philippians 2:6

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.&nbsp; Yet, this position or
interpretation of passage was not so clear.&nbsp; A little clarification would
be welcomed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</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.&nbsp; Ultimately, the one who truly feels his position is "correct"
will thus consider opposiong view points heresy.&nbsp; 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!&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;</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.&nbsp;
Two sides seem to have convincing arguments (to themselves at the very
least).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>But my original question as I intended is: "What is the
Greek's meaning?&nbsp; </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>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>It seems now as I look at the context, 3 things are
obvious</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>that simple? Or is there more? No doubt.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;</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).&nbsp; So they
will either argue that a) Jesus didn't try for equality since he had it
or&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; b)Jesus tried for. And this agreeable according to their
theology since it is logical to their mind frame.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</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.&nbsp; They will use Philippians 2:6 as a proof of their
faith in that Jesus can't be God (in terms of&nbsp;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>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Nevertheless, I will still emphasis the fact that the Paul
wrote the Philippian congregation&nbsp;as counsel. I guess&nbsp;the question
remains: "What understanding agrees with the intention of Paul and with
the&nbsp;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>&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;</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