• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Romans 8:3

1213

Well-Known Member
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

My question is: How does God condemn sin in the flesh if there was no sin in the flesh of His son?

By preaching (declaring by words) what is sin.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

My question is: How does God condemn sin in the flesh if there was no sin in the flesh of His son?

Jesus became sin for us, says the Bible: 2 Cor 5:21 - the perfect made imperfect - - to perfect the imperfect!
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
It was God who actually condemned the sin in the flesh by sending his son in the likeness of sinful flesh,that's what Romans 8:3 says..It was not Jesus who condemned the flesh. God accepted Jesus' sacrifice to make atonement for the sin of all.
Jesus condemned the flesh by not giving into it's base desires; not even once. Jesus is God in the flesh. (Colossians 2:8-9) Jesus sacrifice was putting to death His flesh and taking our sins on Himself. So He did put to death our sins in His flesh.
 

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
Jesus condemned the flesh by not giving into it's base desires; not even once.

Right. Which proves that Jesus had flesh of sin just as the rest of mankind.

Jesus is God in the flesh. (Colossians 2:8-9)
The fullness of the Deity that dwells in Jesus is the Spirit of the Father.

Jesus sacrifice was putting to death His flesh and taking our sins on Himself. So He did put to death our sins in His flesh.

Right. His flesh needed to be put to death because it was sinful flesh. Our sins were not imputed to him. God's righteousness is imputed to us by faith. We still have sin. But we have a mediator between God and ourselves, the man Jesus Christ, who, if we confess our sins, God will forgive us.[/Quote][/QUOTE]
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

My question is: How does God condemn sin in the flesh if there was no sin in the flesh of His son?

Sin is not imputed where there is no law. If one is not under law, then they are free from sin, since sin is not imputed, if there is no law.

As an example, marijuana laws are different in different states in the US. Marijuana is a sin in some states where there is a law, but if you cross the border to a state, where there is no law, there is no sin in that state. Law defines sin, and if the law is revoked, then the sin is also revoked.

Jesus was under faith instead of the law. Jesus was called a drunkard and glutton by the Pharisees. This may have been true, based on the laws of the Pharisees. But since Jesus was not under their laws, this same behavior, for him, was like him crossing the border, to another state, where this is legal. If you stood at the border between two states, where in one state marijuana was legal and the other state it is illegal, the people on each side will treat you differently in terms of your behavior. Only one side will see a sin.

The reaction will be more hostile, where there is law. Jesus crossed over the waters to a new state of mind, where nothing was unlawful, making him free from sin. God is not under man's law and sin.

Original sin is an artifact of social conformity to law. To use our example, in states that have strict marijuana laws, even if you would never thought about smoking, you are still required to be under the law. You are treated as a sinner, even if your nature as a person would not allow you to smoke, even if it was legal. Law and conformity to law assumes everyone is a potential sinner; Original sin, and forces conformity.

Original sin is not from God, but is manmade. It forces conformity to law, as though everyone can have a bad day and break the law. It assumes an inner criminal, in all, that can appear at any time. This is a time illusion created by law, since nobody can predict the future. Conformity to law, by everyone, is a solution to minimize the future criminal unknowns. But in doing so, it assumes original sin is part of all of us.

Jesus, as the son of God, was under faith. He lived in a state of mind, where all things were lawful. If all things are legal, nothing you can do, will generate sin. His behavior, may be look like sinning to others, who live in another states of mind; full of taboos and laws. Such people can resent someone, not under their law; original sin. They tried to force Jesus, to be be an original sinner and conform to their laws.

Jesus was the new Adam and was not part of original sin, since he was not under any law of man. As a last ditch effort to assert law and original sin over Jesus, they gave Jesus the death penalty, as though he was guilty of the worse sin the law had, env though he did nothing wrong. The death penalty assumed he had an inner sinner potential; original sin. But he was never under the law and sin is not imputed where there is no law.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

My question is: How does God condemn sin in the flesh if there was no sin in the flesh of His son?

