man that was born into this world had the same flesh that Adam had and that flesh would sin and suffer the consequences of sin if it was subjected to such conditions. Jesus was no different in that very regard. Period.

You didn't just paste my statement. You pasted it and gave your distorted interpretation of it. You said "You said that the Heart doesn't matter" and I NEVER SAID SO. I said the HEART of a man and his WORDS must go together when you said the heart is more important than the words. In other words, I said the heart is not "more important" per se. Now tell me how that means "the heart doesn't matter" which is the prevarication you made.

I can give any interpretations that I choose to give based on the construction Paul made in greek in Romans 8:3. If that were not the case then explain why not all the translations given said the same things with most of them even agreeing with my own interpretation. So if there is any one with a problem, it is solely you. You cannot be the judge and jury in the same case. If someone says ABC means All Boys Catch you cannot say no you are wrong ABC means Apple Books Cap. You are therefore implored to deal with the verse and stop telling me about dictionaries or what not.

If all you have been saying is that Jesus didn't have the old man then why are we having this conversation except that your definition of "Old man" has nothing to do with the bible or can you prove me wrong by telling us what you always referred to as the old man? It will be interesting to add up what you would have to say with all you have been saying since.

You think you have anything to teach me about positional references and you keep ceasing not to amaze me. So you think that when Ephesians 2 says we are seated with Christ in heavenly places it means we are not currently there? Lol. Because 'heavenly places' to you in that verse means Heaven abi? Hahahaha. No wonder there is so much confusion and conflation of the scriptures.

Romans 7 is too easy to understand if only we just take the word of God for what it says without trying to dilute it. The "I" Paul described all through the Chapter 7 was Under the Law; A slave to sin; sold to sin; Evil and Carnal. Please relate it to the born again man that he repeatedly described in other books and let's see how your interpretation adds up. That's all I expect you to do. But you won't, instead you would repost isolated instances that seem to confuse you further. For example, vv 22-23 Paul said For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. But we would get confused if we do not realize that in vv 17 he already said "it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me". He is explaining how that sin that dwells in his BODY or FLESH is what causes him to sin. And I told you that the man in the body is his spirit- the inner man. That's why he said even when the inner man knows what is right to do meaning his spirit knows the law of God. His members aren't tamed and so they still disobey the same law (recall a christian is already dead to the law so there's no need to obey it thus proving he was referring to someone who is still UNDER the law).

Why do his members disobey the law? Because they are controlled by the spirit that is unregenerate- the old man; the one cannot obey God.

You said I should not add to what Paul said? I should be telling you that. Paul started Chapter 7 by saying I AM WRITING TO YOU WHO KNOW THE LAW AND ARE UNDER IT. Abeg who is this person if not a Jew- a practicing one? You guys just speed-read vital aspects of the scriptures thereby missing them to your own peril.

Then the parts you wrote about realm of soul totally flew over me. It seems you don't understand me so I would repeat some point again for the last time. Spirit's give birth to spirits and flesh gives birth to flesh. So if Jesus had an earthly father he would have been of the same Spirit with his father and he would have shared the same flesh with his mother. That's what science says. Jesus was a pure spirit because he had no earthly father but Jesus' flesh was THE EXACT SAME FLESH with that of all men. That's what the bible says repeatedly. Being uniquely born means he didn't have a dad and he was born of a virgin plus he wasn't born out of the will of man. He didn't also float from heaven neither did he stay in the womb for less than the normal time.

Of course, you don't know what I am asking you to respond to because the verses I posted to you are at variance with what you thought you were showing to me in that John on one hand says if we say we have no sin we lie and yet in another verse he says one who is born of God has no sin in him and cannot even sin. So it is either one of John's statements was wrong or that the interpretation you are giving to any of them is wrong if the two statements were written to the same people (which they weren't).

Maybe to make things clearer we shouldn't take too many things at the same time. Now let's start with this:
What is the plain English meaning of the word 'sinful' ?
We'll go into other areas thereafter.

^^^^

What is the definition of the word Faith or meditate as used in the bible and how does it compare with the definitions as offered by sense-ruled men who compiled a dictionary?

