Puzzled - from whence came sinful flesh.

[Steve W]

Why did the writers of the gospels use metaphors alongside actual definitions in the same sentence, as if to duplicate the description? Maybe, rather, they are describing cause and effect? cause - spirit (whatever that is), effect - sickness. I am not being pedantic about what an unclean spirit actually is, as scripture does not offer much clarity on this. But it's not wrong to use the words of scripture to describe these phenomena - they are after all, God's words!

Matthew 10:1; "And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them
1. power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and
2. to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease"

Matthew 8:16; "and he
1. cast out the spirits with his word, and
2. healed all that were sick":

Are you saying that Matthew here is saying something like...

"and he..
1. cast out sickness (metaphor) and
2. healed all that were sick (explanation)"

would that not read

"and he....
1. cast out spirits, meaning
2. cast out sickness..."

But we never read of sickness being cast out - only ever healed. I find it odd that a metaphor would be linked to its interpretation so freely with no explanation, using different terminology re. the verb (casting out v. healing)

There is here revealed a connection between 'spirits' and 'sickness', whatever these are / were, it describes a reality. I will not presume to change this definition without scriptural authority to do so, as it is God's word. Speculate by all means, but to state categorically "there are no such things as evil spirits - they are all metaphors" etc. is to take liberties with the divine revelation I fear.

when I said that the New Testament uses modern medical terminology, I wasnt suggesting this is done comprehensively by any means - simply that eg leprosy is mentioned / a flow of blood etc., indicating that sickness is described in known ways - they werent so backward in their understanding as we would like to think - Greek medicine was quite well advanced at the time, and as has been said, Luke was a doctor, but still made reference to spirits as entities under God's inspiration. I do not presume to know what these entities are, but I do take the descriptions of them at face value. (that the spirits were evicted, that they talked, that they had malign will, that they left a man, and were able to return, that they are connected to the devil (whatever that may mean, they are connected))

This is not, on my part, a religious interpretation based on anything I have read elsewhere, or paganism etc. I was raised a CDN and only believe what the bible says.

I have also verbally 'bound' / commanded evil spirits in Jesus' name, in unbelievers, and seen dramatic immediate results.

[Peter]

Dear SteveW
It is a fair point you have made that "casting out unclean spirits" is dealt with differently to healing diseases.
My suggestion is that the "unclean spirits" has more to do with mental illness, bad unholy ungodlike attitudes.
However I do repeat my ealier point that "spirit" is a very plastic word.

Mar 9:20 Then they brought him to Him. And when he saw Him, immediately the spirit convulsed him, and he fell on the ground and wallowed, foaming at the mouth. This spirit which caused deafness and dumbness could be any number of things. The causes of these problems are complex. The word spirit allows you to speak about something without knowing the scientific terminology.
Mar 9:25 When Jesus saw that the people came running together, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, "Deaf and dumb spirit, I command you, come out of him and enter him no more!" This unclean spirit could be epilepsy or even rabies.
The point of these accounts is to show that Jesus had the power to defeat these problems. They weren't there as a scientific text book.

[Peter]

Is it possible that "diseases' refers to ones that are physically observed whereas "unclean spirits" refers to issues of the mind?

In some accounts of healing it speaks of casting out demons and in others unclean spirits. When demons are cast out people end up in their right mind. This strongly suggests demons are to do with mental issues and brain function. viz.Luk 8:35 Then they went out to see what had happened, and came to Jesus, and found the man from whom the demons had departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind. And they were afraid.

[Steve W]

"the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." (1 Cor 10:20)

If as is suggested, devils / unclean spirits are sicknesses / diseases / mental disorders...

Is the forum suggesting that (from this scripture) anyone who is sick (mentally or physically) - partakers of these (devils) ailments / diseases, cannot drink the Lord's cup?

[Steve W]

?.........

