Paidion wrote:So are you telling me that he lost the form of God somehow?
No, I'm not telling you that. But the passage I quoted tells you that, if you will just take the words at face value.
If you believe that his possession of the form of God proves his deity, and you believe that the passage says he lost the form of God, would this not mean that he lost the form of God at some stage, under your view?
Then what was that form, and how did he lose it?
That form was, as the passage says, that of God. He lost it by becoming a human being.
So you
do believe he lost the form of God! But how can God lose His own form - and what exactly does this involve?
Furthermore, if God loses His own form, can He still remain God?
If Jesus is God, you're telling me that he lost his own form.
Am I telling you that? On what basis do you make this statement? Never have I ever suggested on this forum that Jesus is the same divine Individual as the Father.
I am not suggesting that you've said any such thing. I am saying that you believe Jesus is God, and you believe that Jesus was in the form of God, and you believe that Jesus lost the form of God, which means you believe that Jesus lost his own form.
But can God really lose His own form? How does that work, exactly - and where in Scripture do we find this idea?
You're attacking a straw man here.
Well, I think you're fudging the point a bit. From your later remarks, I see that you are some sort of Arian. You view the Father as unbegotten; the Son as begotten or generated. You view the Father as truly God; the Son as a "begotten" or "generated" god beside him.
So in a sense, you can sidestep me by saying that you don't believe God lost His form because you don't believe that Jesus is absolutely God in the sense that the Father is.
Nevertheless, you are still left with the problem of explaining how Jesus could lose a nature that was naturally inherent to him.
Mate, that's a hell of a lot to read into a very simple passage of Scripture.
I'm "reading" nothing into the passage. However, I did explain the passage in terms of other scripture and early Christian writings.
Not really. I didn't see any Scriptural evidence to support your interpretation.
Where are we told that he was "generated as the Son of God before all ages"?
I think you are aware of the fact that the New Testament refers to Him as the "only-generated (begotten, if you prefer) Son of God".
Yes, but that doesn't make him "begotten" or "generated"
before all ages.
Also John 1:18 translated from the oldest manuscripts reads:
No one has seen God at any time; the only-generated God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known.
Actually while these are certainly the oldest manuscripts, they not the most reliable and there are not many of them. Furthermore, they are highly localised, appearing almost exclusively in Alexandria.
For these reasons, many (if not most) textual critics reject the reading of
monogenes theos ("only begotten god") in favour of
monogenes heios ("only begotten son").
Click
here to learn more.
BTW, the word
monogenes does not mean "generated"; it either means "only begotten" or "unique" (depending on the context). Check, the other uses of this word in the NT, and you will find this to be true.
So we have "God", the Father, who was never generated, and we have the Son of God, who was a generated "God". Sometimes the word "God" is used in the sense of "Deity" and others in the sense of "the Father". Both senses are used also in John 1:1. That verse states that the Logos was "with" God. In that case, "God" is immediately preceded by the definite article. Whenever this is done the reference is to the Father. But when it states, "and the Logos was God", the word "God" lacks the definite article, and the order of the phrase is reversed. This reversal also occurs where it is written "Your word is truth" and "God is love". For "truth" is the kind of thing His word is, and "love" is the kind of thing God is. So when it is written "The Word was God" it is saying that "God" or "Deity" is the kind of thing that the Word was. Saying that the Logos is Deity would be similar to saying that you are human. A careful reading of John 1 clearly indicates that "the Logos" refers to the Son of God. In the description of Jesus Revelation 19,it is clearly stated in verse 13 that "the name by which He is called is 'The Logos of God'".
A careful reading of
John 1 clearly indicates that Jesus is not called the
logos as such, but the
logos made flesh. In other words, the
logos expressed in a certain way.
And yes, he receives the
name of "The
Logos of God" in
Revelation 19. But a name is not the same as the thing itself. Some people are named after flowers; that doesn't make them literal flowers.
Second century Christians stated that He was generated before all ages, and used the passage in Proverbs 8:22-31 as descriptive of the Son of God. They understood "Wisdom" to be one of His names.
Yes, this is true. It was an idea which began with Gentile Christians such as Justin Martyr (a Samaritan) and was subsequently developed by the Alexandrians (such as Clement, Origen and Arius.) Some of the Latins also embraced it (Tertullian was one of these) but by the middle of the 4th Century AD, it was being rejected as out-dated nonsense.
Today, it is considered blasphemous and heretical by mainstream Christians.
Where are we told that he was "the exact expression of His essence"?
We find it in Hebrews 1:3. The Revised Standard Version puts it this way:
Hebrews 1:3 He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power.
"Stamp" is a good translation of the Greek word "charakt
ar". When you use a device to stamp a figure you produce an exact expression of the original. The RSV translated "hupostasis" as "nature" but it's more than "nature". The word refers to the very being or essence of the Father.
A stamp is a copy, and a copy is not the thing itself.
In any case,
Hebrews 1 is talking about the glorified Christ - not the mortal, pre-crucifixion Christ.
Paul is telling us that Jesus bears the imprint of his Father's character and being. I have absolutely no problem with this idea whatsoever.
Where are told that he "divested Himself of all of His divine attributes"?
What else could "emptied Himself ... being born in the likeness of man" mean? He couldn't have emptied Himself at the time of His birth, for there was nothing to empty Himself of.
I have already answered this, in the post that you will find
here.
On that occasion, I wrote:
Paul tells us:
- Philippians 2:8
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Notice that the act of humbling himself (equated with "making himself nothing") is shown by Paul to be his work on the cross, when he became the perfect sacrifice for sin. Notice also that Paul specifically links this to Christ being "found in fashion as a man"; in other words, made just like other men.
But there's another passage in which he "made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant", and it records an incident shortly before he was taken away by the
Sanhedrin:
- John 13:3-5
Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;
He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.
After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
If this is not an example of Christ humbling himself, making himself nothing and taking on the form of a servant, I don't know what is!
By the way, you haven't addressed what I said about His being born "in the likeness of people". Isn't everyone born as human? Why would the write specify that Jesus was born in the likeness of people (anthropoi), if He had not pre-existed as the One "in the form of God"?
I did indeed address in the post that you will find
here.
On that occasion, I wrote:
I've already told you why he said it. Paul is reassuring his readers that Christ was truly one of us - just as we read in
Hebrews 2:17-18.
- Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Since Paul had also told his readers that Jesus was in the image of God, it makes sense to remind them that this image of God was nothing which took away (or added to) his humanity.
I don't mind giving people answers, but I do mind when people tell me that I haven't given answers that I've already posted twice.
And so to bed... goodnight.
