If Jesus never came in the flesh, he never died in the flesh. If he never died in the flesh, then he never resurrected in the flesh and if he never resurrected in the flesh, then there is no forgiveness and if there is no forgiveness, then Jesus wasn't really the messiah...
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 7 2008, 3:49 PM
Alright Paris!!!
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. (1 Cor. 15:17-19)
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 7 2008, 4:36 PM
>>Does that mean that if Christ was raised, then we (believers) are considered to be NOT yet in our sins?<<
That's the way I believe, that as a believer in Christs atoning work on the cross His death and the power of the resurrection,,, I am not in my sins,,I have been raised to life in Him and with Him.
>>For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor. 5:21)<<
That is a humbling and beautiful verse of Scripture.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 9 2008, 6:47 PM
Paris,
I’m going to give you a quick picture, if I can, of what I believe concerning Jesus’ flesh. I have been working some long hours trying to overcome some set backs in my business, but will take a moment to respond to this. If you have any questions about what I write here, I will try to take some time to respond as soon as I can, but will make no promises.
First of all, I must say that I don’t believe the being, or the soul, of Jesus began with Mary (or Joseph, David, or any other human being). That part of us that did begin with our conception, the part of “me”, or that part of us that will experience eternity (our body of flesh will not experience eternity with us) was a result of our parent’s choice. So in this sense, the Being of Jesus was from heaven, and heaven alone, for Jesus’ coming to earth was not by man’s decisions or power in any way (it is truly a gift). This part of Jesus was not human in any way, for if He were human in this sense, He then was not our Creator, nor was God’s Son, nor could do anything to save us from sin.
Further more, He was not of the sinful race of man, for if He would have been, He would not have been of God. He did NOT inherit our inherited lost state of condition, that part of us that is doomed to hell unless we repent and accept the blood of Jesus as atonement for our sins, causing us to have a new heart and mind. (BTW, just FYI, I understand this to be at the core of Menno Simon’s issue, is that if Jesus were indeed of the sinful race of man, of which David was, then He could not have saved us from the same doomed destiny that we inherit upon our birth)
His flesh, the body this Being was housed in, is much more difficult to understand, and the technical details aren’t relayed to us. For example, the Bible says “of the seed of David”. However, the Bible says in one place that God is able to raise up children to Abraham out of the stones on the ground. God does not need human input to create you nor me offspring. It was no different with Jesus. However, all that said, I do believe he had a body of flesh like ours, that was subjected to temptations like as we are, yet because of His heavenly nature, He was perfect and without sin. Some say if He were incapable of sinning, then how could He be tempted. That part I admit I don’t entirely understand, but don’t believe any one else does either, so it must remain an unanswered question until we get to Heaven. Then if that’s an important issue, we can find out then.
***let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Hebrews 12:1b***
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 10 2008, 7:11 AM
TR,
I have no problem with the "humanness" of Jesus. The human flesh or carcass that housed the Son of God was not God any more than your flesh is not saved. The "real" you lives eternally. Your flesh is a temporary necessity to live on planet earth to have the human experience. For Jesus to be tempted in all points like we are in this human experience and yet without sin could not be possible if the human element were not present.
Do you think it diminishes the "Godness" of Jesus to say Mary's DNA were in his human carcass? If you push that out, where did Mary's DNA ultimately come from? Are you saying that an egg produced in Mary is less of a creation of God than if an egg were divinely implanted?
I have no problem with the "in Mary not of Mary" teaching or what is called the heavenly flesh teaching. Personally I think disputing it is on the same level of discussing how many angels can fit on the end of a pin.
However having said that I remain an orthodoxed Chalcedonian-Trinitarian so as to not give the enemys of holiness a place to attack me and discount sin free living.
"He, moreover, was not in the substance of our flesh; but, bringing down from heaven some spiritual body or other, passed through the Virgin Mary as water through a pipe, neither receiving nor borrowing anything thence." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0319.htm
This teaching is also held by Clement Ziegler, Melchior Hoffmann, Kaspar Schwenkfeld, Dirk Philips, and Menno Simons.
I don't know where you got all your information about Jesus and the science lesson, but the Bible is pretty clear... He came in the Flesh..
This is the scripture I look to concerning this.
1 John 4 (King James Version)
1 John 4
1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
So my advice to you is to stop worrying about who is at the supper table and who has the right dress and hat on and stop being so lazy with figuring out that Jesus came in the flesh .... there is a pretty stern warning for those that don't believe it. Spend some time praying about it.
♪*•.¸¸ ♥¸¸¸.•*♪
This message has been edited by coGforum on Apr 10, 2008 6:26 PM
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 10 2008, 7:11 PM
>>>BTW, just FYI, I understand this to be at the core of Menno Simon’s issue, is that if Jesus were indeed of the sinful race of man, of which David was, then He could not have saved us from the same doomed destiny that we inherit upon our birth)<<<
TR, So what race was Jesus from if it wasn't the human race? Like David? You? and I?
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 10 2008, 7:47 PM
Paris
"...if Jesus were indeed of the sinful race of man, of which David was, then He could not have saved us from the same doomed destiny that we inherit upon our birth"
I would agree with this statement. Jesus was not born with a sinful nature like David was and if he was he wouldn't be God and couldn't save us. He was born of Mary in the "likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8:2) but clearly he was born of flesh.
The issue concerning in Mary but not of Mary is not a question whether Jesus came in the flesh or not. The issue that John is dealing with is the false teaching of the Gnosics that held that the flesh was evil and hence Jesus was just an illusion and he didn't have a body of flesh.
This is the false doctrine of Docetism that the Gnosics held.
"Docetism... is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism
While I don't agree with the Heavenly Flesh teaching this teaching is not dealing with the issue where Jesus came in the flesh or not just whether Jesus Flesh was part of Marys flesh.
No one that believes the Bible is going to deny that Jesus came in the flesh as there is to many scipture that are very clear concerning that.
Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Matt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
So I think Paris you are chasing after a ghost. The Holdeman's fully believe that Jesus came in the flesh. They don't accept the Docetism teaching that Jesus' physical body was an illusion.
One things we know for sure he didn't come in sinful flesh but in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:2).
