Home About Us Apostolic Free Library Questions & Answers Guestbook Order Online Search The Network

Does the Word say that Jesus had heavenly flesh?

Submitted: 10/30/2010
Post a comment or
ask a follow-up question
 
Question: Perhaps I could convince you to stop calling me gnostic names. Letís be adults and stick to the Bible instead. No labeling required. Otherwise I am inclined to think you are trying to play an ad hominem on me for lack of arguments. I do not believe in the things you write at all. Jesus is the Father manifested in flesh, and the Word of God made flesh. But what is the origin of that flesh? You claim Jesus flesh is corruptible, mortal and dust-flesh. That however is in contradiction with many verses that clearly state He is from heaven. Read John 8:23, John 6:51 and Heb 9:11 for instance. Do you deny that nowhere in the Bible Jesus is called corruptible and mortal? Acts 2:24 even says death could not hold Jesus. When someone is baptized in Jesus Name, he puts on the heavenly flesh of Jesus, not the transformed flesh of Mary. Mary herself needed salvation. God does not need human flesh to cover our sins, He uses His Word instead. The Word was made flesh, not Mary. By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and by His Word He healed and cast out demons. Jesus is the One true God manifested in flesh from heaven. Your use of 1 Kor 15 is questionable, and not in line with any sound theology. These verses are about our resurrection, and we will be changed. Jesus did not need any change, He is God forever. Jesus was called glorious from John 1 onwards. God bless, Br Johannes from Holland.

Answer: I have not attacked you personally and have not called you any gnostic names. I have only described the way in which your beliefs are similar to certain gnostic beliefs. The problem with the idea you are espousing is that you have redefined the meaning of 'flesh' from it's biblical meaning. In most cases in the Bible, 'flesh' is a circumlocution for 'humanity' in much the same way that 'Spirit' is a circumlocution for 'God.' In addition, all of the verses you employ have reasonable alternative interpretations which do not advance your doctrine. You seem to have started with a conclusion and now you are interpreting everything according to that conclusion. For example, you assert that in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is speaking only of our change at the resurrection and not Jesus'. You make this assertion without giving any explanation as to why this is the case. At least I have explained the Scriptures I have used. You stated that my explanations are 'questionable, and not in line with any sound theology.' This may be your opinion, but it is far from being the truth. My explanations are perfectly in line with the theology of the Oneness of God.