aT2 JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF GOD AND SON OF MAN Part D 32

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" height=35 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="042f0f21egerdp.jpg"> <div> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="2" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="709" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 16 WIDTH="223"><div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Home Page"><U><B>Home Page Click Here</B></U></A></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="246"><div> <A HREF="homef7.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Index Page"><U><B>Article Indexes Click Here</B></U></A></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <A HREF="home.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Webb Site Introduction Page"><U><B>Site Introduction </B></U></A><A HREF="home.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Webb Site Introduction Page"><U><B>Click Here</B></U></A></div> </NOBR></tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" height=445 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="044f0f03.jpg"> <div> <A HREF="home168.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="aT2 JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF GOD, AND SON"><U>For the previous part of this article click here</U></A></div> <bR> <div> JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF GOD, AND SON OF MAN </div> <div> Section 2 Continued </div> <bR> <div> INDEX</div> <div> SECTION II  </div> <bR> <div>      Chapter 21, Pertains to the relation between "God the Father" and "Christ the Son".     </div> <div>      Chapter 22, Pertains to Christ's sinlessness.     </div> <div>      Chapter 23, Pertains to whether Christ had the (power of choice) ability to choose to do good or evil (commit sin).     </div> <div>      Chapter 24, Pertains to the similarity of Christ's earth life suffering and dying experience and the Christian's suffering and dying experience.     </div> <div>      Chapter 25, Pertains to the suffering and dying experience of the Christian.     </div> <div>      Chapter 26, Pertains to the similarity of the temptations of Christ and the Christian.     </div> <div>      Chapter 27, Pertains to the Christian's temptations.     Chapter 28, Pertains to the Christian being quickened together with Christ.     </div> <div> <I>V     </I>Chapter 29, Pertains to the relation between Christ's quickening Spirit and Christ's flesh (flesh as born from Mary before resurrection).     </div> <div>      Chapter 30, Pertains to sin and the "law of sin".     </div> <div> <I>V     </I>Chapter 31, Further pertains to Christ's sinlessness.</div> <div>      Chapter 32, Pertains to Eph 5:22-33.     </div> <div>      Chapter 33, Pertains to various terms and to how Christ related to human nature.     </div> <div>      Chapter 34, Pertains to beliefs that do not agree with the belief advocated herein.     </div> <bR> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="atchapter_32_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Chapter 32 </div> <bR> <div>      Considers Ephesians 5:22-33</div> <div>      Considers The One Flesh And Bone Aspect Of Man And Woman.</div> <div>      Considers The One Flesh And Bone Aspect Of </div> <div> Christ And His Church.</div> <bR> <div>      Gen 2:18 &&20-24, reveals that one's wife is one's own flesh reading, "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.  ...but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.  And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he <B>took one of his ribs</B>, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;  And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.  And Adam said, <B>This is now </B><B><U>bone of my bones</U></B><B>, and </B><B><U>flesh of my flesh</U></B>: she shall be called Woman, because <B>she was taken out of Man.  </B>Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."  Note how clearly this Scripture teaches that man and wife are the <B>same flesh and bones through creation, </B>and in marriage, appear to become one flesh in even a greater measure.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:1</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Ephesians 5:22-33 which is given below, with numerous comments, teaches a great similarity in the relation between "Christ and the church" as  compared to the "man and wife" relation.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:2</FONT></div> <div>      (Eph 5:22-24)  "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."<I>  Note how these three verses reveal a similarity in the relation of authority between "man and wife", as between "Christ and the church"</I>     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:3</FONT></div> <div>      (Eph 5:25-27)  "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;  That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,  That <B>he might present it to himself</B> a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."  <I>Husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church and should give themselves for their wives well-being so that they can prepare for themselves a glorious (virtuous) wife.</I><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:4</FONT></div> <div>      (Eph 5:28-30)  "So ought <B>men to love their wives as their own bodies</B>. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.  For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, <B>even as the Lord the church:  </B><B><U>For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones</U></B>."  <I>Note how these last three verses indicate that just as man naturally loves his wife because she is his own flesh so Christ also loves His Church (people), for His people are members of His body, </I><I><B>involving His very flesh and bones</B></I><I>.  One should here consider how Adam speaking of Eve said</I><I><B>, "This is now </B></I><I><B><U>bone of my bones</U></B></I><I><B>, and </B></I><I><B><U>flesh of my flesh</U></B></I><I>" and consider how man thus is drawn to woman because of such oneness, and therewith consider how Paul in these verses likens such to how Christ is drawn toward His people as they are also flesh of His flesh and bone of His bones. </I>     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:5</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Verses 30-33 also appear to compare the natural love man has for woman who is one flesh with him, with the natural love Christ has for the Church who also is one flesh with Him.  Although verse 30 was given above, for connections sake it is also given below.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:6</FONT></div> <div>      (Eph 5:30-33)  "For <B>we are members of his [Christ's] body, of his flesh, and of his bones</B>.  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.  <B>This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.</B>  Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband."<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:7</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The oneness in the flesh and bone of man and woman, quite clearly includes a oneness in their spiritual beings, and not merely a oneness in the material matter of their bodies.  So also it appears that Christ in coming in the flesh not only encountered or acquired man's body, but also encountered man's spirit which dwells in man's flesh and bones.  One should consider, if Christ in coming in the flesh had only acquired a oneness in man's body matter and acquired no oneness with man's spiritual being, Christ would not have had any encounter with the Christian's spiritual conflicts involving the spirit of man.  Christ in grafting upon Himself man's body and spirit is moved to love and save man whose body is inflicted with properties of corruption and whose spirit is inflicted with the "law of sin" (Adamic inclinations).  Christ is now at the right hand of the Father making intercession for mankind (Romans 8:34).  Christ in taking upon Himself mankind's situation obviously to some extent acquired a oneness with the non-Christian as well as with the Christian, yet since Christ's quickening Spirit dwells within the flesh and body of the Christian and does not dwell in the non-Christian, the non-Christian yet clearly is not one with Christ in the dimension the Christian is.     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:8</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      As woman is bone of man's bone and flesh of man's flesh and God instituted marriage between them, God also has instituted a marriage between <B>Christ</B> and the <B>true Christian</B> which two also are one flesh and bone.  Numerous Scriptures speak of Christ as the bridegroom, and the saints (Christians) as the bride.  Numerous Scriptures speak of a marriage wherein Christ and His saints (bride) will be united in a particular way for eternity.  Following are various Scriptures which portray the bride and bridegroom relation of the saints and Christ;       <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:9</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      (Matt 9:15)  Herein Jesus speaks of Himself as a bridegroom saying, "And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the <B>bridegroom</B> is with them? but the days will come, when the <B>bridegroom</B> shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast".  Note Mark 2:19-20 and Luke 5:34-35 read much the same. <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:10</FONT></div> <div>      (Matt 25:1-14)  Herein Jesus gives the parable of the "Five Wise and Five Foolish Virgins".  In this parable Jesus calls Himself a bridegroom and counts the Church as five wise and five foolish virgins. <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:11</FONT></div> <div>      (John 3:29)  Herein John the Baptist speaking of Christ as a bridegroom,  and of himself being a friend to Christ the bridegroom said, "He that hath the <B>bride</B> is the <B>bridegroom</B>: but the friend of the <B>bridegroom</B>, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the <B>bridegroom's</B> voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled"..      <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:11</FONT>.5</div> <div>      (2 Cor 11:2)  "For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one <B>husband</B>, that I may present you as a chaste <B>virgin</B> to Christ".     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:12</FONT></div> <div>      (Rev 14:4)  "These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are <B>virgins</B>.  These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:13</FONT></div> <div>      (Rev 19:7-9)  "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him: for the <B><U>marriage</U></B><B> of the Lamb is come, and his </B><B><U>wife</U></B><B> hath made herself ready.  And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.</B>  And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the <B><U>marriage</U></B><B> supper of the Lamb</B>.  And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God". <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:14</FONT></div> <div>      (Rev 21:2&9), "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a <B>bride</B> adorned for her <B>husband</B>.  And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee <B>the bride, the Lambs wife"</B>. <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:15</FONT></div> <div>      (Rev 22:17), "And the Spirit and the <B>bride</B> say, come... <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:16</FONT></div> <div>      (Mat 22:2)  "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,"     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:17</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      It is obvious that Adam's flesh was <B>not yet inflicted</B> with the "law of sin" and corruptive properties when Eve was taken from Adam, receiving bone of His bone and flesh of his flesh.  It also is obvious that man's flesh <B>was inflicted</B> with the "law of sin" and corruptive properties when Christ was born and taken of Mary receiving bone of her bone and flesh of her flesh.  Concerning the principle of a particular love being instigated <U>between Christ and man</U>, through Christ coming from man, it does not appear that this principle was annulled because of man's body and flesh being inflicted with the "law of sin and corruptive properties.  It is clear that Christ through grafting upon Himself man's situation and encountering that which man encounters was moved to be merciful to man.  Yet one should not think that Christ, through grafting upon Himself man's flesh and body, was moved to appreciate or accept the "law of sin" that dwells in man's flesh and body, but rather should understand that Christ, through grafting upon Himself man's situation, was additionally moved to love and save that which was inflicted with this "disease like element" in their body.     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:18</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <I>V     </I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Following is a parable pertaining to Christ's coming in the flesh; </FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:19</FONT></div> <div> <I>V     </I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >A certain King who was a Spirit (existed in spirit form) had a certain race of people under his domain, who through disobedience fell subject to a disease of involuntary movement from which they had no ability to recover.  Because of this disease, this race of people could in no way do good works such as to please their King, plus their body became subject to corruption and death.  