According to this link,,this is what is written about what the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite believe about the flesh of Jesus..


http://www.theholdemans.com/teaches.htm#top


If this is not what you believe then you need to retract your statements somehow..and correct what you have written in the past about your belief about the Christology of Christ.


Starting here is what you have said.
-------------------------

14. The Church of God in Christ, Mennonite, believes the flesh of Jesus was not sinless human flesh from the seed of Mary but was a specially prepared heavenly body that only resembled human flesh.



“He did not take His flesh from Mary” Bible Doctrines and Practice pg 40



“The word was made flesh, not of Mary, but in Mary” Bible Doctrines and Practice pg 40 Note: “God sent forth His son, made of a woman” Gal. 4:4



“The body of Jesus was an eternal product 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



“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



"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



[It is unscriptural to say] that the Son of God united himself with human nature, that is, with a man of the flesh of Mary” Menno Simons Complete Works, Forty-Five Unscriptural Confessions pg 379



[It is unscriptural to say] that Christ took on him the seed of Abraham”

Menno Simons Complete Works , Forty-Five Unscriptural Confessions pg 379



“Menno Simon’s writings ….surpass all others in thoroughness, excepting the Holy Scriptures” John Holdeman, founder of the denomination, John Holdeman,Mirror of Truth published by Gospel Publishers, Moundridge, KS page 37

Messenger of Truth article August 28, 2002

“Take note that this verse and the previous one point to the resemblance only.”



“Do we not need carefulness in bringing the human dimension into Christ?”



“Does the thought of Christ’s humanness attract us…?”



“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.”



“’For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham’ (the italics are KJV text). Removing the italics, which indicate missing or unclear text in the original manuscript, leaves this verse with less difficulty.”



“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 October 1, 2003



"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

"the most prevalent error concerning the nature of Christ has been that He obtained His humanity through Mary



♪*•.¸¸¸♥¸¸¸.•*♪

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology


For reference this is what "Christology" entails.


♪*•.¸¸¸♥¸¸¸.•*♪

Paris, you are one of the most biased against, yet inexperienced with Holdemans, people out here. Why do you only base your knowledge of Holdemans and their beliefs on what the Antis say? I'm puzzled by you.
Anybodys writings (including yours) could be made to look pretty off if comments are selected for that purpose and if they are at the exclusion of the whole. Why don't you really read the whole?

Xep; I think your point is well taken and it certainly (often) applies. But lets look at this statement and see if you can fix it/explain it for us. (This may be deviating from the subject at hand).

"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."

CGCM explains the church to be ONLY those who have received their water baptism; no one else. Are only these members perfect as the Bible speaks of Justification of those who believe ?

My view is that for the above statement to have credibility, CGCM must re-define the "church". As late as 1950, your publications said that "as one is received into the "invisible church, Christ"... so one should be received into the visible church by water baptism. Now, this is well understood that we are received into the invisible, general or universal church by faith in Jesus Christ... and the above H quote is only correct if the "church" is understood in that way. The perfect church is that which we ONLY see by faith; faith in the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ.

TR may be able to help with this explanation.

(My brothers; its not anathema to disagree with your brethren (BD&P) on certain points.)

Xep, where is the whole? I don't mean to be biased, but when a church hides the truth then I begin to smell a rat.



♪*•.¸¸¸♥¸¸¸.•*♪

Paris, A couple days ago WTK put out an article explaining what the H church beliefs are, and you rudely told him that you weren't going to even read it, "cause it wasn't Bible". I can get it and show you if you want me to.
So all I am saying is if you are unwilling to know what our church teaches.... and instead get your info from an Anti-Holdeman pick and choose quotes website..... I don't think you are being very objective.


Hank I will get back to you this eve.

***Col 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, ***

Xep,,I guess I was a little quick to respond to wtk, without reading what he had posted. But where is the writing from? who wrote it? what book is it from?

You know I am not schooled in the Holdeman beliefs, and if this is the best way for you all to get it out there. I would appreciate a little charity in my ignorance...