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 10 2008, 8:03 PM
V In further considering Christ's experience in the flesh the following parable should yet be considered; In the jungles of Africa a barbarous tribe of savages developed a dreadful disease of their skin, which resulted in grievous boils and caused it victims tremendous suffering and pain and eventually death. You and your son knew that you, by grafting a significant section of their black and diseased skin on your own body, could here in America with modern medication develop a vaccine for their skin disease, afterwhich you could then deliver those victims from their disease. You then in love for these helpless people sent your son to Africa, and there had a significant portion of their diseased and black skin grafted upon himself. Your son then, through tremendous suffering, pain and difficulty, in due time provided a healing for this barbarous tribe. You then in telling these savages about what your son did for them said, "Wherefore he took not on him the skin of an American but took on him the skin of an African, and was made in the likeness and fashion of the African", and together with many other clear statements concerning your son's painful experience, further said, "Forasmuch then as the Africans are partakers of skin and boils, he also himself likewise took part of the same, and in all points suffered and was inflicted like the African" Now years later, although you had informed these savages that nothing is impossible for you, these savages have concluded that it would have been impossible for your son to have grafted on himself their black and diseased skin, and yet been fit or qualified to develop a remedy for them. They now say, that even though your son clearly had black skin grafted on himself and had come to Africa to do it, that yet such skin was not their very own skin but rather it was a skin like to their skin. They now, even use your comment to them, about your son being made like to an African, to prove that your son's engrafted skin, was a skin like to their skin, rather than being their very own skin. Do you think these savages are giving you and your son proper love, respect, honor, and appreciation for what you did? One might say how foolish, absurd, and ridiculous could those savages get! Yet is not the same largely being done, by us or those who deny that Christ took upon Himself our very flesh and situation? aT-34:78
V To redeem mankind that sinned from death, God seen fit that the very same flesh and humanity which sinned in Adam and mankind, must be born upon the person of Christ, and live without ever sinning, and then although being sinless as such, yet die for the sin's that were done by others of the same flesh and humanity. Possibly in God's sight, the creating of another flesh (humanity) like to man's flesh (humanity), and then having that duplicated or substituted flesh (humanity) die in a sinless state for us, could not have truly vented or appeased His Holy wrath which was kindled against our very flesh (humanity) which sinned. The sacrificial death of Christ, through being the Son of God and through being without sin was thereby qualified to pay and remove our sin debt. It appears the sacrificial death of Christ through being man's very flesh (humanity), thereby also could fully vent or satisfy God's judgments and wrath which was kindled upon that very flesh (humanity) and remove such wrath from us! Truly Christ was made a curse for us, as Paul teaches saying, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:" (Gal 3:3). Isaiah speaking of the sacrifice of Christ satisfying God's law and judgments said "He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied..." (Isaiah 53:11). Truly God's law has placed a dreadful curse upon mankind, which curse affected both man's flesh and spirit, and Christ took that very curse upon Himself and opened a way for us to be totally delivered from it! Oh that men would not under estimate the humiliation that Christ was willing to experience to save us. Oh may it become real to us, what Christ suffered in rescuing us from that death and punishment we deserve, for our sin's which we have done in our flesh. aT-34:80
One should consider that the Scriptures in speaking to us of our Saviour, repeatedly speak of Him, being made like to us and experiencing that which we do, to thereby, draw us to Him, motivate us to love Him, and cause us to believe that we can resurrect from our lowly situation, such as He the firstfruit of the resurrection did! Oh how God calls man to believe that he can be saved, and can resurrect to a new body free of all mortal ailments, using His Son's clear example of such resurrection as proof, and oh how important is to truly and fully believe that Jesus came in the flesh! Jesus in the resurrected form of our flesh, is now at the right hand of the Father making intercession for man. As Jesus and you are all of one, He is not ashamed to call you His brother (Heb 2:11)! Jesus invites you to the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:9)! Will you dwell with Him in those heavenly realms throughout eternity? You can! Christ death paid your sin debt, and has erased you penalty of death and eternal damnation! His example teaches you that can experience what He did! Oh how great a salvation! aT-34:79
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 10 2008, 8:04 PM
It's as simple as it gets Jesus was a man with human flesh and human DNA that He took from Mary mixed it with God and became Jesus. He was born OF Mary not just in Mary.
It is the heart of the Gospel to believe that God lowered Himself into a human in order that we could relate to Him on every level humanly and spiritually possible.
And guess what??? He was tempted as a human just like you and I but He never sinned.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 10 2008, 8:08 PM
Jesus Christ, Human and Divine
What Do You Believe About Him?
Condensed from long article aT.
Article bP
Likely all Christians believe Jesus came forth from the womb and body of Mary. Likely all Christians also believe that Jesus in coming into the world and being born of Mary partook of flesh and blood. Yet surprisingly many Christians still believe that Christ's flesh and blood did not derive from, or have any inheritance from humanity and Mary. They claim it would have been impossible for Jesus to have been a sinless Saviour had He taken upon Himself our very flesh and blood (situation), although He (being a Spiritual Being and Son of God from heaven) could very much have been sinless because of overcoming and conquering our very flesh and situation, rather than been sinless because of not encountering it. If Jesus inherited nothing from Mary, and Mary acted merely as a dwelling (incubator) for Jesus while He developed, how could she truly have personally conceived as the Scriptures teach she did (Isa 7:14, Luke 1:31, 2:21 Matt 1:20)? Mere nourishment or incubation is not a real conception, nor would such have made Jesus a real son of man. Very very many Scriptures speak of Christ as being the Son of Man and three Scriptures particularly speak of Christ being the seed of humanity according to the flesh (Acts 2:29-30, Rom 1:3, Rom 9:5). Strange indeed, and why would Jesus have been born of a woman at all, and appeared like a descendent of humanity, and repeatedly called Himself the son of man, if He inherited absolutely nothing from humanity? God had a vivid reason for not sending Jesus straight from heaven in a heavenly body. God in sending Jesus forth from the body and womb of Mary was not acting a hoax! bP-1
The belief that Jesus received nothing from Mary but mere nourishment was strongly advocated by Menno Simons, whose belief is spread abroad among many of his followers in our day. It is sad the Menno Simons quite foolishly advocated that all children only receive nourishment from their mother (while developing in the womb) and that no child inherits any physical element from it's mother, even though children's facial appearance obviously often resemble their mother's (Menno Simons, Herald Press, Page 767-769). Note the John F. Funk translation of Menno's writings does not include this teaching of Menno's, because the translator thought it not edifying to include it (Funks translation, last half of book page 99). Menno strongly emphasized two points which were, firstly that Jesus could not have been sinless and qualified to redeem us had He inherited and encountered our very flesh and situation, and secondly that the "Word" of God Himself became and turned into Christ's flesh rather than Christ's flesh deriving from Mary. Did Menno not consider that it really honors Christ more, to count Him sinless because of fully overcoming, conquering, and having a remedy for our very flesh and situation, rather than to count Him sinless simply because of never encountering it? One should be aware that the church fathers who immediately followed the time of the Apostles such as Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, opposite of Menno, very strongly advocated Jesus did receive His flesh and humanity from Mary. bP-2
