Results 61 - 80 of 105
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: RWC Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | What does "emptied Himself" really mean | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 4905 | ||
What does "emptied Himself" really mean? (This question comes from a discussion on Heb. 4.15) I tend to think that when Jesus was incarnated (became a human being) that He set aside the _use_ of most (if not all) of His divine power. That does not mean that He was any less divine, but simply that He chose not to use the power and ability that was His. I think that when He became a human being, He made Himself completely dependant upon the Holy Spirit and that the works that He did were, for the most part at least and perhaps even totally, done in the power of the Holy Spirit. He is, after all, our example. I am convinced that Jesus was and is the Living God wrapped in humanity. At no time did He cease to be God. But it seems to me that in order for Him to truely experience life as a human being requires that He must have set aside (not used) most if not all of His own powers and abilities. That is how He could experience real hunger. That is how He could experience real fatigue. That is how He could experience real pain. That is why we can find Jesus not knowing certain things. And that is why we can find Jesus being truely tempted (and thus the discussion on Heb. 4.15). I am not so convinced that this view is correct that I would say that it was a definite doctrine (teaching) of the Scripture. But I _tend_ toward thinking that this might well be the truth. Your comments and or subsequent questions would be very much appreciated. |
||||||
62 | What does "emptied Himself" really mean | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 4979 | ||
Yes, thank you for making the point about Jesus' humanity being like Adam's (and Eve's!) prior to their initial sin. That is how I have come to understand this as well, but I didn't make that clear (at least in that posting). Jesus did not and does not have a sin nature. And His fellowship with God must have been very similar indeed to that experienced by Adam and Eve prior to sin entering the human race. | ||||||
63 | Could Jesus like Adam have sinned? | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 5043 | ||
Well, now you have hit on the question that I asked regarding Heb. 4.15. If you have not already done so, you should read through the discussion on that verse. You may find that whole discussion quite intersting. (I have!) I hesitate to say that Jesus could actually have disobeyed, and yet, to be honest, I suppose that this is exactly what I tend to think. His temptations were, I am convinced, real temptations, of the same nature that Adam experienced. But His character (being God) was such that disobedience seems totally inconcieveable. Read through that discussion, and let know your comments. |
||||||
64 | Have I plagiarized someone? | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 173840 | ||
I'm sorry, I don't understand why you have replied to my message with this post. Have I plagiarized someone? If so, please explain. | ||||||
65 | Have I plagiarized someone? | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 173849 | ||
No problem; thanks for clearing that up. | ||||||
66 | Glory not an attribute of divine nature? | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 173850 | ||
Is His divine and eternal glory not an attribute of His nature? I have not given it careful thought and study, but upon first reflection it seems to me that it is. And if it is, how is it that it is ok to say that He can "surrender" His glory without it affecting His full and complete diety, but not any of His other attributes of divine nature? (BTW, I think the word "surrender" would convey something different than "set aside" [the phrase I used in my post from several years ago] or "veiled" or "laid aside" [both used elsewhere in the article you quoted].) I hope I made it very clear in my original post and in the follow-up discussion that I am firmly convinced of the diety of Jesus: that He was, is, and always will be fully divine. The thought that I was trying to put forward for discussion was that He had "set aside (not used) most if not all of His" attributes of divine 'nature' (to be distinguished from 'character'). In making that suggestion, I would not for one second wish to imply that such action would somehow diminish our view of who Jesus really is. I am suggesting that Jesus set aside the use of the attributes of His divine nature (not character!) and made Himself wholly dependant upon the Holy Spirit from the time of His conception until the resurrection. I am further suggesting that His action of setting aside the use of those attributes does not mean that He was anything less than fully divine. So, to sum up, I suppose I am struggling most with this statement from the article you quoted: "To say that Jesus surrendered even one divine attribute is to say that Jesus is less than God, and therefore not God at all! See, if God is deprived of even one attribute, then He is not fully deity." If 'surrendered' and 'deprived' mean that these attributes were no longer in His possession, then I would agree with that statement. However, if that is what those words mean, this statement would not be fairly representing (or responding to) what I am suggesting. My suggestion is that Jesus *set aside* the use or function of those attributes (and this is what this verse is talking about by saying that He emptied Himself), not that these attributes were not His to be used had He at any moment chosen to do so. |
||||||
67 | Does 'veiled' mean 'not used'? | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 173852 | ||
You quote Barret as writing: "The danger comes when it is concluded that in the incarnation, the second person of the Trinity took on human nature AND gave up or lost some of the divine attributes -- such that Jesus was not fully divine." I would absolutely agree with that statement. But is it not possible for Jesus to have set aside *the use* of His attributes of divine nature? Is that not what Barret means when he writes (as you quoted him): "Christianity maintains that Jesus did not 'empty' himself of any of his divinity in the incarnation, although it is true that his divine attributes were veiled"? I would agree that these attributes were at all times in His possession, but that they were veiled (hidden) and that Jesus willing chose not to make use of them (with perhaps a very few purposeful exceptions) from the point of His conception until His resurrection. I am further suggesting that this is what this verse is talking about when it speaks of His humility in emptying Himself. |
||||||
68 | Absent in body, present in spirit? | Col 2:5 | RWC | 243176 | ||
It is hard to imagine that, even after all of the years that this forum has operating, no one has asked the following question! What exactly does Paul mean when he says, "though I am absent in body, nevertheless I am with you in spirit"? | ||||||
