How can I be a semi-Arian as I reject the application of the word "ousios" to the Trinity in toto?
Actually in ancient theology proper (i.e. scripture), the word linked to begotten is "Today" and not "atemporally."
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Actually in ancient theology proper (i.e. scripture), the word linked to begotten is "Today" and not "atemporally."
G
guest1
Guest
And Col 1:19 is past as in during His years on earth. So one supports His present Deity/humanity(2:9) and the other His past (1:19) earthly ministry as all the fulness of Deity dwelling in Him. Either way you are refuted and Phil 2:6 with the present participle supports me not you since its describing His humility as a servant who was (presently) God and that equality as God was not something He needed to reach for since it was already His in that He possessed in His deity- its fulness.We are talking about Jesus Christ, not a mere Christian. The real question is what "In Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells" means as constrasted to "emptied himself" in Phil 2:6. Note that in Col 2:9 the tense is present, suggesting the living, elevated, resurrected and ascended Christ, existing at date of the letter to the Colossians. However, if perchance it does refer back to the man Jesus Christ, then we have to accord the meaning of "fullness of the deity" in Col 2:9 to the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit + the Word incarnate in Jesus' divine person (i.e. his soul)" to be consistent with Phil 2:6.
And yet he was limited in operation by his human form. He was unable to perform the actions of divinity except by obedience to his Father and by the power of the Holy Spirit.
BTW- since you espouse the kenosis heresy- the empty god you are not a trinitarian either by default. In that sense you are no different than Hagin, Copeland and all the other modern day charismatic heretics/ false teachers that espouse the kenosis heresy.
hope this helps !!!
Burn me at the stake then, as your fellow Trinitarians have done throughout history.And Col 1:19 is past as in during His years on earth. So one supports His present Deity/humanity(2:9) and the other His past (1:19) earthly ministry as all the fulness of Deity dwelling in Him. Either way you are refuted and Phil 2:6 with the present participle supports me not you since its describing His humility as a servant who was (presently) God and that equality as God was not something He needed to reach for since it was already His in that He possessed in His deity- its fulness.
BTW- since you espouse the kenosis heresy- the empty god you are not a trinitarian either by default. In that sense you are no different than Hagin, Copeland and all the other modern day charismatic heretics/ false teachers that espouse the kenosis heresy.
hope this helps !!!
And no it doesn't help me, as I am fully aware of where your "Trinity" came from. It wasn't from Jesus Christ.
And no, there is no kenosis heresy without labelling the originator of the heresy (i.e. Paul) a heretic. You don't have the nerve to do it.
G
guest1
Guest
It’s not burning you at the stake it’s a matter of accepting the truth and correction.Burn me at the stake then, as your fellow Trinitarians have done throughout history.
And no it doesn't help me, as I am fully aware of where your "Trinity" came from. It wasn't from Jesus Christ.
And no, there is no kenosis heresy without labelling the originator of the heresy (i.e. Paul) a heretic. You don't have the nerve to do it.
It's not difficult to understand when we reconcile all scriptures without sweeping some scriptures under the carpet from a biased theological background.It's more important how the word is used in its syntax than taking the same word in a completely different context. For example we should look at what the word means when it refers to a person and also when it is the head noun of a genitive phrase like Revelation 3:14.
BDAG says for linguistic reasons it is probable that it means first-created. Here is why:
When a verbal noun is the head noun of a genitive it is either a subjective genitive or objective genitive. This is pretty basic Greek 101. That is what we find with "beginning of creation.
So convert the noun to a verb and the genitive is the subject or object. In this case it is "God created."
The Son is the beginning of what God created.
Interestingly Wisdom at Proverbs 8:22 in the LXX also the αρχή of what God created and also it/he explicitly says "God created me the beginning of his works." I am not arguing that the Word is Jesus here so much as to show the same syntax. However many so see an allusion from Proverbs 8:22 to Revelation.
Be that as it may, you do seem to agree that it does not mean "origin" at 3:14. And since it does not mean origin at John 1:1, you are left with no opinion still?
