 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 11/5/2011 7:48 AM (GMT -6) |   | | As for the lecture itself on the ontology of humans, specifically on the relation of the soul to the body, I would like to have asked whether he thought an EO understanding of the essence/energies of God might be an informative analogy to soul/body. Essentially, I understand these to be aspects of same unity, not a dualism per se. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/5/2011 10:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes. You heard right. (Thanks, Corey)
Dr. Evans, CONTRA his phone conversation with me earlier, said said thta the zygote Jesus was NOT interpersonally relating to the Father...and used the sleep analogy. I got him to say that zygote Jesus does NOT actively give love to the Father while Jesus is in vitro.
Moreover, he said that he did NOT hold the kenotic view. (Remember that, Corey?)
I'll say that part again.
He said he did NOT hold the kenotic view.
Now, unless he converted from the time I talked to him on the phone until yesterday...I feel like that was a lie. (See this here). Personally, I think that he did that for the main reason of not looking stupid/crazy in front of that audience of people around him. During the talk, he had been mentioning brain development and even used the WORD "zygote" in his talk a couple of times. There was NO WAY he was going to get those people to buy the idea that a zygote would have enough brain ANYTHING to have interpersonal relationship with God the Father (I saw that when I specifically made mention of this and others in the crowd nodded.) The only way that he COULD go at that point was to affirm that the zygotic Jesus was NOT giving interpersonal love to the Father...so as not to look stupid/crazy in front of those people.
So, he BACKTRACKED on the "mysterious presence", "brute fact" of the "person" of God the Son STILL LOVING God the Father as a zygote (from my previous conversation with him)...effectively LIED about holding the kenotic view...and gave the lame-a$$ sleep analogy for his position.
Would you say that's about accurate, Corey?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/5/2011 10:22:48 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 11/5/2011 10:26 AM (GMT -6) | | D: He said he did NOT hold the kenotic view. Now, unless he converted from the time I talked to him on the phone until yesterday...I feel like that was a lie.
C: I'm not sure I heard that from him. I heard him say that he was not claiming that the kenotic view was true, i.e. that there is certainty here. He stated, rather, that he holds that the kenotic view is plausible, compatible, consistent.
In other words, as far as he's concerned, the kenotic view is likely true, but not provably so. I don't think he was claiming he doesn't hold to the kenotic view. Post Edited (Corey) : 11/5/2011 10:33:52 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/5/2011 10:28 AM (GMT -6) | | "...[C. Stephen] Evans makes use of a strong social trinitarian notion in suggesting that, while the divine Word was incarnate, his sustaining work was 'carried on by the other Persons' (C. Stephen Evans, 'The Self-Emptying of Love', 259)
Edwin Chr. van Driel
Chapter 11: "The Logic of Assumption"
Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God
C. Stephen Evans
Page 267, Note 4.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/5/2011 10:33:59 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/5/2011 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | | Ach! Nein! I was hoping you heard that.
Oh, well.
I guess now what I can CONFIRM is the backtracking and the sleep analogy attempt.
I guess that'll do for the main thing I was trying to get solid anyways.
DANG. Next time: recorder. 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/5/2011 10:55:50 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/5/2011 11:23 AM (GMT -6) | | I've been thinking and thinking about this. You're right, Corey!
At first, I was like I KNOW I heard him say that! Didn't I? What the HECK??
But, I see where I made a mistake. I was wrong...I think.
He said: "Now, I don't hold the kenotic view is true." When he said this, I interpreted him like something Tom McCall had said: he didn't personally hold the view, but he did think it was "plausible, compatible, consistent" and appreciated it as such. That's because McCall used the SAME PHRASE! But McCall specifically said "I am not a kenoticist" after HIS made statement. Evans didn't elaborate that way.
As I see it...the statement IS open enough that he could have just been that introducing some tentativeness to his answer...not saying what McCall was saying. I took the statement as equivalent meaning in both scenarios...when there may have well been different.
Oops. I'll own that. Totally my bad, everyone. 