Jesus in John chapter six extensively spoke both of His flesh being bread from heaven and of Christians needing to eat His heaven sent flesh to be saved. It is strange and without basis that many Christians firmly believe Jesus was not speaking of his literal flesh with respect to eating it, but yet firmly believe he was speaking of his literal flesh with respect to it being from heaven. As Jesus knew His teaching about His flesh and blood was difficult to understand, He latter clarified Himself to His disciples saying "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63). It was the Word and quickening Spirit of Christ that dwelt within and gave life to Christ's flesh and blood, which came from heaven, and which needed to be eaten and drank to attain eternal life. Note if Christ's flesh would have consisted of the Eternal Word, Himself having turned into flesh, Christ's flesh would have been very important, rather than being something of which Jesus said it profiteth nothing. Note numerous Scriptures speak of Christ's flesh as a weak or negative element. bP-3
Christians should remember that God is a Spirit (John 4:24), and that a Spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39), and remember that Jesus before coming to earth was a Spiritual Being like His Father. Us humans who tend to look too much at the things that are seen (physical), and not enough at the things that are not seen (Spiritual), should consider that the whole Jesus as born from Mary consisted firstly of the greater and powerful part from heaven (Spiritual and invisible), and secondly the lessor part (flesh and blood and visible) which He took upon Himself. bP-4
The fleshly aspect which Jesus acquired in His earth life was not a positive element, but was a weakness which our powerful Jesus (invisible Spiritual Son from heaven) overcame and provided a remedy for. The Bible speaks about Jesus' flesh as something weak and subject to death reading, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, ...being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:" (1 Pet 3:18), "In the body of his flesh through death..." (Col 1:22). "For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God..." (2 Cor 13:4). bP-5
If our great Spiritual and invisible Jesus from heaven could not have grafted upon Himself our very flesh and situation, because of not being able to be sinless by overcoming it, and because of having no remedy for it, how could He be able to redeem us from our very flesh and situation?! Heb 2:14 rather teaches that Jesus took upon Himself our very flesh and blood (situation) to thereby encounter it in Himself, solve the problem, and develop a remedy for it for us, reading, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;" bP-6
Numerous Scriptures pertain to the great kindness and humility of Christ in that He was willing to take upon Himself our lowly situation, in the process of redeeming us (Phil 2:5-9, 2 Cor 8:9). Hebrews chapters 1-5 speak much about Jesus coming in the flesh. As a result of Jesus coming in the flesh, Christ and the Christian share many common experiences. A very significant portion of the New Testament, pertains to how Christians suffer and die together with Christ, are tempted together, overcome together, are quickened together, and resurrected together. If Jesus did not take on Himself our very flesh and situation, how could we in truth share so many common experiences, and how could Jesus truly be the firstfruit of the resurrection as numerous Scriptures speak of (Acts 26:23, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5, 1 Cor 15:21-23)? 1 Corinthians 15:21-23 particularly speaks of Christ being the first to resurrect from the very death that came upon all through Adam, and how could He truly have been first to resurrect from it if He never encountered it? Christ's resurrection from our very flesh and blood is God's wondrous proof to humanity that we can do the same. How sad it is that many have lived and died and have never understood the proof! Apostle John said that every spirit that denies that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God" but is the spirit of the antichrist (1 John 4:3, 2 John 1:7). Denying Christ's human aspect distorts a very significant portion of the New Testament, and distorts very basic principles of the Christian religion. Note the fact that Apostle John speaking of those who deny Christ's human aspect, said we should not bid them God speed or freely receive then into our houses, further reveals this subject is of vivid importance (2 John 1:7-11). How can it be that greatly respected Menno Simmons, so greatly misinterpreted this vital subject and even very strongly condemned those who believed that Christ had a physical inheritance from Mary and humanity? bP-7
Apostle Paul after speaking extensively of the divinity and humanity of Christ (as in Hebrews chapters 1-2&4-5) then says "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God..." (Heb 5:12). How many Christians in our day still do not understand these first principles of the oracles of God? bP-8
Who is the Christ you believe in? Do you believe in a Christ that didn't inherit anything from Mary, and didn't encounter your very flesh and situation, because He couldn't overcome it and been sinless had He encountered it, although He very much made it look like He encountered it? Or do you believe in a Christ that really encountered your flesh and situation and by His divine power overcame and resurrected from your situation, and paved the way for you to do the same? Or will you casually believe in whatever Christ your peers or church will believe in? Please reread the first two paragraphs. Farewell. bP-9
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 10 2008, 8:11 PM
Paris, what you are saying is correct.
You are writing the way it is understood in orthodox Christianity; something Qwerty said he wants to see the church return to, and then wishy washy walks around the issue by saying it is not important.
It has been important as you understand it, Paris, for many centuries in orthodox Christianity. Keep your convictions strong.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 10 2008, 8:15 PM
Paris
"It's as simple as it gets Jesus was a man with human flesh and human DNA that He took from Mary mixed it with God and became Jesus. He was born OF Mary not just in Mary."
No one is denying he was born human flesh.
Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Also the Bible says he was born in the "linkness" of sinful flesh.
"It is the heart of the Gospel to believe that God lowered Himself into a human in order that we could relate to Him on every level humanly and spiritually possible."
The Heavenly Flesh teaching agrees with that statement fully.
As noted before it appears you are chasing after a ghost that is not there.
Whether Jesus had Mary's DNA or not has nothing to do with whether he was born of the flesh or with full humanity.
How ever I do feel like he had Marys DNA as the Bible says "of the seed of David according to the flesh" Rom 3:1. Of the seed of David means that he was related to David as far as I can understand.
It would be interesting to see who the Holderman deal with that scripture.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 10 2008, 8:48 PM
Amos
"Mere nourishment or incubation is not a real conception, nor would such have made Jesus a real son of man."
You bring out a good point about conception I missed.
It says Mary should "conceive in thy womb" (Luk 1:31) not Mary should get an implant. So I think based on the conceive scripture and the scriptures that say Jesus was of the seed of David it is pretty clear that the Heavenly Flesh teaching is wrong.
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Luk 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
"It is sad the Menno Simons quite foolishly advocated that all children only receive nourishment from their mother (while developing in the womb) and that no child inherits any physical element from it's mother, even though children's facial appearance obviously often resemble their mother's (Menno Simons, Herald Press, Page 767-769). Note the John F. Funk translation of Menno's writings does not include this teaching of Menno's, because the translator thought it not edifying to include it (Funks translation, last half of book page 99)."
Amos can you provide some Internet support for this?
I think over all your article makes some very good points that I had not thought of and seems to be well researched.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 10 2008, 9:01 PM
Amos
"Note the John F. Funk translation of Menno's writings does not include this teaching of Menno's, because the translator thought it not edifying to include it (Funks translation, last half of book page 99)."
I have the Funk translation that ends on page 452 printed by Pathway Publishers. This is what it says on the last page.
Note 1. -- It is due to the reader, at the conslusion of this work, to say that in the translation of the writings of Menno Simon upon the "Incarnation of Christ", the publishers have taken the liberty to condense and abridge some parts thereof and also, here and there, to leave out such parts as they considered of no importance in the illustration and explanation of the subject, and which were not edifying to the reader. But in no case have they perverted the meaning or purpose of the author.
"It is sad the Menno Simons quite foolishly advocated that all children only receive nourishment from their mother (while developing in the womb) and that no child inherits any physical element from it's mother, even though children's facial appearance obviously often resemble their mother's (Menno Simons, Herald Press, Page 767-769)"
My translation only has 452 pages and are you saying the translation from Herald Pres has over 769 pages?
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 10 2008, 10:01 PM
Very interesting stuff.