John in his gospel and Epistles says that no one has ever seen God at anytime. Apostle Paul goes further to say that immortal God dwells in unapproachable light Whom no one has seen nor can see - 1Tim 6.
Yet OT fathers and prophets have seen Him face to face. Is there a contradiction? Of course Not! Some traditional theologians say those appearances were theophanies. In reality they are not!
What John and Paul mean is that no one can see God in form of Spirit as He is transcendent, invisible, unapproachable and can't be heard.
Yahusha/Yeshua testifies to the unbelieving Jews (not believing in the Son) that they (OT) have never seen Father's form nor have heard His voice.
John 14 addressing to Philip, The Son says that those who have seen Him have seen The Father.
If anyone doesn't know The Son, can't possibly know The Father as He is His visible face. Who is The WORD? The WORD is the One Who interacts with the creation where the creation can hear, see and handle - 1John 1:1.
Jacob wrestled with a Man - face of God - 'PENIEL'.
This visible concept is revealed in the OT:
Exod 15:3 “יהוה is a man of battle, יהוה is His Name.
Isaiah 42:13 יהוה goes forth like a mighty man. He stirs up ardour like a fighter. He cries out, yes, shout aloud. Over His enemies He shows Himself mighty.
Ezk 1:26 And above the expanse over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone. And on the likeness of the throne was a likeness as the appearance of a man high above it.
28: As the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the brightness all around it. This was the appearance of the likeness of the esteem of יהוה. And when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard a voice of One speaking.
YHWH reveals Himself in duality of powers in the OT.
It is quite evident in Gen 1:26 - Let US make man.
It's also in the perspective of the Gospel message:
Gen 1:3 - 'Let there be Light'
Look at how Paul interprets this passage in 2Cor 4: 6:
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (kjv).
It's quite obvious when God in His Spirit form can't be seen or heard - He has His own face in YHWH - revealed in duality of powers.
The One Who spoke as The Father in OT is now The Son of God come in likeness of sinful flesh. Phil 2:5-7 teaches that His nature of being God has not changed as He is equal with God but didn't hold on to this reputation as He made Himself a Servant for the sake of His people whom He came to save and give them right to sonship and make them joint heirs with Him.
Paul in Colossians says He the image of the invisible God (Gen 1:26 - Let US make man) and the Firstborn of all creatures (old creation) as well as the Firstborn from the dead (new creation). In Him all things consist.
He is our YHWH Who became our Yeshuah - Isaiah 12:2.
In Rev 21:3 - Tabernacle of God is in midst of His people where they will see Him face to face.
At first time He as The Word becoming flesh Tabernacled in midst of His people but majority of them didn't recognize their God as He came down to the earth. This is a precursor to Rev 21:3.
Well, since most of the "orthodox" maintain that the "heretical" aspect of Christ emptying himself is contained in the very idea that he did empty himself of anything, it's perhaps the "orthodox" that require "truth and correction" in having the audacity to directly repudiate apostolic teaching.It’s not burning you at the stake it’s a matter of accepting the truth and correction.
G
guest1
Guest
No its a misunderstanding of the context in Phil 2 and the rest of Scripture on the Person of Christ- His 2 natures and the Trinity.Well, since most of the "orthodox" maintain that the "heretical" aspect of Christ emptying himself is contained in the very idea that he did empty himself of anything, it's perhaps the "orthodox" that require "truth and correction" in having the audacity to directly repudiate apostolic teaching.
What you really mean is, that if we understand the two natures of Christ, or rather the "two persons of Christ in the body of Christ" as united by the hypostatic union doctrine not formulated until the 5th century AD, and we understand correctly the Trinity first formulated by Tertullian in his infamous "treatise against Praxeas," circa 150 years after Paul's Philippians epistle, with its allusions to "substances" and "persons" which is not found in the bible, then we might reasonably, or rather "ought to," conclude that it was impossible for Paul to really mean that "Christ emptied himself"; but rather he meant something else entirely. It's just that no one can agree on what he did mean.No its a misunderstanding of the context in Phil 2 and the rest of Scripture on the Person of Christ- His 2 natures and the Trinity.