The King had a law which was unalterable, which required that this race, because of their disobedience suffer eternal punishment, unless one who was without sin would bear the guilt of this race upon himself, and die in their place. </FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:20</FONT></div> <div> <I>V     </I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >The King had a Son who was in like form as His Father, and thus also was in Spirit form.  The King then in love for this race of people sent His Son to be among these diseased people and save these people.  The King's Son having a remedy for the disease of these people took upon Himself the body and situation of these diseased people.  The King's Son in doing so felt the impulses or compelling forces of the disease, but could overcome the disease and yet produce good works pleasing to His Father.</FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:21</FONT></div> <div> <I>V     </I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >The King's Son having taken on a body which was mortal (able to die), and having only done good works therein, was without sin and was able to die in these people's place as a sinless sacrifice and thereby pay their sin debt.  The King's Son after giving Himself a sinless sacrifice as a ransom for this people's disobedience, then resurrected into a new body free from all effects of the disease.  The King's Son in taking on the situation of the diseased race was moved in a particular way to love, be merciful to, and save that race which was inflicted with this disease.  The King's son by resurrecting from the diseased body into a body free from all affects of the disease, thereby proved He had a remedy for the disease, and proved that this race like himself could resurrect into a body free from all affects of this disease. </FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:22</FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>V     </I></FONT>The King's Son in being one flesh and blood with man, as Adam was one flesh and bone with Eve, is now in love with these people and counts them as His own bride and is awaiting a marriage wherein He will be united in marriage with those He came to earth in such a particular way to save.  <B>What a merciful and loving </B><B><U>God</U></B><B> and </B><B><U>Son of God</U></B><B>!</B><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-32:23</FONT></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> Section 2</div> <div>  <A NAME="atchapter_33"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Chapter 33</div> <bR> <div>      Considers The Terms "Evil Nature", "Human Nature", And "Divine Nature".</div> <div>      Considers The Terms "Evil Nature", "Human Nature", And "Divine Nature" With Regard To Christ And Man.</div> <div>      Considers The Terms "Original Sin", "Inherit Sin", "Personal Sin", and "Committed Sin".</div> <bR> <div>      Possibly there would be different definitions as to what the term "human nature" means.  The writer understands human nature, to be that inborn nature which man naturally possesses by his first and natural birth, and without a second and Spiritual birth (new birth).  Since man's human nature, as is acquired by his first and natural birth, is an evil nature, the terms <B>human nature</B> and <B>evil nature</B>, <U>basically pertain to the same lowly and depraved nature</U>.  The writer does not intend to try to divide between the terms "human nature" and "evil nature" as they basically are the same element, if not exactly.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:1</FONT></div> <div>      The terms "evil nature" and "human nature" do not appear in the Bible at all, while the term "divine nature" appears therein one time (King James Version).  The word nature appears in 11 verses,  while only about one half of these verses appear to use the word nature in speaking of Christ or man's nature.  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:2</FONT></div> <div>      The terms "law of sin" and "Adamic inclinations", which have been used <B><U>repeatedly</U></B> in this writing, pertain to the same <B>inborn evil element</B> as the terms <B>"human nature"</B> or <B>"evil nature"</B> pertain to.  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:3</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      In considering this subject it is important that one recognizes their is a vast difference in being controlled or possessed by a particular nature as compared to being in conflict with a particular nature.  The Christian through experiencing a second and Spiritual birth becomes a partaker of the divine nature and becomes a new creature in Christ.  Although the Christian is a partaker of the divine nature, yet it is obvious that at the same time, he also is in a conflict with his evil or human nature that yet dwells within him.  The Christian has the divine nature in respect to that nature guiding and ruling his life, while he also has an evil nature in respect to that nature ever attempting to gain control.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:4</FONT></div> <div>      One might ask the question whether Christ had a human nature.  In answering that question one must know what really is being asked by that question.  <B>Jesus did not have a human nature</B> in respect to that nature ruling and guiding His life.  <B>Yet it appears Jesus did have a human nature</B> in respect to such dwelling in His flesh and being an element which He needed to crucify and overcome.       <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:5</FONT></div> <div>      Yet in considering Christ's nature with respect to His nature being that degree of sanctification He possessed, it is clear Jesus had a Holy and pure nature even superior to the divine nature which the Christian is a partaker of.  In considering Christ and the Christian's nature, with respect to <U>their natures being</U> that degree of sanctification they possess, it is clear their natures are not equal.  One should again consider, the Christian needs Christ's righteousness imputed to him, while Christ obviously does not need the Christian's righteousness imputed to Him.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:6</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Following are two quotes of Irenaeus concerning the nature of Christ;     "Therefore, as I have already said, He caused man (human nature) to cleave to and to become one with God.  For unless man had overcome the enemy of man, the enemy would not have been legitimately vanquished" (Book 1, Page 448).<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:7</FONT></div> <div>      "For as He became man in order to undergo temptation...  ...that He might be capable of being tempted, dishonoured, crucified, and of suffering death, but the human nature being swallowed up in it (the divine), when it conquered, and endured [without yielding], and performed acts of kindness...."  "He had a generation as to His human nature from Mary".  (Book 1, Page 449).       <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:8</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The terms "<B>committed sin"</B> and <B>"personal sin"</B>, are terms which pertain strictly to sin as in transgression of God's law, while the word sin can pertain to either transgression of God's law, or the "law of sin" (Adamic inclinations).  Jesus obviously was not guilty of either "committed sin" or "personal sin" because He perfectly did His Father's will and perfectly kept God's law.     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:9</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The terms <B>"</B><B><U>original sin</U></B><B>"</B>, <B>"</B><B><U>inherit sin</U></B><B>"</B>, <B>"law of sin"</B>,<B> "Adamic inclinations"</B>,<B> "evil nature", </B>and<B> "human nature"</B> all six pertain to that same inborn evil element which man inherits from his ancestors.  In considering man's inherited<B> element of evil</B>, no matter what name it may be given, it obviously is that same evil root that causes man, by nature to be selfish and proud. <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:10</FONT></div> <div>      Man's<B> inborn element of evil</B>, is best defined and understood by considering the different Scriptures which speak of it.  Yet the writer feels Webster's Dictionary gives a good definition for the term "original sin" reading; <I>"the state of sin that according to Christian theology characterizes all human beings as a result of Adam's fall"</I>.  One encyclopedia writer, writing about "original sin" wrote; <I>"Although original sin is inherited and not personally committed, </I><I><U>it is sin in a profound sense since it is the state of</U></I><I><B><U> total alienation</U></B></I><I><U> from God</U></I><I>."</I>  This encyclopedia writer is quite correct in respect to the impact "original sin" has had on <U>mere created mankind (humanity)</U>.  Yet firstly considering <B><U>all Scriptures</U></B>, secondly considering that Christ <B>was not only mere man</B>, but <B>also was the eternal Son of God</B> who together with God created man at the first, and thirdly considering the<B> overcoming power of Christ's quickening Spirit</B>, it is quite obvious that Christ, unlike man, was not totally alienated from God by encountering <B>in His inherited flesh, </B>that "original sin" (Adamic inclinations), whereby man is totally alienated from God.  It rather appears, that Jesus <B>by encountering</B> "original sin" in His flesh, and <B>by fully overcoming and bringing such to naught,</B> and <B>by resurrecting</B> from such, was thereby paving the way for man's deliverance from such, <U>and truly being the first fruit of the resurrection</U>.  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:10.5</FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>V     </I></FONT>Considering all the above and considering all Scriptures, <U>what or who truly has the authority to say</U> that, <B>although Christ was everything that He was,</B> He yet of necessity, would have been disabled and alienated from God as is mankind, had He encountered the "law of sin" in His inherited flesh?  This question should be soberly considered.  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:11</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>V     </I></FONT>Those who <B>believe or conclude</B> that Christ during His earth life experience in the flesh, had <B>not taken  flesh or humanity from Mary</B>, nor<B> taken upon Himself a corruptible and mortal body,</B> nor<B> encountered the law of sin,</B> should consider that many contradictions or inconsistencies, are created by disconnecting Christ from the flesh as such.  Following is a list of such inconsistencies;<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:12</FONT></div> <div> <I>V     </I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Firstly, Christ would not truly have been of the seed of David according to the flesh, (note many Scriptures pertain to such)</FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:13</FONT></div> <div> <I>V     </I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Secondly, Mary would not have truly conceived, before she brought forth her son Jesus, </FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:14</FONT></div> <div> <I>V     </I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Thirdly, the angel which took Mary, that she would conceive and bring forth a Son, likely greatly misled Mary,  because Mary while thinking she would conceive and bring forth a son, rather than truly being Christ's mother largely was Christ's incubator,</FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:15</FONT></div> <div> <I>V     </I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Forthly, Jesus would not truly have been the Son of man, (note in 80 verses Jesus spoke of Himself as being such),    </FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:16</FONT></div> <div> <I>V     </I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Fifthly, Christ would not truly have been tempted like to the Christian nor would He truly have overcome together with the Christian, (note many Scriptures pertain to this principle),</FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:17</FONT></div> <div> <I>V     </I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Sixthly, the Christian would not truly suffer and die together with Christ, and would not truly be dead to sin together with Christ, (note many Scriptures pertain to this principle),</FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:18</FONT></div> <div> <I>V     </I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Seventhly, the Christian would not already in his earth life, truly be quickened together and risen with Christ, (note numerous Scriptures pertain to this principle),</FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:19</FONT></div> <div> <I>V     </I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Eighthly, Christ could not, truly and fully have been the firstfuit of the resurrection, (note this is a most vital issue and many Scriptures pertain to this principle),</FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:20</FONT></div> <div> <I>V     </I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Ninthly, Christ's resurrection from the dead, could not truly and fully be used to preach and prove the resurrection from the dead, as was done by the apostles. (note many Scriptures pertain to this principle),     </FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:21</FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>V     </I></FONT>Tenthly, Christ could largely not have possessed the <B>true oneness with man</B> as numerous verses throughout the Bible, and the following verses reveal;  "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of <B>flesh and blood, he also himself likewise </B><B><U>took part of the same</U></B><B>..."</B>, "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he <B>took on him the </B><B><U>seed</U></B><B> of Abraham</B>.  