Kassel, Germany (trekearth.com)
Introduction
December 19, 2005
My first post with my new notebook.
This is a repost with edits of a post from the blog when it was called thekingpin68 and I did not receive many comments. The original features a classic troll attack in comments from someone from California. I will share here to be nice and save you from clicking if you wish...
'what an absolute perfect blog of spiritual self indulgence...
I have NEVER read so much INTELLECTUAL TWADDLE in my LIFE [ and i have beem around a LONG time.
whew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you are TRULY a legend in your own mind!!!!!!
thanks for sharing.'
For those of that read my work and are not too sure about me, yes I am a legend in my own mind, I told me so. Actually, I still have a lot to learn as a child of God.
The California troll of course propelled me to write for the next 7 years.;)
Thank you.
The notes with revisions...
A pastor at church asked me for some notes for his upcoming sermon.
Colossians 2:9
MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
2:9 ὅτι ἐν αὐτῶ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς,
Because in him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
WRIGHT, N.T. (1989) Colossians and Philemon, Grand Rapids, IVP.
'Bodily form' can be translated as actually or in solid reality. p.103.
The Greek word theotes (Deity) is to be distinguished from theiotes (divinity). The term for divinity could be of a lesser being than God, and Jesus is called Deity. p.103.
There is thus no need for Christian to pay homage to lesser supernatural beings. p.103.
Christ is not a second Deity. p.103.
ASHBY, E G. (1986) 'Colossians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
Colossians 2:9
He mentions that Lightfoot thinks that the term bodily form refers to both the incarnate and glorified Christ. Others see fullness of Deity not being as much corporeally, but corporately. p.1456.
There are of course three distinctions or persons within the Trinity, but if the first interpretation is correct, somehow the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all work together within the incarnate and glorified body of Christ. Since God has one nature (Christ has nature of Father, Hebrews 1:3) even with the distinctions within the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, work together in all things including the literal body of Christ.
MARTINS, RALPH P. (1987) Philippians, Grand Rapids, IVP.
Philippians 2:6
Christ being in very nature God, refers to his pre-incarnate existence. p.100.
Being in a form of God could mean the essential attributes of God. p.101.
Concerning equality with God, one view is that the pre-incarnate God already had equality with God and chose not to cling to it. p.101.
Another view is that it that the pre-incarnate Christ could have claimed equality for himself but refused to do so. p.101.
I would think that the first view is the Biblical one in light of Christ being the eternal word in John 1, and claiming the eternal nature and the name of God for himself in John 8:58 (I AM).
The second view does not do justice to the Biblical text. p.101.
Perhaps although Christ was and is fully God, there was hierarchy in the Trinity before the Incarnation.
Christ was proclaimed as being equal with God by accepting his position as the incarnated, humiliated one. p.103.
HEWLETT, H.C. (1986) 'Philippians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
Philippians 2:6
The participle 'hyparchon', means that Christ was already in existence. p.1444.
Christ was in very nature God and could not be Deity without being fully God. p.1444.
Not grasping at equality was not concerning nature, but state and circumstance according to Gifford. p.1444.
Christ would not exploit his Deity for his own advantage. p.1444.
He was concerned instead with submitting to the will of his Father in order to complete the atoning work, resurrection and culmination of the Kingdom of God.
ERICKSON, MILLARD J. (1994). Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
Implications of Christ’s Deity
Persons can have real knowledge of God when we see Christ. p.703.
Redemption is available through his death. p.703.
God and humanity can be reunited. p.704.
Persons can worship Christ. p.704.
Implications of Christ’s humanity
Jesus as a human had limited knowledge. p.711.
Some heresies
Docetism
Jesus only seemed to be human, because matter is evil, influenced by Platonic thought. p.713.
Apollinarianism
Denied the fullness of Christ’s humanity. It assumed that if Jesus had two natures that he must have both a human soul and a divine one. He saw this as absurd and thus denied that Christ had a human soul. p.714.
