Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mike555 you have simply repeated prior claims without answer the important questions.
Your interpretations of scriptures are subjective in the extreme and your usage of very complicated explanations and Rhetoric and the cutting and pasting of word meanings in the attempt to relate scriptures to your theory is counter productive. It is a good example of why the OP video says that such models of the God head are “incomprehensible”.
The earliest Christians did not need such rhetorical devices as their interpretations and descriptions were very simple.
Reference is to post #86.
No Clear lens. I don't engage in rhetoric, and there is nothing subjective about what I am saying. Rather then attempting to learn anything, you are simply trying to win a 'debate.' I on the other hand am attempting to provide you with information concerning Christology- doctrine concerning Jesus Christ. I have mentioned the doctrines of 'Kenosis' and 'the Hypostatic union.' These can easily be researched on the internet and I have suggested that you study these doctrines. But you aren't interested. My impression is that to you, everything is a theory and nothing can be proven.
Quote:
Given this, You STILL have not explained why YOUR complicated and rhetoric-ladent interpretation should carry more weight than the simple interpretations of the earliest Christians.
See very bottom of this post!!!
Quote:
REGARDING YOUR USAGE OF PHILLIPIANS 2:6
Despite the complicated rhetoric and “cut and paste” Greek references used in the attempt to support your theory, ultimately, the rhetoric doesn’t even work. For example, you quote Phil 2:6 and make it clear that the scripture says Jesus “did NOT regard equality (isos) with God a thing to be grasped”.
Once it is clear to us that Jesus did NOT regard equality with God the Father as a “thing to be grasped” (“seized” is a more correct rendering), you then tell us this means that he JESUS IS somehow equal with God the Father.
Αρπαγμος is a thing that ought NOT to be “grasped” (or “seized”).
No Clear lens. (And you will probably consider the following too complicated as well.) Phil 2:5 'Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6] who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped (to be held on to), but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, means that Jesus was willing to temporarily set aside His self-willed use of deity when He became a man. As God He had all the rights of deity, and yet during His incarnation He surrendered His right to manifest Himself visibly as the God of all splendor and glory. This was necessary in order to provide salvation for man. Jesus did not have to come into the world as a man. But He had to if He was to provide salvation for man. And He was willing to do this. And in Jesus' high priestly prayer (John 17), Jesus prayed that based on His finished work, which at the point of His prayer was still future, but certain, that He return to His pristine glory with the Father - the glory He had in eternity past.
Quote:
The rest of what you have cut and pasted has little application other than to bolster appearance of knowledge, but it doesn’t touch on the core issue that Jesus “thought NOT the being as God a thing to be seized” (these are the very words in the Phil 2:6 in the sharps critical bible – a list of corrections to T.R. based biblical texts)
Once again Clear lens - 'No'. What I said in post #86 was in reply to your different statements in post #81.
As already stated above, and what you fail to grasp, is that Jesus Christ was willing to set aside His rights as God in order to come into the world as a man and go to the cross where He was judged for the sins of the world.
And I did not use the KJV of Phil 2:5-8 which is based on the Textus Receptus, so I don't know why you would bring that up.
Quote:
In view of such obvious errors, WHY SHOULD WE GIVE YOUR INTERPRETATIONS MORE WEIGHT THAN THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATIONS?
There are no errors in what I said. I keep telling you that the early church had different beliefs about many things. For instance, in another thread you attempted to make it seem as if the early church believed that the soul had a pre-mortal existence. And as I pointed out, that was only a belief of a minority. Other beliefs of the early church regarding the soul were that of Traducianism and Creationism as it pertains to the soul.
Again, see the very bottom of this post.
Quote:
You have given a phenomenon a name, Kenosis and said Jesus ‘REFRAINED FROM THE INDEPENDENT USE OF HIS DIETY”.
The word 'kenosis' did not orginate from me. 'kenosis' and 'hypostatic union', as well as 'trinity' are technical theological terms which describe concepts which are taught in the Scriptures.
Quote:
How would this theory of KENOSIS answer the questions you were given? Here they are :
Regarding your claim of equal sovereignty and omniscience For God the Father and his Son :
When Jesus then claims that there are things he does not know, does KENOSIS assume there are things his Father does not know? or does KENOSIS then claim Jesus is not being truthful or is there another reason an “omniscient” being would claim there are things he does not know? Was Jesus simply pretending not to know certain things or did he actually not know certain things? Does KENOSIS actually make Jesus “less intelligent” for a period of time or does he pretend to less intelligence, or does he simply appear less intelligent because of KENOSIS.
Kenosis comes from the Greek word 'Kenoo' which means to make empty, or more accurately 'to deprive oneself of proper function' - in the case of Jesus Christ, the function of deity during His incarnation. It concerns Jesus Christ and not God the Father. Kenosis does not imply any of the things which you have said above.
From the time of His virgin birth, Jesus Christ was both undiminished deity and true humanity in one Person (hypostatic union). Jesus Christ did not empty Himself of His deity. To make the assumption that He did empty Himself of His deity is the false doctrine of Kenosis as opposed to the true doctrine of Kenosis. Christ's deity was not changed; it was retained at the point of the virgin birth.
Under true Kenosis, Jesus Christ didn't give up any attribute of His deity during His time on this earth. He voluntarily restricted the independent use or expression of His divine attributes in order to comply with the Father's Plan for the Incarnation. As I have already mentioned in the earlier post, one of Satan's temptations of Jesus before He began His public ministry was to get Him to independently use His deity by turning stones into bread (Matthew 4:3-4). To fulfill the Father's Plan for the incarnation, Jesus Christ had to be in subjection to the Father's Plan of the Cross. While in His deity Christ is coequal with the Father, in His humanity He was submissive to the Father. This submission does not imply any inferiority of Jesus Christ to the Father in His nature, for since the three Persons of the Godhead are One God, the nature of each Person of the trinity is the same. The submission of Jesus has to do with the Father's Plan for the incarnation which includes the Cross.
