Kenosis Heresy

[Yahweh will increase]

What's even more perverse is to describe a mere man as in the form of God.

What is worse yet is to misquote someone as saying that Jesus was a mere man, when he never said any such thing, for how could a mere man be in the form of God, remain sinless and be born to rule all nations with a rod of iron like Jesus was and as per Psalm 2:7 and Revelation 12:5.

Therefore, as far as his ontology goes Jesus was a true man and flesh as the Bible reveals what flesh truly is but in regards to his position with God he is and always will be the greatest man who ever lived and therefore no, he is no mere man.

 

[cjab]

What is worse yet is to misquote someone as saying that Jesus was a mere man, when he never said any such thing, for how could a mere man be in the form of God, remain sinless and be born to rule all nations with a rod of iron like Jesus was and as per Psalm 2:7 and Revelation 12:5.

Therefore, as far as his ontology goes Jesus was a true man and flesh as the Bible reveals what flesh truly is but in regards to his position with God he is and always will be the greatest man who ever lived and therefore no, he is no mere man.

By you, still a mere man: a man who didn't pre-exist, and so a mere man as contrasted with what I believe which is that he "came down from heaven" (John 6 - multiple passages).

 

[Yahweh will increase]

By you, still a mere man: a man who didn't pre-exist, and so a mere man as contrasted with what I believe which is that he "came down from heaven" (John 6 - multiple passages).

I believe that he came down from heaven also but he came down as a brand new created male seed that through the Holy Spirit was implanted into the womb of Mary and therefore born as the Son of God.

He wasn't in existence in any other form before his birth other than within God's Christ centered mind or Logos and therefore when the Logos became flesh, that is when what God planed within his mind became a reality in living flesh as a true human being and as Paul called him in 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 the last Adam and the second man.

If John was truly saying that the Logos was God and with The God in the beginning, then you have two God's that John is speaking of and there is no way that John as a monotheist Jews would ever have meant for us to understand his very spiritual words to mean that.

That is why one must give up on his own human intelligence and reasoning with the scriptures and be led and taught by the Spirit instead and just like Paul very clearly revealed we must in order to understand God's word in Spirit and Truth and as per 1 Corinthians 2:13-16 below.


1 Corinthians 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.

14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments,

16 for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we (who are truly led and taught by the Spirit) have the mind of Christ.


Therefore if you think what I am saying is foolishness, your answer as to why is in the above words of Paul.

 

[cjab]

I believe that he came down from heaven also but he came down as a brand new created male seed that through the Holy Spirit was implanted into the womb of Mary and therefore born as the Son of God.

He wasn't in existence in any other form before his birth other than within God's Christ centered mind or Logos and therefore when the Logos became flesh, that is when what God planed within his mind became a reality in living flesh as a true human being and as Paul called him in 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 the last Adam and the second man.

But if this was so, how could the universe have been created "through him" (numerous passages including Jn 1:3 and 1 Cor 8:6)?

If John was truly saying that the Logos was God and with The God in the beginning, then you have two God's that John is speaking of and there is no way that John as a monotheist Jews would ever have meant for us to understand his very spiritual words to mean that.

This is not correct. There is only one God with the definite article in Jn 1:1, in Jn 1:1b, and so it is the Father. In Jn 1:1c "God is The Word" without the article. This doesn't mean that the Word was trespassing on the rights and perogatives of the Father, but exercising them in being one with the Father.

The relation between Jesus and his Father is this: on earth Jesus exercises and reveals the power of the Father. In heaven it is the same but direct: the Word exercises and reveals the power of the Father in creation; and on his ascension judgement over all men. So there is only one God, the Father, but power of God is through the Word: hence the Word is "God" (no article) and in the form of God.

That is why one must give up on his own human intelligence and reasoning with the scriptures and be led and taught by the Spirit instead and just like Paul very clearly revealed we must in order to understand God's word in Spirit and Truth and as per 1 Corinthians 2:13-16 below.


1 Corinthians 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.

14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments,

16 for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we (who are truly led and taught by the Spirit) have the mind of Christ.


Therefore if you think what I am saying is foolishness, your answer as to why is in the above words of Paul.

I just don't think you've got a good grasp of the Greek, especially in respect of the article usage (the Father) and anarthrous (non-article) use of God for the Word in Jn 1:1c, and in the distinctions as to what is going on in heaven (the Word working the power of God), neither do you understand that if the Word can exercise the power of the Father upon his ascension, he must also have done the same before he came down from heaven.

