Philippians 2:6

[AresMan]

Again you say if the Son gave up anything He was not 100% God. That dog will not hunt. Scripture says He emptied Himself yet all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him.

Where does Scripture define ekenwsen? You just assume a certain understanding without proving it. The verse defines and describes what ekenwsen means through the modifiers labwn and genomenos and you simply ignore that.

And again, scripture does not say His divine attributes were veiled. Your doctrine is man-made and unorthodox.

How would describe what happened in the incarnation when the Son was a gestational sac? Did the Son's divine nature lose all knowledge and have to learn only some things partially while growing up? Since Jesus had to grow and learn as a human, the Son of man in the incarnation was ignorant of a whole lot more than the timing of His second coming. Yet, His divine nature did not change. He took on a full human nature.
If you don't like the word "veiled," I am not sure what other word to use.

If, in your view, the incarnation was a "change" to the Son's divine nature in that He "gave up" the possession of certain "divine attributes," how do you reconcile that with this:

"...acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis..."?

 

[Van]

It is pointless to continue. I did not say the Son gave up His divine nature.
Your argument, if the Son emptied Himself, He was not 100% God is unorthodox.

 

[AresMan]

It is pointless to continue. I did not say the Son gave up His divine nature.
Your argument, if the Son emptied Himself, He was not 100% God is unorthodox.

Van, I did not say that you said that the Son "gave up His divine nature." You said that He "gave up certain divine attributes" but that, somehow these "attributes" are not part of His divine "being." I contended that "attributes" are part and parcel of "being."

If you don't really believe that, then we're good, but it seemed to me that insist that somehow the divine being of the Son "changed" in some way.

Have you seen the debate between James White and Bob Enyart on open theism? What ultimately emerged from this debate was Enyart's insistence that the incarnation constituted a "change" in the being of God, but White explained that this misconception does not agree with the historical definition of the Hypostatic Union.

The divine nature did not change at all. The kenosis was by adding a human nature--not to the being of God, but in Jesus of Nazareth Who is the Person of the Son with two complete natures.

 

[Yeshua1]

Again you say if the Son gave up anything He was not 100% God. That dog will not hunt. Scripture says He emptied Himself yet all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him.

And again, scripture does not say His divine attributes were veiled. Your doctrine is man-made and unorthodox.

What did Jesus empty Himself of then?

 

[Yeshua1]

It is pointless to continue. I did not say the Son gave up His divine nature.
Your argument, if the Son emptied Himself, He was not 100% God is unorthodox.

Jesus in His Deity never was altered/changed, but he did assume and add on a Human nature, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Van, I did not say that you said that the Son "gave up His divine nature." You said that He "gave up certain divine attributes" but that, somehow these "attributes" are not part of His divine "being." I contended that "attributes" are part and parcel of "being."

If you don't really believe that, then we're good, but it seemed to me that insist that somehow the divine being of the Son "changed" in some way.

Have you seen the debate between James White and Bob Enyart on open theism? What ultimately emerged from this debate was Enyart's insistence that the incarnation constituted a "change" in the being of God, but White explained that this misconception does not agree with the historical definition of the Hypostatic Union.

The divine nature did not change at all. The kenosis was by adding a human nature--not to the being of God, but in Jesus of Nazareth Who is the Person of the Son with two complete natures.

Jesus in His Divinty stayed as he always was, but he also added on Humanity in the Incarnation. so He changed in sense of now being Human and God, but not in his dive attributes/nature at all!

 

[AresMan]

Jesus in His Divinty stayed as he always was, but he also added on Humanity in the Incarnation. so He changed in sense of now being Human and God, but not in his dive attributes/nature at all!

To clarify, I was saying that the definition of what the essence of the Triune God is did not change from "three Persons in one Being" to "three Persons in one Being plus one human nature." The definition of the Being of God did not change in the incarnation. The incarnation--Jesus of Nazareth--is the Person of the Son taking on a full human nature so that Jesus of Nazareth is one Person with two natures.

The definition of what makes God "God" did not change.

Does that make sense?

 

[Yeshua1]

To clarify, I was saying that the definition of what the essence of the Triune God is did not change from "three Persons in one Being" to "three Persons in one Being plus one human nature." The definition of the Being of God did not change in the incarnation. The incarnation--Jesus of Nazareth--is the Person of the Son taking on a full human nature so that Jesus of Nazareth is one Person with two natures.

The definition of what makes God "God" did not change.

Does that make sense?

Yes, as God the Son stayed in exactly same way as to His deity, but now also has humanity as a nature within Jesus...

 

[Van]

Scriptu8re does not say Jesus added to Himself flesh attributes, but emptied Himself. No need to rewrite the text to fit bogus unorthodox doctrine.