Quote:
When you claim that Jesus is sovereign and yet jesus indicates he was “sent” by and “obedient to” his Father, does your theory claim that Jesus is speaking of a relative principle? How is it that a supremely sovereign being is “sent by” and “obedient to” and a “servant of” any other being? Does KENOSIS remove Sovereignty? If Jesus was given his mission and commanded by the Father to do certain things, how is it that a completely sovereign being is commanded by any other being? If Jesus obtains his mission from and is annointed by the Father; and if Jesus receives authority from the Father, are you assuming that Jesus did not need authority the father gave him? Was jesus pretending not to have certain authority for some reason?
You continue to fail to distinquish between the nature - essence - attributes of God, and the Plan of God. In order to carry out the Plan of redemption, it was agreed upon by each of the Three Persons of the Godhead that each would do His particular part in the plan. Jesus Christ AGREED to become subservant to the Father's will during His incarnation on this earth.
In order to provide salvation for man, one of the Persons of the Godhead had to become a man. Jesus Christ agreed to do this. The will of the three Persons of the Godhead are always in perfect agreement with each other. None of the three Persons of the trinity work independently of each other.
The Sovereignty of each of the three Persons of the Godhead is manifested. The First Person of the trinity (God the Father) gave the command to create the universe. The Sovereignty and Omnipotence of Jesus Christ is manifested in that He did the actual act of creation. And it is by His Sovereignty and Omnipotence that Jesus Christ upholds His creation (Hebrews 1:3). The First Person of the trinity sent the Second Person of the trinity (Jesus Christ) into the world, and Jesus Christ agreed to come into the world. It was by His own Sovereignty that Jesus took upon Himself the form of man - true humanity. Again, the three Persons of the trinity are always in perfect agreement. Jesus Christ in His sovereignty also controls the rise and fall of nations (Prov 21:1; Psalms 33). The Holy Spirit sovereignly distributes spiritual gifts 'distributing to each one individually just as He wills (1 Cor 12:11).
Quote:
GOD THE FATHER IS SOVEREIGN OVER ALL OTHER BEINGS INCLUDING HIS SON JESUS AND JESUS DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME OMNISCIENCE OR KNOWLEDGE AS GOD THE FATHER HAS
No. God (the Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit) is sovereign over all. Jesus Christ by reason of being God has the exact same omniscience as God the Father. During His incarnation He simply restricted the independent use of His deity, including His omniscience.
In order to submit His will to the Father's, Christ limited His omniscience and His omnipotence. The only way He could do this was to refuse to use His omnipotence, omniscience, etc..., for His own benefit or His own glory. Again, Jesus' Kenosis was challenged by Satan in the great temptation of Matthew 4:1-10.
To execute the Father's Plan for the first advent, Jesus Christ in His humanity depended on the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Jesus also relied on Bible doctrine (Luke 2:40-52).
In Hypostatic union and kenosis, the expression of His deity or the independent use of His divine attributes was not a treasure to be retained and at the same time provide our salvation. Christ surrendered the independent use of His divine attributes duriing His Incarnation so that He could provide salvation for mankind. For our salvation, Christ voluntarily took upon Himself the form of a servant.
To fulfill the Father's Plan, Jesus Christ gave up the outward appearance of God (Schema), but not the inner essence (Morphe). He took upon Himself the Schema of a servant, but He did not give up or change His eternal Morphe. To put it another way, He chose not show His deity, even though it was present.
Jesus Christ chose to submit to the will of the Father and be dependent on the Holy Spirit in carrying out the Father's Plan. Jesus chose to function within the limitations of His humanity, even while His humanity was joined to deity.
Hebrews 1:3 'Jesus Christ is the radiance of His (the Fathers) glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power...' Jesus Christ is of the exact same nature or essence as the Father (and the Holy Spirit). Jesus Christ is not simply a reflection of God. He IS God.
Quote:
The ancients were taught by the apostles and they believed that JESUS HAD LESS AUTHORITY THAN HIS FATHER
When asked to allow two disciples to sit next to him in heaven, Jesus declined and defers to another will, that of his Father : Jesus does NOT take unto himself the same authority as the Father, but admits the father is greater : “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father:for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:28) If the Father is “greater than Jesus”, and the ancient Christians taught this, then why is your interpretation that he has the same "essence" of power, to be given greater weight than either Jesus' statement or the early Christian interpretations?
THE FATHER COMMANDS AND SENDS THE SON. THE SON IS OBEDIENT TO THE FATHER, NEVER THE OPPOSITE.'
The ancient christians understood that God the Father delegates to Jesus, what level of authority he will and they understood “ How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. (Acts 10:38)
If God the Father, anointed Jesus with power and the ancient Christians believed it was because Jesus did not HAVE the same power as the Father without the Father delegating it to him, why does your interpretation to be given greater weight and credence than their interpretations of the same texts?
If Jesus lacks knowledge that he had at some point in the past, did he “forget” prior knowledge and acquire a bad memory? Did he agree “not to know” something he actually did know? Your theory is fraught with difficulties, your interpretations are faulty and the complicated system of attempted explanation of your theory rest upon a completely subjective rendering of a scripture How does this next claim of KENOSIS fix the problems with your prior claims?