If He is One with God the Father in heaven (as Jesus asserted), the Word could not be denoted as anything else but "God" in reflecting that oneness. This doesn't infer that Jesus was more than a human, but it does mandate that his origination is in heaven, and his soul somehow fashioned from what came down from heaven.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

But if this was so, how could the universe have been created "through him" (numerous passages including Jn 1:3 and 1 Cor 8:6)?

All things being created through and in Christ Jesus is not referring to him having a hands on part in the actual creation itself but rather with the fact that it was only through God's plan and foreknowledge of Jesus' coming and perfect sinless life and his death on the cross for sin and his being resurrected by God, that God created anything at all while knowing in advance that sin would corrupt it all.


In other words, the future coming of Jesus to redeem and restore God's purpose for creating all things while knowing in advance that it would be corrected by sin, is the only reason why God in his righteousness could create the world and this is what is meant by "all things were created through and in him" and not that he was there with God creating them.

This is not correct. There is only one God with the definite article in Jn 1:1, in Jn 1:1b, and so it is the Father. In Jn 1:1c "God is The Word" without the article. This doesn't mean that the Word was trespassing on the rights and perogatives of the Father, but exercising them in being one with the Father.

I know and therefore the words "and the Logos was God" have to be understood by the definition of the word Logos itself and the Logos refers to the mind of God and God's mind is also God isn't it?

When it says "and the Logos was "pros" = with God", it is referring to God reciprocating with his own mind and thoughts or in other words "his thinking "pros" towards himself and in his foreknowledge of his plan to send Jesus to live a perfect sinless life and then to die on the cross for sin and in order to justify His creating all things and while knowing in advance that sin would corrupt his creation.

The relation between Jesus and his Father is this: on earth Jesus exercises and reveals the power of the Father. In heaven it is the same but direct: the Word exercises and reveals the power of the Father in creation; and on his ascension judgement over all men. So there is only one God, the Father, but power of God is through the Word: hence the Word is "God" (no article) and in the form of God.


I just don't think you've got a good grasp of the Greek, especially in respect of the article usage (the Father) and anarthrous (non-article) use of God for the Word in Jn 1:1c, and in the distinctions as to what is going on in heaven (the Word working the power of God), neither do you understand that if the Word can exercise the power of the Father upon his ascension, he must also have done the same before he came down from heaven.

If He is One with God the Father in heaven (as Jesus asserted), the Word could not be denoted as anything else but "God" in reflecting that oneness. This doesn't infer that Jesus was more than a human, but it does mandate that his origination is in heaven, and his soul somehow fashioned from what came down from heaven.

I am not at all interested in what people think about my grasp of things but only about what God thinks and what he reveals to me from the scriptures by the Holy Spirit and what people think about it, I leave up to God and them to deal with, for I am not saved to please men but only God alone.

 

[cjab]

All things being created through and in Christ Jesus is not referring to him having a hands on part in the actual creation itself but rather with the fact that it was only through God's plan and foreknowledge of Jesus' coming and perfect sinless life and his death on the cross for sin and his being resurrected by God, that God created anything at all while knowing in advance that sin would corrupt it all.

That's hardly a scriptural position, which says that "all things were created through him," not "some things."

John 1:3 "Through him all things were made, and apart from him nothing was made that has been made."

In other words, the future coming of Jesus to redeem and restore God's purpose for creating all things while knowing in advance that it would be corrected by sin, is the only reason why God in his righteousness could create the world and this is what is meant by "all things were created through and in him" and not that he was there with God creating them.

Whilst it is true that the humanity of Jesus was for the purpose of redemption, Heb 1:3 attests that the Word/Son also sustains all things. Jesus attested that he would regain the glory that he had before he came down from heaven John 6:62. To pretend that Jesus had no existence in heaven pror to the incarnation is to pervert his words and also distort the teaching of every apostle. He is the beginning of the creation of God (i.e. the ruler over God's creation). Rev 3:14, the first and the last: not the first as in the first to be conceived, but the first as in first existing, i.e. pre-existing.

I know and therefore the words "and the Logos was God" have to be understood by the definition of the word Logos itself and the Logos refers to the mind of God and God's mind is also God isn't it?

That is far too philosophical and anthro-morphological. You can't develop scriptural doctrine from Greek pagan philosophers. Logos is a Greek word having all kinds of different contextual meanings, both philosophical and non-philosophical. It's meaning is entirely contextual. Of specific import to the gospel of John is that it is a masculine word, whereas all other Greek words for "words" or "speech" are neuter. In John's gospel, Logos has a specfic application to the words or word of God, or testimony about God. It is thus presented as a living word in contradistiction to mere speech. That Word lived before Christ came down from heaven:

1Pe 1:23 "For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God."

