 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Fullness of the Godhead - Bodily | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/28/2004 2:20 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
No offence taken and none (offence or conflict) intended towards you, my friend.
Thanks. Glad to know that. Wasn't sure--you seemed 'testy.'
As to Creeds, they are an action of a group of people, AND they are a form of literature. They are different from a Confession, and from a Catechism. They are also different from an "Exposition" such as John of Damascus wrote. Creeds aren't "doing theology" -- which is what we might think they are, as theology has become almost a sport or an adventure... Creeds are FENCES.
And when you look at a fence, one thing you have to look at is what it is doing -- or even used to do. Creeds still do their work, even if the danger is not pushing itself. But the ground they keep us from is certainly fraught with danger. Ussually its best for creeds to be as simple as possible.
I might find it useful to not say exactly that they are "definitive of true Christianity." That's an exposition. But they try to point to the center, and wall off the dangers on either side.
I rather doubt that they have a role in sending anyone to hell. But they ARE intended to protect people from getting there by themselves. Understand, that it is not facts in our heads by which we are saved, but faith in our hearts. Something like Nosticism (and JW) might not damn us -- God loves us all -- but to use the little passage by Paul as a tool when someone either DOES OR DOES NOT "believe that God exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Hebrews 11:6). Doctrines that mislead can sometimes be spiritually fatal. Someone thinking that self-induced works save might become dispondent and give up; and someone trusting in them might become puffed up, repacing the gift of knowing their need of God with puffed up concete (the original sin). But, Hebrews points, someone despirate in need and letting go of their own sufficiency finds that God's arms have been their to embrace her all along. So, that when we read in Romans 10:9 "confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead..." WHAT does it mean. Looking again, back at Hebrews, The one who called on God's grace called on God's sacrifice, the crucified Lord, the savior -- even if she didn't know the name. And belief that God raised Christ is hope that God will raise us.
Creeds protect against sick faith. They don't damn.
because anyone who comes to him must . | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/28/2004 2:40 PM (GMT -6) | | John,
I don't know if offended POW or not. I certainly didn't intend to. He told me that my current view of the deity of Christ during His incarnation was an "invention." That pretty much means he doesn't give me the benefit of the doubt that I am truly "exegeting" the scripture to the best of my ability - "invention" sounds a lot like "heresy," doesn't it?
I did not take offence to this charge but asked him to explain what his church "witnessed," and how the scriptures more clearly suggest his view than mine (he claimed they did). Though he felt free to call me an "inventer," which I would think would mean he deemed me in need of help (which I asked for), he did neither.
At that point, given that 1) the creed he posted said that a correct view of the incarnation was requisite for salvation, and 2) that he didn't bother to try to correct me from scripture, it seemed reasonable to believe he may have written me off as a hopeless heretic, in which case I would know it was futile to respond to him anymore.
Maybe he forgot the whole context of our discussion and misread the intent of something I said. In any case, no offence taken and none meant. If you're out there, POW, I'm sorry for any lack of clarity on my part.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/28/2004 6:06 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
POW,
Thanks for the response. We must have been replying at about the same time. I do not rule out what you claimed about the deity of Christ, but I assure you I'm honest when I say I don't see it clearly in Scripture. And the fact that Christ IS the Heir of this creation - that ALL THINGS were created through Him and for Him - seems to be pretty profound in and of itself. And this much the scriptures are unequivocal about. Thus, I am willing to be dogmatic about this much.
THANKS!
quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
I don't know if offended POW or not. I certainly didn't intend to. He told me that my current view of the deity of Christ during His incarnation was an "invention." That pretty much means he doesn't give me the benefit of the doubt that I am truly "exegeting" the scripture to the best of my ability - "invention" sounds a lot like "heresy," doesn't it?
Historically, that's a recent invention. And yes, once an idea has been invented, people can "exeget it again and again, because they are looking to find it. Specifically, you inject a lot more into "but made himself of no reputation" -- what "emptied" himself means -- than is called for. The rule should be for scripture to comment on scripture (Irenaeus: "Christ according to the Scriptures.") But this romantic notion you emulated is a newcomer.
Give me that old time religion! :)
BUT, lets agree that in his humanity Christ experienced and lived the fullness of our humanity except sin, and that he took upon himself ("knew") our sins, even unto his atoning death on the Cross.
What "your" view of the verse does -- among other things -- is play that important card strongly. I RESPECT THAT.
But I know that it is played even MORE strongly in the traditional understanding. Ignorance, suffering, weakness.... all the while fully God, completely communing in the Trinity, master of all--even while swaddled in a manger...
THAT is such mystery. But a true mystery.
quote:
The Orthodox polemic against iconoclasm insisted first on the fullness of the human nature in Christ, thus largely recovering the Christological tradition of Antioch. Theodore the Studite's conception is "Christ was certainly not a mere man, neither is it Orthodox to say that he assumed an individual among men, but the whole, the totality of the nature. It must be said, however, that this total nature was contemplated in an individual manner-for otherwise how could it have been seen-in a way that made it visible and describable . ., which allowed it to eat and drink...?"
St. Nicephorus also stressed the human reality of Jesus, his experience of tiredness, of hunger, of thirst, and of human ignorance.