"He did not take His flesh from Mary"
"The word was made flesh, not of Mary, but in Mary"
"The body of Jesus was an eternal product from heaven"
"His flesh or body was became flesh, not of Mary or of any created substance, but only of the Word of life which had come down from heaven"
Bible Doctrines and Practice pg 40
"The body chosen by the Godhead for man's salvation was of heavenly origin"
Studying the Gospel published by Gospel Publishers page 7
"Christ, His begotten Son...did not need to have a part made up from the human race so that he could be the Christ."
Minister Gladwin Koehn in a taped sermon October 19, 2003
"The fact that Christ’s body did not even begin to decay is proof that His body was not of this earth."
"His body did not begin to go back to dust between the crucifixion and the resurrection, as ours would have."
"There was no possibility for humanity to contribute to their salvation"
"Are we consistent with our conviction on the deity of Christ when we allude to His struggle in the Garden as His humanity recoiling from fulfilling the promise…?"
Messenger of Truth article August 28, 2002
"Those who would mingle the Son of God and the son of Adam in the incarnation of Christ would also mingle the children of God with the children of Adam in the body of Christ today. It is impossible, they say, to conceive of a pure, organized, visible church containing only those who have had their sins forgiven and their consciences sprinkled by the blood of Christ.
This is the nub of the whole matter. Those who accept an impure Christ, born of the literal flesh of Mary, must of necessity also accept an impure church. Those who see the organized and visible church as an imperfect body also believe in an impure Christ.
When we speak of a perfect church, some people view this as tantamount to blasphemy. Yet the Bible does speak of a perfect church, without spot or blemish (Eph 5:27). The point that is being missed is that the church is not a man-made body and that it is more than the sum of its earthly members."
Messenger of Truth Article October 1, 2003
"the most prevalent error concerning the nature of Christ has been that He obtained His humanity through Mary"
Messenger of Truth Article
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 10 2008, 10:59 PM
I take the position some historians have taken, that, had Menno Simons understood human reproduction, he would NEVER have taken the position he did. He understood that Jesus was conceived EXACTLY like you and I (except fathered by the Holy Spirit)
If you do not mind plain language, I will say it as written by MS (in the Verduin translation). The translation Qwerty refers to, the Funk translation, omits this as quoted by Qwerty. Funk understood MS mistake, and he said it was not beneficial to repeat it.
Menno Simons understood that a baby grew by the deposit of male semen into the womb of a woman. He said a woman naturally did not contribute to a baby, but only incubated and nurtured it. He was unaware that a woman contributed an egg, which when fertilized by a male, that life developed. And so, he said that Christ came only from God... but was human.
Why is this messy teaching of Menno Simons so hard to understand? MS was ignorant of biological reproduction and used a false premise to say that Jesus was born in Mary, but NOT OF MARY.
Now back to what historians say. In the same breath MS says that Jesus was conceived and born like any other Bible character (EXCEPT fathered by God). If you take this statement that Jesus was conceived and born exactly like you and I, then you can understand that MS concept was that Jesus humanity was no different then ours.
(Except... that from this, you can also arrive at the conclusion that Jesus was totally of God, and not of the human race as has come from Adam.)
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 10 2008, 11:06 PM
Paris, what do you believe I error in?
I do believe that Jesus had a body of flesh like unto you & I, and that he was tempted like as we are. What is your contention?
***let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Hebrews 12:1b***
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 11 2008, 5:03 AM
You guys can argue this flesh thing until you are blue in the face, but the fact of the matte is the way it was, is how it is.
Now just because you believe it one way or the other, does not make the fact change, and you simply must presume to take a side without charity toward the other side.
So taking lesson from the trib guys, we ought to be "pan fleshers"
(how ever it pan's out)
Peter where does the bible say they cant use a perfect lamb from a different world?
the problem with "conception" the idea that Qwerty mentions is that conception is a beginning, and he is without beginning, without a father or a mother being the creator.
Heb 7:3* Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
The bible says he will come out of the "seed of David"
Mary was that seed, and he came out of her, fulfilling the prophesy.
Mt 1:23* Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 11 2008, 6:04 AM
My oh my, what an interesting conversation this has turned into!
Well, since I consider MY beliefs to be the most orthodox* out of everyone one this forum, I thought that I would add my input.
* "orthodox" being defined as what the universal beliefs were of the churches of apostolic origin that existed in the age immediately following that of the apostles.
If you want to know what the orthodox belief was (and is) regarding the issue of Christ's flesh, then scroll up to Amos' April 10 2008, 8:08 PM post and read it (I agree with what Amos presented).
I totally reject what Menno Simons taught (and what the Holdeman church teaches) regarding this issue.
There were SOME gnostics in the days of the early Church who believed that Jesus DID truly become incarnate and that He DID truly suffer. But they did NOT believe that He took His flesh FROM Mary. They represented Him as having passed through Mary just as water passes through a duct. These gnostics were labeled as heretics in the days of the early Church.
It seems to me that what Menno Simons believed (and what the Holdemans believe) is more along the lines of a THEOPHANY, rather than the orthodox belief regarding the INCARNATION.
A THEOPHANY is an appearance of God in visible form (including human form).
An example of a THEOPHANY can be found in Genesis chapter 18 where JEHOVAH appeared to Abraham as a man, and even ate food in Abraham's presence. This would be a good example of God coming in "heavenly/celestial flesh" as opposed to actually taking his flesh FROM man.
The DIFFERENCE between a THEOPHANY and the orthodox belief regarding the INCARNATION is that in the INCARNATION God took His Flesh FROM Mary as opposed to just using Mary's body as nothing more than a vessel to bring a "heavenly/celestial body of flesh into the world as a child.
So, what's the big deal? Can't we just throw ALL theology and doctrine out the door and each one of us create our own Jesus in our own minds according to how we think He should be?
I'm afraid not.
Because just as sister Paris has pointed out on numerous occasions, the apostle John said.....
"every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." (1 John 4:3)
And like I pointed out above, some of the gnostic heretics believed that Jesus truly did come in the flesh (became incarnate), but what they meant by that and what the apostles meant were two entirely different things.
I think that brother Amos has pretty well covered what the scriptures say.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 11 2008, 6:43 AM
Because just as sister Paris has pointed out on numerous occasions, the apostle John said.....
4:1* ¶ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2* Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3* And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
No offense meant here uncle! but the principle here is to try the spirit of the prophets, and see if the Spirit of Christ is in him
And the point is 4* ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
The spirit dwelling in man is the principle to try, does the prophet's spirit confess that Christ dwells in his flesh? or not?
Where does this verse tell you to discern the flesh and dna of Christ?
This message has been edited by bawar on Apr 11, 2008 6:45 AM
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 11 2008, 7:31 AM
And the point is 4* ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
one other thing to remember, keep our eye on the real enemy to be overcome because the spirit of truth dwells in you,
who is the "them" mentioned in verse 4?
obviously it is the false prophets that have not the spirit of truth dwelling in them, in verse one!
A spirit of truth does not quake, or fear in the presence of honesty, and revelation, but a false prophet certainly takes action to "shut up" the adversary!
