Sometimes it is interesting the conversations I get into. Similar topics jump up in separate places. Digital Cowboy has a rant about the witnessing methods of Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. Roland has a very long multi post discussion going on about how we treat others in witnessing. One of his commenters was defending "The Way of the Master" which is a teaching program on witnessing. After just a little research I found out that Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort put this material out. Small world is it not? The discussion there leaked out into a discussion I was having with my oldest son on seeing the world as more than just black and white, or right and wrong.
The discussion centered on what was basically a misunderstanding in terminology between us, but also a bit of naivete on his part (he is only 16). I argued that there were areas that are gray. Basically that there are things that are not necessarily wrong but conflict with each other such as the discussion over at Roland’s about differing methods of witnessing. Cowboy may disagree on that point. I digress a little there. My point is not on that but I think I was wrong about seeing things in shades of gray. Evil is still evil it is black because it is in the darkness, but those things in the light are not white but full of vibrant color. Jehovah made us all unique. In that uniqueness we have different ways of dealing with life, different ways of seeing things and that is where the color comes in. When we read scripture we see different nuances in meaning. This is why I believe the analogy of the body of Christ is so dead on. Each of us has a role and the gifts to carry out that role. We make up the different parts of the body, or as I see it the different colors of the spectrum. The problem is that we often put on our filtered glasses (I have been guilty too many times to count) and block out all the other colors to the point all we see is black, and white. I think that maybe we need to back up take off the filters and see each other in the vibrant colors Jehovah meant us to be seen in.
To that end I want to apologize to Digital Cowboy. I may not agree with you on all points but Jehovah made you with some unique colors and I praise Him for it. I got on my high horse (that is usually where I keep my filtered glasses) and attacked him for a perceived slight on the things I teach. For that I truly apologize and ask your forgiveness Cowboy.
20 comments:
Bravo.
It is very hard to be wrong.
If I were to count up all the times I was wrong, hmmm...
I know it's less than infinity.
Geppy stopped me from being an extra big doorknob today.
Good guy.
Indeed, bravo.
Cowboy, I hope I did not offend you on your own site - for you never responded there either. I just wanted you to know that the reason your statement is still unclear is the titles that you use for Yeshua mean different things to different people. For some of my friends, what you have said equates to Yeshua is the LORD. For others it equates to Yeshua is the son of the LORD but not the LORD. I was just hoping to hear you state your belief. But, you are of course under no obligation to do so to me; I just thought you would be joyful to share your belief as a witness to me.
Peace all.
Geppy,
I went back and read your questions to Cowboy. You did a much better job of clarifying what my main problem is. Cowboy makes the aparent claim that Yeshua was "just" a man while He was here and He bacame something more after His resurection. Yet that goes against what scripture teaches in Revelation that Yeshua is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. The question still stands but I am apologizing for the maner in which I did things.
Birdie often tells me that one of my biggest problems in dealing with our oldest son is that we do not speek the same "language". I think this may be at the heart of the matter between Cowboy and I.
Eaglewood,
I would go so far as to agree with Cowboy that while Yeshua was here he was "just" a man. Scripture states that he gave up his equality with the LORD when he was incarnated. The point being to feel all that we feel. So, while he was here he was a man. And thus he says that we can do every miracle and more that he did while he was here. It is what a man living in righteousness and full of faith can do.
But that does not change the fact that Yeshua is the uncreated Creator of all that is. He always was much more than "just" a man. And the resurrection did not really change who he was - just returned him to what he was (ie, restored that which he gave up).
Yes, he willingly gave up His equality while He was incarnated. It was essential to the plan. He had to become a man but that did not mean He stopped being G_d while he was incarnated. My understanding is that losing his equality had to do with the fact that placing Himself inside time had limiting effects upon Him. This was all necessary as He had to take on flesh in order to die, but if He was just a man then His death was not enough. In order for the atonement to fulfil all of Jehovah’s requirements it had to be more than the blood of a righteous man it had to be the blood of G_d. There have been other righteous men in history, Enoch is the one that stands out to me. He was so righteous Jehovah took him up to be with Him and he did not die. Simply being righteous was not qualification enough. The incarnation may be one of those things we do not completely understand this side of the veil, but I am quite sure that Yeshua was indeed G-d while he was incarnated.
Yes, we are capable of doing the miracles He did and more, but I am under no illusion that that power comes from us living righteous lives. The power comes from Him and those who have the faith to do so have the privilege of calling upon that power. If you look through scripture every true miracle performed was through Jehovah’s power.
Looking at what you wrote we may be talking semantics, but I think I need to be clear on my position and my understanding of the scriptures.
Very impressive Eaglewood. Humbling yourself and appologizing is a hard thing to do. I know this from experience. I aplaud you for it.
This is an excellent post. Thank you. Most helpful.