Again Clear lens, you continue to fail to distinquish between the nature of God and the plan of God in which Jesus Christ who is equal to the Father in every way agreed to submit to the will of the Father in order to carry out the Plan of salvation for man.
The issue of what Jesus knew in His humanity has already been addressed.
Quote:
After you answer these things, TELL US :
WHY SHOULD WE GIVE YOUR PERSONALS INTERPRETATIONS MORE WEIGHT THAN THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE EARLIEST JUDAO-CHRISTIANS (who had more original texts)?
You continue to promote the falsehood that the Bible is not reliable because we don't have the original manuscripts. You disregard the fact that God has promised to preserve His word. Despite the variations in the manuscript copies, there have not been any doctrines lost or changed. God's word has been preserved.
The Apostles and what they wrote is as early church as you can get. And they made it clear that Jesus Christ is God. And yet, there were those in the early church, including some of the post-apostolic fathers who did not believe that Jesus was God.
***WARNING!!! WARNING!!! The following is a copy and paste***
According to the following site: How the early Church fathers viewed Jesus Clement of Rome didn't believe that Jesus was God. Yet the Bible states plainly that Jesus Christ IS God.
Excerpt:
'St. Clement of Rome is believed to have been the fourth bishop of Rome, during the last decade of the 1st century. He believed that the Father is God Almighty, while Jesus is Lord (master) and Christ (the chosen one or the anointed one). Clement, never called Jesus “God” or “a god.” He wrote, “0:1 {From} the Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God which sojourns at Corinth, to them who are called and sanctified in the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ: {God is God and Jesus is Lord Christ. Clement repeatedly made a clear distinction between these two persons}.'
************************************************** *******
The early church did not have a better understanding of the things which had been taught to them. The early church struggled with many of the finer points of their belief structure -- such as doctrine pertaining to Christ. The early church was in the process of working out its understanding of who and what Jesus Christ was. There were many heresies such as Docetism, Gnosticism, Nicolaitans, Monarchianism, Unitarianism, Montanus, Arianism, all of which are explained at the following --- YES!!! ANOTHER COPY AND PASTE!!! --- site: Heresies and Heretics in the Early Church (http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/trinity/heresies1.shtml - broken link)
And another copy and paste:
Excerpt:
Athenagoras wrote in 160 AD an explanation as to what the church believes:
“they hold the Father to be God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit, and declare their union and their distinction in order.” (A plea for the Christians.10.3)
Is the Trinity a new belief? Almost 200 years before the Council of Nicaea, Athenagoras explained the church’s belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were united and distinct.
What the early church believed (http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/trinity/church_believed.shtml - broken link)
Contained in that link above are other quotes from other chuch fathers pertaining to the deity of Jesus Christ.
Quote:
Clear
acvisinh
P.S. I VERY, VERY strongly AGREE with the observation that it was the later Christians (such as those in your quotes) that started moving towards a "three in one essence" sort of God head and away from the God head described by the earliest Judao-Christian texts.
To refute certain heretical beliefs within the early church, the church clarified what is taught in the scriptures. That God exists as three Persons who are united by their essence.
Clear lens, you should spend less time with the extra-biblical writings and more time with the Bible - the word of God. You should listen to what well taught theologians of today have to say about what the Scriptures say concerning doctrinal matters. Believe it or not, many theologians are skilled in exegetics.
Excerpt:
Proper exegesis includes using the context around the passage, comparing it with other parts of the Bible, and applying an understanding of the language and customs of the time of the writing, in an attempt to understand clearly what the original writer intended to convey. In other words, it is trying to "pull out" of the passage the meaning inherent in it. The opposite of exegesis is eisegesis, which is a person's particular interpretation of scriptures that are not evident in the text itself. (emphasis mine) Definition of Christian Terms: EXEGESIS
This isn't about debate. I have provided you with sound doctrine concerning the Kenosis of Jesus Christ, and about the equality within the Godhead. But if you choose not to listen to what theologians of today have to say, and instead try to understand the Bible only from the extra-biblical writings of the early church, written by those who had varying beliefs, that is your concern. And if that is the case, then you will always be confused about what the Scriptures say.
Last edited by Michael Way; 06-26-2011 at 04:09 PM..
Clear suggests that Mike has excused a misalignment by making up or adopting the make-believe doctrine of "kenosis."
If you are reading this thread and don't know what "kenosis" is:
Kenosis is a term derived from the discussion as to the real meaning of Phil. 2:6 sqq.: "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied [ekenosen] himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as man."
(CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Kenosis)
IOW - Saying that Christ somehow "remains God," even though he had given up all the actual qualities and attributes, and powers of God.
So in heaven he is God... But on earth he is a god-man who empties himself of the God-part to be human but somehow he is still God....
A doctrine made from a scripture specifically designed to explain that very same scripture.
Will the madness ever end? Will Mike rebut or sidestep?
No. Jesus Christ did not give up the actual qualilties and attributes of God. Jesus simply refrained from the independent use of His deity while on earth. Matthew 4:3-4 records Satan's attempt to get Jesus to use His deity to turn stones into bread.
See post #91 for more details on Kenosis. I'll not take the time to repeat it all here.
No. Jesus Christ did not give up the actual qualilties and attributes of God. Jesus simply refrained from the independent use of His deity while on earth. Matthew 4:3-4 records Satan's attempt to get Jesus to use His deity to turn stones into bread.
See post #91 for more details on Kenosis. I'll not take the time to repeat it all here.
Mike... I'm well aware of what kenosis is.
