Kenosis Heresy

cjab

Well-known member
All judgement is committed to The Son when God will judge the world.
ONE Lord who is God BY whom are ALL things and we BY Him.
You need to get used to the FACT that Paul distinguishes God, who is the Father, from Christ who is the "Lord."
 

civic

Well-known member
That is right that the truth in John 17:3 doesn't change what Jesus said in John 17:5 and neither does Jesus say that the glory he is speaking that he had with the Father is glory as being God himself either and in fact the context starting in verse 1 reveals what glory Jesus is still speaking of in verse 5.

That glory was his hour of suffering and through which he would both he and the Father would be glorified by but for different parts in it, for God it would be because he sent the Son to die for our sins and for the Jesus the Christ it would be because he obeyed God in this and died for our sins, but in John 17:5 Jesus is speaking of God's foreknowledge of Jesus and his glory in suffering unto death for our sins.

You will notice that Jesus spoke of this glory in other places of the NT also like in John 12 below.


John 12:23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. 25 Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.

27 “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!”



Furthermore, this is the glory that Isaiah saw and wrote about in the whole chapter of Isaiah 53 and which John mentions in the same context of John 12 below.

John 12:41 "Isaiah said this (Isaiah 53 the whole chapter and chapter 6:9-10) because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him".

This is yet another passage of scripture that you totally butcher in favor of your addiction to your human fabricated tradition and false doctrine that Isaiah was speaking of chapter 6:1-5 and which John never makes mention of as what he is referring to but rather Isaiah 53 the whole chapter and the reason why Israel couldn't see the truth about this in Isaiah 6:9-10.
Typical you ran away from John 17:5 where the Son says He was with the Father before creation as John 1:1-3 declares He is Co-Creator witty the Father( 1 Cor 8:6) and eternal life / life can only be found in God, never man proving His equality with the Father in John 17:3.

So put a fork in it you are well done , roasted , BBQ’ed. etc…….

hope this helps !!!
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
Typical you ran away from John 17:5 where the Son says He was with the Father before creation as John 1:1-3 declares He is Co-Creator witty the Father( 1 Cor 8:6) and eternal life / life can only be found in God, never man proving His equality with the Father in John 17:3.

So put a fork in it you are well done , roasted , BBQ’ed. etc…….

hope this helps !!!
Typically you keep misquoting what Jesus said by saying he said he instead of his glory was with the Father before the world was, for he was speaking of the same glory in verse 1 that both he and the Father would be glorified with because of what Jesus would do in his hour of suffering and death and which glory God in his foreknowledge held for Jesus at his right hand before the world was.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
Typically you keep misquoting what Jesus said by saying he said he instead of his glory was with the Father before the world was, for he was speaking of the same glory in verse 1 that both he and the Father would be glorified with because of what Jesus would do in his hour of suffering and death and which glory God in his foreknowledge held for Jesus at his right hand before the world was.
He said He had glory WITH The Father before the world existed.
Clear as crystal.
 

aeg4971

Active member
By the way, all of creation was conceived first in God's mind and therefore your idea that "God doesn't birth creatures out of himself" is also totally false.

For where else do you think that they came from dude?

For before he spoke them into existence, they didn't exist at all and he spoke them into existence out from his mind where they were first conceived as his thought and plan.
On the contrary creature proceeds from God as the universal and the particular ,hence related to God by Participation. not as something from His very nature of being very God, whereas the Word of God with God and was God, the same in the beginning, is thus likewise substantial ,and has its own hypostatic being, subsisting numerically in the same nature as has God the Father. We call that eternal generation of the Word, which is properly called begotten and rightly called Son.

No man has seen God at anytime, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him
.

Face it my theological suppositions reconcile the whole of scriptures in numerical monotheism, whereas your entire post above effectively supposes ,God and a son god jr.

Re You remain refuted and full of polytheistic straw.


