The Evangelical Universalist Forum

What kind of dualism?


Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” John 20.17

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. John 17.3


Yes. Which only proves at the very least Father is God.

In no way do His statements there disqualify Himself from being a member of that. Godhead.
Except perhaps, Him being then in time, in a prepared body to do all God’s will on Earth. Sent. Humbled Son to do all His Father’s will.

God is a relationship.Always existing. God is luv.




When you see Him…You do not see God?

Who do you see, then?


When I see Jesus
I behold everything possible
In this world
I hear a breath, a word of Life

I see the One who made butterfly wings
And a hummingbird’s wings
Almost countless

A most creative Hand
Giving Life to all
Is Who I see
When I see Jesus

Life imparted
My King brings


I see the express image of God. God’s word to us, expressed through a human being, His son. When I ‘see’ Jesus, I see what the Father wants us to know about HIm. How great it is to know that a human being, like us, is mediating between us and God. We have an Elder brother like us.


I know those scriptures too, about Him.

But you don’t see God Himself?

That is what puzzles me about theologies sometimes. They have all the right scripture to back up their take on it…But they don’t actually see God in Jesus. Jesus as God.

And so theology dies there.

Instead of bringing Life to this world.

You have to know who He is
As the starting point.

A starting point may be like Thomas had.

When He recognized. Him, finally.


That’s fine, Laurie. We’ll just be unnecessarily twisting ourselves into a knot if we continue, I think. What counts is righteousness and peace in the Holy Spirit.


This statement could be true or false depending on what you mean by “God.”

When I read this statement, the meaning that comes immediately to my mind is that the statement identifies Jesus with His Father, that is, affirms that both He and His Father are the same divine Individual. Is that what you mean? If not, could you explain what you do mean?


DaveB wrote:
when Jesus died - who died? The combined God-human, or the human? Or were the docetists corrects, that the ‘God part’ left Jesus’ body before the actual death?

I’m afraid this is way over my pay grade, as I have no knowledge of Jesus’ “parts.”
Bob Wilson

Posts: 1179
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:10 am

Didn’t the human Jesus die since in Phil 2.7 Paul said Jesus “emptied himself” apparently of his divine attributes. Plus God can not die therefore by definition it had to be human Jesus who died.


I agree Steve - some go further and say ‘the human PART of Jesus died’ which I think betrays a confusion.


Yes, He did, Steve. Indeed it seems to me that He emptied Himself not only of his divine attributes, but of his deity itself! How else could He have become fully human?

As I see it, when the Father raised Him from death, He glorified his Son, and the Son regained his deity. How else could the Son (along with the Father who is Spirit) have come and made their dwelling with Jesus’ disciples according to Jesus’ promise (John 14:23)? After his resurrection, Jesus Himself (the second Adam) became the life-giving Spirit (1 Corinthians 15:45) . Also in 2 Corinthians 3:18, according to the ESV, we, in being transformed into the image of the Lord (Jesus) comes from the Lord (Jesus) who is the Spirit. The NASB has it “from the Lord, the Spirit.” Other translations such as the NKJV have it “from the Spirit of the Lord.” I think that is incorrect, though, since the word “Lord” comes before the word “Spirit” in the Greek.


I think there is a more fruitful way of understanding Phillipians 2, one that does not espouse the theory that Paul was describing a pre-existing divine being, Here is a short pdf that makes a pretty good case imo. YMMV. … NS%202.pdf

Here is a short excerpt:

