[Church_of_Christ] Re: The Good News!
Greetings Ray, respectfully ED in waders,
Ray: This discussion may get incredibly deep and complex.
ED: If I get in too deep, I'll call for help.
Ray: Technically, neither. Gnosticism has given us the idea that flesh is evil and spirit is good, but the sin nature is actually the inherited nature of Adam. This nature is a propensity toward rebellion in our hearts. It affects the fleshly body and certainly uses it as a tool. But it is distinct from both the body and the spirit.
ED: Neither of us is a gnostic, so I see no reason to pursue it.
Ray: Man is composed of three elements: body, soul, spirit. It is the NATURE of our spirit that it is both morally corrupt and mentally blind to truth (this is the sin NATURE, it is the nature inherited from Adam...perhaps CONDITION is a better word). As a result of this moral and mental corruption, the spirit itself is dead.
ED: Ray, you have a problem. "soma" = body. We agree. But "soul, spirit" you take as two more and then you add a fourth: "flesh" or as you prefer "sin nature". Of course I know that you are going to identify the flesh with either "soul" or "spirit", I'm curious which one?
Ray: It isn't in the spirit, and God doesn't put a sinful spirit in man. Man gets a dead spirit by being a descendant of Adam in the flesh.
ED: So the "sin nature" isn't in the spirit of man. God doesn't put a sinful spirit in man! I agree completely with that! But man gets a dead spirit from Adam? I'd like to see the book, chapter and verse for that.
Ray: We receive our spirit by inheritance. God does not form the individual spirit within each man at conception. Exactly how this process takes place in reproduction I have no idea, because the bible does not tell us, but it DOES TELL US that we inherit sin and death and spiritual death as well from Adam. God does not create a dead spirit within the man, the condition is passed on.
ED: You've got another problem, Ray. The Bible says we receive our spirit from God. Dust returns to dust and the spirit returns to God who gave it! Take a look at Zech 12:1 God "forms the spirit within man". How could the HS have said it any clearer? God is the Father of spirits, Heb 12:9. What we inherit from our parents all the way back to Adam is our fleshly bodies, DNA, blood and guts.
Ray: Jesus partook of humanity, not sin, nor the sin nature.
ED: Take a look at Heb 2:14. Jesus partook of the same fleshly nature as us all. Heb 2:14
"Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same"
Ray: Jesus did not enter a human body. Jesus is 100% man and 100% God. The two natures are irrevocably intertwined. The body is not a 'man suit' that the Spirit Of Jesus takes off at will. 100% of Jesus is God. 100% of Jesus is man. The mystery of the hypostatic union is great, but essential to the incarnation.
ED: I think I will stick with Heb 10:5 "But a body You have prepared for Me. " No one is arguing that Jesus is not completely man and God. But you are stuck on the horns here. Heb 10 has Jesus coming into the world to do God's will because the blood of animals would not suffice. Jesus is spirit, no body; as God is spirit (Jn 1:1 & 4:26). But God prepared him a body (Heb 10:5), dug out ears for him, in fact. The spirit of Jesus entered the body of man to do God's will. Spirit and body; body and spirit. He is completely God because that is who he is. He is completely man because he partook of that which makes man what he is - spirit and body.
Ray: The physical body has nothing to do with the sinful nature>
ED: Wrong again Ray. Take a look at Rom 7. Paul talks about the stuggle with the flesh. Ro 7:5
"when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death." Note that from the sinful passions aroused are at work in the members of our flesh. Now go to the end of this chapter. Ro 7:24 "O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" In verse 23 he twice mentions the members of that body. The flesh is the body.
Ray: Being tempted is not necessarily related to having a sin nature. Adam and Eve, perfect in the garden, had no sin nature, and were tempted. Jesus, having no sin nature, was also tempted.
ED: Another problem Ray. It doesn't simply say Jesus was tempted, it says he was tempted like as we are. Whatever we struggle with, he struggled with. But this extra nature you throw in, you say Jesus didn't get it. If you are right, which you are not, but if you were, Jesus could never be tempted as we are because we have to deal with this extra nature you came up with.
Ray: When Jesus said 'of such is the kingdom of God', He was not refering to the innocence of children, the nature of man, or anything remotely related to those issues. . . . All references to children by Jesus refer to the trust factor. There are no innocent people on earth. All children are born damned, guilty of sin, and destined for hell. No one is part of God's kingdom without being born again, not even babies.
ED: Ray, you might want to read up on the scriptures. The Mt 19 passage where Jesus said "of such is the kingdom of heaven" is not about trust, that is the chpter before. Lay off the philosophy and read a little more Matthew and Mark and you will come around.
>
Ray: I won't debate the nature of translating scripture, except to say that I thoroughly disagree with your assessment of 'word for word'. No such thing exists in any kind of translation. It can not be done.
>
ED: As for "word for word", it is a frequently used phrase for translators who make that their emphasis, as opposed to "thought for thought" or "thought equivalent". Each translation fits somewhere on the line between the two; either closer to "word for word" or closer to "thought for thought". "Thought for thought" are more reader friendly, but less reliable. "Word for word" are more reliable but less reader friendly. Standard translations are those that have been produced by a committee of translators with checks and balances to help insure less bias.
Ray: The Greeks have two words for flesh: SOMA and SARX. SOMA is a reference to the physical body. Sarx is a reference to the natural mind/mental disposition of a man.
>
ED: No, Ray. The Greeks have "soma" that is translated "body" and they have "sarx" which means "flesh". "Sinful nature" is an interpretive expression that prejudices the reader to a particular bias.
Ray: SARX is translated sin nature because it refers to man's predisposition to evil, sin, immorality, and rebellion. SARX has no relationship to the physical body whatsoever.
ED: SARX when translated (instead of interpolated) is flesh. Paul connects it with the body whether you deny it or not. Jesus spoke of flesh and bones. The Bible speaks of flesh and blood. You need to get into the text and study.
We don't want to see you go, but if you must, the address is Church_of_Christ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Post a Comment