Milk vs. Meat

[Chris]

I fail to see how Celestial flesh teachings provoke murder, strife, and wickedness. Many Christians are falling into a trap that Jesus Christ was not from the lineage of Mary, that his flesh was not linked to hers. This would be a deep deep heresy.

I was speaking more towards the early church history arguing between trinitarianism and Arianism.
I don’t personally think that celestial flesh is somehow a deeper heresy than some other heresy. I also don’t think that the nature of Christ’s flesh really matters that much. We know he came in the flesh, whether it was tissue provided from Mary or not doesn’t really matter. I doubt Menno Simmons really knew how biology worked. The big issue really circles over whether or not Jesus had better resistance to sin than we do if He had celestial flesh. To that I really don’t know and if the Holy Spirit overshadowed her as it says, then chances are there was something celestial within Him. Adam from a certain point of view had celestial flesh. Either way I don’t see that it’s significant enough to shun someone over it seems a little bit like semantics really.
I’m content to say that I don’t understand all the mysteries of Jesus or the relationship of Jesus and God. What I know is that he was fully human.

The New Testament doesn't give us a systematic theology that fully describes the Trinity, and some of the early Fathers believed things we now consider heretical. It can be kind of weird reading each Church Fathers from this perspective. It wasn't really until the Council of Nicea that a more complete theological explanation of the Trinity had been worked out.

Which makes me think that this kind of systematic theology is not the "meat" that the Bible is talking about. It didn't seem necessary, for instance, in Paul's letters.

But I do agree that it's important to know that Jesus was fully God and fully man.

Yes. So if we are to learn that Jesus was fully man and fully God, it is important to know the source of that teaching. This would come from Nicea. Biblically only, people all through Christendom get a very distorted view of Jesus. This is why you have very heretical viewpoints of Jesus's "fully man and fully God" viewpoints in Christendom.

Examples -
Mormon - Jesus was conceived through sex.
Jehovah's Witness - Jesus is the Archangel Michael
Hebrew Roots/many Messianic Jews - Jesus is a high priest but wasn't fully God.
Miaphysites (140mil people) - Jesus's divinity swallows up his humanity.
Many heresies too. Arian controversy.
Heresies like Docetism too.

What I advocate is we do learn of the proper council teachings on the Nature of Jesus Christ and how he is part of the Trinity. In fact, the council found it so important, they put out the Nicene creed. Let's see what they said! Let's learn! I believe knowing fully and learning are issues of meat. Meat strengthens the body. Spiritual meat strengthens our faith and helps us to repel attack from heresies, etc.

[Soloist]

What I advocate is we do learn of the proper council teachings on the Nature of Jesus Christ and how he is part of the Trinity. In fact, the council found it so important, they put out the Nicene creed. Let's see what they said! Let's learn! I believe knowing fully and learning are issues of meat. Meat strengthens the body. Spiritual meat strengthens our faith and helps us to repel attack from heresies, etc.

Yes, the council called by a pagan leader.

[Bootstrap]

The New Testament doesn't give us a systematic theology that fully describes the Trinity, and some of the early Fathers believed things we now consider heretical. It can be kind of weird reading each Church Fathers from this perspective. It wasn't really until the Council of Nicea that a more complete theological explanation of the Trinity had been worked out.

Which makes me think that this kind of systematic theology is not the "meat" that the Bible is talking about. It didn't seem necessary, for instance, in Paul's letters.

But I do agree that it's important to know that Jesus was fully God and fully man.

Yes. So if we are to learn that Jesus was fully man and fully God, it is important to know the source of that teaching. This would come from Nicea. Biblically only, people all through Christendom get a very distorted view of Jesus. This is why you have very heretical viewpoints of Jesus's "fully man and fully God" viewpoints in Christendom.

Examples -
Mormon - Jesus was conceived through sex.
Jehovah's Witness - Jesus is the Archangel Michael
Hebrew Roots/many Messianic Jews - Jesus is a high priest but wasn't fully God.
Miaphysites (140mil people) - Jesus's divinity swallows up his humanity.
Many heresies too. Arian controversy.
Heresies like Docetism too.

