Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
Jesus went about speaking of HIMSELF in the second person. Maybe not common but he's no common man, and he had a mysterious mission to do.

So he ends his trip, and spills the full beans.... Bro - I'm him.

---

He doesn't say, "I'm him" or "I am the Father". That's an interpretation, and there are overwhelming difficulties with it.

---

quote:

---

"I am the Father" would both be easier and clearer things to say than saying 'I am in the Father and the Father is in me,' which is what he actually said.

---

quote:

---

If he could have said it clearly and in fact said something more complicated then unless there's some good reason to think otherwise he probably meant the more complicated thing.

---

quote:

---

Given all the times that Jesus prays to the Father one cannot simply identify Jesus with the Father.

---

quote:

---

You have to dismiss far too much of what Jesus says as pretence or playacting.

---

So this is trouble, I agree. Pretense is a nasty nasty word. It implies something other than genuine or serious behavior, yes? I will meet you where you are on this one. I reject the term pretense, but I find that play acting is a good fit.

Suppose I agree that playacting is accurate. What now? So it was playacting? I find regardless of whether one believes in a Triune-Tri-Person-Single-Being, or a Tri-Dimensional-Single-Person-Being..........it's still playacting either way. In other words, The Triune nature of Jesus in Trinitarian thought still has no need of speeking vocally unless by way of demonstration, since his will is tied perfectly in unison to the other persons.

How can 3 persons have a single will? As another matter to add to the discussion. Jesus eloquently states that he never does his own will - ever - He can only do the Father's will. He's a robot of his Dad by his own admission? [John 5]. So in the end.... I say Jesus has created an interplay dialogue with this person called Father, that ultimately points back to Jesus.

Not going to lie..... I fall on Modalism because it's easier, and simpler. It's all about the PERSONIFICATION of the father.

quote:

---

(In particular there are times when Jesus says that although the Father knows something he doesn't, which on your reading would be outright falsehoods.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Brother, expecting God to bend to human logic is a lost cause. He doesn't and he won't.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

In order for what Jesus said to be LITERALLY true, the trinity is a logical construction that makes his literal words, true.

---

quote:

---

“I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
3 ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
4 ‘Hear, and I will speak;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.’
5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
6 therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.”

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

In order for what Jesus said to be LITERALLY true, the trinity is a logical construction that makes his literal words, true.

---

Insisting that the evidence we have about God make complete and logical sense to human understanding is a basic mistake in theology. For that matter, it's a basic mistake in science, too--it rests on the assumptions that a) We have all the evidence we need, without missing pieces, and b) we are innately capable of assembling that evidence into a correct paradigm.

I would argue that both a) and b) are dicey when it comes to our understanding of God. He never promised us that we would know and understand everything we want to know and understand. Indeed, he seems to emphasize our inability to understand him, as in the ending to the book of Job. Job's answer is one to keep in mind:

quote:

---

“I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
3 ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
4 ‘Hear, and I will speak;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.’
5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
6 therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.”

---

tl;dr version: Don't try to fill in gaps in Scripture with human logic. It never ends well. Accept the gaps and walk cautiously around them.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
Jesus went about speaking of HIMSELF in the second person. Maybe not common but he's no common man, and he had a mysterious mission to do.

So he ends his trip, and spills the full beans.... Bro - I'm him.

---

He doesn't say, "I'm him" or "I am the Father". That's an interpretation, and there are overwhelming difficulties with it.

---

The difficulties are not overwhelming, you're exaggerating. Follow me along. The issue is confusion of personification with personhood.

---

quote:

---

"I am the Father" would both be easier and clearer things to say than saying 'I am in the Father and the Father is in me,' which is what he actually said.

---

quote:

---

I am telling you to simply GET PERSONAL, not literal. Being in the time, place, and context.... having a face to face discussion, and someone says "have you not known ME".