Self-righteous coward who will not consent to his 'going home' till he hits 600 years
Answer trustman

mbaemeka:
^^^^

What is the definition of the word Faith or meditate as used in the bible and how does it compare with the definitions as offered by sense-ruled men who compiled a dictionary?

^^^^
Keep looking for my attention like the philosophers stone or better still get yourself killed in a car crash or something and leave those of us who have refused to be subject to the whims of the devil- the same one you seek to support (albeit unbeknownst to you).

mbaemeka:
^^^^

What is the definition of the word Faith or meditate as used in the bible and how does it compare with the definitions as offered by sense-ruled men who compiled a dictionary?

Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary defines FAITH as:
- primarily, “firm persuasion”
Used in the NT always of ‘faith in God or Christ, or things spiritual’. Trust, trust-worthiness.
What is believed, the contents of belief.

And MEDITATE as:
a) To attend to, practice
b) To ponder, imagine

Strong’s Concordance defines FAITH as:
Persuasion.
1) Conviction of the truth of anything, belief.
2) All of the religious beliefs of Christians
3) Belief with the predominate idea of trust
4) Fidelity, faithfulness
5) The character of one who is relied on.
And MEDITATE as:
To ponder.
To meditate, moan, growl, utter, speak.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines FAITH as:
1(a) allegiance to duty or a person
(b) fidelity to one’s promises
c) sincerity of intentions
2 (a) belief and trust in and loyalty to God.
Belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion.
(b) firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Complete trust
3 Something that is believed especially with strong conviction.

And MEDITATE as:
To engage in contemplation or reflection.
To engage in mental exercise… …
To focus one’s thoughts on: reflect on or ponder over
To plan or project in the mind

In all cases we see for FAITH an underlying issue of firm belief and trust. And for MEDITATE a CONCENTRATION on something; giving particular consideration for something.

Now that I have answered your interjected question I look forward to your response to mine.
Again it is:
What is the plain English meaning of the word 'sinful' ?

^^^

Epic fail. I didn't ask you for vine's exposition or Strong's concordance. They are still anglicised versions of greek or hebrew renderings of words found in the bible. They do not express the words AS USED in the bible. For example, Hebrews 11: 1 defined faith and we know that the definition provided there had nothing to do with what a dictionary or any concordance had to say. Same with the word Meditate as used in say Joshua 1:8 or in any other aspects of scripture. The word like Faith had little or nothing to do with a dictionary's definition. In the same token, the construction Paul made in Romans 8:3 cannot be yanked out of its context to be defined by a dictionary. It makes no sense. Hope you understand now.

mbaemeka:
^^^

Epic fail. I didn't ask you for vine's exposition or Strong's concordance. They are still anglicised versions of greek or hebrew renderings of words found in the bible. They do not express the words AS USED in the bible. For example, Hebrews 11: 1 defined faith and we know that the definition provided there had nothing to do with what a dictionary or any concordance had to say. Same with the word Meditate as used in say Joshua 1:8 or in any other aspects of scripture. The word like Faith had little or nothing to do with a dictionary's definition. In the same token, the construction Paul made in Romans 8:3 cannot be yanked out of its context to be defined by a dictionary. It makes no sense. Hope you understand now.

Ok then. Can I now have the answer to my question?

trustman:

Ok then. Can I now have the answer to my question?

Sorry sir, but according to the same bible, sinful flesh is the flesh that sinners had/have. In otherwords, a sinners flesh is sinful flesh. Notice I said a 'sinners' flesh i.e the flesh of a sinner and not the flesh that has sinned. A righteous man can be housed in that flesh even though such a man will not sin. That was the case with Jesus.

mbaemeka:


Sorry sir, but according to the same bible, sinful flesh is the flesh that sinners had/have. In otherwords, a sinners flesh is sinful flesh. Notice I said a 'sinners' flesh i.e the flesh of a sinner and not the flesh that has sinned. A righteous man can be housed in that flesh even though such a man will not sin. That was the case with Jesus.