What I advocate is we do learn of the proper council teachings on the Nature of Jesus Christ and how he is part of the Trinity. In fact, the council found it so important, they put out the Nicene creed. Let's see what they said! Let's learn! I believe knowing fully and learning are issues of meat. Meat strengthens the body. Spiritual meat strengthens our faith and helps us to repel attack from heresies, etc.

This council was founded by Constantine, largely because Christianity was not intellectually satisfying by Greek philosophical standards. He wanted them to agree on something that could be explained to people with a background in Greek philosophy. But the early church did not seem to need that.

Your list of heresies is all about people who deny that Jesus was fully man or who deny that Jesus was fully God. I agree that those are heresies. But there were many understandings of precisely how Jesus was both God and Man before Nicea, and they were not considered heretical at the time. And a lot of the "history" we are most likely to read from this time was written by people who were explaining what "those people over there" believe, I'm not sure they always described it accurately.

I think this is an accurate description of the controversy:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christ ... ontroversy

Arius’s Christology was a mixture of adoptionism and logos theology. His basic notion was that the Son came into being through the will of the Father; the Son, therefore, had a beginning. Although the Son was before all eternity, he was not eternal, and Father and Son were not of the same essence. In Jesus, who suffered pain and wept, the logos became human.

One strength of Arius’s position was that it appeared to safeguard a strict monotheism while offering an interpretation of the language of the New Testament—notably, the word Son—that conformed to general usage and meaning. The weakness of his view was that, precisely because Jesus was capable of suffering as a human, it was difficult to understand how he could be fully divine and thus effect the redemption of humankind.

According to Athanasius, God had to become human so that humans could become divine. Thus, at the heart of Athanasius’s Christology was a religious rather than a speculative concern. That led him to conclude that the divine nature in Jesus was identical to that of the Father and that Father and Son have the same substance. He insisted on the need for the Nicene homoousios to express the Son’s unity with the Father.

My own view is that I don't really understand essences and substances and all that, not because I haven't studied it, but because I have. I am happy to believe that God is beyond my understanding, and I am a little skeptical of the attempt to fully explain him through systematic theology. Especially when we start condemning others who have a different systematic theology, as happened in the time of Nicea.

In general, I think it's a LOT more important to focus on who we are in Jesus Christ, what it means to seek first the Kingdom of God, what mission God has called us to. Don't get me wrong, I think it's important to understand who Jesus is and who God is, but I also think that what the Bible teaches is sufficient. I do not give the Nicean Creed the same level of authority that I give the Bible.

[Chris]

Arius’s Christology was a mixture of adoptionism and logos theology. His basic notion was that the Son came into being through the will of the Father; the Son, therefore, had a beginning. Although the Son was before all eternity, he was not eternal, and Father and Son were not of the same essence. In Jesus, who suffered pain and wept, the logos became human.

One strength of Arius’s position was that it appeared to safeguard a strict monotheism while offering an interpretation of the language of the New Testament—notably, the word Son—that conformed to general usage and meaning. The weakness of his view was that, precisely because Jesus was capable of suffering as a human, it was difficult to understand how he could be fully divine and thus effect the redemption of humankind.

According to Athanasius, God had to become human so that humans could become divine. Thus, at the heart of Athanasius’s Christology was a religious rather than a speculative concern. That led him to conclude that the divine nature in Jesus was identical to that of the Father and that Father and Son have the same substance. He insisted on the need for the Nicene homoousios to express the Son’s unity with the Father.

[/quote]

This is a GREAT example of stuff the church should be teaching. This is part of the meat of the faith we have. Why is it so many say "Trinity" but the word itself is not even in the Bible? Perhaps we should teach them why.

Of course I can't list all the heresies on a forum (time). What I can tell you is this is why I argue we need to be learning this stuff. If we don't understand stuff, substances etc., then perhaps the church should be instructing it.

[Chris]

What I advocate is we do learn of the proper council teachings on the Nature of Jesus Christ and how he is part of the Trinity. In fact, the council found it so important, they put out the Nicene creed. Let's see what they said! Let's learn! I believe knowing fully and learning are issues of meat. Meat strengthens the body. Spiritual meat strengthens our faith and helps us to repel attack from heresies, etc.

