Kenosis Heresy

Tanachreader

Well-known member
Sorry but the context of Psalm 49 is that money or riches cannot ransom ones soul from death, for it would cost more than money to provide a ransom for ones life from death and just like Peter says below also and no doubt he knew this Psalm 49 very well and said what he did accordingly.

1 Peter 1:18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.

It is that no man by his money or riches can redeem another from death and not that no man can at all or that God couldn't provide a man who could, for he did and in fact Jesus in John 6 very clearly reveals that it was his flesh that was sent from heaven to redeem men and not his being God and Paul in Romans 5:12-22 says the same thing.


For it was men who sinned and therefore it would take a perfect man without sin sent by God to be the sacrifice for all men who sinned and not God himself or a God man and it is just that simple also.
Wealthy men thought they could save a nation by paying Judas 30 pieces of silver to bring Jesus to them..

50Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation.

Zechariah 11
Purchased the potters field 30 pieces of silver

Now going back to Psalm 49, a mere man can not redeem his brother.

6They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches;
7None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
....
15But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah.

So who redeemed us! Psalm 49 says God and Titus says Jesus this proves who Jesus is. He is God.

Titus 2:14 KJV — Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Again Psalm 49

15But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah.

John 10:18 KJV — No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
Wealthy men thought they could save a nation by paying Judas 30 pieces of silver to bring Jesus to them..

50Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation.

Zechariah 11
Purchased the potters field 30 pieces of silver

Now going back to Psalm 49, a mere man can not redeem his brother.

6They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches;
7None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
....
15But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah.

So who redeemed us! Psalm 49 says God and Titus says Jesus this proves who Jesus is. He is God.

Titus 2:14 KJV — Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Again Psalm 49

15But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah.

John 10:18 KJV — No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
Boy are you ever mesmerized by your false doctrines, the point of the Psalm is that rich or poor, wise or simple, all men die and therefore although the rich think that their money can buy them anything they want, it cannot buy their soul or the soul of a brother from death, for they are going to die just like the poor man does and there is no way out of it.

That is what the Psalm is all about and by the way, where do you even see the words "mere man" at all used in this Psalm?

So then, in your logic on this, if no man can pay the price necessary for another man to be redeemed, that would include Jesus also, because the Psalmist doesn't say he is speaking of a mere man but rather that no man can redeem another from death.

However, like I said and will again, the point of the Psalm is that all men die no matter how much money they have, for money cannot buy them freedom from death but only the precious blood of Jesus as a lamb (physical being and man with blood) and without blemish and meaning no sin.

Sorry but your Bible very clearly says "for as it was by one man that sin entered into the world, so it is by the righteousness of the one man Jesus Christ that men are redeemed and made righteous before God" and these are actually my wording of what Paul says in Romans 5:12-22 but it is what he is saying in that passage nonetheless.

Jesus also in John 6, very clearly revealed that it was himself as a man with flesh and blood that all men would be redeemed who will believe and he makes no mention any more than Paul did of it requiring God or a God man to do it.


Of course God prepared Jesus for it and without God, Jesus would have never been able to do it and therefore it reveals the love of God that was working within the Son and just as Paul also said, "For God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself" and not that God was Christ or that Christ was God either.

Therefore God does indeed redeem our soul from the grace and just like the Psalmist said but he does it through a new human being that he created the seed of from heaven and sent into the womb of Mary and without which there would be no redemption at all period.


God always created and raised up men to work through in order to redeem men from adversity in the physical sense and therefore your idea that one has to be God in order to redeem men spiritually is manufactured by the carnal human reasoning and cannot be proven by the scriptures period.
 
Last edited:

Anthony

Active member
However God intended it to be understood, it is sure that it wasn't the way that you are pushing it to be understood, so take it somewhere else, for I am not interested.
No, if all had understanding all would be saved. You don't and misapply scriptures in your private interpretation. Gal 3:1-2; read also epistles of John - Spirit from God vs spirit of anti-Christ (those Jews denying Messiah has come in flesh). Gal 3:1-2 shows how one can fall away.
 