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 11 2008, 7:34 AM
The word try means
1381 dokimazo dokimazo {dok-im-ad'-zo}
from 1384; TDNT - 2:255,181; v
AV - prove 10, try 4, approve 3, discern 2, allow 2, like 1,
examine 1; 23
1) to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing
is genuine or not), as metals
2) to recognise as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy
so we are to look carefully at those who deem to "prophesy"
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 11 2008, 7:47 AM
I accept what Fred says, and make peace with my H brethren with the following from the "Dordrecht Confession" ; which also is officially a part of CGCM beliefs.
"But as to how and in what manner this precious body was prepared, and how the Word became flesh, and He Himself man, in regard to this we content ourselves with the statement pertaining to this matter which the worthy evangelists have left us in their accounts, according to which we confess with all the saints, that He is the Son of the living God, in whom alone consist all our hope, consolation, redemption, and salvation, which we neither may nor must seek in any other. Luke 1:31, 32; John 20:31; Matt. 16:16."
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 11 2008, 7:59 AM
"Further more, He was not of the sinful race of man, for if He would have been, He would not have been of God. He did NOT inherit our inherited lost state of condition, that part of us that is doomed to hell unless we repent and accept the blood of Jesus as atonement for our sins, causing us to have a new heart and mind."
TR, have you heard of the "kinsman redeemer"? This was a type of Christ. He was our brother. A kinsman, a brother was required to redeem. If he is not our brother, descended from the race of mankind, then he could not fulfil the requirements of the kinsman redeemer. It's that simple. No one doubts however, that he was filled with the spirit of God inside the womb. That is where the difference lies. The corruption is not in the body, it is in the spirit (or should I say the soul..) Sheesh.
Hank, I disagree with you about Menno Simons. I believe he would have taught the same thing that he did regarding the flesh of Christ, he just would have had to find a different way of doing it. He was quite convinced that Christ was not of the human race. He simply thought he had found an airtight way to prove his case. Menno Simons was a Catholic priest, and that influence is obvious thoughout the entire movement once he got in charge of it. OTVC, ministerial authority, excommunication and shunning, penance, etc, all bear the stamp of the influence Menno brought from the Catholic church. He disagreed with the mass and infant baptism. Other than that, I don't know that the denounced the basic premises of the Holy Mother Church. He simply transferred to another framework.
This message has been edited by virtualsister on Apr 11, 2008 8:02 AM
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 11 2008, 8:32 AM
Mutter... you may be right in this area, but I have another view of Menno Simons, and this helped me come to grips with my conscience when I faced being separated from the church of my youth.
Menno Simons clearly teaches salvation by faith; says salvation is in the (universal) church, and has a different view of excommunication then H practice. Also, MS disagrees with the likes of Qwerty and his definition of sin. I view MS as a benevolent, merciful, Catholic priest, who heard thousands of confessions from the laity, and fully realized even as an Anabaptists, that man is a sinner saved only by the grace of Jesus Christ. He NEVER condoned sin and taught against sin, said the "true church, Christ" had no sin in it; but he understood the basic make-up of man and that we would not be free of the effects of "Adam" till we get new bodies at the resurrection.
I put no righteousness in the teachings of MS; however he contributed to HOW we can understand the scriptures... at least for me.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 11 2008, 9:01 AM
What is funny is those great minds during the Doretcht confession couldn't figure out how to explain Christ's incarnation, so I don't see how any of us ever could conclude a definite truth in its regard!
I don't mind the discussion though but for people to stand firm on a view that is unprovable, are they not opening themselves up for a possible disappointment?
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 11 2008, 9:23 AM
>>I don't mind the discussion though but for people to stand firm on a view that is unprovable, are they not opening themselves up for a possible disappointment?<<
Fred, I am not disappointed because Jesus came in the Flesh..I am encouraged, He knows everything there is to know abut being human and being God. He experienced it. I love Him for lowering Himself on my behalf.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 11 2008, 9:31 AM
Fred
"the problem with "conception" the idea that Qwerty mentions is that conception is a beginning, and he is without beginning, without a father or a mother being the creator."
What problem do you have with the conception idea. It's the Bible that says Mary conceived.
Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Conception is when the sperm fuses into the egg and fertilizes the egg. When this happens there is a law that has been put in motion that a spirit is created that is in a fallen sinful state. It is not the flesh that is sinful for all sinning takes place in the spirit and the fallen sinful or adamic nature is in the spirit. The body is the connection between the spiritual realm and this physical world and in many cases the body is used to sin but it is not where the sin resides.
With Jesus there was not a new spirit created but the Spirit of God entered into the new body that was starting to grow at the conception of Mary.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 11 2008, 10:39 AM
Fred, why do you say that it is not proveable? It would be more accurate to say that those who try to DISPROVE it are in a bind. The scriptures make it very clear, from beginning to end.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 11 2008, 2:32 PM
Paris my personal opinion is that he has pre-adamic flesh, being the pattern that man was made after, Thus he would still be "fully human" by any standard but that can't be proven either, I hold that we are simply not told by God in the scripture what his dna is other than it is 100% human, yet without sin.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 11 2008, 2:57 PM
Fred
"Paris my personal opinion is that he has pre-adamic flesh, being the pattern that man was made after, Thus he would still be "fully human" by any standard but that can't be proven either, I hold that we are simply not told by God in the scripture what his dna is other than it is 100% human, yet without sin."
That is my feeling also Fred but with some of the people here ready so accuse poeple of having the spirit of anti-christ if they didn't believe Christ came had "sinful" flesh I wasn't going to state that as I feel some are happy to jump on any thing to give me a kick.
While I hold that sin doesn't exists in the heart, committed and inherit, sin did effect the flesh where it will grow old and die and perhaps in more points also.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 11 2008, 3:10 PM
Qwerty,
I'm of the decision that knowing that Jesus came in the flesh and that His flesh was the same as yours and mine with Mary's DNA isn't something that can be proven, rather something that is revealed.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 11 2008, 3:30 PM
Paris
I would agree. All spiritual truths must be revealed by the Spirit of God. One of the reasons we have some many sects and divions is carnal man come up with carnal ideas of what the Word of God teaches. But now wonder when most of the ministers in this land are still in bondage to sin -- how can we expect anything but confusion.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 12 2008, 5:57 AM
Fred,
Regarding 1 John 4:1-4 you said.....
>>>the principle here is to try the spirit of the prophets, and see if the Spirit of Christ is in him<<<
I wouldn't disagree with that. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.
>>>does the prophet's spirit confess that Christ dwells in HIS flesh? or not?<<<
That's not what the scripture says here. What the scripture actually says here is that "every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God." It doesn't say anything about whether or not the spirit of the prophet confesses that Christ dwells in HIS flesh.
