What does the term "flesh" mean?

[George Muller]

Genesis 1:27-31 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him(i.e. the true God has created the human righteous as an user of the universe); male and female created he them..... And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very(i.e. completely) good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

You do understand how man fell and became enslaved to sin through the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

the devil seduced them making them to follow/practise occultism/esotericism, because the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is exactly such to the humans, so they began to follow/practise the creed which these days is known as "yoga/meditation", and thus the so called "third eye" appeared both in eve and adam("the eyes of them both were opened") whereby/whereat they began to perceive the sex and the other physical sense activities amiss as shameful and sinful("and they knew that they were naked"), whence they found occult/esoteric knowledge("fig leaves") and made themselves human(666) religion/spirituality("aprons") in order to cover their shame

Blessings

No mention of "yoga" but sin that came into the flesh of all men through the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Don't be deceived all flesh is corrupt not just the devil worshippers.

 

[George Muller]

If one looks at your passage in context it is clear that those "who hold the truth in unrighteousness" are those who know the law. The gentiles had no knowledge nor did they hold the truth.

If you read in context, I think you will see that Paul was speaking of the gentiles, that did not have the law.

Verse 13
13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.

The pagan were aware that there was a God. The description of what they did with this knowledge is recorded in these verses.

No, it is clear that the scripture of which you first tried to make your point was spoken to those who know the law. IT IS CLEAR! Why do you ignore my other post, in which I show the clear context?:naughty

 

[George Muller]

Part of the difficulty is that some modern translations have chosed to render SARX (King James: flesh) as 'sinful nature'. The problem with this is that the Lord Jesus' flesh is mentioned, but it's not possible to ascribe a sinful nature to Him, so it can't be rendered thus in such instances. Also, Romans 8 is hard to translate if SARX is rendered 'sinful nature'.

Blessings.

Many translations are made according to tradition, very few religious folks are able to accept the term flesh means what it clearly means. For to accept it as Paul used it in his epistles one would have to accept that "nothing good lives in the natural man" very few religious folks are willing to accept this, because the tree of knowledge of good and evil has convinced them that "they" have some "good" in themselves. They are deceived by the great deception of satan.

 

[farouk]

Part of the difficulty is that some modern translations have chosed to render SARX (King James: flesh) as 'sinful nature'. The problem with this is that the Lord Jesus' flesh is mentioned, but it's not possible to ascribe a sinful nature to Him, so it can't be rendered thus in such instances. Also, Romans 8 is hard to translate if SARX is rendered 'sinful nature'.

Blessings.

Many translations are made according to tradition, very few religious folks are able to accept the term flesh means what it clearly means. For to accept it as Paul used it in his epistles one would have to accept that "nothing good lives in the natural man" very few religious folks are willing to accept this, because the tree of knowledge of good and evil has convinced them that "they" have some "good" in themselves. They are deceived by the great deception of satan.

Part of the issue also is that many modern translations seek to be dynamic rather than formal, which might ease readability but can also be rather intepretive.

For example, if they stuck to translating SARX as 'flesh' and SOMA as 'body', they wouldn't get into some of the ambiguities that appear.

Blessings.

 

[George Muller]

Part of the difficulty is that some modern translations have chosed to render SARX (King James: flesh) as 'sinful nature'. The problem with this is that the Lord Jesus' flesh is mentioned, but it's not possible to ascribe a sinful nature to Him, so it can't be rendered thus in such instances. Also, Romans 8 is hard to translate if SARX is rendered 'sinful nature'.

Blessings.

Many translations are made according to tradition, very few religious folks are able to accept the term flesh means what it clearly means. For to accept it as Paul used it in his epistles one would have to accept that "nothing good lives in the natural man" very few religious folks are willing to accept this, because the tree of knowledge of good and evil has convinced them that "they" have some "good" in themselves. They are deceived by the great deception of satan.

Part of the issue also is that many modern translations seek to be dynamic rather than formal, which might ease readability but can also be rather intepretive.

For example, if they stuck to translating SARX as 'flesh' and SOMA as 'body', they wouldn't get into some of the ambiguities that appear.

Blessings.

I agree with you, let the bible define the bible, and add not to the Word of God, should be the guiding rule in these translations, but often it is not.

 

[George Muller]

If one looks at your passage in context it is clear that those "who hold the truth in unrighteousness" are those who know the law. The gentiles had no knowledge nor did they hold the truth.

If you read in context, I think you will see that Paul was speaking of the gentiles, that did not have the law.

Verse 13
13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.

The pagan were aware that there was a God. The description of what they did with this knowledge is recorded in these verses.

Ro 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them

Now at what point did the gentiles who did not "know the law" know the "judgment of God" or the sentence of death that the law demands against sin? NO! Paul is speaking to those "who know the law" as he does throughout this epistle.

Ro 7:1 ¶ Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

 

[Deborah13]

If one looks at your passage in context it is clear that those "who hold the truth in unrighteousness" are those who know the law. The gentiles had no knowledge nor did they hold the truth.

If you read in context, I think you will see that Paul was speaking of the gentiles, that did not have the law.

Verse 13
13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.

The pagan were aware that there was a God. The description of what they did with this knowledge is recorded in these verses.

No, it is clear that the scripture of which you first tried to make your point was spoken to those who know the law. IT IS CLEAR! Why do you ignore my other post, in which I show the clear context?:naughty

Really George??
The other verse was just after this verse. You said the other verse Paul was talking to those that had been under the law and I showed by context of verse 13 is was talking to Gentiles.
Romans 1
13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

God never has left man without anyway of knowing of His exist and man was free to seek Him out.

 

[George Muller]

The other verse was just after this verse. You said the other verse Paul was talking to those that had been under the law and I showed by context of verse 13 is was talking to Gentiles.

The very verse you use, proves that what you are saying is wrong? So we know that Paul was speaking to both to those (who knew the law) and those gentiles believers who had not the law. So the honest reading of the scriptures is to understand the contrast Paul is making with each point. When he says "those who know the judgment of God" he can ONLY be speaking in terms of those who know the law. When he speaks of those "who HOLD THE TRUTH in unrighteousness" he can ONLY be speaking of those who know the law. This is clear to all who are not blinded by the law as the scriptures declare those under the law are blind to the truth.

 

[George Muller]

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. (HERE PAUL MAKES THE SAME CONTRAST HE MAKES THROUGHOUT SCRIPTURE AS IT RELATES TO LAW AND FAITH)
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; (THIS IS THE LAW) by which Gods wrath is reavealed
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. (WHO? THOSE WHO KNOW THE LAW)
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

( THE GENTILES DID NOT KNOW GOD)

Ro 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.( HERE PAUL MAKES CLEAR THAT HE IS SPEAKING OF THOSE "WHO KNOW THE JUDGMENT OF GOD, THOSE WHO KNEW THE LAW)

He continues in to the next chapter to explain further;

Ro 2:1 ¶ Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

Paul is in effect making a charge against all men but proving to those who know the law, that they have not right to continue in the law, or judge others by the law. For they NEVER KEPT THE LAW, BUT WAS BREAKERS OF THE LAW and needed the grace of Christ just as all men do.





lets look at your scriptures again, and your claim that "all men have some knowledge of God" and somehow are subject to know the "righteous demands of God" is not biblical at all. It cannot be proven but only in the mind of some who have come into error.

 

[Deborah13]

For to accept it as Paul used it in his epistles one would have to accept that "nothing good lives in the natural man"

This is true, that "nothing good LIVES in natural man". Jesus, does not LIVE in natural man.

So when natural man takes money in the millions of dollars and feeds thousands of starving and diseased children, explain how this is evil and not good.

I don't want you to quote scripture that you do not fully explain your understanding of it.
Thanks

 

[Deborah13]

.( HERE PAUL MAKES CLEAR THAT HE IS SPEAKING OF THOSE "WHO KNOW THE JUDGMENT OF GOD, THOSE WHO KNEW THE LAW)

Ok George maybe I am misunderstanding just what you are calling the Law. What law are you speaking of?