[Peter]

Dear SteveW
For a moment I was quite confused. I thought this was the Satan thread and I was thinking "Where is that blog I entered this morning?". Eventually I worked out it was a different thread.
Anyway to your question -
Just because a person is mentally ill (ie possessed by a demon in the colloquial language of 2000 years ago) doesn't mean they sacrifice to demons (or devils in KJV).
What Paul is saying is that by offering sacrifices to the various gods that were worshipped in Corinth at the time they were sacrificing to demons. Now here is the modern meanings of demon:
1. An evil supernatural being; a devil.
2. A persistently tormenting person, force, or passion: the demon of drug addiction.
3. One who is extremely zealous, skillful, or diligent: worked away like a demon; a real demon at math

However meaning 1 was not the way the word was used in ancient Greek.

Wikipedia has this to say:

Ancient Greek δαίμων daimōn is a word for "spirit" or "divine power", much like the Latin genius. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives the etymology of the Greek word as from the verb daiesthai "to divide, distribute." The Greek conception of a δαίμων notably appears in the works of Plato, where it describes the divine inspiration of Socrates. To distinguish the classical Greek concept from its later Christian interpretation, it is usually anglicized as either daemon or daimon rather than demon.

The Greek term does not have any connotations of evil or malevolence. In fact, εὐδαιμονία, literally "good-spiritedness", is a term for "happiness". The term first acquired its now-current evil connotations in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible, informed by the mythology of the ancient Semitic religions. This connotation was inherited by the Koine text of the New Testament. The medieval and neo-medieval conception of a "demon" in Western civilization derives seamlessly from the ambient popular culture of Late (Roman) Antiquity. Greco-Roman concepts of daemons that passed into Christian culture are discussed in the entry daemon, though it should be duly noted that the term referred only to a spiritual force, not a malevolent supernatural being. The Hellenistic "daemon" eventually came to include many Semitic and Near Eastern gods as evaluated by Christianity.

Note what it says; Originally the term had nothing to do with evil. It was the influence of Semitic mythology which gave that slant. Christendom of the Catholic variety inherited that idea from the popular culure of the Roman world. Need I say more.

Now do these demons actually exist? No! They are a type of mythological god and as such they are what Paul calls "so-called gods" (ist Cor 8:5). They do not really exist except in the minds of those who are deceived.
This is what Paul says about them:
1Cr 8:4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is NO other God but one.
Paul goes on to say:1Cr 8:7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat [it] as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.
Now why is their conscious defiled? Because they think in their minds that the idol - the false god - the demon is something. That's his argument as to why we who do understand that there are no other gods(they don't exist), should be a little tolerant of those who do or who think it's wrong to give the impression that you think they are gods. Paul is saying that it's all in their minds. Note that!
In the ancient world demons were deities. Demons do not exist.
However because everyone in the Greco-Roman world thought they did the word was used to describe troubled people. In fact most references to demons are not as the noun but as the verb Meaning "to be demon possessed" It's a phrase like saying someone is a "lunatic" (in fact recent studies show the moon has no effect on mentally ill people) That would just like saying that someone who was schizophrenic was "possessed by a demon" - not literally true but understood by everyone.

SteveW
Fallen immortal angels, demons, idols, gods like Baalzebub, Mars, Aphrodite, Poseidon, Zeus, Jupiter, Demeter, Apollo, Mercury, Artemis, Hades, and lesser gods and spirits like The Furies, the Muses, the Graces,and all the rest of the Greek, Roman, Semitic, Hindu. Maya, Aztec, and any other mythological set of Gods do not exist.
It is paganism pure and simple.It's the Catholics who have foisted this nonsense on the Christian world.
I conclude with Paul's words:
1Cr 8:5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords - there certainly were in the world of pagan religion ),
1Cr 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom [are] all things, and through whom we [live].

What is a god?
Dictionary meaning is as follows:
1. any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship
2. an image that is worshiped; idol
3. a person or thing deified or excessively honored and admired
4. in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; Supreme Being; the Almighty
You are using the first meaning to describe your theory of the devil and Satan, and demons(the one the ancient Roman world used before monotheism came along) And what does Paul say There is only one such god. The rest are no-gods.