I actually asked for the plain English meaning of the word ‘sinful’.

You however decided to give what you termed the Bible position of ‘sinful flesh’ being the flesh that sinners have. So my question is still unanswered by you.

I asked for the meaning of a single word. You gave explanation of two words as what is attributed to sinners.

In all you were still trying to ‘prove’ that the statements (we can’t really call them definitions can we?) apply to sinners as well as a righteous man.

Let’s take 2 of your statements and see if they agree with one another or contradict each other.

In otherwords, a sinners flesh is sinful flesh.

Notice I said a 'sinners' flesh i.e the flesh of a sinner and not the flesh that has sinned.

1. “In other words, a sinners flesh is sinful flesh.”
2. “Notice I said a ‘sinners’ flesh i.e. the flesh of a sinner and not the flesh that has sinned.”
From the above 2 statements of yours you claim a sinner’s flesh is a “sinful flesh” on the one hand BUT IS NOT “flesh that had sinned” on the other hand. Would it be right then to call a flesh that has not sinned a flesh that has sin in the first place i.e. by calling it sinful flesh?
The answer should be obvious even to you.

Again if like you said “according to the same bible, sinful flesh is the flesh that sinners had/have” why do you think the Bible would refer to the flesh sinners have as ‘sinful flesh’?

If as you said: “ ‘sinners’ flesh i.e. the flesh of a sinner and not the flesh that has sinned” does it not equally follow that a righteous man’s flesh can then be said to be a ‘righteous flesh’?

again this:

A righteous man can be housed in that flesh even though such a man will not sin. That was the case with Jesus.

If a righteous man is housed in a flesh are you saying that even though his spirit is free from sin (no sin nature; not sin-stained, recalling your emphasis on 'spirit' as against 'body') he can still be said to have a 'sinful flesh'?

If like you are claiming ‘sinful flesh’ DOES NOT mean a flesh of sin SINCE the term can equally be applied to a righteous man like Jesus, how do you then derive the ‘Biblical’ meaning of the word ‘sinful’?

trustman: I then showed you that his (Jesus’) birth was unique.
If God wanted him to have what you called the ‘EXACT’ body like every other human being he would have allowed a man to be involved in Jesus’ conception.
But this was not the case: God bypassed man in bringing about the conception/birth of Jesus.

mbaemeka:
The father of a baby is responsible for the babies blood (and in spiritual terms spirit) while the mother is responsible for the body/flesh.
Jesus had to be a Jew; from David's lineage; totally human and to have a human body that was why he needed a mother
or else God would have simply spoke him into being without having any earthly parents.
That would have been the only way he would have come in another flesh and in that case he NEVER would have died.

mbaemeka:

A righteous man can be housed in that flesh even though such a man will not sin. That was the case with Jesus.

We are all like one who is unclean,
all our so-called righteous acts are like a menstrual rag in your sight.
We all wither like a leaf; our sins carry us away like the wind
- Isaiah 64:6 Net Bible

trustman, you're so on point. God bless you for your endurance.
Somebody's obviously tied themselves into knots, so let's save/spare the blushes and cut the mustard

Jesus was not housed in an sinful flesh, just as Adam before the fall was not housed in a sinful flesh
- Remember that Adam's flesh before he was tempted was not sinful flesh
- Remember that Adam's flesh and world only got infected after he broke the law (i.e. the Do not eat law...)

Sin did not come into the man's world via Eve but it came in through Adam
Every human being born after Adam have the sinful nature passed down through him (i.e. Adam)
so in effect every man/woman inherits the sinful nature from the father (i.e. not from the mother)

Jesus didn't and couldn't have had a sinful flesh because He didn't have an earthly father to inherit (i.e. pass down) the sinful flesh from

What Jesus had was a flesh, that had the outward appearance of sinful flesh and looked like the flesh of man's
(i.e. it was not sinful flesh, as it was flesh, similar to Adam's flesh or state, before the fall)

If Jesus had a sinful flesh, (i.e. if He was a lamb with blemish or spot) then, this defeats the redemption plan and makes the atonement purpose cost-defective