69 | credence for your understanding? | Col 2:5 | RWC | 243181 | ||
Thank you for your reply, Ed. While I am not opposed to the understanding that this is intended by Paul as a figure of speech, Paul's language here seems to suggest something more. He is using language that is decidedly different (I am with you, and I see your works) than what he used at the beginning of the letter that speaks of him having heard about them (1:4,8,9). Is there something specific, in the context here or elsewhere, that lends credence to the understanding that Paul does not intend this to taken literally? Or is it actually intended to suggest that he had maybe been given some kind of a vision of them or something more supernatural? | ||||||
70 | Popular opinion? or Scripture? | 1 Tim 2:12 | RWC | 13428 | ||
You asked: "Do you have any scripture to defend a woman having authority over a man?", but in the context you were talking specifically about women in the office of deacon. You then quoted four verses from 1Tim. ch.3 (8, 10, 12, and 13). But you neglected to quote v.11. 1 Tim 3:11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. This verse is surrounded on both sides by Paul's discussion of the character qualifications for the office of deacon. You are correct in pointing out that Paul uses the maculine repeatedly in this discussion, which would be quite normal for him to do even when speaking of both genders. The maculine was used to include both men and women. The thing that I find most interesting here (and which you left out!) is that Paul very specifically included women in his discussion of deacons. (By the way, Paul did not, to the best of my knowledge, do this in any of his discussions of elders!) |
||||||
71 | But what does it mean? | 1 Tim 2:15 | RWC | 13438 | ||
Please explain. You wrote: "The false teaching seems to have had something to do with the relationship between husbands and wives." How does their misunderstanding of this relationship (however misguided that may have been) culminate into women being saved or healed (NASB: preserved?) (Gk: from the word sozo) through or by (Gk: dia) bearing children? What is Paul meaning here? Surely he is not saying that the bearing of children plays any part in spiritual salvation for women, is he??!! Certainly I don't think that many believers (if any) would suggest that. But what is this verse talking about?? |
||||||
72 | What is your understanding of this? | 1 Tim 2:15 | RWC | 13440 | ||
I would certainly like to know your thoughts on this. Please see my question "But what does it mean?" in response to the same message that you were replying to here. | ||||||
73 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | RWC | 13444 | ||
This question could start a totally different subject that has nothing to do with this verse, and that is not really my intent. But I need to ask you just the same. When you wrote, "Additionally, God judged in Christ all the sins of his elect people," are you really intending to imply that Jesus died _only_ for the elect? I understand that's not quite what you said, but it sounds as though that may be what you are thinking. If so, I would have some further questions for you. |
||||||
74 | Thank you - and where should I look | 1 Tim 3:1 | RWC | 13488 | ||
Thank you sir! As I said in my original post, I wondered if my question my start a subject that did not fit with the verse to which it was attached, and that really was not my intent. But I did not expect such a flurry of respenses as it has generated either. Being rather unfamiliar with the vast majority of threads of discussion in this forum and the tools for finding my way around in here, and no doubt there are (and will be!) many more people in my position, perhaps you would be kind enough to direct me to some of those discussions. Are there perhaps a couple of general questions that have discussed this or are they mostly linked to particular verses? Thank you in anticipation of your assistance. Bob |
||||||
75 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | RWC | 13548 | ||
It was I that asked the question of you. Please forgive me. Being quite unfamiliar with this forum, or even how to find my way around in it, I did not know that this was such a sore point for you and several others. I knew that my question was off the topic of the verse to which this thread is attached, but I did not know that it would raise such an immediate flurry of responses. I think I have found where I can "catch up" on some the discussion that has already gone on and perhaps even ask another question or two. Again, please accept my apologies. I certainly did not intend for all of this. Bob |
||||||
76 | Hebrews 3:1-6 | Heb 3:1 | RWC | 233531 | ||
We consider (NASB, ESV) or fix our thoughts on (NIV) Jesus by: 1) the mental/intellectual exercises of asking *and then answering* questions that have to do with a) who Jesus is, and b) what Jesus has done, and then; 2) the mental/intellectual and ultimately *behavioral* exercises of asking and then answering *behaviorally* questions that have to do with how you should then live. Live ready! |
||||||
77 | Why is Moses being *compared* to Jesus? | Heb 3:2 | RWC | 233532 | ||
Re Heb. 3:2-6: Undoubtedly Moses was, although certainly not perfect, one of the best examples of faithfulness from a sinful human being. But this verse and verse 5 almost seem to lift Moses to the same level of faithfulness as displayed by Jesus. In V. 6, the point of *contrast* (the distinction between them) becomes about the fact of *who Jesus is* (The Son) as opposed to His greater faithfulness. Certainly Jesus' faithfulness *is* much greater than that of Moses. Why is this comparison (as opposed to a contrast) being made between the faithfulness of Moses and the faithfulness of Jesus? | ||||||
78 | Superiority of Christ to Moses | Heb 3:3 | RWC | 233533 | ||
Hi Doc, Please see my question linked to Heb. 3:2 about why the faithfulness of Moses is being compared instead of contrasted to the faithfulness of Jesus. Your insight would be appreciated. Thanks. Live ready! |
||||||
79 | cf. Heb 3:2 question re. faithfulness | Heb 3:6 | RWC | 233534 | ||
In verse 5, Moses is stated to be "faithful... as a servant...." The distinction (point of contrast) in v. 6 is that "*but* Christ was faithful as a son...." It seems like the author is saying that their faithfulness might be comparable (similar? equal?), but that their difference is in the fact that Jesus is the Son whereas Moses was a servant. Please see and comment on my question to this effect linked to Heb. 3:2. | ||||||
80 | should not enter into his rest | Heb 3:11 | RWC | 233539 | ||
Moses and Aaron would also be included in this primarily because of the Waters of Meribah (Nu. 20:11-12, 23-29; 34:1-5; De. 32:48-52; 34:1-5). | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |