Philippians 2.6-7 show "the Son" going from preincarnate to incarnate.

[Yahchristian]

Philippians 2.6-7 show "the Son" going from preincarnate to incarnate.

So the preincarnate Son of God Who did not consider equality with God A THING TO CLING TO, BUT RATHER (the preincarnate Son) made Himself of no reputation by becoming "taking the form of a servant and being born in the likeness of men" (i.e. by becoming the incarnate Son of God).

TRINITARIANS, just to clarify your view…

Which statement is true?

A) When the preincarnate Son of God became the incarnate Son of God, “the Son” was going from preincarnate to incarnate.

B) When the preincarnate Son of God became the incarnate Son of God, “the Son” was going from preincarnate to incarnate WHILE ALSO REMAINING non-incarnate.

In other words, is there still a distinction between the non-incarnate Son of God and the incarnate Son of God?


P.S.

I believe… When Yahweh became incarnate as the Son of God, Yahweh was going from preincarnate to incarnate WHILE ALSO REMAINING non-incarnate.

In other words, YES there is still a distinction between non-incarnate Yahweh (eternal God) and Yahweh incarnate (the Son of God).

Here is a summary of what I believe…

The Lord Yahweh God Almighty is both transcendent and immanent. The name “God the Father” refers to Yahweh transcendent as Spirit, the name “the Spirit of God” refers to Yahweh immanent as Spirit, and the name “the Son of God” refers to Yahweh incarnate as Man.

 

[TheLayman]

TRINITARIANS, just to clarify your view…

Which statement is true?

A) When the preincarnate Son of God became the incarnate Son of God, “the Son” was going from preincarnate to incarnate.

B) When the preincarnate Son of God became the incarnate Son of God, “the Son” was going from preincarnate to incarnate WHILE ALSO REMAINING non-incarnate.

In other words, is there still a distinction between the non-incarnate Son of God and the incarnate Son of God?

A great example of the complex question fallacy. There was never a distinction between the "non-incarnate Son of God" and "the incarnate Son of God" (I never said any such thing so the premise of your question is erroneous). There is a distinction between the divine nature and the human nature of The Son, but there is no distinction in the person of the Son...never was, never will be, never could be...a "person/subsistence/hypostasis" cannot be divided or distinct from itself. Before and after the incarnation there remains one undivided person of the Son of God.

TheLayman

 

[johnny guitar]

TRINITARIANS, just to clarify your view…

Which statement is true?

A) When the preincarnate Son of God became the incarnate Son of God, “the Son” was going from preincarnate to incarnate.

B) When the preincarnate Son of God became the incarnate Son of God, “the Son” was going from preincarnate to incarnate WHILE ALSO REMAINING non-incarnate.

In other words, is there still a distinction between the non-incarnate Son of God and the incarnate Son of God?


P.S.

I believe… When Yahweh became incarnate as the Son of God, Yahweh was going from preincarnate to incarnate WHILE ALSO REMAINING non-incarnate.

In other words, YES there is still a distinction between non-incarnate Yahweh (eternal God) and Yahweh incarnate (the Son of God).

Here is a summary of what I believe…

The Lord Yahweh God Almighty is both transcendent and immanent. The name “God the Father” refers to Yahweh transcendent as Spirit, the name “the Spirit of God” refers to Yahweh immanent as Spirit, and the name “the Son of God” refers to Yahweh incarnate as Man.

While remaining INCARNATE????
Asinine assertion.

 

[Yahchristian]

There was never a distinction between the "non-incarnate Son of God" and "the incarnate Son of God" (I never said any such thing so the premise of your question is erroneous). There is a distinction between the divine nature and the human nature of The Son,

1) Does the “non-incarnate Son of God” refer to…
A) the DIVINE nature of The Son
B) the HUMAN nature of The Son
C) BOTH the divine nature and the human nature of The Son

2) Does “the incarnate Son of God” refer to…
A) the DIVINE nature of The Son
B) the HUMAN nature of The Son
C) BOTH the divine nature and the human nature of The Son

I ask because I would have thought you would say 1=A and 2=B (or 2=C).

Yet you say…

There was never a distinction between the "non-incarnate Son of God" and "the incarnate Son of God"

 

[TheLayman]

1) Does the “non-incarnate Son of God” refer to…
A) the DIVINE nature of The Son
B) the HUMAN nature of The Son
C) BOTH the divine nature and the human nature of The Son

2) Does “the incarnate Son of God” refer to…
A) the DIVINE nature of The Son
B) the HUMAN nature of The Son
C) BOTH the divine nature and the human nature of The Son

I ask because I would have thought you would say 1=A and 2=B (or 2=C).