I do have a question for you that kenosis doesn't answer. In Phil 2:5 Paul writes: 'Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, '
This, to me, sounds as if the readers are to do the same thing, that is 'empty' themselves. If Jesus is God and they are not God, how is that possible? And why is Paul telling them to have the same attitude (i.e. not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped).
I do have a question for you that kenosis doesn't answer. In Phil 2:5 Paul writes: 'Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, '
This, to me, sounds as if the readers are to do the same thing, that is 'empty' themselves. If Jesus is God and they are not God, how is that possible? And why is Paul telling them to have the same attitude (i.e. not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped).
What you said in post #90...''IOW - Saying that Christ somehow "remains God," even though he had given up all the actual qualities and attributes, and powers of God.
So in heaven he is God... But on earth he is a god-man who empties himself of the God-part to be human but somehow he is still God....'' is indicatative of one who does NOT know what kenosis is.
Phil 2:5 is simply saying that Christians are to have the same attitude of self-sacrificing humility and love for others, as Christ exhibited in His humilation and condescension.
Phil 2:5 is simply saying that Christians are to have the same attitude of self-sacrificing humility and love for others, as Christ exhibited in His humilation and condescension.
If that is all verse means then why is kenosis based on the verse. If the above is the actual meaning of the verse and the writers intention in writing it, then why do we need kenosis in order to understand that Jesus is God when obviously, or 'simply' as you put it, the above is all the writer was trying to convey.
1) REGARDING YOU NEW CLAIM AND DOCTRINE OF KENOSIS : IT STILL HAS NOT ANSWERED ANY OF THE BASIC, BUT IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.
Quote:
Mike555 explained in Post #86 : “Nor did Jesus empty Himself of His deity during His incarnation. The true doctrine of Kenosis is that Jesus simply refrained from the independent use of His divine attributes during His first advent”
Again Mike555, you have offered definitions; restated claims and offered yet another theory in an attempt to support your first theory. BUT YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE IMPORTANT UNDERLYING QUESTIONS. How does this theory of KENOSIS answer the questions you were given?
Here they are again :
Regarding your claim of equal sovereignty and omniscience For God the Father and his Son :
When Jesus then claims that there are things he does not know, does KENOSIS assume there are things his Father does not know? (making them equally ignorant), or is Jesus truly ignorant of the answers to some simple questions, or does KENOSIS then claim Jesus is not being truthful (feigning ignorance) or is there another reason an “omniscient” being would claim there are things he does not know?
Was Jesus simply pretending not to know certain things or did he actually not know certain things? Does your theory of KENOSIS actually MAKE Jesus “less intelligent” for a period of time or does it assume that Jesus pretends to less intelligence, or does Jesus simply appear less intelligent because of KENOSIS?
If Jesus lacks knowledge that he had at some point in the past, did jesus “forget” prior knowledge and acquire a bad memory?
When you claim that Jesus is sovereign and yet jesus indicates he was “sent” by and “obedient to” his Father, how is it that a supremely sovereign being is “sent by” and “obedient to” and a “servant of” any other being? Does KENOSIS remove Jesus’ Sovereignty?
If Jesus was given his mission and commanded by the Father to do certain things, how is it that a completely sovereign being is commanded by any other being?
If Jesus obtains his mission from and is annointed by the Father; and if Jesus receives authority from the Father, are you assuming that Jesus did not need authority the father gave him?
Was jesus simply pretending not to have certain authority for some reason?
You have introduced another complicated theory (kenosis) in order to help explain and support your first theory (equality in the “essence” of the Godhead). However, this new theory of Kenosis is fraught with its own set of difficulties which must be answered BEFORE it will be helpful or applicable to your claim of Equality in the Godheads “essence”. There was no need for complicated schemes in the earliest Christian model.
WHY SHOULD WE GIVE YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE (and your doctrines) MORE WEIGHT THAN THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE EARLIEST JUDAO-CHRISTIANS (who had more original texts)?
2)REGARDING THE PROBLEM WITH RESTING YOUR THEOLOGY ON A SINGLE, MISINTERPRETED WORD THE ANCIENTS USED IN THEIR TEXT
Your interpretations are faulty and the your complicated system of attempted explanations of your theory rest upon a completely subjective rendering of a scripture, often on a subjective and incorrect meaning of a single word.
In coming up with definitions to support your new theories, you are violating the basic rule of translation :
Quote:
“When reading a difficult passage in any ancient writings, there is no better rule for determining what it is probable that the writer meant, than to consider what it is probable that those for whom he wrote would understand him to mean. “
Instead of leaving a word in it’s ancient context, you render a word with your own meaning, suitable to your theology, and then offer it to us as authentic ancient theology. This is NOT authentic history nor does it create authentic ancient theology.
Quote:
Mike555 quoted in Post #86 : Phil 2:5 'Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6] who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equalitywith God a thing to be grasped, 7] but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Clear lens replied : Despite the complicated rhetoric and “cut and paste” Greek references used in the attempt to support your theory, ultimately, the rhetoric doesn’t even work. For example, you quote Phil 2:6 and make it clear that the scripture says Jesus “did NOT regard equality (isos) with God a thing to be grasped”.
Once it is clear to us that Jesus did NOT regard equality with God the Father as a “thing to be grasped” (“seized” is a more correct rendering), you then tell us this means that he JESUS IS somehow equal with God the Father.
Αρπαγμος is a thing that ought NOT to be “grasped” (or “seized”).