Wherefore <B><U>in all things</U></B><B> it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren</B>..." (Heb 2:14&16-17) <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:22</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>V     </I></FONT>One should consider how the belief or view that declares that Christ in coming in the flesh,<B> inherited nothing from Mary, </B>was<B> never in a corruptible or mortal body,</B> and had<B> no encounter with the law of sin,</B> firstly confuses vital principles of the doctrine of Christ, secondly annuls basic principles of the resurrection of the dead, and thirdly confuses or distorts a large portion of the entire New Testament as well as numerous Scriptures of the Old Testament.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:23</FONT></div> <div> <I>V     </I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >In was with meaning that John wrote the following;</FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>V     </I></FONT>(John 4:3)  "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh <B>is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,</B> whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:24</FONT></div> <div> <I>V     </I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >(2 John 1:7)  "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."     </FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:25</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Following are several verses wherein God promised King David that he and his descendents would receive an everlasting throne;<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:27</FONT></div> <div>      (2 Sam 7:12-13&16)  "And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.  He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom <B>for ever</B>.  And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established <B>for ever</B> before thee: thy throne shall be established <B>for ever</B>."<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:28</FONT></div> <div>      (Psa 89:3-4)  "I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,  Thy seed will I establish <B>for ever</B>, and build up thy throne to <B>all generations</B>. Selah."<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:29</FONT></div> <div>      (Psa 89:28-29)  "My mercy will I keep for him <B>for evermore</B>, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.  His seed also will I make <I>to endure </I><B>for ever,</B> and his throne as the<B> days of heaven."</B><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:30</FONT></div> <div>      (Psa 89:34-37)  "My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.  Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.  His seed shall endure <B>for ever</B>, and his throne <B>as the sun</B> before me.  It shall be established <B>for ever as the moon</B>, and <I>as </I>a faithful witness in heaven. Selah."<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:31</FONT></div> <div>      (Psa 132:11-12)  "The LORD hath sworn <I>in </I>truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.  If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne <B>for evermore</B>."<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:32</FONT></div> <div>      <B>One should consider how nicely the above Scriptures could be fulfilled in the everlasting throne of Christ, who was a literal descendent of King David according to the flesh.  </B><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:34</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Isaiah 53:2 speaking of Christ's coming in the flesh reads, "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a <B>root out of a dry ground</B>: he hath <U>no form nor comeliness</U>; and when we shall see him, there is <U>no beauty</U> that we should desire him." (Isaiah 53:2).  Note considering <U>all Scriptures</U>, it is quite obvious that the term "<B><U>root</U></B><B> out of a </B><B><U>dry ground</U></B>" as used in this verse, cannot be interpreted to mean that Christ inherited <U>nothing at all</U> from mankind, but rather appears such term could pertain to Christ being born without a human father, and of a virgin,  and also pertain to Christ thus possessing a root from His heavenly Father such as man clearly does not have.  Note how this verse also indicates Jesus had a feeble human body as we do, as this verse rather than speaking of Christ having a glorious body, speaks of Christ having "no form nor comeliness and no beauty that we should desire him".  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:35</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Concerning the origin of a child, it appears that not only is a child's appearance affected by both of his parents, but also a child's character or personality as well is affected by both of his parents.  Thus a normal human being, is very obviously made up of both his mother and father while yet being one person.  Thus it appears Christ, although His whole person involved God and man, yet was largely as one person.  Yet He was a divided person in respect to His powerful quickening Spirit and weak flesh, both being a part of Him.  The Christian also is a divided person with respect to the Spirit of God dwelling within his weak flesh.  Such division results in that, "...the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would"  (Gal 5:17). <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:36</FONT></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> Jesus Whole Person Suffered</div> <div>      Although the Christian is divided as such yet when any member of his physical body suffers the whole body suffers with it.  Paul comparing the <B>human body</B> with the <B>Church</B> said   "And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it."  (1 Cor 12:26).  Although Christ's Spirit was far different than His weak flesh, yet it appears when Christ suffered for us His whole person, involving body and Spirit or Soul suffered.  Isaiah speaking of Christ's suffering said,  "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.  Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.  But he <B>was wounded</B> for our transgressions, he <B>was bruised</B> for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed....  ...Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make<B> his soul</B> an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.  He shall see of the <B>travail of his soul,</B> and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities."  (Isa 53:3-5&10-11).  Jesus clearly reveals that <B>His soul was under great sorrow and distress</B> when He was about to be crucified in that prior to His crucifixion He said, "Now is my <B>soul</B> troubled; and what shall I say? Father save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour" (John 12:27), "...My <B>soul</B> is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death..." (Matt 26:38, Mark 14:34 reads much the same).  John 11:33 and John 13:21 speak of Christ<B> being troubled in His Spirit and groaning in His Spirit.</B>  To know exactly how Christ's quickening Spirit related to His weak flesh is likely impossible, yet it is clear that when Jesus suffered for us, He suffered like we ourselves would have suffered!  Oh may man ever be careful, to not minimize what Christ suffered, in redeeming us!!<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-33:37</FONT></div> <bR> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> Section 2</div> <div>  <A NAME="atchapter_34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Chapter 34</div> <bR> <div>      Considers Beliefs, Which In Regards To Christ's Flesh And Nature, Strongly Disagree With The View That Is Promoted In this Writing.</div> <bR> <div>      The Catholic Church believes that Mary the mother of Jesus at her birth, through experiencing a special <B>"immaculate conception"</B>, was kept entirely free from that original sin (law of sin) which all of Adam's descendents normally inherit.  Such Church believes that Mary was a new Eve, and thus shared that same sinlessness that the first Eve possessed at creation, before she disobeyed God and thus became subject to the curse.  The Catholic Church through advocating as such, that Mary Christ's mother never encountered original or inherit sin in her flesh, quite obviously also believes that Christ was sinless, not only with respect to transgression of God's law, but also with<B> respect to never encountering "original sin (inherit sin)"</B> in His flesh.  The Catholics believe that Mary was without sin and spot, and believe that Mary was taken both body and soul to heaven.  By the year 400 A.D., it appears their belief in Mary never encountering the "law of sin" was already largely established.  The Catholic's belief concerning Mary never inheriting or encountering the "law of sin" (original sin), involves their doctrine called the doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception".  The Catholic doctrine about Mary being taken both body and soul to heaven is called the doctrine of "The Assumption".<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:1</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Menno Simons, who broke away from the Catholic Church about year 1536 wrote very extensively on the subject of Christ's incarnation.  In his writing he never promoted the Catholic view of Mary's sinlessness, but yet strongly promotes Christ to be sinless in respect to never encountering the "law of sin" in His flesh.  He was a firm believer that Christ <B>did not</B> receive His flesh from Mary.  He was a strong believer that Christ's flesh was brought into existence by the <B>Word Himself becoming (turning into) flesh rather than Christ receiving His flesh from Mary</B>.  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:2</FONT></div> <div>      Although Menno <B>unlike </B>the Catholics recognized that Mary was a normal depraved human, yet Menno because of recognizing such and then because of thinking, Christ would have been sinful and condemned, had He inherited anything from Mary, earnestly interpreted or adjusted all Scriptures to fit the belief that Christ did not inherit anything from Mary. <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:3</FONT></div> <div>      The Catholics because of believing that <B>both</B> Mary and Christ equally had no contact or encounter with the "law of sin", likely had no reason to divide Mary from Christ as did Menno, yet they also were in error.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:4</FONT></div> <div>      Following is a quote of Menno's which contains one of his most basic beliefs on the incarnation of Christ;  The quotations of Menno that are given in this chapter, are <B>all</B> found in a volume entitled "The Complete Writings Of Menno Simons", by Herold Press;<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:5</FONT></div> <div> <I>     "In the second place I say, </I><I><B>If the man Christ were a </B></I><I><B><U>natural fruit and seed</U></B></I><I><B> of the </B></I><I><B><U>impure, sinful flesh of Adam</U></B></I><I><B>,</B></I><I> then He would also, because of the unending righteousness of God, be guilty of the judgment and of death itself,  And if He were Himself guilty,, how could He redeem us?  Must it be admitted that God's justice terminated and that the sinful had atoned for sin, the condemned for condemnation, and the guilty for death?"</I>  (Page 807).  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:6</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      One should again remember how the first section of this writing in chapters 6-8 spoke of "spirit" being evil without possessing flesh.  <B>Those evil spirits that Christ cast out definitely were evil while not having flesh.</B>  In such chapters was revealed that "law of sin" dwells initially in the spirit of man and then subsequently in the flesh, as the spirit of man dwells in man's flesh.  One should again remember how such chapters <B>very clearly revealed</B> that man's flesh <B>as body matter</B> (<U>the material matter of the body</U>) is not evil of it's self just like material matter of an evil book is not evil of it's self.  One should also remember how section one of this writing then <B>spoke of the possibility</B> of Christ having inherited man's flesh (material matter of the body) without inheriting the spirit of man and the "law of sin".  The end of section one, then advocated that <B>Christ </B><B><U>at least</U></B><B> inherited man's flesh (body matter).</B>  One should consider that many Scriptures speak of Christ being a descendant of man, while numerous Scriptures speak of Christ being the seed of mankind <B>according to the flesh</B>.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:7</FONT></div> <div>      This the second section of this writing, advocated that although Christ inherited an element of flesh from Mary, the person of Christ yet consisted of much more than mere man.  It advocated that Christ's flesh as born from Mary was an obstacle which Christ's quickening Spirit overcame and had a solution for.  This section strongly promoted the belief that Jesus was sinless and blameless because of striving against and wholly overcoming the <B>"law of sin"</B> rather than being sinless and blameless because of having no encounter or contact or temptation therewith.  This section advocated that Christ was a <B><U>sinless sacrifice</U></B><B>, acceptable and uncondemned before His Father</B>, <U>qualified to be a  ransom for our sins</U>, because He perfectly overcame the <B>"law of sin"</B> and never transgressed His Fathers will or law in any way,  rather than because of having no contact or encounter or temptation with the "law of sin" in His flesh such as man does.  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:8</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>V     </I></FONT>Menno is very right in his above stated belief, that man or man's sinful flesh of it's self could not have redeemed us.  