Having spent most of today asleep in bed - and deciding to give in to this lurgi/flu/sinusitis/Vogon infection rather than keep suppressing it by force of will (also known as accepting Mrs Rev Sam's advice) - I'm having a quick potter around some blogs, and discover that my old tutor Stephen thinks that I am a heretic for saying that Jesus (when incarnate) was not "God, as such". What I have in mind is a kenotic Christology: "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross" (Phil 2, NIV)
In other words, whilst the logos is wholly God as such, coinherent etc, Jesus of Nazareth, as the incarnation of the logos, did not possess all the attributes of the Godhead (eg omnipotence, omniscience and so on). You could say: it was only the second person who became incarnate, not all three (though I'm aware that is problematic in other ways). So far as I'm aware, that is the mainstream Christian understanding (and is how it is possible to reconcile Jesus' divinity with his humanity) - but am I wrong? I'd be most grateful to know what other people believe on this (because if I AM a heretic on this one then I've got some soul-searching to do!!!).
When I feel better I'll write up a long post on the incarnation, because it's been brewing all the while through my stuff on the VB. Not today though.