Anthony

Active member
So you contradict his own words. "Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone." Mark 10:18.
We cannot make few verses war with rest of scriptures but must reconcile them all. The one who addresses Him didn't perceive Him beyond being 'a good Teacher'.
 

cjab

Well-known member
We cannot make few verses war with rest of scriptures but must reconcile them all. The one who addresses Him didn't perceive Him beyond being 'a good Teacher'.
You're not understanding the issue. "All things are 'of God.'" Calling Jesus good denied his reliance on the deity.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Incomprehensible. You did NOT answer my question.
Your question wasn't a genuine question designed to elicit a genuine answer. It asked "Are you asserting that Jesus Christ is denying He is good?" It was a question designed to entrap me into saying that "Jesus is denying he is good" so that you with your persecuting Trinitarian hat on could then say to me "You're denying that God is good."

Yet Christ the man was indeed denying that he was good, "relative to God the Father in heaven (the soure of all goodness)." However he wasn't denying that he was in the business of appropriating and manifesting that goodness of God. This inference is obvious to anyone excepting a Trinitarian, who has no means by which to understand it. So they must go consult their Trinitarian "scholar" to understand what it was that Jesus was saying.

So let's hear what the "Trinitarian Scholar" has to say:

_____________________________________________________________________________________

"Is Jesus here rebuking the man for calling Him good and thereby denying His deity? No. Rather, He is using a penetrating question to push the man to think through the implications of his own words, to understand the concept of Jesus’ goodness and, most especially, the man’s lack of goodness. The young ruler "went away sad" (Mark 10:22) because he realized that although he had devoted himself to keeping the commandments, he had failed to keep the first and greatest of the commandments—love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength (Matthew 22:37-38). The man’s riches were of more worth to him than God, and thus he was not "good" in the eyes of God.

"Jesus’ fundamental lesson here is that goodness flows not from a man’s deeds, but rather from God Himself. Jesus invites the man to follow Him, the only means of doing good by God’s ultimate standard. Jesus describes to the young ruler what it means to follow Him—to be willing to give up everything, thus putting God first. When one considers that Jesus is drawing a distinction between man’s standard of goodness and God’s standard, it becomes clear that following Jesus is good. The command to follow Christ is the definitive proclamation of Christ’s goodness. Thus, by the very standard Jesus is exhorting the young ruler to adopt, Jesus is good. And it necessarily follows that if Jesus is indeed good by this standard, Jesus is implicitly declaring His deity.

"Thus, Jesus’ question to the man is designed not to deny His deity, but rather to draw the man to recognize Christ’s divine identity. Such an interpretation is substantiated by passages such as John 10:11 wherein Jesus declares Himself to be “the good shepherd.” Similarly in John 8:46, Jesus asks, “Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?” Of course the answer is "no." Jesus was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15), holy and undefiled (Hebrews 7:26), the only One who “knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

"The logic can thus be summarized as follows:
"1: Jesus claims only God is good.
"2: Jesus claims to be good.
"3: Therefore, Jesus claims to be God.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Funny how every exchange in the bible is always made by Trinitarians to be about whether "Jesus is God." If an explanation doesn't arrive at this conclusion, it is pre-programmed into Trinitarians that it must be a wrong explanation. This suggests that Trinitarians are incredibly naive people. They are wired to accept any old rubbish, just as long as it concludes with "Therefore Jesus is God."

What Jesus was doing at verse 19 was to address himself directly to the rich ruler's original question, whilst at verse 18, he is taken aback by the attempted flattery of the rich ruler, and seeks to expose what is clearly an inappropriate mode of address that fails to give glory to God, which Jesus corrects by giving God the glory for all goodness on earth. He then continues on with exploring the issue in verses 18 & 19 in examining how, and the extent to which, the rich ruler is himself appropriating God's goodness.

Christ makes no statement about his own goodness other than to defer the source of all goodness as God his Father, with himself inferred as the one able to appropriate that goodness. What is written above by way of explanation: "The command to follow Christ is the definitive proclamation of Christ’s goodness" is not correct, even if Christ acknowledged implicitly that he manifested God the Father's goodness. Christ wasn't ever talking about himself but his Father.

The final command given to the rich ruler is to follow Christ. By it Christ indicates the method by which the man is able to appropriate and manifest the goodness of God his Father, as he himself is doing.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
No, if all had understanding all would be saved. You don't and misapply scriptures in your private interpretation. Gal 3:1-2; read also epistles of John - Spirit from God vs spirit of anti-Christ (those Jews denying Messiah has come in flesh). Gal 3:1-2 shows how one can fall away.
And if you are an example of someone who is saved, God help all of us!
 

civic

Well-known member
I don't have time right now to address your whole post. May be later. However I'll add some more points.

(1) Applying to both 2 Pet 1:1 & Titus 2:13, the first noun is part of a noun clause, "righteousness of God," "glory of God." Because of this, it is reasonable to conclude that καὶ is really being used as an adverb, i.e. "even," and not a conjunction. That is, "our savior Jesus Christ" stands in apposition to the first clause. Sharp's rule doesn't appear to take account of καὶ's use as an adverb.

(2) "our savior Jesus Christ" is a reference to a person, Jesus Christ. Sharp agreed that his rule could never be pressed in the case of proper names. But surely "our Savior Jesus Christ" is a quasi-proper name.

(3) The Trinitarian Wallace discounts "the glory of God as a christological title" to apply Sharp's rule. He says: "Third, the evidence for δόξα θεοῦ as a primitive christological title is, at best, inconclusive."

But this isn't the real semantic issue. The "title" is only being used contextual to his appearance. What is being equated is the appearing of Christ with the appearing of the glory of God. It can't honestly by disputed that, as far as appearances are concerned, the second appearance of Jesus Christ is synonymous with the appearance of the glory of God.

Yet even as a christological title or rather attribute of Christ, the glory of God is attested as associated with Christ.
Heb 1:3 "The Son is the radiance of God's glory." James 2:1 "Jesus Christ, 'the Lord of glory.'" The angels sang “Glory to God” at Christ’s birth. The heavenly elders give glory to God around His throne. Eph 1:17 "The God of the Lord of us, Jesus Christ, the Father of glory."

Also by analogy in 1 Cor 11, woman is the glory of man, whilst man is her head. Thus if God is the head of Christ, Christ is the glory of God by analogy.
Face it you have a false christ and gospel since you deny Jesus is a man and lost His human body before His ascension . You have been exposed with a false christ and gospel since you also deny the bodily Resurrection/ Ascension of Jesus.

You are quite the imposter.


hope this helps !!!
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I don't have time right now to address your whole post. May be later. However I'll add some more points.

(1) Applying to both 2 Pet 1:1 & Titus 2:13, the first noun is part of a noun clause, "righteousness of God," "glory of God." Because of this, it is reasonable to conclude that καὶ is really being used as an adverb, i.e. "even," and not a conjunction. That is, "our savior Jesus Christ" stands in apposition to the first clause. Sharp's rule doesn't appear to take account of καὶ's use as an adverb.

Sharp's rule has been studied thoroughly, and as defined by Sharp and Wallace (Wallace DIDN'T "redefine" it, you should read the article on Bible dot org that you guys keep citing, but obviously have never read), Wallace takes into account Sharp's description in his monograph of the restrictions in how it is to be used).

The Rule is foolproof, and has ZERO exceptions.

If you want to make a claim that having a preceding noun clause (eg. "the glory of") changes the meaning, you are free to:

1) Do your own research;
2) collate ALL the instances in the Bible which have that particular construction you want to insist on;
3) determine how the structure affects the interpretation;
4) publish your results.

You haven't done that.
You have simply CLAIMED that the extra noun clause "nullifies" the rule. And that's nothing more than "wishful thinking".

(1) Applying to both 2 Pet 1:1 & Titus 2:13, the first noun is part of a noun clause, "righteousness of God," "glory of God." Because of this, it is reasonable to conclude that καὶ is really being used as an adverb, i.e. "even," and not a conjunction.

That doesn't help you:

13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God, [even our] Savior Jesus Christ,

Changing "and" to "even" doesn't change the interpretation, but simply emphasizes that "Jesus Christ" is "even" "our great God".

That is, "our savior Jesus Christ" stands in apposition to the first clause. Sharp's rule doesn't appear to take account of καὶ's use as an adverb.

There's no reason to ASSUME it is an "adverb" here.
The only reason you suggest it is because you don't like (what was that phrase you used? Oh yeah) the "plain meaning" of the text.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Sharp's rule has been studied thoroughly, and as defined by Sharp and Wallace (Wallace DIDN'T "redefine" it, you should read the article on Bible dot org that you guys keep citing, but obviously have never read), Wallace takes into account Sharp's description in his monograph of the restrictions in how it is to be used).
I have read his article in its entirely.

The Rule is foolproof, and has ZERO exceptions.
Even Wallace allowed exceptions. Are you greater than he?

In any case he didn't say it was a grammar rule but reflecting an idomatic usage.

If you want to make a claim that having a preceding noun clause (eg. "the glory of") changes the meaning, you are free to:

1) Do your own research;
2) collate ALL the instances in the Bible which have that particular construction you want to insist on;
3) determine how the structure affects the interpretation;
4) publish your results.

You haven't done that.
You have simply CLAIMED that the extra noun clause "nullifies" the rule. And that's nothing more than "wishful thinking".
Not so, because Wallace himself clearly inferred that if the "glory of God" was a "title of Christ," then it would contextually disapply the rule.

That doesn't help you:

13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God, [even our] Savior Jesus Christ,

Changing "and" to "even" doesn't change the interpretation, but simply emphasizes that "Jesus Christ" is "even" "our great God".
It infers the appearing of Christ is the appearance of the glory of God.

There's no reason to ASSUME it is an "adverb" here.
The only reason you suggest it is because you don't like (what was that phrase you used? Oh yeah) the "plain meaning" of the text.
I like the adverb sense due to the complexity of the sentence. The greater the complexity, the more the adverb usage makes sense.

And I would in the last resort group "savior" with "Jesus Christ" as a quasi-proper name to rule out the rule on its own terms of reference.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
Sharp's rule has been studied thoroughly, and as defined by Sharp and Wallace (Wallace DIDN'T "redefine" it, you should read the article on Bible dot org that you guys keep citing, but obviously have never read), Wallace takes into account Sharp's description in his monograph of the restrictions in how it is to be used).

The Rule is foolproof, and has ZERO exceptions.

If you want to make a claim that having a preceding noun clause (eg. "the glory of") changes the meaning, you are free to:

1) Do your own research;
2) collate ALL the instances in the Bible which have that particular construction you want to insist on;
3) determine how the structure affects the interpretation;
4) publish your results.

You haven't done that.
You have simply CLAIMED that the extra noun clause "nullifies" the rule. And that's nothing more than "wishful thinking".



That doesn't help you:

13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God, [even our] Savior Jesus Christ,

Changing "and" to "even" doesn't change the interpretation, but simply emphasizes that "Jesus Christ" is "even" "our great God".



There's no reason to ASSUME it is an "adverb" here.
The only reason you suggest it is because you don't like (what was that phrase you used? Oh yeah) the "plain meaning" of the text.
Concerning your avatar, it is ironic that Charles Spurgeon would say the following, "time will come when instead of shepherds feeding the sheep the church will have clowns entertaining the goats" when he as a trin and along with all trin pastors, teachers, professors and church leader, is one of those clowns who is feeding those goats.

I also see, that you are avoiding my two replies that I recently posted to you, and no wonder either, for it proves that your idea that just because a predicate nominative is not used when Jesus said "I am" in a given sentence, it doesn't mean that he was claiming to be God like you said it does.

So then, if someone asked me, "are you Joseph" and I answered "I am" would that also mean that I am claiming to be God?
 
Last edited:

Tanachreader

Well-known member
Concerning your avatar, it is ironic that Charles Spurgeon would say the following, "time will come when instead of shepherds feeding the sheep the church will have clowns entertaining the goats" when he as a trin and along with all trin pastors, teachers, professors and church leader, is one of those clowns who is feeding those goats.

I also see, that you are avoiding my two replies that I recently posted to you, and no wonder either, for it proves that your idea that just because a predicate nominative is not used when Jesus said "I am" in a given sentence, it doesn't mean that he was claiming to be God like you said it does.

So then, if someone asked me, "are you Joseph" and I answered "I am" would that also mean that I am claiming to be God?
You claim to be God in alot of your posts!
 

Anthony

Active member
You're not understanding the issue. "All things are 'of God.'" Calling Jesus good denied his reliance on the deity.
Not as you think it to be. He is God veiled in flesh but didn't use this equally to His advantage as He came with a mission to save His people from sin.

Heb 10:19-20

His flesh is the veil to the Most Holy. He Himself is the Most Holy which Thomas recognised.

There are two sides of the same coin - He entering as the Forerunner on our behalf into the Most Holy as well as being The Most Holy. Two distinct powers but the same God.
 
Top