TedM

When parents whose children go off to college describe their house as being empty, it doesn't mean no one lives there or that there is no furniture.
A trash can that has been emptied can still have a piece or two left in the bottom.
A vessel that has been emptied doesn't have to be completely dry without a drop left.

Similarly if Jesus emptied 'himself' there could be some elements of 'himself' still retained.


And if we say he emptied himself completely, we have to ask 'of what?' If the 'what' is the equality with God, then by becoming man who doesn't have all of God's qualities, he has accomplished a complete emptying of equality. As I said before and you didn't comment on, man was considered to be in God's image, though not equal. Are we to assume that when Jesus emptied himself from equality with God it was so complete that he wasn't even in God's image?


You seem stuck on one application of how things were emptied. That seems very restrictive to me. If that is the only way in which this phrase was ever used back then I might consider it, but if it isn't, why should I?


You are assuming a lot to go from being a teacher to the Incarnation of God's Wisdom. You assume no other factors. How about belief that he had been resurrected? How about belief that he had been the Messiah? In other words, OTHER PEOPLE, could account for such an eventual incarnation as much or much more than the actual teachings.


Only God alone is perfect, so it doesn't seem to me that Paul is saying Jesus completely emptied himself of all qualities possessed by God.


It seems to me that you are the one reading into it stuff that isn't there, or accepting others willingness to do so.

I"m neither reading a wise teacher or lack of a wise teacher into the passage. The context requires neither. You are the one who is saying the passage disallows for a teaching Jesus on the basis of one way in which one word in the passage is used elsewhere, as though that clears up all questions related to the passage. It doesn't.


Why couldn't Jesus have been thought to have ultimately obtained his teaching ability from God. How does this make him 'equal to God'? How does this deny the contrast in the passage?


Can you support this kind of intepretation--Jesus was sinless in heaven but not earth, etc...? Show me in the passages where Paul describes Jesus as sinless, meek, gentle, and desirous only to please God where he is addressing the "Son" instead of the 'fleshly appearance' of the Son.

By using the word 'disguise' you are implying that Paul's Jesus was intentionally deceptive. Does it not make sense to you that a sinless Christ would be fair and give his executioners signs that the man they were about to kill was righteous?


Yet there are some similarities in the ideas being taught by Paul, though he doesn't attribute them to Jesus, and the Jesus in Q. I haven't had a chance to get back to that issue, but plan to soon.

ted

spin

If the local passage is related to what comes just prior to it, it is to do with action with humility and selflessness: "look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others". With that in mind, "he emptied himself, taking on the form of a servant.... he humbled himself..."

The most interesting aspects of the passage are the distinctions between form and shape.


spin

Amaleq13

Too bad you had to break the analogy to obtain this conclusion. When the parents say their house is empty, they are specifically referring to the presence of their children. Thus, their house truly is empty of their children.

Then it would be inaccurate to say that either the trash can or the vessel were truly empty.

That isn't what Paul appears to be saying and I'm sticking with what he actually says rather than what you wish he had said.

Not if we read the first part of the sentence where Paul lays out exactly "what" had been emptied from Christ.

No more so than any human.

As far as I can tell from the various commentaries I've read and spin's link, "empty" means "empty". Is it restrictive to stick to what a word means? Where is an example of it being used to mean something other than "remove all contents"?

I'm assuming nothing more than what is suggested by Q. There is no resurrection in Q nor any explicit indication that Jesus was considered the Messiah.

I suppose so but, as I indicated earlier, why would we even assume any teachings at all in such a context? Why assume the Teaching Jesus is not a myth?

If God alone is perfect, then Paul must have believed that Christ could be considered equal to God despite lacking a sinless nature. If I understand the finer points of this aspect of the belief system, God is actually incapable of sin. Was the Heavenly Christ also incapable of sin or was he so righteous as to choose not to commit any sin? If, contrary to your assertion, Christ was like God in that he was incapable of sin, then I would argue that this was emptied from him. In taking on the appearance of flesh, Christ became capable of sin but chose to remain innocent so as to be a fitting sacrifice.