When it says "and the Logos was "pros" = with God", it is referring to God reciprocating with his own mind and thoughts or in other words "his thinking "pros" towards himself and in his foreknowledge of his plan to send Jesus to live a perfect sinless life and then to die on the cross for sin and in order to justify His creating all things and while knowing in advance that sin would corrupt his creation.

That is sheer anthropomorphism. Who are you to talk about the "mind of God" when you can't even conceive of God? Who are you to rule on what God was "thinking about"? Isaiah 55:8-9

8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.

9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

It is preposterous to define the Logos in such a way as you have defined it. What we know is that Logos existed alongside the Father and facing the Father: i.e. as one with the Father.

I am not at all interested in what people think about my grasp of things but only about what God thinks and what he reveals to me from the scriptures by the Holy Spirit and what people think about it, I leave up to God and them to deal with, for I am not saved to please men but only God alone.

You need to realize your personal blend of extreme unitarianism (Christ had no essential existence prior to his birth except as a concept) is as much dependent on Greek pagan philosophy and a rejection of scripture, as the extreme form of Trinitarianism which you purport to object to.

 

[johnny guitar]

The term "fully" God is bad English, as God is a noun. It could only have meaning if "God" was qualitative. "Fully God" presents another form of gnosticism, unknown to the bible.

He is God.
Does that satisfy you????????

 

[cjab]

He is God.
Does that satisfy you????????

The Word is God I'll concede.

 

[johnny guitar]

The Word is God I'll concede.

Yes, The Word, identified as The Son, IS God.

 

[cjab]

Yes, The Word, identified as The Son, IS God.

No, that's not the way it works.

Rather the son of God is identified as pre-existing as the Word, that is God by virtue of being one with God the Father in heaven.

There is no such conception of God the Son. It doesn't exist in scripture because infers parity in all things with the Father, that is not taught.

 

[Caroljeen]

Yes

Civic, Here is the first scripture--
How do you explain John 8:28 ...that I do nothing of myself but as my father hath taught me, I speak these things.

Why does Jesus have to be taught anything if he has access to his omniscience while incarnate?

And the second--
Luke 2:52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

Why did Jesus grow in wisdom? Isn't he the giver of wisdom?

 

[TheLayman]

ONLY God is in the FORM of God.

And not only "in" the form of God, but "existing" in the form of God...it is not possible for anything to exist in the form of God other than God...it just isn't possible.

TheLayman

 

[Caroljeen]

And not only "in" the form of God, but "existing" in the form of God...it is not possible for anything to exist in the form of God other than God...it just isn't possible.

TheLayman

What is the "form of God"?

 

[Caroljeen]

Now I know what I said that confused you, so forget about my other replies and focus on this one and I will clear up for you what I was wanting you to see and I will start by asking these questions and after you answer it, I will try and help you see what my point was..

First what was Jesus before he was a human being?

Secondly, when Paul said these words in Philippians 2:6, "who being in the form of God", was he speaking of Jesus before or after he was born a human being?

1. God, YHWH, the divine Spirit- these are all discriptors of the same person
2. after, morphe means striking the eye or being able to see the form
"being in the form" is the same thing as "existing in the form"

 

[Caroljeen]

You see, if you believe that Paul was speaking of Jesus as God and not yet having become human when he said these words in Philippians 2:6 "who being in the form of God" what you are therefore believing that Paul was saying, is that Jesus as God was in the form of God and which is totally ridiculous.

For if Paul was speaking of Jesus as God, why would he ever say of him as God, 'who being in the form of God"?

For it would be totally redundant, for of course God is in his own form as God.

Don't you see the stupidity in that interpretation of what Paul was saying Caroljeen?

I equate the form of God with the express image of God in Hebrews 1. God, as pure, invisible spirit, doesn't have a form.
Still existing/being in the form of God means that Christ Jesus is God existing as a man. Christ specifically is identified as Messiah, the anointed one, who is a man sent to the nation of Israel from God. This passage lets us know once again that Christ Jesus is ontologically God.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

1. God, YHWH, the divine Spirit- these are all discriptors of the same person
2. after, morphe means striking the eye or being able to see the form
"being in the form" is the same thing as "existing in the form"

However the word form = Greek "morphe" doesn't mean the substance or the ontology and that can be proven through how the word and it's related words are used all through the NT also.