For a church that is proud of it's unity you sure all are confusing.


♪*•.¸¸¸♥¸¸¸.•*♪

If you are self-admittingly ignorant of Holdemans ways, why not do more listening instead of talking? I think I remember you saying that they aren't even Christian. Was that a Christian thing to say? Are you a Christian?

First of all Joneass I can talk and listen to what I want and when I want and I don't need your instruction on it..

Yes I am a Christian and I believe in the full Divinity of Christ. Which happens to be the subject of this thread.

If you want to get into personal attacks start another thread.


♪*•.¸¸¸♥¸¸¸.•*♪

Xep, I can see that I am going to have some questions about the article that wtk posted about what the Holdeman's believe about the Christology of Chris, So I am going to start a new thread, but before I do I would like to know the name of the article that was posted or the book it came from so I can title the thread.




♪*•.¸¸¸♥¸¸¸.•*♪

Paris, its called the 33 articles of Faith. you can find it on the links on top of the home page.

thanks wtk,,but do I have to read all 33 articles of faith in order to understand just the Christology that they teach. Or is the Christology summed up in the article you posted.


♪*•.¸¸¸♥¸¸¸.•*♪

Paris; you can start at article 7 or 8 and on to 14. You will get a good view of traditional Mennonite beliefs in respect to Jesus Christ.... however it is 14 where disagreement sets in, on the incarnation. This article has long been abandoned by Mennonites in general because the the original teaching of the "in Mary, but not of Mary" was (1) never accepted by all the Mennonites and (2) the original explanation by Menno Simons came about by faulty understanding of biological reproduction... his explanation makes zero sense in light of actual biology. Any H who has read the whole original rendition by MS will agree. Some may however, hold to the premise, but not on account of what Menno Simons wrote.

Thanks Hank,,I think I'm starting to get it. So where does the BD&P book fit in?

That says this:


“He did not take His flesh from Mary” Bible Doctrines and Practice pg 40



“The word was made flesh, not of Mary, but in Mary” Bible Doctrines and Practice pg 40 Note: “God sent forth His son, made of a woman” Gal. 4:4



“The body of Jesus was an eternal product from heaven” Bible Doctrines and Practice pg 40

-----------------------------------
and why does it say something different, or doesn't it?..

If I was going to join the Holdeman church what would they teach me about the Christology of Christ so that I could be in unity with the rest of them?




♪*•.¸¸¸♥¸¸¸.•*♪

I don't know why you guys are arguing over such petty things. There's much bigger things in Christ.

Brent

OK, Xeppy. So can you explain exactly how the statements Paris posted (which are direct quotes from COGICM Inc. propaganda) are out of context? Are you saying that the COGICM Inc. believes, along with orthodox Christianity that Christ DID obtain his flesh from his mother? that he did have a human body? that his flesh was not celestial? that his body was NOT an eternal product from heaven? Please clarify.

Paris; they do not make big thing about it. It is others who hold their feet to the fire because those others consider it to be a major issue. I'd say that of those H who are aware of the issue, maybe half take one position and perhaps the other half agree with you. CGCM holds to two old confessions, which they say describes their beliefs. These two are "33 Articles of Faith" written early 1600 (probably by an individual rather then by a group of churches) and the Dortrecht Confession, a much shorter concise document of 18 articles signed by a number of church leaders in 1632. Below is art 4 of the Dortrecht Conf. which avoids the subject. My comments when the subject surfaced publicly in the MOT about 4 years ago was to stay with this statement. There is no benefit to H folks, to argue the issue. They will lose because of early church writings and Menno Simons terrible un-informed original treatises on the subject.

"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"

Ok Hank, here is the quote you were talking about.