All they are meant to agree on is what he didn't mean.
G
guest1
Guest
No Scripture calls Him both the Son of God having the nature of God and the son of man having the nature of man. I do not need any creeds, ECF's to support the 2 natures in Christ or the Trinity. The bible is full of examples and teaching on both of them. I'm first and foremost a biblical/scriptural Trinitarians.What you really mean is, that if we understand the two natures of Christ, or rather the "two persons of Christ in the body of Christ" as united by the hypostatic union doctrine not formulated until the 5th century AD, and we understand correctly the Trinity first formulated by Tertullian in his infamous "treatise against Praxeas," circa 150 years after Paul's Philippians epistle, with its allusions to "substances" and "persons" which is not found in the bible, then we might reasonably, or rather "ought to" conclude that it was impossible for Paul to really mean that "Christ emptied himself"; but in fact he meant something else entirely: except that no one can agree on what he did mean.
All they are meant to agree on is what he didn't mean.
hope this helps !!!
The two "natures" in Christ is something of a paradox because the ordinary believer is called to put on the "divine nature" in 2 Peter 1:4, suggesting there is no need for any hypostatic union required to unite the human to the divine.No Scripture calls Him both the Son of God having the nature of God and the son of man having the nature of man. I do not need any creeds, ECF's to support the 2 natures in Christ.
The divine nature doesn't exclude the human nature, and the human nature doesn't exclude the divine.
As I understand it the hypostatic union is all about the union of persons, the divine "person" with the human person (which comes with a created rational human soul) to create one person philosophically conjoined, who is really two people, the son of Man and God the Son.
Yes, but yours is a particular type of Trinity with a capital 'T' that goes in for God the Son, God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, which is not really anything that scripture teaches, as in Heb 1:3, God has just one hypostasis, not three.The bible is full of examples and teaching on both of them. I'm first and foremost a biblical/scriptural Trinitarians.
And your Trinity mandates that it is impossible for Christ to empty himself because he is God, all by himself.
And that is to my mind untrue, for even per John 1:1, the Word is only God because the "Word was with God."
I would agree with you if you had said "The Father cannot empty himself." That would be a contradiction in terms.
G
guest1
Guest
You cannot isolate 1 verse from the rest of scripture. John 1:1 makes it clear that only God was in the beginning and that God alone is the Creator. Nothing but God existed prior to creation. The Son declares He was with the Father before creation in John 17:5 which aligns perfectly with John 1:1, 1 Cor 8:6,Hebrews 1:8-10 and Genesis 1.The two "natures" in Christ is something of a paradox because the ordinary believer is called to put on the "divine nature" in 2 Peter 1:4, suggesting there is no need for any hypostatic union required to unite the human to the divine.
The divine nature doesn't exclude the human nature, and the human nature doesn't exclude the divine.
As I understand it the hypostatic union is all about the union of persons, the divine "person" with the human person (which comes with a created rational human soul) to create one person philosophically conjoined, who is really two people, the son of Man and God the Son.
Yes, but yours is a particular type of Trinity with a capital 'T' that goes in for God the Son, God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, which is not really anything that scripture teaches, as in Heb 1:3, God has just one hypostasis, not three.
And your Trinity mandates that it is impossible for Christ to empty himself because he is God, all by himself.
And that is to my mind untrue, for even per John 1:1, the Word is only God because the "Word was with God."
I would agree with you if you had said "The Father cannot empty himself." That would be a contradiction in terms.
hope this helps !!!
Exactly so. The Son was "with God" before the creation. So if the Son or rather the Word is subjected to Kenosis, there is still God. There is no logical reason why the Son cannot be subject to Kenosis because God would still be there and would still be God.The Son declares He was with the Father before creation in John 17:5 which aligns perfectly with John 1:1, 1 Cor 8:6,Hebrews 1:8-10 and Genesis 1.
