Jesus Christ is come in flesh of man, not of angels

[ScottA]

Naturally mortal flesh and blood is never proven to be immortal, nor can inherit the kingdom of God.

Only resurrected bodies of flesh and bone are immortal, just as the spirit-bodies of angels.

One thing at a time.

The "flesh and bone" theory is false.

"Flesh (and blood) cannot inherit the kingdom of God"...so, what, you advocate for immortal skeletons in heaven?

 

[ScottA]

It means we must walk as He walks unto the end, in order to be likewise resurrected from the dead as Him.

One thing at a time.

No...you paraphrase like Satan. It means rather that we walk with Him, Him in us and we in Him. Meaning the walk is His not ours, just as it was from His crucifixion to His ascension. During which time He carried the signs of our sins, as do we also. Such is the walk of shame and glory.

 

[ScottA]

If you're going to discuss things with me, then you need to get rid of your ideology, that our bodies have any power, ability, or will of it's own.

One thing at a time.

That is not my ideology, but yours. It is you who claims that "we" must walk out our own salvation "as He did"--not me.

 

[ScottA]

True. Jesus was the only man sinless without sinning from the cradle to the grave. Now only them repented and receiving Him are doing so through Him.

I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

That, of course, doesn't include sinning.

One thing at a time.

The better translation and understanding of "through" in the above verse from which you have your understanding, is "in", meaning "in Christ." Which ultimately changes the meaning altogether...to mean that it is not we who do the walking, but Christ, in whom we are made perfect, not in the flesh, for it is not the flesh that is born [again] anew, but the spirit.

Thus, none of this indicates that we become perfect and sinless in the flesh, but rather within the flesh we are made perfect and sinless in spirit.

 

[ScottA]

You need to jettison this stuff too. The writer of Romans was a holy man of God moved by the Holy Ghost, as were all prophets and apostles of the Lord. Though they may well have experienced double heartedness at some time, it certainly was not at the time of being fit for the Master's use. No one sinning against God is also usable to write His pure words.

God writes with clean, straight, and sure pens only.

Christians can become double hearted sinners, but teaching it for life is only for unrepented double hearted sinners.

One thing at a time.

Your above comment is very telling--as it is not even biblical.

Paul was indeed acting within the service and "use for the Master" when he wrote of his struggles and not doing what he willed to do but do what he willed not to do. As for God writing "with clean, straight, and sure pens only", that too is not what is written, but rather, "Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”

 

[ScottA]

Well now, another new one for the error list, that I've not seen before. Thanks.

You are saying a bad example is more of an example to man than the good example.

Jesus isn't the really true example for all men, but double hearted sinners are.

That may be your christ example, but certainly not mine.

As I have said now many times: you misunderstand.

Paul was not the example of perfection, but the example of the reality of what we too would experience walking in sinful flesh until its passing while also walking in the spirit with Christ. This is the meaning of which he eluded to, saying "we who are alive and remain", meaning alive in the spirit, but remaining in the flesh and in the world. Paul's example was an example that Jesus was not qualified to make, for He was without sin. Therefore, it is Paul that is the better example of what we should expect, which was not counted against Paul as sin--just as it is not counted against any who are "in Christ". And this is the error of those who don't understand.

Indeed, Jesus is the better example, but that is not the message of what Paul was to relay through the struggles of his own life. But that does not mean that Jesus did not leave us with the same example, for He did indeed carry the signs of sin even in His own body for forty (biblically a lifetime) days following His crucifixion.

But many have not understood either account.

 

[BlessedPeace]

One thing at a time.

The "flesh and bone" theory is false.

"Flesh (and blood) cannot inherit the kingdom of God"...so, what, you advocate for immortal skeletons in heaven?

There are some false teachings that insist Jesus is flesh and bone in Heaven. I.E. God,is flesh and bone, because Jesus was God incarnate.

 

[ScottA]

There are some false teachings that insist Jesus is flesh and bone in Heaven. I.E. God,is flesh and bone, because Jesus was God incarnate.

Yes, and yet the error is that He did not ascend in the flesh, but said, "take, eat, this is my body" and gave it to the church...though many have not understood.

 

[BlessedPeace]

Yes, and yet the error is that He did not ascend in the flesh, but said, "take, eat, this is my body" and gave it to the church...though many have not understood.e

True. Flesh and blood and bone, the perishable,cannot inherit the eternal spiritual, i.e the imperishable.

The last supper, Communion, is a remembrance of the bread if life, Christ, who gave his life for our new Covenant of redemption. His blood, wine, sealed the Covenant,per tradition.

Many do not understand the flesh avails us nothing. Jesus was Holy Spirit,The Word, made flesh.
He is not flesh after his mission was accomplished.

 

[lforrest]

sin-infested mortal bodies

Do I detect a hint of gnosticism?