"Messenger of Truth Article October 1, 2003
"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." --MOT


Now I don't have the whole article to read and figure out the writer's angle here, but I have a few issues with it. First of all... I don't know why this issue is always producing polar opposites. Why does the writer assume that if Jesus took anything from Mary that he would have to be "impure" ? I don't follow that. Christians of all stripes have that same faulty concept when we blame our human sinfulness on the fact that we are "made of clay" or that we are "dirt". God formed man out of the dust of the earth, but at that point man was eternal and absolutely perfect! So ... we can't say that say that Jesus (being God and all) would have to have been impure if he took anything from Mary. God is all powerful. He can do what he wants. I see Jesus as Adam in some of these ways. I think this "us and them" concept that flows from most incarnation discussions is not right. (both sides)
Thats why I repeatedly declare that the 18 articles of faith is also how I believe it and rest it. Anything beyond that I have to question the wisdom of. Like Hank says... anybody reading those 100 pages of Menno Simons writings to Micron would have to agree that although Menno was defending the divinity of Christ his reasoning was embaressingly wrong. I understand that in Apostle John's day there were people denying the very fact that Jesus was anything but a spirit, saying that he only LOOKED human but never really suffered or bled real blood etc. That is what John was writing about in 1st 2nd and 3rd John.

Now moving into the church topic, I have to also say that I agree with some of our writings that speak of the "invisible church". That is the one that Jesus is coming back for. The Holdeman church, while I feel it is the remnant of a line of Christians (we don't have irrefutable proof of this) that are continueing the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, is made of humans, and humans don't always do things perfect. So beings the church is people, and we are not saved by group, and that people will always be imperfect, I say too that the Christians whom God has covered with his blood and washed their sins away and therefore now SEES and ACCEPTS them as perfect... they are the ones who are without spot and wrinkle. In the analogy of a bride, those people all over the world (including children) will be the bride that Christ is coming for. There will be no denomination lines on that day.
Is that also what the writer was saying in his last sentence when he said, "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." ?

TR am I wrong here?

***Col 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, ***

Xeppy, nice to see YOUR thoughts and, frankly, what could be considered as an almost clear answer. I really appreciate it when you post your beliefs instead of just questioning others like some of your 'brethren' do.

On that last paragraph, you almost had me thinking that we could consider each other fellow Christians.

At last, more light than heat. Thank you Xep!

Interesting post Paris. Thanks.

Jesus gave lots of light but he also got things so hot he got killed!

Please read these verses, and what follows.

(Heb 2:14) "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;"

(1 John 4:3) "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.".

(2 Jn 7) "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."

(Ro 1:3) "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;"

(Menno Simons 3:16) "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh (of David and humanity). This is a deceiver and an antichrist."

Note, who is wrong the Bible or Menno Simons? I simply gave the Bible.

This subject makes me very upset. Us supposed Bible believing Mennonites, but rather Menno believing blind fools should be ashamed. How can people so stiff necked and blind about this subject be trusted to have the truth in other areas.

This link brings out many vital points on the subject. http://www.teachmegod.com/homed4.htm

 How can people so stiff necked and blind about this subject be trusted to have the truth in other areas.

 

BINGO!!

Amos, I too am saddened by this. I don't understand when people don't want to know WHO Jesus was. I don't understand why TR and wtk and Xep don't know exactly how to answer this question when it comes up. TR said one thing wtk said another.

I always thought and still believe that it is of vital importance to know and SAY "yes Jesus came in the flesh, He was fully man and fully God". I never thought it was ok to say "well we don't talk about that".

I thought and still think that to know that Jesus came in the flesh and to be able to say "Yes He was fully Man and fully God" was the core of the Christian faith.

I don't understand why it's more important to go by any other book then the Bible, especially when it comes to the Divinity of Christ. It's in there, maybe you have to have the Holy Spirit to see it. Maybe you just have to care about what you believe and make a commitment.

I don't know. It is sad to me. I do know that I would never join a church that doesn't proclaim the Divinity of Christ.





♪*•.¸¸¸♥¸¸¸.•*♪

Well; I will just add my defense of Menno Simons from my perspective, in spite of the fact that his arguement was based on faulty understanding of natural human reproduction.