The point I am making is that your Trinity allows no room for the son of God. Your "Kenosis heresy" is merely a consequence of the way in which you choose to define your Trinity. It if a self-fulfilling prophecy of the incorrectness of your Trinity doctrine.
G
guest1
Guest
God cannot become not God. He emptied His privilege's not His nature as God. Just as the Father can withhold Judgment of a nation so to the Son could withhold using His Deity to His advantage. He laid the rights to use them at His side to accomplish salvation.Exactly so. The Son was "with God" before the creation. So if the Son or rather the Word is subjected to Kenosis, there is still God. There is no logical reason why the Son cannot be subject to Kenosis because God would still be there and would still be God.
The point I am making is that your Trinity allows no room for the son of God. Your "Kenosis heresy" is merely a consequence of the way in which you choose to define your Trinity. It if a self-fulfilling prophecy of the incorrectness of your Trinity doctrine.
hope this helps !!!
You assert that God would cease to exist if the Word became flesh. That is a lie, by the bible, yet it is implicit in your Trinity doctrine. That is why I say that your "Kenosis heresy" is testament to the heresy implicit in your Trinity doctrine.God cannot become not God. He emptied His privilege's not His nature as God. Just as the Father can withhold Judgment of a nation so to the Son could withhold using His Deity to His advantage. He laid the rights to use them at His side to accomplish salvation.
So you can't believe in your Trinity and in the literal words of Phillipians at the same time. You are merely proving the point that your Trinity doctrine is non-scriptural.
As for "emptying his privileges" - well, if he did that he would not be "God" by your own doctrine, because God retains the priveleges of God. You are just using human reasoning. In fact no-one can agree on exactly what the Son did empty himself of under your doctrine. Wikipedia says that it amounts to the "self-emptying' of Jesus' own will" as if he didn't retain a will to do God's will. Then again, another theory is that it amounted only to the "self-denial of his human will and desire" which is not really to empty oneself of anything, but to eviscerate the contextual meaning altogether (which refers to the Word becoming flesh, not to the Word living in the flesh).
G
guest1
Guest
False thst is your false assertion that the Incarnation means He was not fully God. That is your false teaching which is known as Kenosis - the empty god. The fact is God the Son remains fully God in the Incarnation lacking nothing in His Divinity having the same exact attributes as the Father.You assert that God would cease to exist if the Word became flesh. That is a lie, by the bible, yet it is implicit in your Trinity doctrine.
hope this helps !!!
Let me repeat: there is nothing IN THE BIBLE by which you can infer that the Word made flesh (divested of divine attributes) causes God to cease to be God.False thst is your false assertion that the Incarnation means He was not fully God. That is your false teaching which is known as Kenosis - the empty god. The fact is God the Son remains fully God in the Incarnation lacking nothing in His Divinity having the same exact attributes as the Father.
You will have to have recourse to the bible to disprove me (not your God the Son doctrine).
G
guest1
Guest
I already did from Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 Incarnation and post Incarnation and John 1:1 and 17:5 pre Incarnation.Let me repeat: there is nothing IN THE BIBLE by which you can infer that the Word made flesh (divested of divine attributes) causes God to cease to be God.
You will have to have recourse to the bible to disprove me (not your God the Son doctrine).
next
Doesn't disprove it because none of these versus detract from God remaining God if the Word ceases to be positioned at God's right hand, due to constitution of God being the Father living in the Son, and vice versa. The constitition of God isn't violated even if the Son ceases to be at the father's right hand.I already did from Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 Incarnation and post Incarnation and John 1:1 and 17:5 pre Incarnation.
next
So the constitution is not violated, whether the Son is in heaven or on earth as the case may be.
The unity of the Father and the Son is the essence of God, rather than the nature of the power wielded by the Son, which clearly cannot be the same power on earth as was weilded by the Son or Word in heaven, as the power is necessarily curtailed by (a) humanity, (b) by Christ no longer being at the Father's right hand, which was only restored at his ascension 1 Pet 3:22.