Adam was not immortal because he did not eat from the tree of life. While sin and death had not entered the world yet that did not make him immortal. Like how a bag of chips remains crisp until it is opened. It isn't the nature of the chip that caused it to remain fresh but it's environment. And when sin entered the world his death followed inevitably afterwards.

Jesus Christ was born immortal because he is the only begotten Son of God. He had the power and authority to lay down his life and take it up again. He has the nature of man and God.

But to be specific there are two kinds of bodies men can have. The one we are familiar with and a new glorious body like Christ's.

Philippians 3:20-21
20. But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

Mark 12:25
For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

 

[Taken]

Jesus Christ is come in flesh of man, not of angels
OP ^

Jesus came in a FLESH BODY, God prepared.

Jesus’ appearance earthly men saw, was the LIKENESS AS AN earthly man.

While ON earth Jesus was revealed HE IS the Christ.

The Christ of God IS POWER, IS SPIRIT.

God IS Spirit.

Jesus came forth OUT from God.

That which is IN God or comes FORTH OUT from God, IS SPIRIT, IS TRUTH, IS LIFE:
IS God.

God, IS eternal SPIRIT…
Angels, ARE forever living created spirits…
THEY HAVE the POWER to appear “in the likeness AS an earthly man”….called a man…
And earthly men would NEVER know by appearance that they ARE spirits.

Even Philip LOOKING at JESUS in the Likeness AS A HUMAN MAN, did not comprehend HE was IN Gods Presence!

Trying to MAKE Jesus’ FLESH the SAME as a HUMAN man’s FLESH is NOT Scriptural Teaching.

Human men DID NOT COME FORTH OUT of Gods Mouth….JESUS DID.

Jesus’ BODY was HOLY.
An Earthly mans BODY is NOT HOLY.

 

[Ghada]

There are some false teachings that insist Jesus is flesh and bone in Heaven. I.E. God,is flesh and bone, because Jesus was God incarnate.

Only if you are not a believer in the God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Men have seen Jesus' shape in natural flesh and blood, as well as resurrected flesh and bones. No man has yet seen God the Spirit's shape at any time.

Only on the new earth will man dwell with and daily see the shape of God as well as the Lamb.

 

[Ghada]

There are cult teachings that teach Jesus was Archangel Michael.

True. JW's preach a create christ-angel. I've learned it's only cover for their real intent, which is heaven or oblivion doctrine, that rejects there being any everlasting torment of wicked angels and unrepented men.

 

[Ghada]

Angels, ARE forever living created spirits…
THEY HAVE the POWER to appear “in the likeness AS an earthly man”….called a man…
And earthly men would NEVER know by appearance that they ARE spirits.

True. They are spirits ministering to man on earth in temporary bodies of flesh and bones. They were not born of women from the womb.

Trying to MAKE Jesus’ FLESH the SAME as a HUMAN man’s FLESH is NOT Scriptural Teaching.

If you don't believe the Bible, then you're going to call Bible teaching false.

Jesus' body was made by the Spirit of the flesh of Mary's womb, which was made of the seed of David and Abraham.

Jesus' flesh had the same seed of Adam, by Abraham and David, that all men have. And His was the same one blood of all men.

Now, if you want to say that David and Abraham's flesh was also not the same as that of all men, then you're really going astray.

Also, My Christ is not come in some other flesh than mine and all men. I don't worship angels, spirits, gods, etc... that come in some unnatural or supernatural bodies like the pagan heroes of old, or Marvel heroes in film today.

 

[Ghada]

Human men DID NOT COME FORTH OUT of Gods Mouth….JESUS DID.

Out of God's mouth? The Word was not God, but only in God's mouth?

This stuff sounds like Tolkien 'spirit-speak' in his novels.

Jesus’ BODY was HOLY.
An Earthly mans BODY is NOT HOLY.

This is what the sin-nature junk does to doctrine of God. It's not only used to justify sinning with the body, s though it's the body's fault for man sinning, but it also produces antichrist type teaching.

If Jesus did not come as an 'earthly' man, then Jesus did not come as a man. And so, Jesus was not a man. He was an angel of some sort.

The only kind of natural body on earth is 'earthly'. There's nothing sinful about being earthly, which is only natural.

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Earthly is only sinful, when the heart of man lusts after the flesh.

Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.

We must take the words taught in the Bible in their context. You make all things earthly to be sensual and devilish. The Bible only applies that to the heart and spirit of a man, not our natural bodies.

 

[Ghada]

One thing at a time.

The "flesh and bone" theory is false.

"Flesh (and blood) cannot inherit the kingdom of God"...so, what, you advocate for immortal skeletons in heaven?

Sounds good to me. Just make sure it's the same thing we're talking about. I am teaching of flesh and bones in the Bible. Not flesh and blood.

The teaching of flesh and bone is not the teaching of flesh and blood. Because bone is not blood. They aren't the same 'words', and so their teaching are not the same.