Yet you say…

You are trolling for another one liner and you know it. Let's review, shall we? You were trying to make a "distinction" between the Son of God and Son of Mary...I told you that I had absolutely know idea what that meant but I told you that I would take a stab at what was meant...the Son of God pre and post incanate. If that was not what you meant then you should have corrected it...it isn't how I speak.

Secondly, once again, I have already answered your question in the one post I have made in this thread! Why should anyone continue to even attempt to answer one of your questions if you don't read answers? Here it is again:

"A great example of the complex question fallacy. There was never a distinction between the "non-incarnate Son of God" and "the incarnate Son of God" (I never said any such thing so the premise of your question is erroneous). There is a distinction between the divine nature and the human nature of The Son, but there is no distinction in the person of the Son...never was, never will be, never could be...a "person/subsistence/hypostasis" cannot be divided or distinct from itself. Before and after the incarnation there remains one undivided person of the Son of God."

If you are still confused, "the Son of God" referred to the person of the Son, I wasn't referring to either nature. Before the incarnation the Son of God had a divine nature. After the incarnation the Son had a divine nature and a human nature...Still just one undivided person of the Son of God with a divine and human nature. But seriously, I had to understand this in the 7th grade, and I did. In a few short posts I have explained this in simple terms and quoted the Chalcedonian Creed (definition). You know what is being said but you are forever the provocateur.

TheLayman

 

[TheLayman]

1) Does the “non-incarnate Son of God” refer to…
A) the DIVINE nature of The Son
B) the HUMAN nature of The Son
C) BOTH the divine nature and the human nature of The Son

2) Does “the incarnate Son of God” refer to…
A) the DIVINE nature of The Son
B) the HUMAN nature of The Son
C) BOTH the divine nature and the human nature of The Son

I ask because I would have thought you would say 1=A and 2=B (or 2=C).

Yet you say…

How many threads are you going to post this question in? In the context that this was said the "non-incarnate Son of God" refers to the person of the Son of God before the incarnation...duh, that was hard wasn't it? And "the incarnate Son of God" refers to the person of the Son of God after after being incarnated...duh, once again, tough concepts right?

TheLayman

 

[Yahchristian]

In the context that this was said the "non-incarnate Son of God" refers to the person of the Son of God before the incarnation...duh, that was hard wasn't it?

And according to the doctrine of the Trinity...

Is there ANY CONTEXT where the "non-incarnate Son of God" does NOT refer to "the person of the Son of God before the incarnation"?

I would think NOT, but could you please confirm that.

And "the incarnate Son of God" refers to the person of the Son of God after after being incarnated...duh, once again, tough concepts right?

And according to the doctrine of the Trinity...

Does "the person of the Son of God after being incarnated" refer to...

A) the DIVINE nature of The Son
B) the HUMAN nature of The Son
C) BOTH the divine nature and the human nature of The Son
D) SOMETIMES A, sometimes B, sometimes C

 

[Yahchristian]

You were trying to make a "distinction" between the Son of God and Son of Mary...

Wrong.

I posted that your fellow TRINITARIAN makes a big "distinction" between the Son of God and Son of Mary.

You must state whether you are referring to Jesus The Son of God or Jesus The Son of Mary.

There IS a big distinction between Jesus The Son of God and Jesus The Son of Mary.

I was simply asking if your other fellow TRINITARIANS agreed with him.

 

[johnny guitar]

Wrong.

I posted that your fellow TRINITARIAN makes a big "distinction" between the Son of God and Son of Mary.




I was simply asking if your other fellow TRINITARIANS agreed with him.

The distinction is one of NATURE.

 

[johnny guitar]

And according to the doctrine of the Trinity...

Is there ANY CONTEXT where the "non-incarnate Son of God" does NOT refer to "the person of the Son of God before the incarnation"?

I would think NOT, but could you please confirm that.




And according to the doctrine of the Trinity...

Does "the person of the Son of God after being incarnated" refer to...

A) the DIVINE nature of The Son
B) the HUMAN nature of The Son
C) BOTH the divine nature and the human nature of The Son
D) SOMETIMES A, sometimes B, sometimes C

The Son of God refers to the Divine nature of The Son, thus A).

 

[Yahchristian]

Does "the person of the Son of God after being incarnated" refer to...

A) the DIVINE nature of The Son
B) the HUMAN nature of The Son
C) BOTH the divine nature and the human nature of The Son
D) SOMETIMES A, sometimes B, sometimes C

The Son of God refers to the Divine nature of The Son, thus A).