---

quote:

---

If I were Phillip, I would quite naturally conclude that Jesus is not being "literal" with me, he's getting natural and personal. Jesus was saying he was the person of the father, displayed as something else.

---

quote:

---

Phillip could only be sure at a personal level, only through his friendship and relationship to Jesus can Jesus' statement be viewed. Jesus even uses Philip's name in response.

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, the manner of speech that was in use at that time, (customary talk, idioms, colloquial...) combined with facial expressions and gestures means that we are hopelessly obscured from really grasping the thrust of Jesus words. By stripping it down to merely a recorded text, we are sure to be off track. Body language counts for more than text. Put yourself in Philips shoes - imagine what he had seen, and then imagine Jesus talking to you.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Given all the times that Jesus prays to the Father one cannot simply identify Jesus with the Father.

---

Not so fast. odd as it may be for us to see someone praying to themselves.... think on that. Now how would that look to them? Would anyone have credited Jesus with sanity if as a veiled deity he prayed to himself? No! He prayed to what is above. He demonstrated. The Lord's prayer is an example of instructions.

---

quote:

---

Really though I find the logic of your statement to be massively flawed. You seem to reject Jesus as the person of the Father because this means his manner of prayer doesn't conform to our manner of prayer. Hmmmmm. Who are you making conform to whom? Seems you've assumed Jesus came to conform to all our manner of doing things? Clearly not!

---

quote:

---

Pretense is a nasty nasty word. It implies something other than genuine or serious behavior, yes? I will meet you where you are on this one. I reject the term pretense, but I find that play acting is a good fit.

---

quote:

---

It's all about the PERSONIFICATION of the father.

---

quote:

---

(In particular there are times when Jesus says that although the Father knows something he doesn't, which on your reading would be outright falsehoods.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

Firstly, are you sure you understood me? I was pointing out that the Trinity is construction of logical deduction - as usual based on assumptions. I'm pointing out the assumptions are not good ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

The assumption is - based on human speech patters we are familiar with - Jesus MUST only be speaking of the Father as a different person.

Challenging assumptions is not the same as "being too logical".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

I don't see my version of Modalism any more or less logical than Trinitarianism, either. Both have aspects of logic and reason. Both attempt to resolve a mysterious thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

Secondly, your post seems to just dampen the mood of exploration, generally speaking.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
--you are taking the evidence and turning it into a logical pretzel

It's not working.

---

quote:

---

I'm referring to your rather amazing attempts to paper over the gaps in support of your position. The activity belongs to the human faculty of logic, although the result is less than impressive.

---

quote:

---

Trinitarianism does not attempt to resolve a mysterious thing. It attempts to describe it--without going beyond the observed evidence (in the text, in this case).

---

quote:

---

It is in fact very like a scientist's description of a new species of beetle. "Here's what we're seeing." No more than that.

---

quote:

---

"Hey, that's poison ivy, don't touch it"--wouldn't you want your mood of exploration to be dampened at that point?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think you are not using personification to mean the generally accepted meaning of the word. I cannot be sure as you do not elaborate upon why you are under the impression that this is the issue.

---

quote:

---

I could equally claim that you are being excessively literal about the saying, 'If you have seen me you have seen the Father'.

---

quote:

---

In your previous post you described Jesus as at the end of his trip and "So he ends his trip, and spills the full beans.... Bro - I'm him." "Hey, hello! Jesus just told you "it's 'me'"." Now you're saying that he's still being mysterious. If he's still being mysterious he's not spilling the beans and the hey hello! is unwarranted.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I am telling you to simply GET PERSONAL, not literal. Being in the time, place, and context.... having a face to face discussion, and someone says "have you not known ME".