(bold and underline in mike555s quote is mine and done to emphasize of the core issue of equality
When it says that Jesus did not regard equality with God as a thing to be “seized”, the word for “seized” does NOT mean a simple “grasping” or “holding onto” a thing. It is the taking of a thing that does not belong to the taker. It is a “robbery” (thus the KJV translators used the word “robbery” in their incorrect rendering of the greek). The word you render as "grasp" is αρπαγμος and it implies robbery, stealing, plundering, taking by force, swindling, extortion.
It is in THIS connotation of the word used in the greek and for THIS reason that Jesus did NOT regarding equality with God the Father a thing to be stolen, robbed, plundered, etc.
The reason you repeatedly make such contextual mistakes mike555, is that you insist on breaking sensible historical rules in your attempt to support your religious opinions :
Quote:
“When reading a difficult passage in any ancient writings, there is no better rule for determining what it is probable that the writer meant, than to consider what it is probable that those for whom he wrote would understand him to mean. “
THIS is why it matters what the ancient Christians believed.
Consider the ancient usage of the word you are using for the word “grasping”, but which is really an inappropriate “seizing”.
Mtt 2:25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees… inside they are full of extortion and rapicity
γεμουσιν εξ αρπαγηςκαι ακρασιασ
Lk11:39 “And the Lord said…
inside you are full of extortion and wickedness. Αρπαγης και πονηριας.
Heb 10:34 “...you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property…”
Και την αρπαγην των θπαρχοντων υμων μετα χαρας...
Do you see that Αρπαγμος, (actively) is “the act of seizing”. It is Robbery.
Even passively such as it’s used in Ez 22:27, it remains “a thing seized” (and in that way might be rendered as a “prize”)
Ezek 22:25 and vs 27 :
V25 “Of whom the ones guiding in her midst are
as lions roaring, seizing by forcethe prey, devouring souls by domination and taking honor…”
Ως λεοντες ωρυομενοι αρπαζοντες αρπαγματα, ...
And vs 25 : “Her rulers … are as
wolves seizing preyto shed bloods that their desire for wealth should overabound” (LXX)
Αρχοντες ...ως λυκοι αρπαζοντες αρπαγματατου εκχεαι αιμα
Αρπαξ is someone who is “rapacious”, a “swindler”, an “extortioner”. NOT A “GRASPER”. Perhaps you can see if you CAN find any scriptural use of this word which has another connotation....
THIS IS WHY I TRIED TO EXPLAIN IN MY LAST POST (#89) : “Αρπαγμος is a thing that ought NOT to be “grasped” (or “seized”).”
Thus, it is in this sense and meaning and context that it was written that “Jesus did NOT regard equality with God a thing to be seized (αρπαγμος)”.
Mike555, if you refuse to pay any attention to the earliest beliefs and THEIR contexts, you are doomed to repeat mistakes like this over and over and the theories and theologies you create will continue to be faulty.
3) You still have not answered any of the important questions.
Given the errors within your theories and the number of difficulties and complicated logical and rhetorical mechanisms one must engage in to believe your theories, WHY SHOULD WE GIVE YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE (and your doctrine) MORE WEIGHT THAN THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE EARLIEST JUDAO-CHRISTIANS (who had more original texts)?
Mike555: 1) REGARDING YOU NEW CLAIM AND DOCTRINE OF KENOSIS : IT STILL HAS NOT ANSWERED ANY OF THE BASIC, BUT IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.
Again Mike555, you have offered definitions; restated claims and offered yet another theory in an attempt to support your first theory. BUT YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE IMPORTANT UNDERLYING QUESTIONS. How does this theory of KENOSIS answer the questions you were given?
Here they are again : Regarding your claim of equal sovereignty and omniscience For God the Father and his Son :
When Jesus then claims that there are things he does not know, does KENOSIS assume there are things his Father does not know? (making them equally ignorant), or is Jesus truly ignorant of the answers to some simple questions, or does KENOSIS then claim Jesus is not being truthful (feigning ignorance) or is there another reason an “omniscient” being would claim there are things he does not know?
Was Jesus simply pretending not to know certain things or did he actually not know certain things? Does your theory of KENOSIS actually MAKE Jesus “less intelligent” for a period of time or does it assume that Jesus pretends to less intelligence, or does Jesus simply appear less intelligent because of KENOSIS?
If Jesus lacks knowledge that he had at some point in the past, did jesus “forget” prior knowledge and acquire a bad memory?
When you claim that Jesus is sovereign and yet jesus indicates he was “sent” by and “obedient to” his Father, how is it that a supremely sovereign being is “sent by” and “obedient to” and a “servant of” any other being? Does KENOSIS remove Jesus’ Sovereignty?
If Jesus was given his mission and commanded by the Father to do certain things, how is it that a completely sovereign being is commanded by any other being?
If Jesus obtains his mission from and is annointed by the Father; and if Jesus receives authority from the Father, are you assuming that Jesus did not need authority the father gave him?
Was jesus simply pretending not to have certain authority for some reason?
You have introduced another complicated theory (kenosis) in order to help explain and support your first theory (equality in the “essence” of the Godhead). However, this new theory of Kenosis is fraught with its own set of difficulties which must be answered BEFORE it will be helpful or applicable to your claim of Equality in the Godheads “essence”. There was no need for complicated schemes in the earliest Christian model.
WHY SHOULD WE GIVE YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE (and your doctrines) MORE WEIGHT THAN THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE EARLIEST JUDAO-CHRISTIANS (who had more original texts)?
2)REGARDING THE PROBLEM WITH RESTING YOUR THEOLOGY ON A SINGLE, MISINTERPRETED WORD THE ANCIENTS USED IN THEIR TEXT
Your interpretations are faulty and the your complicated system of attempted explanations of your theory rest upon a completely subjective rendering of a scripture, often on a subjective and incorrect meaning of a single word.