If the second man is to correct errors in the first man, why then should the second man be made from the first man's corruption or template
- The second Adam, to start off, just needed to have the likeness of the first Adam, for the "fix" to work (i.e. to successfully correct the issue)

This bit here just takes the biscuit "or else God would have simply spoke him into being without having any earthly parents"
- Yeah right, by pass the protocol a la Melchizedek style

Anyway, no matter the "wuruwuru" to the answer, as far as Romans 8:3 is concerned, Jesus DID NOT have the EXACT SAME FLESH that sinners (e.g. Adam et al) had/have

For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh.
By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
- Romans 8:3 NET Bible

⁴⁷The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.
⁴⁸As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy;
and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly.…
- 1 Corinthians 15:47

^^^Thank you BabaGnoni for putting it all into perspective. This is exactly what trustman had been trying to say through all these pages that have succeeded in derailing "my" thread. I also had said the same thing but mbaemeka will just not listen. The truth is that he himself accepts trustman thesis on Christ's flesh but that wicked sinful nature of pride in man will not permit him to agree at this point.

I am going to request that trustman provide just one last response to all this and then allow mbaemeka the glory of a last response and then we return to the original subject of discuss or close the thread...

Or else I will be forced to report trustman and mbaemeka to Seun for derailing a thread... lol

*World record thread derailing*

Mbaemeko
You are God and I know your ways and thinking is very different from vooks' a mere mortal
Now you are subtly cursing me
Some of the unscientific and unscriptural assertions you have made so far;
1. Jesus needs your permission BEFORE taking you home, meaning your immortality is in your hands
2. Jesus blood came from God but his flesh came from Mary because blood of an infant comes from the Father according to CE Science
3. Jesus flesh was badly blemished but his blood was not and as such his flesh was NEVER fit for our redemption
4. Men will stand before the throne and LIE about miracles they NEVER did
5. Anybody who has ever cast out devils or healed in Jesus name will NEVER perish
5. Pastor Chris is a Dignitary and you don't speak evil of dignitaries. Vooks ain't dignitary and you wish him death
6. You can and actually do ALL Jesus did except I haven't seen you create another sun nor raise yourself up from dead

mbaemeka:
^^^^
Keep looking for my attention like the philosophers stone [b]or better still get yourself killed in a car crash or something [/b]and leave those of us who have refused to be subject to the whims of the devil- the same one you seek to support (albeit unbeknownst to you).

I think I'll go by WinsomeX' suggestion. I agree that BabaGnoni has succinctly summarized the true biblical position on Jesus' flesh. 

I do hope that readers can from these posts see the depth of rot of the old sin nature playing out still in the 21 century on Nairaland right before their eyes (before their very before!) and how like BabaGnoni's accurate rendition of Isaiah 64:6 by Net Bible God has pictured the best that man can be or do apart from his (God's) intervention which he graciously did by providing himself a lamb without any defect through and through - the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Being 'smart' or 'clever' or 'using wisdom so called' in order to 'win' arguments is actually a foray or excursion into deceit which is an expression of the sin nature. 

The issue should always be:
"........., rightly handling the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15
And 
"Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil." Matthew 5:37

PS
I rest my case on this matter.

I have not seen a bigger bunch of dishonest fellows in my life. The funny thing is how they all swept in to aid the damage control without saying anything new. So we are dealing with the NET bible now as the paragon for right interpretations while we neglect the surfeit of at least 10 other translations that I posted all giving the same interpretations with me. We are to overlook the obvious contradiction in the fact that Adam who didn't have sinful anything was still able to sin yet God sent Jesus in whatever flesh it was that was impervious to sin yet suffered the very same consequences that Adam's fallen flesh suffered. Let me humor myself a bit:

What Jesus had was a flesh, that had the outward appearance of sinful flesh and looked like the flesh of man's
(i.e. it was not sinful flesh, as it was flesh, similar to Adam's flesh or state, before the fall)