I believe I don't know where you got the idea that the flesh of Jesus was not weak. It certainly complained about having to g to the cross. However Jesus said: "Be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -
John 16:33 I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
All the so-called Christians out there will avoid my question like the plague because it exposes their false teaching of substitution atonement which is in actuality doctrine of antichrist because to deny that Jesus had come in the flesh (sinful flesh, which is the only kind of flesh of man) is antichrist. 1 John 4:2-3

I believe there is a massive lack of logic in what you say. You do know the verses don't you?

1Pet 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I'm a religious dropout, calling myself an Abrahamic Religionist. I say the God of the Jews, Muslims and Christians is the One God. When I get well, I may take a look at Reform Judaism. Of course that leaves the question of Jesus' first coming. The Muslims believe he came and was the best prophet but not the Son of God. Being Western and mainly exposed to Christians, his sonship is ingrained in me.

I'm not lost, I just don't trust anyone anymore. My last experience with a religious group put the cap on it. I still study the scripture and pray, but rely mainly on my own Priesthood, between I and God. It is a long story and I don't care to pick at the scab any more.

I believe a rest from evil is sometimes necessary. That is why I went to Heaven. However if God is in your heart you will love people and do your best to do that in person no matter how difficult that is. The idea that we have to take up our cross is based upon that likelihood that in loving people they will return evil for our love.
 

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
I believe I don't know where you got the idea that the flesh of Jesus was not weak.
I never said his flesh was not weak. It was as weak as everyone else.
It certainly complained about having to g to the cross. However Jesus said: "Be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -
John 16:33 I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”
To overcome the world, he had to overcome the flesh.
 

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
I believe there is a massive lack of logic in what you say. You do know the verses don't you?

1Pet 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

That means he took upon our corrupt sinful nature.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
the doctrine of original sin is just one of the many false teachings of the RCC

All the so-called Christians out there will avoid my question like the plague because it exposes their false teaching of substitution atonement which is in actuality doctrine of antichrist because to deny that Jesus had come in the flesh (sinful flesh, which is the only kind of flesh of man) is antichrist. 1 John 4:2-3
The term so-called Christians is in our time a little vague and can be taken as writing people off as fools. I may have used this before, too; but I don't agree with its use now. The greatest error taught by many Christadelphians as they are called (and many other groups) is that they teach discerning the body of Christ means sawing parts of it off! They will drive away people who disagree until they have capitulated with a creed. This has never been correct either scholastically or otherwise.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
f9bbbf72.png

Overview
th

In some Christian theologies, the Immaculate Conception is the conception of the Virgin Mary free from original sin by virtue of the merits of her son Jesus. The Catholic Church teaches that God acted upon Mary in the first moment of her conception, keeping her "immaculate".
The Immaculate Conception is commonly confused with the virgin birth of Jesus, the latter being, rather, the doctrine of the Incarnation. While virtually all Christians believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, it is principally Roman Catholics, along with various other Christian denominations, who believe in the doctri…
 

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
The term so-called Christians is in our time a little vague and can be taken as writing people off as fools. I may have used this before, too; but I don't agree with its use now. The greatest error taught by many Christadelphians as they are called (and many other groups) is that they teach discerning the body of Christ means sawing parts of it off! They will drive away people who disagree until they have capitulated with a creed. This has never been correct either scholastically or otherwise.

When a person accepts the teaching of another person or group as being correct, and then the person holds that same teaching, they then own for themselves that same lie if that teaching is a not true. In other words, if you buy it you own it.
The Christadelphians preach a false gospel because they don't accept that the faithful dead will be raised immortal.
They are however correct concerning the human nature of Christ when he was in the flesh.
 

