Godhead Question

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

thank God.... now back to poor sherri :-)

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Tell you what ... Sherri ain't poor.

She knows where every penny is spent, though.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The Son, being the Person of God, with a Human nature was limited BY the human nature. Part of that was His "self limiting" to the human attributes. He did not, as the Son, function as a person with both Divine and Human natures, though he possessed or owned both. He willingly limited Himself to just the human nature/attributes. The Mind,will etc

Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Oneness does not believe he separated himself FROM the Divine nature, but that He limited Himself, as the Son, to the human nature

Prax, how can the humanity limit the divinity?

To me, it's all so beautiful. Yet so mysterious. Doesn't quite make logical sense.

So when he said his Father would rescue him if he wanted, he was really saying that he would activate his Divine side and rescue himself?

And how limited was he? I would think completley devoid of divnity to be "fully human" but then that wouldn't make sense for the Son to also be Divine.

[Jeffro]

Sherri, if you're still on board with asinine supposed discussion, I would like to ask if you can explain the dual-nature of Christ from your point of view? I don't know that I could add anything to what the other posters have already shown, but perhaps if we could see it as you view it, it would help us understand what you can't or don't see. I don't know how long you've been studying the Godhead, but keep in mind that Jesus told Peter that he wasn't smart enough to figure it out himself, but that God had shown it to him. I'm not trying to criticize you in any way and please don't take it that way, but this thing is so awesome that many believe that when Jesus was talking to Peter in Matthew, He meant that His church would be built not on who He was, but the Revelation of who He was.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Prax, how can the humanity limit the divinity?

To me, it's all so beautiful. Yet so mysterious. Doesn't quite make logical sense.

So when he said his Father would rescue him if he wanted, he was really saying that he would activate his Divine side and rescue himself?

And how limited was he? I would think completley devoid of divnity to be "fully human" but then that wouldn't make sense for the Son to also be Divine.

Those who think they can logically explain the Incarnation ... take away from the beauty of his infiniteness and this great mystery.

I'd rather stand in awe than smug in my limited myopic view of Him.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Well a Trinny would say that the eternal Son humbled himself as a man here... that he trusted the Father with all things.

I guess the passage puts it togeter with scriptural backing, but it leaves the question: how does the first part begin to make sense? He was God, but didn't think his equal standing WITH God as something he should keep, but rather he gave it up for the humble position as a human.

Interesting the text says SOME divine attributes. Like what was left and what is taken? I get that God humbled himself to become a man. But we don't believe God became a man (like God morphed into a man). We believe (we as in Oneness community) the child was begotten... created in the womb, conceived as an embryo. Helpless. Vulnerable. What baffles us is how that embryo can be the humble servant simultaneous of being God yet being so weak. See what I'm saying?

Yes, the incarnation in it's entirety is quite baffling.

BTW the sentence about SOME divine attributes was mine... not inspired, but still fabulous unadulterated truth!

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Jeffro

Sherri, if you're still on board with asinine supposed discussion, I would like to ask if you can explain the dual-nature of Christ from your point of view? I don't know that I could add anything to what the other posters have already shown, but perhaps if we could see it as you view it, it would help us understand what you can't or don't see. I don't know how long you've been studying the Godhead, but keep in mind that Jesus told Peter that he wasn't smart enough to figure it out himself, but that God had shown it to him. I'm not trying to criticize you in any way and please don't take it that way, but this thing is so awesome that many believe that when Jesus was talking to Peter in Matthew, He meant that His church would be built not on who He was, but the Revelation of who He was.

Well, actually Peter didn't deliver a theology of the "dual nature of God." He just said, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God."

I think it's disturbing when we say that others just haven't been privileged enough to have that revelation to understand the godhead the same way we do.

I think the revelation that Peter experienced, was Gospel-centered faith. It's regeneration. I think it's what happens when one believes.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by DAII

Those who think they can logically explain the Incarnation ... take away from the beauty of his infiniteness and this great mystery.

I'd rather stand in awe than smug in my limited myopic view of Him.

Agreed.

I think there are deff some that can articulate the theology behind it all a little better -- and some on this forum may fit that category -- but it's all the more comforting when those same people admit that it's quite a mystery.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Prax, how can the humanity limit the divinity?

To me, it's all so beautiful. Yet so mysterious. Doesn't quite make logical sense.

So when he said his Father would rescue him if he wanted, he was really saying that he would activate his Divine side and rescue himself?

And how limited was he? I would think completley devoid of divnity to be "fully human" but then that wouldn't make sense for the Son to also be Divine.

humanity doesn't limit deity. God (a person) limits Himself to just the human attributes. Maybe in a bad example like someone might limit themselves to speaking one language when they have the Ability to speak more.

I don't know exactly how God could do that,but I am proposing that Phil shows a picture of God becoming a human being and emptying himself (Kenosis)

He was so limited that he needed to pray. Rather than call angels to come and deliver him, he would have needed to pray. When he walked on water, he was going that as a man who trusted in God

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

humanity doesn't limit deity. God (a person) limits Himself to just the human attributes. Maybe in a bad example like someone might limit themselves to speaking one language when they have the Ability to speak more.

I don't know exactly how God could do that,but I am proposing that Phil shows a picture of God becoming a human being and emptying himself (Kenosis)

He was so limited that he needed to pray. Rather than call angels to come and deliver him, he would have needed to pray. When he walked on water, he was going that as a man who trusted in God

I've often wondered if he was praying for his sake, or for ours.

Your last sentence -- wow. Pretty amazing if true. I can hear Timmy right here saying: I Guess it's easy to trust God when you're God though!