you just equated yourself with Jesus implying we have the omni's like he did.There's an accusation! Do you really think this is what I think? Or are you saying this to unfairly impugn me?
Much love!
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
you just equated yourself with Jesus implying we have the omni's like he did.There's an accusation! Do you really think this is what I think? Or are you saying this to unfairly impugn me?
Much love!
Let's explore this.yikes to put yourself into the same category as Jesus ( God Incarnate, the 2nd Person of the Trinity) is Blasphemous.
and why have you not once when I have asked you several time to exegete Philippians 2:5-8 ?And this would be outright and obviously false to anyone who reads my posts.
I suggest giving some serious consideration towards why you feel compelled to address me this way.
Much love!
Kindly quote the place where I've said we have "omni" powers.you just equated yourself with Jesus implying we have the omni's like he did.
the GOD category.Let's explore this.
John wrote, "As He is, so are we in this world". What does that mean to you?
Another question would be to ask what do you mean exactly when you say, "into the same catagory as Jesus"? What exactly does "catagory" refer to here? We are both men. He is God and man, but I am only man. Does that clarify things for you?
Much love!
implied hereKindly quote the place where I've said we have "omni" powers.
Much love!
until you respond to this request I'm done answering your questionsKindly quote the place where I've said we have "omni" powers.
Much love!
Implied nothing. Quote the place that supports your outlandish claims.
Because we are discussing a single word per your OP. Did Jesus empty Himself, or make Himself of no reputation. My reply is that we should use the primary meaning of the word, the same meaning that is used in every other place it appears in the New Testament. And that this meaning is supported by the context of the passage itself, and the rest of the Bible as it relates to this passage.and why have you not once when I have asked you several time to exegete Philippians 2:5-8 ?
not once have you done so, why ?
Words only have meanings in the context in which they are used so this is why I'm asking you. I have done it several times in this thread and you seem to just be making excuses.Because we are discussing a single word per your OP. Did Jesus empty Himself, or make Himself of no reputation. My reply is that we should use the primary meaning of the word, the same meaning that is used in every other place it appears in the New Testament. And that this meaning is supported by the context of the passage itself, and the rest of the Bible as it relates to this passage.
A word by word exegesis for 4 verses, well, we haven't even agreed on the meaning of the one specific word!
But then, it's not like either one of us are new to the Bible, right? We have a good working understanding of the passage, don't we? We understand the views either other holds, right?
Can you actually, in a correct and fair manner, express my view?
Much love!
OK. You didn't have to anyway, you know.So until you give you opinion via exegesis of the text in question Philippians 2:5-8 I'm not answering anymore of your onslaught of questions directed at me.
So then why is there any conflict between you and the OP? What you are saying is that Christ did not "empty" Himself. And that is correct. That word should be translated as in the KJV -- "made Himself of no reputation".The kenoo that Christ did was to not come with the pomp and circumstance of the Eternal and All Powerful Creator, and instead chose to conceal this in the form of a man who came to serve.
I'm restating @Christophany 's view. Thank you for your compliment!So then why is there any conflict between you and the OP? What you are saying is that Christ did not "empty" Himself. And that is correct. That word should be translated as in the KJV -- "made Himself of no reputation".
While I love the King James, in this case, that's not really intrinsic to the meaning of the word, and supports a particular application, specifically, what Jesus emptied Himself of. It's not actually stated there in that word. The translators chose an interpretation, and a word study in the NT shows how this word is used.That word should be translated as in the KJV -- "made Himself of no reputation".
And rightly so. Had they simply translated that word, it would have been thoroughly misleading ( as seen in the modern versions).The translators chose an interpretation...
I don't agree that this premise is true.then it would mean that Jesus was not fully divine.
Of course He is fully God and fully Man, just the same, He died. He did that on purpose, and this was as at all other times refraining from using any of His "omni" powers.The correct doctrine is the Hypostatic Union--that Jesus is both fully God and fully man (Col. 2:9) and did not give up any divine attributes while as a man on earth."
The humble position of human nature . . . what does that mean exactly? Because it sounds like what I think.Phil. 2:5-8 does not teach that Jesus gave up any of His divine attributes since it says nothing of those attributes. Instead, it is speaking of His humility that moved him, according to the will of the Father, to leave His majestic state in heaven and enter into the humble position of human nature...