The main argument of the Orthodox polemicists against iconoclasm was the position of the Tome of Leo and of the Council of Chalcedon on the permanence of the characteristics proper to each of the two natures in Christ: 'The Inconceivable is conceived in the womb of a Virgin, the Unmeasurable becomes three cubits high; the Unqualifiable acquires a quality; the Undefinable stands up, sits down and lies down: He who is everywhere is put into a crib; He who is above time gradually reaches the age of twelve; He who is formless appears with the shape of a man and the Incorporeal enters into a body . . . , therefore the same is describable and indescribable.
www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articl
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/30/2004 10:47 AM (GMT -6) | | POW & Alan,
I think Alan's last post is a good example of how I approach the Scripture. Since the Scripture seems to sanction the idea of not ADDING TO the Word of God, I assume that God wants me to take the text at face value, within it's context, recognizing any original idiomatic nature of the orgininal languages. Once I exegete the text in that manner (which in my opinion, is a conservative approach) I should rest right there and not be dogmatic about anything beyond that conservative exegesis.
I see nothing in the passage about the "kenosis" that necessitates the view that Christ had some kind of dual existence - Christ vs. Eternal Son of God. Hence, I see no justification for assigning to Him two sets of attributes based upon that dualistic interpretation.
Again, I'm not saying that the text rules that out, but I don't think it necessitates it. I think going beyond what a text clearly states many times will cause us to run into contradictions with other passages, which then results in very non-perspicuous resolutions to the contradiction. Furthermore, I think that much of the division within Christendom comes about from just such non-conservative exegesis.
quote:
Historically, that's a recent invention. And yes, once an idea has been invented, people can "exeget it again and again, because they are looking to find it. Specifically, you inject a lot more into "but made himself of no reputation" -- what "emptied" himself means -- than is called for. The rule should be for scripture to comment on scripture (Irenaeus: "Christ according to the Scriptures.") But this romantic notion you emulated is a newcomer.
I don't see that I'm injecting anything into the text - I see the dualistic nature of Christ as the "injection," precisely because it is not clear in that text, or any text that I'm aware of (and remember, I'm open-minded to correction). It seems to me, that when we allow a creed to determine what a text must say, even though the text does not clearly say it, we are setting a precedent of ADDING to the Scripture - and that is a dangerous precedent as far as I'm concerned.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/30/2004 12:33 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
I see nothing in the passage about the "kenosis" that necessitates the view that Christ had some kind of dual existence - Christ vs. Eternal Son of God. Hence, I see no justification for assigning to Him two sets of attributes based upon that dualistic interpretation.
I didnot present any "dual" existence. The case of "ignorance" in Christ is not dualistic, as duality involves two separate things. This does not. The incarnaiton is "assymetrical" in that God took our humanity, healing it, but God was not altered. Christ continues to hold our humanity, but the Trinity is not altered. It is assymetrical. Not a dualism.
quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
I don't see that I'm injecting anything into the text
When this is something new, and then you find it in the text (Plainly reading it in, to my eye; since the text seems much plainer the traditional way of reading it. The new way merely complicates the ideas.), then your imitation is such an "injecting."
That's the way I see it. You have picked up something "popular." (Just like dispensationalism is something popular, and "new." ) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/1/2004 2:03 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
When this is something new, and then you find it in the text (Plainly reading it in, to my eye; since the text seems much plainer the traditional way of reading it. The new way merely complicates the ideas.), then your imitation is such an "injecting."
That's the way I see it. You have picked up something "popular."
As I understand it, the reading you persented is relatively new histrorically. THAT is whay I mean by this. That a reading is so attractive that its 'gravitational pull' affects what you do with it. (It happens.)
Don't trash "tradition." G. K. Chesterton said that "tradition is the living faith of dead saints; while traditionalism is the dead faith of living saints." Good quote.
A "review of the literature" does NOT mean lockstep following of any supposed uniformity within tradition. There is too much diversity for any such claim. But to NOT read and consider what others have read in the text, and if one were to then just 'go it alone' would certainly open one's self up to naiveté. (I'm speaking of all of us in general.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/1/2004 2:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by albert
...However, I just thought I'd point out that Jefscott is absolutely correct in saying that Col. 2:9 is not referring to Christ in his incarnation, at least not directly, but to his post-resurrection state. This is clear because when it says that in him all the fulness of deity "dwells" in bodily form, the verb form is the present active indicative. In other words, the writer is saying "at the moment, in him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form". Since the time of writing is well after the resurrection, that is the point of reference. Now it *might* be the case that what was true after his resurrection was always true, but you'd have to get that from other scriptures. Col 2:9 is one of the most often misinterpreted verses of the New Testament.
Another commonly misinterpreted (in my view anyway) verse that relates to this issue, is Jn. 3:13. I don't know how many times I have heard this used as proof of Jesus' omnipresence during his incarnation. It is also used as a classic proof text for the communicatio idiomatum. Both uses of the text are wrong. The verse asserts that Jesus, while he is talking to Nicodemus, is nonetheless also in heaven. From this people conclude that he is omnipresent. Well, if that is the case then Eph. 2:6 proves that every Christian is omnipresent, because it teaches that every believer is seated in the heavenly places with Christ Jesus, even while they are still alive down here on earth. Jn. 3:13, in my view, is only asserting of Christ what Eph. 2:6 asserts of believers. It has nothing to do with omnipresence or the communicatio idiomatum.