>>>Where does this verse tell you to discern the flesh and dna of Christ?<<<
1 John 4:1-4 in and of itself doesn't tell you to discern what type off flesh Christ had. And those who deny the virgin birth and say that Jesus was the biological offspring of the sexual union between Joseph and Mary (like some gnostics did) can make the same argument. But then we have the rest of the scriptures, as well as the historical record of the context of John's writing. The point I was making in my last post was to present what the orthodox belief was regarding the flesh of Christ, and that that's what I believe. The only thing you will find in the days of the early Church even remotely similar to what Menno Simons believed (and what the Holdeman church believes) regarding this issue is what some gnostic heretics believed. There is ZERO evidence of anyone in the churches of apostolic origin (in the age immediately following that of the apostles) believing in the so-called "heavenly/celestial flesh of Christ" theory. But there is plenty of evidence of the contrary.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 12 2008, 6:45 AM
Remus
"And those who deny the virgin birth and say that Jesus was the biological offspring of the sexual union between Joseph and Mary (like some gnostics did) can make the same argument."
I don't think you will find the Christian Gnostics hold that Jesus was the offspring of Mary and Joseph. The Gnostics held that Jesus was embodiment of the suprmem being and that his flesh was not a physical body but that this body was an illusion.
"Jesus of Nazareth is identified by some Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the Earth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
Docetism is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief treats the sentence "the Word was made Flesh" (John 1:14) as merely figurative. Docetism has historically been regarded as heretical by most Christian theologians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism
In my opinion this is what John was addressing in his first letter. Those that don't believe that Christ came in the flesh are of the spirit of anti-christ.
Also I think it can be applied to the Jews. They maintain that Christ has not come in the flesh and hence they are of the spirit of anti-christ even thought the major of Protestant sects hold that they are still the people of God.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 12 2008, 7:30 AM
Qwerty,
UNCLE REMUS: "And those who deny the virgin birth and say that Jesus was the biological offspring of the sexual union between Joseph and Mary (like some gnostics did) can make the same argument."
QWERTY: "I don't think you will find the Christian Gnostics hold that Jesus was the offspring of Mary and Joseph. The Gnostics held that Jesus was embodiment of the suprmem being and that his flesh was not a physical body but that this body was an illusion."
Qwerty, there were numerous Gnostic teachers and sects. IRENAEUS who was taught by Polycarp (Polycarp was appointed by apostles as overseer of the church in Smyrna) wrote.....
"Carpocrates,* again, and his followers maintain that the world and the things which are therein were created by angels greatly inferior to the unbegotten Father. They also hold that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and was just like other men, with the exception that he differed from them in this respect, that inasmuch as his soul was stedfast and pure, he perfectly remembered those things which he had witnessed within the sphere of the unbegotten God." (IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES, BOOK 1, CHAPTER 25)
* Carpocrates was a leading Gnostic teacher of the second century and lived in Alexandria.
and.....
"Some [talking about Gnostics]* however, make the assertion that this dispensational Jesus did become incarnate, and suffered, whom they represent as having passed through Mary just as water through a tube; but others allege him to be the Son of the Demiurge, upon whom the dispensational Jesus descended; while others again, say that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary, and that the Christ from above descended upon him, being without flesh, and impassible." (IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES, BOOK 3, CHAPTER 11)
* I added what is inside the brackets to let you know what the context was.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 12 2008, 7:48 AM
Paris Fred do you believe in dna?
Paris, I personally do not understand dna very well but i do understand we have no available dna to test the dna of the saviour, but if we did, I would guess that Marys would match his, instead of his matching Marys.
I think all of our (all mankind) dna would match Christ's because our flesh was out of his since he was the creator, or progenitor, thus making us his near kinsmen and giving him the right of redemption.
Now i can't prove this and am not holding tight to this, but at this point I can see no better reconciliation of scripture at this point
Fred
"the problem with "conception" the idea that Qwerty mentions is that conception is a beginning, and he is without beginning, without a father or a mother being the creator."
What problem do you have with the conception idea. It's the Bible that says Mary conceived.
Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Conception is when the sperm fuses into the egg and fertilizes the egg. When this happens there is a law that has been put in motion that a spirit is created that is in a fallen sinful state. It is not the flesh that is sinful for all sinning takes place in the spirit and the fallen sinful or adamic nature is in the spirit. The body is the connection between the spiritual realm and this physical world and in many cases the body is used to sin but it is not where the sin resides.
With Jesus there was not a new spirit created but the Spirit of God entered into the new body that was starting to grow at the conception of Mary.
Conceive
4815 sullambano sullambano {sool-lam-ban'-o}
from 4862 and 2983; TDNT - 7:759,1101; v
AV - take 8, conceive 5, help 2, catch 1; 16
1) to seize, take: one as prisoner
2) to conceive, of a woman
2a) metaph. of lust whose impulses a man indulges
3) to seize for one's self
3a) in a hostile sense, to make (one a permanent) prisoner
4) to take hold together with one, to assist, help, to succour
Qwerty, no mention is necessarily made to the fertilization of the egg in the mother by the fathers sperm, well it could be but the main meaning os to "take hold" or "Seize"
May God richly Bless your day!
This message has been edited by bawar on Apr 12, 2008 7:51 AM
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 12 2008, 11:29 AM
Fred
"Qwerty, no mention is necessarily made to the fertilization of the egg in the mother by the fathers sperm, well it could be but the main meaning os to "take hold" or "Seize""
It doesn't need to note that deal but just the word that equals the detail. We all know what conceiption means and now know thanks to medical people what happenes. When the bible says Mary conceived we accept that. The defination of the Greek word used in that passage doesn't have to spell out what it means to conceive.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 12 2008, 12:12 PM
People are lost and stand in need of salvation because of the guilt of their own sins - not the sins of their ancesters. The doctrine that babies inherit the guilt of Adam's transgression is not true. If it were, then Jesus would have been born guilty of sin.
Concerning little children, Jesus said, "of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:14). He never would have said that if little children are hereditarily totally depraved; he might have said instead, "of such is the kingdom of the devil." In speaking of his deceased baby, David said, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me (2 Samuel 12:23). David knew his baby was in a safe condition. It was guilty of no sin, for it had not transgressed God's law, and "sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4).
Had it not been for the false doctrine of inherited guilt, there likely never would have been the practice of baptizing infants. In his Treatise On Baptism, John Wesley wrote: "If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism, seeing, in the ordinary way, they cannot be saved, unless this be washed away by baptism" (Doctrinal Tracts, pg. 252).
If babies were in need of redemption, and if baptizing them were the means of securing it for them, then I would not oppose infant baptism. But no verse in the Bible hints that they should be baptized.
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me (Psalm 51:5). The sin and iniquity is David's mother's sin and iniquity, not David's.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned (Romans 5:12). Death spread to all men because all sinned, not because they all inherited sin.
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear
the guilt of the son. (Ezekiel 18:20)
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 13 2008, 8:03 AM
Milton; you have it right. It is actual sin that condemns people, not the sin of Adam. After the words of Jesus in John 3:16-17; He goes on to say that men love darkness rather then light because their deeds were evil... and that is what condemns one.