This post got endorsed by Trust, Winx and Voo... so the logic is Jesus' flesh was like Adam's flesh before the fall but Jesus' was known to grow in wisdom, stature et al, had to eat to derive strength, got weak, got tired, got tempted to sin, badly beaten, killed and buried- all the attributes of Adam's fallen flesh. mbaemeka said Jesus had the same flesh with fallen men and pseudo-theologians said otherwise because of the word translated "like" or "likeness". So when John said he saw one that was "like" unto the son of man in Revelations 1, he was obviously referring to one whose outward appearance only looked like the Son of man- He wasn't. New revelation!!!
Here is another risible post bordering on illogicality:

Would it be right then to call a flesh that has not sinned a flesh that has sin in the first place i.e. by calling it sinful flesh?

This question is coming to someone who had already said the definition of "sinful flesh" as constructed by Paul only meant the flesh that sinners have: a flesh that can sin if yielded; a flesh subject to temptation; a flesh subject to the consequences of sin. Yet you obdurately insist it means flesh containing sin and then use it to question me. How pseudo-intellectual of you.

Again if like you said “according to the same bible, sinful flesh is the flesh that sinners had/have” why do you think the Bible would refer to the flesh sinners have as ‘sinful flesh’?

As explained above namely: a flesh that can sin if yielded; a flesh subject to temptation; a flesh subject to the consequences of sin. Meaning even if a man is born today and left secluded in a room for 100 years without talking or acting or thinking in a sinful way his flesh will still be as I described above. That was the same flesh Jesus had.

If as you said: “ ‘sinners’ flesh i.e. the flesh of a sinner and not the flesh that has sinned” does it not equally follow that a righteous man’s flesh can then be said to be a ‘righteous flesh’?

No sir, it does not follow. The sinner and righteous man have the same flesh. Paul only qualified it as "sinful" to explain its characteristics. That's why he added the latter part of Romans 8:3 to say Jesus had the semblance of that flesh but he condemned sin while in it (i.e he defeated by refusing to yield to it in any form until death). If it were not so then it would have been redundant for scriptures to say Jesus knew and did no sin given that he could never have been able to sin or succumb to it's consequences- an attribute only reserved for the immortal/spiritual/incorruptible flesh (That goes to those raising not properly studied 1 Corinthians 15 references )

If a righteous man is housed in a flesh are you saying that even though his spirit is free from sin (no sin nature; not sin-stained, recalling your emphasis on 'spirit' as against 'body') he can still be said to have a 'sinful flesh'?

Yes, that's why some Christians still fall sick, lie, fornicate, die etc. A Christian/Righteous man will still be subject to the acts and consequences of sin if he lets his flesh yield to it. That's what carnality is and this is why Paul said many Christians in Corinth were sick and some died. That's why God promised to redeem that flesh same way he did Jesus'.

If like you are claiming ‘sinful flesh’ DOES NOT mean a flesh of sin SINCE the term can equally be applied to a righteous man like Jesus, how do you then derive the ‘Biblical’ meaning of the word ‘sinful’?

This is how I could tell what Paul meant by his construction.

Romans 8:3New Living Translation (NLT)
3 The law of Moses was unable to save us because of the weakness of our sinful nature.[a] So God did what the law could not do. He sent his own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have. And in that body God declared an end to sin’s control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins.

Romans 8:3Common English Bible (CEB)
3 God has done what was impossible for the Law, since it was weak because of selfishness. God condemned sin in the body by sending his own Son to deal with sin in the same body as humans, who are controlled by sin.

The human body is controlled by sin i.e dominated and ruled by sin and it's consequence. That human body, the same one the law could not fix, God sent his own son to be housed in- so he could show us it was possible to live a life devoid of sin (and its consequences) in that body by the power of the Holy Spirit.

That is why Jesus is our template:he lived in the same flesh we have and defeated sin. Now we are to walk in the same manner and it is possible because we have the same Holy Spirit that he had. But nepioses don't know this, carnal christians don't know this and religious people don't know this either. Therefore, the same way that Hagar and Ismael (signifying Children of the flesh) kept jeering at Sarah and Isaac (children of the spirit) because of their belief in the fulfillment of the promise in Abraham's day, so it is even now.