Yes, the council called by a pagan leader.

This is a huge conversation and one the bros in church Sunday school SHOULD discuss. This would very much be stimulating, fascinating, and bring decent debate, decent considerations, and sharpen our faith.

[Soloist]

Debate often ends up as arguments for no spiritual gain. Long gone are the days of Justin Martyr and the long form dialog and classical argument.

[Bootstrap]

Arius’s Christology was a mixture of adoptionism and logos theology. His basic notion was that the Son came into being through the will of the Father; the Son, therefore, had a beginning. Although the Son was before all eternity, he was not eternal, and Father and Son were not of the same essence. In Jesus, who suffered pain and wept, the logos became human.

One strength of Arius’s position was that it appeared to safeguard a strict monotheism while offering an interpretation of the language of the New Testament—notably, the word Son—that conformed to general usage and meaning. The weakness of his view was that, precisely because Jesus was capable of suffering as a human, it was difficult to understand how he could be fully divine and thus effect the redemption of humankind.

According to Athanasius, God had to become human so that humans could become divine. Thus, at the heart of Athanasius’s Christology was a religious rather than a speculative concern. That led him to conclude that the divine nature in Jesus was identical to that of the Father and that Father and Son have the same substance. He insisted on the need for the Nicene homoousios to express the Son’s unity with the Father.

This is a GREAT example of stuff the church should be teaching. This is part of the meat of the faith we have. Why is it so many say "Trinity" but the word itself is not even in the Bible? Perhaps we should teach them why.

Of course I can't list all the heresies on a forum (time). What I can tell you is this is why I argue we need to be learning this stuff. If we don't understand stuff, substances etc., then perhaps the church should be instructing it.

None of this seems to be what Paul meant by "meat", though, is it?

I'm trying to think how my life has improved by learning the difference between what Arius actually taught and what he was accused of teaching, or the differences between what Arius taught and what Athenasius taught.

I think this much is helpful. But why do we need to argue about substances and essences?

[Joy]

I fail to see how Celestial flesh teachings provoke murder, strife, and wickedness. Many Christians are falling into a trap that Jesus Christ was not from the lineage of Mary, that his flesh was not linked to hers. This would be a deep deep heresy.

I was speaking more towards the early church history arguing between trinitarianism and Arianism.
I don’t personally think that celestial flesh is somehow a deeper heresy than some other heresy. I also don’t think that the nature of Christ’s flesh really matters that much. We know he came in the flesh, whether it was tissue provided from Mary or not doesn’t really matter. I doubt Menno Simmons really knew how biology worked. The big issue really circles over whether or not Jesus had better resistance to sin than we do if He had celestial flesh. To that I really don’t know and if the Holy Spirit overshadowed her as it says, then chances are there was something celestial within Him. Adam from a certain point of view had celestial flesh. Either way I don’t see that it’s significant enough to shun someone over it seems a little bit like semantics really.
I’m content to say that I don’t understand all the mysteries of Jesus or the relationship of Jesus and God. What I know is that he was fully human.

The problem with celestial flesh is Jesus comes from the seed of David (son of David). Celestial flesh eradicates the lineage cited in prophecy. It also makes null and void the genealogies in the scripture (one from Joseph the other Mary). You are right though it's no deeper heresy than many others. Menno indeed was decent and had some good foundations. The good thing about Anabaptists is we don't raise up a reformist inceptor as scripture. We appreciate but see him as a fallible man. Most Anabaptists would not agree with him (Menno) on divorce and remarriage for instance.

Depth of prophecy fulfilled (seed of David) from the Jews, the messiah through God's chosen people is all part of celestial flesh heresy. Where I find meat in this, is understanding who Jesus is, where he really came from, and especially HOW HE RELATES to us as man. Mary was a fallible mother. Joseph a fallible man. But they raised a perfect human son through Mary in lineage of King David.

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now it is already in the world. [1Jo 4:2,3 NASB20]

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. [2Jo 1:7 NASB20]

Sounds to me like the doctrine of the Son of Man, Jesus' humanity ie. His genealogy through His mother, is extremely important, nothing to be shrugged off as not mattering.