By saying "just" a man, does not mean he was not still himself. Yeshua is the LORD. But, what do you think Scripture means when it says that he "emptied himself?" Why do you think that the Gospels make a point of differentiating what Yeshua looked like at moments of transfiguration vs normality?
Just curious.
The main thing here Geppy is, as my loving wife has said countless times, words mean things. The word "just" has the implication of limitation. If we say that Yeshua was "just" a man then we have limited His status by our words. We are coming back to those pesky boxes I am always talking about. If Yeshua was "just" a man then he was not G_d incarnate and if he is not G_d incarnate His sacrifice means nothing.
As far as the scripture you are referencing I would need more information to comment on what it means.
As far as the transfiguration goes it was a glimpse into the fact that He was still G_d while here on earth. As Jimmy had pointed out earlier Moses and Elijah came to see Him He did not seek them out.
Strange. I thought Jesus went to a special place to commune with the Father and met with them. I don't recall Scripture saying that they came to see him. (Or vice-versa for that matter.)
I put the word "just" into quotes to signify that it was not to be taken at the face value of the word just. ;)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil%202:5-11;&version=49;
Read Matthew 17: 1-9
Yes Yeshua, Peter, James, and John went up on a mountain apart from the others, but I would not say it was a special place. Yeshua was trasnfigured there and then Moses and Elijah came and talked to Him. While they were there Jehovah spoke to them concerning who Yeshua was. there is nothing that contradicts what I or Jimmy said.
Eaglewood, please know that I am not disagreeing - perse.
By "special place" I mean that - as always - Yeshua went to a secluded place to pray to the Father.
By Moses and Elijah "came to see him" and that "He did not seek them out" I don't see that Scripture supporting one way or the other. It says he was transfigured and they appeared. It doesn't seem to be fixating on order or purpose. Or if they were they prior to and the disciples just couldn't see them. It says that they appeared talking with Yeshua; which to me infers that the discussion had been going on as they appeared.
Anyway, thank you for your feedback. And again, kudos for the apology to Cowboy!
T Philippians 2:6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God,
arpagmon is translated as something that is seized and held or plundered. Jesus did not steal or plunder His equality to God, because He is God.
T Philippians 2:7 but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, 8 and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross,
morphane is best translated form or external appearance (morphed)
ekenosen is translated as to empty or to make void
doulou is translated as Slave/servant
omoioma is translated as likeness or form or appearance
anthropon is translated as man
This is where holding onto the original language is vital. Jesus morphed from His heavely appearance to having the external appearance of a man emptied or voided his heavenly appearance to appear as a man servant or slave. He did not empty himslef of His position or authority or power as a member of the Godhead. For our purposes, He took on our appearance so as to show us what He expected of us, to follow the explicit will of His Father, which had been completed in eternity past when Jesus was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.
This is where the early church fought and killed each other over heresy. Be very careful where you tread concerning this subject. He was 100% God and 100% man while walking this earth. Be very careful not to cross the line over into heresy.
I hold myself to the same admonition as well because I tend to forget he was 100% man sometimes.
Regarding heresy, either way you fall here Yeshua was still the LORD. All I am discussing is what was emptied. I would still suggest that it was all of the powers of the LORD so as to be human. This is not a heretical statement; and is in fact in line with everything that I've ever been taught (northern and southern Baptist). Regarding the early church killing over this; if they killed they were not the church but instead followers of evil. I wonder, the side(s) that didn't kill - what did they believe?
So, here is the definition of "void" -> which I think you have listed as ekenosen. I would be putting forth the definition 2a -> in the sense that Yeshua became a man and emptied himself of the powers of the LORD. Again, being the LORD is just who he is; you cannot give up the centrality of your being. It is hard to say exactly what it does mean for we do not exist in the void. What would happen to Yeshua when he put on human flesh and existed right here on this planet as a part of creation?
2758 ????? [kenoo /ken·o·o/] v. From 2756; TDNT 3:661; TDNTA 426; GK 3033; Five occurrences; AV translates as “make void” twice, “make of none effect” once, “make of no reputation” once, and “be in vain” once. 1 to empty, make empty. 1a of Christ, he laid aside equality with or the form of God. 2 to make void. 2a deprive of force, render vain, useless, of no effect. 3 to make void. 3b cause a thing to be seen to be empty, hollow, false.