If you want to pass on the doctrine of flesh and bones, then we can can stick with flesh and blood if you like.

 

[Ghada]

One thing at a time.

No...you paraphrase like Satan.

You're saying the god of this world preaches walking as Jesus walked on earth unto the end?

When did Satan convert to the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Actually, that's not really necessary. Devil's can preach the truth of Jesus Christ, but it's for devilish purposes.

Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:

The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.

It means rather that we walk with Him, Him in us and we in Him. Meaning the walk is His not ours,

I see. You're trying to make a distinction without a difference. It's ok to teach the Bible by giving the normal sense of what the written words mean.

So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

just as it was from His crucifixion to His ascension.

Jesus didn't walk the same way in righteousness and true holiness after His resurrection? Or before?

He didn't walk in the same body before and after, but certainly the same holy and godly way.

You see what 'personal revelation' talk produces? Something that makes no sense at best, or at worst something that is heretically foolish.

During which time He carried the signs of our sins,

Not signs, but marks and prints. The cross was real, so were His wounds, and still remain on His resurrected body forever.

God and the Lamb will dwell with men forever on the new earth.

as do we also.

I may have the results and evidence of sinning on my body, but they are not those the Jesus bare.

Such is the walk of shame and glory.

You see once again how special revelation stuff goes sideways. Jesus never walked with shame.

Jesus did not sin nor have any shame before, during, nor after the cross.

The Lamb's nail prints and side-thrust are marks of glory, not of shame.

He hung on the tree, but was not ashamed of it nor himself. Neither did He sin and 'become a sinner', like all other men that have sinned.

 

[Ghada]

One thing at a time.

That is not my ideology, but yours. It is you who claims that "we" must walk out our own salvation "as He did"--not me.

Once again, let's make sure we are saying the same thing when trying to quote what others teach.

Jesus did not walk out any salvation, because He needed none, because He never sinned and separated Himself from the Father.

And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

We must now walk as he walked, if we have repented of sinning to be forgiven and made wholly new in Christ Jesus.

Jesus walked His Father's way from childhood, even as all men are foreordained by God to walk.

 

[Ghada]

One thing at a time.

The better translation and understanding of "through" in the above verse from which you have your understanding, is "in", meaning "in Christ." Which ultimately changes the meaning altogether...

Just another distinction without a difference.

to mean that it is not we who do the walking, but Christ, in whom we are made perfect, not in the flesh,

If you're still sinning in the flesh, then you're not walking with Jesus.

Separating our soul and spirit from our body is one thing, since we are souls temporarily in earthen vessels. But to separate our soul and spirit from how we live in the flesh, is religious and spiritual hypocrisy.

Sinful works of the flesh only come from a lusting heart and filthy spirit.

Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever

Men can be outwardly righteous in appearance, with an unclean soul, but no man can be outwardly unrighteous with a clean soul. That's the fictitious stuff of 'faith alone' ideology. It's where people care more about what they think of themselves, than about what they are actually doing in life.

In the end, The Father will judge our works, without any respect toward our beliefs and opinions about ourselves. All our personal little ideologies end in the grave.

He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

for it is not the flesh that is born [again] anew, but the spirit.

True. The flesh isn't redeemed until the resurrection of the just.

In the meantime, we are commanded to walk as Jesus walked in our own mortal flesh, even as He did in His.

I personally believe Christians ought to stop talking about all this superhero stuff with Jesus' body, as being different from men.

It's not just confusion but also a source of ready mockery, that Christians are teaching either pagan deified heroes, or Marvel Studio filmography.

'The Adamic Race' could make a good movie, I'm sure, but it's lousy Christian teaching.

Thus, none of this indicates that we become perfect and sinless in the flesh,

All this 'revelation' stuff just to say you're still a lusting sinner with the world?

Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

I believe the revelation of God in the Bible, especially pertaining to how we must walk and live through the faith and power of Jesus Christ.

but rather within the flesh we are made perfect and sinless in spirit.

I.e. lousy on the outside by really great on the inside.

Many people feel that way while getting drunk, but they know differently the morning after. I know this, because I used to be one.

 

[ScottA]

Sounds good to me. Just make sure it's the same thing we're talking about. I am teaching of flesh and bones in the Bible. Not flesh and blood.

The teaching of flesh and bone is not the teaching of flesh and blood. Because bone is not blood. They aren't the same 'words', and so their teaching are not the same.

If you want to pass on the doctrine of flesh and bones, then we can can stick with flesh and blood if you like.

You are sighting a false technicality, while you have missed the elephant in the room: Which is that all the elements of this creation are destroyed with fervent heat and with fire. All that remains is that which is spirit, born of God--no natural elements.

That blows your whole theory...whether you believe it or not.

Meanwhile, what, shall I keep entertaining your unbiblical schemes--why should I watch you squirm? I think not. I will check on your other comments, but may just leave you to Satan whose short time soon comes to an end.