Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Gospel of John 1:14

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    As stated repeatedly - Kenotic Christology is no longer considered unorthodox, it is considered (so to speak) the black sheep of the orthodox family. Kenotic Christology does not in any way contradict the Nicene Creed.
    It may be considered "the black sheep of the orthodox family" by some Protestants. Your beliefs are certainly unorthodox by Roman Catholic and Orthodox standards.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      It may be considered "the black sheep of the orthodox family" by some Protestants. Your beliefs are certainly unorthodox by Roman Catholic and Orthodox standards.
      Was Jesus not a man attested by God through the miracles that God performed through him?
      Was it necessary that Jesus be made in all things like his brothers?
      Last edited by tabibito; 03-15-2023, 11:43 AM.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post

        Was Jesus not a man attested by God through the miracles that God performed through him?
        Was it necessary that Jesus be made in all things like his brothers?
        I'm not going to play word games with you. You're fully aware that your beliefs are not normative. It speaks volumes that you're attempting to cloak your beliefs in a veneer of respectability.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • #34
          AFAIK, the "orthodox" proponents of kenotic Christology -- e.g. Gordon Fee, Walter Martin, Gerald Hawthorne, Roger Olson -- all hold (or did hold while alive, in the cases of the first three) -- that Jesus retained the personal "identity" He had before His human birth, but set aside all attributes of deity, and may not have even been consciously aware of them between His birth and death. *Functionally* He was a perfect human ambassador of God to earth, and a perfect representative of humanity to the Father.

          (Out of curiosity, I've been trying to pin down Tom Wright's view. He seems to do a lot of hifalutin obfuscatory theologification, so it's tricky.)
          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

          Beige Federalist.

          Nationalist Christian.

          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

          Proud member of the this space left blank community.

          Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

          Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

          Justice for Matthew Perna!

          Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            I'm not going to play word games with you. You're fully aware that your beliefs are not normative. It speaks volumes that you're attempting to cloak your beliefs in a veneer of respectability.
            Word games?

            Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst
            Acts 10:38 “You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.
            Luke 4:18-21 [18> "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to preach ...
            Hebrews 2:9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
              AFAIK, the "orthodox" proponents of kenotic Christology -- e.g. Gordon Fee, Walter Martin, Gerald Hawthorne, Roger Olson -- all hold (or did hold while alive, in the cases of the first three) -- that Jesus retained the personal "identity" He had before His human birth, but set aside all attributes of deity, and may not have even been consciously aware of them between His birth and death. *Functionally* He was a perfect human ambassador of God to earth, and a perfect representative of humanity to the Father.

              (Out of curiosity, I've been trying to pin down Tom Wright's view. He seems to do a lot of hifalutin obfuscatory theologification, so it's tricky.)
              Except he performed many miracles during his life, like walking on water, turning water into wine, resurrecting the dead, etc. He also shows that he has omniscience on occasion (like knowing everything about the woman at the well).

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                Word games?

                Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst
                Acts 10:38 “You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.
                Luke 4:18-21 [18> "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to preach ...
                Hebrews 2:9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus
                Yes, word games. I have no issue, as I rather suspect you know full well, with the scriptures presented - just with your interpretation of them. I would have less quarrel with you if you were forthright in proclaiming that your views were unorthodox and that the orthodox view was wrong.
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  Yes, word games. I have no issue, as I rather suspect you know full well, with the scriptures presented - just with your interpretation of them. I would have less quarrel with you if you were forthright in proclaiming that your views were unorthodox and that the orthodox view was wrong.
                  I suspect that your argument is with your own interpretation of the scriptures, which contradicts standard theology. I have, after all, done no more than post the scriptures with no comment beyond underscoring of key points.
                  Word games are needed to make it seem that the scriptures and standard theology are not in conflict.

                  So pare it back to basics:
                  Do the ECF's admit that Logos became flesh? Or will it be necessary to post copies of the various ECF's declarations denying it?

                  Last edited by tabibito; 03-15-2023, 01:50 PM.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                    What? Mainstream belief does NOT consider that Logos became flesh. Mainstream belief states that Logos remained God - he did not become anything other than what he already was.