---

An ARGUMENT does not suddenly become valid because you put KEY words in CAPITAL LETTERS.
Nor does your argument become more plausible because you hector and badger with phrases like 'I am telling you to'.
The phrase 'Get personal' means 'to start being rude, to use ad hominem arguments'. I don't think that's what you wanted to mean.
None of this persuades me that your interpretation is more likely to be right.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If I were Phillip, I would quite naturally conclude that Jesus is not being "literal" with me, he's getting natural and personal. Jesus was saying he was the person of the father, displayed as something else.

---

Yes, but Philip wasn't you.
You appear to be using the words 'natural' and 'personal' as antonyms to 'literal' which they are not.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Phillip could only be sure at a personal level, only through his friendship and relationship to Jesus can Jesus' statement be viewed. Jesus even uses Philip's name in response.

---

This does nothing to support your interpretation.
You are not the only person on the Ship to use the word 'relational' as a getout from the business of trying to talk sense.

---

quote:

---

you have no more access to the body language than anyone else does.

---

I think we all have a primitive understanding of body language, that's what I'm driving at. I never claimed to have special insight on theirs. I am only saying that we must allow ourselves to access our intrinsic understandings of having one-on-one conversations to best explain the passage. The current thing you seem to support is an overly-limiting viewpoint using text only. That leads to a robotic reading of the text, just what Rome wants!

quote:

---

It doesn't deal with any of the instances of Jesus actually praying. There's no need for him to have done so in public on your account.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Really though I find the logic of your statement to be massively flawed. You seem to reject Jesus as the person of the Father because this means his manner of prayer doesn't conform to our manner of prayer. Hmmmmm. Who are you making conform to whom? Seems you've assumed Jesus came to conform to all our manner of doing things? Clearly not!

---

Using this argument one could argue anything.

---

quote:

---

For example you say Jesus in the Lord's Prayer is giving us an example. But that's only true if Jesus conforms to our manner of giving us an example. You try to argue that we should imagine Jesus' body language and take his words as natural and personal, but now you're arguing that Jesus' body language might not conform to our manner of body language and that Jesus's natural and personal might not conform to our manner of natural and personal.

---

quote:

---

You're relying on Jesus saying 'If you have seen me you have seen the Father'. Now you're saying we can't assume Jesus conforms to our manner of using pronouns. Maybe Jesus meant to say, If I have seen you I have seen the Father. He was saying that Philip was unwittingly the Father.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Pretense is a nasty nasty word. It implies something other than genuine or serious behavior, yes? I will meet you where you are on this one. I reject the term pretense, but I find that play acting is a good fit.

---

Play-act: to behave insincerely, to pretend.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's all about the PERSONIFICATION of the father.

---

In normal English usage one can only be a personification of an abstract concept. What you're saying here is therefore considerably less clear than you seem to think it is.

---

quote:

---

The second comings are the occasions I'm thinking of. You might come out with your explanation instead of just telling us that you believe you've got one.
There's also the prayer in the Garden where Jesus speaks of having a separate will from the Father.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
You're not being logical mate. At all. Lamb Chopped explained it perfectly. You have made up your mind based on nothing but prejudice and ignorant arrogance if not arrogant ignorance. That's me pointing a finger by the way.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think you are not using personification to mean the generally accepted meaning of the word. I cannot be sure as you do not elaborate upon why you are under the impression that this is the issue.

---

I thing Jesus Christ is the expressed personification of the Father, personified in the flesh. I don't even think that the Hebrews would have thought of God as a person in the first place, but in our time we're overly focused importance of individuals.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I could equally claim that you are being excessively literal about the saying, 'If you have seen me you have seen the Father'.

---

So you agree that either way has validity. Good start.

---

quote:

---

This approach is the critical thing on which my interpretation rests. Otherwise, we are left with a literal analysis of the text alone. I think reading the text with emotion is highly important, and as fragile as this point may be to you, my point does require it.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Play-act: to behave insincerely, to pretend.

---

Did Jesus sincerely act as King of the universe - as God? Or not?