My apologies, Dr. Evans. You didn't lie. You just flip-flopped. Sorry.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/5/2011 11:38:05 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/5/2011 3:54 PM (GMT -6) | | So, what can be AFfirmed and CONfirmed about this?
Dr. C. Stephen Evans clearly said that, post-Incarnation, God the Son as zygote ceases to actively (consciously) and interpersonally reciprocate (therefore consummate, as it were) the Father's self-communicating, self-giving love towards Him in the Spirit.
This is NOTHING SHORT OF positing the cessation of the uncreated trinitarian intimate interpersonal relationships that preceded and grounded Creation. This is the absolute annihilation of the Triunity of God. You don't get more anti-Chalcedonian than this.
Is this fair to say, Corey?
PS: By the way, I really DO repent on gettin' Evans wrong like that. I should have been more charitable in my interpretation of Evan's statement. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, THE sinner!
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/5/2011 4:00:41 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/5/2011 9:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Repost of Tom from elsewhere. He won't mind, I'm sure. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This is where I can’t see the kenotic view as compatible with orthodoxy and the Creeds. [It is suggested] that we’re still ‘persons’though we ‘sleep’. True, my wife and I are still related as husband and wife even while we sleep. But that’s because there is a material substance out of which our conscious selves emerge and in which our individual selves and married histories are maintained while sleeping. That’s just what it means for created beings to have to ‘become’ and to exist as persons in bodiees that require rest. But in terms of human embodied sleep, the maintenance of personal identity on even a subconscious level requires a sufficiently complex brain. Even if we wanted to suppose the eternal Logos of God reduced himself to some kind of unconscious, sleeping state as a zygot, it doesn’t work in its own terms. Zygots aren’t sufficiently complex to be the ‘stuff’ in which personal identities and histories can be stored—to give the ‘sleep’ analogy some weight.
But more importantly, the analogy is impossible as a means of conceiving the triune relations as constitutive of the necessarily related/personal and uncreated being of God, whose actuality just is the relating of the persons. Trinitarian monotheism is not the view that there are‘persons in storage’ in some more fundamental metaphysical ‘stuff’ (a metaphysical equivalent to the complex brain that manages us as persons while we sleep), ‘stuff’ which constitutes God’s ‘oneness’ while the persons only contingently rise in and out of conscious relation with the others. This is not a merely nominal difference with orthodoxy. I can hear Cyril screaming from the grave. On the contrary, what constitutes God’s unity just is the uninterrupted conscious interpentration/perichoresis of the divine persons. Their perceiving of one another is the perichoretic act which is the one triune God—always and actually. One can deny this and call one's self a Christian in good standing with Chalcedon, but nobody who understands Chalcedon would agree. Remember, God doesn’t create necessarily and doesn’t have a material body. There is no something more fundamental than conscious persons-in-relation which might maintain the personal identity of any divine person while he takes a nap.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/5/2011 9:52 PM (GMT -6) | | | From conversation with a evangelical...
"...from what I've read in recent years with regard to the general field of contemporary evangelical Christology, it strikes me that, while the Kenotic view may not be the obviously dominant view, it is certainly well represented among a wide array of evangelical biblical scholars, systematic theologians, and philosophical theologians. And while those who hold staunchly to the Classical view (mostly Piper-like Reformed folks), I don't recall [John] Piper or others raising the specter of "heresy" with regard to those who espouse an evangelically-oriented Kenotic christology. Every evangelical Kenoticist that I'm aware of has been VERY clear that when they say "kenosis," they don't mean that Jesus emptied himself of any of his divine attributes. Rather, he simply chose not to use/access them during his earthly incarnation (i.e., non-use of nonetheless fully retained divine attributes). The classic evangelical statement on this is Millard Erickson's book, _The Word Became Flesh_ (1991). In this book, Erickson -- himself a Calvinist, and one of the veritable "deans" of 20th century evangelical theology -- goes on record as a kenoticist and presents a strongly argued case for it. And no one that I am aware of (Piper included) has ever questioned his evangelical credentials, let alone raised the question of "heresy." So I guess my point here is that, while certain Eastern Orthodox theologians would, no doubt, be seriously troubled by evangelical kenosis models, Protestant evangelical theologians ..., does not see it as anything like approaching 'heresy.' "
AND...