Yet Menno does not seem to have recognized the possibility that Christ, <B>because of</B> <B>being </B><B><U>much more</U></B><B> than mere man</B>, could have inherited our flesh without being disabled and condemned as is mere man by such encounter.  Nor does Menno seem to have understood that Jesus could have inherited our flesh without actually redeeming us by the power of such flesh, while much rather Christ in inheriting our <B>mortal</B> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >(able to die)</FONT> flesh containing the "law of sin"; <B>thereby had opportunity</B> to encounter man's situation, <B>opportunity</B> to be tempted like man, <B>opportunity</B> to truly and fully overcome that which man encounters, <B>opportunity</B> to die for our sins, <B>opportunity</B> to provide a remedy for and truly resurrect from our situation, and <B>opportunity</B> to prove to us that we like Him can also resurrect from our lowly situation! <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:9</FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>V     </I></FONT>If your son, although <B>he knew</B> it would cause him much pain<B>, unselfishly</B> allowed a diseased arm to be grafted onto himself, because he knew by doing such he could developed a remedy for this disease for others as well as for himself; would you then in thinking of your son, think of him as being that diseased arm, or would you think of him as being an unselfish and loving son?  Further, in considering your son's situation, would you <B>condemn and disown him,</B> because of his contact with that diseased arm,<B> </B>or would you <B>additionally honor him</B> because he was willing to bear such pain to save others from this disease?  Considering all Scriptures it appears just like the above son would not have been condemned or disowned for his loving sacrifice, although he was in contact with an impure element, so Jesus being much more than mere man and having a solution such as man does not have, was not condemned or made disqualified to be our redeemer because of encountering the disease like, "law of sin" in His flesh as born from Mary.  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:10</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Although the writer cannot agree with Menno in declaring that Christ inherited nothing from Mary and declaring that Mary's only connection with Christ was giving Him nourishment and birth, yet the writer appreciates the following quotations of Menno; <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:11</FONT></div> <div>      <I>"And thus He was born, </I><I><B>according to the flesh</B></I><I>, as was said above, of the </I><I><U>seed or linage of David</U></I><I>; and </I><I><B>by His saving Spirit </B></I><I>He is proved to be the living</I><I><B> </B></I><I><U>Son of God</U></I><I><B><U>.</U></B></I><I>  Rom 1:4.  </I><I><B>For if He were to prove or declare Himself to be the Son Of God, </B></I><I><B><U>it must, without doubt, be according to His sanctifying Spirit,</U></B></I><I> inasmuch as He </I><I><B>could not be such according to the flesh</B></I><I>, since He had diminished Himself, and was forsaken of the Father, was weak, despised, hungry, thirsty, suffering, mortal, and like unto us all in all things, yet without sin.  Beloved brethren, take heed!  the alleged Scripture of Paul is very clear and everywhere it has the same single stamp"</I>  (Page 435).<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:12</FONT></div> <div>      <I>"He was afflicted, hungry, thirsty, </I><I><B>subject to suffering and death, according to the flesh;</B></I><I><U> immortal according to the Spirit</U></I><I>, like unto us in all things, sin excepted.  Heb 2:9.  Truly God and man, man and God"</I>  (Page 428)".  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:13</FONT></div> <div>      Note how Menno in the above 2 paragraphs nicely and clearly divides Christ's person into the aspects of <B>weak flesh</B> and <B>powerful Spirit !!</B> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:14</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Micron was an individual with whom Menno severely disagreed.  Although Menno nicely and clearly, as in the above paragraphs, divided Christ's flesh and Spirit, yet Menno repeatedly reproved Micron for dividing or improperly dividing Christ's person, as in his following quotations;.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:15</FONT></div> <div>      <I>"Micron makes use of a simile that even as body and soul are an undivided man, thus the son of God and the Son of Mary are an undivided person.  Mark for the third time, two sons and a divided Christ"</I>  (Page 866)     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:16</FONT></div> <div>      <I>"Micron says that David confessed Christ to be </I><I><B>his</B></I><I> </I><I><B>Lord according to His deity</B></I><I>, and to be </I><I><B>his son according to His humanity.</B></I><I>  Psalm 110:1; Matt 22:42.  Two sons and a divided Christ, for the eighteenth time!</I>  (Page 872).<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:17</FONT></div> <div>      <I>"They include two different persons and sons, one divine and the other human, in the one Christ, without Scripture; and we say that their is but one undivided person and son, according to the Scriptures".</I>  (Page 910)<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:18</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Menno further says <I>"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us...  This testimony of John we believe to be correct.  That is the reason we let it stand unviolated, in order that the </I><I><B>entire Christ many continue to be God's son</B></I><I>".  (Page 795)</I><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:19</FONT></div> <div> <I>     "I know that the </I><I><B>whole undivided Christ is God's first and only begotten and true Son</B></I><I>, and that those who contradict this are the spirits of Antichrist; "</I>(Page 927).     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:19.5</FONT></div> <div>      <I>"For since He is the only and true Son of God, having </I><I><B>no other origin than God</B></I><I>...".</I>  (Page 901).     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:20</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      In considering that above 3 paragraphs the writer wonders how the vital truth of Christ also being the son of man, fits into the above statements concerning the whole and entire Christ being the Son of God.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:21</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Menno, as in His following quotes, often stresses that the Word became flesh rather than entering into or taking on a body of man's flesh;<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:22</FONT></div> <div>      <I>"Again, this is the sure testimony of John the servant of God and of Christ, concerning the incarnation of Jesus Christ. The Word became flesh. John 1:14.  He does not say, The Word took unto itself flesh"</I> (Page 431)     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:23</FONT></div> <div>      <I>"Now by the grace of God we will proceed and maintain by the power of the Scriptures </I><I><B>that they </B></I><I><B><U>err abominably</U></B></I><I><B> who say,</B></I><I> 'The word is not become flesh, but it has taken unto itself our flesh or a man of our flesh'..."</I>  (803-804)<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:24</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The writer, likely has not read near all of Menno's writing on the incarnation, yet has counted more than 20 times places where it was advocated that the Word himself became or turned into flesh.  Menno speaking of what he believed was involved in the "Word" becoming flesh, taught that the "Word" in becoming flesh basically remained what it formally was but mainly had changed forms.  In considering that Menno's belief largely advocates that Christ's flesh was one with the eternal and powerful "Word", the writer wonders how such belief can be in agreement with Jesus telling His disciples that His own flesh profiteth nothing (John 6:63) and with all those verses that speak of Christ's flesh as being weak element, and an obstacle that Christ's quickening Spirit overcame. <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:25</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      According to the 3 following quotes of Menno's, it appears that Menno felt it would have been impossible for Christ to have received flesh from Mary and yet been the true Son of God; <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:26</FONT></div> <div>      <I>"In the third place I would say, Whoever asserts that the man Christ is a natural fruit and seed of Adam, Abraham, David, and of the woman, he also asserts that there are two persons in Christ, two sons; that the Father is no true father, the mother no true mother and the Son no true son, as has been said before."</I>  (Page 807)     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:27</FONT></div> <div>      <I>"It follows mightily that </I><I><B><U>if</U></B></I><I> the Word or the eternal Son of God did so take on Him such a man of Mary's flesh and blood and united Himself therewith into one person and son, </I><I><B>as our opponents speculate</B></I><I>, then God the Father was not the true father of Christ, Mary not the true mother, Christ not a true Son, and all the Scriptures are thereby denied which confess Christ to be the first and only begotten, the true Son of God, without any distinction between divine or human, between flesh and spirit, visible and invisible, immortal and mortal, as we have explained above and below, with the Word of the Lord.  You may in the fear of God judge by the Scriptures whether this cannot be rightly called a blasphemous absurdity and an open denial of both the Father and the Son."</I>  (Page 881)<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:28</FONT></div> <div>      <I>"It follows mightily that if Mary begot the human Christ from her flesh, as the learned ones say, that she must have been not only the mother but also the father, for from the beginning it was ordained that in order to procreate their must be both a father and a mother and no child can be born without a father, as can be gather from the Scriptures and nature.  Whether this is not an unheard of absurdity, judge from Scripture"</I> (Page 880).     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:29</FONT></div> <div>      May the reader as well as the writer, with sincerity of heart and clarity of mind, rightly judge Menno's view on the incarnation of Christ.  Concerning the above 3 paragraphs, the writer must admit he has difficulty in understanding Menno's thinking, and in understanding exactly what Menno is trying to say.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:30</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The following quote of Menno reveals that his belief on the incarnation was not a belief well established in his day, but rather, was a belief that he instigated or a belief quite new to those of his day that he excepted and then promoted;  The following quote of Menno's is found in his article entitled "The Incarnation Of Christ".<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:31</FONT></div> <div>      <I>"...notwithstanding there are many among us who fear the Lord from their inmost hearts and have never in their lives heard a word spoken in regarded to the mystery of this matter, as was declared above.  Neither have they enquired into it, much less understood it"</I>  (Page 431).<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:32</FONT></div> <div>      Menno also in such article writes;  <I>"For I know full well that here are few who can understand this intricate matter, even after it is explained to them"</I> (Page 431).     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:33</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The Catholic church places a lot of emphasis on Gen 3:15 which reads <B>"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;</B> it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel".   In this verse God was telling the serpent (Satan) of his plight, because he had beguiled and encouraged Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit.  The Catholic church takes above Gen 3:15 to mean that their was a <B>perpetual </B>enmity between <B><U>Mary</U></B><U> the mother of Jesus</U>, and the <U>serpent</U>.  Such Church believes that <B>Mary was a new Eve</B> and feels that Mary could not have<B> even for a moment</B>, encountered the law of sin in her flesh, or that perpetual enmity could not have existed between her and the serpent.  <B>Such Church places a lot of emphases on </B><B><U>Gen 3:15</U></B> and believes that just as the first Eve brought sin into the world, so <B>Mary being the second Eve</B> had a vital position in undoing the knot of sin which the first Eve created.  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:34</FONT></div> <div>      Although Menno disagreed with the Catholics beliefs and left the Catholic Church, his following quote appears to be to some extent affected by the Catholics view of Gen 3:15;  Menno in writing of Christ's incarnation writes; <I>"...Christ Jesus forever blessed   is the Lord from heaven (1 Cor 14:47); the promised spiritual seed of their </I><I><B>new and spiritual Eve (</B></I><I><B><U>Gen 3:15</U></B></I><I><B>)</B></I><I>, namely, the eternal Truth (John 14:16); </I><I><B>the mighty Conqueror of the serpent and his seed (</B></I><I><B><U>Gen 3:15</U></B></I><I><B>.</B></I><I>..."</I>  (Page 427).     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:35</FONT></div> <div>      As Menno in his background, had the Catholics view of Christ and Mary<B> </B><B><U>both</U></B><B> being </B><B><U>without any</U></B><B> contact or encounter with the "law of sin" in their flesh</B>, one must be careful to judge Menno to harshly for his view of Christ sinlessness as in being without any contact or encounter with the "law of sin", and also give him credit that he did not accept the Catholic's view that Mary was without sin.  