My Father is greater than I

UZThd, men (humanity) have been bantering these things since He walked the earth.

Perhaps no earthly human language can exactly pinpoint every detail of the incarnation of the second Person of the Trinity. I am willing to discuss it as long as the temptation of personal attacks is resisted as you also have indicated and in reality I suspect our views are closer than you have seemingly assumed.

However, sooner or later the point of diminishing returns will be reached and perhaps already has with this issue of the Kenosis.

Similar to the issue of Christ's impeccability folks seem sooner or later get around to throwing each other in hell over the matter of the Kenosis and its meaning and extent in the life of Christ.
I also appreciate your spirit in this matter.

Having said that:

Personally, I don’t like the word "subordinate" with language addressing the pre-incarnation status of the Second Person of the Trinity. My own view explained within the sphere of the limitation of human language to describe the relationships between the persons of the Trinity is that that God is three distinct co-equal persons in one divine essence, the Father being somewhere within the realm of "initiator" within the consensus of the Godhead. The Logos being the “executor” of that consensus.

Probably through a Triune consensus or collaboration, Christ took the initiative and "made Himself of no reputation" ("for a little while") and then subjected Himslelf to the will of the Father.

I don't know about the word "changing" To be Scripturally correct I would have to say several things :

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.

1Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

I can choose not to see by closing my eyes. Again IMO we need to focus upon the person of Christ. Whatever limitations there were, Christ willingly yielded, though there are Scriptural indications that the prerogatives of God were available to Him.

Both were held in her arms.

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Some good objections, however there are Scripture which indeed indicate these limitations which He willingly imposed upon Himself.

Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Personally, I have difficulty in dividing Christ between his human and divine nature.

He Himself never says things like “my humanity thirsts” but “I thirst”.

In spite of all that I have said, I agree more with number three than one or two.

However

I don’t know but with God all things are possible including your view

Ditto.

Your additional questions:

If He is eternally restricted IMO it is because it pleases Him and He wants it to be so and not due to a "weakening" in His humanity or a subordination thereof whether when on earth or now in heaven:

Psa 135:6 Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.

Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

HankD

 

Regardless of what the "Creeds" might say, the teaching of an "eternal begetting" of the Son from the Father, is not what is taught in Scripture, and has its origins in early heresy, notably from about the time of Origen, who is the forerunner to the heretic, Airus.

Though it was held by even some of the Orthodox party in the early Church, that the Father alone is "Fons Deitatis", and that both the Son and Holy Spirit have the origin (ek) and derivation from the Father, is to be condemned as heresy, and has no place in the Church. The Father is truly God, and the Son is truly God, and the Holy Spirit is truly God. Each Person is "coequal" to the other, in every respect, and neither is subordnate to the other, except the Son during His time on earth, which subordination was also something that He did of His own free will. We must reject any notion of an "order" in the Godhead, as touching the Divinity of the Persons of, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Neither Person existed before the other, nor is any Person "above" the other. All Three are equally addressed as "God", in the absolute sense in the New Testament, and from the Theophanies in the Old Testament, we have both the Father and the Son as equally being addressed as "YHWH". Any attempt to weaken the term "theos" when used for Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, as even some of the Evangelical faith do today, is something that originates in the pit of hell, and not from the Holy Word of God.

 

I am not comfortable with the term "eternal begetting" either and have not been for many years. In fact I am not comfortable with the term begotten. The reason that I posted the two statements is to show that they stated each having the whole Divine Essence.

You lost me with aseity but I have a dictionary.