[Peter]

Dear SteveW
We have been answering your questions for hundreds of blogs yet you seem unwilling to even answer our questions.
I could find in all of those blogs question after question which you refuse to address even when a repeat request that they be answered has been made.
I would appreciate that you engage in reasonable two way discussion. This necessarily involves a willingness to examine closely the arguments being presented by others. I feel you don't want to do that.

[Steve W]

Peter - I am very sorry if you think that - I did have to take time out for over a week and maybe lost track of some points of debate - To be honest I am responding in a 2 way dialogue as much as possible given the time available, and so respond to those points raised that most interest me, or I think are most significant to the thread, and the honour and glory of God. Given that there are several people who seem to be debating with me, I am somewhat at a disadvantage timewise as I am self employed and have a young family going through house moves and exams, so please forgive me - I am extremely interested in your posts, and read them all - they feed into every response I make, although I do have to choose what to respond to. If there is a particular point I have missed, please offer me a repeat in concise form and I will do my best to reply. I have counted - and have written over 15,000 words in this forum over a short time, all addressing points raised, and the topics under discussion. I could have earned a degree by now had this been channelled into one of those so called 'institutions of learning'!

I think that over on the Satan thread, we have arrived at a point of important examination / definition of facts, and I await the suggestions of the forum with interest.

God bless, Steve.

(PS I did respond to your point above about 'so-called gods' on the other thread I think.)

[Insearchof]

SteveW, I have been following the Threads for 2 weeks now, and note that you are seeking to understand what the standing of the Posters on this forum is, with regard to
Christ's nature and sin in the flesh, I too have been seeking answers not only on this forum but on other Cdn forums for some time now, with no clear answer. under I post a few quotes from the Pens of some former leaders?
‘ Human nature is wholly evil …. Serpent- nature.
Diabolos was in the flesh of Jesus.’ ( W.F. Barling.)

‘ Man is a diseased abnormality because of sin.’
( P.O. Barnard.)

‘ The defects of (Jesus) flesh … its essential ugliness
… its fundamental corruptness.’ ( A. D. Norris.)

‘There was no violation in his death; (Jesus) it was not
Wrong for him to die.’ ( W. F. Barling.)

‘ Jesus was sin.’ ( A. D. Norris.)

‘ When Jesus hung on the cross .. the devil hung there
Dead.’ ( A. D. Norris.)

‘ Jesus did not suffer the penalty of sin; his death was not
the payment of a debt and it was not on behalf of others’.
( Islip Collyer.)

‘Sin is a product of Adamic flesh, and sin after baptism
Indicates a revival of the Adamic nature which we purported
to destroy at baptism.
Yet if we are still members of the body of Christ we are still
without sin, for in ‘Him is no sin’
If we are truly in Christ, it is not we that have sinned, but the
irrepressible Adamic nature which we have been striving to
mortify that has obtruded itself – and we heartily deplore the
fact.
As long as we deplore our transgression – as long as they are
committed despite ourselves and not because of ourselves –
we remain in Christ. And righteous.’ ( P. Watkins.)
From the Dec 1947 issue of ‘The Christadelphian’ .
This could have been written for a Roman Catholic Magazine.

[Insearchof]

Myself, I go along with Dr J. Thomas on this.

EUREKA. — Page 278. Now the blood of Jesus was more precious than the life-blood of any
other man.. If it had not been so, it would have been inadequate to the purchase of life for the
world. …. The blood of Jesus was the only blood of all the generations of Adam, that had not
been generated by the lust of the flesh: Jesus was an unblemished man, without spot, or wrinkle,
or any such thing: for “ he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.”
( HEBREWS 7: 26.)

[Steve W]

Fascinating insearchof - thanks so much for this... your position and Dr Thomas, appears to be quite different from that of other Christadelphians - is this fair to say? What's your view on this? Do you believe that Jesus had a fallen sinful carnal nature, with desire to sin and disobey his Father? and that the devil tempting Christ was his own carnal nature making offers to sin and reward? Or from what you write above, because Jesus had no human paternal origin (rather his Father being God) though his Mother Mary, being fully his biological mother, he was therefore found to be in the LIKENESS of human flesh, but without the sinful nature, though still with human appetites as it were, that could be appealed to, but not sinfully inclined?

