Concerning Jesus as our Role Model [Archive]

View Full Version : Concerning Jesus as our Role Model

Ormly

June 27th 2009, 05:42 AM

Concerning Jesus as our Role Model

Jesus was our role model as a man and not as God in that He was entirely able to sin and didn't, refusing to give in to His human nature when tempted to do so. He was able to break God's law as any other man. He was perfect and yet was made perfect, being made so by His continual Love relationship with His Father. He loved God with all His Heart, Soul, Mind and Strength. He was made perfect by His Love TO His Father and by His allegiance in doing only what His Father directed Him to do. A role model should be perfect in his ways set for him, otherwise he shouldn't be followed. Even Paul said: "Follow me as I follow Christ Jesus". Question: Was Paul perfect in his walk in the Lord? Was he being perfected by his walk in the Lord?

Jesus walked the "way" of the cross, denying His flesh, for 3 1/2 years. He graduated from the "How to be Intimate with God" school of Earth's hard knocks and received His degree in perfection on the Mt. Transfiguration where God gave the commencement speech: "This is MY Beloved Son, Listen to Him".

Learn this that you might begin to preach messages other than redemption as the reason the Word came to Earth to live in a Body of flesh and How Jesus won the "Victory"! Mind you, He WON IT! It was consummate intimacy that God's representative normal man, had with His Divine Father; full relationship between Heaven and Earth; God and man with the only limitation being imposed mortality, i.e., death that would soon be conquered.

"Though he were a Son, yet he learned obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" Hebrews 5:8-9 (KJV)

Who was Jesus? Watch what He says of Himself—“I do not work from My right to Myself” (see John 5:19, 30); “I do not think or speak from My right to Myself” (see John 8:28; 12:49); “I do not live from My right to Myself” (see John 6:38): “I work and think and live from My Father’s right to Me.” “Lo, I come . . . to do Thy Will, O God.”

The "Born Again" experience is the starting point to becoming perfected in the Father as Jesus commanded: "Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect". One begins when he sees the Kingdom and strives to enter it. Only the born again have that capability that can be "quenched" by compromise and with perfection in the Father at the end our journey, will we hear Him say: "This is MY beloved son in whom I am well pleased"?

"After obedience—what?

And straightway He constrained His disciples to get into the ship, and to go to the other side. . . . Mark 6:45-52.

We are apt to imagine that if Jesus Christ constrains us, and we obey Him, He will lead us to great success. We must never put our dreams of success as God’s purpose for us; His purpose may be exactly the opposite. We have an idea that God is leading us to a particular end, a desired goal; He is not. The question of getting to a particular end is a mere incident. What we call the process, God calls the end.

What is my dream of God’s purpose? His purpose is that I depend on Him and on His power now. If I can stay in the middle of the turmoil calm and unperplexed, that is the end of the purpose of God. God is not working towards a particular finish; His end is the process—that I see Him walking on the waves, no shore in sight, no success, no goal, just the absolute certainty that it is all right because I see Him walking on the sea. It is the process, not the end, which is glorifying to God.

God’s training is for now, not presently. His purpose is for this minute, not for something in the future. We have nothing to do with the afterwards of obedience; we get wrong when we think of the afterwards. What men call training and preparation, God calls the end.

God’s end is to enable me to see that He can walk on the chaos of my life just now. If we have a further end in view, we do not pay sufficient attention to the immediate present; but if we realize that obedience is the end, then each moment as it comes is precious." 1

Perfection is found in the "process" of becoming a son but, only after one becomes His child and that being the new birth from above Jesus spoke of in John 3.. The process of "becoming" is where all of life's issues are sorted out and dealt with by us with the guidance by the "unction" of the Holy Spirit. This will always be a variable because of "Self" always demanding its way in our life.

Pentecost is so vitally important to the one who claims to be a disciple of Christ Jesus for reasons reasons already cited. It is the "coming upon" of the Holy Ghost after one in indwelt; become a child. Jesus said: "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come." This is the same "Unction" Jesus spoke with in His Earthly ministry.

I pray you all have received something in my attempt to shed some light on the subject.
John 16:13 (KJV)

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Matthew 24:30 (KJV)

1 Chambers, O. (1993, c1935). My utmost for his highest : Selections for the year (July 28). Grand Rapids, MI: Discovery House Publishers.

Copyrighted material, posted without permission.

Chappie

June 30th 2009, 11:00 AM

I am interested in this topic, can you paraphrase the edited part and let's jumpstart the discussion. If this is acceptable to the moderator of course....

Ormly

June 30th 2009, 01:21 PM

I am interested in this topic, can you paraphrase the edited part and let's jumpstart the discussion. If this is acceptable to the moderator of course....