                    Let us put this thread into context. It has arisen as a result of a remark I made on the Two Swords thread where I noted that fortuitously Origen's extensive quoting of Celsus in his Contra Celsum [and which has survived] has permitted us to know much of what Celsus wrote given that his actual works were destroyed by Christians.

                    That led to the following exchanges between us:

                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    Celsus recorded the Christian teachings of his time: his might be a special case, given that those teachings fell into disrepute.


                    I asked you:

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    Perhaps you might cite the quotes from Celsus that refer to those "Christian teachings of his time" that you now consider have fallen "into disrepute"?


                    You replied:

                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                    Most critically, that Logos had transformed to become human. A claim that Origen ridiculed.


                    Which led to my asking the question:

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    Are you suggesting that the incarnation - the word being made flesh - is one of those "Christian teachings of [Celsus'] time" that has since fallen "into disrepute"?
                    You responded:

                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    I am not suggesting it, I am stating it plainly: that particular teaching has fallen into disrepute. It is not main-stream belief that Logos was made flesh. Main-stream belief has it that he simply occupied flesh, with some kind of merger: opinions vary as to how exactly how that played out in practice. It isn't so long since that Kenosis was deemed heresy, though it is nowadays considered merely unseemly.


                    Our exchange continued:

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    Are you therefore contending that the prologue of John's gospel is in error?


                    To which you replied:

                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    No. I am saying that John's prologue is correct.


                    This led to my comment:

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    Then the word was made flesh. The various Christian creeds also refer to Jesus being conceived [albeit by a god].


                    Your latest response has been:

                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    There is a world of difference between "being conceived" and "becoming." The latter is what the scriptures declare, though there may be two references that refer to being conceived.


                    That suggests that both Luke and Matthew and the angel[s] were wrong regarding any conception.

                    Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 03-15-2023, 01:58 PM.
                    "It ain't necessarily so
                    The things that you're liable
                    To read in the Bible
                    It ain't necessarily so
                    ."

                    Sportin' Life
                    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                      Let us put this thread into context. It has arisen as a result of a remark I made on the Two Swords thread where I noted that fortuitously Origen's extensive quoting of Celsus in his Contra Celsum [and which has survived] has permitted us to know much of what Celsus wrote given that his actual works were destroyed by Christians.

                      That led to the following exchanges between us:



                      I asked you:



                      You replied:



                      Which led to my asking the question:



                      You responded:



                      Our exchange continued:



                      To which you replied:



                      This led to my comment:



                      Your latest response has been:



                      That suggests that both Luke and Matthew and the angel[s] were wrong regarding any conception.
                      You are correct. I was mistaken, having forgotten to run the concept through first century understandings.

                      From current understanding of "conceive," Christ would then have been a demi-god, the product of a pairing between a god and a human, which would mean that Logos had not become flesh.
                      Last edited by tabibito; 03-15-2023, 03:13 PM.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                        Except he performed many miracles during his life, like walking on water, turning water into wine, resurrecting the dead, etc. He also shows that he has omniscience on occasion (like knowing everything about the woman at the well).
                        If those were the standards, then Peter, Paul, Elijah, Elisha, and others were also God.
                        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                        Beige Federalist.

                        Nationalist Christian.

                        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                        Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                        Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                        Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                        Justice for Matthew Perna!

                        Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                          AFAIK, the "orthodox" proponents of kenotic Christology -- e.g. Gordon Fee, Walter Martin, Gerald Hawthorne, Roger Olson -- all hold (or did hold while alive, in the cases of the first three) -- that Jesus retained the personal "identity" He had before His human birth, but set aside all attributes of deity, and may not have even been consciously aware of them between His birth and death. *Functionally* He was a perfect human ambassador of God to earth, and a perfect representative of humanity to the Father.

                          (Out of curiosity, I've been trying to pin down Tom Wright's view. He seems to do a lot of hifalutin obfuscatory theologification, so it's tricky.)
                          I've posted these elsewhere, but for reference, I'll post them again here:

                          (Also, I note that not all are explicitly termed "kenotic," but certainly are so conceptually.)