MS believed (1) that all conception took place only from the father. He believed that the woman did not supply any part in the new offspring, but was only a carrier and incubator of new life. He writes of this in detail. (2) He then used this as his basis; since Jesus was fathered by God and the woman did not naturally contribute to new life, therefore Jesus' flesh was totally from heaven; was pure without original sin.

(3) He also writes as part of his explanation, that Jesus was born no different then three others, naming 3 OT Bible characters (forgot the names). This tells us that had he understood biological reproduction, he would not have disagreed with orthodox Christianity... unless he had come up with yet a different theory.

Xep, thanks for your frank reply. I really did not think I was putting you on the spot, because you have previously referred to a "spiritual church". Thanks for clarifying this and taking a stand. In respect to "church" you have taken a position believed and held by earlier H church leaders.

Thanks Xep for your post.---The Holdeman church, while I feel it is the remnant of a line of Christians (we don't have irrefutable proof of this) that are continueing the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, is made of humans, and humans don't always do things perfect.--- Now I do have some comments. 1)Other churches feel they are the remnant of a line of Christians as well, abd they feel they have proof that goes back to the apostles. 2)That is why there is no denominational church of the OTVC, as you pointed out humans aren't always perfect. The bride is without spot or wrinkle. Thanks again. calleodutPTL

I don't have much time here, so can't make a long post, but the way I understand Menno Simons is that he definitely believed that Christ on earth was God in a body of flesh, and technically I think he held the view that Mary did in fact nourish Him. He did not, however, believe that Christ partook of the sinful nature of man, in the same way you and I do, that part of us that is condemned unless we accept the blood of Christ. That, to me, was his main issue, irregardless of the reasons why he came up with that conclusion. That part I also agree with, as I believe Christ was perfect, and without sin. If He would have been of the condemned substance of man, He would not have been worthy to be our Saviour, for He would also have been in need of a Saviour.

As far as the writings of Menno Simons, I think some people get so into the technical wording with what he wrote that they completely miss the essence of what he was actually saying. JMHO.

This may fit in here...

TR wrote June 8, 9:30 PM, "S's Vision": "I do not believe Jesus took of the sinful flesh of man. He was not doomed to hell as you and I are in any way, shape, or form, His condemnation was ENTIRELY His free choice. You and I have NO choice but damnation unless we accept His blood as the power and strength to sincerely repent of sin and be born again."

TR, just to clarify our beliefs, I would like to point out something of your above comment about man's "choice and damnation". No person will ever suffer hell because of the sin of Adam. What will bring man to ruin is his own sin, if not covered by the blood of Christ, and WE DO HAVE A CHOICE in this. Our sin is of our own choosing. (May be just a technicality.)

Jesus says in John 3 that "men loved darkness rather then light and this was the condemnation".

Article 8 of the 33, (if you have interest) gives a good overview of this. The answer given was to refute the infant baptizers reason to baptize babies... who in innocence had not committed actual sin. quote:

"Thus none of Adam's race are created or born into condemnation, but all are born and brought forth into the world in the same state of grace and reconciliation with God. Hence, we hold it to militate not only against the holy scriptures, but also utterly against the nature of God, which is just, righteous, holy, merciful, that God should punish with eternal death and damnation, simply on account of Adam's sin, so great a number of Adam's race who die in their infancy in a state of innocence, before they have followed Adam in sin; seeing the good God, through Christ and for Christ's sake, so graciously forgave Adam (who had himself committed the sin) and placed him in a state of grace.

But men having attained the knowledge of good and evil, and, through the lust of the flesh and their own desire... So that they follow Adam in sin, hence it comes that they separate themselves from their Creator, and consequently do not perish or are condemned on account of Adam's transgression, but because of their own unbelief and evil works." end of quote.