[Insearchof]

SteveW. Yes they differ greatly from What Dr.J.Thomas wrote.
If they say he( the Root was not sound) then the Branches cannot be, on the other hand if he declared the Truth, and they differ, then there as been a falling away.
At this time my thoughts are toward the latter.

[glimmer]

Originally Posted by Insearchof

Myself, I go along with Dr J. Thomas on this.
EUREKA. — Page 278. Now the blood of Jesus was more precious than the life-blood of any other man..

Yes, but why is that? I would say it is because he lived a sinless life. The blood itself was regular human blood.

If it had not been so, it would have been inadequate to the purchase of life for the world.

Yes, I agree with this statement with the understanding that "his purchase of life for the world" was because he 'condemned sin in the flesh', not because he was of different flesh.

The blood of Jesus was the only blood of all the generations of Adam, that had not been generated by the lust of the flesh:

Yes, but did that make his "flesh" different than ours? I need to read more of what Dr. Thomas said to be sure I understand what he means by this statement.

Jesus was an unblemished man, without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing: for “ he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.” HEBREWS 7: 26.)

Yes, but again - is it because he did what no 'sinner' could do and overcame sin or is it because he was made of different flesh and couldn't be tempted internally?

[Steve W]

glimmer, why do you think, if (as I read it, you hold that... you think...) Jesus had fallen flesh, and a sinful carnal nature, and lusts of the flesh, and was no different than you or I in any way (it seems you think this, correct me if I've got that wrong!), so how do you think that Jesus managed NOT to sin (we agree that he did not sin I think do we, that he was morally perect, and fulfilled the Law in every respect, thought, word, and deed)?

Is it not because he was special in some way that you and I are not? Do you think his identity - being the 'only begotten Son of God' meant anything in this regard? That God was his paternal Father, not man? I mean, it is possible tht he had all the human appetites (hunger, tiredness etc) but without the sin tendency - ie he didnt need to have a fallen nature in order to be tempted - and proved he did not have a sin nature by his 100% total (even in thought) obedience to his Father, and refusal to even entertain sin in his mind.... ie because Jesus was tempted, does not mean he had an inherrent inclination towards sin, as he always wanted to live for God, and live within the Law, because he was the Son of God, fulfilling his appetites in an appropriate way in every way - and totally wanting to do this with everything that was within him - having a divine nature (in his soul / essence of being (The perfect Holy Spirit of Christ)), not a carnal nature? (being that he was the image of God, the Word made flesh, being 'in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh' (which is different from being made 'in / of the sinful flesh').

After all, Adam and Eve, when they were first tempted, were not fallen - had not been cursed, had not had their eyes opened to sin, but were still tempted in their created un-sinful state. So for Jesus, the second Adam, the temptation to sin was just as real, and Jesus was similarly 'unfallen' but there was a difference between Jesus , and 1st Adam - i.e. Adam was the natural creation of God, but Jesus was the only begotten Son of God - there being a difference (though both shared the likeness of flesh and blood, they were essentially, in identity, different in some important ways, don't you think?....)

Wonder where you stand on this?

I think we're going to have to get down to some serious Bible study to establish the truth of God on this vitally important subject from scripture heh?.

[Insearchof]

glimmer & SteveW, I do not believe in Clean Flesh or Un-clean Flesh, I only believe in the
one flesh of man that God created, the one that Adam was, and the same that Christ was. there is only the one.
1Co 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
To say there was a change on nature/flesh when Adam sinned, is once again going against what Dr J T. wrote, and what R.R. wrote at that time, and also saying that the
above quote from Scripture is wrong.
I feel sure that I have seen quoted what J.T. & R.R. wrote on this forum before, but I
can post the quotes if needed.

[glimmer]

Originally Posted by Steve W

glimmer, why do you think, if (as I read it, you hold that... you think...) Jesus had fallen flesh, and a sinful carnal nature, and lusts of the flesh, and was no different than you or I in any way (it seems you think this, correct me if I've got that wrong!), so how do you think that Jesus managed NOT to sin (we agree that he did not sin I think do we, that he was morally perect, and fulfilled the Law in every respect, thought, word, and deed)?