Probably they won't be because they have told me not to post in the Christian 101 thread and limit myself to only posting in the UN-orthodox theology forum. Go figger.

It was a while back that some tulip bulb moderator chose to label me un-orthodox or not Calvin enough and by predudice and it is blindly defended by all the others. So Chappie you will have to perhaps ask them, why? Personally I take it all as a persecution since any word from me to defend myself them has been taken as harrassment.

It is unfortuament because the thread is great topic and needs to be discussed by Christians who know in their heart there is more in Him after salvation we are to partake of.

I have repeatedly asked for reasons why I am barred but nothing has been forthcoming. So it is a mystery to me especially when I read Ty Rockwells posts.

Here is a good starting point for any understanding in this:

The word Son in connection with Jesus does not refer to His Deity, but to His humanity. AS GOD, Christ had no beginning, was not begotten, was not the firstborn, was not born, and therefore, was not a Son; but AS MAN HE had a beginning, was begotten, was the first-born of God, w as born, and therefore became the Son of God. If one believed sonship referred to Deity, then he would have to believe that this person of Deity had a beginning, and was not always God, was not always in existence, and therefore was not an eternal and self-existent Being. It is plainly stated in Micah 5:2 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Mic+5%3A2)- John 1:1-2 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Jn+1%3A1-2); Col. 1:17 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Col+1%3A17); Rev. 1:8-18 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Rev+1%3A8-18); John 17:5 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Jn+17%3A5) that He had no beginning AS GOD and that He was as eternal and self-existent as the Father and the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, AS MAN it is plainly stated that He had a beginning. Note the following simple statements of Scripture that AS MAN and AS A SON. He did have a beginning, proving sonship refers to humanity and not to Deity.

(1) "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise.... she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.... that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:18-25 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Mt+1%3A18-25)). This proves that God had a Son at the same time Mary did, and neither had a Son before this. This Son was "Emmanuel .... God with us," but before the second person of the Godhead came to be with us AS MAN, HE could only exist AS GOD. AS GOD the second person of the God head is never called the Son of God, but when He became man by becoming the Son of both Mary and God, He is called "The Son of God."

The only references to His Sonship before He became the Son of Mary and God were in prophecies foretelling this event (Isa.7:14 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Isa+7%3A14); 9:6-7 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Isa+9%3A6-7); Prov. 30:4 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Pr+30%3A4); Ps. 2:7 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Ps+2%3A7), 12 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Ps+2%3A12); Heb. 1:5-6 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Heb+1%3A5-6)). That He was "The Son of God" and appeared in the fiery furnace as such in Dan. 3 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Da+3) is not stated anywhere. It was the heathen king that said "the form of the fourth is like the Son of God," literally, like a Son of God, as in the margin. In this appearance the being was an angel (Dan. 3:28 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Da+3%3A28)) and not the second person of the Godhead who later became man and the Son of Mary and God. To this heathen king any being like an angel would be called a Son of God, because he believed in many gods and offspring of gods. He knew nothing of the true God, much less that He would someday have a Son born of a woman.

(2) "Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall BE CALLED THE SON OF THE HIGHEST.... The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee SHALL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD" (Luke 1:31 -35 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Lk+1%3A31-35)). If God or Mary had a Son before this, when was it born? Certainly this was the first time Mary had a son, for she "brought forth her firstborn son: and called his name JESUS" (Matt. 1:25 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Mt+1%3A25)). This was also the first time God had a Son, for Mary's child is also called God's "first-born" in the same sense He was Mary's "first-born" (Matt. 1:25 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Mt+1%3A25); Ps. 89:27 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Ps+89%3A27); Col. 1:15 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Col+1%3A15); Heb. 1:5-7 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Heb+1%3A5-7)).
If God had a Son before this, then Jesus is the second-born Son and not "firstborn" and "the only begotten Son" of God, as in John 1:18 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Jn+1%3A18); 3:16-18 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Jn+3%3A16-18), 35-36 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Jn+3%3A35-36), and in the passages

Gee Ormly. You know better than to whine about moderation in a thread. Also since you have posted an unorthodox belief in Theo201 (that the Son was not always a distinct person of the trinity) which is why you were told to change your religious designation, this thread is being moved to Unorthodox theology. Theology 201 is for the discussion of doctrine within an orthodox framework. If you wish to complain further, take it to the locker room

RBerman

June 30th 2009, 01:47 PM

You need a new paradigm for what "son of God" means. It's not about birth. It's about position and function. The "son of God" is the one who wields God's authority and acts as God acts. Thus, to give one example out of many, Jesus says in Matthew 5 that peacemakers will be called "sons of God," because God is a peacemaker, so those who act like him are in this respect acting like his "sons." The angels are called "sons of God" in Job 1. The King of Israel is called "the son of God" in Psalm 2:7 and is even called "God" in Psalm 45:6 because he acts as God's representative before God's people. But all those "sons of God" were just pale imitations of the eternal Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. He was God's Son even before his earthly incarnation and of course remains such to this day, because he perfectly fulfills everything that God's Son should be, both in essence and in activity. Thus he is the "exact representation of God's being." (Hebrews 1:3) Jesus was "firstborn over all creation" before he was even born; it's a matter of position.

