- This topic is empty.
- Posts
WJ,
Are you saying that Jesus WAS God?
Or that Jesus IS God?
Or that Jesus WAS God but then Wasn't God then WAS God again?
Quote (kerwin @ May 15 2010,22:31) Why would anyone think that Paul spasmatically changed the topic he was speaking about. Nature can be used to refer to the class of attitude types. In other words Jesus has the same attitude as God and we to are supposed to have that attitude which is why we are called to be righteous as he is. That attitude led Jesus to humble himself becomming a servant to all by choosing to die on the cross so that we may receive the spirit of holiness.
In this same way each of us need to look out for the interests of others and not only to our own interests.
It is a powerful teaching aimed at training us in righteousness.
That's a very strained interpretation of the kenosis Kerwin. I don't buy it. Personally, I really like the way the Bible Gateway commentary exegetes this passage. I'll quote it for your benefit and the benefit of others.In displaying the mind of Christ, Paul begins with one of those sublime sentences whose essential intent and meaning seem clear as can be yet whose parts are full of mystery and wonder. The reason for this is simple enough; on the basis of what was known and came to be believed about Jesus' earthly life, Paul is trying to say something about what could not be observed yet came to be believed about Christ's prior existence as God. What is essential is this: In his prior existence as God, Christ demonstrated what equality with God meant, not by taking advantage of it for himself but by emptying himself, by taking the role of a slave/servant in becoming one of us. All of this, in the present context, is to portray the ultimate expression of “do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit.” What that “mind” entails is spelled out in the narrative that follows.
The details that need special attention are four: (1) Why does Paul say “in the form” of God (NIV margin) rather than simply say “as God”? (2) What does the word harpagmos mean (NIV something to be grasped; put above as “taking advantage of”)? (3) What did it mean for Christ to “empty himself” (NIV made himself nothing)? (4) Why in human likeness rather than “in his humanity” or something similar? Other details of significance will be noted in the process of looking at each of these matters in turn.First, the opening phrase, “who, being in the form [morphe] of God,” expresses as presupposition what the rest of the sentence assumes: that it was the preexistent Christ who “emptied himself” at one point in our human history. Why then did Paul use morphe, which primarily refers to the “form” or “shape” something takes? The answer lies in what Paul is about in this sentence. His urgency is to say something about Christ's “mindset” in both expressions of his being, first as God and second in his humanity. But in the transition from Christ's “being God” to his “becoming human,” Paul expresses by way of metaphor the essential “shape” of that humanity: Christ “took on the `form' of a slave.” Since morphe can denote “form” or “shape” in terms of both the external features by which something is recognized and the characteristics and qualities that are essential to it, it was precisely the right word to characterize both the reality (his being God) and the metaphor (his taking on the role of a slave). On the basis of Christ's resurrection and ascension, his earliest followers had come to believe that the One whom they had known as truly human had himself known prior existence in the “form” of God–not meaning that he was “like God but really not” but that he was characterized by what was essential to being God. This understanding (correctly) lies behind the NIV's in very nature God.
Second, in order to highlight the astonishing nature of the incarnation, Paul resorts to a typical “not/but” contrast. Reading such a sentence straight through without the “but” clause always helps to get at what is essential; in this case, “who, being in the form of God, . . . made himself nothing by taking the form of a servant/slave.” That is glory indeed; but to heighten the glory Paul emphasizes two realities: first, that “being in the form of God” means being equal with God; second, that in Christ's “being in the form of God/being equal with God” he displayed a mindset precisely the opposite of “selfish ambition” and empty glory (v. 3). To accent this second point he uses an extremely rare (negative) word, harpagmos, which depicts the opposite of “in humility consider others better than yourselves” (v. 3).