It is often stated that Jesus emptied himself of himself or of his ‘divinity
’(Trinitarian) or ‘god-form’ (Arian) as if this were his essence. But as discussed
above the ‘form’ (morphe) is synonymous with image (eikon) and has the 1st
century Koine meaning of ‘status’ which is why Paul gives the comparison with
“form of a slave” and not ‘form of a man’. The phrase “form of a slave” makes no
reference to one’s essence or essential being but of one’s lowly status. Adam
being in the image of God certainly was not of God’s essential being. A basic
difference in Jewish thinking and Greek thinking of the time was that Jews
thought in terms of ‘FUNCTION’ and would use a great deal of metaphorical
language; whereas Greeks thought more in terms of essence or substance, that
is ontologically (substance)or metaphysically. Many scholars have now
recognized this difference and have adjusted their interpretations accordingly.
The phrase “emptied himself” (Greek ‘ekenosen’) is also translated as: “but
made himself of no reputation” KJV, NKJ. or “but made himself nothing” ESV,
NIV. It is a parallel thought to “poured out his soul to the death” Isaiah 53:12. "
‘kenos’ – divested himself of his prestige or privileges. Phil 2:7…An early
Christian confession holds that the kenosis is not the incarnation but the cross
Isa 53:12 ] ." Bauer’s Greek Lexicon of NT Literature.
This was a matter of self-renunciation by Jesus including divesting himself of his
right to incorruptibility that was his because of his sinless condition.
The NWT of verse 7 “emptied himself and took a slave’s form” gives the
incorrect impression that he emptied himself first and then became a slave;
whereas, the Greek grammatical structure is: “himself he emptied form of slave
having taken”. This shows that Jesus emptied himself because he had already
or at that point in time “taken a slave’s form”. Also the word ‘and’ as used in the
NWT changes the correct order of events; yet this word does not exist in the
Greek and is not implied as Ernst Lohmeyer states. The correct structure also fits
with the context, giving the meaning that Jesus, having become slave-like then
immediately began emptying (daily sacrificing) himself.
Lohmeyer’s translation reads : “but sacrificed himself having taken the form of a
The ‘sacrificing’ would have been Jesus’ entire life course leading to his death.
“In this case the aorist ‘ekenosen’ (he emptied himself) does not refer to a
single moment of ‘incarnation’ but the completeness of a series of repeated
acts; his earthly life, looked at as a whole, was an unfailing process of selfemptying.”
A.H. McNeile. former Regius Professor of Divinity.
“We have here an “emptying” related directly to the terrestrial condition of
Christ…” Jerome Murphy O’Connor.
Therefore in his life course Jesus (Messiah-the man) laid aside such rightful
dignity, prerogatives, privileges, and rulership; humbling himself to live a life of
servitude which ended with his death. Would the Philippians be asked to copy
the impossible example of emptying themselves of their essence? Rather, they
were to ‘empty’ themselves of their contentious, egotistical and selfish nature and
imitate Jesus’ lifetime example of humility and self-sacrifice. Paul does not
appeal to us to be like an archangel or heavenly being. He appeals to us to be
humble servants as humans. Additional context is shown when he says in
Philippians 2:17 :“I (Paul) am being poured out like a drink offering upon the
sacrifice and public service to which faith has led you.” Yet Paul’s essence was
not poured out.
From 1860, a Lutheran theologian - Gotfried Thomasius began what has now
developed into the false doctrine of kenosis i.e. that Christ emptied himself of
his essence. This seems to be the first time that Philippians 2:7 was
applied in this way. It appears that the main reason for the development of this
doctrine by trinitarians was to explain how Jesus could be God and man without
postulating two centres of consciousness as in the doctrine of the hypostatic union.


Here are a few quotes from the broader article…

On the issue of Moses being God to Pharaoh in Ex 7:1 I have previously noted this same point… HERE, HERE and HERE.

NOWHERE in the gospels does Jesus require of any a belief in the theological proposition of his own divinity… to accept that he was FROM God was to believe that he Jesus carried God’s message with His imprimatur. That makes Jesus “divine” BUT not ontologically “God”he was God to them like Moses was God to Pharaoh i.e., Jesus was God’s Man for the hour doing God’s job… which is WHY Jesus could say “if you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father” and “I and the Father are one” i.e., they were on the SAME page.

Yes… and THIS is exactly what we see laid down by Jesus in Jn 13:1-17.


Thanks Davo!!


1 Corinthians 2:11
For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him?


Jesus said to the Jews, "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.”

The Jews obviously understood Him as making the claim that He and Abraham were contemporaneous. For they responded:
“You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”

Then Jesus said to them as clear as words can express, that he existed even before Abraham:


This came today from the Catholic email, from the Center for Contemplation and Action. I liked it and I will share it here.

P.S. Hum! This might be a good post, for that poster with the “off the wall”, non-free will, Pauline theology - to read :laughing:


I am starting to subscribe to emergent dualism. If you have time, gives this a lesson.


Hey Randy, how do I get to the ‘really bad theology’ :laughing: just up my alley. :sunglasses:

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: