Jesus walked on ice?

[Guest shiloh357]

Now I would like to make this clear. The flesh which INCLUDES our physical bodies

Ruck, YOU are trying to make than inclusion, not the Scriptures. The Scriptures draw a deliniation between our "flesh" and our physical body. The Bible is only concerned about the Physical body as it relates to whether it is being controlled by the flesh or by the Spirit.

The Bible says that the Spirit wars againt the flesh. The Spirit is not a war with our physical body, but against our flesh and its desires. Our bodies will either obey the Spirit, or the flesh.

God destroyed the nature by destroying the body by which the nature commits it works. They are tied together.

They are not tied together in the sense you are trying to make it appear. The body does whatever the controlling entity tells it to do. If you are controlled by your flesh, you will do works accordingly. If you are being controlled by the Spirit, you will act accordingly. YOU are, in futility, trying to make "flesh" include the physical body of man, but you simply do not have the scriptural authority to do so.

Rom 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify(to kill) the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Here Paul is using a variation on the Hebraism I mentioned before. "Deeds of the body" does not refer to the physical body, but those deeds carried out under the influence and direction of the flesh. Again, the Bible NOWHERE claims that our bodies are the problem, or even part of our problem. The body is either a tool of the Spirit or a tool of the flesh. Paul is saying that if we mortify the deeds carried out under the direction of the flesh, we shall live.

we are counted as ressurected from God's perspective. This current body that we hold is not our body. This body was placed on the cross with Christ.

Not so. It was our "old man" that is identified as being crucified with Christ. Our old nature is what has to die. Nowhere does the Bible say that our "body" placed on the cross. Our sin was imputed to Christ on the cross, and thus we are identified with Him in His death. Since it is His Righteousness that is imputed back to us, we are also identified with Him in His resurrection.

[Guest shiloh357]

actually brother the word used for flesh makes that inclusion

sarx

Probably from the base of G4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), that is, (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred, or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such): - carnal (-ly, + -ly minded), flesh ([-ly]).

Or am i seeing this wrong.

What you are missing the issue of context. sarx can be used in certain contexts to refer to the physical body. That is not the issue. The issue is how the word is being used in the context of Romans seven and eight. When used in a spiritual context to refer to man's old nature, it is used as well. Context determines word usage. That is a basic principle of Bible interpretation. It is not enough just to look at the face vaule of a word or passage, but to understand it the way the author intended to be understood. So yes, you are looking at it wrong. That is not a put down, just an observation. Many people fail to apply context, and it leads them to draw erroneous conclusions.

[apothanein kerdos]

Ruck, if you don't know Greek then do us all a favor and stop relying on a concordance.

Sarx almost always means human nature when Paul uses it. In fact, if you want it to mean a physical implication then you have to put it in the context. A contextual view of sarx shows that, from the verses you are using, it is refering to the ethical nature of man and not the physical nature of man. If these bodies truly are sinful, then Jesus and Christ were two seperate people...as you said, Christ could not come in an actual physical body...therefore we have to follow the Gnostic god by your implications.

[nebula]

When Jesus spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, was He talking about the physical?

[wouldhe]

And to think these guys are supposed to be the smartest in the world! HA! Thats a laugh!

[wouldhe]

No nebula, he was talking about the crucifixion. How by that we can be saved. They tore his flesh and his blood flowed out of him like water, which flew out as well!

[apothanein kerdos]

Well a concordance is a necessary tool for those of us who dont know the Greek language.

Great, but when used incorrectly it does no good. It doesn't put the word in the context for you. For instance, take the word "love" in English.

I love food.

I love my wife.

I love my children.

I love my job.

Now, let's take an English concordance (dictionary) and look at the definitions:

1) A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.

2) A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.

3)

1. Sexual passion.

2. Sexual intercourse.

3. A love affair.

4) An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.

5) A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.

6) An expression of one's affection

So, taking what we have, how do I apply it? Let's assume someone 1,000 years from now takes my sentence, "I love my children" and uses a concordance to define what i meant by love. They look at the dictionary, have a bias against what I said, or a preconcieved belief, and say I have a deep sexual passion towards my children. Obviously this is incorrect, but if they are relying on a dictionary who is to say they are wrong?