---

quote:

---

of the second coming in Matt 24, the KJV omits the Son from the verse, it states:
--But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

I will have to get home to get into that one again further as to how the extra bit on the Son is added by other translations and dive back into the textual criticism of the verse.

---

quote:

---

I just never did swallow, even before questioning the concept of Triune persons, that Jesus was ACTUALLY having second thoughts.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
Good point. personification may have been an awkward way of saying it. I am not sure how to describe speaking about yourself in a different place when in fact you are omnipresent.

...I'm saying that along the way in the ministry, Jesus was, essentially, play acting. He was/is God, playacting as something lesser. In order to conceal his identity, he spoke of the Father (his own person) externally.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

as far as Jesus in the garden...

Nowthen, are we to believe Jesus was not clear as to the mission before him to suffer and die. Did he not know the answer to his prayer? I believe that in his veiled flesh he was acknowledging that suffering and dying was not desirable, was painful, but that it was necessary. It was, at that point, a foregone conclusion, yes? On the end times topic, we don't know the conclusion or timing. But on this subject we have hindsight and doctrine showing us that Jesus was not unwilling, but willing to die, planned on it.

Jesus wasn't just double checking with God on the gameplan. I think this prayer demonstrates the great effort and great sacrifice, not acting, but real, sacrifice that Jesus experienced and put himself through, on our behalf. This was more than a demonstration in words, it was a moment in time when Jesus was quite literally talking-to-himself in a very human way.

I just never did swallow, even before questioning the concept of Triune persons, that Jesus was ACTUALLY having second thoughts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

I thing Jesus Christ is the expressed personification of the Father, personified in the flesh. I don't even think that the Hebrews would have thought of God as a person in the first place, but in our time we're overly focused importance of individuals.

I'll say this, in very many ways, God the Father was an abstract concept to Israel, especially in that dark time. Therefore personifying him was one of the purposes Jesus was there for. Just as in our time God is very abstract the farther away we get from viewing Jesus, so with them as well.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

The OT to my reading reveals a highly personal, very relational God-- one that the Hebrews can argue with, bargain with, badger, cajole, and bitch to when he doesn't seem to them to be coming thru on his promises.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

I thing Jesus Christ is the expressed personification of the Father, personified in the flesh. I don't even think that the Hebrews would have thought of God as a person in the first place, but in our time we're overly focused importance of individuals.

I'll say this, in very many ways, God the Father was an abstract concept to Israel, especially in that dark time. Therefore personifying him was one of the purposes Jesus was there for. Just as in our time God is very abstract the farther away we get from viewing Jesus, so with them as well.
Really??? What evidence do you have to support this???

The OT to my reading reveals a highly personal, very relational God-- one that the Hebrews can argue with, bargain with, badger, cajole, and bitch to when he doesn't seem to them to be coming thru on his promises. What evidence do you have to the contrary? At the moment this assertion seems to be to be pulled straight out of clear blue sky.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

The OT to my reading reveals a highly personal, very relational God-- one that the Hebrews can argue with, bargain with, badger, cajole, and bitch to when he doesn't seem to them to be coming thru on his promises. What evidence do you have to the contrary? At the moment this assertion seems to be to be pulled straight out of clear blue sky.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Less human, maybe. Not less personal.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
The Israelites weren't allowed to create images of him, and he didn't have a wife, family, consorts etc.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Less human, maybe. Not less personal.

---

Exactly. I would say the God of the OT Is really quite amazingly personal-- in any terms. Again-- bargaining with God? Complaining to him about his slowness to act? Cajoling him? Badgering him? Trusting him enough to reveal your petty jealousies and revenge fantasies? I don't know about your relationships, but in our house, that's pretty much what "personal relationships" look like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
The Israelites weren't allowed to create images of him ....

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Exactly. I would say the God of the OT Is really quite amazingly personal-- in any terms. Again-- bargaining with God? Complaining to him about his slowness to act? Cajoling him? Badgering him? Trusting him enough to reveal your petty jealousies and revenge fantasies? I don't know about your relationships, but in our house, that's pretty much what "personal relationships" look like.

