MennoNet.com

CADude wrote:

Heirbyadoption wrote:Neto, I was under the impression that Amman was illiterate, or at least very poorly educated. I'd have to go look up my source for that though...

I just did a quick Google search and came up with a PDF as screenshotted below:
jacobamman.jpg

He may have had an excellent auditory memory that facilitated his ability to quote Scripture. Another possibility: someone read the Bible to him.

Perhaps he had one of those solar powered readers that I just saw advertised.

Soloist wrote:I've debated learning to read those documents, but I usually settle that if I take the time, I should learn greek.

Personally having read Menno Simons work, with the exception of his "personal" opinion on celestial flesh, I would agree with his thoughts. I haven't studied it out in detail though.

I've noticed several articles and writings by modern Mennonites with the sole purpose of disagreeing with the "celestial flesh" view. Why do Mennonites today disagree so strongly with this as to write so much about it?

What do you mean by "personal"? The celestial flesh view of the incarnation was also a huge part of Dirk's theology.

KingdomBuilder wrote: I've noticed several articles and writings by modern Mennonites with the sole purpose of disagreeing with the "celestial flesh" view. Why do Mennonites today disagree so strongly with this as to write so much about it?

What do you mean by "personal"? The celestial flesh view of the incarnation was also a huge part of Dirk's theology.

Well, for starters I'm not a Mennonite but his view of celestial flesh seems to be based on a misunderstanding of biology really... as for Dirk, I'm not aware of his stance on it.

I view that if Christ had divine flesh, how are we to follow like Christ? So its a little bit of a theological argument and really doesn't matter if you still strive to follow after Christ. Thats just my take on it but I feel its not important enough to die for.

Soloist wrote:

KingdomBuilder wrote: I've noticed several articles and writings by modern Mennonites with the sole purpose of disagreeing with the "celestial flesh" view. Why do Mennonites today disagree so strongly with this as to write so much about it?

What do you mean by "personal"? The celestial flesh view of the incarnation was also a huge part of Dirk's theology.

Well, for starters I'm not a Mennonite but his view of celestial flesh seems to be based on a misunderstanding of biology really... as for Dirk, I'm not aware of his stance on it.

I view that if Christ had divine flesh, how are we to follow like Christ? So its a little bit of a theological argument and really doesn't matter if you still strive to follow after Christ. Thats just my take on it but I feel its not important enough to die for.

Both Simons’ view and the traditional Catholic view are based on a misunderstanding of biology; essentially, Simons’ view was Jesus had no human DNA and the Catholic view was he had only Mary’s DNA.

The latter is an absurd view based on modern science, and more importantly, the scriptures never discuss what Jesus’ genetic lineage might be. It’s not relevant to the kingdom.

Josh wrote:

Soloist wrote:

KingdomBuilder wrote: I've noticed several articles and writings by modern Mennonites with the sole purpose of disagreeing with the "celestial flesh" view. Why do Mennonites today disagree so strongly with this as to write so much about it?

What do you mean by "personal"? The celestial flesh view of the incarnation was also a huge part of Dirk's theology.

Well, for starters I'm not a Mennonite but his view of celestial flesh seems to be based on a misunderstanding of biology really... as for Dirk, I'm not aware of his stance on it.

I view that if Christ had divine flesh, how are we to follow like Christ? So its a little bit of a theological argument and really doesn't matter if you still strive to follow after Christ. Thats just my take on it but I feel its not important enough to die for.

Both Simons’ view and the traditional Catholic view are based on a misunderstanding of biology; essentially, Simons’ view was Jesus had no human DNA and the Catholic view was he had only Mary’s DNA.

The latter is an absurd view based on modern science, and more importantly, the scriptures never discuss what Jesus’ genetic lineage might be. It’s not relevant to the kingdom.

It appears that Luke gives Mary's genealogy in his gospel. So why wouldn't Jesus have Mary's DNA? The genealogical listing in Matthew give his legal status, and Luke gives His bloodline, or his natural status. Both end up at David, but they take two different trails to get there.

If Mary was his biological mother, how do you keep him from having Mary's DNA?

lesterb wrote:....
If Mary was his biological mother, how do you keep him from having Mary's DNA?

The term "Clestial Flesh" is a misnomer for representing Menno's view, which while I could defend, I also don't agree. Mostly (other than the faulty science of his day, to which he appealed) I disagree with his purpose in taking that view, that is, the question he was attempting to answer implied something which (I believe) is not supported by Scripture. The question I think he was attempting to answer was "How could Jesus be of the flesh of Mary, and not have the "sin nature". The Catholic church of that time, as I understand it, were seeking to answer this same question, and they answer by saying that Mary herself had to have been sinless. My problem with the question is that it assumes, without any Biblical support, as far as I can tell, that Jesus did not have the "Sin Nature" - what ever that is. That whole deal is not in Scripture, either, so they were already barking up the wrong tree, so to speak. But while the Scripture is abundantly clear that Jesus was sinless, it no where says that he did not have the human bent toward sin. Personally, at the risk of being tagged a heretic, I'll say that I think that if that concept is a Biblical one, then he had that tendency as well as we do. The difference, and this is the key, he never sinned in spite of it. That, to me, fits well with what the Scripture tells us, that he was tempted in every way in which we are tempted. So that's how I would answer that question - basically to say that it is the wrong question.

Back to Menno Simon's view of the incarnation. He did not say that Jesus' physical body was in existence in heaven prior to his conception in the womb of Mary. He says that Jesus' body was of heavenly origin. That is not to say that his body descended in physical form out of heaven, but to say that he was pre-existent. Menno carefully follows the Scripture, which states that the Word became flesh. Looking carefully at the texts, we see that no where does it say that Jesus body had its source of Mary - indeed, the Scripture does not speak to that question, and that is why I would say it is wrong to try to answer it.

Is not sin passed through the father thus since the Father had no sin...

I don't think Jesus had a carnal nature. I think he came as the second Adam with the same advantages and disadvantages that the first one had.

lesterb wrote:I don't think Jesus had a carnal nature. I think he came as the second Adam with the same advantages and disadvantages that the first one had.

Agree 100%. This is the primary point I see in the incarnation view of Dirk (and Menno)