                          Walter Martin:

                          The New Testament irrefutably teaches that Christ did not exercise at least three prime attributes of deity while on the earth prior to His resurrection. These were omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. Had He done so while a man, He could not have been perfect humanity. ...

                          The miracles of our Lord offer further proof of His limitations as a man, for He did not hesitate to teach that He personally worked none of them, and that it was the Father who performed the works (John 5:19, 30; John 8:28; 10:37, 38; 10:32; 14:10). ...

                          It can be said on good biblical ground that all of Christ's miracles, powers, and supernatural information were the result of the Father's action through Him, thus safeguarding our Lord's identity as a true man (John 14:10; John 5:30).

                          (Walter Martin, Essential Christianity, a Handbook of Basic Christian Doctrines, quoted by Rob Bowman in The Word-Faith Controversy, 2001)


                          Bowman considered Martin's view *maybe* "heterodox," but not heretical. This quote occurred in a context where Bowman was discussing the fact that Martin considered Copeland to have ventured into "cult" territory, not for having beliefs almost identical to Martin's own cited above, but for alleging that Jesus "never claimed to be God."

                          Gerald Hawthorne:

                          [I]t will become clear also that the Spirit so fully motivated Jesus' speech and actions that the miracles he performed and the words he spoke he spoke and performed not by virtue of his own power, the power of his own divine personality, but by virtue of the power of the Holy Spirit at work within him and through him.

                          That Jesus did his mighty works and preached his message with authority because he was enabled to do so by the Holy Spirit is the conclusion to which the Gospel writers came after reflecting on the extraordinary nature of his words and deeds. They expressed this conclusion both explicitly and implicitly.
                          (The Presence and the Power, 1991, pp. 145-146)

                          It is not that the Eternal Son added humanity to his divinity, for such a claim smacks of that teaching which viewed the humanity of Christ as impersonal. Rather, "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14, italics mine); hence, "it is as a man, and within the limitations of manhood, that the Son of God is incarnate." This is to say that the Logos, the Son, God the Son, "set the divine life in human neighborhood" and for our sake put himself at our level, so that he actually thought and acted, viewed the world, and experienced time and space events strictly within the confines of a normally developing human person. Under these conditions of humanness, it is possible to dare to say that God -- God the Son -- learned as we learn, felt as we feel, laughed as we laugh, was surprised as we are surprised..."
                          (The Presence and the Power, 1991, p. 210)


                          Hawthorne explicitly defines his view as kenotic, devoting the entire penultimate chapter of the book to that, and identifying with the kenotic tradition of Austin Farrar, P.T. Forsyth, H.R. McIntosh, O.C. Quick, Vincent Taylor, and Brian Hebbelthwaite. He emphatically maintains that Jesus never ceased being God during His Incarnation.

                          Sam Storms here cites Hawthorne approvingly, but seems less than enthusiastic about the "kenotic" label, and does not mention that Hawthorne identified with the label.

                          Gordon Fee, ca. 1980 -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmC5oOruBRg

                          "Now you understand that in the New Testament, Jesus does not perform miracles because He's God. In the New Testament the evidence is very clear He performed miracles because the Spirit and the power of God were 'with Him' to use the language of the Bible. 'The power of God was present with Him to heal.' Or to use Luke's language in the Gospel, 'He went forth in the power of the Spirit.' ..."


                          Implicitly, "Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God," 1996, Preface (p. xi):

                          "Fifth, one of the shortcomings of this book is that I have not tried to compare Paul with the other writers of the New Testament. My aim has been to hear Paul on his own terms. Hopefully it will stand alongside other books of its kind: by Gary Burge (for John); James Shelton (for Luke-Acts); and Gerald Hawthorne (for Jesus)" -- the Hawthorne reference presumably alluding to the aforementioned 1991 book.



                          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                          Beige Federalist.

                          Nationalist Christian.

                          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                          Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                          Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                          Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                          Justice for Matthew Perna!

                          Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                            I've posted these elsewhere, but for reference, I'll post them again here:

                            (Also, I note that not all are explicitly termed "kenotic," but certainly are so conceptually.)