"...the two views of Christology under discussion (classical and kenotic) both have a sizeable following within mainstream historic orthodox and evangelical theology today, and to date there is no indication that either side is throwing down the theological gauntlet and accusing the other side of clearly violating a dogma (and therefore of falling into “heresy”). Among proponents of Kenosis are such evangelical heavy weights as Gordon Fee, Stephen Davis, Millard Erickson, C. Stephen Evans, Gerald Hawthorne, Ronald Feenstra, and Cornelius Plantinga."
...
"The Christology debate basically splits evangelicals down the middle – or close to it. And it has, thus far, been treated by the vast majority on both sides as a doctrinal controversy over the very complex dogma that states 'Jesus is both fully God and fully human,' which both sides affirm with gusto."
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/5/2011 11:02 PM (GMT -6) | | | Tom: There is no something more fundamental than conscious persons-in-relation which might maintain the personal identity of any divine person while he takes a nap.
Jeff: I don't even know what that means unless I'm not a person when I sleep. Is that what ya'll are saying? To my mind, I'm a person when I sleep. I'll be a person if I die. I was a person when I was drugged for medical reasons. Maybe I define "person" different.
Moreover, you guys have talked of an eternal "begetting" by the Father of the Son. Does that not itself imply a dependence of the Son on the Father in some sense in the same way that the Father depends on the Spirit in some sense? And if so, how can I know what that dependence is apart from Scripture itself or private revelation? And best I can tell, scripture indicates that consciousness may very well BE one of the things the Son depends on the Father for. So as long as the Son agrees to give up consciousness temporarily for teleological ends, I don't see how that undoes one iota that the Son remains he THROUGH whom and FOR whom creation exists.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 11/5/2011 11:08:03 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/6/2011 12:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
I don't even know what that means unless I'm not a person when I sleep. Is that what ya'll are saying? To my mind, I'm a person when I sleep. I'll be a person if I die. I was a person when I was drugged for medical reasons. Maybe I define "person" different.
So, if you were brain dead being artificially kept alive...would you be exhibiting intra and interpersonal activity, by which we describe personhood? Would you be self-consciously giving love/reciprocation to anyone? No. Let's say you were in delta-wave sleep COMA. (No REM state or conscious activity, just straight unconsciousness). Would you be actively giving/reciprocating love to anyone? No.
Functionally speaking, anyone who was in love "relationship" would you in those states would have just as much relationship with you if you were DEAD and CREAMATED. They'd get the same amount of loving, interpersonal intimacy being reciprocated to them.
See what I mean?
************************************************************************
Jeff:
So as long as the Son agrees to give up consciousness temporarily for teleological ends, I don't see how that undoes one iota that the Son remains he THROUGH whom and FOR whom creation exists.
There's more Scriptural conditions to be considered, Jeff. A major argument is this: For whoever DOES accept Tom's interpretation of Hebrews 1:3-4 as the most probable, meaningful option...they'd have to say that God the Son giving up ALL consciousness following taking on humanity in zygotic form post-Incarnation could not be the case because "divine slumber" of God the Son in vitro would NEGATE the possibility of him actually doing the "upholding" Hebrews 1:3-4 claims. I think that you would agree with me that an unconscious-unto-non-sapient being (deeper than delta wave sleep) cannot have the "force of will" and intentionality (ala discernment of importance and interest) to "carry/uphold" a consciously sustained activity. I would argue that a newly formed zygote is an unconscious-unto-non-sapient multicellular organism that surely could not maintain sustanance of all Creation by any "force of will" or intentionality at all. And given what Evans said on Friday, he wouldn't disagree with me on that. Heh.
I'm still looking for you to truly engage Tom's suggestions to you about his interpretation...AND...I'm looking for how you think your interpretation is the more probable and explanatory than Tom's.