---

Yep, we have "interesting" relationships too. Wouldn't have thought to admit it here...

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Exactly. I would say the God of the OT Is really quite amazingly personal-- in any terms. Again-- bargaining with God? Complaining to him about his slowness to act? Cajoling him? Badgering him? Trusting him enough to reveal your petty jealousies and revenge fantasies? I don't know about your relationships, but in our house, that's pretty much what "personal relationships" look like.

---

Yep, we have "interesting" relationships too. Wouldn't have thought to admit it here...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend.

Exodus 33 v 11

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

as far as Jesus in the garden...

Nowthen, are we to believe Jesus was not clear as to the mission before him to suffer and die. Did he not know the answer to his prayer? I believe that in his veiled flesh he was acknowledging that suffering and dying was not desirable, was painful, but that it was necessary. It was, at that point, a foregone conclusion, yes? On the end times topic, we don't know the conclusion or timing. But on this subject we have hindsight and doctrine showing us that Jesus was not unwilling, but willing to die, planned on it.

Jesus wasn't just double checking with God on the gameplan. I think this prayer demonstrates the great effort and great sacrifice, not acting, but real, sacrifice that Jesus experienced and put himself through, on our behalf. This was more than a demonstration in words, it was a moment in time when Jesus was quite literally talking-to-himself in a very human way.

I just never did swallow, even before questioning the concept of Triune persons, that Jesus was ACTUALLY having second thoughts.

---

Whereas to me, the notion of Jesus needing to check in with the Father at this moment is entirely credible, given the understanding of the ancient doctrine of kenosis described above. He only knows of the future what God has revealed to Him. He thinks he sees where this is heading and, understandably, it's disturbing. He's wrestling with it. And yet he is submitting himself to the Father's will, trusting in that. He understands his purpose, he shares the divine nature & character with the Father & the Spirit, but in his earthly incarnation is not omniscient and so only knows what is revealed.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

I thing Jesus Christ is the expressed personification of the Father, personified in the flesh. I don't even think that the Hebrews would have thought of God as a person in the first place, but in our time we're overly focused importance of individuals.

I'll say this, in very many ways, God the Father was an abstract concept to Israel, especially in that dark time. Therefore personifying him was one of the purposes Jesus was there for. Just as in our time God is very abstract the farther away we get from viewing Jesus, so with them as well.

---

Really??? What evidence do you have to support this???

The OT to my reading reveals a highly personal, very relational God-- one that the Hebrews can argue with, bargain with, badger, cajole, and bitch to when he doesn't seem to them to be coming thru on his promises. What evidence do you have to the contrary? At the moment this assertion seems to be to be pulled straight out of clear blue sky. [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
Good point. personification may have been an awkward way of saying it. I am not sure how to describe speaking about yourself in a different place when in fact you are omnipresent.

...I'm saying that along the way in the ministry, Jesus was, essentially, play acting. He was/is God, playacting as something lesser. In order to conceal his identity, he spoke of the Father (his own person) externally.

---

I believe this reading is based on a faulty understanding of divinity and the nature of the Trinity. Read the prior discussion a page or two back about kenosis. Many/most of us orthodox Christians do not believe Jesus retained the "omnis" when he was on earth. As you note, the gospels certainly don't portray him as having that sort of power/ability, and Phil. 2 seems to be implying that this is part of what it meant for him to "empty himself" and "become a servant." So there is no "play-acting" involved, no deception, no pretense. He wasn't "pretending" to be limited by space & time-- being limited by space and time is inherent to existing in a physical, material body and relating to mortals in a physical, space/time-bound universe. He seems to be limited by space/time because he WAS limited by space/time. He is only able to do/know supernaturally what the Father enabled him to do/know in the moment. His power came-- as he explicitly says on several occasions-- from the Father.