I'll give this another look, Albert. It seems that you are suggesting that this is all the Resurrected Christ the text is talking about. I'll give that a second look. But I wonder upfront about subordinationalism within the Trinity. Chrysostom on 1 Cor. 15 is good on refuting that. I'll give it another look.
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/1/2004 2:10 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Since the Scripture seems to sanction the idea of not ADDING TO the Word of God, I assume that God wants me to take the text at face value, within it's context, recognizing any original idiomatic nature of the orgininal languages. Once I exegete the text in that manner (which in my opinion, is a conservative approach) I should rest right there and not be dogmatic about anything beyond that conservative exegesis.
This looks to good on the surface, jefscott. But its nobility does not include "letting scripture interpret scripture. With the Moslem invation of Spain entered the idea that the Bible was the Word of God; which it is not, as it 'containst' the word spoken by THE Word--the Son. The 'paper pope' notion that the text is dropped off, in no need of the Holy Spirit; and that the individual is self-sufficient, and in no need of the community is off mark. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/1/2004 5:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by albert
...saying that Col. 2:9 is not referring to Christ in his incarnation, at least not directly, but to his post-resurrection state. This is clear because when it says that in him all the fulness of deity "dwells" in bodily form, the verb form is the present active indicative. In other words, the writer is saying "at the moment, in him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form". Since the time of writing is well after the resurrection, that is the point of reference. Now it *might* be the case that what was true after his resurrection was always true, but you'd have to get that from other scriptures. Col 2:9 is one of the most often misinterpreted verses of the New Testament.
Albert, this is just so faintly explained. Would you like to 'flesh out' this a bit, or more. I'd be interested to see how you extemporaize on this. Thanks.
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/1/2004 7:53 AM (GMT -6) | | I always find that the interlinear translations shed quite a new light on just about any subject.
First of all context shows that Philippians 2 is dealing with reproof and correction as to the right attitude a believer should have.
Phil. 2:2 fulfill my joy, that you may be of the same mind, the same love having, joined in soul, the one thing minding. nothing according to contention or vainglory, but in humility one another esteeming above themselves, not the things of themselves each consider, but also the things of each others.
The point being, doing nothing through contention or vainglory (which is what basically causes contention), watching the attitudes we have towards others. Only when we see the point of what Paul was getting at can we then read the next thing he said and see it in it’s proper light.
2:5 This for let mind be in YOU, which was also in Christ Jesus.
And what “mind” is to be in us? The same one which was in Christ Jesus, who for all intents and purposes if any one ever could, could have come down here and been a king rather than a servant. For what Paul states next was not something that was to be singled out and focused on to prove his “divinity”, but rather to be focused on in terms of how we ourselves should behave, think and act.
2:6 who in the form of theou subsisting, not rapine esteemed it to be equal with theo; but himself emptied, form a bondman’s having taken, in the likeness of men having become; and in figure having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death, even death of the cross.
The point being not the incarnation or anything of the trinity et. but that if He could humble himself, so can you. Especially since Paul is speaking of what kind of attitude Christ had before he emptied himself and came down here to be a man, being even born of a woman. He then hits on the reward of this sacrifice.
2:9 Wherefore also the theos him highly exalted and granted to him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of [beings] in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Lord Jesus Christ to the glory theo patros (God father, or in English arrangement Father God.)
Paul is simply trying to show those he is writing to, that there is great reward in being “obedient” to the will of God the Father, as the next sentence clearly shows.
2:12 So that, my beloved, even as always you obeyed not as in my presence only, but now much rather in my absence with fear and trembling your own salvation work out, the theos now then it is the works in you both to will and to do his good pleasure.
It seems like we throw the word “God” (with a capital “g” around a lot), and do not take into account all the usages of the words that are translated into our English word “God”, from the Greek.. Also because Greek is an inflected language depending on inflection for it’s grammatical usage, and English on the other hand depends on “word order” for it’s grammar, many times sentences are rearranged and present a slighter different picture than what the writer was trying to convey. And many times dogma and preconceived doctrines often play a role in translation.
If we take an honest look at John 1 we can see that their were actually three different inflected forms of the Greek word translated “God”, and that there is a rearrangement of the sentence.
The KJV states:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
The Interlinear translation states:
In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. He was in the beginning with God.
In just these two translations we see the rearrangement of this statement.
....and the Word was God.
....and God was the Word.
Yet to really see a difference we need to take a closer look at the words translated God and logos. Combining Greek with English we can see a stark difference.
In beginning was the logos, and the logos was with ton theon, and theos was the logos. he was in beginning with ton theon.
If we could erase our overly simplified usage of the word “God”, we would see that two distinct individuals are being spoken of here. The main point of the statements here are that the logos was WITH ton theon. This is stated twice.
...the logos was WITH ton theon,
...he was in the beginning WITH ton theon.
Again verse 14 expresses these statements in a slightly different manner.
And the logos flesh became, and tabernacled among us, and we discerned his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten WITH a father.
