|
Post by studylearning on Jun 15, 2006 23:03:08 GMT -5
INCARNATION. It was by his coming in the flesh (incarnation) and his dying in the flesh (making atonement) that Jesus Christ secured our salvation (Rom. 8:3; Col. 1:22; 1 In. 4:2). The word 'flesh' basically means a person's or animal's physical organism, and is seen in the Bible as a symbol of the created life which derives from and is dependent upon God. 'Flesh' thus comes to be a generic term for creatures whose life on earth lasts for only a relatively short time (e.g. Is. 40:6). Therefore, to say that Jesus Christ came 'in the flesh' is to say that he came and died in the state and under the conditions of created life; in other words, that he was man.
The NT also asserts that he was, and continues to be, God, so that without ceasing to be God he was made man (Jn. 1:1ff., 14). Orthodox Judaism has always held such a notion to be blasphemous or nonsensical-that God the creator should become one of his own creatures. Scholars have tried to find some parallel in Jewish speculations about a superhuman Messiah and in pagan myths about redeemer-gods, but the only explanation of the origin of the doctrine is in the impact of Jesus' life, ministry, death and resurrection on the disciples (Jn. 20:28££.). The first Christians prayed to Jesus as divine Lord (Acts 7:59) and proclaimed him as the one who forgives sins (Acts 5:31), The belief in the incarnation was already there, even if it had not been formulated theologically.
The NT writers do not speculate on questions about the mode of the incarnation or the precise personality of the incarnate Jesus. They do not attempt to dissect the mystery of his person but only to proclaim the incarnation as one of a sequence of mighty works through which God has saved sinners. That is why they do not reflect on the virgin birth; Matthew and Luke, who report it, do not stress the unique Person thus born but the fact that by this miracle God was fulfilling his promises (Mt. 1:21ff.; Lk. 1:31ff., 68ff.; 2:10f., 29ff.). The NT writers all see that Jesus' manhood and deity are both fundamental to his saving work, . however. Because he is God, his disclosure of the Father's heart and mind is perfect and final (Jn. 14:7ff.; Heb. 1:1f.); his death is the supreme evidence of God's love for sinners (Jn. 3:16); and he has defeated the forces of evil (Heb. 2:14f.). Only as the 'second man' (Rom. 5: 15ff. ) could he mediate between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5), and die for mankind's sins-only flesh can die. Hence the NT treats denials of the incarnation as heresies which destroy the gospel (1 Jn. 2:22f.; 4:1ff.; 5:5ff.).
The NT draws out three aspects of the incarnation. First, Jesus is God's Son in a unique sense (Mk. 1: 11), taking on his lips as no Jew would the emphatic 'I am' which expressed the self-identification of God (Mk. 14:62; cf. Ex. 3:14 and the 'I am' sayings of John., e.g. 6:35; 8:12). He was condemned for such 'blasphemy'. As Son of God, he lived in perfect communion with the Father and always did his will (Jn. 8:28f.), thus revealing the Father perfectly (Jn. 14:7ff.). The Father was greater than he in the sense that Jesus acts freely and gladly as a son, not that he is to be considered subordinate to the Father in human esteem or worship. The NT also speaks of his relationship to God as the Word (Jn. l:lff.) and the image (Heb. 1:3) of God, emphasizing his full divinity.
The second aspect of the incarnation is that Jesus did not abandon his divinity when he was on earth. His functions of sustaining the physical order were not laid aside (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3); he emptied himself of out-ward glory (Phil. 2:7) but that does not imply that his divine powers were curtailed. His incarnation was not a diminishing of deity but an acquiring of complete manhood (1 Tim. 2:5). The third aspect is that the incarnation did not change his relationship of obedience and dependence on the Father. His confessed ignorance of the time of his second coming showed that it was not the Father's will for him to know it; as the Son he did not wish to seek or know more than the Father wished. His life was one of sinless perfection (1 Pet. 2:22); he did not have sins of his own to die for (Heb. 7:26) so could die vicariously for the unrighteous (2 Cor. 5:21). He did not wish to deviate from his perfect state yet as man he had to experience and fight intense temptation in order to overcome it; the costliness of his triumphant obedience enables him to offer sympathy and support to tempted and distraught Christians (Heb. 2:18; 4:14ff.). See also JESUS CHRIST, LIFE OF; VIRGIN BIRTH.