......ALan
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
On the contrary creature proceeds from God as the universal and the particular ,hence related to God by Participation. not as something from His very nature of being very God, whereas the Word of God with God and was God, the same in the beginning, is thus likewise substantial ,and has its own hypostatic being, subsisting numerically in the same nature as has God the Father. We call that eternal generation of the Word, which is properly called begotten and rightly called Son.

No man has seen God at anytime, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him
.

Face it my theological suppositions reconcile the whole of scriptures in numerical monotheism, whereas your entire post above effectively supposes ,God and a son god jr.

Re You remain refuted and full of polytheistic straw.


......ALan
ROFLOL, I never said that the creation was part of his being but only that it came out from his own mind and thoughts and which plain human common sense should be able to reveal that much unto you,, for it didn't just happen without him planning it in his mind first.
 

aeg4971

Active member
GINOLJC, to all,

there is no distinction in PERSON, there is only ONE PERSON, and that ONE PERSON is JESUS. no I will not change...... as I have said, and will always sy, know the difference in "SHARED" vs "Seperate"... (smile)....... and the term G243 allos clearly defines this concept which is TRUTH, and stated clearly in the bible.

it's not my problem that YOU cannot see or understand this TRUTH. I can only WITNESS to the TRUTH, but a LIE, or LIES I will reject.

PICJAG, 101G.
On the contrary Jesus the only begotten Son and Word of God was a man of this flesh these bones and this blood personally distinct from God the Father. What point is it to say that God is one person as if Divinity is contained in a composite subject, when the Holy Scriptures of themselves and by themselves uses terms to denote that God own Logos/ Word and the Spirit each from eternity received DIVINE LIFE IN ITSELF BY ITSELF which is scripturally expressed by way of hypostasis one from another ,but not however as if other from the Divine nature. Hence the Greek-Perichoresis,( is derived from the Greek peri, "around" and chōreō, "to go, or As a compound word, it refers primarily to "going around" or "encompassing"". ")and the Latin equivalent - Circumincession. This is signified today by Generation and Procession interior to God (Orthodoxy), and not exterior to God ( Arianism and Sabellianism).

Yes the truth is clear that Oneness and Unitarians speak of God nature as divers things exist outside of Himself/Supremely Being , whereas Orthodoxy speak of God nature as divers things represent Him subsisting numerically One with His nature.

14. And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

Hence as the Latin doctor communis says," The Divine essence exist singly by itself and is individualized within itself.". It is in this sense of a shared equality of nature ,otherwise as Aquinas eludes" The lot of you are repugnant to the SHEMA giving occasion to the error of polytheism. Effectively monotheistic by lip service only.

Clearly your use of this word person is not given in any Biblical or theological sense, thereby leaving you to refute yourself.


...... Alan
 

aeg4971

Active member
ROFLOL, I never said that the creation was part of his being but only that it came out from his own mind and thoughts and which plain human common sense should be able to reveal that much unto you,, for it didn't just happen without him planning it in his mind first.
Plain human common sense tells us that coming out of God mind is and abstract concept scripturally determined in the concrete of accidental existence,, whereas the Son/Word proceeding existence is substantially God the Word and the person of the Son, in distinction of God the Father.

Not one word of humanism you suppose changes that Biblical fact. Nor does anything you stated suggest actual monotheism. You Unitarians and Oneness alike , along with Kenoisis Trinitarians effectively teach God and god jr.

....... Alan
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
Plain human common sense tells us that coming out of God mind is and abstract concept scripturally determined in the concrete of accidental existence,, whereas the Son/Word proceeding existence is substantially God the Word and the person of the Son, in distinction of God the Father.

Not one word of humanism you suppose changes that Biblical fact. Nor does anything you stated suggest actual monotheism. You Unitarians and Oneness alike , along with Kenoisis Trinitarians effectively teach God and god jr.

....... Alan
Good bye dude, for I am not even going to bother with you on this, for I have already explained it and I am not doing it again.
 

aeg4971

Active member
ROFLOL, this is the most ridiculous non Biblical statement that I have heard anyone make and it only proves that you are following flesh and blood in your understanding of the scriptures and not the Holy Spirit.