                            Walter Martin:

                            The New Testament irrefutably teaches that Christ did not exercise at least three prime attributes of deity while on the earth prior to His resurrection. These were omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. Had He done so while a man, He could not have been perfect humanity. ...

                            The miracles of our Lord offer further proof of His limitations as a man, for He did not hesitate to teach that He personally worked none of them, and that it was the Father who performed the works (John 5:19, 30; John 8:28; 10:37, 38; 10:32; 14:10). ...

                            It can be said on good biblical ground that all of Christ's miracles, powers, and supernatural information were the result of the Father's action through Him, thus safeguarding our Lord's identity as a true man (John 14:10; John 5:30).

                            (Walter Martin, Essential Christianity, a Handbook of Basic Christian Doctrines, quoted by Rob Bowman in The Word-Faith Controversy, 2001)


                            Bowman considered Martin's view *maybe* "heterodox," but not heretical. This quote occurred in a context where Bowman was discussing the fact that Martin considered Copeland to have ventured into "cult" territory, not for having beliefs almost identical to Martin's own cited above, but for alleging that Jesus "never claimed to be God."

                            Gerald Hawthorne:

                            [I]t will become clear also that the Spirit so fully motivated Jesus' speech and actions that the miracles he performed and the words he spoke he spoke and performed not by virtue of his own power, the power of his own divine personality, but by virtue of the power of the Holy Spirit at work within him and through him.

                            That Jesus did his mighty works and preached his message with authority because he was enabled to do so by the Holy Spirit is the conclusion to which the Gospel writers came after reflecting on the extraordinary nature of his words and deeds. They expressed this conclusion both explicitly and implicitly.
                            (The Presence and the Power, 1991, pp. 145-146)

                            It is not that the Eternal Son added humanity to his divinity, for such a claim smacks of that teaching which viewed the humanity of Christ as impersonal. Rather, "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14, italics mine); hence, "it is as a man, and within the limitations of manhood, that the Son of God is incarnate." This is to say that the Logos, the Son, God the Son, "set the divine life in human neighborhood" and for our sake put himself at our level, so that he actually thought and acted, viewed the world, and experienced time and space events strictly within the confines of a normally developing human person. Under these conditions of humanness, it is possible to dare to say that God -- God the Son -- learned as we learn, felt as we feel, laughed as we laugh, was surprised as we are surprised..."
                            (The Presence and the Power, 1991, p. 210)


                            Hawthorne explicitly defines his view as kenotic, devoting the entire penultimate chapter of the book to that, and identifying with the kenotic tradition of Austin Farrar, P.T. Forsyth, H.R. McIntosh, O.C. Quick, Vincent Taylor, and Brian Hebbelthwaite. He emphatically maintains that Jesus never ceased being God during His Incarnation.

                            Sam Storms here cites Hawthorne approvingly, but seems less than enthusiastic about the "kenotic" label, and does not mention that Hawthorne identified with the label.

                            Gordon Fee, ca. 1980 -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmC5oOruBRg

                            "Now you understand that in the New Testament, Jesus does not perform miracles because He's God. In the New Testament the evidence is very clear He performed miracles because the Spirit and the power of God were 'with Him' to use the language of the Bible. 'The power of God was present with Him to heal.' Or to use Luke's language in the Gospel, 'He went forth in the power of the Spirit.' ..."


                            Implicitly, "Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God," 1996, Preface (p. xi):

                            "Fifth, one of the shortcomings of this book is that I have not tried to compare Paul with the other writers of the New Testament. My aim has been to hear Paul on his own terms. Hopefully it will stand alongside other books of its kind: by Gary Burge (for John); James Shelton (for Luke-Acts); and Gerald Hawthorne (for Jesus)" -- the Hawthorne reference presumably alluding to the aforementioned 1991 book.






                            The ECFs' claims that Jesus displayed his deity in the performance of miracles is the most easily shot-down of their teachings, but they are still cited as authoritative in theology courses. Two lecturers (one for Trinity, the other for Christology or vice versa) same "student" - wording is as best I can remember.