One thing is clear both in this translation and in the normal English. This is that some one or some thing was WITH some one or some thing else, at a certain point in time, namely “the beginning”.
If we were to read the sentence using the actual Greek words, rather than the English enough times, it would clean our minds of our implanted concepts about the meaning of these verses.
In beginning was the logos and the logos was with ton theon and theos was the logos. He was in the beginning with ton theon.
In beginning was the logos and the logos was with ton theon and theos was the logos. He was in the beginning with ton theon.
Read it enough times and that which is called “ton theon”, becomes a distinctly separate and highly exalted individual. Yet the logos was WITH ton theon in the beginning and their relationship is described as:
“a glory as of an only begotten WITH a father.”
Confusion comes in making the two, one. Confusion also comes in trying to shove a third party in there somewhere. I am not saying that the two are not ONE, I am not saying that there was or is no third party somewhere. I am just saying that these verses do not declare these things. For those concepts one would need to go elsewhere to be honest with the scriptures and the reading of these verses. We need to learn to read honestly and take the words for what they are, and quit reading into the scripture.
Much argument and misunderstanding arises from the fact that our English minds have been trained to read that word “God”, not taking into account the precise and proper usage of the word according to the Greeks and those of the time these things were written. Moulton’s Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament defines the basic root word theos with it various inflected forms as follows.
theos,
a deity, Acts 7:43 And ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god (theou) Remphan...
an idol, Acts 7:40 saying to Aaron, Make us gods (theous) who shall go before us. Acts 19:26 ...that they are not gods (theoi) which by hands are made.
God, the true God, Matt. 3:9 for I say to you, that able is God (theos) from stones these to raise up children...
a goddess, Acts 19: 27, 34, 35, ...but also of the great goddess (theas) Artemis (translated Diana in the KJV).
divine, pertaining to God, the divine nature 2 Peter 1:3, 4, According as his divine (theias) power..., that by these you might be partakers of the divine (theias) nature,
divinity, Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God (tou theo), we ought not to think that the Godhead (theion) is like unto gold or silver, or stone, graven by art...
deity, godhead. divine majesty, Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead (theioteas)
Also:
human beings John 10:34, 35 Is it not written in your law, I said gods (theoi) ye are? IF them he called gods (theous), to whom the logos of God came,...
Pagan gods Acts 14:11 The gods (theoi), having become like men, are come down to us. And they called Barnabas Zeus; and Paul Hermes because he was the leader.
[Note: I think the translation is interesting here, because in the standard English translation it translates Hermes as Jupiter, Paul being called “Jupiter”. Why not just translate it as it is? Could it be because Christians have adopted pagan forms of interpretation which today as then are called “Hermeneutics” after the god Hermes, the interpreter and messenger of the “gods”? Few (VERY Few) Christians will ever read the Interlinear to discover Paul was called “Hermen” or “Hermes”, thus never question the “coincidence” that our forms of interpretation in application to the Holy Word of God come from a devil. Translating this Jupiter, hides the truth from typical inquisitive questioning human eyes.]
1 Cor. 8:6 For though there be that are called gods (theoi) whether in heaven or in earth, (as there are gods (theoi) many, and lords many,) BUT TO US there is but one God (theos) the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him: and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge....
Paul makes it a point to say that there are in fact “gods (theoi plural of “theos“) many, and Lords many”. Yet Christianity says, there is only ONE theos. Paul did NOT say there was only ONE THEOS or ONE GOD, he said there were many theoi, gods, BUT TO US there was only one theoi, and that was one theos God the father. This is the same God the Father of our one Lord Jesus Christ, the logos who was together WITH TON THEON in the beginning.
The word divine or divinity covers any superhuman or supernatural being and is not simply attributed to GOD the Father. Not understanding that divinity can be applied to other beings besides God the Father leads to confusion and a superficial understanding of John 1:1 and 2.
In beginning was the logos, and the logos was with ton theon, and theos was the logos. he was in beginning with ton theon.
For these statements to say what most propound they say, the wording would have to be;
In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was (omit the word pros or with) ton theon, and ton theon (take out the word theos and add the word ton theon). he was in the beginning (take out the word “WITH” and leave simply) ton theon. In all to then read as it’s commonly taken to be understood and doctrinalized as:
In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was ton theon, and ton theon was ton theon. The same was in the beginning ton theon.
However that is NOT what it says:
In beginning was the logos, and the logos was WITH ton theon, and THEOS was the logos. he was in beginning WITH ton theon.
Another question arises, hence WHEN was the beginning?
Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God (Elohim, plural) created the heavens and the earth.
Obviously the term “God” here, translated from the Hebrew word “Elohim” would have to be “plural” since John 1:1 and 2 state that the logos was WITH Ton Theon in the beginning and he also was theos, which according to other usages in the Bible could be “divine” or “a god”, but clearly not “ton theon” himself, unless he was trying to say that he was in the beginning with himself. If so then why not just leave out the words “with”, and quit trying to confuse us all.
1 Cor. 6 agrees exactly with John 1:1-3
1 Cor. 8:6 For though there be that are called gods (theoi) whether in heaven or in earth, (as there are gods (theoi) many, and lords many,) BUT TO US there is but one God (theos) the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him: and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge....