[Valerie]

Arius’s Christology was a mixture of adoptionism and logos theology. His basic notion was that the Son came into being through the will of the Father; the Son, therefore, had a beginning. Although the Son was before all eternity, he was not eternal, and Father and Son were not of the same essence. In Jesus, who suffered pain and wept, the logos became human.

One strength of Arius’s position was that it appeared to safeguard a strict monotheism while offering an interpretation of the language of the New Testament—notably, the word Son—that conformed to general usage and meaning. The weakness of his view was that, precisely because Jesus was capable of suffering as a human, it was difficult to understand how he could be fully divine and thus effect the redemption of humankind.

According to Athanasius, God had to become human so that humans could become divine. Thus, at the heart of Athanasius’s Christology was a religious rather than a speculative concern. That led him to conclude that the divine nature in Jesus was identical to that of the Father and that Father and Son have the same substance. He insisted on the need for the Nicene homoousios to express the Son’s unity with the Father.

This is a GREAT example of stuff the church should be teaching. This is part of the meat of the faith we have. Why is it so many say "Trinity" but the word itself is not even in the Bible? Perhaps we should teach them why.

Of course I can't list all the heresies on a forum (time). What I can tell you is this is why I argue we need to be learning this stuff. If we don't understand stuff, substances etc., then perhaps the church should be instructing it.
[/quote]

It seems to me that these rings you bring up would be "some" of more meat and need to be spiritually discerned and not all do- the milk is basically most of the New Testament then of course as Scripture says, we now see through a glass dimly. I do believe Jesus expounded much more about all of this while He was with His Apostles 40 days after resurrection and their understanding then was deeper. Milk does nourish and Peter said to desire the pure milk of the Word, but I have read writings of spiritually mature that are so deep that only the Holy Spirit could have given them these insights. It's very humbling. I don't think the average New Testament young Church was ready for that kind of depth imo.

[Valerie]

I was speaking more towards the early church history arguing between trinitarianism and Arianism.
I don’t personally think that celestial flesh is somehow a deeper heresy than some other heresy. I also don’t think that the nature of Christ’s flesh really matters that much. We know he came in the flesh, whether it was tissue provided from Mary or not doesn’t really matter. I doubt Menno Simmons really knew how biology worked. The big issue really circles over whether or not Jesus had better resistance to sin than we do if He had celestial flesh. To that I really don’t know and if the Holy Spirit overshadowed her as it says, then chances are there was something celestial within Him. Adam from a certain point of view had celestial flesh. Either way I don’t see that it’s significant enough to shun someone over it seems a little bit like semantics really.
I’m content to say that I don’t understand all the mysteries of Jesus or the relationship of Jesus and God. What I know is that he was fully human.

The problem with celestial flesh is Jesus comes from the seed of David (son of David). Celestial flesh eradicates the lineage cited in prophecy. It also makes null and void the genealogies in the scripture (one from Joseph the other Mary). You are right though it's no deeper heresy than many others. Menno indeed was decent and had some good foundations. The good thing about Anabaptists is we don't raise up a reformist inceptor as scripture. We appreciate but see him as a fallible man. Most Anabaptists would not agree with him (Menno) on divorce and remarriage for instance.

Depth of prophecy fulfilled (seed of David) from the Jews, the messiah through God's chosen people is all part of celestial flesh heresy. Where I find meat in this, is understanding who Jesus is, where he really came from, and especially HOW HE RELATES to us as man. Mary was a fallible mother. Joseph a fallible man. But they raised a perfect human son through Mary in lineage of King David.

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now it is already in the world. [1Jo 4:2,3 NASB20]

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. [2Jo 1:7 NASB20]

Sounds to me like the doctrine of the Son of Man, Jesus' humanity ie. His genealogy through His mother, is extremely important, nothing to be shrugged off as not mattering.

Amen. Jesus even asked the question and Peter's answer prompted Jesus to say "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but the Father" It did matter to Jesus but therin seems to be the problem- flesh & blood VS Spirit revelation & understanding.