Yet it has often saddened the writer to see how Menno often quite harshly refuted his opponent who on this particular point likely was more right than he himself.  .<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:36</FONT></div> <div>      Although Menno seemed very strong and settled on his view on the incarnation of Christ, he yet toward the end of one of his writings on the incarnation writes; <I>"I say to you, if you have plainer Scriptures concerning this article of the incarnation of Christ; if you have a clearer basis, plainer truth, or clearer proof than we have, then assist us, and I will by the grace of God change my mind in regard to the matter and accept your view."</I>  (Page 452).     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:37</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      As was revealed above, Menno placed a lot of emphases on the statement of John 1:14 which reads, "And the <B>Word was </B><B><U>made</U></B><B> [became] flesh</B>".  In considering this statement one should consider that such statement has two possible interpretations, <B>which both are very proper, but yet are </B><B><U>greatly different</U></B><B>.</B>  The one interpretation would be like saying the <U>water</U> was made or became <U>steam</U> or the <U>ice</U> was made or became <U>water</U>.  In such interpretation the <U>water</U> <B>itself turned into</B> the <U>steam</U> which it had become, or the <U>ice</U> <B>itself turned into</B> the <U>water</U> which it had become.  Such interpretation is obviously what Menno earnestly advocated.  The other interpretation of this statement would be like <B>an individual placing a </B><B><U>spear head</U></B><B> on a </B><B><U>rod</U></B>, and then saying this rod was made or became a spear, or like one placing a <U>"car body"</U> on his <U>Dune Buggy (go cart)</U> and saying my Dune Buggy was made a car.  In the latter interpretation the <B>rod itself did not turn into</B> and become the spear head, but rather the rod had the spear head grafted onto itself.  In like manner the Dun Buggy <B>itself did not turn into</B> the car body, but rather the Dune Buggy had the car body grafted onto itself.  In this interpretation two elements were brought together and combined while yet each element continued to be its own particular thing and continued to have it's own individual qualities.  In consideration of this statement of John 1:14 without regard to any other Scriptures, the Word could have became flesh just like the water became steam thus Christ's flesh consisting solely of the Word, or the Word could have become flesh like the rod became a spear, thus through the taking on an additional element or feature.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:38</FONT></div> <div>      In considering how very proper both above interpretations are, and yet how absolutely different they are, one must choose that interpretation that best agrees with the other Scriptures that speak of Christ coming in the flesh.  All of chapter 11 of the first section of this writing pertained to understanding <B>whether the Word was made flesh</B> by turning into and being transformed into flesh, or by taking on or entering into a body of flesh.  In paragraphs <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT-</I></FONT>11:24-33 of such chapter were given numerous Scriptures which speaking of Christ's involvement with the flesh, use the terms <B>taking on</B>, <B>taking part,</B> <B>coming in</B>, and being <B>manifest in</B>.  Many clear Scriptures and principles were given therein which clearly revealed that the Word took upon Himself a body of flesh rather than turning into and becoming flesh.  This chapter should possibly be reviewed by the reader.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:39</FONT></div> <div>      The writer feels it is <B>proper and right to believe and state that the Word became flesh</B>, yet only with respect to Christ taking on a body of flesh or being manifest in a body of flesh.  One should again consider how the <B><U>rod</U></B><B> became a </B><B><U>spear</U></B> by taking on a spear head, and the <B><U>Dune Buggy</U></B><B> became a </B><B><U>car</U></B> by dwelling within a car body.  Yet  the writer does not feel comfortable with stating the "the Word <B>himself</B> became flesh" since such wording, to quite an extent must mean to <B>turn into</B>, rather than to <B>take on </B>or be<B> manifest in.</B>  Yet the writer hesitates to even state, the "the Word became flesh" as such can be so easily misunderstood. <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:40</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Menno said <I>"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us...  </I><I><B>This testimony of John we believe to be correct.  That is the reason we let it stand unviolated</B></I><I>, in order that the </I><I><U>entire Christ many continue to be God's son</U></I><I>".</I>  (Page 795).  Menno on the 2 pages surrounding this quote, <B>four times</B> stressed that the <B>Word had become flesh</B>, to thereby prove that Christ had not taken upon Himself a man of Mary's flesh.  It appears Menno too much used this Scripture, with his interpretation thereof, as a foundational Scripture, to which other Scriptures must yield.  Although Menno appears to have been quite wrong on his view of the incarnation yet it is true that on many issues Menno had a good vision.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:41</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Menno Simons, who was a very influential leader in his day, had many followers.  Such followers are now known as Mennonites, although by now they are greatly divided in beliefs and appearance.  Menno's belief on the incarnation is largely taught in numerous Confessions of Faith written by the early followers of Menno Simons.  Yet it appears that from the first, there were questions and disputes about Menno's view on this doctrine.  Following are given some quotes, from four such Confessions of Faith.  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:42</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The quotes in the following paragraph are found within article 14 of the Confession of Faith know as the 33 Article of Faith;  This confession of Faith, written about 1600 A.D. promotes Menno's view of the incarnation most strongly; <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:43</FONT></div> <div> <I>     "...the </I><I><B>true, real Word</B></I><I>, which was in the beginning with God, and by which all things were created.  The same, through the effectual power of the Almighty God, </I><I><B>became flesh</B></I><I> , or man, in her..."  "Hence, all true witnesses of Jesus Christ are bound, by virtue of the Holy Scriptures, to confess: That this same </I><I><B>Word</B></I><I>, which was in the beginning with God, and was God, by which all things were made, proceeded from God His Father, came into the world, and through the power of God, </I><I><B>became </B></I><I><B><U>Himself</U></B></I><I><B> man or flesh</B></I><I>, so that the glory of the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth, was touched and seen."  </I><I><B>"...because His flesh or body</B></I><I><B><U> became flesh,</U></B></I><I><B> </B></I><I><B><U>not of Mary</U></B></I><I><B> or of any created substance, but only of the Word of life which had come down from Heaven". </B></I><I> "...He prepared Him a body, not of any created substance, </I><I><B>but only of the Word of life, which </B></I><I><B><U>became</U></B></I><I><B> flesh"</B></I><I>.</I> (Martyrs Mirror, Page 386-387)     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:44</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The following quote is found in a Confession of Faith called the  "Second Confession";  This Confession was written in 1630 A.D. and was accepted by a large group of Ministers from different areas about that time.     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:45</FONT></div> <div> <I>     </I><I><B>"And since there has been for many years , and still is daily, </B></I><I><B><U>much disputation</U></B></I><I><B>, concerning this birth of our Saviour, according to the flesh;</B></I><I>  therefore, we believe and confess...  ...that this same, real Word, in the fullness of the time, came forth from the Father...  ...</I><I><B>and </B></I><I><B><U>became</U></B></I><I><B>  flesh</B></I><I>, </I><I><U>remaining what He had been</U></I><I> namely, God and the Son of God, and </I><I><U>becoming, what He had not been</U></I><I>, namely, </I><I><U>man and the son of man</U></I><I>...  ...we confess that the Child which Mary bore...  ...was </I><I><B>outwardly</B></I><I> and </I><I><B>inwardly</B></I><I>, </I><I><B>visibly</B></I><I> and </I><I><B>invisibly</B></I><I>, as He sojourned here, the </I><I><B>only, own, and true Son of God</B></I><I>, and the Redeemer of us all"</I>.  (Martyrs Mirror, Page 34).  Note how this quote reveals that for many years there was much disputing in regards to this subject.  Although this confession appears to largely and possibly totally uphold Menno's beliefs, yet for some reason, it no where makes a special or emphatic statement concerning, Christ not receiving His flesh from Mary, nor does it state the Word <B>himself</B> became flesh.  Yet since this article in speaking of Christ being the Son of God, uses the terms<B> outwardly, inwardly, visibly, and invisibly</B> it quite obviously is quite influenced by Menno's view.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:46</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The following quote is found in article 4 of a Confession of Faith called the "18 Articles of Faith" (also called the third confession);  This confession was written in 1632 A.D. and was accepted by a large group of Ministers from different areas about that time.     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:47</FONT></div> <div> <I>     "We believe and confess further...  ...this previously promised Messiah, Redeemer and Saviour, proceeded from God...  ...came into the world, </I><I><B>yea, </B></I><I><B><U>into</U></B></I><I><B> the flesh,</B></I><I> was made manifest, and </I><I><B>the Word, </B></I><I><B><U>Himself</U></B></I><I><B> became flesh</B></I><I> and man; that He was conceived in the virgin Mary, who was espoused to a man named Joseph, of the house of David; and that she brought Him forth </I><I><B>as</B></I><I> her first born son...".  "...who was brought into the world, and to whom a body was prepared...  ...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".</I>  (Martyrs Mirror, Page 39-40)  Although this confession appears to largely or totally uphold Menno's beliefs, yet for some reason it also no where makes a special or emphatic statement concerning, Christ not receiving His flesh from Mary.  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:48</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The following confession which was written in 1626 by 20 well known ministers was sent to the Governmental leaders of the country of Holland;  The many Scripture references that were intermingled are not included;     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:49</FONT></div> <div> <I>     "We believe and confess, that God, willing to show His very great love to the human race (who through sin had fallen into death and into much corruption), and to perform by the deed His gracious promises made to the fathers, sent to this purpose His only, dear, and beloved Son, who was from eternity, </I><I><B>by whom all things were created and made,</B></I><I> into this world, who gladly obeyed the will of His Father, </I><I><B>and came from above, from heaven</B></I><I> , came forth from His Father, leaving His divine glory, form, and riches, descended, came into this world, so that the </I><I><B>virgin Mary, by the power of the Most High, </B></I><I><B><U>conceived Him</U></B></I><I><B>,</B></I><I> so that also the same, and no other was born of her.  For although Mary bore the Son of God in another form, than in which He was with the Father before the foundation of the world; yet it is nevertheless the same, whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting.  </I><I><B>For the Word or Son </B></I><I><B><U>became</U></B></I><I><B> flesh.</B></I><I>  Yea, He that was like unto God, became like another man.  The son of God appeared in the form of sinful flesh, and </I><I><B>God was manifested </B></I><I><B><U>in</U></B></I><I><B> the flesh,</B></I><I> so that the </I><I><B>second man Christ is the Lord Himself from heaven</B></I><I>,  Hence that which the apostles saw in Christ, with their eyes, heard with their ears, and handled with their hands, was of the Word of life; so that they saw that eternal life which was with the Father."</I>  (Martyrs Mirror, Page 1107).  One should consider how this confession no where emphatically states that <B>Christ did not receive His flesh from Mary</B> or that the <U>Word </U><B><U>Himself</U></B><U> became flesh</U>.  This confession in stating Christ is from heaven is very proper as Christ's dominant and greater person was from heaven,  yet if such statement was intended to mean that Christ's whole person was from heaven and thus Christ could not have had any connection to Mary, such would clearly promoting Menno's view. <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:50</FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>V     </I></FONT>Likely some of the above confessions, for the sake of being peaceable and agreeable did not focus on those issues that were in dispute, while rather giving broad terms which would be agreeable to all.  