David Bernard said in his book the oneness of God, that these are merely modes of relationship between God and humanity. How silly, when we find the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. In most simple terms we see:
(1 John 5:7) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
In Oneness circles we teach that Jesus Christ pre-existed as the Word and then became flesh and dwelt among us. I’m interested in how you explain Philippians 2:6-11.
“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Verse 6 refers to “who”. Verse 7 uses the word “himself” and “him”.Verse 8 says “he” humbled “himself”. Verse 9 refers to “him”.
It seems that Paul is referring to Jesus Christ in the pre-existent state using the same pronouns as the person of Jesus in the flesh on earth, rather than as an “it” which would seem more appropriate if one was referring to the “word”.
Why does it say, “…made himself of no reputation”?
Maybe you should have looked to see where the reference to "the Word" came from before calling it into question! Where does it come from? It comes from John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Go study the Greek word "logos" used in John 1 and then take another look at your question about Philippians 2:6-11.
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Yes, the FORM of God. This passage merely affirms a truth communicated elsewhere in scripture: that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the express image of God's person. No one can see God and live but Jesus is the means through which God can be seen.
Hi, TB. I do not believe this passage is referring to any pre-incarnate state at all!
Rather, it is s specimen of Paul's Adam-Christology.
Paul presents several Christologies, meaning that Paul views Christ in several ways, or from several different perspectives. One of those perspectives concerns His role as the Second Adam. He speaks of this in his letter to the Romans, as well, and hints of it in several other places.
Here, Paul expresses Adam Christology and its practical application to the believer.
He begins with 'let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.' This sets the context, Christ's attitude and state of mind. Notice that Paul is speaking of the mind which was in 'Christ Jesus', literally 'The Anointed One, Jesus'. Thus, Paul is speaking of the post-incarnate Jesus, Jesus considered as the Messiah, a human being, the Son of God, anointed by God to be the vessel of Redemption and Salvation for all mankind, sent to reverse the curse brought upon Adam's kin, brought upon us by Adam's disobedience in the Garden. So we are not speaking of the mentality or attitude possessed by the pre-incarnate Logos, but of the human Son of God.
He then says "Who being in the form of God..." Here Paul recalls the words of Moses who described the first Adam as being made in the image of God. Paul will begin a comparison and contrast between the first Adam and the second Adam (Christ). Whereas BOTH were in the form of God, they followed two very different paths, because of their different attitudes or 'minds'.
'...thought it not robbery to be equal with God'. Some translators render this along the lines of '...did not think equality with God was something to be grasped.' This is precisely the opposite of the first Adam's inclination, who being in the form of God was not content to merely be a microcosm of God but chose to 'be as God'. Christ however did NOT pursue that path.
'But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men...' The first Adam attempted by his disobedience to make himself of quite some reputation, in attempting to usurp God's role and position for himself, and taking upon himself the form of a god, but was rendered mortal by the judgement of God. The second Adam, however, did just the opposite, in that He voluntarily took upon himself the form (appearance) of a servant (instead of a master, as He himself so declared several times). He was voluntarily reduced to the likeness or sameness of mortal man, whereas the first Adam was involunatrily reduced to such a state.
'And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.' Here Christ is said to have humbled himself, having taken the path of servanthood and mortality, and submitted to the death of the cross. This is in stark contrast to the first Adam, who being found in fashion as God (in the image and likeness of God) was disobedient (because of his grasping at being equal with God) and was forced into the path of lowly servanthood and mortality, weakness and death.
'Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name...' The first Adam was demoted and cast down, because of his disobedience in attempting to be equal with God, whereas the second Adam was exalted and lifted up and placed on an equal footing with God because of His obedience and submission.
'That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.' Jesus (the man, the Son of God, the second or 'last' Adam) was exalted into a place of equality with God so that the prophetic declaration of Isaiah concerning YHVH would be fulfilled in Christ, and this is the method by which glory is given to YHVH (God, the Father). This is a wonderful statement of the Oneness doctrine, by the way, in that the only acceptable way of glorifying God is to glorify Jesus Christ.
Whereas the first Adam was made in the image or form of God, and chose to grasp equality with God, and was punished by being demoted to the lowly state of mortal and weak humanity, made a servant of death, the second or last Adam, Jesus Christ, chose a different path. He chose a path of obedience, choosing not to step upon the stage as the equal of God but rather as a lowly, mortal servant. And this submission of the Son of God resulted in His exaltation to equality with God, meaning that the worship and honour due to God is now due to Jesus Christ. Christ's re-enactment of the fall of man, with the key elements reversed by His obedience, resulted in His exaltation and the redemption and salvation of mankind.
Trinitarians have for a long time seen this passage as a declaration of the pre-existence of Christ, and as referring to his 'kenosis' in incarnating and becoming human. There are however serious problems with this interpretation.