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with ton theon, and theos was the logos. He was in the beginning with ton theon. All tings through him came into being, and without him came into being not even one thing which has come into being.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning Elohim (plural, more than one) created the heavens and the earth,
John 1:4 In him (the logos which was theos,) life was, and the life was the light of men. and the light in the darkness appears, and the darkness it apprehended not.
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep (the waters) And the Spirit of Elohim (plural) moved upon the face of the waters. And Elohim (plural) said Let there be light and there was light.
Hence ton theon and his Son bringing everything into being just as it says THEY did. That is the glory as of an only begotten WITH a Father.
John 1:10 In the world he was, (referring back to his emptying himself of “theos” divinity, and coming down to be born of a woman in the flesh.) and the world was made by him (before he came down to be as a man in the world.) and the world him knew not. (He was not accepted by the world either before or after.) To his own he came, and his own (the Jews) received him not; but as many as rec3ived him he gave to them authority children of Theo to be,
He gave then his same authority, which was not to be TON THEON, but to be children of TON THEON. He gave what he had. We do not have the authority to become GOD, rather the authority to become SONS of ton theon. Hence just as Jesus said the scripture said,
John 10:34, 35 Is it not written in your law, I said gods (theoi) ye are? IF them he called gods (theous), to whom the logos of God came, (and cannot be broken the scripture,) whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world do you say, Thou blasphemest, because I said, Son of God I am? IF I do not the works of my Father, believe not me; but if I do, even if me you believe not, the works believe, that you may perceive and may believe that in me is the Father, and I in him.
If I have “Christ in me”, dose that make me Christ? If Jesus had “God in him” did that make him God or ton theon? If he said the Father sanctified and sent him into the world and he was ton theon himself, then did he sanctify himself and send himself into the world? If so then why didn’t he just say so? Paul stated that they used “plainness of speech” in declaring the gospel of Christ. To describe himself in such a confusing manner would not be “plainness of speech”. Paul said he preached what he did, that we might know both Jesus Christ and the one true God. If so then why don’t we just take the words for what they are saying, rather than trying to infer what it clearly dose not say.
That Jesus existed in the beginning with his father ton theon is without question. That Jesus was divine or theos is also without question. What is at question is the belief that he himself was ton theon, that these TWO were the exact same ONE individual. This is why we get the insane questions like who made the son to rise when Jesus was down here in a manger. If one takes the scripture for what it says, rather than trying to “break it”, one knows who made the sun to rise, why his FATHER ton theon of course, who was still seated on his throne.
The argument of weather or not Jesus was divine down here on earth is also answered since scripture declares he “emptied” himself of those attributes to come down here and be born as a man.
Philippians 2:6....Christ Jesus; who, in form of theou subsisting, not rapine esteemed it to be equal with theo; but himself emptied form a bondman’s having taken, in the likeness of men having become.
In the “form of theou subsisting”, KJV uses “who being in the form of God”. In the “form of theou subsisting”, the word “subsisting” is the Greek word “uparchon” and takes on the meanings of to begin; to come into existence; to exist; in possession, to belong, substance. Hence “who being to begin with, having come into existence, existing and in possession of what belongs to the substance of theou, thought it not rapine (robbery) to be equal with theo. And so he was equal to, ton theon having made him equal to, in that everything through him came into existence and without him not one thing was made which was made. And thus John states he was:
Rev. 3:14
And unto the angle of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Ton theon is said to have no beginning and no end, where as the Son is said to have both a beginning and and an end, crouched in terms of “the logos” as the Alpha and the Omega. These terms show clearly that ton theon and the Son have a distinctly different range of authority, with that authority being determined and set by ton theon himself.
Clearly he never thought of himself as ton theon, but merely equal to ton theon, in the fact that he was his Son. The same holds true in the natural realm in relationships between fathers and sons.. However the Jews thought it was robbery for him to think of himself in that manner. As do most Christians today, who would have him think of himself as MORE than being equal to theo, and being ton theon the father himself. Clearly in each situation he is degraded from holding his true and rightful place as the Son of the Father. Go to far the other way, take away his pre-existence with ton theon, and we degrade him further, by taking away his very existence and rightful place in the Old Testament as well as the creation itself.
Make him into the Father ton theon and we idolaterize him, turning clear and precise wording of scripture, into a jumbled broken mass of senseless confusion, to which the clear reading must be explained away in terms not found in the Bible. Hold to the clear reading and adjust our thinking accordingly, and we become branded as heretics and outcast from those who insist upon holding on to paganistic man made creeds. Yet totally deny every facet of those creeds taking away any and all divinity he ever had to make him “just a human being”, and we fulfill Satan’s desire to strike out who and what he really was and is from the conscience of man, as their Lord and co-creator. The devil dose not care which side wins as long as we continue to deny who and what he really was and is. And in doing this he can continue to keep us from a right understanding of the Scriptures, and thus also ignorant of his devices and motives.
