Kenosis Heresy

cjab

Well-known member
The Son, Jesus Christ, just as the Bible says.
Interesting. So if the "Lord of glory" is Christ (1Co 2:8), then this infers that the "glory of God" could be a recognized title of Christ, which would coincide with my opinion on the proper rendition of Titus 2:13 and equally call into question Wallace's disputation of the "glory of God" being a title of Christ.
 

cjab

Well-known member
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.
I disagree with you. The "veil of the flesh" is not a scriptural doctrine, and is little other than Docetism (the flesh of Christ wasn't real or genuinely human) and would also repudiate 1 Tim 2:5, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus."

If Christ was God veiled by the flesh, then this would make God his own mediator, i.e. it would nullify the need for any mediator, which cannot be right. It would also cast the aspersion of "a deceiver and an antichrist" (2 John 1:7) on you.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
Interesting. So if the "Lord of glory" is Christ (1Co 2:8), then this infers that the "glory of God" could be a recognized title of Christ, which would coincide with my opinion on the proper rendition of Titus 2:13 and equally call into question Wallace's disputation of the "glory of God" being a title of Christ.
Jesus Christ is The Lord of glory, The God of glory,
 

Anthony

Active member
Jesus' body did NOT come from heaven; it was CONCEIVED in Mary's womb.
NO man, no matter how sinless can redeem ALL men from sin and death, UNLESS He is also Gpd.
I think you are misinformed. His Body has nothing to do with Mary or else He would have been disqualified as nothing good dwells in flesh. His Body was prepared from heaven. He came in likeness of sinful flesh but not Exactness. If Yeshua had any element from Mary, He could save none.
 

Anthony

Active member
I disagree with you. The "veil of the flesh" is not a scriptural doctrine, and is little other than Docetism (the flesh of Christ wasn't real or genuinely human) and would also repudiate 1 Tim 2:5, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus."

If Christ was God veiled by the flesh, then this would make God his own mediator, i.e. it would nullify the need for any mediator, which cannot be right. It would also cast the aspersion of "a deceiver and an antichrist" (2 John 1:7) on you.
What you fail to understand is that God is revealed to us in duality of powers. I will give you just one example as a starter:

“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.”
— Isaiah 6:1 (KJV)

There The Adonai is presented as The High Priest (having robes). A few steps down, He is presented as YHWH:

“And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.”
— Isaiah 6:3 (KJV)

John in his gospel refers this to Mashyach:

John 12 (KJV)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
³⁸ That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
³⁹ Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
⁴⁰ He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
⁴¹ These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

Isaiah 6 (KJV)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
⁹ And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
¹⁰ Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

He is the same YHWH.

There are hundreds of examples I can give you but you are a confused person.

Messiah is the true heavenly visible Tabernacle. The Tabernacle had a veil concealing the Most Holy The veil is His flesh as Hebrews author says.

He as the Ordinal First is YHWH, The Father and as The Ordinal Last is The Son. I'M the First and The Last says the Almighty - Rev 1:8; 11.

You are dead wrong in not recognising your God

YHWH was the Husband to Israel in OT - whom He divorced for whoredoms. Now how can He have her back in New Covenant? Come as The Ordinal Last of course! And in a new way of resurrection from dead . Haven't you read Romans 7?

All prophecies are related to Israel and those who believe in the true Messiah are grafted back to the original olive tree from being wild olive branches.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
I think you are misinformed. His Body has nothing to do with Mary or else He would have been disqualified as nothing good dwells in flesh. His Body was prepared from heaven. He came in likeness of sinful flesh but not Exactness. If Yeshua had any element from Mary, He could save none.
My Bible says the body of Jesus was conceived of The Holy Spirit in Mary, who is His mother.
Ever read Matthew 1:18-21; Luke 1:31?????
 

cjab

Well-known member
He as the Ordinal First is YHWH, The Father and as The Ordinal Last is The Son. I'M the First and The Last says the Almighty - Rev 1:8; 11.

You are dead wrong in not recognising your God
No, you're dead wrong in not recognizing John 1:1. "The Word was with the God; and the Word was God."

This is the exegesis.

"At the beginning, when the Logos was, God was already there. John does not confuse the Two (like you). The Logos was God and yet he was not THE God (which he reserves for the Father). But that does not make him a whit less God than the Father, for later in his Gospel he is going to use the dialectic statements that "I and the Father are One" and '"The Father is greater than I""
 

Tanachreader

Active member
I think you are misinformed. His Body has nothing to do with Mary or else He would have been disqualified as nothing good dwells in flesh. His Body was prepared from heaven. He came in likeness of sinful flesh but not Exactness. If Yeshua had any element from Mary, He could save none.
How do explain this then?
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
 

civic

Well-known member
No, you're dead wrong in not recognizing John 1:1. "The Word was with the God; and the Word was God."