In other words you savor those things that belong to men and their finite thinking rather than what belongs to God and his infinite mind and the same mind that was in Christ also by God's Holy Spirit that dwelt within him.

1 Corinthians 2:13-16 New International Version

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 by the Spirit) have the mind of Christ.



1 Corinthians 3:1-2 New King James Version

1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able;






Yep and out of your own mouth you again revealed what mind you are getting your doctrine from in your statement above
Actually that is the only logical distinction between the INFINITE UNCREATED and the finite and created. It follows God begetting and man begetting cannot be said univocally , on account of the rational creature begetting, is an accidental faulty whereby non existence/potentiality to actuality/ existence is derived , whereas God begetting can only be the procession of the Word in God ,signified by an divine act of understanding/intellect whereby God knows His own nature, and the Word Himself proceeding, the same in the beginning with God is property called eternally generated and Son.

Anybody with basic Biblical common sense can see that my theological suppositions Explicitly maintains numerical monotheism as ,we acknowledge every person by Himself to be God and Lord, whereas your semi Arian theological suppositions only supposes God and god jr, along with an it/force . How on earth can you refute this name Trinity when you by reason of your own humanism, effectively teach two beings and thus two gods. One Divine and one super human.

Remember God does not need to contemplate or think about a son, on account of simply the consubstantial Word Himself ever proceeds by way of similitude subsisting numerically in the same nature as has God the Father .

18. No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

....... Alan


.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
Actually that is the only logical distinction between the INFINITE UNCREATED and the finite and created. It follows God begetting and man begetting cannot be said univocally , on account of the rational creature begetting, is an accidental faulty whereby non existence/potentiality to actuality/ existence is derived , whereas God begetting can only be the procession of the Word in God ,signified by an divine act of understanding/intellect whereby God knows His own nature, and the Word Himself proceeding, the same in the beginning with God is property called eternally generated and Son.

Anybody with basic Biblical common sense can see that my theological suppositions Explicitly maintains numerical monotheism as ,we acknowledge every person by Himself to be God and Lord, whereas your semi Arian theological suppositions only supposes God and god jr, along with an it/force . How on earth can you refute this name Trinity when you by reason of your own humanism, effectively teach two beings and thus two gods. One Divine and one super human.

Remember God does not need to contemplate or think about a son, on account of simply the consubstantial Word Himself ever proceeds by way of similitude subsisting numerically in the same nature as has God the Father .

18. No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

....... Alan


.
Sorry but I am through with you on this, for apparently it isn't important to me like it is with you, that you don't accept what I said, for the truth remains the truth no matter whether anyone believes it or not and that is the only thing that is important.
 

101G

Well-known member
On the contrary Jesus the only begotten Son and Word of God was a man of this flesh these bones and this blood personally distinct from God the Father.
First thanks for the reply, second, if what you said is true, then why did John say that "The Word of God" is God, John 1:1c? listen, John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." so if the Word was God, how can he, God be begotten?

one only needs to know what was begotten, and what was not. FLESH eas begotten, but God is a "Spirit".......ok.
What point is it to say that God is one person as if Divinity is contained in a composite subject, when the Holy Scriptures of themselves and by themselves uses terms to denote that God own Logos/ Word and the Spirit each from eternity received DIVINE LIFE IN ITSELF BY ITSELF which is scripturally expressed by way of hypostasis one from another ,but not however as if other from the Divine nature. Hence the Greek-Perichoresis,( is derived from the Greek peri, "around" and chōreō, "to go, or As a compound word, it refers primarily to "going around" or "encompassing"". ")and the Latin equivalent - Circumincession. This is signified today by Generation and Procession interior to God (Orthodoxy), and not exterior to God ( Arianism and Sabellianism).
Lets make it clear, Jesus the interior G3444 μορφή morphe, is Spirit, that came from HEAVEN, "THE SON OF MAN", the inner man. the exterior G3444 μορφή morphe, is that which came out of Mary, "THE SON OF GOD", the outward man.

supportive scriptures, 2 Corinthians 4:16 "For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day."