(The old H that I am, I like to refer to the "33 articles of Faith", and the above understanding is clearly spelled out there. It says that Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden with the promise of redemption and they believed God. And ALL posterity is born with this same promise. It is only when one comes to realize the "sin nature" which one is born with, condemns one or points out his/her sin; that one becomes responsible. This argument was used to explain why babies did not need to be baptized.., which infant baptizers said washed away original sin.)
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 13 2008, 10:40 AM
Regarding inherit sin. Even if someone never sinned. Would a baby who died 10 minutes after birth qualify? Even such a sinless person is not fit for the Kingdom of Heaven without experiencing the resurrection change, that Christ made possible by first overcoming and making this transformation in His own body (body as He received from Mary). Flesh and blood as born from Adam cannot inherit eternal life, even if it had not sinned, as a body of corruption or death, cannot inherit incorruption (1 Cor 15:50). Inherited corruption includes both a corruptible body and a corrupt nature as man very much possess and cannot enter heaven. I believe in inherited corruption, which some might classify as inherit sin.
I believe Paris has many good points on this subject. And those who don't want to admit they are wrong, like to complicate things. My brother in law, who is a Holdeman deacon after reading an 80 page article I had written on the subject about 10 years ago returned it with his hands shaking and tried to claim Menno and I were saying the same thing.
Someone told Paris that her belief is important, as said it was held as such for many centuries in orthodox Christianity. I don't know for sure what they meant by saying that, but Catholic Christianity throughout history largely not only denied that Christ came in the flesh but also denied that Mary did, through their belief in the supposed immaculate conception of Mary, and who supposedly resurrected into heaven both body and soul without change in her Assumption experience.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 13 2008, 11:21 AM
Milton
"People are lost and stand in need of salvation because of the guilt of their own sins - not the sins of their ancesters. The doctrine that babies inherit the guilt of Adam's transgression is not true."
I would agree with you on both the above points. Although Calivinist would not agree and some baby baptizers wouldn't but in general most Protestant sects would.
"If it were, then Jesus would have been born guilty of sin."
I would disagree with that as 1) Jesus was made "in the linkness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8:2) and didn't have sinful flesh and 2) God set the law of new life in motive where at conception there is a spirit created that has inherit sin but Christ didn't have a spirit created when Mary conceived but the Spirit of God came to abode in the body of Jesus.
"Concerning little children, Jesus said, "of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:14). He never would have said that if little children are hereditarily totally depraved; he might have said instead, "of such is the kingdom of the devil.""
I would hold that all children are born with a right relationship with God and are children of God or safe. Also that there comes a time in all childrens life (unless they are mentally channenced) where they understand God's commandments and disobey. At that point they die spiritually (Rom 7:9) and need to be saved.
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
"Had it not been for the false doctrine of inherited guilt, there likely never would have been the practice of baptizing infants. In his Treatise On Baptism, John Wesley wrote: "If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism, seeing, in the ordinary way, they cannot be saved, unless this be washed away by baptism" (Doctrinal Tracts, pg. 252)."
Can you give us a link to this quote from John Wesley?
Wesley got and taught infant baptism from the Church of England of whom is was a minister. The Church of England got it from the Roman Catholic. The first teacher of inherited guilt in the Roman Catholic sect was Augustine. Wesley was wrong in infant baptism and I don't think he believed in inherited quilt but I need to look at up. I would be very suprised if he di. I reject inherited guilt as a false doctrine but I strongly believe in the doctrine of original sin.
"(2) Inherited Guilt – In the Enchiridion Augustine states that Adam, and in turn everyone else, are "in the bonds of inherited guilt". I do not know where he got that idea but there can be no doubt that it was not a good source. Inheriting the guilt of another person is never suggested by those in Faith. Yes, there can be consequences, but not guilt, there is a big difference. To say otherwise is without support and contradictory to the truth. With the Soul and its Origin Book IV, Chapter 16 he says, "Even if there were within men nothing but original sin, it would be sufficient for their condemnation."" http://mymartyrdom.com/au.htm#2
"...then I would not oppose infant baptism. But no verse in the Bible hints that they should be baptized."
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 13 2008, 3:20 PM
In my above post I was simply trying to explain that flesh and blood or a corruptible body, simply cannot inherit the place of glory and incorruption, even if it never sinned, without a resurrection change. While even the possibility for that change is based in Christ's overcoming life, and death and resurrection. Yes Christ was the truly the firstfruit of the resurrection, intended to create in us a lively hope by the same. Heaven would not be heaven simply because of mansions and streets of gold etc, if we would still be as we are in out meager deplorable body full of pains, aging, and odors, and a nature prone to unjustly defend ourselves as too often seen on this forum.
It is quite impressive that while Christ was on earth the people seeing His physical person could not accept Him as the Son of God and were saying, "Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" (Mt 13:55). Some histories state Jesus looked much like Mary's other son James. Yet today many because of focusing on the fact that He was the Son of God, cannot accept that He was also the Son of man, and that He came in the flesh, although Jesus repeatedly spoke of Himself as the Son of man, and the Scriptures numerous times speak of Him being of the seed of mankind according to the flesh.
The writer at times has heard it said, that the flesh or humanity of Christ was like to the flesh or humanity of Adam, before Adam disobeyed God law and became subject to the curse. One should consider that if Christ in coming in the flesh, encountered nothing but a humanity as such, He would have been free from all principles of corruption and deterioration, free from the principle of ageing, free from ever becoming wrinkled and less attractive and free from ever becoming less physically fit. Christ's flesh thus would likely have never shown any ageing as He aged from His 20th year till He left this world at about 33 years of age. One should consider, if Christ merely encountered and possessed flesh as Adam had before he sinned and was under the curse, Christ would not have been subject to sickness and disease, or any blemishes of the flesh, such as rashes, pimples, boils, tooth decay etc, and likely even been free from even the possibility of pain and death. One should also consider that if Christ had only encountered humanity as such, Christ would never have encountered or been tempted with the "law of sin" such as mankind is. One should consider that if Christ merely encountered flesh or humanity as such, Christ by no means in coming in the flesh would have truly encountered our situation, and for what reason would the Scriptures so clearly teach that Christ by coming in the flesh came into our situation? How foolish and absurd is such thinking, and how mislead or blind can man become through wrong influence! aT-34:82
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 13 2008, 5:48 PM
The doctrine that babies inherit the guilt of Adam's transgression is not true. If it were, then Jesus would have been born guilty of sin.
Is that so? Just wondering how you take the following:
Romans 5
12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
***let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Hebrews 12:1b***
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 13 2008, 6:18 PM
In light of the "DNA" aspect of this discussion, I would like to hear input on this selection of the Bible:
"for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Matt. 3:9b
I take it to mean that Jesus was telling the listeners that Jesus could raise up flesh and blood children out of the stones on the ground to Abraham, if being of the line of actual DNA from Abraham had any value to His listeners.