Harpagmos is a noun formed from a verb that means to “to seize, steal [hence the KJV's `robbery'], snatch, take away.” Although its meaning has been much debated, there is a growing consensus that its probable sense leans toward something like either “a matter of grasping or seizing” or “something grasped for one's own personal advantage.” In the first option the emphasis lies on the verbal side of the noun, on the idea of “seizing” as such. Thus Christ did not consider “equality with God” to consist of being “grasping” or “selfish”; rather he rejected this popular view of kingly power by pouring himself out for the sake of others. The alternative, which is probably preferable, is to see the word as a synonym of its cognate harpagma (“booty” or “prey”), which in idioms similar to Paul's denotes something like “a matter to be seized upon” in the sense of “taking advantage of” it (“he did not think he needed to take advantage of this equality with God,” Bockmuehl 1997:114).
In either case, the clause comes out very much at the same point. Equality with God is something that was inherent to Christ in his preexistence; but he did not consider Godlikeness to consist in “grasping” or “seizing” or as “grasping it to his own advantage,” which would be the normal expectation of lordly power–and the nadir of selfishness.
Quote (JustAskin @ May 15 2010,20:53) Why not just say 'Who, being in the form of God, humbled himself..'?
I would argue the same about being human.Was is it about being a human, that would make one humble.
The scripture after the verse that speaks of being in the form of God found it no robbery,
stated that he didnt not seek reputation, than.. says made into the form of a servant, and than into the likenss of of man?Why couldnt have pual wrote instead.
Jesus who is a humble man, sought no reputation, and was servant to all.
Instead Paul presents the idea of being in the linkess of man, after the humility of seeking no reputation, or likeness.
the verse after that explains that he was fashioned as man, yet he humbled himself. and was obedieant to death even the death of the cross.
Two ideas presented there.
becaause after the verse before stating that he was in the likness of man, it states that he was fashioned into man, with a “coma”-“,” humbled himself. and than presented the word “and” was obdieant even to the death of the cross.
I dont see whats humble about being a man, if you already are a man.
and when Jesus Christ is mentioned, its a discription of who he is.
its like saying you need live your life like the “President” “who”
used critical thinking to advance in his life.in others words its describing we should be like Christ, WHO
etc.
those are my thoughts.
I felt my last post was ignored….(crys)
SimplyForgiven,
I find that your questions involving verse 7 of Phillipians 2 will take some tiime to study and consider. Thank you for bringing them up.
Is8
you say;That's a very strained interpretation of the kenosis Kerwin. I don't buy it. Personally, I really like the way the Bible Gateway commentary exegetes this passage. I'll quote it for your benefit and the benefit of others.
i understand your struggle with the truth,you still fighting to make Christ, God ,and do not want to believe Jesus in any way ,Paul as well ,and i can see you do believe the exegetes who agree with your views ,are you believing the scriptures or men??
Is8
you say;That's a very strained interpretation of the kenosis Kerwin. I don't buy it. Personally, I really like the way the Bible Gateway commentary exegetes this passage. I'll quote it for your benefit and the benefit of others.
i understand your struggle with the truth,you still fighting to make Christ, God ,and do not want to believe Jesus in any way ,Paul as well ,and i can see you do believe the exegetes who agree with your views ,are you believing the scriptures or men??
Is8
you say;That's a very strained interpretation of the kenosis Kerwin. I don't buy it. Personally, I really like the way the Bible Gateway commentary exegetes this passage. I'll quote it for your benefit and the benefit of others.
i understand your struggle with the truth,you still fighting to make Christ, God ,and do not want to believe Jesus in any way ,Paul as well ,and i can see you do believe the exegetes who agree with your views ,are you believing the scriptures or men??
Is8
you say;That's a very strained interpretation of the kenosis Kerwin. I don't buy it. Personally, I really like the way the Bible Gateway commentary exegetes this passage. I'll quote it for your benefit and the benefit of others.
i understand your struggle with the truth,you still fighting to make Christ, God ,and do not want to believe Jesus in any way ,Paul as well ,and i can see you do believe the exegetes who agree with your views ,are you believing the scriptures or men??
Is8
you say;That's a very strained interpretation of the kenosis Kerwin. I don't buy it. Personally, I really like the way the Bible Gateway commentary exegetes this passage. I'll quote it for your benefit and the benefit of others.
i understand your struggle with the truth,you still fighting to make Christ, God ,and do not want to believe Jesus in any way ,Paul as well ,and i can see you do believe the exegetes who agree with your views ,are you believing the scriptures or men??