In considering that the Bible only contains one Scripture concerning the "<B>Word becoming or being made flesh</B>, while 3 Scriptures speak of Christ being a descendent of man emphasizing <B>according to the flesh</B> (Scriptures as given in paragraphs <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT-</I></FONT>16:24-26), the writer wonders how proper it is that all four above confessions include the statement that "Word was made flesh", and none appear to mention anything about the three Scriptures which all advocate that according to the flesh, Christ was a descendent of man.       <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:51</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The Catholics were very aware of Menno Simons belief concerning <B>the person of Christ consisting solely of the Word having become flesh</B>, and Christ <B>thus not having inherited any thing from Mary</B>.  As this belief was largely accepted by the Mennonites or Anabaptists at that time the Catholics often questioned or harassed them about such view.  It appears the Catholics felt on this issue they could generate a good argument against the Anabaptists.  Although the Catholics quite clearly were correct in their belief that Christ took an element of flesh from Mary, yet their belief that Christ, although inheriting Mary's flesh, did not inherit or encounter the "law of sin" (original sin) in His flesh, because Mary was immaculate and free from the "law of sin" (original sin) was a great error.  Quite possibly many Mennonites in Menno's time, because of Catholic influence and Menno's influence, felt if they believed Christ took flesh from Mary they would need to honor Mary as being without sin as the Catholics did.       <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:52</FONT></div> <div>      Many Anabaptists, when questioned by the Catholic Church leaders, strongly and firmly and courageously held to Menno's view on the incarnation, till the time they were put to death.  Yet one should not think that the Catholics main difference with the Anabaptists was the doctrine of the incarnation.  The Catholics often questioned and harassed the Anabaptists about many other doctrines, beside that of the incarnation, inwhich the Catholics were in obvious error.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:53</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Following is an example of a debate between an Anabaptist called Jacob and a Catholic Inquirer;     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:54</FONT></div> <div>      <I>Inquirer asks</I>; "What then do you believe concerning Jesus Christ; whence did He take His flesh"  <I>Jacob answers</I>, "Do the Scriptures teach you that you must ask me this".  <I>Inquirer</I>, "because Menno says that He brought His flesh from heaven."  <I>Jacob</I> "I have not heard him say this",  <I>Inquirer</I>, "Yet he believes it"  <I>Jacob</I>, "Menno's belief is that the Word was made flesh...  ...<I>Inquirer</I>, "Then you will not confess that He took His flesh and blood in the virgin?",  <I>Jacob</I>, "I will not investigate that which is above my understanding, namely, whereof the Son of God was made; for this was a miraculous work.  However that you may not think me a heretic, I confess Him to be the Son of God in every manner, in power and might, in spirit, in flesh and blood, begotten of the own substance of one only Father... the eternal word became flesh"...  ...<I>Inquirer</I>, "Do not the Scriptures say that He took upon Him our flesh?"  <I>Jacob</I> "I have never read it, and I do not wish to dispute further"   (Martyrs Mirror Page 606-607).  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:55</FONT></div> <div>      Although Menno stressed that Christ's whole person came from heaven and no part came from Mary, yet technically speaking it appears Menno did not believe that Christ's flesh came from heaven but rather believed the Word from which Christ's flesh derived, came from heaven and then on earth and within Mary became flesh.  Menno reveals such in saying, <I>" ...the Word is descended from heaven!  It became flesh or man, here below on earth..."</I>..  Menno also wrote "<I>Reader, consider the Word of your Lord,  Christ says that His flesh came from heaven, and the learned ones say that it came of Adam's flesh</I>".<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:56</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      One Anabaptist after he was reviled by a Catholic leader, for not believing that Christ took the seed of Mary, defended Himself saying "<I>the Word became flesh</I>".  The Catholic then told the Anabaptist that God was the Word and indicated that if the Word became flesh <B>that God thus must have become flesh</B>.  The Anabaptist them answered as follows;    <I>"We too believe that God was the Word;  But would you then therefrom understand that the living God (of whom Christ is the Son) became </I><I><B>Himself</B></I><I> flesh?  this were certainly contrary to the entire holy Scriptures"</I>  (Martyrs Mirror Page 793).  This Anabaptist afterwards then endeavored to reveal their was enough difference between God and the Word to make it proper for the Word to have become flesh although yet being very improper for God to have become flesh.  The writer agrees that it is <B>contrary with the entire holy Scriptures to believe that God became flesh,</B> and in consideration of such, cannot either believe that it is in harmony with the Scriptures to believe the Word who is so much one with God Himself became flesh.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:57</FONT></div> <div>      The following quote of recently deceased Reuben Koehn, concerning the Word becoming flesh, should be of special interest to those who have known him;  Rueben wrote,  <I>"Almost half of the New "Testament (four Gospels) is devoted to Christ's life and ministry.  Matthew and Luke declare the human birth and His humanity, while </I><I><B>John's Gospel</B></I><I> treats on Christ's part in the Godhead, developing the matter of the incarnation,  He declares that </I><I><B>"The Word became flesh"  not that the substance of God became that substance which we know as body matter.  "The Word" is a name for God, and "flesh" is a name for humanity in its entirety.</B></I><I>"  </I>This writing is found in the "Messenger of Truth" a periodical put out by the Church of God in Christ Mennonite, in the Feb. 15,1989 issue.  Those who know and have confidence in Rueben, should consider that the above statement of Rueben's largely is in direct conflict with one of Menno's most basic views on the incarnation as well as largely in disagreement with several of the above confessions of faith.  Yet this statement of Rueben's has much truth in it, and is much appreciated by the writer.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:58</FONT></div> <div>      The following 4 paragraphs, further pertain to views of the incarnation of Christ, as had by those of the Church of God in Christ Mennonite and may be mostly of interest to those of such Church.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:59</FONT></div> <div>      The writer also has heard above Rueben Koehn say that man's flesh is not evil.  The writer later asked Rueben what he meant in saying such. Rueben, then in clarifying himself on what he meant in saying our flesh is not evil further said, if he cut off his arm he would not be any less evil then before.  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:60</FONT></div> <div>      On the above teachings of Rueben the writer is very much agreed.  Yet later at a large Church gathering or convention, Rueben in endeavoring to keep Christ unattached from Mary, said that Jesus would not have had an umbilical cord, which statement would even have separated Christ from Mary further then Menno's view would have done.  In considering that Rueben did not believe that the Word Himself became flesh and did not believe that man's flesh is evil, the write wonders why he endeavored to divide Christ and  Mary slightly further then Menno Simons did.  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:61</FONT></div> <div>      The writer believes in times past there was much confusion on this subject and believes there yet is much confusion there about, and wishes those who are endeavoring to be God's people could have a better foundation, and a more proper view on this doctrine.       <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:62</FONT></div> <div>      John Holdeman who initiated the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite, wrote a volume called the Mirror Of Truth.  It appears John Holdeman largely or totally approved of Menno's view on the incarnation, as Holdeman in speaking of the incarnation writes; "...a doctrine which Menno Simons, Dietrich Philip and the holy martyrs confessed in word and script, in life and death."  Holdeman also speaking of Menno's writing on the incarnation wrote "In my humble opinion, these writings surpass all others in thoroughness, excepting the Holy Scriptures which will always remain the only source from which all Divine knowledge must be drawn;"  Although John Holdeman sanctioned Menno's view on the incarnation as such, yet in Holdeman's own writings concerning Christ's involvement with the flesh and humanity, Menno's view, concerning the Word turning into flesh and thus having no connection to Mary, <B>does not shine through or show itself in the least part</B>.  In John Holdeman's writing on "The Divine Trinity", he in speaking of the Christ's (the Word) involvement with flesh and humanity, 15 times uses either of the terms <B>"manifest in" "came in" "took upon" and "taking on".</B>  Although Holdeman repeatedly used the terms "taking on" or "coming in" as such, yet the writer only found one place where Holdeman used the term the "Word was made flesh" and the writer could find no place where Holdeman used the term the "Word <B>Himself</B> became flesh:".  Although Holdeman confessed as above that he agreed with Menno's view on the incarnation, the writer could find no place where Holdeman seen fit to advocate that Jesus did not take flesh and blood from Mary.  Yet possibly this is because he felt Menno made it clear enough.  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:63</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Although the following 4 paragraphs still especially pertain to the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite, they yet contain vital issues applicable to all readers and for connections sake they should be read by all readers.     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:64</FONT></div> <div>      In the "Messenger of Truth" Nov 21, 1990 issue, was given an article titled "The Incarnation Of Jesus Christ".  This article largely advocated Menno's view that the entire Christ was from heaven and that Christ did not take flesh from Mary.  The writer therein in justifying the belief that Christ did not receive his flesh from Mary writes;  <I>"Jesus did not need to take on flesh and blood of Mary in order to understand and feel with us in our infirmities as is stated by many today"</I>  The writer can largely agree with such statement in respect to the power and possibilities of God and respect to Christ so much being one with God.  Yet what do the Scriptures say about how God seen fit to allow Jesus to understand and feel with our infirmities?  Following are several Scriptures concerning such;     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:65</FONT></div> <div>      (Heb 2:14&15-18)  "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;... For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.  Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.  For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:66</FONT></div> <div>      (Heb 5:1-5)  "For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:  <B>Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity</B>  And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.  And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.  <B>So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest;</B> but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee."<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:67</FONT></div> <div>      Just like that above writer in the <U>"Messenger of Truth"</U>, advocated that Jesus could have understood and felt our infirmities without taking humanity and flesh from Mary, so the writer of this writing believes Jesus could have taken our flesh and the "law of sin" upon Himself, and yet by the <B>power and possibilities and </B><B><U>justice</U></B> of God and by <B>fully overcoming such</B>, not been condemned or made sinful thereby and yet been qualified to redeem us.  The writer feels he again should ask; <B>considering all Scriptures</B>, <U>what or who truly has the authority to say</U> that <B>although Christ was everything that He was,</B> yet He of necessity, would have been alienated from God and disqualified to redeem mankind, had He encountered, contacted and been tempted by the "law of sin" in His inherited flesh?  One should again remember the parable concerning one's son being willing to take a diseased arm upon himself and to bear the pain thereof, to thereby instigate a remedy for such disease for others.  Would he thereby be condemned?  Absolutely not!  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:68</FONT></div> <div>      One should again consider, if God so choose, and if it were more proper, Christ could have inherited man's flesh as the <U>material matter of the body</U>, without having inherited the spirit of man and the "law of sin".  One should again remember the many Scriptures and considerations that were given in section one which clearly revealed that Christ <B>at least</B> inherited mankind's flesh as the material matter of the body, and consider Menno's view, and the view of many in his time as well as today, cannot accept Christ inheriting even such.  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:69</FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>V     </I></FONT>One should again remember the quotes of those early Church elders, which elders are respected in the Martyrs Mirror, which clearly teach and stress that Christ did receive His flesh from Mary.  