The Godhead.

APL, interesting thought about Jesus and the essence of His substitution. His humanity is a complete substitute - not a partial one. Which is why all the inspired descriptions of born-again believers resemble Jesus while here in the likeness of sinful flesh.

The pioneers believed, and rightly so, that Jesus came in sinful flesh. As Hebrews says, he was like His brothers, and if not, then the whole thing was a sham.

This robe, woven in the loom of heaven, has in it not one thread of human devising. Christ in His humanity wrought out a perfect character, and this character He offers to impart to us. "All our righteousness are as filthy rags." Isaiah 64:6. Everything that we of ourselves can do is defiled by sin. But the Son of God "was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him is no sin." Sin is defined to be "the transgression of the law." 1 John 3:5, 4. But Christ was obedient to every requirement of the law. He said of Himself, "I delight to do Thy will, O My God; yea, Thy law is within My heart." Psalm 40:8. When on earth, He said to His disciples, "I have kept My Father's commandments." John 15:10. By His perfect obedience He has made it possible for every human being to obey God's commandments. When we submit ourselves to Christ, the heart is united with His heart, the will is merged in His will, the mind becomes one with His mind, the thoughts are brought into captivity to Him; we live His life. This is what it means to be clothed with the garment of His righteousness. Then as the Lord looks upon us He sees, not the fig-leaf garment, not the nakedness and deformity of sin, but His own robe of righteousness, which is perfect obedience to the law of Jehovah. {COL 311.4}

Christ's righteousness is not a cloak for iniquity. We are saved from sin, not in sin. Never the less we live, but not us, but Christ lives in us...

This is the perfect example of how you cross the line. In your own sentence you say "sinful flesh" then you quote the Lord's servant saying "flesh" as if it means the same thing. Our flesh cannot act contrary to the will of God, but when it does it becomes "sinful". The quote you used doesn't say "Sinful flesh" cannot act contrary to the will of God. It says "the flesh", the body, flesh and bone. Sinful flesh IS acting contrary to the will of God. If the flesh cannot act contrary to the will of God then of itself our bodies are inert in the realm of sin. But as soon as you start to sin your flesh then becomes sinful. That is where you need to change your way of communicating your intent. Use the formula directed in scripture and stop making your own gospel.

Do you think it is up to you to change the terminology of scripture? The bible says it IS a sin to walk in sinful flesh, that is what is so vitally important for you to know. Either you walk in the flesh or you are in the Spirit, there is no two ways about it unless you are going to write your own version of the gospel.

Romans 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

“walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.” Galatians 5:16, 17

Looking at this quote is it possible for sinless Jesus to be IN THE FLESH? Physically yes, spiritually no. He could not have been walking "in the flesh" in this context. He dwelt completely in the Spirit of God. His body was here but His heart was with the Father. He did not walk in the flesh. This is scriptural. So this is a fundamental biblical principle that we must build our doctrines on. Having seen it in this light is even fathomable that sinless Jesus walked in sinful flesh? That takes it to a level that NOT ONE PERSON that I have ever read commentating on Christ would EVER have the audacity to put in words.

I have searched and NO ONE says Jesus was in "sinful flesh", so why do you feel compelled to write this? Do you have a new gospel?

Jesus came in the form of a man, He had flesh and bone, and anyone who says he didn't is absolutely wrong, but according to this scripture He did not WALK in the flesh. He walked in the Spirit. That is why the way you present your interpretation is not only confusing, you are choosing to present your doctrine in a way that conflicts with scripture.

And our prophet said be very careful not to present our Lord to anyone as someone with the propensity to sin, yet you chose to completely ignore this warning and continually time after time chose to say He was in sinful flesh as if you are trying to get a rise out of me. My Lord never had sinful flesh. He is the second Adam.

Anyone who walks in the flesh is NOT of God. There is NO LIGHT IN THEM! We as born again Christians walk in the Spirit when we are His. So for you to say He was in SINFUL FLESH goes beyond even saying He was in the flesh physically. Your choice of words are not inspired! You are making your own version of truth directly contradicting the inspired words of the Apostles, cant you see how that is wrong?

1 Peter 4:6 For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.

Jesus came in the body of a human being, in the flesh, but He lived and walked in the Spirit.

To be in the flesh means to live a human life. To be in SINFUL flesh means to be a sinner.

He came in a mortal body. And every other mortal body who had ever lived or ever would live after Him on this earth was a sinner, so He physically looked like a sinner. That is why the Spirit of prophecy always refers to His veiling of His divinity when the quote "came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh" is quoted. That quote is NEVER used to say He had sinful flesh. Only that He came looking like us. You take way too much liberty in how you apply the Spirit of Prophecy.

Then you quote all these quotes from the Spirit of Prophecy that relate to men who were born fallen and apply them to Jesus like it is your licence to do so, and it is infuriating. Quote the texts that were inspired as speaking for Christ and stop crossing the line like you have the right to assume you are in authority and the one who gets to make the decision what is referring to Jesus and what is not. If the name Jesus is not in the quote don't assume you have the authority to say it referred to Him. That is not the way we should be quoting the writings of the Lords Servant. She was the one who God revealed these things to, not you. So if the name of Christ is not in the quote stop saying it refers to Jesus!

So no matter how many ways we can find similarities, from the point of view of the Godhead, there is a difference that makes one acceptable and the other unacceptable. Can you agree with that?

What DOES the Bible say?
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Romans 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 Corinthians 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

2 Peter 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

The Bible says to not walk AFTER the flesh.



NO ONE?

Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh. He was in the world, but not of the world. He was in sinful flesh, but not of sinful flesh. Yes, Jesus is the second Adam. "His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin."

However, unlike Adam, He took upon His sinless nature our weak, fallen, sinful, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin. He took humanity with all its liabilities. He endured all the temptations wherewith man is beset. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured.

He assumed human nature with its temptations. He felt the overwhelming tide of woe that deluged the world. He realized the strength of indulged appetite and of unholy passion that controlled the world.

"In all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren." Hebrews 2:17. Not in some things, or most things, but "in all things". "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same". Hebrews 2:14.

I stand corrected, AT Jones in 1896 said Jesus was in sinful flesh, but that was after He had gone off the path and was apostatizing. So how does that support your version of truth?

1893/04/09 AT Jones was 43 years old and Was counseled by Ellen White to avoid extremes views on faith and works... "In my dream you were presenting the subject of faith and the imputed righteousness of Christ by faith. You repeated several times that works amounted to nothing, that there were no conditions.... There are conditions.... I know your meaning, but you leave a wrong impression upon many minds."

In 1894 he supported Anna Rice as a prophet as was sternly rebuked by Mrs White.

Before he wrote those words in 1896 Mrs White was already warning people that he was off the path, and the year he wrote those words Mrs White had dreams that he was in full apostasy.

Then in 1902 Mrs White said we aren't even supposed to quote AT Jones in any of our discourses.

"God does not want the ways and words of A. T. Jones to be woven into your discourses." {11MR 210.1} (1902)

We are not even supposed to use anything written by him unless it is the 1888 Righteousness by faith issue. So why do you feel compelled to use his words in support of this issue? I feel as if it does damage to your argument if you are in support of saying Jesus was in sinful flesh.