But anyway, I maintain that we (and Joseph & Mary) are born with Adam's inherited sin, in that we are not saved except that we are ignorant of the law (as in when we are children), based in part on my previous post, and Jesus was not born of this inherited sin. I do believe that He had a body of flesh, and was tempted like as we are, yet without sin. I believe Mary and Joseph were of the actual descendants of Abraham and David, and so when Jesus was born of Mary, the prophecy was fulfilled. This is evident in the Scriptures, to attempt to figure out more than that seems like an "endless genology" to me...
I have no problem with the "humanness" of Jesus. The human flesh or carcass that housed the Son of God was not God any more than your flesh is not saved. The "real" you lives eternally. Your flesh is a temporary necessity to live on planet earth to have the human experience. For Jesus to be tempted in all points like we are in this human experience and yet without sin could not be possible if the human element were not present.
Do you think it diminishes the "Godness" of Jesus to say Mary's DNA were in his human carcass? If you push that out, where did Mary's DNA ultimately come from? Are you saying that an egg produced in Mary is less of a creation of God than if an egg were divinely implanted?
Mark, I'm not sure what you meant by "the humanness of Jesus". I as a being am not worthy of salvation, regardless of where my flesh ends up (back in the dirt). The "real" Jesus did not inherit this same damnation that you and I did. All that ever came before or after Jesus have this inherited damnation, and Jesus was the perfect Lamb that died for us and gave us the gift of salvation. I repeat, man cannot save himself, and could not contribute to his own salvation. If Jesus were not of God, but instead of man, then we are no more saved, for God did not in fact send His Son to die for us.
As far as the last paragraph, does it really matter what I think regarding the questions you asked? I believe Jesus had a body of flesh and was tempted like as you and I, that He became subject to the death of the cross, and died for my sins.
As far as the natural body... what is your view concerning after the resurrection? We all know the account where Jesus entered a room even though the doors were closed. Even so, the nail prints in His hands were still there. We also know that our physical bodies cannot pass through walls or closed doors.... ? (John 20:19-20, John 20:25-27)
***let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Hebrews 12:1b***
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 13 2008, 9:17 PM
TR,
Mark, I'm not sure what you meant by "the humanness of Jesus".
In other words, the carcass that housed Jesus...his earthly body that his spirit dwelt in.
The "real" Jesus did not inherit this same damnation that you and I did. All that ever came before or after Jesus have this inherited damnation, and Jesus was the perfect Lamb that died for us and gave us the gift of salvation. I repeat, man cannot save himself, and could not contribute to his own salvation. If Jesus were not of God, but instead of man, then we are no more saved, for God did not in fact send His Son to die for us.
I Agree
I believe Jesus had a body of flesh and was tempted like as you and I, that He became subject to the death of the cross, and died for my sins.
I Agree
As far as the natural body... what is your view concerning after the resurrection? We all know the account where Jesus entered a room even though the doors were closed. Even so, the nail prints in His hands were still there. We also know that our physical bodies cannot pass through walls or closed doors.... ? (John 20:19-20, John 20:25-27)
The natural body we are housed in today, as I understand scripture, will return to dust and will not be needed in eternity. Whether we remain in spirit form or whatever it means by a new body or a celestial body is anyones guess. I believe the reason Jesus would have appeared in the form of his original body was to remove any doubt about His resurection. We also know he appeared on the road to Emaeus (sp) and they did not recognize him but later they understood who he was because they recognized the spirit.
Lets remember our understanding of some of these issues are not requirements for salvation. However, they are interesting things to ponder
This message has been edited by freeNdeed on Apr 14, 2008 5:59 AM
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 14 2008, 5:45 AM
Hi,
I'm sorry, but "Milton" is no longer with us. He was not a real person. But he well represented the views of real people. He represented the views of those who belong to a group claiming OTVC status. That group is known as "The Church of Christ." In "Milton's" first post, everything written on it (except for the 3 scripture references at the bottom) came directly from one of "The Church of Christ's" own publications (Introducing The Church Of Christ).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
QWERTY: >>>Can you give us a link to this quote from John Wesley?<<<
Sorry, but "Milton" only copied what was written in "The Church of Christ's" own publication.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AMOS: >>>Someone told Paris that her belief is important, as said it was held as such for many centuries in orthodox Christianity. I don't know for sure what they meant by saying that, but Catholic Christianity throughout history largely not only denied that Christ came in the flesh but also denied that Mary did, through their belief in the supposed immaculate conception of Mary, and who supposedly resurrected into heaven both body and soul without change in her Assumption experience.<<<
The orthodox Christians who lived in the age immediately following that of the apostles believed the same way as Paris regarding the flesh of Christ. I am aware of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church added all that stuff about Mary during the course of time (the early Christians didn't believe that stuff), but you're the only one I've ever heard say that Catholic Christianity throughout history denied that Christ came in the flesh. Do you have anything that backs up what you're saying? I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm just saying that I've never seen any evidence of what you're saying.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TR: >>>Is that so? Just wondering how you take the following: Romans 5:12-21<<<
When I was reading what "The Church of Christ's" position was on this issue, Romans 5:12-21 is exactly what came to my mind too, especially the following verses.....
12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin.
18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation.
19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners.
It seems clear to me that it was BECAUSE OF ADAM'S DISOBEDIENCE that many were made sinners and judgment came to all to condemnation.
* Hmmm. It's interesting to me that it says man's disobedience and not woman's (Romans 5:14 and 1 Cor. 15:21,22 show that it's talking about ADAM'S transgression). I wonder if that means that the inherited sin and condemnation comes through man's semen (which Christ was NOT from). Just a thought.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Had Christ's body not risen from the dead, it would have undergone corruption just like ours would. I don't believe a heavenly/celestial body would do that.
And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: But he, whom God raise again, saw no corruption. (Acts 13:34-37)
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 14 2008, 9:12 AM
Really it was the Roman Catholic church that headed the Councils that established all the teachings that we accept now on the godhead and in fact it was at the council of Chalcedon where the teaching we accept to day on the nature of Christ was established.
The Council of Nicea that established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy in 325AD. It was the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD that established the "full humanity and full divinity" teaching that is now knowing as Chalcedonian view of the nature of Christ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedonian
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 15 2008, 10:27 AM
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit.
(Jesus teaching Nicodemus) Why would The Christ use the words flesh gives birth to flesh when speaking about the difference of being born physically and born spiritually? He knew that He was born flesh (OF Mary) and that His Spririt was not part of this flesh but rather His eternal being. The mortal and the divine coexisting (for a time) in flesh.
Re: Why is it important to believe Jesus came in the flesh.
April 15 2008, 12:53 PM
>>>Why would The Christ use the words flesh gives birth to flesh when speaking about the difference of being born physically and born spiritually? He knew that He was born flesh (OF Mary) and that His Spririt was not part of this flesh but rather His eternal being. The mortal and the divine coexisting (for a time) in flesh.<<<
Wow! Excellent point Peter! And I thought that I already knew it all!
Caution: This forum may contain statements and comments that are offensive. If you are easily offended, please exit this forum now.
By using this forum you agree to be accountable and liable for your post's. All postings are the responsibility of the posting participant. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the management.