The following questions were asked by Tertullian, and the writer in giving them is asking the same, "Pray tell me why the Spirit of God descended into a woman's womb at all, if He did not do so for the purpose of partaking of flesh from the womb."   Book 3 Page 538)  "Else why is Christ man and the Son of man, if he has <B>nothing </B><B><U>of</U></B><B> man, and nothing </B><B><U>from</U></B><B> man?</B>"  (Book 3 Page 525).  Irenaeus also asked"....why did He come down into her <B>if He were to take nothing of her</B>?"  (Book 1 Page 454).  These quotes and numerous others were given in paragraphs <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT-</I></FONT>16:69-90.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:70</FONT></div> <div>      </div> <div> <I>V     </I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >It appears that in Tertullian's time some or many were advocating much the same belief about Christ's flesh as Menno did, which view was rejected by the early Church fathers.  Menno might not even have been aware of such.  It is interesting but sad how history often repeats itself.</FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>      aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:70.1</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Following are two quotes from the Martyr's Mirror which likely are worthy to include; </div> <div>      (Page 102)  “In 152, Valentinus Romanus was censured as a heretic, because he believed that the Son of God, <I>Christus Jesus</I>, assumed neither a human nature, nor flesh and blood from the substance of the virgin Mary”  <I>This writing pertained to year 152.  </I><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>Note it appears those furthering this writing also believed Valentinus Romanus to be in error because of not believing Jesus to have received human nature and flesh and blood from Mary.</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>      aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:70.2</FONT></div> <div>      (Page 170) <I> </I>“The Apollinarians, who derived their origin from Apollinaris, denied that Christ adopted His humanity from the virgin Mary, saying that the word became flesh”  <I>This writing pertained to year 392 AD. </I><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>Note it appears those who furthered this early writing also were apposed to the Apollinarians who denied that Christ adopted His humanity from the virgin Mary, saying the word became flesh.     </I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:70.3</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>V     </I></FONT>False doctrine mostly, if not always has it's basis in over emphasizing some Scriptures while not giving due respect to other Scriptures.  The doctrine which declares that Christ did not inherit flesh from Mary is largely based on concluding and emphasizing Christ could not have been a sinless sacrifice, qualified to redeem man had He inherited such flesh.  One should consider that <B>although </B><B><U>it is clear</U></B><B> that Christ was </B><B><U>without sin and without spot,</U></B> the writer was surprised he could only find around 10 verses whose main object is to emphasize such <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >(these 10 verses were given in paragraphs aT-22:2-11)</FONT>.  Yet it is true a great many other Scriptures pertain to Christ's righteousness and of His righteousness being granted and imputed to the Christian through faith.  One should here again consider that Christ's sinlessness and righteousness could well be fulfilled through Christ perfectly overcoming all temptation and never transgressing God's law in any way.  In considering any doctrine, one should consider that all Scriptures must be properly fitted together rather than some Scriptures annulling other Scriptures.  In considering <B>Christ's coming in the flesh</B> one should consider that a great many verses, possibly involving <B>hundreds of verses</B>, indicate and reveal that Christ did inherit a human aspect from mankind.  Following is a concise outline of such Scriptures; <B>firstly five verses</B> speak of Christ being the seed of mankind, all using the word "seed",  while 3 verses beside those, speak of Christ being a descendent of mankind emphasizing <U>"according to the flesh"</U>, <B>secondly 2 verses</B> are involved in speaking of Christ being the offspring of David, and being a rod out of the stem of Jesse and a branch out of his roots, <B>thirdly around 80 times</B> Jesus calls himself the Son of man, <B>forthly 4 verses</B> speak of Mary experiencing a conception and around 20 speak of Mary being a mother to Christ, <B>fifthly a great many other Scriptures</B> strongly indicate a true oneness between Christ's flesh and man's flesh through emphasizing a vital oneness in Christ's and man's experiences with respect to <U>temptation,</U> <U>overcoming</U>, <U>suffering</U>, <U>dying</U>, <U>being quickened</U>, and <U>resurrecting.</U> and <B>sixthly numerous Scriptures in Hebrews chapters 2-5</B> of all Scriptures, most clearly pertain to Christ's true humanity, while yet numerous other Scriptures could be referred to.  One should consider as the doctrine of Christ and faith in Him is one of the most important doctrines of the Bible, it also is very important to properly believe on Him.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:71</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>V     </I></FONT>One should not think it to be a minor or insignificant error<B> to declare that Jesus </B><B><U>inherited nothing from Mary</U></B><B>, and had </B><B><U>no encounter with the law of sin in His flesh.</U></B>  To the writer it appears denying that Christ come in the flesh as such, distorts and annuls a great portion of the entire New Testament Scriptures, and greatly confuses vital principles of the doctrine of Christ and greatly misrepresents who the person Christ truly was and is.  One should again remember that Jesus after being ascended back to heaven, in one of His last Biblically recorded messages to man, said,   "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.<B> I am</B> <U>the </U><B><U>root</U></B><U> and the </U><B><U>offspring</U></B><U> of David</U>, and the bright and morning star."  (Rev 22:16).  A list of many inconsistencies and distortions that are created through declaring that Christ did not inherit anything from Mary and never encountered the "law of sin" in His flesh, was already given in paragraphs <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT>-33:12-22, and possibly should be reviewed by the reader.  Jesus through being like to us while on earth and through resurrecting from our situation and ascending back to heaven, clearly has proved the possibility of our Salvation!  What other religion can boast of so great a Salvation!  It was with meaning that Apostle John said,  "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh <B>is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,</B> whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." (John 4:3).<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:72</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The writer has heard of the Scriptures in the following 4 paragraphs being interpreted to mean that Christ's flesh was flesh <B><U>like to</U></B><B> man's flesh</B>, or flesh <B><U>fashioned</U></B><B> like man's flesh</B>, but yet not flesh inherited from Mary or mankind;<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:73</FONT></div> <div>      (Rom 8:3)  "God sending his own Son <B>in the </B><B><U>likeness</U></B><B> of sinful flesh,</B> and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:"     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:74</FONT></div> <div>      In considering the above Scripture one should consider that Christ's flesh, <B>even if inherited from Mary</B> was <B><U>like</U></B><U> to man's sinful flesh</U> rather than <B><U>equal</U></B><U> to man's sinful flesh</U>, firstly because Christ's flesh, unlike man's flesh, never sinned and came short of the glory of God, and secondly because Christ's flesh was possessed by and connected to a <B>divine remedy and solution</B>, which mere man's flesh is not involved with as such.  Yet it appears that Christ's flesh without regard to Him who possessed it, or of itself, was equal to man's sinful flesh.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:75</FONT></div> <div>      (Phil 2:7-8)  "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was <B>made in the </B><B><U>likeness</U></B><B> of men</B>:  And being found <B>in </B><B><U>fashion</U></B><B> as a man</B>, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:76</FONT></div> <div>      In considering the above Scripture one should also consider that <B><U>even if</U></B><B> Christ inherited flesh from Mary</B>, He yet would have been <U>found in </U><B><U>fashion</U></B><U> and in likeness of man</U>, rather than <U>found </U><B><U>equal</U></B><U> to man</U>, as the whole person of Christ obviously consisted of <B>much more than</B> what mere man consists of.  Considering such why should one think that the above Scriptures teach or advocate that Christ did not inherit flesh from Mary?      <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:77</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>V     </I></FONT>In further considering Christ's experience in the flesh the following parable should yet be considered;  <I>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 </I><I><B>diseased and black skin</B></I><I> 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, </I><I><B> "Wherefore he took not on him the skin of an American but took on him the skin of an African, and </B></I><I><B><U>was made in the likeness and fashion of the African</U></B></I><I><B>", </B></I><I>and together with many other clear statements concerning your son's painful experience, further said</I><I><B>, "Forasmuch then as the Africans are partakers of  skin and boils, he also himself likewise took part of the </B></I><I><B><U>same</U></B></I><I><B>, and in </B></I><I><B><U>all points</U></B></I><I><B> suffered and was inflicted like the African"</B></I><I>  Now years later, although you had informed these savages that </I><I><U>nothing is impossible for you</U></I><I>, these savages have concluded that it would have been </I><I><B>impossible</B></I><I> 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 </I><I><B>like to</B></I><I> an African, to prove that your son's engrafted skin, was a skin </I><I><B>like to</B></I><I> their skin, rather than being their very own skin. </I> Do you think these savages are giving you and your son proper<B> love, respect, honor, and appreciation</B> 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?  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:78</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      It appears the subject of Christ and His work of redeeming us involves 3 main aspects or principles.  One pertains to Him <U>being the Son of God</U>, another pertains to Him <U>being the Son of man</U>, another pertains to Him <U>being a sinless sacrifice for our sins</U>.  All of these are important and none of them dare be minimized or disregarded.  One should consider, if the only real important aspect of salvation's plan were that Christ must die as a sinless sacrifice for man's sins, Christ could have fulfilled such aspect of redemptions plan, without ever being the offspring of man, and ever encountering our situation, person, or temptation, such as He did.  Yet within redemptions plan, God did ordain that Christ should be the offspring of mankind and did ordain that He should encounter our very flesh, situation, and temptation, <U>and not without reason</U>.  One should consider that the Scriptures in speaking to us of our Saviour, repeatedly speak of Him, <U>being made like to us and experiencing that which we do</U>,<B> 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!</B>  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 <B>oh how important is to truly and fully believe that Jesus came in the flesh!</B>  Jesus in <U>the resurrected form of our flesh,</U> 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!<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:79</FONT></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> Important Paragraph</div> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>V     </I></FONT>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, <U>and live without ever sinning</U>, and then although being <U>sinless as such</U>, yet die for the sin's that were done by others of the same flesh and humanity.  <B>Possibly</B> 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.  <I><B>The sacrificial death of Christ</B></I><I>, </I><I><U>through being the Son of God and through being without sin </U></I><I>was thereby qualified to pay and remove our sin debt.  </I><I><B>It appears the sacrificial death of Christ</B></I><I> </I><I><U>through being man's very flesh (humanity),</U></I><I> 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!</I>  Truly Christ was made a curse for us, as Paul teaches saying,  <B>"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, </B><B><U>being made a curse for us</U></B>: 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.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:80</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Christ in coming in the flesh and taking upon Himself our very person, was moved to love and be merciful to us poor mortals who are inflicted with a corruptible body and the "law of sin", and to be one with us, as our very own brother.  Heb 2:11 reads  "For both he that <U>sanctifieth </U>and they who are<U> sanctified</U> <B><U>are all of one</U></B><B>: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren"</B>.  