For "existing in the form" only means bearing the characteristics of God and Jesus himself gave us the answer as to why he bore those characteristics also and in John 14:10 when he said, "the words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself, is is the Father who dwells within me, he is doing the works".

So we see then that the reason why Jesus bore the form "morphe" of God was because God was dwelling within him and doing the works within Jesus and that were also manifested outwardly through the way Jesus behaved and in the miracles and words that he spoke and Peter also testified to this below also in Acts 2:22.

22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

For instance in 2 Timothy 5:3 Paul says this "having a form "morphosin" of godliness but denying the power thereof".

Notice, the power refers to the actual substance of godliness and the form= "morphosin" only refers to the outward appearance and quite like the sheep's clothing that Jesus warned of that the false prophet's wear.

Then you have Mark 16:12, where Jesus appeared to two of his disciples and they saw him in another form ="morphe", this doesn't refer to his ontology or substance because it was the same Jesus that they knew and loved before the resurrection, but this only refers to his outward appearance, for another gospel says that their eyes were withheld from recognizing him.

Just think of some other words that we use like "metamorphosis" for it means a change in form as characteristics or outward appearance and not the substance itself for the same substance that began as a caterpillar becomes the butterfly and likewise the tadpole to a frog, for the substance is the same but only the characteristics or outward appearance "morphe" is what changes alone.


But you haven't even begun to address my point however, for if Paul was speaking of Jesus as being God before he became a man when he said this in Philippians 2:6, "who existing in the form of God", then Paul would have been saying that God existed in the form of God.


This is exactly what he would have been saying, and you don't see that as a ridiculous statement to make if Paul really believed and was teaching that Jesus is God before becoming a man here in Philippians 2:5-6?

 

[Yahweh will increase]

I equate the form of God with the express image of God in Hebrews 1. God, as pure, invisible spirit, doesn't have a form.
Still existing/being in the form of God means that Christ Jesus is God existing as a man. Christ specifically is identified as Messiah, the anointed one, who is a man sent to the nation of Israel from God. This passage lets us know once again that Christ Jesus is ontologically God.

So then are you saying that the words "who being in the form of God" as per Paul in Philippians 2:6 are referring to Jesus as having already become a human being then, is that what you are saying?

If that is what you are saying, then you have taken away the idea that Paul was ever saying that Jesus pre existed as God before becoming a man and you would be right in that, for Paul was never speaking of Jesus as anything other than a real human being as per his actual ontology but as per his position with God and his authority "mophe" from God totally unlike any other man.

That is how Jesus began "huparchon" from his birth but then when he later took the form of a servant by choice, he made himself like all other men even though he still had the position and authority that he was born to have and what the "form of God" refers to in Philippians 2:6



For this is not what trins believe about it, for they use this passage to mean that Paul in these words is referring to Jesus as the eternal existing God only and who then took upon him the form of a servant when he was born as a human being.

Civic even replied to one of my posts just recently and said that the word "morphe" or "form" as per Philippians 2:6 does not apply to man but rather to Jesus as God and this is what all of the trins believe that I have spoken to on this forum also.

Trins like this interpretation because they believe it proves Jesus pre existed as God before becoming a man but it cannot mean this, for that Greek word "huparchon" translated as "being or existing" never refers to anything eternal but only of things that have a beginning of existence or a beginning in a position or of things that people began to possess.

 

[Caroljeen]

However the word form = Greek "morphe" doesn't mean the substance or the ontology and that can be proven through how the word and it's related words are used all through the NT also.

I never said it did. Read my earlier post to you. I said "existed" in the form of "God" indicated that Christ Jesus is God in the flesh. I never said that morphe means substance.

For "existing in the form" only means bearing the characteristics of God and Jesus himself gave us the answer as to why he bore those characteristics also and in John 14:10 when he said, "the words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself, is is the Father who dwells within me, he is doing the works".

So we see then that the reason why Jesus bore the form "morphe" of God was because God was dwelling within him and doing the works within Jesus and that were also manifested outwardly through the way Jesus behaved and in the miracles and words that he spoke and Peter also testified to this below also in Acts 2:22.

"existing in the form" means existing in a form you can visibly see and that form is Christ Jesus who is God existing as a man. Although I agree, Jesus was also anointed by God. He lived an exemplar life for us relying on the anointing of his God. If he lived a sinless life through his own divine attributes how could he be our example? He is showing us that a human can life a triumphant life through God even a life that is filled with hardships. This is why the doctrine of kenosis is important to me for Christology.