WHO…
BEING
(pres. ptc)
the brightness of his glory
and the express image of his substance/essence
and
CARRYING/UPHOLDING
(pres. ptc) all things by the word of his power
SAT DOWN
(Aor Ind) on the right hand of the majesty on high
HAVING MADE
(Aor Ptc) cleansing of our sins
HAVING BECOME
(Aor Ptc) so much better than angels…
I really want to see your hermeneutical approach with this, Jeff. Show me step by step how your view is the better view. Better enough to completely trump the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/6/2011 12:18:41 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/6/2011 8:13 AM (GMT -6) | | |
D: Functionally speaking, anyone who was in love "relationship" would you in those states would have just as much relationship with you if you were DEAD and CREAMATED. They'd get the same amount of loving, interpersonal intimacy being reciprocated to them.
See what I mean?
J: I see exactly what you mean. A person, to be recognizably a person, has to exhibit conscious activity. That exhibition would be actions that we recognize ANALOGICALLY as consciously performed actions. But what I wouldn't say is that I ceased to BE a person when I was put under for an intrusive medical exam. To say that I'm a person only when I'm conscious seems to be a rather non-conventional use of the term. I've never known anyone that uses the term that way such that human beings cease and begin to be persons over and over.
D: SAT DOWN
(Aor Ind) on the right hand of the majesty on high
HAVING MADE
(Aor Ptc) cleansing of our sins
J: You've got those two out of order. And I think it makes a difference. The idea of the passage seems to be similar to that detailed later in the book. The rest of the book details how Christ shed his blood and then took it to put it on the altar in heaven, NEVER to suffer or propitiate thus again. Similarly, the participles in the first chapter seem to be emphasizing continuous action (present tense participles) that led RIGHT UP to Christ's having SAT DOWN at the right hand of majesty. Sitting down seems to be a kind of "it is finished" type action, and as such, the continuous action verbs EXPLAIN how it was that it became "finished."
Being the image of the Father is, in part, what it means to be "spotless." And "spotless" was a requirement for the sacrifice that could "purify," etc. "Bearing" is not suggestive of creatio continua to me. And this verse would be the only verse I'm aware of that even comes close to communicating that idea. I would think that doctrine, if it is true and the basis for dividing heretics from non-heretics, would be communicated more often and more clearly.
On the other hand, if the literary progression is heading toward the "sat down at the right hand ...", the continuous action of "being" and "bearing" are forward looking to that sitting down in some sense. That is not to deny that all things are, for all practical purposes, borne by Christ even now. And obviously he still IS the image of the Father. But prior to his BECOMING Christus Victor and sitting down at the right hand of God, that "bearing" might have had a literal uncompleted sense the writer was getting at. And that is the sense the writer may have been communicating. And that is totally consistent with the rest of the book--not to mention the rest of the NT.
But to say that the "bearing" is the act of creatio continua is to remove it from any obvious contextual relation to his having "sat down at the right hand of majesty" after having "made purification for sin." For creatio continua, if true, would seemingly have been the case whether or not humans or angels had ever sinned.
So I think that contextually the bearing of all things has a redemptive sense to it that the writer is indicating was effectually accomplished once he sat down at the right hand of majesty, though we could say that all things continue on because of that bearing. In that "perfect tense" sense, he still bears all things. For had he not done what he did, the suffering that creation caused the godhead would have not been worth it TO the godhead.
If it had been possible for that cup to have passed from the Son, I don't think he would have done it. I think scripture is telling us that some very important end of creation could NOT have been accomplished apart from the Son drinking that cup and becoming Christus Victor in the way he did.
Another thing is the fact that he was given a name AFTER being sat down above angels and every name. All of this points to the Christus Victor concept. Christ did not need to come and obey unto death to be god. He came to accomplish one or more ENDS of creation. The Christus Victor idea is ubiquitous in the NT. The notion of creatio and continua is based on precisely two verses. The one in Colossians is clearly a stretch because of the verb tense alone. That leaves one phrase in one verse in Hebrews. I'm just not seeing it, much less seeing it as a basis for such contention.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 11/6/2011 7:45:31 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/6/2011 9:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
Similarly, the participles in the first chapter seem to be emphasizing continuous action (present tense participles) that led RIGHT UP to Christ's having SAT DOWN at the right hand of majesty. Sitting down seems to be a kind of "it is finished" type action, and as such, the continuous action verbs EXPLAIN how it was that it became "finished."