Yet clearly Jesus in coming in and inheriting our very flesh, was not motivated to one with the "law of sin" that dwells within our flesh, but rather wholly overcame and subdued it and wholly sanctified Himself from it's affects while also making a way for us to be sanctified from it's affects!<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:81</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>V     </I></FONT>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 <B>no means</B> in coming in the flesh would have truly encountered our situation, <B>and for what reason would the Scriptures so clearly teach that Christ by coming in the flesh came into our situation?</B>  How foolish and absurd is such thinking, and how mislead or blind can man become through wrong influence!  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:82</FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>V     </I></FONT>1 Cor 15:22-23 reads,  "For as <B>in Adam all die</B>, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.  But <B><U>every man</U></B><U> in his own order</U>: <B>Christ the firstfruits</B>; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming".   Note how this Scripture teaches that Christ was the first to resurrect from the <U>death that came upon all through Adam</U>.  <B>If</B> Christ in coming in the flesh did not encounter man's cursed flesh, involving the "law of sin" and a corruptible body, and resurrect from such involvement with the flesh, how could He truly have been the first to resurrect from the death that came upon all through Adam?  This question should be soberly considered!  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:82.5</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      After apostle Paul in Hebrews chapters 1-5 had taught numerous principles about the person of Christ he said "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,"  (Heb 6:1).  It is very sad that many Christians are endeavoring to go on to perfection while yet they are very wrong and confused concerning the very basic principles of the doctrine of Christ.  How can one truly know and believe in Jesus when in such confusion about what His person consists of?  As the writer was writing, often he could scarcely contain his feelings when he thought of the many who call themselves Christians, who strongly declare that Christ's flesh and person had no inheritance type connection to Mary and mankind and strongly declare that Christ's flesh and person was not our very flesh and person, as such denial of Christ coming in the flesh disrupts very basic principles of Christ, <B>which principles can and do bring man and Christ together in such a beautiful and encouraging way!!</B>  Oh may apostle John's warning, be heeded, wherein he speaks of the <B>spirit of the antichrist</B> being that which denies that Christ came in the flesh!<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:83</FONT></div> <div>      The Catholics through believing in the immaculate conception of Mary, and through believing Mary to be a second Eve like unto the first Eve before she sinned, have thus concluded that Mary and Christ both, were without sin with respect to not inheriting or encountering the "law of sin" (original sin) in their flesh.  Such group thus has clearly misunderstood the true principles of Christ's flesh and humanity. and has also improperly elevated Mary.  Yet many Mennonites, then, although realizing that Mary was a normal human being, have falsely advocated that Christ <B>inherited nothing at all from Mary or mankind</B>, and thus likely were even in greater error then the Catholics with regards to Christ's true connection to humanity and experience in the flesh.  Yet it should be noted, that although, many Mennonites were in error as such, yet concerning most issues, the doctrines of Mennonite's obviously were much more proper then the Catholic's doctrines.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:84</FONT></div> <div>      Although the Catholics have very improperly elevated Mary, yet many Mennonites likely have not esteemed Mary with enough respect.  Mary speaking of her blessed state in being the mother of Jesus said,  "For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, <B>from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."</B> (Luke 1:48).  When Mary had gone to see Elisabeth, Elisabeth honored Mary saying,, "...Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.  <U>And whence is this to me,</U> that <B>the </B><B><U>mother of</U></B><B> my Lord should come to me?"</B>  (Luke 1:42-43).  Note how Elisabeth here honored Mary and also note how she called Mary the<B> mother of</B> her Lord. <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:85</FONT></div> <div>      Indeed Christ through <B>truly and literally coming in the flesh as He did, and through resurrecting therefrom</B> has done, a <U>clear</U> and <U>wondrous</U> redemptive act.  Truly Christ in so doing, has dealt upon Satan, who had the power of death, a dreadful blow!  Paul speaks of Christ destroying the devil, who had the power of death, (Heb 2:14).  God spoke to Eve of Christ bruising Satan's head (Gen 3:15).  Oh how Satan endeavors to hid the clarity of the redemptive act that Christ has wrought for mankind, to thereby waste or make useless that precious redemption that Christ has wrought, and oh how dreadfully successful Satan has been in doing so!<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:85.5</FONT></div> <div>      We call those heathen who have never heard of Christ.  Yet what about the millions or billions who have only heard of Him in a wrong way?  Are they not partially heathen?  Where does that put many people today, who think they are the light of the world and are true Christians?  Jesus not without reason asked,   "...when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"  (Luke 18:8).  One should here consider that the Scriptures speaking of the <B>Spiritual situation before the end</B>, speak of a great falling away (2 Thes 2:3), speak of the Bride all slumbering and sleeping (Matt 25:5), speak of the witnesses of God laying dead on the streets (Rev 11:1-12), speak of the power of the holy people being scattered (Dan 12:7), and speak of man having a form of Godliness and denying the power thereof (2 Tim 3:5).  Could the above Spiritual slumber of God's people and darkness before the end, have something in common with the multitudes of people not properly believing in Jesus through denying that Jesus truly came in the flesh?<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:86</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Concerning those who have a <B>sincere heart</B> and a <B>pure desire for the truth</B>, who yet because of wrong influence are wrong on some issue, it appears that such are not necessarily condemned because of such wrong belief.  Yet if such individuals then reject the truth as it is offered to them, it appears such error then becomes sin to them.  In the following verses Jesus largely reveals such saying;<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:87</FONT></div> <div>      (John 15:22&24)  "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.  If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father."     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:88</FONT></div> <div>      The writer hopes and trusts that many who have ignorantly defended Menno's views were under such mercy.  After one is trained and accustomed to understand Scriptures in a particular way it can be difficult to comprehend or accept a different view or interpretation.  Menno Simons had tremendous impact on the belief of his followers, and too many have blindly accepted his view concerning Christ flesh and person.  Many leaders in times past, were in greater error then Menno Simmons and it is very sad most people are blindly following erring leaders.  How many people or Churches<B> are blindly following</B> blind leaders, erroneous teachings, or the commandments of men?  Too many peoples beliefs, are governed because of who said it, rather than because of the Scriptures and reasons that are given for what is said.     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:89</FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>V     </I></FONT>In firstly considering the many Scriptures that clearly reveal that Christ, according to His humanity and flesh, really was a descendent of man, that really inherited our flesh, that really felt our physical ailments, that really was tempted by the "law of sin", and secondly considering <B>how </B><B><U>properly</U></B><B> all Scriptures agree</B> with the belief that Jesus was sinless with respect to Him perfectly and fully overcoming that flesh (law of sin) and all temptations, it is quite clear that the false belief that declares that Christ had no encounter with our very flesh and the "law of sin" <B>cannot</B> be easily excused or justified.  Their are numerous false beliefs which some Churches advocate, which we Mennonites likely feel are quite false and inexcusable.  To the writer it appears some such false beliefs likely are no more false or erroneous then the erroneous belief many of us Mennonites have had concerning Christ coming in the flesh.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:90</FONT></div> <div> <I>V     </I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >One in seeing how easy it is to be wrong in one's views because of being influenced by their parents' or Church's teaching should be greatly and kindly moved to be merciful to others that are in error in their views because of such influence.  Yet one dare not overlook the fault of those who are unwilling to accept the truth as it is clearly revealed to them, as after such revelation they are willingly ignorant and guilty.</FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:91</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      In writing this article, I the writer have learned much, and have become more convinced then ever before, firstly that Christ in His earth life experience, encountered our very person, flesh and situation, and secondly that Christ was a true Son of man, receiving His humanity and fleshly element from Mary and mankind.  If I remember properly, when I was a young child, I simply thought of Christ as being both the Son of <B>God</B>, and Son of <B>man</B>, just like I was a child of both of my parents.  If I remember correctly, I was later informed, although still quite young, that Christ did not inherit anything from Mary, and informed that Mary only nurished that complete unit which God had placed within her.  I having much confidence in those who taught me, quite largely accepted such view without much question.  In one of my first writings, in a writing entitled God's Eternal and Salvation Plan, I advocated Menno's view of the incarnation saying;  <I>"For Jesus to be free from all sin, including inherit sin, His origin could not be from man.  Thus, Christ's origin was totally from God, and by God's Spirit miraculously was placed within virgin Mary who nurished it and in time gave birth to Jesus who truly was the sinless Son of God.  Jesus was not in like image as man, nor did he appear like man because of being a descendent of man for he was not.  God's image, Jesus has, for He is God's Son, God's image man has for he was created therein."  </I>I now regret I ever wrote as such.  I now have removed that phrase from that article, but it can yet be found in earlier copies of that article.  I do not know for sure what made me start to change my mind on this issue.  I in changing my mind, <B>at first</B> concluded that Christ inherited solely Mary's flesh as the material matter of the body. but yet felt that Christ did not inherit the spirit of man and the "law of sin" that is included therewith.  I with such view in mind, then wrote a significant portion of the first section of this writing.  I then spoke to another individual about my view of Christ having inherited man's flesh (body matter), without having inherited or encountered the spirit of man and law of sin.  He then let me know that he felt Jesus encountered and inherited the "law of sin" (human nature) as well as the flesh of man.  I in considering such, quite soon felt I must agree with him.  I then told him, Jesus is sinless because of overcoming our situation, rather than being sinless because of not encountering it.  I, because of this change of view and belief, thus was required to slightly rewrite some of the first section of this writing.  I also was required to add another section to this writing, pertaining to Christ's Spiritual person and nature, since everything I written up to that point, pertained quite strictly to advocating that the material matter of Christ's body was inherited from Mary, and was the same as the material matter of our bodies.     <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:92</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The writer, in writing this article, by no means was merely writing what he already knew, but rather was learning as he wrote, and was often impressed so deeply that tears repeatedly came as new truths dawned on him, and the reality of the very erroneous way he and many are being taught about Christ was realized.  The writer wishes the reader could be as moved and inspired by reading this, as he was in writing it.  <B>And most of all</B> <B><U>may many</U></B>, by better knowing the truth concerning our blessed Lord and Saviour, be additionally inspired to love, serve, and obey Him, be additionally inspired to seek a place for themselves at that heavenly marriage supper of the Lamb, and be additionally inspired to seek a home with Him in those heavenly realms throughout eternity!  O may you and I through eternity be there!  <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>     aT</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >-34:93</FONT></div> <bR> <bR> <div> (Count   16836    2/17/01)</div> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>