In coming up with definitions to support your new theories, you are violating the basic rule of translation : Instead of leaving a word in it’s ancient context, you render a word with your own meaning, suitable to your theology, and then offer it to us as authentic ancient theology. This is NOT authentic history nor does it create authentic ancient theology.
When it says that Jesus did not regard equality with God as a thing to be “seized”, the word for “seized” does NOT mean a simple “grasping” or “holding onto” a thing. It is the taking of a thing that does not belong to the taker. It is a “robbery” (thus the KJV translators used the word “robbery” in their incorrect rendering of the greek). The word you render as "grasp" is αρπαγμος and it implies robbery, stealing, plundering, taking by force, swindling, extortion.
It is in THIS connotation of the word used in the greek and for THIS reason that Jesus did NOT regarding equality with God the Father a thing to be stolen, robbed, plundered, etc.
The reason you repeatedly make such contextual mistakes mike555, is that you insist on breaking sensible historical rules in your attempt to support your religious opinions : THIS is why it matters what the ancient Christians believed.
Consider the ancient usage of the word you are using for the word “grasping”, but which is really an inappropriate “seizing”.
Mtt 2:25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees… inside they are full of extortion and rapicity
γεμουσιν εξ αρπαγηςκαι ακρασιασ
Lk11:39 “And the Lord said…
inside you are full of extortion and wickedness. Αρπαγης και πονηριας.
Heb 10:34 “...you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property…”
Και την αρπαγην των θπαρχοντων υμων μετα χαρας...
Do you see that Αρπαγμος, (actively) is “the act of seizing”. It is Robbery.
Even passively such as it’s used in Ez 22:27, it remains “a thing seized” (and in that way might be rendered as a “prize”)
Ezek 22:25 and vs 27 :
V25 “Of whom the ones guiding in her midst are
as lions roaring, seizing by forcethe prey, devouring souls by domination and taking honor…”
Ως λεοντες ωρυομενοι αρπαζοντες αρπαγματα, ...
And vs 25 : “Her rulers … are as
wolves seizing preyto shed bloods that their desire for wealth should overabound” (LXX)
Αρχοντες ...ως λυκοι αρπαζοντες αρπαγματατου εκχεαι αιμα
Αρπαξ is someone who is “rapacious”, a “swindler”, an “extortioner”. NOT A “GRASPER”. Perhaps you can see if you CAN find any scriptural use of this word which has another connotation....
THIS IS WHY I TRIED TO EXPLAIN IN MY LAST POST (#89) : “Αρπαγμος is a thing that ought NOT to be “grasped” (or “seized”).”
Thus, it is in this sense and meaning and context that it was written that “Jesus did NOT regard equality with God a thing to be seized (αρπαγμος)”.
Mike555, if you refuse to pay any attention to the earliest beliefs and THEIR contexts, you are doomed to repeat mistakes like this over and over and the theories and theologies you create will continue to be faulty.
3) You still have not answered any of the important questions.
Given the errors within your theories and the number of difficulties and complicated logical and rhetorical mechanisms one must engage in to believe your theories, WHY SHOULD WE GIVE YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE (and your doctrine) MORE WEIGHT THAN THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE EARLIEST JUDAO-CHRISTIANS (who had more original texts)?
Clear
netwfuli
Clear . . . I admire your scholarship and your tenacity in confronting the "precepts and doctrines of men" espoused by Mike. It will have no impact on him . . . nor will he give any satisfactory answers because he is simply a proselytizer for his mentors. However, the concept of consciousness (Spirit) as the source of personhood that was unknown to our early Christian ancestors removes all the mystery about a "Trinity" and eliminates the need for new definitions of magical processes.
1) REGARDING YOU NEW CLAIM AND DOCTRINE OF KENOSIS : IT STILL HAS NOT ANSWERED ANY OF THE BASIC, BUT IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.
Again Mike555, you have offered definitions; restated claims and offered yet another theory in an attempt to support your first theory. BUT YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE IMPORTANT UNDERLYING QUESTIONS. How does this theory of KENOSIS answer the questions you were given?
Here they are again :
Regarding your claim of equal sovereignty and omniscience For God the Father and his Son :
When Jesus then claims that there are things he does not know, does KENOSIS assume there are things his Father does not know? (making them equally ignorant), or is Jesus truly ignorant of the answers to some simple questions, or does KENOSIS then claim Jesus is not being truthful (feigning ignorance) or is there another reason an “omniscient” being would claim there are things he does not know?
Was Jesus simply pretending not to know certain things or did he actually not know certain things? Does your theory of KENOSIS actually MAKE Jesus “less intelligent” for a period of time or does it assume that Jesus pretends to less intelligence, or does Jesus simply appear less intelligent because of KENOSIS?
If Jesus lacks knowledge that he had at some point in the past, did jesus “forget” prior knowledge and acquire a bad memory?
When you claim that Jesus is sovereign and yet jesus indicates he was “sent” by and “obedient to” his Father, how is it that a supremely sovereign being is “sent by” and “obedient to” and a “servant of” any other being? Does KENOSIS remove Jesus’ Sovereignty?
If Jesus was given his mission and commanded by the Father to do certain things, how is it that a completely sovereign being is commanded by any other being?
If Jesus obtains his mission from and is annointed by the Father; and if Jesus receives authority from the Father, are you assuming that Jesus did not need authority the father gave him?
Was jesus simply pretending not to have certain authority for some reason?
I already told you in post #91 that Kenosis does not imply any of the things which you have asked in the questions above. I then explained in some detail what Kenosis did mean. I also told you that the matter of Jesus' submission to the Father had to do the God's Plan for the incarnation and does not have anything to do with the nature or essence of God. Since God is One and yet is three Persons, then of neccessity, all three Persons of the trinity have the same atttributes. There is no inferiority of any of the Persons of the Godhead to any other Person of the Godhead. That is the answer with regard to your questions above.
But just to address the first question, since Kenosis involved Jesus restricting the independent use of His deity during His time on earth, why would you assume that it would somehow mean that there were things that the Father didn't know? I went into some detail about what kenosis means.
Quote:
You have introduced another complicated theory (kenosis) in order to help explain and support your first theory (equality in the “essence” of the Godhead). However, this new theory of Kenosis is fraught with its own set of difficulties which must be answered BEFORE it will be helpful or applicable to your claim of Equality in the Godheads “essence”. There was no need for complicated schemes in the earliest Christian model.
There are no difficulties with the doctrine of Kenosis. And you have not stated what those supposed difficulties are unless you are referring to your questions above. And I have already addressed those questions in my explanation of Kenosis in post #91.
Quote:
WHY SHOULD WE GIVE YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE (and your doctrines) MORE WEIGHT THAN THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE EARLIEST JUDAO-CHRISTIANS (who had more original texts)?
This too has already been addressed in post #91.
Quote:
2)REGARDING THE PROBLEM WITH RESTING YOUR THEOLOGY ON A SINGLE, MISINTERPRETED WORD THE ANCIENTS USED IN THEIR TEXT
Your interpretations are faulty and the your complicated system of attempted explanations of your theory rest upon a completely subjective rendering of a scripture, often on a subjective and incorrect meaning of a single word.
In coming up with definitions to support your new theories, you are violating the basic rule of translation : Instead of leaving a word in it’s ancient context, you render a word with your own meaning, suitable to your theology, and then offer it to us as authentic ancient theology. This is NOT authentic history nor does it create authentic ancient theology.
When it says that Jesus did not regard equality with God as a thing to be “seized”, the word for “seized” does NOT mean a simple “grasping” or “holding onto” a thing. It is the taking of a thing that does not belong to the taker. It is a “robbery” (thus the KJV translators used the word “robbery” in their incorrect rendering of the greek). The word you render as "grasp" is αρπαγμος and it implies robbery, stealing, plundering, taking by force, swindling, extortion.
It is in THIS connotation of the word used in the greek and for THIS reason that Jesus did NOT regarding equality with God the Father a thing to be stolen, robbed, plundered, etc.
The reason you repeatedly make such contextual mistakes mike555, is that you insist on breaking sensible historical rules in your attempt to support your religious opinions : THIS is why it matters what the ancient Christians believed.
Consider the ancient usage of the word you are using for the word “grasping”, but which is really an inappropriate “seizing”.
Mtt 2:25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees… inside they are full of extortion and rapicity
γεμουσιν εξ αρπαγηςκαι ακρασιασ
Lk11:39 “And the Lord said…
inside you are full of extortion and wickedness. Αρπαγης και πονηριας.
Heb 10:34 “...you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property…”
Και την αρπαγην των θπαρχοντων υμων μετα χαρας...
Do you see that Αρπαγμος, (actively) is “the act of seizing”. It is Robbery.
Even passively such as it’s used in Ez 22:27, it remains “a thing seized” (and in that way might be rendered as a “prize”)
Ezek 22:25 and vs 27 :
V25 “Of whom the ones guiding in her midst are
as lions roaring, seizing by forcethe prey, devouring souls by domination and taking honor…”
Ως λεοντες ωρυομενοι αρπαζοντες αρπαγματα, ...
And vs 25 : “Her rulers … are as
wolves seizing preyto shed bloods that their desire for wealth should overabound” (LXX)
Αρχοντες ...ως λυκοι αρπαζοντες αρπαγματατου εκχεαι αιμα
Αρπαξ is someone who is “rapacious”, a “swindler”, an “extortioner”. NOT A “GRASPER”. Perhaps you can see if you CAN find any scriptural use of this word which has another connotation....
THIS IS WHY I TRIED TO EXPLAIN IN MY LAST POST (#89) : “Αρπαγμος is a thing that ought NOT to be “grasped” (or “seized”).”
Thus, it is in this sense and meaning and context that it was written that “Jesus did NOT regard equality with God a thing to be seized (αρπαγμος)”.
Mike555, if you refuse to pay any attention to the earliest beliefs and THEIR contexts, you are doomed to repeat mistakes like this over and over and the theories and theologies you create will continue to be faulty.
3) You still have not answered any of the important questions.
Given the errors within your theories and the number of difficulties and complicated logical and rhetorical mechanisms one must engage in to believe your theories, WHY SHOULD WE GIVE YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE (and your doctrine) MORE WEIGHT THAN THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE EARLIEST JUDAO-CHRISTIANS (who had more original texts)?
Clear
netwfuli
Of course the word 'harpazó' has included in its definition the concept of being seized. As a matter of fact, in 1 Phil 4:17 'Harpazó' is used for the rapture of the church. 'Harpazó' has been translated in that passage as 'caught up'. But in that context, robbery is hardly the meaning.