 

[Yeshua1]

Scriptu8re does not say Jesus added to Himself flesh attributes, but emptied Himself. No need to rewrite the text to fit bogus unorthodox doctrine.

What did he miss while here on Earth then?

 

[AresMan]

Scriptu8re does not say Jesus added to Himself flesh attributes, but emptied Himself. No need to rewrite the text to fit bogus unorthodox doctrine.

Where did I say He "added to Himself flesh attributes"? I said that He "took on a full human nature." That's what the incarnation is, right? Haven't you also affirmed that Jesus is "100% God and 100% man"? It seems to me that you are grasping at straws.

The passage says that He "emptied Himself (ekenwsen), taking on (labwn) the form of a servant, being made (genomenos) in the likeness of men." Right there it says how and what the "emptying" was. I really don't understand the confusion.

Perhaps you could define and describe what the hypostatic union is in your understanding.

 

[Van]

No need to change the subject, scripture is crystal, He emptied Himself. No need to make scripture (He emptied Himself to no effect.

 

[Yeshua1]

No need to change the subject, scripture is crystal, He emptied Himself. No need to make scripture (He emptied Himself to no effect.

What did he no longer have while here on earth that he had while in heaven?

 

[Van]

Yeshua1, would it be too much to ask "what does the Bible tell you?"

Why did He perform miracles using the power of the Holy Spirit.
Why did He not know the time of His Return?
Why did He need to return to Heaven before He could send the Comforter?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua1, would it be too much to ask "what does the Bible tell you?"

Why did He perform miracles using the power of the Holy Spirit.
Why did He not know the time of His Return?
Why did He need to return to Heaven before He could send the Comforter?

He became human and lived here, and since he now also had within Him His Human nature, as a man, hedid not knew at that time His second coming, as He chose to limit knowing that, but he knows it for sure now!

 

[AresMan]

No need to change the subject, scripture is crystal, He emptied Himself. No need to make scripture (He emptied Himself to no effect.

Change the subject? I have been on the subject meticulously. Does the verse explain what ekenwsen means, yes or no?

 

[Van]

Emptied Himself is crystal. Now if you think it means "added to Himself flesh attributes" your view is unorthodox.

 

[Van]

He became human and lived here, and since he now also had within Him His Human nature, as a man, hedid not knew at that time His second coming, as He chose to limit knowing that, but he knows it for sure now!

The passage Philippians 2:6-7 refers to the pre-incarnate Second Person of the Trinity. That "spiritual being" emptied Himself. Your doctrine ignores scripture and is fake theology.

 

[Yeshua1]

The passage Philippians 2:6-7 refers to the pre-incarnate Second Person of the Trinity. That "spiritual being" emptied Himself. Your doctrine ignores scripture and is fake theology.

God divested Himself of what attributes than?

 

[Craig CrossWise]

I think "yes". Some would claim that the article preceding the infinitive being equal with God (to einai isa theō) is anaphoric, referring back to form of God (morphȩ̄ theou). I'm a bit ambivalent on this issue, as I'm not so sure this is a universal function of the article, though that may be one of its functions here. In addition, it seems verse 6 is in rough parallel with verse 7, with form of a slave (morphēn doulou) there corresponding to in likeness of man became (en homoiōmati anthrōpōn genomenos).

OK, I'm amending my answer. I just found an article by Dennis Burk The Meaning Of ἁρπαγμός In Philippians 2:6 - An Overlooked Datum For Functional Inequality Within The Godhead, and while I disagree with his interpretive conclusions (he calls them "exegetical conclusions"), I think his argument on the grammar is solid. He was an intern of Daniel Wallace, and bases his syntactical analysis on Wallace's GGBtB. Wallace argues that the article serves to identify einai as the direct object in an "object-complement construction", with harpagmon its complement. This seems to make good sense of the double accusative construction.

This means the article is not functioning anaphorically. With this in mind, I'd exegete the verse (still keeping Hoover's conclusions), retaining the negative particle's place in front of harpagmon: Who, existing in the form of God, regarded being equal with God not something to exploit. Or, my tentative alternative (what do you think?), with an attempt at a one-word translation for harpagmon: Who, existing in the form of God, regarded being equal with God not expedient (noun definition at link).

Nonetheless, I think that "form of God" and "being equal with God" are necessarily strongly contextually related, and with that in mind I'd argue that this is grammatical semantics, which means, yes, the two phrases are grammatically connected. To be specific, working backwards from verse 7: being born in the likeness of humanity > taking the form of a slave > He emptied Himself. Given that His "being born" was the means by which He took the form of a slave, this means existing in the form of God must mean preexistence and, hence, "being equal with God".