Okay, but the question concerns the precise phrase your fellow Trinitarian used, "the person of the Son of God", not just "the Son of God".

Does "the person of the Son of God after being incarnated" refer to...

A) the DIVINE nature of The Son
B) the HUMAN nature of The Son
C) BOTH the divine nature and the human nature of The Son
D) SOMETIMES A, sometimes B, sometimes C

Please post your final answers.

 

[johnny guitar]

Okay, but the question concerns the precise phrase your fellow Trinitarian used, "the person of the Son of God", not just "the Son of God".

Does "the person of the Son of God after being incarnated" refer to...

A) the DIVINE nature of The Son
B) the HUMAN nature of The Son
C) BOTH the divine nature and the human nature of The Son
D) SOMETIMES A, sometimes B, sometimes C

Please post your final answers.

The Person of The Son of God seems unnatural and confusing.
I assume you mean The Son of God, in which case A) is the final answer.

 

[Yahchristian]

Does "the person of the Son of God after being incarnated" refer to...

A) the DIVINE nature of The Son
B) the HUMAN nature of The Son
C) BOTH the divine nature and the human nature of The Son
D) SOMETIMES A, sometimes B, sometimes C

The Person of The Son of God seems unnatural and confusing.
I assume you mean The Son of God, in which case A) is the final answer.

Okay... YOU say "The Son of God" only refers to the DIVINE nature of The Son.

Question...

Did the Son of God die for your sins?

 

[johnny guitar]

Okay... YOU say "The Son of God" only refers to the DIVINE nature of The Son.

Question...

Did the Son of God die for your sins?

Yep, but ONLY after becoming The MAN Jesus Christ, and thus able to die

 

[Yahchristian]

Yep, but ONLY after becoming The MAN Jesus Christ, and thus able to die

But YOU say there is a BIG DISTINCTION between “the man Christ Jesus” and “the Son of God”.

So to clarify the doctrine of the Trinity…

1) Did “the Son of God” die for your sins?

2) Did “the man Christ Jesus” die for your sins?

 

[TheLayman]

And according to the doctrine of the Trinity...

Is there ANY CONTEXT where the "non-incarnate Son of God" does NOT refer to "the person of the Son of God before the incarnation"?

I would think NOT, but could you please confirm that.

Of course there isn't. What's more is that the reason I added "the person" to "the Son of God" is there seems to be some confusion in these thread about the difference in meaning (as regards ontology) between "person" and "nature," so I added "person" in an attempt to remove any ambiguity in what I was saying.

And according to the doctrine of the Trinity...

Does "the person of the Son of God after being incarnated" refer to...

A) the DIVINE nature of The Son
B) the HUMAN nature of The Son
C) BOTH the divine nature and the human nature of The Son
D) SOMETIMES A, sometimes B, sometimes C

And this is what I mean (or maybe you didn't word your question correctly). It doesn't refer to any of them because it does not refer to a "nature," it identifies a person. The same thing if I were to say "the Son of God," it refers to Jesus, not to His nature. If one is going to speak about the nature of the Word, the Son of God, the Son of man, Jesus, etc. you need to be specifically speaking about "nature," because all of those names/titles refer to a person. Did the Son of God possesses both divine and human nature after He was incarnated? Yes. But that is a very different question from the one you asked (and notice that "the Son of God" in my question does not reference a nature).

TheLayman

 

[jamesh]

Of course there isn't. What's more is that the reason I added "the person" to "the Son of God" is there seems to be some confusion in these thread about the difference in meaning (as regards ontology) between "person" and "nature," so I added "person" in an attempt to remove any ambiguity in what I was saying.

And this is what I mean (or maybe you didn't word you question correctly). It doesn't refer to any of them because it does not refer to a "nature," it identifies a person. The same thing if I were to say "the Son of God," it refers to Jesus, not to His nature. If one is going to speak about the nature of the Word, the Son of God, the Son of man, Jesus, etc. you need to be specifically speaking about "nature," because all of those names/titles refer to a person. Did the Son of God possesses both divine and human nature after He was incarnated? Yes. But that is a very different question from the one you asked.

TheLayman

Hey Mark, good to see you posting. The person your dealing with here, "Yahchristian" DOES NOT recognize the word "person." He has been given the definition of person hundreds of times and cannot see the difference between person and being.

You should know that he has a bad habit of "pitting" trinitarians against each other based on what they say/their comments. If you look at all his post he thinks all trinitarians and their comments should all agree. The following is a perfect example of what I mean.