Greek is the same way. We can look at a concordance all we want, but it doesn't promise us the proper translation. In your case, you came up with an incorrect translation. Sarx is almost always translated to refer to the spiritual being of man and not the literal flesh of man.

Also, when did I say that Jesus was two seperate people or that He could or did not come in a phyical body? Or are you just implying that I am implying that?

That's the implication we have to draw from what you're saying. If flesh is inherently sinful, then if Christ took on a literal body of flesh, He was sinful at that moment. He became fallen.

I beseech you brother be more careful with your words. You are talking to a fellow brother a fellow heir. Speak forth Christ, all I hear at the moment is you. Brother I do love and care for you for we are attached from the same Life supply. Bring correction with grace brother, be more humble. Your arrogance testifies of your measure. I will bring what needs to be answered to the Father. As I said earlier I am confidient that He will recover me if I am in error.

THis is simply a tactic you want to use to get out of responding. You attack me personally because you have absolutely zero substance to provide a substantial reply. This is obviously in that there was nothing arrogant within my reply. The only "arrogant" thing I did was correct the gross mistake you made. If that constitutes arrogance, the irony is the arrogance is on your side in that you cannot handle correction on theological matters. In fact, you even state on God can correct you. This is arrogant in you think you are above the measure of all men and only God is capable of cchanging your mind. Stick to the topic, it would bode much better for you. Of the two of us, only one has used the intellect God gave us to address the problem presented. To me, that's more Christ-like than being careful with my words. I suggest you drop this strategy and move more towards replying to the actual topic.

[sweetycakes]

Why is it that scientists, in their arrogance, cannot accept the supernatural and have to "prove" a "natural" explanation for things? And of course, make a name for themselves as well.

See the article:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3628510a4560,00.html

I think we are being told that Jesus was a "Merlin the magician" and used an ability to understand natural phenomena to trick people into believing that he could perform miracles (you know, the story of Merlin using the "total eclipse of the sun" to frighten his enemies and get them to do his will).

Can anyone see any logic to this?

Yeah, right.................Jesus walked on ice..............in the mediterranean?

Jesus walked on WATER!

Of course they are out to discredit our belief. Paul Daniels, a well known British 'conjurer' and magician, said that Jesus was the 'greatest magician' that ever lived.

.......Says he, who has admitted that he is a 'conjurer, and an illusionist' ................ See the difference???

Don't let these charlatans rob you of your life-giving faith!

We know in whom we have believed.

And our hope rests in HIM

If our faith wasn't an everyday and present reality, I would probably go along with the rantings of such people....

............but we know better!

[MorningGlory]

Its a miracle that the disciples were sailing a boat on ice!

Good point! Doesn't sound like this 'scientist' is any too swift.

[apothanein kerdos]

To my dear brothers Shiloh357 and Ak,

I would like to ask for your forgiveness in my overconfidience based on my so-called "knowledge" of Scripture.

I said

I will bring what needs to be answered to the Father. As I said earlier I am confidient that He will recover me if I am in error.

I would say that God has brought me some clarity concerning this. I will say that I renege on my previous asserstion that the physical body is as corrupt as I may have insisted it was (tho I find it does have it's share of problems). I was reading "If you will ask" by Oswald Chambers and he said this.

"The Bible does not say that the body is a curse and a hinderance; it says it is the temple of the Holy Spirit. 'Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you'? (1 Corintians 6:19). It is ONLY (emphasis added) when garrisoned by the God of peace that the stupendous sanctity of the Holy Spirit preserves a man--spirit, soul, and body--in unspotted integrity, without blame, unto the coming of Jesus."

Now I must admit I still do not fully understand God's thought concerning this physical body, but as He sheds light I pray that I am open to receive it. My dear brothers I do thank you, and I pray that you both were praying for me while I desired clarity. As I said I still dont fully understand God's thougt concerning the body, but I pray my assupmtions wont be as strong. IN any case I pray that I am quicker to stand on the ground of needing to be clear. Well, this is all. Let us continue to seek and abandon ourselves to Christ.

I love you both and all

You're in the right spot brother. A perfect book that covers the issue of the physical nature of the world is Heaven Is a Place on Earth: Why Everything You Do Matters to God by Michael Wittmer. I'd highly suggest you read it, as it should help you in seeking clarification.