 

[George Muller]

.( HERE PAUL MAKES CLEAR THAT HE IS SPEAKING OF THOSE "WHO KNOW THE JUDGMENT OF GOD, THOSE WHO KNEW THE LAW)

Ok George maybe I am misunderstanding just what you are calling the Law. What law are you speaking of?

Well Paul describes to which "law" he speaks in this epistle in a way that no one can doubt, and the "law" is EVERY JOT AND TITTLE- ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW. There is no parts or portions of the law, to UPHOLD the law is to bring its FULL Standard, as Christ did. That none can be justified by any part of the law is evident, this means ANY PART.

Ro 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."
8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead.
9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.

Here is the law, the Ten Commandments are the law. The law is not "broken" into parts and sections. This is mans religion and is mans attempt to justify the flesh because they will not admit the true condition of the flesh.

 

[George Muller]

For to accept it as Paul used it in his epistles one would have to accept that "nothing good lives in the natural man"

This is true, that "nothing good LIVES in natural man". Jesus, does not LIVE in natural man.

So when natural man takes money in the millions of dollars and feeds thousands of starving and diseased children, explain how this is evil and not good.

I don't want you to quote scripture that you do not fully explain your understanding of it.
Thanks

Well its simple? If a man gives to charity to justify himself, and to in some way "earn" some form of salvation, or to gain the approval and respect of other men? This is not righteousness in the eyes of the Lord, only Christ is that which justifies, and any charity that is not done for his glory is in effect sin, because it is to not of Christ nor for His Glory, A person could give all their money, even a Christian could give, but if its not from the love of God "in Christ" it profits nothing before the Lord.

 

[Deborah13]

Part of the difficulty is that some modern translations have chosed to render SARX (King James: flesh) as 'sinful nature'. The problem with this is that the Lord Jesus' flesh is mentioned, but it's not possible to ascribe a sinful nature to Him, so it can't be rendered thus in such instances. Also, Romans 8 is hard to translate if SARX is rendered 'sinful nature'. Blessings.

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:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Oh but Jesus was born with the nature of man, we all agree that He was 100% man and 100% God. Because He was born with the nature of man, He could be tempted. God cannot be tempted, so scripture says. This is the very reason that He could be a sacrifice for our sin. Because He overcame the nature of man by the nature of God. He walked in the Spirit not in the flesh.
The problem is this idea that when man is born he is sinful because of Adam's sin. No he is born with the nature of Adam. With the capability to sin and he will for sure. But Jesus came with that nature of Adam and never sinned.
This is the lesson of walking in the Spirit of God and not the 'flesh' the nature of man.
We grow from faith to faith and glory to glory, as we are transformed into the image of the Son.

 

[George Muller]

Oh but Jesus was born with the nature of man, we all agree that He was 100% man and 100% God. Because He was born with the nature of man, He could be tempted.

Deb, no where does the scriptures suggest that Christ had the sinful flesh that we do, for He was not born of the seed of man, in which sin is passed unto all flesh. Yes he came as a man, in the flesh, but it had no sin. This is clear!

 

[Deborah13]

Oh but Jesus was born with the nature of man, we all agree that He was 100% man and 100% God. Because He was born with the nature of man, He could be tempted.

Deb, no where does the scriptures suggest that Christ had the sinful flesh that we do, for He was not born of the seed of man, in which sin is passed unto all flesh. Yes he came as a man, in the flesh, but it had no sin. This is clear!

And just where did I say that Jesus had sin??? You miss quote me, George.

 

[George Muller]

Oh but Jesus was born with the nature of man, we all agree that He was 100% man and 100% God. Because He was born with the nature of man, He could be tempted.

Deb, no where does the scriptures suggest that Christ had the sinful flesh that we do, for He was not born of the seed of man, in which sin is passed unto all flesh. Yes he came as a man, in the flesh, but it had no sin. This is clear!