Is8
you say;That's a very strained interpretation of the kenosis Kerwin. I don't buy it. Personally, I really like the way the Bible Gateway commentary exegetes this passage. I'll quote it for your benefit and the benefit of others.
i understand your struggle with the truth,you still fighting to make Christ, God ,and do not want to believe Jesus in any way ,Paul as well ,and i can see you do believe the exegetes who agree with your views ,are you believing the scriptures or men??
Quote (kerwin @ May 18 2010,21:20) SimplyForgiven, I find that your questions involving verse 7 of Phillipians 2 will take some tiime to study and consider. Thank you for bringing them up.
Im glad that you even taking the time to study and considered it,
as i have considered your pointsim very happy to read that! =)
I hope that we both can grow in better understanding
Much love
SimplyForgiven,
I have done a little thought on this and I remember from Hebrews that it was previously written in scripture that mankind was created a little lower than the angels. From my understanding that scripture is speaking of the level of authority mankind was given as compared to the angels. To humble yourself in a like maney were be to take a job with lesser authority even though you are qualified to be the boss of the bosses.
Quote (kerwin @ May 19 2010,22:23) SimplyForgiven, I have done a little thought on this and I remember from Hebrews that it was previously written in scripture that mankind was created a little lower than the angels. From my understanding that scripture is speaking of the level of authority mankind was given as compared to the angels. To humble yourself in a like maney were be to take a job with lesser authority even though you are qualified to be the boss of the bosses.
so your saying what exactly?can you elaberate on your point a lil.
are you saying that Jesus is the boss?
or the son of the boss? or what exactly?Quote (SimplyForgiven @ May 20 2010,11:28) Quote (kerwin @ May 19 2010,22:23) SimplyForgiven, I have done a little thought on this and I remember from Hebrews that it was previously written in scripture that mankind was created a little lower than the angels. From my understanding that scripture is speaking of the level of authority mankind was given as compared to the angels. To humble yourself in a like maney were be to take a job with lesser authority even though you are qualified to be the boss of the bosses.
so your saying what exactly?can you elaberate on your point a lil.
are you saying that Jesus is the boss?
or the son of the boss? or what exactly?
I am stating that Jesus was qualified to be the King of Everything in heaven and on earth even at his conception. It is only after he resurected that God apointed him to that position as per Mathew 28:18. God did not place himself under Jesus' authority according to 1 Corinthians 15:27. I hope that clarifies my ideas.Quote (kerwin @ May 20 2010,16:40) I am stating that Jesus was qualified to be the King of Everything in heaven and on earth even at his conception. It is only after he resurected that God apointed him to that position as per Mathew 28:18. God did not place himself under Jesus' authority according to 1 Corinthians 15:27. I hope that clarifies my ideas.
I like what you said about Jesus being the king of everything! a really touching phrase.I might add such a phrase to my thesis.
But the bible in several places, says that the Father will glorfiy the Son, and it also mentions that the Holy Spirit will as well.
So are you saying that God of everything and the King of everything are one and the same?
Its like saying im under the authority of my soul, or spirit even though i am in flesh. im still Dennison.
my Soul is Dennison, as in my Spirit and my Flesh.
They all take different roles to demonstrate my Character, ethics, and choices.
the scriptures also state that Jesus has the authority to Judge all.
and whats your opinion about the book of reveltions when John states that He will have new name?Quote (kerwin @ May 20 2010,16:40) SimplyForgiven,May wrote:[quote=kerwin,May 19 2010,22:23]SimplyForgiven,
I have done a little thought on this and I remember from Hebrews that it was previously written in scripture that mankind was created a little lower than the angels. From my understanding that scripture is speaking of the level of authority mankind was given as compared to the angels. To humble yourself in a like maney were be to take a job with lesser authority even though you are qualified to be the boss of the bosses
1st Corinthians 27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
What you posted ^28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
All in all… I love that phrase.
heres more same chapter.
47The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
(What is the greek of the mentioning of that Lord? can someone look that up?)
48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
Simply Forgiven,
You are hitting a number of areas where my ignorance is rather great.