|
|
|
Post by studylearning on Jun 15, 2006 23:03:56 GMT -5
IMMANUEL (lit. 'With us is God'). The word is found twice in the OT (Is. 7:14; 8:8; and possibly in 8:10), and once in the NT (Mt. 1:23). The context of Isaiah's prophecy is that Syria and Israel were pressurizing king Ahaz of Judah to join them in resisting Assyria. Isaiah told him not to worry as the power of his enemies was played out. Ahaz refused to believe this good news, and so Isaiah says God will give his people a sign of a virgin bearing a son who will be called Immanuel. The word translated 'virgin' is never used of anyone except an unmarried woman, and if she was immoral the birth could hardly have been a ' sign' ; the implication is that the birth was supernatural. The passage also implies that God's presence will be seen in the birth of the child himself, and not (as some have suggested) in the period of his infancy during which Judah would be rid of its enemies. The nation's help does not rest in Assyria, Isaiah is saying, but in God, who is to be found in the birth of a child. Ahaz's rejection of the sign of hope led to Judah's downfall, but for the remnant of Israel the promise of Immanuel in whom they would find their hope and salvation remained.
|
|
|
Post by studylearning on Jun 15, 2006 23:05:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by selah on Jun 15, 2006 23:13:51 GMT -5
I'm glad about that. So, I'm sure you will try to answer my questions then. I think I've made them very clear. Thanks.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by to all on Jun 15, 2006 23:17:23 GMT -5
Jesus is our example. The Holy Spirit is our conscience. That is what I heard preached for 30 + years. I never heard that Jesus was God or that the Holy Spirit was God but I sure heard that He was our example and that the HS was our conscience many many times.
|
|
|
Post by Other on Jun 15, 2006 23:23:52 GMT -5
Yes, I agree 100%.... Jesus is God the Son incarnated Himself as a man. The Father God did not incarnate as a man like Jesus. The Holy Spirit did not incarnate himself as a man like Jesus either.
|
|
|
Post by Humm on Jun 15, 2006 23:25:34 GMT -5
Yes, I agree 100%.... Jesus is God the Son incarnated Himself as a man. The Father God did not incarnate as a man like Jesus. The Holy Spirit did not incarnate himself as a man like Jesus either. So then you are saying because Jesus is the Son he is not God and therefore could not be God Incarnate??
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 15, 2006 23:30:43 GMT -5
Nathan is not saying that Jesus is not God incarnate. Nathan has a pretty orthodox view of the Godhead except for his insistence that only Jesus is Yahweh.
But getting back to Nathan,
I realise others have taken this off in other directions but I wonder if you could answer this.
You gave examples of false teaching. But what exactly is "false teaching"? What is the definition of it?
|
|
|
Post by answering on Jun 16, 2006 2:40:40 GMT -5
It seems that NAthan is unable or unwilling to answer the question asked by Selah and Rob
|
|
|
Post by you on Jun 16, 2006 2:56:05 GMT -5
Jesus is our example. The Holy Spirit is our conscience. That is what I heard preached for 30 + years. I never heard that Jesus was God or that the Holy Spirit was God but I sure heard that He was our example and that the HS was our conscience many many times. you are correct, but i fear you are a voice crying in cyber willderness.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jun 16, 2006 7:15:28 GMT -5
It seems that NAthan is unable or unwilling to answer the question asked by Selah and Rob Question: Nathan, have you ever been to Seattle? Reply: Seattle is in Washington. I live in Portland, Oregon. Question: Yes, I know. Have you ever just visited Seattle? Reply: I have visited people and sites in Washington. Question: Okay, but have you ever been to Seattle? Reply: Have you ever been to Seattle? Question: Yes I have. Have you? Reply: Do you know many people there? I know a few. Question: Yes, just a few. Have you visited any of those you know there in Seattle? Reply: I have visited with Seattle people many times at convention. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And so it goes.
|
|
|
Post by hi6 on Jun 16, 2006 7:40:44 GMT -5
I don't see them as right or wrong. Some preach right doctrine and others preach wrong. Many preach right and wrong doctrine. Nothing black and white in many instances. Trying to fill up time until lunch or supper. I don't like the stories for the children that push exclusivism or legalism. Some are preaching an agenda while others are honestly explaining the scriptures as they see them. When a speaker is pushing the externals, it is hard to get me to focus on anything else they say!
