A Godhead Question

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

As someone that believes God is singular in person, I also see Phil as showing that Christ had a pre-existence and that His pre-existence was as God.

Additionally the "mind" Paul was speaking of is in the previous verse "this" refers to what came before "this"..let THIS mind be in you, or this attitude.

Hello Praxeas:

Yes, I noticed that your responses were very close and very similar. I think if we discussed our differences here it would get confusing as several other views would get involved. But again, I did notice how close our Biblical interp was and I was also able to note exactly where our opinions diverged. This has been an interesting thread for me to read also as several people (including Eliseus) really tried to explain what the passages says, what it means, and how they got from one to the other.

Blessings,
TheLayman

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

I am aware of what you have written here and agree that we have examples of appealing directly to Jesus. However, at the same time it is just as apparent that we can address God as Father. It's not a matter of having to choose one or the other. It's in the name of Jesus that we have authority to call upon the Father.

Jesus is the name of the Father. That's why we pray in Jesus name, not for authority to speak to the Father, but because his name is Jesus. He is no longer called Jehovah.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

My previous post explains this somewhat, in that Christ as the Last Adam was faced with circumstances similar (theologically) to the first Adam's, and yet He (Christ) made the proper choices whereas Adam made the wrong choices. Through the medium of Christ reversing those Adamic decisions God provided Redemption to us all.

I've ordered the book on Amazon. He has a book on Paul's doctrines that looked interesting called The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Have you read it? One of the write-ups states that Dunn is not orthodox but embraces the 'new perspective'. What does 'new perspective' mean?

Most modern trinitarians will not use the language of 'divine intermediary being' however it is found in some trinitarian scholars. It is expressly used by James Dunn in his Christology in the Making which by the way provides a good solid exegesis of Adam Christology in the New Testament.

By this term I mean a divine (as opposed to human) being or sentient entity which functions as an intermediary between the Divine Reality and mankind. Essentially the function of the Logos in trinitarian thought.

But Trinitarians don't think of the second person as an intermediary, at least none of the ones I've talked to or read. Unless you mean that the Son reconciled us to God [the Father] through his death on the cross, but I don't think this is what you mean by intermediary because you said "as opposed to human" and Christ himself said he was a man.

Generally speaking, the term 'Jesus Christ' or 'Christ Jesus' refers to the Son of God, that is, God existing as a human being. The two scriptures you quoted I do not take to be referring to the pre-Incarnate Deity, but rather to Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the human Son of God, or in other words, God existing as a genuine human being) which is then transposed back in time to qualify and define the Rock or Spirit being referred to. In other words, the Rock is YHVH (see Deut 32) and the Spirit is the Spirit of YHVH, but both apostles identified that Rock (DEITY) and Spirit as being CHRIST - ie that which was the Rock and Spirit in the Old Testament is the CHRIST of the New Testament. I will try to explain this better tomorrow when I have more time.

Yes, no one would have called YHVH or the Spirit of YHVH Christ unless they were looking back after the Christ came and noted the God that came in flesh to be the same God that led the Israelites through the desert and spoke through the prophets. You don't have to explain any further.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Chan

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.

Chan,

This doesn't happen very often with us (except with your interpretation of begotten Son) but I agree with you!

So much confusion exist in Trinitarianism because they do not understand the pre and post incarnation.

So much confusion exist among Unitarianism because they do no understand the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, post incarnation.

So much confusion exist among Binatarians because they do not understand how many God(s) there is/are.

So much confusion exist among Oneness Pentecostals because many of us do not understand His metamorphosis and its relationship to the pre/post glorification of His person.

Jesus Christ is more than just a FORM. He is WHOLY GOD. A state that He did not claim for himself BEFORE his glorification. Jesus Christ is NOT the Son of God by genetical (D.F.doctrine) heritage, but DECLARED to be the Son of God as to OFFICE alone...and THAT for his redemptive work, which is the OFFICE of redemption (Sonship).

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

So much confusion exist in Trinitarianism because they do not understand the pre and post incarnation.

So much confusion exist among Unitarianism because they do no understand the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, post incarnation.

So much confusion exist among Binatarians because they do not understand how many God(s) there is/are.

So much confusion exist among Oneness Pentecostals because many of us do not understand His metamorphosis and its relationship to the pre/post glorification of His person.

Jesus Christ is more than just a FORM. He is WHOLY GOD. A state that He did not claim for himself BEFORE his glorification. Jesus Christ is NOT the Son of God by genetical (D.F.doctrine) heritage, but DECLARED to be the Son of God as to OFFICE alone...and THAT for his redemptive work, which is the OFFICE of redemption (Sonship).

I don't embrace DF, however I question the bolded statement, my question: Who is Jesus' genetic father if not God the Father?

Originally Posted by crakjak

I don't embrace DF, however I question the bolded statement, my question: Who is Jesus' genetic father if not God the Father?

A very goood question, especially if

1. You do not believe the Divine Flesh doctrine.

2. You do not beieve that he is half God and Half man.

3. You believe that Mary was a virgin.

4. You believe that in all things that he was made like unto his bretheren including the entire context of Heb 2:17.

5. You believe that according to the flesh he was made of the seed of Abraham and David too.

[Praxeas]

Christ got his humanity from Mary, a descendant of David.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Christ got his humanity from Mary, a descendant of David.

Good.

He got none of His humanity from the eternal (God) Spirit? Right?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Good.

He got none of His humanity from the eternal (God) Spirit? Right?

God might have created the male Chromosome, but I would not call that getting his humanity from the Spirit. A man needs both halves to be human...to exist. God Himself, his Spirit, does not have genes