so the outward man, flesh and bone is the temple we dwell in, the inward man, "spirit" is what dwells in this temple, the body. understand now?
Remember God does not need to contemplate or think about a son, on account of simply the consubstantial Word Himself ever proceeds by way of similitude subsisting numerically in the same nature as has God the Father .
Correct, because he is GOD in Flesh, per Isaiah 63:5 and Isaiah chapter 53.

and his, as you put it, "subsisting numerically in the same nature as has God the Father" which is the the ECHAD, asDeuteronomy 6:3 clearly states, or as G243 Allos states, in ... an example, John 14:16 ... the "ANOTHER" Comforte, or as Phil 2:6 clearly stating the EQUAL SHARE as you said, "subsisting numerically in the same nature as has God the Father", that's G243 allos.

PICJAG, 101G.
 

aeg4971

Active member
Good bye dude, for I am not even going to bother with you on this, for I have already explained it and I am not doing it again.
The only thing you explained is humanism . Your entire theological construct imports motion and movement difference and otherness in God, when scriptures only gives us a distinction in the supposita of which it is spoken. You explained in detail that you teach God and god jr, and thus polytheism codified by the lip service of monotheism.

Common sense tells us that the ancient Greeks were not as humanistic as you insist on rendering the Greek concordance. There is no way to maintain monotheism with your two beings spirit flesh Christological science. In fact you would have to affirm my post in order for your alternative theology to adequately e3xpress verities of the divine.

Unitarian theology effectively supposes that God is contained in a composite subject , which would make Him not actually God, but a super creature.

Now explain to us why on earth would God own Word Himself not be substantially God in accordance to what denominates the predicate. According to scriptures that is the person of the Son. That my friend is not an individual being, but rather a logical and relative distinction in being very true God.

.......Alan
 

aeg4971

Active member
Sorry but I am through with you on this, for apparently it isn't important to me like it is with you, that you don't accept what I said, for the truth remains the truth no matter whether anyone believes it or not and that is the only thing that is important.
Thousands of years of Christian theology and now in the 21st century era of humanism, we are suppose to accept that you are right and everybody else is wrong. You mean we must take that your 21st century intellection of the Holy Writ is more Biblically sound than those who precede us? Well sir it is not about believing you insomuch as it is that you are wrong. You completely ignore Christ the Son numerical unity with God the Father, by starting your entire premise from a man born out of God mind, whereas our starting premise is from The Word was not only the idea of God, but the Word was God Himself ,and the Word was made flesh/man., and made His dwelling among us and we beheld His glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth. In all your smugness you really refute yourself. A man cannot save us, only God can save us by the sending of His one and only begotten Son.

I accept the scriptures as they are written and understood by those who precede us, but we have no reason to believe that the Apostle John conveyed God created a son out of His mind. Therefore I believe the Apostle John is right and you are half baked and full of Biblical contradiction. I believe that you do not think God is all that great.

We can go back and forth quoting the very same scriptures to each other, but if our starting premise is not on one accord, then we are merely quoting words on pages to each other. It does not really matter how sola scriptura we our if our starting premise/principle is completely inadequate to express verities of the divine .

You are right that the truth remains the truth no matter whether anyone believes it, however your rendering, not so much.

....... Alan
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
Thousands of years of Christian theology and now in the 21st century era of humanism, we are suppose to accept that you are right and everybody else is wrong. You mean we must take that your 21st century intellection of the Holy Writ is more Biblically sound than those who precede us? Well sir it is not about believing you insomuch as it is that you are wrong. You completely ignore Christ the Son numerical unity with God the Father, by starting your entire premise from a man born out of God mind, whereas our starting premise is from The Word was not only the idea of God, but the Word was God Himself ,and the Word was made flesh/man., and made His dwelling among us and we beheld His glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth. In all your smugness you really refute yourself. A man cannot save us, only God can save us by the sending of His one and only begotten Son.