In Lucifers saying he wanted to be "like the most high God", he was not stupid enough to say he wanted to be GOD, but to be like the one who was "like the most high", namely the logos. His jealousy, envy and hatred has been of that same one. His motives and actions all to hurt and discredit that same logos, the one who was WITH ton theon in the beginning. To put it in plane terms, the devil like many today, did not want to go through the Son to get to the Father, but wanted to push him aside and sit down at his right hand himself. To make the Son, the Father, in a round about way accomplishes this task. No where dose Jesus claim to be the father, but in equality with the father he declairs to be his Son over and over and over again. As well he also claims to have existed BEFORE with the father, just as John 1 states.
However he gave up all of that power, divinity and authority to be born as a complete man, to redeem man. He was not "divine" in human form, but had to depend upon God, ton theon for the power and the works. In saying he who has seen me has seen the Father, he specifically refers to both his works and words, hence his nature and all that he did that men could both see and hear, was as the Father directed him. For no man has or can see God at any time, since he is not a man, and has no form or comliness being a spirit. Christ on the ohter hand had both form and spirit before and can be seen coming as the "Word of the Lord" many times in the Old Testament. Thus the meaning of "the Lord said to my Lord, sit thou at my right hand till I make thine enemies thy foot stool, becomes clear. You have one Lord, saing to another Lord to sit at his right hand. Ton theon is Lord, and his Son is Lord also over all because he made him so.
For all intents and purposes, because of the position God has given him and the authority, when and if you see Jesus, you see God. Not because he is ton theon, but because when it comes to the authority of ton theon, he's been given it ALL. Say you come to Jesus and you say, Hey I want to see God, because you have a question for him or some such. Jesus will tell you, you might as well ask me, because I have all his authority, so seeing me is just like seeing ton theon. In other words ton theon is not going to tell you any thing different than his Son would, so why do you want to see him. Yet because of what Jesus did, he made a way for those who would submit to him, via his teachings, to have direct access to the Father himself. No longer do we need to ask Jesus for anything if we are obedient first to his commandments given to him by ton theon. When we are true disciiples we can ask the Father himself, because we have proved that we love his son by keeping his word.
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/2/2004 2:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Albert-
What’s up?
I appreciate your point about the present tense in Col. 2.9. “Dwells” is a present tense verb and so grammatically speaking what is predicated to Christ (viz., that the fullness of deity dwells in him bodily) is predicated to his present (ascended) bodily existence.
However…
Paul uses other present tense verbs to attribute to Christ what we would not want to deny Christ has always by virtue of his deity possessed. For example, in Col. 1.15 Christ “IS [present tense] the image of the invisible God,” and in 1.17 he “IS [present tense] before all things” and “in him all things HOLD TOGETHER [present tense],” and in 2.3 “in Christ ARE [present tense] all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” I’m not aware of anyone questioning on the basis of these present tense verbs whether Christ exemplified these attributes prior to his being glorified. We tend to read Paul here as if these present tense verbs were something like historical present tense verbs (which is a valid use of the present indicative). In the case of Col. 1.15 most would argue I think that the present tense certainly describes an attribute exemplified by Christ in his incarnate state, namely, that “Christ IS the image of God” is something he presently is precisely because he always HAS BEEN this (or at the very least [which I'm inclined to anyhow] that Jesus during his lifetime on earth was the image of God). What Christ IS, in terms of deity, then, he always has been. So, yes, the present tense is tricky. It speaks of what is now the case which may or may not itself be the effect of some cause or some abiding unchanging reality that continues into the present.
So we have the claim that the exalted Christ is "embodied divinity." One of these is eternal by definition (i.e., divinity--one doens't become divine) and one is not (i.e., embodiment). I grant you're point about the present tense to an extent, but I'm wondering what one would then understand Paul's point to be if in fact "embodied divinity" was denied Jesus prior to his exalted state. See what I mean?
We can either understand Paul to be attributing to the exalted embodied Christ something that was not true of him in his earthly lifetime, namely, divinity, or we can understand Paul to be attributing to the exalted Christ something that was ALSO true of him during his lifetime and which many (given the Christological errors Paul faces in this writing this letter) may be doubting, namely, the continues embodied existence of Christ. I go with the latter.
Luckily, in the case of Col. 2.9 we don’t have to guess whether what Paul attributes to Christ (viz., that he embodies divinity) was actualized by his ascension and glorification and is thus is true at the time Paul writes or is itself constitutive of the incarnation and thus continues to be true at the time Paul writes. We have Col 1.19 to clear up any doubts: “…in him [Christ] all the fullness of God WAS PLEASED TO DWELL” (aorist verb and infintive), obviously in bodily form. One may want to argue that since 1.19 only says “the fullness” (without mention of God as in 2.9), that we shouldn’t assume God’s fullness is meant. I don’t think that’s an accurate understanding of Paul’s intention, so I do think the fullness of God/deity dwelt in Christ (ala 1.19) while he was incarnate. One might also attempt to argue that 1.19 refers to the glorification/ascension of Christ at which time the risen Christ came into possession of the attribute in question (that is, at which time Christ became divine). I mean, why would anyone who believed the otherwise overwhelming evidence that the writers of the NT believed Christ was God incarnate (= during his lifetime) want to insist that Paul here and in 2.9 be specifically limiting the attribute in question (that is, embodied divinity) to a time that excluded Christ’s earthly embodied life?