But you haven't even begun to address my point however, for if Paul was speaking of Jesus as being God before he became a man when he said this in Philippians 2:6, "who existing in the form of God", then Paul would have been saying that God existed in the form of God.
This is exactly what he would have been saying, and you don't see that as a ridiculous statement to make if Paul really believed and was teaching that Jesus is God before becoming a man here in Philippians 2:5-6?

Did you not understand what I wrote in my post that you are responding to?
You asked : Secondly, when Paul said these words in Philippians 2:6, "who being in the form of God", was he speaking of Jesus before or after he was born a human being?
I responded: After.
I'm not a trinitarian. I'm not defending that doctrine. Therefore I wouldn't say that "God existed in the form of God" at least not in the way they use form of God to mean before the incarnation. It would not apply to what I believe. Debate it with them. It might not be what they would likely say either, at least some of them who equate God with nature and not person. They would probably explain that in further depth which is something I don't care to do.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

That's hardly a scriptural position, which says that "all things were created through him," not "some things."

John 1:3 "Through him all things were made, and apart from him nothing was made that has been made."

Who said anything about some things only, I meant all things because it was only because God saw Christ as if he had already come and was hanging on that cross having died for sin, that God created anything at all that he created and that is what John means in John 1:3.

What you fail to understand like most on this forum, is that God's foreknowledge is as real to him as if it already happened in created time and the reason why, is because whatever he foreknows, is going to happen in created time and nothing will hinder it either.

Therefore God saw Jesus having already comer and having died on the cross for sin in his foreknowledge and that is the only basis for his creating anything at all that he created.

For in God's righteousness, he had to prepare the remedy for sin before he created the world that also in his foreknowledge he knew would be corrupted by sin and that is why John says "and without him (Jesus having died in Gods' foreknowledge of it) nothing was created that was created.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

I never said it did. Read my earlier post to you. I said "existed" in the form of "God" indicated that Christ Jesus is God in the flesh.

"existing in the form" means existing in a form you can visibly see and that form is Christ Jesus who is God existing as a man. Although I agree, Jesus was also anointed by God. He lived an exemplar life for us relying on the anointing of his God. If he lived a sinless life through his own divine attributes how could he be our example? He is showing us that a human can life a triumphant life through God even a life that is filled with hardships. This is why the doctrine of kenosis is important to me for Christology.

No, that isn't at all what it means and how is it that you continue to deny what Jesus himself said in answer to why when the disciples saw him "in the morphe of God" they saw the Father God also?

Let's look at it again, and see if you will still want to deny what he said after we do.

John 14: 6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.



In fact, when he said in verse 9, "Don't you know me Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?", He explained in verse 10 that those words were not even his words but rather the words of the Father who was dwelling within him instead.


So then, where in Jesus' answer to Philipp did he ever say that the reason why when they saw him, they saw Father also, it was because he was also God and coequal as God with the Father, where did he ever say this C?

He never did at all but instead if you read verse 10, he explained the reason why and it was because God who is the Father was dwelling within him and therefore manifesting himself through Jesus and by the way, that was the purpose for why Jesus emptied "kenosis" himself in the first place.

It was so that instead of himself being manifested, God would be manifested through him and which is what he is speaking of in verse 10 above also.


Now then, can we see other places in the scripture where it says basically the same thing?


Indeed we can and from Paul in the this passage below and you will notice that Paul doesn't say that "God was Christ or that Christ was God" but rather instead that "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself"

2 Corinthians 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.​

So that is your answer to what is meant by Jesus being in the form "morphe" of God

Did you not understand what I wrote in my post that you are responding to?
You asked : Secondly, when Paul said these words in Philippians 2:6, "who being in the form of God", was he speaking of Jesus before or after he was born a human being?
I responded: After.
I'm not a trinitarian. I'm not defending that doctrine. Therefore I wouldn't say that "God existed in the form of God" at least not in the way they use form of God to mean before the incarnation. It would not apply to what I believe. Debate it with them. It might not be what they would likely say either, at least some of them who equate God with nature and not person.

Well, I do now but you are still wrong nonetheless, because Jesus in John 14:10 clearly reveals what it meant for him to be in the form of God and to manifest God through himself and he never said any such thing that it was because he also is God but rather because God is dwelling within him and manifesting himself through Jesus instead.

So you are oneness and which is just another form of the same basic cult however, for you have this wacky belief that God is only one person but he manifests himself as two persons, one as God and the other as the man Jesus Christ or at least something like that right?