I think that you are positing far too much Gnosticism into the scriptures with statements like that. In fact, I believe the typical rendering of Romans 8:3 places far too much Gnosticism into the scriptures. I think the interpretation of the Greek word sarx here is not so much calling out the flesh but rather the man, the human being. Jesus came to us as a human being with flesh and blood. It is the man that is sinful. When Adam sinned, nothing about his flesh, per se, changed. Adam changed only in the sense that he became a sinner.
I posted scripture. I did not add "
interpretation" to it (like you've repeatedly done). I did not impose Gnostic beliefs everything in the physical realm is
inherently evil or of lesser value. Perhaps, like all the scriptures cited, Gnosticism isn't correctly understood. Gnosticism held everything physical was
inherently evil or of lesser value. It did not
become that way it was that automatically. The spiritual realm was higher, and it alone was of value and the way to God and that realm was by and through knowledge, or gnosis. What I and others have argued is scripture. The flesh was made good and sinless and was completely compatible with knowing God just as God had originally made it, but the flesh became sinful when Adam disobeyed God. I have either quoted or cited scripture that plainly states the flesh God made was good. I didn't add any spin to, Gnostic or otherwise. I have also quoited or cited scripture that comes after Genesis 3 that plainly states the flesh is sinful.
Yes, Jesus did come in flesh and blood, but he came in
sinless flesh and blood, not sinful flesh and blood. In him was no sin and he knew no sin. He did not know it cognitively, he did not know it behaviorally, he did not know it ontologically. He was pre-Genesis 3:6-7 flesh and blood, not post-Genesis 3:6-7 flesh and blood. He is the last Adam.
Throughout this discussion I've posted the facts of scripture and most of it has been ignored. The few attempts to prove my presentation of scripture have all proven very flawed and one or two occasions the result was contradictory to your position and affirming of the one I and others have asserted. In other words, problems in both content and method exist in your posts and, therefore, the need to re-examine that case before renewing any effort to criticize the case of others is apparent. Surely you must acknowledge some of what we've posted is correct. If that is true, then there is sufficient evidence to justify re-examination. There's simply no way Romans 5 can be interpreted to say ALL laws were nonexistent and the former Pharisee Paul who constantly quoted the Law in his epistolary was not couched in the Law of Moses. That's completely eisegetic. The word "
sarx" means flesh and the word "
flesh" means flesh. Denotatively it means the physical flesh or body and connotatively it can mean one's character or nature. According to Genesis 1:31 the everything God made (and that would necessarily include human flesh) was once good but at Genesis 3:6-7 Adam disobeyed God and sin entered the world with such an overwhelmingly adverse effect that thereafter the flesh is never again called good. It is called sinful. Gnosticism, in contrast, held the sin was automatically,
inherently, BY NATURE FUNDAMENTALLY AND INEXTRICABLY evil. It was never good and nothing in this earthly realm could ever be good. Look it up.
