Philippians 2:6

[AresMan]

Did I add "and" to Philippians 2:7? I explained it using an "and" to highlight the disjunction.

There is no word and or by in the Greek. The question is with the grammar.

If "taking on" and "being made" were verbs, an implicit "and" would make sense.
However, since they are verbals (modal participles), not verbs, they function as adverbs. Thus, they are not conjuctive to "emptied" but rather they modify it.

However, here is how it reads, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Did put an "and" between Himself, and "taking?" Nope Now it is true that several translations add the "by" such as the NIV and ESV, but that is not how the text reads.

Those translations use "by" because they understand that these participles are adverbs. There is no explicit or implicit conjuction.

 

[Van]

He emptied Himself, thus not grasping equality with God. Changing the names of divine attributes to divine prerogatives is needless sophistry, since the description of the thing laid aside is the same. Jesus is !00% God while in the flesh and without parts of His divine attributes.

 

[SovereignGrace]

There is no word and or by in the Greek. The question is with the grammar.

If "taking on" and "being made" were verbs, an implicit "and" would make sense.
However, since they are verbals (modal participles), not verbs, they function as adverbs. Thus, they are not conjuctive to "emptied" but rather they modify it.

Those translations use "by" because they understand that these participles are adverbs. There is no explicit or implicit conjuction.

It seems you are very adept in Greek. Van is no Greek scholar...nor am I, but he posts like he knows more than those who have degrees in Greek.

 

[SovereignGrace]

who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.[NASB]

Its obvious the 'emptying' is His taking on the form of bond-servant. Not emptying any of His attributes.

 

[Van]

If it was all as simple as that we would have John 1:43-51 in our bibles - it seems to me in that passage Jesus says he 'saw' Nathanael whilst being nowhere near Nathanael in his body!

Jesus retained the power to "know everything" about those He encountered. Similarly, when Jesus encountered the woman at the well, He knew about her husbands, even though they were not there.

 

[AresMan]

He emptied Himself, thus not grasping equality with God. Changing the names of divine attributes to divine prerogatives is needless sophistry, since the description of the thing laid aside is the same. Jesus is !00% God while in the flesh and without parts of His divine attributes.

Van, you are making arguments that sound much like the kenotic theory heresies and don't realize it.

Please study more before pontificating. Thanks.

 

[AresMan]

He emptied Himself, thus not grasping equality with God. Changing the names of divine attributes to divine prerogatives is needless sophistry, since the description of the thing laid aside is the same. Jesus is !00% God while in the flesh and without parts of His divine attributes.

None of us who hold to the Hypostatic Union are "changing the names of divine attributes to divine prerogatives." You are the one who is imposing this paradigm of "emptied" = "gave up [the possession of] divine attributes."

Van, divine knowledge and power are just as integral to the divine essence as are divine love and righteousness. Every christological heresy is rooted in the idea that we can rank or subsume certain divine attributes under others.

 

[AresMan]

Van, please answer this question I posed earlier:

Do you believe that an act of true humility is a good and righteousness deed?

This is not a trick question, but it will lead into a follow-up question.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 4:30 PM Pacific.