Erickson noted that orthodox, Biblical Christianity holds that Jesus had a human soul and divine one, yet was not two persons. In my mind this is a correct, yet difficult concept and Erickson admits that it is paradox. Jesus on the cross gave his spirit to the Father (John 19:30), so he possessed a human spirit and was fully human. My take is that in a sense there is one spirit that is a unity of both human and divine nature. It is one spirit that is a unity of two spirits, which do not mix yet work together as one place of personality. In the Incarnation, the divine nature of Christ was unified with a human spirit/nature. To say that Christ has two spirits or souls will perhaps lead some to the idea that Christ is two persons rather than one person with two natures. The human soul of Christ is unified with the divine soul of Christ, in such a way that the two natures do not mix, yet they work together as one spirit. Therefore when Christ died he did not give his spirits, but spirit. This one soul/spirit would allow Christ to be fully human, but without an active sinful nature.
So, Jesus as a human being would be like Adam before the fall. Sin would not have been within the nature of Christ, but it was not within Adam's nature before the fall either. Christ would have been tempted by sin as a human being, and if he would have been a perfect man alone he could have technically sinned. However, due to the fact the Christ was also God incarnate, and God cannot sin, I would conclude that Christ unlike Adam would not sin.
THEISSEN, HENRY, CLARENCE (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.
Christ did not empty himself of his divine attributes but simply surrendered the exercise of them. p.296.
He quotes Strong who states that the incarnation purged depravity from Christ. p.305.
He did not have a sinful nature. Concerning Christ nature as God and man, Theissen quotes Hodge who states that Christ’s personality resides in the divine nature, not the human one. A divine person and not just a divine nature became incarnate. p.305.
This view would be contrasted by scholars such as Mounce and Cranfield:
Cranfield in his Romans commentary p.176, comments on the likeness of sinful flesh.
Cranfield states with what he thinks is the best explanation, that being that the Greek word for likeness is not to water down Christ's fallen human nature, as in being fully human, but is to draw attention that the fallen nature was assumed but Christ did not become a fallen human being.
So, unlike some views that reason Christ's sinful human nature was purged out at the incarnation, this view reasons it was there but because of his perfect obedience and I would reason deity, he did not become a fallen human being that sinned.
So, in a sense in the likeness of sinful flesh, he had fallen human nature.
In another sense in the likeness of sinful flesh, he did not have an active fallen human nature that would have led to sinful thoughts and choices.
Mounce in his Romans commentary sees it the same way on p.175-176, Christ took upon a fallen nature but did not become completely like us, as in sinners.
So, this could have occurred by having this fallen nature purged out of him at the incarnation or he could have kept the nature, but remained via the Father and Holy Spirit the perfect man and of course God and therefore essentially did not have a fallen nature which allowed him to be the perfect sacrifice.
So he would not have a sinful nature.
REYMOND, R.L. (1996) 'Incarnation' in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
Essential that the divine Logos did not take himself into union with a human person, otherwise he would become two persons, with two centers of self-consciousness. p.556.
HEBBLETHWAITE, BRIAN, 'Incarnation' in A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, London, SCM Press.
Liberal.
In modern times the doctrine of the Incarnation has been challenged by Unitarians, by deists of the enlightenment, and by liberal protestants. It is seen as mythical, and a barrier to other faiths in a pluralistic world. p.290-291.
Dryburgh, Scotland (trekearth.com)
Beyac et Cazen, France (trekearth.com)
New Lanark, Scotland (trekearth.com)
Anger, Germany (trekearth.com)
ASHBY, E G. (1986) 'Colossians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
ERICKSON, MILLARD J. (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
HEBBLETHWAITE, BRIAN, 'Incarnation' in A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, London, SCM Press.
MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
MARTINS, RALPH P. (1987) Philippians, Grand Rapids, IVP.
MOUNCE, R.H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.
REYMOND, R.L. (1996) 'Incarnation' in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
THEISSEN, HENRY, CLARENCE (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.
WRIGHT, N.T. (1989) Colossians and Philemon, Grand Rapids, IVP.