----------------------
Larris-
I’m trying to follow you in the opening verses of John, in what you say about the “logos” and “theos,” but I’m just not able. Can’t seem to grasp what your point even is, though I don’t have trouble following arguments from the Greek. But I would make one comment on this…
quote:
The Interlinear translation states:
In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. He was in the beginning with God.
In just these two translations we see the rearrangement of this statement.
....and the Word was God.
....and God was the Word.
There is quite a bit of difference between “the Word was God” and “God was the Word.” Orthodoxy has affirmed the former and denied the latter. The former makes the simple claim that the Word was divine without making the stronger claim that “God was the Word,” namely, that all that God is is ‘limited’ to the Word, that there’s no more to God than the Word, which of course is not what Christians have traditionally believed. There is more to God than the Word. This is more clearly an issue in the Greek word order. Check out “Colwell’s Rule” about subject/predicate word order with and without the definite article (the final phrase of Jo. 1.1 in the Greek word order is “and God [theos without the definite article] was the Word [ho logos with the definite article]” is to be translated into English as, “and the Word was God [or ‘was divine’, but not ‘was a god’]” and not “and God was the Word”).
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/2/2004 6:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert: The historical present is a legitimate usage. The issue is, though, whether Col. 2:9 needs to be read in that way or not. Even if it's not the historical present, and I don't think it in this case it is, that still wouldn't rule out that the fulness of deity has always dwelt in Jesus in bodily form.
Tom: Agreed, as the other present tense verbs I shared show.
Albert: If something is the case today, it *might* have always been the case, you can't rule that out. But the point is, neither does Col. 2:9 rule it in.
Tom: It doesn’t rule it in grammatically. One has to rule it in contextually given the witness of the NT across the board.
Albert: It just doesn't say one way or the other. The same is true of the other verses you quote, whether you are aware of anyone who does so or not.
Tom: Agreed. Again, you’re point is grammatical, pure and simple. My point is, meaning is never determined on purely grammatical bases. Col. 2.9 doesn’t really MEAN anything (certainly not what Paul intended it to mean) until more than just the grammar is accounted for.
Albert: I don't agree with the assumption that what Christ is, in terms of deity, he always had to be. Given that Jesus is a person, and that personhood and Godhood are two separate things, I can't see any reason that the person could not give up his deity whilst remaining the very same person.
Tom: You may have to unpack this a bit for me. Now, as I understand it, the claim of orthodox Christians (West and East) has been that the Second “person” of the Trinity took into himself human “nature” and not an individual human “person.” There’s one incarnate “person,” the eternal logos. There is no human “person” in addition to the eternal Logos who comes into existence with the incarnation. Jesus is the name of second “person” of the Trinity incarnate in history with a human nature. One person, two natures. The “person” who was and is Jesus is numerically identical to the eternal “logos.” Now, I don’t see how you incarnate the “person” and not the “divinity” without conceding that the person is only contingently or accidentally (as opposed to essentially) divine.
Albert: In other words, he didn't cease to be the son of God. He didn't cease to have the high honour that comes with that. But he did cease to be God for a period. In other words, I conceive of the incarnation like this: (a) before incarnation - Jesus was God (b) during incarnation, Jesus was man, (c) after resurrection, Jesus is both God and man.
Tom: Wow. This is certainly an unorthodox position, Albert, a position some (many?) would argue is a heretical one. I’m not quite sure exactly what you’re saying, but I disagree with what I think I understand. 
Just a couple comments off the top of my flat head: First, before the incarnation there was no “Jesus.” Secondly, I’m reading your (b) to mean “during the incarnation, Jesus was only/merely human.” That seems to follow from his only being both God and man (both divine and human) AFTER the resurrection. This has historically been held to be a heretical position, but hey, it’s the 21st century! What do I know? Thirdly, orthodox Christology (in both the East and West) has affirmed that the union of the divine-human comes with the incarnation and not exaltation of Jesus. But that might not bother you. Fourthly, what problems related to the union of the divine and the human in Jesus have you solved by postponing the hypostatic union to the ascension/exaltation? Seems to me you just postpone the problems/issues and don’t actually address them. All the problems traditionally surrounding the claim that Jesus was both divine and human on earth aren’t solved by simply claiming that he wasn’t both divine and human until after the resurrection. Lastly, if you have no objection to the union of the divine and human in one person AFTER exaltation, what reasons discourage you from placing the union in the earthly Jesus? This last point is related to the fourth, but slightly different.
Albert: In other words, I am advocating kenotic theory.
Tom: You’re advocating “a” kenotic theory, of which there are several, some of which don’t argue that Christ during his time on earth was not divine.
Albert: While I'm interested in philosophical arguments, I'm more interested in scriptural arguments against this position. I don't think Col. 2:9, or the other verses you quoted, address the issue.
Tom: How can you claim Col. 2.9 “doesn’t” address the issue and also admit the present tense “may” embrace the divinity of the earthly Jesus? If the present tense may or may not, then you can’t deny that it does or doesn’t. The most you can say is that Col. 2.9 may and may not address the issue.
You may have to unpack your distinction between the “person” of the Second ‘Person’ of the Trinity and the properties/attributes constitutive of that person’s “divinity.” As it stands, it simply looks to me like you’re denying the deity of the earthly Jesus. You also seem to be claiming that the eternal Logos (the Second Person of the Trinity) is only “accidentally” or “contingently” divine as opposed to “essentially” divine. This follows if it’s possible for the Logos to incarnate without being divine. What a person can abandon one moment and take up another moment is not constitutive of that person's nature. If the person who is the eternal logos can lay aside deity, that person does not have a divine nature, i.e., is only accidentally divine and not essentially divine. Some kenotic theories go this route (i.e., the Word emptied himself of “deity”), but “kenotic” theory per say doesn’t have to go this far.
Others around here have done more work in Christology than I have (which is nothing on my part really). So I’ll bow out and hope they jump in.
Blessings,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/2/2004 2:37 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by albert
Pow: Albert, this is just so faintly explained. Would you like to 'flesh out' this a bit, or more. I'd be interested to see how you extemporaize on this. Thanks.
Albert: All I'm saying is that Col 2:9 asserts that in Jesus the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form *in the present tense*. All that says is that at the point of time of the writing, the fulness of deity dwells in bodily form in him. It *might* be the case that it also dwelt all through the past, but there is nothing in this verse that entails that. If the writer had wanted to refer to Jesus in his incarnation prior to the resurrection, he could easily have said "in him all the fulness of deity dwelt in bodily form", using the imperfect instead of the present tense.
I think that Tom put it well. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/3/2004 8:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by albert
Scriptural basis for what I have said: Here is Hebrews 2:16-17, which in context is clearly talking about Jesus during his incarnation prior to his ascension and glorification:
16 For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham.
17 Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people.
It says that he had to become like us "in every respect" (kata panta ... homoiothenai).
"Like us in every respect" need not deny the fact that Christ was "God in the flesh." Obviously, becoming human entailed a voluntary self-limitation of his divine attributes. He could not be both omnipresent AND localized in a human body at the same time, nor could He be omniscient AND a incarnate with a human brain at the same time.
However, as Scripture repeatedly affirms that Jesus was indeed God incarnate, there has to be a way to affirm both his full humanity and full deity.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/3/2004 12:50 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
...however, "the fullness of God" is also what Paul prayed for the Ephesian church to have........to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all...........that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.
www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=1752
Fulfillment Theology and the Future of Christian-Jewish Relations
by Isaac C. Rottenberg
LOOKS WORTH THE READ.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/3/2004 4:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Thanks for the article, Pot, but I honestly don't see how...
thanks for the thanks.
I was noticing, thanks to your kind posting there before, that fulness in Christ of Godhead and in the Church of Christ were two things, and pleroma also refers to the fulness of the world and time in Christ. three mentions.
I just thought that since Christ is so central, to all, in all, to, for... that our issue above should be put in perspective of that too, and not by itself -- understand it all together.
"Joy to the world...far as the curse is found."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/3/2004 4:10 PM (GMT -6) | | John: The article seems to pertain rather to Jewish-Christian dialogue and whether the Christian view of the Messiah and Messianic age is accurate or not.
PoW: That's just the merest surface of it. Look at the issues.
John: My point in bringing up the prayer of Paul for the Ephesians to be "filled with all the fulness of God" was simply and only that this is precisely what Paul says Christ has in Col. 2:9. It might relate to "theosis," but I am honestly not sure.
PoW: One same and one different. The Holy Spirit did indwell Christ Jesus. (same) But, while God is/can_be fully in us by Grace God is fully in Christ by Nature. (different) | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/3/2004 4:29 PM (GMT -6) | | John 1:1,14 plainly indicate that the Word was God and that the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us. Jesus said, "before Abraham was, I AM," as well several other "I AM" statements in John's gospel.
John 5:17 But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working."
18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
John 5:21 "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.
22 "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,
23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
(In the above three verses, Jesus places his authority on an equal plane with the Father's)
24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
No one less than Deity could make the above claims, to say he had authority to grant eternal life is nothing less than an appeal to his own Deity.
There are others, which I'm sure you are aware of. The onus is on you to disprove the orthodox position, if you can. I need no reinvent the wheel.
From a strictly logical standpoint, if Jesus ever was God, he always has been God. There's simply no way to get around this plain fact of reason. He could not stop being God any more than you can stop being you.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/3/2004 7:34 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by albert
John: John 1:1,14 plainly indicate that the Word was God and that the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.
Albert: Yep, that'r right. The "Word" refers to his person, not to his divinity.
Such double-talk is unbecoming to one so intelligent as you, Albert. John 1:1 says the Word was (had always been) God, and God was (had always been) the Word.
quote:
John: Jesus said, "before Abraham was, I AM," as well several other "I AM" statements in John's gospel.
Albert: Yep, identifying himself IN HIS PERSON as the eternal creator, the one who spoke to Moses from the burning bush. Again, doesn't imply that he is presently divine.
Further nonsense. His person cannot be cut up into segments while retaining his essential personality (which is Deity). In Revelation, Jesus says he "was and is, and is to come," "the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end."
quote:
John: making Himself equal with God.
Albert: And he was equal with God the Father in status and authority in his person. That doesn't mean he was God.
Interesting perspective. Counterintuitive and eminently illogical, to say the least.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
| 105 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:22 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 |
|
|