This is the exegesis.

"At the beginning, when the Logos was, God was already there. John does not confuse the Two (like you). The Logos was God and yet he was not THE God (which he reserves for the Father). But that does not make him a whit less God than the Father, for later in his Gospel he is going to use the dialectic statements that "I and the Father are One" and '"The Father is greater than I""
No what you just posted was eisegesis reading your own ideas and adding words into the text. Then you jumped chapters to make Jesus words try and contradict John 1:1. One is Pre- Incarnation and the other Post. One has nothing to do with the other. You are conflating.

next...............................................
 

cjab

Well-known member
No what you just posted was eisegesis reading your own ideas and adding words into the text. Then you jumped chapters to make Jesus words try and contradict John 1:1. One is Pre- Incarnation and the other Post. One has nothing to do with the other. You are conflating.

next...............................................
My eisegesis? I was quoting an internationally renowed theologian whose work (i.e. these very words) were published in a University of Córdoba publication. Shows you're not up to date on modern scholarship, and you don't understand that Christ spoke of eternal truths always.
 

civic

Well-known member
My eisegesis? I was quoting an internationally renowed theologian whose work (i.e. these very words) were published in a University of Córdoba publication. Shows you're not up to date on modern scholarship, and you don't understand that Christ spoke of eternal truths always.
Like I said it was eisegesis regardless of its source. All sources have a bias.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Like I said it was eisegesis regardless of its source. All sources have a bias.
This was came from a 38 page learned article on Jn 1:1 published in an international journal for Greek studies on the New Testament. "FILOLOGÍA NEOTESTAMENTARIA"

Me thinks you are over-reaching yourself (a lot).

If you can prove to me your academic credentials are better than those of Caragounis Chrys C. and Watt Jan Van de, I'll believe what you say. As it is, given your record of judging others, I think this is most unlikely.

I could say a lot more.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
If you can prove to me your academic credentials are better than those of Caragounis Chrys C. and Watt Jan Van de, I'll believe what you say. As it is, given your record of judging others, I think this is most unlikely.

Logical fallacy: appeal to authority
Logical fallacy: special pleading
Logical fallacy: ad hominem

I could say a lot more.

And all of it would be equally worthless.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Logical fallacy: appeal to authority
Logical fallacy: special pleading
Logical fallacy: ad hominem

And all of it would be equally worthless.
Quite incorrect. The poster was accusing the learned professors who authored this statement of eisegesis without reasons or grounds.

It was @civic who was appealing to special authority (i.e. himself).
It was @civic who was making a special pleading (i.e. no need to introduce evidence or proofs in support of his pleading of eisegesis by an appeal to his own brand of Trinitarianism as needing no proof whereas his Trinitarianism is scripturally unsustainable in certain aspects e.g. Christ remaining in the flesh to this day, e.g. Christ's words on the relation between himself and the Father not expressing eternal truths but limited to the flesh).
It was @civic who was ad hominem (i.e. commencing his remarks with ungrounded allegations of eisegesis).

And in fact both professors are accounted Trinitarians, although not of the dangerously fanatical variety, otherwise how else could they have had their article published in an orthodox Roman Catholic publication?

I conclude your own allegations are not only worthless, but indulgence in crass hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:

OldShepherd

Well-known member
No, you're dead wrong in not recognizing John 1:1. "The Word was with the God; and the Word was God."
This is the exegesis.
"At the beginning, when the Logos was, God was already there. John does not confuse the Two (like you). The Logos was God and yet he was not THE God (which he reserves for the Father). But that does not make him a whit less God than the Father, for later in his Gospel he is going to use the dialectic statements that "I and the Father are One" and '"The Father is greater than I""
As posted I agree with Civic. The unsupported opinions of "scholars," of any stripe are no more compelling that the scribbles on a public facility wall. Here is the footnote in NET John 1:1. The chief editor is Dr. Dan Wallace who has taught graduate level Greek for 40+ years.