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 16, 2006 8:08:37 GMT -5
That's the way it goes, greg. Nathan is completely unable to give a direct answer to the question as asked.
|
|
|
Post by studylearning on Jun 16, 2006 8:09:24 GMT -5
Nathan is not saying that Jesus is not God incarnate. Nathan has a pretty orthodox view of the Godhead except for his insistence that only Jesus is Yahweh. But getting back to Nathan, I realize others have taken this off in other directions but I wonder if you could answer this. You gave examples of false teaching. But what exactly is "false teaching"? What is the definition of it? Yes I understand that Rob. I just see this double speak as to my question of "God Incarnate" being dissected into the three persons of the God Head. I was told by the workers that they do not teach Jesus to be God Incarnate. I do not believe one can make the distinction of "God the Son Incarnate" and not be considered "Arian teaching" which was to deny that Jesus divine nature was equal with the Father's. As co-equal in the God Head Jesus in my thinking is God Incarnate. The "Arian" thinking was condemned at the counsel of Nicea, A.D. 325. ( The person who was God and with God "in the beginning" before the created universe, is the same person who sat wearily at the well of Sychar; Jesus is just as truly God as the Father and the Spirit of God, and at the same time, without confusion or contradiction.Zondervan's by Merrill C. Tenney) I believe that main reason Nathan seeks to make the distinction is to add a plausible answer as to why the worker told me they do not teach God Incarnate. The fact is they (the workers) do not teach Incarnate anything. They do not believe in the trinity. There was no doubt in my mind that they (the workers) do not teach the Incarnation of God the Son. They from my hearing teach more to the Arain teaching. This is one of the main problems in the doctrine. They do not specify just what they do believe. When questioned it is never clear. just my two cents worth.
|
|
|
Post by studylearning on Jun 16, 2006 8:14:34 GMT -5
That's the way it goes, greg. Nathan is completely unable to give a direct answer to the question as asked. And Ilylo that is the old worker in him. He is still trying to defend the indefensible. He is already going against the teachings of the F&W fellowship in that he believes the Trinity. Yet brother Nathan will not ever agree that they are wrong or at least openly say it. He vacillates back and forth to avoid direct answers. He is afraid of "Loosing Out".
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 16, 2006 8:20:13 GMT -5
Too true. I think Greg's example is classic.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Jun 16, 2006 8:53:41 GMT -5
*LOL at Greg's post*
Seriously, though, what DO the Workers teach? Over the years I've gotten the impression that the major universal agreement is on:
a) church with no name b) meeting in the home c) workers traveling two by two
Aside from the obvious fact that these are mere structural (dare I say "organizational"?) matters, there is no consensus on the fundamental theological issues on God, Jesus, and how we are to be saved. This worker says Jesus is fully divine and fully man, that one says the Holy Spirit is just the power of God.
How in the world are the Friends supposed to know what to believe - trust in the Holy Spirit to guide them to all truth? It would seem that this doesn't seem to be working for the Workers...
|
|
|
Post by swan on Jun 16, 2006 8:55:58 GMT -5
Lloyd, How far are you from Vancouver, Canada? I am coming up there in July 2006 Chad We can talk about how wonderful the Internet is chad RIGHT?
|
|
|
Post by sjg on Jun 16, 2006 9:58:03 GMT -5
Nathan9 says, " I don't know of any worker who teaches or believes the Holy Spirit is not God."
WHOA.....have you really asked them? I was told the Holy Spirit is a "force." That is NOT the same as saying He IS God! The question, you Nathan, keep avoiding to answer is: Is Jesus Christ, God in the flesh? It's a simple yes or no answer.
|
|
|
Post by selah on Jun 16, 2006 10:13:28 GMT -5
Nathan wrote: Hi Nathan, This still does not accurately answer my questions. I think you are trying to say that while Jesus is God, He is not God the Father, but He is God the Son, which to you equals the Son of God. Is that right? Jesus is God the Son and He is also the Son of God, but these are two different things. The first says that the Almighty God, the Creator of all things, revealed Himself in the form of a man. The second says the Almighty God produced an offspring. These two statements are both true, and Jesus is both of them, but they don't mean same thing. And then you are also trying to say that whether a person believes Jesus is God or not, will not change the fact that Jesus saves. Is that right? This discussion is not about salvation. It is about true and false teaching. There are many teachings, true and false, that will not influence a person's salvation. That doesn't make it okay to make false statements though, does it? So, assuming that Jesus is the Son part of the Godhead and not the Father part of the Godhead, would this be a true statement? Jesus is NOT God.For clarification, this statement says: Jesus is NOT God, meaning Jesus is not the Creator of all things (Colossians 1:16-20) and is not Almighty God revealing Himself in the form of a man (Philippians 2: 6-8). For clarification, this statement does not say: Jesus is NOT God the Son. or Jesus is NOT the Son of God. or Jesus is NOT the Father. or Jesus is NOT God the Son=the Son of God.It simply says: Jesus is NOT God. Is that a true statement? Thanks for working through this Nathan. Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by interested guest on Jun 16, 2006 10:14:20 GMT -5
Recipe for Rice Krispie bars I have only 1/4 cup Rice Krispies, I will use Corn Flakes too. I don't have marshmellows, I will use white corn syrup instead. I will add bacon bits. I will drop by spoonful onto ungreased cookie sheet.
What is the problem? Follow this recipe and you will get edible cereal bars. They are not Rice Krispie bars.
This is what I see with the friends and workers belief system. A few workers teach Jesus is God, most teach he is man-and lived perfectly. (Rice Krispies/Corn Flakes) A very few workers teach salvation by grace, MANY discount it completely......this is the white corn syrup. Toss in the way the ministry goes.......bacon bits. Press it into the home is the only right meeting place (forget 2 x 2's build special buildings for conventions) and you have the drop by spoonful.
Are the workers really teaching wrong? (title of thread) If it isn't right................then..............it is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Chad on Jun 16, 2006 12:54:25 GMT -5
Dear all, Jesus is clearly the Son of God. Jesus came to this earth as God in the flesh. He had every living thing we have & the power of God's Spirit living inside Him. God wanted to know what it was really like to live in the fleshly body, so spiritually planted a seed inside of Mary's womb, which was Jesus who was later born. God is the Father of all men & of Jesus Christ. Jesus sits on God's right hand in Heaven. God is the light & throne of Heaven. Scripture clearly shows this to us in Revelation & the gospel of John. The workers have given up all possessions to follow the way Jesus taught, the world's preachers teach that they are supposed to become rich & have million's of dollars to fund their leer jets, yachts, overseas trips, ministry, the church actually becomes poorer & their preacher becomes richer & richer, more wealthy than his members of his church. That is wrong! Yes, we build barns for convention that is no secret. Where would everyone stay or eat in? Do you want people to eat & sleep out in the open air? Risk heat stroke or heart attack from the extreme heat of the sun? Get real! We have necessities why not use them? We are not living in the 1800's you know. Answer this question? Why do churches build & fund huge church buildings that can hold several 1,000 people when their congregation is less than 100-200 members? Makes no sense to me. If you are following churches like that you are following false preachers & false prophets, who are ravishing wolves stealing from God & taking the money from their members. Your Friend, Chad
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Jun 16, 2006 13:03:15 GMT -5
God wanted to know what it was really like to live in the fleshly body, so spiritually planted a seed inside of Mary's womb, which was Jesus who was later born... God is the Father of all men & of Jesus Christ. This is not the orthodox Trinitarian view I'm familiar with. the world's preachers teach that they are supposed to become rich & have million's of dollars to fund their leer jets, yachts, overseas trips, ministry, the church actually becomes poorer & their preacher becomes richer & richer, more wealthy than his members of his church. That is wrong! It's also a sweeping generalization that is an insult to sincere church groups everwhere. Yes, we build barns for convention that is no secret. Where would everyone stay or eat in? Do you want people to eat & sleep out in the open air? Risk heat stroke or heart attack from the extreme heat of the sun? Get real! We have necessities why not use them? We are not living in the 1800's you know. Chad, my church has to meet twice on Sundays (and once on Saturday night) so that everyone has a chance to go - each time there are 400-500 people present. Why would you not give my church the same physical accomodations? Answer this question? Why do churches build & fund huge church buildings that can hold several 1,000 people when their congregation is less than 100-200 members? Makes no sense to me. It can make sense if that particular congregation is expecting growth...
|
|
|
Post by Hope For All on Jun 16, 2006 13:08:31 GMT -5
Nathan wrote: Hi Nathan, This still does not accurately answer my questions. I think you are trying to say that while Jesus is God, He is not God the Father, but He is God the Son, which to you equals the Son of God. Is that right? Jesus is God the Son and He is also the Son of God, but these are two different things. The first says that the Almighty God, the Creator of all things, revealed Himself in the form of a man. The second says the Almighty God produced an offspring. These two statements are both true, and Jesus is both of them, but they don't mean same thing. And then you are also trying to say that whether a person believes Jesus is God or not, will not change the fact that Jesus saves. Is that right? This discussion is not about salvation. It is about true and false teaching. There are many teachings, true and false, that will not influence a person's salvation. That doesn't make it okay to make false statements though, does it? So, assuming that Jesus is the Son part of the Godhead and not the Father part of the Godhead, would this be a true statement? Jesus is NOT God.For clarification, this statement says: Jesus is NOT God, meaning Jesus is not the Creator of all things (Colossians 1:16-20) and is not Almighty God revealing Himself in the form of a man (Philippians 2: 6-8). For clarification, this statement does not say: Jesus is NOT God the Son. or Jesus is NOT the Son of God. or Jesus is NOT the Father. or Jesus is NOT God the Son=the Son of God.It simply says: Jesus is NOT God. Is that a true statement? Thanks for working through this Nathan. Blessings, Linda Excellent post Linda! My thoughts exactly. Here are my thoughts on what the workers teach as far as the Trinity goes: Correct teaching: 1. That Jesus is the Son of God. 2. That there is no other name under heaven by which a person can be saved. 3. That Christ was fully human and died on the cross and was raised up to eternal life. 4. That Jesus is our advocate, intercessor, Lord, master and example. 5. That the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all agree and are one (in agreement). 6. That Jesus was with the father at creation. Questionable teaching: 1. That Jesus was perfect only through power from God and that we too can attain to this perfection if we “try hard enough”. 2. That Jesus is 100% divine (yet was not God). This is the teaching that confuses many F&W. 3. That the Holy Spirit comes forth from God as a force or power but is not God. Nathan and I basically agree on the Trinity, but I cannot agree with Nathan’s assessment of what the workers teach about it. I see this as “wishful thinking” on his part- but that’s OK. ;D I think he has more faith that things will change in this regard than I do! Love, HFA
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jun 16, 2006 13:11:23 GMT -5
An omniscient God who didn't know something...hmmm...
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Jun 16, 2006 13:20:49 GMT -5
An omniscient God who didn't know something...hmmm... Exactly...
|
|
|
Post by Jumbo on Jun 16, 2006 14:05:38 GMT -5
Questionable teaching:
1. That Jesus was perfect only through power from God and that we too can attain to this perfection if we “try hard enough”. 2. That Jesus is 100% divine (yet was not God). This is the teaching that confuses many F&W. 3. That the Holy Spirit comes forth from God as a force or power but is not God.
In 40 years of meetings, I never heard it like this. A force? what? The Holy Spirit is God. I nvere heard of Him as anything else. Try hard enough and attain perfection? I don't think so! We cannot do this, we are incapable. As I heard in meeting last week "He did for us what we CANNOT do for our selves".
|
|
|
Post by lloydswanson on Jun 16, 2006 14:27:22 GMT -5
there is abslolutely no truth in ANY teaching of the workers only the secret sect has any truth
|
|