Thanks everyone. Some great points and posts. Sorry brakelight, I didn't see the extra "s' in your comment. My apologies.
justaname your questions; I believe
1. Jesus was God and part of the Trinity pre-flesh
2. He made himself a little lower than angels [human] and lay aside his deity while in body to fulfill prophecy. He became a son to the obedience of his Father. Philippians 2:8
3. He took up his deity post-flesh and was given a name that was above every other name....
1 Long ago God spoke to the fathers by the prophets at different times and in different ways. 2 In these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son. God has appointed Him heir of all things and made the universe through Him. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of His nature, sustaining all things by His powerful word. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 4 So He became higher in rank than the angels, just as the name He inherited is superior to theirs.
I disagree with your conclusion. Jesus did not cease being God or forsake His divine nature rather He added human nature to His divine nature. This is the orthodox concept of the hypostatic union. Jesus did not lay aside His deity as you express, rather He suspended His divine attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience). This suspending means they were still present, but dormant during His incarnation.
God can not cease being God, or lay aside deity, since God is eternal in nature. Your concept reduces Jesus to a demigod.
a being with partial or lesser divine status, such as a minor deity, the offspring of a god and a mortal, or a mortal raised to divine rank: some Roman emperors claimed descent from demigods such as Hercules.
Here are excerpts from a good article relating to the hypostatic union:
Only if one assumes that the divine attributes were potential rather than active does it seem possible to ta1k about a real incarnation. If the Logos enters time and space omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, his entrance is a theophany. He certainly is not a human being like us. But on the other hand, if he abandons these attributes-attributes that belong to the essence of deity-he is reduced to the level of a mere human being. In the one case the humanity is not humanity at all; in the other case divinity is not divinity. The dilemma is resolved, however, if it is assumed that all the attributes of deity are present but latent.
Orthodox Christology has affirmed ontologically the full humanity and full deity in the one Person Jesus. The problem of how these two natures could practically function still exists. The New Testament- -predominantly the Synoptics--reveals a Jesus who experienced limitations and finiteness. He, furthermore, did not perform supernatural works out of his inherent deity but by dependence on the Father and empowered by the Holy Spirit. However, he did not divest his deity or his attributes of deity but curtailed their exercise. Jesus was unique as the Son of God and a prophet who enjoyed an intimacy and special status with the Father. Therefore, Jesus is a realistic model for his disciples on how to live in dependence on the Father and empowered by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the Kingdom of God and minister in the supernatural as he did.
Jesus Christ, though fully God, was also fully man, with two natures in one person. How this relationship was expressed was never established by the orthodox creeds nor in classical Christian theology. To deny ontologically either Christ's humanity or his deity is considered heresy. However, I have argued that the writers of the New Testament saw Jesus Christ function as a finite man, empowered by the Holy Spirit at his baptism, under submission to the will of his Father and in a unique relationship with him as the Son of God and a prophet. The evidence shows that Jesus experienced limitations as any human being would face. If we say that Jesus was not finite and limited, then we must say that he was not human. Humanness entail finiteness and limitations. In order to become human and to suffer like us (Hebrews 2 and 5), by necessity, Jesus left his heavenly abode, set aside the exercise of his divine attributes while maintaining his divine nature, was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary, grew up as a boy and young man, and then entered ministIy after his baptism and anointing by the Spirit. This is the ultimate expression of faith. Whatever Jesus did, he did as a total human person by faith. Any other conception is an aberration.
(CONCERNING PHIL 2:5-8) (Title mine)
The passage really only says that he emptied himself: that is, he emptied himself of himself (I owe this obvious but profound observation to Dr. Gordon Fee of Regent College). What does this mean? This entails what is described in verse 7b and c. These two aorist participial clauses (labon and genomerws) are coincident to the finite verb (ekenosen), and modal, as they explicate the manner in which the 'self-emptying' took place. He took the nature of a servant-which meant he had no rights whatsoever. Jesus also expressed this self-emptying by being made in human likeness. He became a man. Jesus as God took on the nature and characteristics of a slave and a man. We would argue that the language of ekenosen is metaphorical-that is, he did not literally empty himself of anything, but figuratively emptied himself of what he was when he became what he was not---a man.6
When Jesus emptied himself, he became what he was not before---a man. According to Gerald Hawthome, this means:
..., that Christ's self-giving was accomplished by taking, that his self- emptying was achieved by becoming what he was not before, that his kenosis came about not by subtraction but by addition, that his kenosis (an emptying) was in reality a plerosis (a filling). Thus, there is nothing in this crucial text that could possibly lend credence to any theory that claims that the eternal Son gave us any of his attributes in the incarnation, or that humanity is a realm which by definition excludes God. It seems, rather, to imply that there is an innate suitability of humanness for God and God for humanness, God having made human beings originally in his 'own image and likeness' (Gn. 1:27). [italics his]
..., in becoming a human being, the Son of God willed to renounce the exercise of his divine powers, attributes, prerogatives, so that he might live fully within those limitations which inhere in being truly human.7
Jesus maintained his divine nature even though he was a man. This is not inconsistent for humanness, for we may participate in the divine nature, as the following passage will disclose. Here is a theological atom- bomb that I do not believe has been given much explosive treatment for our own Christian anthropology:
his divine power has given everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. (2 Pet. 1:3-4)
Article accessed on January 24,2017: https://biblicalstud.../1993-4_311.pdf