NET Bible® - John 1
1:1 In the beginning1 was the Word, and the Word was with God,2 and the Word was fully God.3
NET Bible® - John 1 Notes
1sn In the beginning. The search for the basic “stuff” out of which things are made was the earliest one in Greek philosophy. It was attended by the related question of “What is the process by which the secondary things came out of the primary one (or ones)?,” or in Aristotelian terminology, “What is the ‘beginning’ (same Greek word as beginning, John 1:1) and what is the origin of the things that are made?” In the New Testament the word usually has a temporal sense, but even BDAG 138 s.v. ajrchv 3 lists a major category of meaning as “the first cause.” For John, the words “In the beginning” are most likely a conscious allusion to the opening words of Genesis—“In the beginning.” Other concepts which occur prominently in Gen 1 are also found in John’s prologue: “life” “light” and “darkness” . Gen 1 describes the first (physical) creation; John 1 describes the new (spiritual) creation. But this is not to play off a false dichotomy between “physical” and “spiritual”; the first creation was both physical and spiritual. The new creation is really a re-creation, of the spiritual (first) but also the physical. (In spite of the common understanding of John’s “spiritual” emphasis, the “physical” re-creation should not be overlooked; this occurs in John 2 with the changing of water into wine, in John 11 with the resurrection of Lazarus, and the emphasis of John 20-21 on the aftermath of Jesus’ own resurrection.
2tn The preposition prov" (pros) implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship. M. Dods stated, “Prov" …means more than metav or parav, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another” (“The Gospel of St. John,” The Expositors Greek Testament, 1:684). See also Mark 6:3, Matt 13:56, Mark 9:19, Gal 1:18, 2 John 12.
3tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of qeov" (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous qeov" in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.
 

cjab

Well-known member
As posted I agree with Civic. The unsupported opinions of "scholars," of any stripe are no more compelling that the scribbles on a public facility wall. Here is the footnote in NET John 1:1. The chief editor is Dr. Dan Wallace who has taught graduate level Greek for 40+ years.

NET Bible® - John 1
1:1 In the beginning1 was the Word, and the Word was with God,2 and the Word was fully God.3
NET Bible® - John 1 Notes
1sn In the beginning. The search for the basic “stuff” out of which things are made was the earliest one in Greek philosophy. It was attended by the related question of “What is the process by which the secondary things came out of the primary one (or ones)?,” or in Aristotelian terminology, “What is the ‘beginning’ (same Greek word as beginning, John 1:1) and what is the origin of the things that are made?” In the New Testament the word usually has a temporal sense, but even BDAG 138 s.v. ajrchv 3 lists a major category of meaning as “the first cause.” For John, the words “In the beginning” are most likely a conscious allusion to the opening words of Genesis—“In the beginning.” Other concepts which occur prominently in Gen 1 are also found in John’s prologue: “life” “light” and “darkness” . Gen 1 describes the first (physical) creation; John 1 describes the new (spiritual) creation. But this is not to play off a false dichotomy between “physical” and “spiritual”; the first creation was both physical and spiritual. The new creation is really a re-creation, of the spiritual (first) but also the physical. (In spite of the common understanding of John’s “spiritual” emphasis, the “physical” re-creation should not be overlooked; this occurs in John 2 with the changing of water into wine, in John 11 with the resurrection of Lazarus, and the emphasis of John 20-21 on the aftermath of Jesus’ own resurrection.
2tn The preposition prov" (pros) implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship. M. Dods stated, “Prov" …means more than metav or parav, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another” (“The Gospel of St. John,” The Expositors Greek Testament, 1:684). See also Mark 6:3, Matt 13:56, Mark 9:19, Gal 1:18, 2 John 12.
3tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of qeov" (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous qeov" in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.
"the Word was fully God” is not a translation, but a Trinitarian neo-platonist gloss. Wallace is fully committed (addicted) Trinitarian, as I understand.

John's gospel is "fully free" of any references to "essence of God" (thanks be to God).

The scholars I deferred to are European. The USA may lead the world in many things, but it doesn't have a monopoly on biblical "scholarship" (I was quoting from a 46 page research paper on Jn 1:1 which is far more erudite than anything Wallace has come up with).
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
"the Word was fully God” is not a translation, but a Trinitarian neo-platonist gloss. Wallace is fully committed (addicted) Trinitarian, as I understand.
John's gospel is "fully free" of any references to "essence of God" (thanks be to God).
The scholars I deferred to are European. The USA may lead the world in many things, but it doesn't have a monopoly on biblical "scholarship" (I was quoting from a 46 page research paper on Jn 1:1 which is far more erudite than anything Wallace has come up with).
The same thing applies to you and your scholars they are just as "fully committed (addicted)" to whatever they believe and that does not make it any more correct that any scholar I could quote. Wallace is not the only scholar I could quote.
OBTW I went to your link I could not find an article on John 1;1.
 
Last edited:
Top