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.
I admit mike555 that I don’t go to links very often since they are so often merely cutting and pasting of someone elses thoughts and are a lazy way of appearing to know something. IF the forum simply becomes a list of links to counter another posters set of links then one will not be able to wade through the junk to find the real data.
However, I must admit that I did NOT know that there was a longer version of the apostolic Fathers that had been discovered. I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE this new information. I apologize for intimating your cut and paste was a non-existent quote, and, not only do I admit your quote exists, but I am grateful to find either something I did not know or something I was wrong about. Thanks.
Regarding your complaint :
Quote:
Mike555 said : As I keep telling you, the issue is not what the early church believed.
Mike555 you are NOT the only person in the forum and there are those who DO believe that what the apostles and prophets believed was taught to the earliest christians. These early Christians often wrote and read texts that reflect their beliefs.
You read sacred texts and then interpret what you read. They also read sacred texts and interpreted what they read. You have not given us any reason (so far) to give your personal interpretations any greater weight than the early christian interpretations.
For example, you speak of the trinity as having the same "essence", including equal omniscience and equal power, whereas the ancient Judao-Christians did NOT believe Jesus had equal knowledge nor equal power to his Father, but rather that his father was greater than he was; he was sent by his father; his father knew things he did not know. All of these things indicate DIFFERENT characteristics (the “essence” as you are calling it).
Why should YOUR interpretation have any greater weight than the earliest Christians who, presumably, had more original texts (if they had any at all) than you?
Why should YOUR interpretation of Phillipian’s have greater weight than the earliest Christians interpretation?
Regarding your claim of equal sovereignty and omniscience For God the Father and his Son :
Quote:
“You are sadly in serious error in making that claim. All three Persons of the Godhead do in fact have the same sovereignty and omniscience.
When Jesus then claims that there are things he does not know, are you then assuming there are things his Father does not know? or does your theory 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?
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? If Jesus obtains his mission and is annointed by the Father; and receives authority from the Father, are you assuming that Jesus has authority but was pretending not to have certain authority for some reason?
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
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.
However I also admit that the earliest Christian interpretations described by those taught by the apostles (or taught by those taught by apostles), also raises difficulties. However, I do not think your interpretation is superior to the early Christians interpretations of the trinity and the nature of those within the trinity.
Clear
P.S. Thank you again for pointing out the larger apostolic fathers text. It is always wonderful to discover new ancient texts and to see what insights can be had by looking at the earliest version of Christian thought. I will be interested to see if this version is a later "edited production" or an original dated to the earlier times. sitzeiut
>>Ancient Warrior, it is very, very difficult to take seriously your claim that the Early Christians continued to be Orthodox Jews when the Christians accepted, believed in, and honored the messiah the jewish leaders had just had crucified. The christians did attend both to temple and synagogal meetings, but this was as often to proselyte and debate with the Jews as it was for any other reason.<<
RESPONSE:
It isn't at all "very difficult" if one examines the plain evidence found in Acts. Jesus' original followers remained a sect within conventional Judaism called "the Way" or "the Nazorenes" as attested to by Acts.
The most sacred of Jewish law was the Shena "Hear O Israel, the Lord is One." If Jesus' followers had claimed he too was divine, they would have be labeled apostates and excluded from Judaism in 30 AD, as they eventually were in 85 AD.
In Acts we find that Christians continued to be Temple worshipping orthodox Jews. No where in Acts do we find any claim that his followers said that Jesus was divine. He is described as a man favored by God through whom God (not Jesus) worked signs and wonders.
Acts 3:1 "One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, at three o’clock in the afternoon. " (NRSV)
Acts 21:20 "When they heard it, they praised God. Then they said to him, ‘You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law." (NRSV)
Acts 2:22-24 " ‘You that are Israelites,* listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know— 23this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. 24But God raised him up, having freed him from death,* because it was impossible for him to be held in its power." (NRSV)
Note: God raised Jesus the same as he did Lazarus. Neither Jesus nor Lazarus were claimed to have "risen" by their own power. That doesn't happen in Matthew, Mark, or Luke either. Only in John's gospel written after 96 AD.