( I also realize this may not sit well with Scott; he might say it is God who is responsible )

>>>If He would have been of the condemned substance of man, He would not have been worthy to be our Saviour, for He would also have been in need of a Saviour.<<<

Yes, the flesh and body Christ took upon Himself was in need of a Saviour, and He thus of necessity overcame it and resurrected from it's lowly state and saved it, and thus He can save you too if you believe!! His body as from Mary aged, it had ailments, temptations like ours etc. If Christ was such a weakling that He could not have overcame and saved your body had He grafted it upon Himself, how could He save and deliver you from your flesh and problem? Remember Jesus in coming forth from God and heaven and coming in or taking on flesh, was not merely what He took or engrafted upon Himself, but was a Heavenly power and solution being grafted upon a problem.

Christ's flesh was not the powerful and eternal Word from heaven as Menno repeatedly emphasized, but rather the powerful and eternal Word from heaven took on our weak and needy flesh, fully overcame it's weakness and inclinations, died as sinless sacrifice, resurrected from it and truly was the firstfruit of the resurrection, as the Scriptures teach. "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. (1 Co 15:21).

Regarding this subject, it's unbelievable how many Mennonites are more Menno believing than Bible believing, even though Menno herewith without any reasonable excuse foolishly tried to claim mothers do not contribute anything to their children. Note,it does not take a scientist or a doctor or any such thing to know that children often look like their mother, while I believe this very thing about children appearing like their mother was told Menno but he would not hear.

Following are several Scriptures on the subject with one Scripture being altered and false. You choose which one which is false, and see if you are Menno believing or Bible believing regarding this subject.

(Hebrews 2:14) "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;"

(1 John 4:3) "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.".

(2 John 7) "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."

(Romans 1:3) "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;"

(Acts 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;"

(Menn Sim 3:16) "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh (of David or humanity). This is a deceiver and an antichrist."

Regarding this subject, are you Menno believing and defending or are you Bible believing and defending? If the Mennonites were as determined to defend the Pope as they are Menno, what would they said about him? May God especially have mercy on those who desire the truth.

This link brings out many vital points on the subject, http://www.teachmegod.com/homed4.htm

Some more vital verses on the subject. Also please read the above post if you have not. Note one of the below verses has been altered to match today's religion.

(Heb 4:11) "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,"

(Heb 4:16) "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."

(wtk 4:16) "For verily he took not on him the nature of Abraham; but he took on him the seed of angels."

Amo said, (wtk 4:16) "For verily he took not on him the nature of Abraham; but he took on him the seed of angels."

Now were do you get that? You people crack me up. You try so hard to make the H look bad to justify yourselves.

wtk, I by writing your name in that verse was not just pointing at you, but at the many who teach Christ did not encounter our nature in being born of Mary, and might even claim Jesus was God Himself and therefore could not have sinned.

I know how most of your group believes on this subject and it appeared you were defending it. Be honest with yourself, on the other thread you just wrote, >>>So Him having Gods nature within Himself. How was it possible for Him to sin. ...He didn't have inward desires to commit lust.<<<

Be honest, does the Holdeman belief best agree with the real Hebrew 4:16 or with wtk 4:16 as given above.

<<< I don't know why you guys are arguing over such petty things. There's much bigger things in Christ. >>>

Maybe true Brent. Why don't you lead them to higher ground? Perhaps you want to share with these people some of the bigger things in Christ which you have personally experienced?

As far as the writings of Menno Simons, I think some people get so into the technical wording with what he wrote that they completely miss the essence of what he was actually saying. - TR

Hmmm..... kind of like how some people get into the "technical" writings of St. Paul????

AMOS said, might even claim Jesus was God Himself

Please explain?

"Maybe true Brent. Why don't you lead them to higher ground? Perhaps you want to share with these people some of the bigger things in Christ which you have personally experienced?"

You're running 8 days behind Scott. Or has it been eating on you all this time? Either way don't speak very well of you.

Almost every time I write against you or the religion you support on here, I'm sharing bigger things in Christ. And you didn't even know it or see it!!!

What did you think "bigger things in Christ" was?

Brent

I alwalys thought that the Divinity of Christ was the biggest thing about Him.




♪*•.¸¸¸♥¸¸¸.•*♪