That's what Tom has been saying. The finality of the "cleansing of sins" and "sitting down" is BECAUSE OF who Christ is. BECAUSE OF being the brightness of God's glory and the one who carries/upholds/bears all things, Christ was ABLE to deal with the sin situation with FINALITY. No other human being could have done what Jesus did...because no other human being WAS who He was! His GODHOOD is what makes him the perfect HUMAN High Priest!
So, YES, you are right on that.
***************************
Jeff:
On the other hand, if the literary progression is heading toward the "sat down at the right hand ...", the continuous action of "being" and "bearing" are forward looking to that sitting down in some sense. That is not to deny that all things are, for all practical purposes, borne by Christ even now. And obviously he still IS the image of the Father. But prior to his BECOMING Christus Victor and sitting down at the right hand of God, that "bearing" might have had a literal uncompleted sense the writer was getting at. And that is the sense the writer may have been communicating. And that is totally consistent with the rest of the book--not to mention the rest of the NT.
and...
So I think that contextually the bearing of all things has a redemptive sense to it that the writer is indicating was effectually accomplished once he sat down at the right hand of majesty, though we could say that all things continue on because of that bearing. In that "perfect tense" sense, he still bears all things. For had he not done what he did, the suffering that creation caused the godhead would have not been worth it TO the godhead.
So...this is what I see. It depends exegetically on whether Christ's "carrying/upholding/bearing all things by the word of his power" idea is MORE CLOSELY RELATED to 1) the being the one "through whom God created the world" idea [Hebrews 1:2] or 2) the "having made cleansing of our sins, sat down on the right hand" idea.
You seem to be saying that it is more closely related to 2nd idea such that the carrying/upholding/bearing is seen more (surprise, surprise) teleologically in nature; he carrys/upholds/bears through his suffering redemption.
But the only way that I can see you do this is by specifically saying that Christ's "carrying/upholding/bearing" was INCOMPLETE/PARTIAL until the post-Resurrection exaltation of Christ. What in the text itself indicates this position? What theological claims made in the NT indicate this position? Moreover, what other commentators or theologians assert this position at all? Give me just a few please. Surely this view isn't simply idiosyncratic to YOU ALONE...right?
**************************************
Jeff:
Another thing is the fact that he was given a name AFTER being sat down above angels and every name. All of this points to the Christus Victor concept. Christ did not need to come and obey unto death to be god. He came to accomplish one or more ENDS of creation. The Christus Victor idea is ubiquitous in the NT. The notion of creatio and continua is based on precisely two verses. The one in Colossians is clearly a stretch because of the verb tense alone. That leaves one phrase in one verse in Hebrews. I'm just not seeing it, much less seeing it as a basis for such contention.
Get this, Jeff. The Christus Victor is grounded on the idea of WHO CHRIST WAS. As I said before, the FINALITY of his victory is BECAUSE OF His being the brightness of God's glory and the one who carries/upholds/bears all things. In other words, it's not that our interpretation NEGATES the Christus Victor motif. If anything, it grounds it more heavily in the UNIQUENESS of Christ, via his described relationships to God the Father.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/6/2011 9:32:01 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/6/2011 9:38 AM (GMT -6) | | D: Functionally speaking, anyone who was in love "relationship" would you in those states would have just as much relationship with you if you were DEAD and CREAMATED. They'd get the same amount of loving, interpersonal intimacy being reciprocated to them.
See what I mean?
J: I see exactly what you mean. A person, to be recognizably a person, has to exhibit conscious activity. That exhibition would be actions that we recognize ANALOGICALLY as consciously performed actions. But what I wouldn't say is that I ceased to BE a person when I was put under for an intrusive medical exam. To say that I'm a person only when I'm conscious seems to be a rather non-conventional use of the term. I've never known anyone that uses the term that way such that human beings cease and begin to be persons over and over.