G
guest1
Guest
Newsflash the Word is God. John 1:1Doesn't disprove it because none of these versus detract from God remaining God if the Word ceases to be positioned at God's right hand, due to constitution of God being the Father living in the Son, and vice versa. The constitition of God isn't violated even if the Son ceases to be at the father's right hand.
So the constitution is not violated, whether the Son is in heaven or on earth as the case may be.
The unity of the Father and the Son is the essence of God, rather than the nature of the power wielded by the Son, which clearly cannot be the same power on earth as was weilded by the Son or Word in heaven, as the power is necessarily curtailed by (a) humanity, (b) by Christ no longer being at the Father's right hand, which was only restored at his ascension 1 Pet 3:22.
Hello Civic!No Scripture calls Him both the Son of God having the nature of God and the son of man having the nature of man. I do not need any creeds, ECF's to support the 2 natures in Christ or the Trinity. The bible is full of examples and teaching on both of them. I'm first and foremost a biblical/scriptural Trinitarians.
hope this helps !!!
I sure hope you are doing well brother! The reason I'm responding to you instead of someone else is because I'm not going to stick around to argue with them but I thought you would find this piece of information valuable and interesting. I don't know what others have said about Phil. 2:6-8 but let me offer this regarding just 2:6 with regard to what I highlighted in your response:
Let me add this by backing up to 2.6:
Philippians 2:6 (NKJV)
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
The word “being” is the Greek word “huparchon,” here a present/active/participle. In short it means “To be, live, exist”
Complete Word Study Dictionary, The - New Testament..
Greek scholar Spiro Zodhiates says the following about this word in 2.6:
In Philippians 2.6 huparchon (pres. part.) refers to Christ continuing to be what He was before, God or in the form of God, in contrast to hon (pres. part. of eimi [Strongs #1510) in John 1:18, “who is in the bosom of the Father (NASB),” referring to the same state of being as the immaterial Logos (Word, John 1.1) before becoming (ginomai {#1096]) something new, that is, flesh, which He was not before. In Phil. 2.6 it denotes an existence or condition both previous to the circumstances mentioned and continuing after, referring to the deity of Christ prior to His incarnation and its continuance at and after His birth.
The following speaks to the "form" of God. He did not appear in this morphe (of God). This is an example of that form:
Ezekiel 1:26-28 (NKJV)
26 And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne was a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it.
27 Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around.
28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the brightness all around it. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. So when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard a voice of One speaking.
Isaiah 6:1-5 (NKJV)
1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple.
2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
3 And one cried to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!"
4 And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke.
5 So I said: "Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, The LORD of hosts."
That is the morphe of God, and without giving that up Jesus “made Himself of not reputation…” (he made that morphe void). How did He do that?
Philippians 2:7-8 (NKJV)
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
Look at the definition of "ekenonsen" (the kenosis):
Strongs: Lexicon to make empty, i.e. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify
kenóō; contracted kenó, fut. kenósō, from kenós [G2756], empty, void. To make empty, to empty, falsify, be fallacious.
(I) The antithesis of plēróō [G4137], to fill. Kenóō is used in Rom. 4:14; 1 Cor. 1:17; 9:15; 2 Cor. 9:3; Phil. 2:7 meaning to empty oneself, to divest oneself of rightful dignity by descending to an inferior condition, to abase oneself. Complete Word Study Dictionary, The - New Testament.
So how did the Son abase Himself, "neutralize" the form God? Well, grammatically the next two participles explain how this verb was accomplished, "taking the form," and "coming in the likeness." Human nature does not inherently possess divine glory anymore that the Divine nature possess human skin. He did not appear in His glory because He came as a man…a man who was a servant, not a conquering King like David or arrayed even with the glory of Solomon, but as a lowly servant who further humbled Himself to death on the cross. So Jesus did not divest or set aside His divinity, but humbled Himself by adding human nature. This human nature was not divinized just as the divine nature was not humanized just as the creeds teach:
"to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence."
In short, Phil 2-6-8 does attest to the fact that Jesus was both God and man at the same time.
Blessings civic,
TheLayman