I have my doubts that your soul, spirit, and flesh are all Dennison. The reason for me to doubt that is because even if you lost part of your flesh such as both legs you would be no less who you are. I see your flesh as the possession of Dennison. I see your spirit in such the same light because God instructs people to get a new spirit. On the other hand I see the soul as the essential Dennison. Never the less you are correct that each part contributes to demonstrate your character, ethics, and choices.
I am not stating that the God of everything is the King of Everything though God is the King of Everything. That is self evident by the fact he is the one and only God. A monarch is not God though he can be referred to as “God” since he is God’s stand in on certain matters. It is like stating that he is God’s ear, mouth, etc.
God did glorify Jesus in many ways. I will have to look at those verses that speak of the Holy Spirit doing so as well to go any further than what I have.
As far as I know the word translated Lord can also be translated King.
I do not know enough about Revelation to answer your question about what John states there and I find Revelations 2:17 to be rather cryptic.
I do know that one of a Hebrew King’s powers is to judge as Solomon was known for his wisdom in judging.
Quote (kerwin @ May 21 2010,16:55) Simply Forgiven, You are hitting a number of areas where my ignorance is rather great.
I have my doubts that your soul, spirit, and flesh are all Dennison. The reason for me to doubt that is because even if you lost part of your flesh such as both legs you would be no less who you are. I see your flesh as the possession of Dennison. I see your spirit in such the same light because God instructs people to get a new spirit. On the other hand I see the soul as the essential Dennison. Never the less you are correct that each part contributes to demonstrate your character, ethics, and choices.
I am not stating that the God of everything is the King of Everything though God is the King of Everything. That is self evident by the fact he is the one and only God. A monarch is not God though he can be referred to as “God” since he is God’s stand in on certain matters. It is like stating that he is God’s ear, mouth, etc.
God did glorify Jesus in many ways. I will have to look at those verses that speak of the Holy Spirit doing so as well to go any further than what I have.
As far as I know the word translated Lord can also be translated King.
I do not know enough about Revelation to answer your question about what John states there and I find Revelations 2:17 to be rather cryptic.
I do know that one of a Hebrew King’s powers is to judge as Solomon was known for his wisdom in judging.
I do not believe you are ignorant brother!
Ask the Father in Jesus name and he will give you what you need!About the soul, spirit and flesh thing. We are imperfect beings that have the ability to lose many things. we can also lose our soul? we can also deny the spirit, change our personality.
Just because i continue to grow and change in my life doesnt make me any less of who i am.
every scar, every thing in my body has a story about me and my choices.
When we see people, we do not see their spirit or soul, or personality.
when we see people we can see phsyical appearance and emotion. this is the area of psychology which is my major in the university as well about to work on my masters in theology… so this is more of a psych thing than theo…
We see somones skin color, and we aslo can see somones smile and emotions. and losing my legs would affect me in a psychological manner. think abuot it, it would change my world. IF someone was smashed by a truck, they would HAVE to change. Isnt God bigger than a truck?
back to the point, God demonstrates himself in the same way but in the Perfect sense. I actualy wrote a thesis on this that got me a scholarship and a internship.
your next statement confused me…. lol
Quote I am not stating that the God of everything is the King of Everything though God is the King of Everything. seems you contradicted yourself there. idk what your trying to say there bro can u clarify?
remember God is not a name, its a state, or a title.
oh i think your talking about Jesus! ok sooo I dont think he is a mouthpeice or anything like that, but scripture say he was sanctfied and sent.ya… God did glorify Jesus in many ways… He sure did.
Usually Lord spoken in the oldtestament i thought it meant Jehovah or the other name …. but im not totally sure.
hmmm which Hebrew King? are you talking about Jesus?
well ya.. He has the power to judge your soul after deing and resurrecting for you.Simply Forgiven,
I am trying to state that though God is King being a king does not make you God.
Scripture clearly states that the Father is superior to Jesus and at no time does it state anything else.
When Jesus sits on the throne of David he will be a King of the state of Judah-Isreal, i.e. the thousand years. Even now he is a Hebrew King.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