1. First and foremost, it inserts into Paul's theology what is everywhere else missing - the idea of a pre-incarnate divine intermediary being. The only New Testament passages which could even be supposed to so much as suggest or hint at such an idea are found much later, in the apostle John's writings, and even those are not wholly supportive of the 'intermediary divine being' hypothesis which is the foundation of Trinitarian and Arian theology.
2. Secondly, if the preincarnation interpretation be accepted, it requires us to believe that Jesus Christ (the man) was indeed a distinct personage from God prior to incarnation, yet at the same time LESS than God Himself and someone distinct from GOD (not merely distinct from 'God the father' but from GOD in toto.) This is nothing else than Arianism. If this is preincarnation doctrine, then Christ is simply a second God-like being, not God Himself, contrary to both trinitarian and Oneness theology.
3. The Adamic Christology interpretation is consistent with Paul's theology everywhere else, in presenting Christ as (among other things) a God-sent Saviour who recapitulates not only Israel's spiritual history, but all mankind's, yet in such a way as to reverse the fall of man and secure Redemption and immortality instead of death and mortality (as the first Adam did).
Moreover, the idea of Christ as being a pre-existent divine intermediary being is simply repugnant to the whole tenor of the rest of Scripture, ESPECIALLY the old testament scripture which was familiar to Paul and upon which he relied for teaching material.
this is extemely good!
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
David Bernard said in his book the oneness of God, that these are merely modes of relationship between God and humanity. How silly, when we find the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. In most simple terms we see:
(1 John 5:7) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
A God existing in a triune fashion, yet being ONE
You really do your argument harm by trying to rely on a passage that is not found in the original Greek manuscripts. The verse that you quoted was added much later. It was probably a comment written in the margins of an earlier manuscript that eventually got copied into the text.
By the way, those oneness folks that believe in modes or manifestations believe in a form of trinity - an economic trinity (which was the doctrine of Sabellius and Praxeas).
The Bible clearly identifies three: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The question is what the three are. I think "persons" is erroneous because the modern English word is synonymous with beings and this results in tritheism. The Ante-Nicene and Nicene fathers seemed to use terminology that can best be translated "personas" and I'm inclined to agree with them.
You really do your argument harm by trying to rely on a passage that is not found in the original Greek manuscripts. The verse that you quoted was added much later. It was probably a comment written in the margins of an earlier manuscript that eventually got copied into the text.
Absolute balderdash. I challenge you to prove this assertion of yours. And when you make the valiant but vain attempt, I shall dig up my old thread on this very subject whereby I totally refuted ole what'shisname... LarryBoy... and his crazy postmodern, Bible-corrector fantasies.
Absolute balderdash. I challenge you to prove this assertion of yours. And when you make the valiant but vain attempt, I shall dig up my old thread on this very subject whereby I totally refuted ole what'shisname... LarryBoy... and his crazy postmodern, Bible-corrector fantasies.
Let's start with the footnote in the NIV:
1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)
Here's a similar footnote in the NASB (the most literal of the English-language Bibles):
1 John 5:8 A few late mss add ...in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth, the Spirit
You really do your argument harm by trying to rely on a passage that is not found in the original Greek manuscripts. The verse that you quoted was added much later. It was probably a comment written in the margins of an earlier manuscript that eventually got copied into the text.
By the way, those oneness folks that believe in modes or manifestations believe in a form of trinity - an economic trinity (which was the doctrine of Sabellius and Praxeas).
I understand that mindset. However most oneness folks are KJV only, and use the Mark 16:16 to make their stance and are not likely to criticize the translation, or be willing to throw anything out. Secondly the KJV is the most literal translation there is, in this manner I trust the text – every verse, even in light of the supposed errors, which I think is highly suspect anyway……
I understand that mindset. However most oneness folks are KJV only, and use the Mark 16:16 to make their stance and are not likely to criticize the translation, or be willing to throw anything out. Secondly the KJV is the most literal translation there is, in this manner I trust the text – every verse, even in light of the supposed errors, which I think is highly suspect anyway……
Well, no, the KJV is not the most literal English translation - the NASB is. Also, keep in mind that the KJV was translated for the purpose of being read aloud in churches; thus, the combination of words would not be the most accurate translation of the original texts. It should also be noted that the KJV was not translated from the earliest Greek manuscripts.
Well, no, the KJV is not the most literal English translation - the NASB is. Also, keep in mind that the KJV was translated for the purpose of being read aloud in churches; thus, the combination of words would not be the most accurate translation of the original texts. It should also be noted that the KJV was not translated from the earliest Greek manuscripts.
Gee, Chan, I am not sure about that. I would have to research that a little more. NASB? What makes you think that? I would certainly need some additional information on that.... Could you supply me with that? I dont want to hijack this thread... but I have to say I think I would contend your last post
Linear Mode