Ok. I see this is really hangin you up. Let's do it this way. While YOU were put under for an intrusive medical exam (cause that seems to be what you are on)...
1) did you have any meaningful level of self-awareness, self-consciousness? Basically, were you able to relate yourself to yourself?
2) did you have any meaningful level of interpersonal recognition of and interaction with others?
3) Can loving intimacy be given by a "person" who has no meaningful level of self-relationship (self-awareness, etc) and no meaningful capacity to perceive and interact with others?
If you answer NO to all 3 questions, then you are saying that loving intention and intimacy in a "person" ceases in such a state.
The problem with the kenotic view is that it posits that God the Son CEASES reciprocating God the Father's Spirit-borne love to His Son, during the Son's incarnation in vitro...while the only fully hypostatic divine Godhead members who can "talk to each other" are the Father and the Spirit. It doesn't matter that kenoticists are trying to say "Well, it was for a good, loving reason that God the Son did this." One STILL ends up saying that the interpersonal loving intimacy SHARED between the Father and Son CEASES TO EXIST, post Immaculate Conception...which is EFFECTIVELY the annihilation of God's eternal triunity.
Think of it this way. If you were trying to convince a Muslim that your idea was IN ANY WAY consonant with monotheism...how far do you think you would get? They would INSTANTLY see the tritheism implied.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/6/2011 9:50:57 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/6/2011 9:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Good example.
Let's say that we have 3 irreversibly comatose adults in front of us. Let's say they all had "lives" before...but had a terrible brain problem...and here they are. All of them are continually and irreversibly at delta-wave sleep level or lower. Even if we put those people SIDE BY SIDE in a bed with their arms "holding" each other...would we have any interpersonal, intimate relationships going on at all? Would we say that they were PERSONALLY RELATING to each other? Would we say that they were being PERSONAL (intra- or inter-) in any meaningful sense of the word as we COMMONLY use it?
If NOT, then my point is made. 
But just in case NOT...let's keep the bed and make TWO of them fully conscious and only ONE comatose...all with arms wrapped around each other and relating. Would we say that three persons were interpersonally, intimately relating to one another? Or would we say TWO people are interpersonally, intimately relating to one another...with a comatose person in the bed with them?
Really think about it.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/6/2011 9:54:04 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/6/2011 10:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Something else, Jeff. Just a rehash of what Tom's already said.
If you say that Christ's BEARING all things was INCOMPLETE/PARTIAL until his the post-Resurrection exaltation, you absolutely, positively MUST say the exact same thing about the Christ's BEING the brightness of his glory and the express image of his substance/essence.
USING ANY DECENT HERMENEUTIC AT ALL, you would HAVE to say this! Look at the text. The two are LINKED TOGETHER grammatically. So, if the BEARING is "incomplete/partial" in relationship to the "sitting down" of the "Who" at the beginning...then so also is the BEING the brightness of the Father's glory and express image of his Father's substance "incomplete/partial" in relationship to the "sitting down" of the "Who" at the beginning. That's just the text, Jeff.
-----------------------------------------
(I'll "flip" for you, Jeff.)
WHO…
BEING
(pres. ptc)
the brightness of his glory
and the express image of his substance/essence
and
CARRYING/UPHOLDING
(pres. ptc) all things by the word of his power
HAVING MADE
(Aor Ptc) cleansing of our sins
SAT DOWN
(Aor Ind) on the right hand of the majesty on high
HAVING BECOME
(Aor Ptc) so much better than angels…
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/6/2011 10:00:35 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/6/2011 10:47 AM (GMT -6) | | So, to keep your interpretation of this text, Jeff...are you willing to say that Jesus' "being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his substance/essence" was INCOMPLETE/PARTIAL until His post-Resurrection "sitting down" exaltation?
This is exactly what you have to do to maintain your current interpretation. Nothing less than this will do.
You know. You could always change your mind on this.
No harm, no foul.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
| 45 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:04 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|