Last edited by ancient warrior; 06-23-2011 at 12:06 AM..
Reason: typos
Clear Lens Said : Ancient Warrior, it is very, very difficult to take seriously your claim that the Early Christians continued to be Orthodox Jews when the Christians accepted, believed in, and honored the messiah the jewish leaders had just had crucified.
Ancient Warrior replied "It isn't at all "very difficult" if one examines the plain evidence found in Acts.
It remains just as difficult IF you allow the Ancient Christians their own interpretations to the texts Christians created. Try reading the verses in their ancient context.
1) The Christians are Glorifying God regarding what God has done Through the Christian Paul's ministry
"And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord."
2) Paul is informed the Jews are agree at the reported Teachings of the Christian Paul
The Jews and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
3) Paul, speaking to the Jews, gives his testimony of the Glorified Lord Jesus
And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.
The story of Paul's conversion to the Lord Jesus and his Gospel then continues.
ancient Warrior, it has become more and more Clear to our Christian readers that you have simply tried to put a Jewish spin onto Christian texts. This is not an authentic way to go about doing history. Do you understand that this does not increase your credibility, but it decreases your credibility with each correction that is made to your spins?
Clear Lens
Last edited by Clear lens; 06-23-2011 at 10:09 AM..
It remains just as difficult IF you allow the Ancient Christians their own interpretations to the texts Christians created. Try reading the verses in their ancient context.
1) The Christians are Glorifying God regarding what God has done Through the Christian Paul's ministry
"And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord."
Paul is informed the Jews are agree at the reported Teachings of the Christian Paul
The Jews and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Paul, speaking to the Jews, gives his testimony of the Glorified Lord Jesus
And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.
The story of Paul's conversion to the Lord Jesus and his Gospel then continues.
ancient Warrior, it has become more and more Clear to our Christian readers that you have simply tried to put a Jewish spin onto Christian texts. This is not an authentic way to go about doing history. Do you understand that this does not increase your credibility, but it decreases your credibility with each correction that is made to your spins?
Clear Lens
RESPONSE:
On the contrary, I am using the plain meaning of words, not the unsubstantiated claims such as you just posted.
Let's take a look at how the early Jewish-Christians regarded Paul.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
" Recent scholars have plausibly maintained that the term (Ebionites) did not originally designate any hereticalsect, but merely the orthodox Jewish Christians of Palestine who continued to observe the Mosaic Law...."
"They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3)."
It was only later, after the Jerusalem community was crushed by the Romans, that Paul's brand of Christianity became today's Christianity.
Last edited by ancient warrior; 06-23-2011 at 09:55 AM..
Reason: typo
Regarding your claim that the normative Early Christians continued to be Orthodox Jews when the Christians accepted, believed in, and honored the messiah the jewish leaders had just had crucified.
Verses from Acts 21:
1) "And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord...."
2) “The Jews and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs....”
3) “And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus...”
Ancient Warrior, if we both use verses from Acts 21 and YOU claim such verses from Acts 21 support your claim that Christians remained orthodox Jewish and I claim that the verses in Acts 21 confirm that Christians taught that Jesus was Lord. Why is your usage these verses to try to prove your theory "substatiated" why does my usage of the same verses, including the quote where Paul teaches that Jesus appeared to him and Paul calls him “Lord”, suddenly become "unsubstantiated", simply because the verses undermine your claim?
I think the verses we read in Acts 21 are clear that Christians did believe and teach that Jesus was Lord.
Clear Lens
sifusion
Last edited by Clear lens; 06-23-2011 at 11:15 AM..
I admit mike555 that I don’t go to links very often since they are so often merely cutting and pasting of someone elses thoughts and are a lazy way of appearing to know something. IF the forum simply becomes a list of links to counter another posters set of links then one will not be able to wade through the junk to find the real data.
However, I must admit that I did NOT know that there was a longer version of the apostolic Fathers that had been discovered. I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE this new information. I apologize for intimating your cut and paste was a non-existent quote, and, not only do I admit your quote exists, but I am grateful to find either something I did not know or something I was wrong about. Thanks.
Regarding your complaint :
Mike555 said : As I keep telling you, the issue is not what the early church believed.