Here is a good article: http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/rd_ken.htm
And a good clip from Schaff: History of the Christian Church
"4. The incarnation. This is designated by the terms "God sent his own Son (Rom. 8:3, comp. 8:32); Christ "emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men" (Phil. 2:7). Without entering here into the Kenosis controversy (the older one between Giessen and Tübingen, 1620–1630, and the recent one which began with Thomasius, 1845), it is enough to say that the Kenosis, or self-exinanition, refers not to the incarnate, but to the pre-existent Son of God, and implies a certain kind of self-limitation or temporary surrender of the divine mode of existence during the state of humiliation. This humiliation was followed by exaltation as a reward for his obedience unto death (Phil 2:9–11); hence he is now "the Lord of glory" (1 Cor. 2:8). To define the limits of the Kenosis, and to adjust it to the immutability of the Godhead and the intertrinitarian process, lies beyond the sphere of exegesis and belongs to speculative dogmatics."
"To define the limits of the Kenosis, and to adjust it to the immutability of the Godhead and the intertrinitarian process, lies beyond the sphere of exegesis and belongs to speculative dogmatics.”
What is amazing here is that this discussion has proved my point about colors. We have a tendency to see things through our own filtered lenses. I tend to side with Jimmy on this. While I am not Southern Baptist now, most of my beliefs come from my years in the SB church. I have had exposure to a number of denominations over the years. The one consistent thing I have found is their unwavering belief in the Godhead of Yeshua while He was incarnated. This is not to say that his power was not limited. It was limited by the simple fact that He had to confine Himself to time and space. Yet he proved time and time again that he was still G_d while He was here.
While Yeshua did say we would do the things He did and greater it was not because we would have any inherent ability to do so but that He would give us that power as an extension of Himself via the Holy Spirit.
Agreed on the "colors." Another "filter" here, I don't see any of us in disagreement - but saying the same thing in different words. That was my main point in continue with what you heard Cowboy say.
Hey eaglewood,
I didn't mean to throw bombs and run and no apology was necessary in any way shape or form.
I have "disappeared" because the battle over my children has flared again and they're being held hostage 1000 miles away at the moment. I was 8 hours away from leaving to go bring them home and packing for the trip when I was "served" with court papers informing me that a judge in GA has decreed that I no longer have custody until I prove that he has no jurisdiction to issue such an order.
The outcome is not in doubt - the judge himself wrote the order in such a way as to say he merely needed evidence that he has no standing. But now I'm again fighting a battle that I thought was over permanently and that I've already won twice. This time, I have the added bonus that I get to fight in two different states which means paying two attorneys. I've now retained the fifth lawyer in my life (this one in GA) and that's 6 more than I ever wanted.
I loved the analogy you used in this post and it was informative to me; it's truly a new way to look at things - darkness vs. light is black vs. color. That's great and beautiful insight.
I'll get back to the theological debates with you when I'm not being pulled quite so thin.
The Southern Baptists are wrong, btw and that's the crux of our disagreement. Yeshua never even claimed to be "God" while he was on earth. He was certainly special because he was (at the time) the "only begotten SON." He even played that down most of the time. He preferred to be known as the "Son of Man." He WAS NOT GOD when he was on the earth and there is absolutely no scriptural evidence that he was.
Besides the primary reason of redeeming us, the secondary reason he came was to teach us how to live by faith and in communion with Abba. His 3 years of ministry would have been completely unnecessary if he only came to die and his example would be useless to us if he had a supernatural advantage that is unavailable to us. He even said at one point, "Why call ye me good? There is only One good and that is God." In another place, he says, "I only say what I hear my Father say and I only do what I see my Father do."
He lived every single day on this earth as a natural man until his resurrection. A natural man born outside of the sin nature and with greater spiritual insight than any other man had ever been born with, to be sure. But that's what he came to give back to us. The New TESTAMENT is his will and we are the beneficiaries. We're seated with him in heavenly places, joint heirs with Jesus, the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus... because he purchased that for us. In fact, Paul says, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Moshiach Yeshua: Who, being in the form of Yah, thought it not robbery to be equal with Yah."
That would get Paul thrown out of every single Southern Baptist church in America, among most other religious "Christian" churches. But it's the inheritance that Yeshua left us and what we should be working towards. We were each created in the image of Yah - being in the form of Yah - we should think it not robbery to be equal with Yah, in this earth because of Yeshua's sacrifice. (I John 4:17 backs this up - "as he is, so are we in this world.")
Challenge the religious ideas that have deceived you. I say that completely in love, as I've spent many years doing it and still some times have to.
Well, I'll have to stew on a little of that Cowboy.
But there is an invalid comparison to be sure. When it was said "Who, being in the form of Yah, thought it not robbery to be equal with Yah" it spoke of his time BEFORE the incarnation. The form was the essence; that as John said "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This is the sense of "in the form of."
On the other side is "in the image of." Yeshua being "in the form of" makes him equal with the Father in terms of essence at the very least. Man being "in the image of" does not equate man with the Father in terms of essence - or power for that matter.
"spoke of his time BEFORE the incarnation"
To clarify, the instance in which Yeshua was going thru that thought/action process was before the incarnation.
Post a Comment