From: Grant (grant@cajun.net)
Date: Tue Dec 21 1999 - 07:45:11 EST
<x-html><!x-stuff-for-pete base="" src="" id="0"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>There was a reply to the scripture that there is a 3rd
position of the Eastern Orthodox community. Yet, this position or
interpretation of passage was not so clear. A little clarification would
be welcomed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>It was also stated about the danger of heretics. Personally, I
believe that we could all be labeled heretics due to the difference in
opinion. Ultimately, the one who truly feels his position is "correct"
will thus consider opposiong view points heresy. One thing that must be
remembered is that none of us have the entire truth (I speak for myself
likewise) such as Jesus' very apostles didn't know all things--the companions of
the source of Christology! Jesus did prophesy that heresy or apostasy
would set in and the writers at Jude 1:4, 2 John 1:7, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-5, and
Act 20:29 testify to it. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I think whether they are guided by a spirit of God is
determined in their love for righteousness and most importantly--their works
that visibly manifest it. Titus 1:16: "They publicly declare they know God, but
they disown him by their works, because they are detestable and disobedient and
not approved for good work of any sort." Compare James 2:26</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I have recently been doing a study of many "controversial"
translations of different scriptures and Philippians 2:6 had its place.
Two sides seem to have convincing arguments (to themselves at the very
least).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>But my original question as I intended is: "What is the
Greek's meaning? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Strictly speaking about translation, I would appreciate a
"grammatical" translation forgetting theology the same as we would do if we were
studying sanskrit and were translating the Vedas and weren't Buddhists
monk.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>It seems now as I look at the context, 3 things are
obvious</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>a) we're encouraged to have the attitude of Jesus</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>b) Jesus' attitude- "humble" ex. didn't try to get equality
with God</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>c) God recognized this and rewarded him</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>that simple? Or is there more? No doubt.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The quesion most important is: "How would the Philippian
congregation respond to this scripture? After all, it was written to
them.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The whole picture of this verse now seems to be in sharp
focus. Consider the following:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>A Trinitarian viewpoint will of course maintain Jesus as God's
Son (relationship between the 1st and 2nd person of the triad). So they
will either argue that a) Jesus didn't try for equality since he had it
or b)Jesus tried for. And this agreeable according to their
theology since it is logical to their mind frame.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>On the other hand, the group exists that claim that the
designation "God's Son" is a literal statement, namely, the actual son OF God,
from him, and so on. They will use Philippians 2:6 as a proof of their
faith in that Jesus can't be God (in terms of consubstantialness) or that
he has no equality in terms of YHWH's ultimate authority or rulership. Yet, they
will also claim that Jesus is divine which indeed the scriptures do
support.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Nevertheless, I will still emphasis the fact that the Paul
wrote the Philippian congregation as counsel. I guess the question
remains: "What understanding agrees with the intention of Paul and with
the probable understanding of the congregation?"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>But, nevertheless, one will argue that Christology was
undevelop and that, therefore, this is no proof. Can't please everybody?
aye?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>So I conclude that there are 2 sides each who (either through
ostenstible truth or cunning lies) have agreeing arguments; each have their
variations in understanding.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Sincerely,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Grant Polle </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Louisiana, USA</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:51 EDT