That's a comment. Not a complaint.
Quote:
Mike555 you are NOT the only person in the forum and there are those who DO believe that what the apostles and prophets believed was taught to the earliest christians. These early Christians often wrote and read texts that reflect their beliefs.
You read sacred texts and then interpret what you read. They also read sacred texts and interpreted what they read. You have not given us any reason (so far) to give your personal interpretations any greater weight than the early christian interpretations.
You have worded your statement to make it seem as though I said something which I did not say. Of course what the apostles and prophets received from God the Holy Spirit was taught to the earliest Christians. But there were also many false teachers who came in and taught things contrary to what the apostles taught. Paul and John for example both warned of false teachers. False teachers attempted to introduce false doctrines into the early church and there were those who believed these false teachings.
Quote:
For example, you speak of the trinity as having the same "essence", including equal omniscience and equal power, whereas the ancient Judao-Christians did NOT believe Jesus had equal knowledge nor equal power to his Father, but rather that his father was greater than he was; he was sent by his father; his father knew things he did not know. All of these things indicate DIFFERENT characteristics (the “essence” as you are calling it).
There is only one true God. Yet the Bible identifies three different 'Persons' as that one true God. God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are each identified as being God. There is no such thing as a mini-God, or a junior God. To be God requires having the attributes (essence) of God.
It was Jesus Christ who did the actual act of creating the universe, and that's as omnipotent as it gets.
You say that the ancient Christians did not believe that Jesus had equal knowledge or equal power with the Father. Below, I have shown a few examples of those who whatever else they may have believed, did understand that Jesus was and is equal with the Father.
Irenaeus understood that Jesus eternally co-existed with the Father.
180 AD Irenaeus "But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues..." (Against Heresies, Book II, ch. 30, section 9)
Clement of Alexandria understood that Jesus was of equal substance (essence), and was co-equal with the Father.
190 AD Clement Of Alexandria "There was then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated." (Fragments, Part I, section III)
190 AD Clement Of Alexandria "When [John] says: 'What was from the beginning [1 John 1:1],' he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-equal with the Father. 'Was,' therefore, is indicative of an eternity without a beginning, just as the Word Himself, that is the Son, being one with the Father in regard to equality of substance, is eternal and uncreated. That the word always existed is signified by the saying: 'In the beginning was the Word' [John 1:1]." (fragment in Eusebius History, Bk 6 Ch 14; Jurgens, p. 188)
Tertullian spoke of the three Persons of the Trinity as being of one essence.
200 AD Tertullian "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One' [John 10:30], in respect of unity of Being not singularity of number" (Against Praxeas, 25)
Paul made it clear that Jesus Christ is equal with the Father.
Phil 2:5 'Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6] who, although He existed (Present Active Participle - existing) in the form (morphēn) of God, did not regard equality (isos) with God a thing to be grasped, 7] but emptied Himself, taking the form (schēmati) of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Jesus Christ was and is 'isos' - equal with God the Father.
HELPS Word-studies
2470 ísos – equality; having the same (similar) level or value; equivalent, equal in substance or quality (J. Thayer).
[2470 (ísos) is the root of the English terms, "isometric" and "isosceles" – referring to equivalencies.] 2470. ???? (isos) -- equal
In this passage two different Greek words have been translated into the English as 'form'. 'Morphe' [v6.], and 'Schema' [v7].
The definition of morphé is:
HELPS Word-studies
3444 morphḗ – properly, form (outward expression) that embodies essential (inner) substance so that the form is in complete harmony with the inner essence. 3444. ????? (morphé) -- form, shape
4976/sxēma ("outward, visible form") is used of Jesus' earthly body (Phil 2:7,8). Christ incarnated into a genuine physical body, which was not an "exact match with typical humanity" because His body was never touched or tainted by sin (even original sin). 4976. ????? (schéma) -- figure, shape
Regarding Morphe...
Excerpt:
The Greek word for “form” is morphe. This term denotes that which is “indicative of the interior nature” of a thing (Green 1907, 384), or as Kennedy observed, morphe “always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it” (1956, 436). Did Jesus Christ Exist in the Form of God on Earth? : ChristianCourier.com
Morphe "always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it" (James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930], p. 417).