The reason this is so hard for us to grasp is that we have been trained (mostly by Greek philosophy) to define divinity by the "omnis". That's what "being God" means to us-- having the power to be/do/know everything. But I would argue that Phil. 2 suggests and Jesus demonstrates that the "omnis" are secondary attributes, not defining characteristics. They are abilities God has, but not the definition of who God is. The definition of who God is, as Jesus both states explicitly and demonstrates in his life & death, is love.

What is inherent, what is defining, what is immutable about God is that: the divine nature, the divine character. God not only has love or does love, God is love. In Jesus, stripped of the shiny "omni" bits that distract us, this is on full display.

---

Will need to think more about this one before responding, this is not an easy one.

All the best.

A.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

I thing Jesus Christ is the expressed personification of the Father, personified in the flesh. I don't even think that the Hebrews would have thought of God as a person in the first place, but in our time we're overly focused importance of individuals.

I'll say this, in very many ways, God the Father was an abstract concept to Israel, especially in that dark time. Therefore personifying him was one of the purposes Jesus was there for. Just as in our time God is very abstract the farther away we get from viewing Jesus, so with them as well.

---

quote:

---

(my response) Really??? What evidence do you have to support this???

The OT to my reading reveals a highly personal, very relational God-- one that the Hebrews can argue with, bargain with, badger, cajole, and bitch to when he doesn't seem to them to be coming thru on his promises. What evidence do you have to the contrary? At the moment this assertion seems to be to be pulled straight out of clear blue sky.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
You took issue with a minor point of evidence. Perhaps not the best evidence, but all I'm saying is that when the Hebrew people had a heart issue, as was the case in that day, we can rightly say they had lost touch with the personal nature of God. Of course the Scriptures point toward a personal God, but as you know the religious paradigm of the day was one of tight regulations and work centered salvation. The leadership and majority had lost touch with the person of God, hence, the minority were the ones able to receive Jesus (God personified).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
Not sure yet but looking into the Greek term and I think emptied is a fair enough word in translation but it seems to have carried with it some notion of Jesus as like a bucket that has spilled it's divine qualities.

This isn't the vein in which the term seems to be used, to me.

The word points toward the uselessness of a thing, or of something being made void, it has become useless.

It is not as if divinity can be put in a locker, and then unlocked later. But that seems to be the premise of Kenosis as postulated by some. It seems to presuppose that the nature of anything can be subdivided or parts of it extracted.

Whereas the alternative view is that the nature of something cannot be subtracted from or altered, only hidden.

I think I would default to a view of Phil 2:7 which shows the person of Jesus to have been made valueless, not that his divinity was extracted from his identity. It is simply his identity being obscured by the treatment and behavior of Him as a person-of-no-value (empty of/void of importance).

The empty of "certain qualities" is imposed on the text.

PHIL 2:5 For, let this mind be in you that [is] also in Christ Jesus, 6who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God, 7but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, 8and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, -YLT

The purpose of this is to focus us on being Christ-like in mind. We cannot empty ourselves of intrinsic qualities, rather, we are to be of a mind like Christ in our obedience to God through seeing "the fashion" in which Christ was humble.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:


The purpose of this is to focus us on being Christ-like in mind. We cannot empty ourselves of intrinsic qualities, rather, we are to be of a mind like Christ in our obedience to God through seeing "the fashion" in which Christ was humble.

---

Where we have a dispute is what exactly are the "essential attributes" of divinity.

---

quote:

---

I would agree that Phil. 2 asserts that Jesus was at all times fully divine, so whatever it is that is essential to divinity, Jesus had it every bit as much in his earthly incarnation as he does in the resurrection.

---

quote:

---

The question is whether or not the "omnis" are essential divine attributes (as Greek philosophy would suggest) or whether they are merely secondary qualities.
...
...
... if the "omnis" are secondary divine qualities-- abilities but not defining essence-- they can be voluntarily set aside (the voluntary part is essential to the sovereignty of God) without compromising the essential "Godness" of God. This is especially true if that "setting aside" is consistent with what IS the essential, defining qualities-- the essence of what makes God God.