And just where did I say that Jesus had sin??? You miss quote me, George.

Well Im unsure of your point if that is not what you was suggesting? And the conversation would lead that you may be trying to suggest that His Flesh and ours is the same? If that was not your intention, please forgive my assumption?

 

[farouk]

Part of the difficulty is that some modern translations have chosed to render SARX (King James: flesh) as 'sinful nature'. The problem with this is that the Lord Jesus' flesh is mentioned, but it's not possible to ascribe a sinful nature to Him, so it can't be rendered thus in such instances. Also, Romans 8 is hard to translate if SARX is rendered 'sinful nature'. Blessings.

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:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Oh but Jesus was born with the nature of man, we all agree that He was 100% man and 100% God. Because He was born with the nature of man, He could be tempted. God cannot be tempted, so scripture says. This is the very reason that He could be a sacrifice for our sin. Because He overcame the nature of man by the nature of God. He walked in the Spirit not in the flesh.
The problem is this idea that when man is born he is sinful because of Adam's sin. No he is born with the nature of Adam. With the capability to sin and he will for sure. But Jesus came with that nature of Adam and never sinned.
This is the lesson of walking in the Spirit of God and not the 'flesh' the nature of man.
We grow from faith to faith and glory to glory, as we are transformed into the image of the Son.

[MENTION=93058]Deborah13[/MENTION]:

I think it's good to remember that there was nothing in the Lord Jesus to respond to sin, to cause Him to have a tendency to sin. He said in John 14.30: 'The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me'.

He was the perfect, sinless sacrifice; as the last Adam he did not inherit a sinful nature.

 

[iLOVE]

The flesh is the body that dies because of what Adam did. Our bodies can not enter into heaven at this time. At the "Rapture" we will receive our new bodies after the saints (christians) in heaven.

 

[Deborah13]

Part of the difficulty is that some modern translations have chosed to render SARX (King James: flesh) as 'sinful nature'. The problem with this is that the Lord Jesus' flesh is mentioned, but it's not possible to ascribe a sinful nature to Him, so it can't be rendered thus in such instances. Also, Romans 8 is hard to translate if SARX is rendered 'sinful nature'. Blessings.

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:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Oh but Jesus was born with the nature of man, we all agree that He was 100% man and 100% God. Because He was born with the nature of man, He could be tempted. God cannot be tempted, so scripture says. This is the very reason that He could be a sacrifice for our sin. Because He overcame the nature of man by the nature of God. He walked in the Spirit not in the flesh.
The problem is this idea that when man is born he is sinful because of Adam's sin. No he is born with the nature of Adam. With the capability to sin and he will for sure. But Jesus came with that nature of Adam and never sinned.
This is the lesson of walking in the Spirit of God and not the 'flesh' the nature of man.
We grow from faith to faith and glory to glory, as we are transformed into the image of the Son.

[MENTION=93058]Deborah13[/MENTION]:

I think it's good to remember that there was nothing in the Lord Jesus to respond to sin, to cause Him to have a tendency to sin. He said in John 14.30: 'The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me'.

He was the perfect, sinless sacrifice; as the last Adam he did not inherit a sinful nature.

Jesus was tempted. God cannot be tempted. Jesus overcame temptation. He did this by the Spirit of God which He had in all it's fullness. Jesus, overcame sin by the Spirit of God, the very nature of God, that He was born with. He was 100% man and 100% God. "God come in the flesh."
Remember in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus asked His Father, "if there is any other way, take this cup from me,...but Your will Father, not Mine." (para)
Jesus, as a man, was under so much pressure knowing what was going to happen to Him that He sweat drops of blood. He did what no other man could do. His own words testify that it was not His will, as a man, to died in such a horrible manner. But He overcame, by the Spirit (the nature of God) to follow through with the words that He professed "Your will Father not Mine".
I don't think I could appreciate what He did, if I didn't believe He TRULY OVERCAME sin, every sin, all sin known to man. If He didn't then we can't either. It's that plain and simple.