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
f9bbbf72.png

Overview
th

In some Christian theologies, the Immaculate Conception is the conception of the Virgin Mary free from original sin by virtue of the merits of her son Jesus. The Catholic Church teaches that God acted upon Mary in the first moment of her conception, keeping her "immaculate".
The Immaculate Conception is commonly confused with the virgin birth of Jesus, the latter being, rather, the doctrine of the Incarnation. While virtually all Christians believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, it is principally Roman Catholics, along with various other Christian denominations, who believe in the doctri…
the RCC made up that false doctrine (the Immaculate Conception), and as a consequence, they NOW have to deny that Jesus had brother's and sister's. One lie leads to more lies.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
When a person accepts the teaching of another person or group as being correct, and then the person holds that same teaching, they then own for themselves that same lie if that teaching is a not true. In other words, if you buy it you own it.
The Christadelphians preach a false gospel because they don't accept that the faithful dead will be raised immortal.
They are however correct concerning the human nature of Christ when he was in the flesh.
If you ask me they are the slaves of John Thomas who plagiarized and corrupted William Penn's discoveries in order to form a cadre of followers. His favorite thing was to capture souls through arguments rather than win them to Christ. He and Roberts made sure nobody was allowed to disagree, putting the opinions of men above that of God. Consider this that all people are liars compared to God, which is why we ought to fellowship everybody instead of boasting about being correct on points at which they have flaws. John Thomas the slaver is a public figure and a penis-head, but he is a Christian in the modern terminology. Maybe he doesn't represent the image of Christ, but he's still one of us as are the JW's the LDS, the popiest of the papists and all of them. They're all equal to us before God who has respect for none of us and doesn't see you or as as more honest or more indispensable.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
the RCC made up that false doctrine (the Immaculate Conception), and as a consequence, they NOW have to deny that Jesus had brother's and sister's. One lie leads to more lies.

Mary was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what “immaculate” means: without stain.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Did Mary have other children? | CARM.org

excerpt:

The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise: (All quotes are from the NASB.)

  • Matthew 1:24-25, "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."
  • Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
  • Matthew 13:55, "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
  • Mark 6:2-3, "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"
  • John 2:12, "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."
  • Acts 1:14, "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."
  • 1 Cor. 9:4-5, "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
  • Gal. 1:19, "But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother."
An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters. But such obvious scriptures are not without their response from Catholic Theologians. The primary argument against these biblical texts is as follows:

In Greek, the word for brother is adelphos and sister is adelphe. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
Did Mary have other children? | CARM.org

excerpt:

The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise: (All quotes are from the NASB.)

  • Matthew 1:24-25, "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."
  • Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
  • Matthew 13:55, "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
  • Mark 6:2-3, "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"
  • John 2:12, "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."
  • Acts 1:14, "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."
  • 1 Cor. 9:4-5, "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
  • Gal. 1:19, "But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother."
An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters. But such obvious scriptures are not without their response from Catholic Theologians. The primary argument against these biblical texts is as follows:

In Greek, the word for brother is adelphos and sister is adelphe. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.

This is not the first time that the Catholic leadership have tried to explain away something from the Bible. It was easier for them when they used the Douay Confraternity. I've seen the Mormons and others do something similar. It is why I am a "Religionist", not a member of any faith.

I'm not fond of the idea that Jesus had no wife either.
 

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
God doesn't have brothers and sisters. Jesus, a Jew by nationality, had brothers and sisters because he was flesh and blood as they were. The same flesh as they were. Else they could not be called his brethren. And the flesh they were is sinful flesh.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
God doesn't have brothers and sisters. Jesus, a Jew by nationality, had brothers and sisters because he was flesh and blood as they were. The same flesh as they were. Else they could not be called his brethren. And the flesh they were is sinful flesh.
There is a very good Christadelphian lecture tape I have listened to, and it points out a verse in Hebrews that points out Jesus is made perfect through his death. Sorry I do not remember who is the speaker. Hebrews 5:9 and 7:28 both comment on this. "and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him." which does not compute with a Jesus who is completely perfect before he dies. In the more general case its an argument for gentiles. It argues that original Israel was destroyed by the Romans so that a new more spiritual one can replace it. This however is very dangerous if it is taken as permission to boast over the Jews. Boasting is not intended, but inclusion of the gentiles as equals is. That is very difficult to support, however, if those gentiles become like animals and don't live up to standard. That could explain why we have a division between the Jews and the Christians by 2nd century.
 
Top