I accept the scriptures as they are written and understood by those who precede us, but we have no reason to believe that the Apostle John conveyed God created a son out of His mind. Therefore I believe the Apostle John is right and you are half baked and full of Biblical contradiction. I believe that you do not think God is all that great.

We can go back and forth quoting the very same scriptures to each other, but if our starting premise is not on one accord, then we are merely quoting words on pages to each other. It does not really matter how sola scriptura we our if our starting premise/principle is completely inadequate to express verities of the divine .

You are right that the truth remains the truth no matter whether anyone believes it, however your rendering, not so much.

....... Alan
Those who are truly God's election by grace, will eventually come out of the apostasy and accept the truth in the scriptures and everyone else will remain blind to it, and that is just the way it is, for the Bible also reveals this.
 

civic

Well-known member
Those who are truly God's election by grace, will eventually come out of the apostasy and accept the truth in the scriptures and everyone else will remain blind to it, and that is just the way it is, for the Bible also reveals this.
so when will that happen to you when you repent of your false christ and turn to the real Christ who is God in the flesh ?

John 1:1;14, 1 Tim 3:16, Colossians 1:19;2:9.
 

cjab

Well-known member
whereas we understand Unity to be numerical and thus only logically and relatively a distinction in the supposita of which it is spoken.
....... Alan
Is it not the fact the doctrine of enhypostasis effectively leads to two hypostases within Christ, even if one is dependent on the other? Because this doctrine posits that Jesus was a real human person. But if he was a divine person at the same time .... then he was "unavoidably" two persons.
 

civic

Well-known member
Is it not the fact the doctrine of enhypostasis effectively leads to two hypostases within Christ, even if one is dependent on the other? Because this doctrine posits that Jesus was a real human person. But if he was a divine person at the same time .... then he was "unavoidably" two persons.
Docetism, Eutychianism, and Apollinarianism differed on their views of the two natures of Christ, but they agreed upon the unity of His person. To put it another way, regardless of how they viewed the human nature and its relationship to the divine nature, they taught that there was but one subject who acted when Christ acted. Christ is not two subjects or two persons, one human and one divine, who do different things. Rather, He is one subject, one personal agent who speaks and acts no matter what is said or done.

For all of their errors regarding the natures of Christ, these heresies did understand that Christ is but one person. The Nestorian heresy, on the other hand, not only confessed two different natures in Christ but also two different persons. Named after Nestorius, the fifth-century bishop of Constantinople, Nestorianism was the final major heresy that eventually gave rise to the church’s definitive response regarding the person of Christ at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

According to Nestorius, Jesus is the union of two persons—a human person and a divine person. This is not a union of essences but rather a close moral union. In other words, Nestorius believed the union was not such that we could say the humanity of Jesus actually belongs to the Son of God. Instead, it belongs only to the human person. When Christ died, it was not the incarnate Son of God suffering according to His human nature; it was the human person who died. When Christ performed a miracle, it was not the incarnate Son of God acting according to His divine nature to manifest His power; it was the divine Logos acting independently of the human person in Jesus.

The errors of Nestorianism become evident when we reflect on the atonement. If Christ is two persons, who died on the cross? It cannot be the infinite divine person of the Son, for He has not assumed a human nature. He possesses only a divine nature, which cannot experience suffering. So, it must have been the human person who suffered and died because the human person in Christ has a human nature, which can experience suffering. But then we have the death only of a finite person, for human persons are finite. And the merit of a finite human sacrifice could hardly be applied to anyone besides the finite person who offers it. Thus, the Westminster Larger Catechism 38 says that Christ had to be God—He had to be a divine person with a human nature so as to give His human suffering sufficient worth to atone for many (Heb. 5:9). Nestorianism gives us an insufficient atonement.ligonier

Coram Deo

A human person who has a human nature can save no one but himself. A divine person who has a human nature can save all those whom He has chosen to save. Because the divine person is infinite, the merit of His suffering according to His human nature can be applied to many people. The value of His sacrifice can extend to many because His person is not finite. Our salvation requires a divine person who suffered according to His human nature, not His divine nature.

hope this helps !!!
 
Top