Yep, but ONLY after becoming The MAN Jesus Christ, and thus able to die

But YOU say there is a BIG DISTINCTION between “the man Christ Jesus” and “the Son of God”.

So to clarify the doctrine of the Trinity…

1) Did “the Son of God” die for your sins?

2) Did “the man Christ Jesus” die for your sins?

He will then say, "Well james said there is no distinction of persons and only the man died for our sins, not the Son of God. Of couse the above I just posted is made up to prove my point of his inept reasoning skills which is "zilch." Btw, his tactics have been going on for years. So the bottom line is that the word "person" is not in his vocabulary. Keep up the good work Brother.

IN GOD THE SON,
james

 

[TheLayman]

Hey Mark, good to see you posting. The person your dealing with here, "Yahchristian" DOES NOT recognize the word "person." He has been given the definition of person hundreds of times and cannot see the difference between person and being.

You should know that he has a bad habit of "pitting" trinitarians against each other based on what they say/their comments. If you look at all his post he thinks all trinitarians and their comments should all agree. The following is a perfect example of what I mean.

Yes, as I said elsewhere, always the provocateur...I can't remember the name he went by some time ago. But knowing this, I never say that someone else is wrong because I have no idea of the conversation and context a particuar sentence was ripped from. I stop by from time to time as you know and if I see something that could be really confusing to someone else stopping by...I attempt (whether or not I succeed is doubtful) to bring some clarity. I saw thread after thread on the same "topic" (I use that word loosely) so I was attempting to stop the spread of confusion.

But YOU say there is a BIG DISTINCTION between “the man Christ Jesus” and “the Son of God”.

So to clarify the doctrine of the Trinity…

1) Did “the Son of God” die for your sins?

2) Did “the man Christ Jesus” die for your sins?

He will then say, "Well james said there is no distinction of persons and only the man died for our sins, not the Son of God. Of couse the above I just posted is made up to prove my point of his inept reasoning skills which is "zilch." Btw, his tactics have been going on for years. So the bottom line is that the word "person" is not in his vocabulary. Keep up the good work Brother.

IN GOD THE SON,
james

The fact that "person" is not in his vocabulary is not something I was aware of...then "nature" shouldn't be either. And if he is going to reinvent the language of theology perhaps he should provide his dictionary and take questions on it from now until the second coming so that we can clarify. I'm sure he's reading so regardless of whether it is in his vocabulary he needs to understand it if he wants to understand the language of those he is speaking to if it is in their language.

Blessing,
TheLayman

 

[Runningman]

TRINITARIANS, just to clarify your view…

Which statement is true?

A) When the preincarnate Son of God became the incarnate Son of God, “the Son” was going from preincarnate to incarnate.

B) When the preincarnate Son of God became the incarnate Son of God, “the Son” was going from preincarnate to incarnate WHILE ALSO REMAINING non-incarnate.

In other words, is there still a distinction between the non-incarnate Son of God and the incarnate Son of God?


P.S.

I believe… When Yahweh became incarnate as the Son of God, Yahweh was going from preincarnate to incarnate WHILE ALSO REMAINING non-incarnate.

In other words, YES there is still a distinction between non-incarnate Yahweh (eternal God) and Yahweh incarnate (the Son of God).

Here is a summary of what I believe…

The Lord Yahweh God Almighty is both transcendent and immanent. The name “God the Father” refers to Yahweh transcendent as Spirit, the name “the Spirit of God” refers to Yahweh immanent as Spirit, and the name “the Son of God” refers to Yahweh incarnate as Man.

Philippians 2
6Who, existing in the form of God,
did not consider equality with God
something to be grasped,

Form refers to the outward appearance. It just means that Yeshua's behaviors, things he did, being righteous, holy, loving, etc.

G3444. morphé
Strong's Concordance
morphé: form, shape
Original Word: μορφή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: morphé
Phonetic Spelling: (mor-fay')
Definition: form, shape
Usage: form, shape, outward appearance.

And it also says that he did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. God doesn't need to grasp at equality with Himself. It means Yeshua isn't equal to God. It's a strong refutation of the trinity by Paul.

 

[Yahchristian]

He has been given the definition of person hundreds of times and cannot see the difference between person and being.

So the bottom line is that the word "person" is not in his vocabulary.

???

I have posted numerous times I define “a being” as “a sentient living thing” and “a person” as “a spirit or human being”.

To demonstrate YOU see the difference between person and being…

Please repost YOUR definitions for “a being” and “a person”.