Then we agree there is no good reason to assume that Paul's Jesus was a teacher. While I assume you would disagree, I consider your efforts so far to argue for a teaching Jesus despite the absence of any support from Paul to be unconvincing. Paul's Jesus appears to exist only to be killed without his executioners knowing his true identity. As I mentioned before, any activities that might threaten that purpose make no sense and I would consider preaching or performing miracles to qualify.

Why assume he had any teaching ability?

You think it is more reasonable to assume that it was an accident that the executioners didn't know they were killing the Son? That seems ridiculous to me. Paul seems to believe this was a divine plan not a lucky accident.

ETA: It also seems relevant to note that Paul tells us this was a mystery until revealed later which suggests that nobody knew what was really going on a the time which suggests Christ kept his true identity a secret.

I think that would have ruined the plan entirely and has no support in anything Paul says. Paul makes it pretty clear that the ignorance of the 'archons' was necessary to ensure the sacrifice. Obtaining the sacrifice was the primary goal of the incarnation. What you suggest does not make any sense at all in the context of what Paul says. Besides, what "signs" could be given to indicate the man to be executed had committed no sin?

If you are sticking with the "Q interpolated later by Christians" assumption, then this would be an example of taking things taught by Paul and attributing them to a mythical teaching Jesus.

Amaleq13

Does this deny or contradict the kenotic theory of the incarnation?

spin

Where did the kenotic theory of the incarnation come from? How can the originating text "deny" the theory? The question is meaningless, isn't it?


spin

Amaleq13

IIUC, from taking "empty himself" to refer to all that made him equal with God.

I think the theory would be denied if the originating text could only be understood the way you suggested so the answer would be "yes". If the above interpretation is a legitimate possible understanding of the originating text, then the answer would be "no".

spin

Well, I'd say the "theory" is one extrapolation on the particular text eauton ekenwsen (this latter from the verb kenow provides the name).

As it is an extrapolation from this particular text, then there is no way that the text itself can "deny" the theory, hence my question: The question is meaningless, isn't it?


spin

Amaleq13

A text can never deny any extrapolation from it? There is no way to judge the legitimacy of a given extrapolation from a text? There is no such thing as an illegitimate extrapolation? Was your earlier response an extrapolation from the text or an interpretation of the text?

Apparently to you but I appreciate your indulgence.

TedM

The point is that the description "our house is empty" doesn't provide the kind of explanation with details you give, nor does it explain what it doesn't cover. This can be said for "emptying himself" also.

The point is that people say it anyway! Empty doesn't always mean completely empty! Nor, does it always describe exactly what is being emptied.


Even if you define "himself" as "all that is equal to God" that leave ambiguity with regard to the resulting man that is left over. To say that it means he can't have been a teacher or miracle worker seems to me to not be 'sticking with what he actually says" to me.


Why? Why not assume moreso since he emptied himself? What is left? If some other man or prophet known for some teachings or some miracles isn't considered to be equal with God, why should Jesus? Let's say God is equal to 6. If Jesus is only a 5, he is completely empty of equality with God. And, IMO the designation as a servant is referring specifically to the crucifixion event, so I don't see that as applicable to a pre-crucifixion life.


Aren't you sidestepping the point? One possibility is that Jesus had been a teacher but the idea that he was God's Wisdom incarnated was given to him by later followers who believed in the resurrection. The Q book I have by Borg includes Jesus' Jonah analogy for the resurrection, has God calling Jesus his son, has the devil call Jesus God's son, and has Jesus confirming that he is the powerful one JTB was predicting, and describing like the son of man who will be the judge of men's souls.


I"m a believer that where there is smoke there is fire. I agree that Paul lends little support for a teaching Jesus like we see in Q. I just disagree with saying that Paul actually denies such a Jesus.