From 'Harpazo' comes 'harpagmos' In Phil 2:6 'harpagmos' is defined by The New Testament Greek Lexicon as:
1. the act of seizing, robbery
2. a thing seized or to be seized
a. booty to deem anything a prize
b. a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained Harpagmos - Greek Lexicon
Also from 'Harpazo' comes 'harpagé' which is the word used in three of the verses you listed -- Matt 23:25, Luke 11:39, and Heb 10:34. 'Harpage' means to plunder (pillage), fueled by "violent greed" 724. ?????? (harpagé) -- pillage, plundering
Both the NASB which is considered one of the most literal English translations, and the Greek/English Interlinear New Testament UBS 4th edition, Nestle-Aland 26th edition translate 'harpagmos' in Phil 2:6 as 'a thing to be grasped'. Whereas (to take 3 of the verses you listed - Matt 23:25, Luke 11:39, and Heb 10:34) The same NASB translates Matt 23:25 and Luke 11:39 as 'robbery' and Heb 10:34 as 'seizure', while the Greek/English UBS Nestle-Aland 26th edition tanslate Matt 23:25 and Luke 11:39 as 'greed', and Heb 10:34 as 'seizing'. The translators understood the difference in the use of 'Harpagmos' according to the context of the respective passages.
Phil 2:6 does NOT mean what you implied with this comment 'It is in THIS connotation of the word used in the greek and for THIS reason that Jesus did NOT regarding equality with God the Father a thing to be stolen, robbed, plundered, etc.'
It is an absurdity to think that equality with God the Father could be stolen or robbed or plundered. How do you steal equality with God? You can't, and Paul was not saying that such a thing was possible. And He certainly didn't say that Jesus thought it was possible.
Phil 2:6 is clear. It is contrasting the form (Morphe) of Jesus as God with His form (Schema) as man. Two different words both translated as 'form'.
With regard to Morphe, C. I. Scofield wrote...
3(2:6) This is one of the strongest assertions in the N.T. of the Deity of Jesus Christ. The form (Gk. morphē) is the external appearance by which a person or thing strikes the vision; yet it is an external form truly indicative of the inner nature from which it springs. Nothing in this passage teaches that the eternal Word (Jn.1:1) emptied Himself of either His divine nature or His attributes, but only of the outward and visible manifestation of the Godhead. God may change form, but He cannot cease to be God. At all times His divine attributes could be exercised according to His will.
(New Scofield Reference Edition, footnote for Phil 2:6, p. 1281.)
In Phil 2, Paul was talking about being like Christ in terms of having an attitude of humility. As the ultimate example of humility, Paul spoke of Jesus' willingness to set aside (during the incarnation) the independent use of His deity. Jesus retained His deity during His time on earth, but He voluntarily restricted using His deity apart from the Father's will. I have already (twice now, I think) given Matthew 4:3-4 as an example of how Satan tempted Jesus to use His deity to turn stones into bread. Jesus refused to do so. That Jesus was willing to veil His glory and condescend to become a man and go to the cross, was the ultimate act and attitude of humility.
Jesus Christ existed in the form of God. And being God, He is equal with the other two Persons of the Godhead. But though possessing full deity (John 1:1 with John 1:14; Col 2:9), Christ did not consider His equality with God (Phil 2:6) a thing to be grasped or held onto. In other words Christ did not hesitate to set aside His independent use of His deity when He became a man. As God He had all the rights of deity, but during His incarnation He veiled His glory and did not manifest Himself visibly as almighty God.
As for you Clear lens, I have gone over this enough. If you are willing to make an honest effort to better understand Kenosis (I don't think that you are), go into the study I provided. As far as I am concerned, I have provided sufficent information on the subject and I will spend no more time on it.
I refer readers to posts #86 and 91 for what I have said concerning Kenosis.
If that is all verse means then why is kenosis based on the verse. If the above is the actual meaning of the verse and the writers intention in writing it, then why do we need kenosis in order to understand that Jesus is God when obviously, or 'simply' as you put it, the above is all the writer was trying to convey.
You don't understand the point that Paul was making. Believers are exhorted to have the same attitude of selfless humility which Jesus Christ exhibited in veiling His glory as God and taking upon Himself the form of a slave. This He did in order to provide salvation for man. The kenosis of Christ which Paul spoke of in Phil 2:5-8 is the ultimate example of humility that could possibly be given.
Phil 2:5 'Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,'
The attitude of humility which Jesus exhibited in condescending to become a member of the human race in order to provide salvation for man.
Believers should have Jesus' attitude of self-sacrificing humility and love for others.
Phil 2:4 'do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
John 13:12 'And so when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments, and reclined at the table again, He said to them, ''Do you know what I have done to you? 13] ''You call Me teacher and Lord; and you are right, for I am. 14] ''If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. 15] ''For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. 16] ''Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master; neither is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. 17] ''If you know thse things, you are blessed if you do them.''
Last edited by Michael Way; 06-28-2011 at 01:18 AM..
You don't understand the point that Paul was making. Believers are exhorted to have the same attitude of selfless humility which Jesus Christ exhibited in veiling His glory as God and taking upon Himself the form of a slave. This He did in order to provide salvation for man. The kenosis of Christ which Paul spoke of in Phil 2:5-8 is the ultimate example of humility that could possibly be given.
Phil 2:5 'Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,'
The attitude of humility which Jesus exhibited in condescending to become a member of the human race in order to provide salvation for man.
So then the disciples should empty themselves becoming humble. You just can't use a verse to prove a 'god-man' then backtrack to the real meaning only to reiterate the erroneous conclusion you want to promote. The verse TELLS the rest of them to EMPTY themselves taking on the attitude Christ had.
If Paul is describing kenosis then you advocate that all the 'yourselves' are told to do the same... Become God-men.
How can you have it both ways? If Jesus was emptied and God-man and you accept that, then Paul is telling everyone else to empty themselves to be God-men as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