Jesus had the Spirit "without measure". We do not.

Is it not because he was special in some way that you and I are not? Do you think his identity - being the 'only begotten Son of God' meant anything in this regard?

I believe he had the same 'desires' as we do - that's what makes us human. If Jesus didn't have these desires he wasn't truly human and can't sympathize with us.

That God was his paternal Father, not man? I mean, it is possible tht he had all the human appetites (hunger, tiredness etc) but without the sin tendency - ie he didnt need to have a fallen nature in order to be tempted

Then he wasn't truly tempted. The "lust of the eyes", the "lust of the flesh" and the "pride of life" are the desires of the flesh. Temptation is only temptation when there is a "desire" involved. For example, being a heterosexual I cannot be tempted by the "lust of the eyes" when I see another man. There is no desire there. However, I do know someone who DOES struggle with that temptation. My temptation would be if a woman tried to entice me. My point is that if Jesus didn't have these "desires" that we struggle with then he wasn't truly tempted.

and proved he did not have a sin nature by his 100% total (even in thought) obedience to his Father, and refusal to even entertain sin in his mind.... ie because Jesus was tempted, does not mean he had an inherrent inclination towards sin,

"Jesus" had an inherrent inclination to serve his Father. His human "flesh" had it's own ideas! His ability to overcome the "flesh" (devil) is what he accomplished that we cannot. The fact that he didn't "entertain" sinful thoughts is what led him to victory!

as he always wanted to live for God, and live within the Law, because he was the Son of God, fulfilling his appetites in an appropriate way in every way - and totally wanting to do this with everything that was within him - having a divine nature (in his soul / essence of being (The perfect Holy Spirit of Christ)), not a carnal nature? (being that he was the image of God, the Word made flesh, being 'in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh' (which is different from being made 'in / of the sinful flesh').

If you interpret "LIKENESS" to be something different than what we humans truly "are", how can you expect him to relate to the inward struggles you have?

After all, Adam and Eve, when they were first tempted, were not fallen - had not been cursed, had not had their eyes opened to sin, but were still tempted in their created un-sinful state.

They had these desires before they sinned, they just weren't "inflamed" until they were tempted. I don't believe there was a "change of nature" before or after the fall. Where does it say their "nature" changed?

[Steve W]

Insearchof, don't you think that First Adam, in sinning against God, inherited mortality - and lost his innocence? Thus First Adam's children all suffer from "sin dwelling in us"...

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jer 17:9)

"For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.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. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."
" (Romans 7)

I don't think that Jesus served the Law of sin in his flesh, like we do.
I don't think that Jesus had a deceitul heart
I dont think Jesus was desperately wicked.
I dont think Jesus was sold under sin.
I dont think that in Jesus, no good thing dwelt.... do you?

Jesus was innocent, perfect, spotless. The express image of God, the only begotten of the Father - unlike us.

"Who being the brightness of his [God's] glory, and the express image of his person," (Heb 1:3)

"And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin." (1 Jn 3:5)

I think this is more than he didnt sin - it says "in him is no sin". But Paul above proves that in us is nothing but sin - in our flesh. Not so Christ!

[glimmer]

Originally Posted by Insearchof

glimmer & SteveW, I do not believe in Clean Flesh or Un-clean Flesh, I only believe in the one flesh of man that God created, the one that Adam was, and the same that Christ was. there is only the one.

I agree 100%

To say there was a change on nature/flesh when Adam sinned, is once again going against what Dr J T. wrote, and what R.R. wrote

Yes, again, I agree. I don't believe there was a change of nature

I feel sure that I have seen quoted what J.T. & R.R. wrote on this forum before, but I can post the quotes if needed.

Yes, let's see the quotes again

[Steve W]

I say again - you dont need to have 'sinful flesh' in order to be tempted - Adam and Eve didn't - they were in an immortal unfallen state when they were tempted and fell from a state of innocence.

[Steve W]

Adam was in a state of innocence when he was tempted. We are not in a state of innocence. We are corrupt - Jesus is incorrupt (see following post for scriptural reasoning)