I would agree, but the fact that he was able to remain innocent despite his sinful nature would show that he retained some of God's qualities.

No, I do agree as it pertains to this passage. I just did not agree that it denies a wise teacher.


Paul provides little support, though perhaps support for the mythologizing of a teaching Jesus. James provides some interesting connections. Of course, the gospels provide support also. The biggest problems I see are explaining why Paul doesn't write about it much if any, and why James doesn't attribute sayings to Jesus.

It made sense to Mark and others. We don't know if it made sense to Paul or not because he doesn't say one way or the other.


I don't think Paul says one way or the other. The alternative is that Paul believed they didn't know simply because they didn't have God's wisdom to perceive properly.

Paul's 'mystery' references had nothing to do with Jesus' true identity on earth IMO.


Not ignorance. Lack of the proper wisdom, given the context.


ted

TedM

Ok, finally back to your 5 identifications of Paul's enemies:

You originally said:

I responded and you replied.

Paul is addressing the lack of unity among the people. In Ch 12 it appears he is addressing a situation where some in the church thought they were superior to others because of their special gifts. Paul is saying that all are important and of the same Spirit. v15 "If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body."

Paul doesn't say whether those that say "Jesus be cursed" are members of the church or not. He doesn't say they are people from the outside preaching another Jesus. I disagree with your last sentence. Another possibility is that since Paul wants to show that the church members are of the same spirit he needs to give an example of what a different spirit would be, so he says it is someone that instead of claiming Jesus is Lord claims that Jesus is cursed. In other words, it could be a literary device (maybe based on those who reject his Savior concept) designed to highlight the unity that those who DO claim Jesus is Lord have, despite their comparisons to each other. It doesn't require that those in his church were saying that Jesus was cursed, and it doesn't require that others were coming in and preaching that kind of Jesus. #1 may reflect Paul's enemies, but there just isn't enough detail to say that this was another Jesus being preached by others outside of the Corinthian church.


Of course there would be those who deny the resurrection, and Paul would be questioned on why or how that could have happened, but Paul never says that people were going about preaching a Jesus who wasn't ever resurrected. It looks more to me like some of Paul's church were having doubts, not that others from the outside were coming in and preaching about a dead Jesus people should follow: 1 Cor 15:12 says "Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead." Notice that Paul doesn't even address the idea of others preaching this message to the Corinthians. It is POSSIBLE that other preachers were the source of doubt within Paul's church, but Paul's letters don't say that they were, so I reject this as insufficient also.


You may be right, but we don't have the support in either letter, as I showed in both #1 and #2. I addressed how in THIS letter there does seem to be a fairly strong indication that the issue had to do with retaining Jewish laws, in Ch 3 where Paul speaks of the competency of his ministry, as is consistent with Galations and Acts. So, we have sufficient evidence in this book without need to appeal to less supported references in an entirely different letter.


I agree there are some central differences with Paul's gospel but see no strong evidence that those were being preached by others, as opposed to a reflection of those who simply disagreed or doubted Paul's message within the Corinthian community.

In the end, the only other Jesus/gospel that Paul is saying was being preached by others is one by Jewish Christians who require more adherence to the Jewish laws (especially circumcision) than Paul does, and is less accepting of his message of salvation for all through faith. We have to remember that this was a huge deal to Jews and to Paul. This issue was the mystery Paul talked about--salvation for all through faith. This doesn't help us much for imagining a historical Jesus, but it is what it is.


Because the focal point of the kingdom of God in the OT was Zion, or Jerusalem.

Interesting possibility. One that Muller supports. The book of James says nothing of a resurrected savior. That might explain why Paul seems to say so little about what those 'superlative apostles' were saying. It may well be that Paul did address this issue directly and it was cut out from what we now have since it was so inflammatory. However, what we do have in Paul's letters doesn't support this IMO, and I would strongly expect this to be a major issue Paul would have addressed over and over, and that we would at least have some remnants of it. It does seem an important possibility worth looking at.

ted