                            In one lecture:
                            Lecturer: The miracles demonstrate the deity of Christ.
                            Student: "Which miracles demonstrate that Jesus was God? Walking on water, perhaps?"
                            Lecturer: "Yes, that's one of them."
                            Student: "Peter did that, albeit only briefly."
                            Lecturer: (jaw drop) ... ... ... "So he did."
                            Student: There are almost no miracles attributed to Jesus that don't have parallels performed by humans in the Old Testament or New. "Feeding the crowds with only a few loaves and fish? Not much different in kind from the" account of 2Kings 4:1-7 (1Kings 17:13-16 is also a good, in some ways better, fit)
                            Other students offered parallels, with examples of restoring life to dead people being cited from both Old and New testaments.
                            Student: Jesus explicitly denied that he performed miracles by his own power.

                            In the other:
                            Student: "Which miracles demonstrate that Jesus was God? Walking on water, perhaps?"
                            Lecturer: "Yes, that's one of them."
                            Student: "Peter did that, albeit only briefly."
                            Lecturer: Let's move on, shall we.

                            But this, from your post, is intriguing ...
                            "He (Hawthorne?) emphatically maintains that Jesus never ceased being God during His Incarnation."
                            Is that posted as intended, or did you slip a cog? As posted, it looks as though Hawthorne(?) is trying to present a merger that makes Kenosis palatable to standard theology.
                            Last edited by tabibito; 03-16-2023, 02:11 AM.
                            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                            Scripture before Tradition:
                            but that won't prevent others from
                            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                            of the right to call yourself Christian.

                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post


                              Sam Storms here cites Hawthorne approvingly, but seems less than enthusiastic about the "kenotic" label, and does not mention that Hawthorne identified with the label.
                              ?


                              With regard to Philippians 2:7 Sam Storms says;
                              (2) The translation “he emptied himself” inclines many to ask the question: “Of what did Christ empty himself?” In spite of the fact that the “it” or “content” of which Christ allegedly emptied himself is nowhere stated in the text, many have insisted on supplying an answer.


                              Either
                              Logos emptied himself: If you empty a cupboard, the cupboard has no longer has any content, but it still exists.



                              Or
                              Logos emptied himself of something(s): If you empty a cupboard of plates, other things (cups, perhaps) remain in the cupboard.




                              "Logos emptied himself," would be a far more radical emptying than a mere emptying himself of something would be. However, in the context of the pericope, a something is supplied - the thing that he did not count as a trophy. According to the English translations, that something is "equality with God:" note the comment in Hebrews: He was made lower** (in status) than the angels. Either he emptied himself of everything, which would include (according to the English translations) equality with God, or he emptied himself only of (according to the English translations) equality with God.


                              **The Koine Greek ἐλαττόω/ἐλασσόω cannot mean lower in physical location - it means a reduction of status or circumstance, unlike Christ's statement that "the Father is higher than I" which could (theoretically) mean either physically higher or higher in status (greater). There are people who argue that Jesus was saying "the Father is higher (not greater) than I." Others argue that Jesus was speaking from "his human self," not from "his Logos self."

                              It gets even better:

                              The theological implications of such a view must be noted. It would mean that by virtue of the incarnation, the second person of the Trinity ceased to be God. This view, known in history as the doctrine of Kenosis (hence Kenotic Christology), entails a form of divine suicide.


                              How long since abdication was tantamount to suicide?

                              Since it would be impossible to possess the “glory” of God without that internal, essential character or quality of which the glory is the outward display, the second person of the Trinity possesses the very nature of deity.


                              Jesus, in his prayer in Gethsemane, stated that he no longer had the glory that he had when he was with the Father. If that was so, it would be difficult to make a case that he was still equal to the Father (which standard theology declares would make him not God.) The human/Logos divide won't help here - the speaker had glory with God before his existence as Jesus.
                              Last edited by tabibito; 03-16-2023, 06:39 AM.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                                If those were the standards, then Peter, Paul, Elijah, Elisha, and others were also God.
                                Some of the miracles Jesus performed were on a different level (calming the storm, multiplying a child's lunch to feed thousands, healing someone without even seeing them as in the case of the centurion's servant), but it's more notable that unlike the apostles and prophets, Jesus performed miracles on his own authority.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X