Ormly

June 30th 2009, 02:25 PM

RBerman

June 30th 2009, 02:28 PM

But Jesus said that all authority was given to Him, which I believe. Now was He Son of Man or Son of God when He said that?
False dichotomy. Jesus was both when he said that.

Ormly

June 30th 2009, 02:41 PM

False dichotomy. Jesus was both when he said that.

Good. Then perhaps you can explain why Jesus is coming again "In clouds of glory" as Son of Man and not Son of God?

RBerman

June 30th 2009, 02:53 PM

Good. Then perhaps you can explain why Jesus is coming again "In clouds of glory" as Son of Man and not Son of God?
Show me the verse that says Jesus is "coming as Son of Man and not Son of God."

Ormly

June 30th 2009, 03:07 PM

I am interested in this topic, can you paraphrase the edited part and let's jumpstart the discussion. If this is acceptable to the moderator of course....

I believe I am about to get canned by the mods for posting on a Christian forum. If I do , just want you to know I have enjoyed our exchanges.The Lord bless you and move you on to a deeper understanding of Him.. .. . .:smile:

Ormly

June 30th 2009, 03:09 PM

Show me the verse that says Jesus is "coming as Son of Man and not Son of God."

26 "Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
Mark 13:26 (NASB)

AND He will be God completely fulfilled in Flesh. . . . All three of the Godhead in one.Glorified Body of Flesh!. . . . . of a Man. And that is the reason for God creating man in the first place.

RBerman

June 30th 2009, 03:21 PM

26 "Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
Mark 13:26 (NASB)

AND He will be God completely fulfilled in Flesh. . . . All three of the Godhead in one.Glorified Body of Flesh!. . . . . of a Man. And that is the reason for God creating man in the first place.
My point is that Jesus has many titles, and calling him by one of them doesn't rule out that he possesses all the others. The particular reference to "Son of Man" in Mark 13 may be intended to connect Jesus' kingly power with that given to the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7, for instance.

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Jesus may well have been claiming to be the fulfillment of this passage, without prejudice against the other titles which he also possesses.

Chappie

June 30th 2009, 04:29 PM

* edited by a moderator *

Here is a good starting point for any understanding in this:

The word Son in connection with Jesus does not refer to His Deity, but to His humanity. AS GOD, Christ had no beginning, was not begotten, was not the firstborn, was not born, and therefore, was not a Son; but AS MAN HE had a beginning, was begotten, was the first-born of God, w as born, and therefore became the Son of God. If one believed sonship referred to Deity, then he would have to believe that this person of Deity had a beginning, and was not always God, was not always in existence, and therefore was not an eternal and self-existent Being. It is plainly stated in Micah 5:2 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Mic+5%3A2)- John 1:1-2 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Jn+1%3A1-2); Col. 1:17 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Col+1%3A17); Rev. 1:8-18 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Rev+1%3A8-18); John 17:5 (http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Jn+17%3A5) that He had no beginning AS GOD and that He was as eternal and self-existent as the Father and the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, AS MAN it is plainly stated that He had a beginning. Note the following simple statements of Scripture that AS MAN and AS A SON. He did have a beginning, proving sonship refers to humanity and not to Deity.

Hello Orm:
At this point just attempting to clarify or at a minimum establish a definitive point of understanding from which to proceed.

Son: Indication ones offspring.
Son of God: First generation removed from the Father. Adam as first created, Christ as first born/begotten. Christ is a son, but the only begotten son.
Son{s} of man: Descendants of Adam...
Son{s} of God: Those that are the receivers of sonship through Christ, or the cross of Christ.

BTW, I agree with your assessment presented in the above paragraph. There is a distinct difference when Christ is referred to as The Son of Man as opposed to The {Only Begotten} Son of God. He was not a son eternally; the bible says "in the beginning was The Word. Christ existed as "The Word" before the incarnation. In the incarnation he was manifested as a Son; as in "this day have I begotten thee:
Psalm 2:7
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.