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.
Quote:
Why should YOUR interpretation have any greater weight than the earliest Christians who, presumably, had more original texts (if they had any at all) than you?
Why should YOUR interpretation of Phillipian’s have greater weight than the earliest Christians interpretation?
There is only one correct 'interpretation' of a given doctrine. The early church had those who had differing beliefs just as the church today does. Which of those differing beliefs will you give credence to?
As I said earlier, there is no such thing as a mini-God, or a junior-God. God is God. The Scriptures declare that there is only one true God, yet the Scriptures identify Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as God along with God the Father. To be God requires having the attributes of God. No one Person of the Godhead is lacking in, or has in lesser amounts, any of the infinite attributes of God which make up His essence.
Quote:
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, are you then assuming there are things his Father does not know? or does your theory 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?
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? If Jesus obtains his mission and is annointed by the Father; and receives authority from the Father, are you assuming that Jesus has authority but was pretending not to have certain authority for some reason?
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
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.
However I also admit that the earliest Christian interpretations described by those taught by the apostles (or taught by those taught by apostles), also raises difficulties. However, I do not think your interpretation is superior to the early Christians interpretations of the trinity and the nature of those within the trinity.
Clear
P.S. Thank you again for pointing out the larger apostolic fathers text. It is always wonderful to discover new ancient texts and to see what insights can be had by looking at the earliest version of Christian thought. I will be interested to see if this version is a later "edited production" or an original dated to the earlier times. sitzeiut
All of these things which you have said in this last section fail to distinquish between the nature (attributes-essence) of God, and His plan.
In the nature or essence of God, all three Persons are co-equal and co-eternal. But in God's plan of salvation, each of the three Persons of the Godhead agreed to assume different roles in order to carry out that plan.
All three Persons of the Godhead are co-equal and co-eternal. But when it comes to God's plan, each Person has assumed different roles. God's plan required that one of the Persons of the Godhead become man and submit Himeself to the will of the Father. Jesus Christ agreed to to this.
During His incarnation He refrained from the independent use of His deity (doctrine of Kenosis). One of Satan's temptations was to get Jesus to use His deity apart from the Father's plan (Matthew 4:3-4).
Jesus Christ in hypostatic union as the God-Man could speak from His humanity alone as in John 19:28 - ''I thirst''. Deity cannot get thirsty, but His humanity could.
Jesus could speak from His deity as in John 8:58 - ''Before Abraham was, I am''. Jesus' humanity did not exist eternally, but His deity did.
Jesus could speak from His entire Person - from His hypostatic union, as in Matt. 11:28 - ''Come to Me, all who are weary and heavey-laden, and I wiill give you rest.''Or John 14:6 - ''I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.''
In refraining from the independent use of His deity, this included using His omniscience apart from the Father's will. Therefore there were things which Jesus chose not to know.
As far as submitting to the will of the Father, this was necessary in order to provide salvation for man. Jesus as God could not die and go to the cross, therefore He had to become a man and 'become obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil 2:8). As part of a plan.
I suggest that you learn something about the 'Hypostatic union' and 'Kenosis' of Jesus Christ. You will come to a better understanding of these things I am talking about.
I suggest that you learn something about the 'Hypostatic union' and 'Kenosis' of Jesus Christ. You will come to a better understanding of these things I am talking about.
It probably wouldn't hurt to say . . . "Magicadoola Midgicaboola Bibbity Bobbity Boo either. Just saying.
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.
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.
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”).
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)
In view of such obvious errors, WHY SHOULD WE GIVE YOUR INTERPRETATIONS MORE WEIGHT THAN THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATIONS?
Quote:
mike555 explained : During His incarnation He refrained from the independent use of His deity (doctrine of Kenosis).
You have given a phenomenon a name, Kenosis and said Jesus ‘REFRAINED FROM THE INDEPENDENT USE OF HIS DIETY”.
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.
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?
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
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?
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)?
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.
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?
Last edited by katjonjj; 06-26-2011 at 03:04 AM..
Reason: Added a line for dramatic effect....
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.