---

quote:

---

Scripture uses a lot of descriptive words to describe God. But the closest it comes to defining God is when Jesus tells us that God IS love.

---

quote:

---

Again, not that God has love or does love, but rather that God IS love. I believe divine love-- that self-sacrificing, self-emptying love that we can only dimly understand-- is THE defining, essential quality of divinity.

---

quote:

---

It is the thing that Jesus never sets aside. It is the thing that unites the Trinity in a single mind, a single will, a single character. The fact that Jesus temporarily sets aside the "omnis" in order to exist as a human being (something that is incompatible physically with the "omnis") is not an "exception" to divinity but rather the fullest, most complete expression of it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
as I posted earlier, but I think you didn't respond to it because you were capitalizing on the less important part of my post...

"I suppose if kenosis makes the most sense to you, I see what you mean, but I would say the hypostatic union is the better view. I don't see any explicit evidence for kenosis, it is only one way of of viewing Jesus in light of a perceived, or maybe 'apparent' loss of divine attributes. I think it best to explain that the attributes remained, but that they were simply not exercised. Or in other words, his divine power, identity and nature were fully retained, only not exercised.

I believe that the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness is one key point showing his struggle is to refrain from using divine power that he clearly still retained, otherwise how could Satan tempt him? How hard would it be to not use what is part of your innate nature? I think -hard- is the point we were to understand."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
.

quote:

---

Scripture uses a lot of descriptive words to describe God. But the closest it comes to defining God is when Jesus tells us that God IS love.

---

I don't think "closest" is accurate, as if that is the one and only essential quality we can see in the text. To list a few possibilities:

He is HOLY and set apart
He is everlasting/life/living water
He is loving, and personal
He is all consuming
He is word (all truth, light)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
.

quote:

---

Again, not that God has love or does love, but rather that God IS love. I believe divine love-- that self-sacrificing, self-emptying love that we can only dimly understand-- is THE defining, essential quality of divinity.

---

Stopping at that point alone is an easy stopping point, isn't it. Love requires nothing in return, or does it? We know that Jesus does require something in return from the world he loves.... love is free for a while, but when this life expires on us, will we get in the kingdom for free? If we make that the ONE attribute of God -because we certainly like love, and need love- and yet we ourselves don't love others in return, God's other attributes come into play. Minor example perhaps, don't get carried away - Jesus did whip some people, might have been a brief episode, but I think it is a example of his love invoking other essential attributes. Its a mistake to say that because he is Love, that this is where his "essential" attributes end. Temporally as we observe it, if he's 99 parts love and 1 part wrath, who are we to ignore the wrath as an essential attribute? Once again that old problem of using only our recent observations to define something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
.
]Sure, love is never set aside, no problem. I see how if that is all you consider, it makes the Trinity simpler again, but it's fact to you, but not fact to me. Modalism as I initially understood it was too simple to explain how God was switching "modes" from being in heaven, to being on earth, it didn't explain the "omnis" aspect, rather it (like Trinity) required some kind of dissonance to be accepted by not know where the "omnis" went. So I naturally rejected it on those grounds because I believed that the Omnis were still involved and of course, retained, in heaven. So God didn't set aside omnipotence in a foot locker, and depart for earth. Somewhere, someone is running the universe. So, if we must concentrate on omnipotence generally, God would need a second person to be upstairs managing. The language Jesus uses largely supports that as far as a dialogue with the man upstairs - in light of shedding omnipotence. But, that is derived from a preconceived notion that he did shed parts of his nature to become human. (It's a little like a chicken and egg question) If one supposes that God did not actually remove any quality, but rather added humanity to his other qualities - the trinity falls apart.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?

---