Kenosis Heresy

101G

Well-known member
You teach diversity in God which is polytheism,
ERROR, ANOTHER AS G243 STATES IS NOT polytheism, listen, Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort;

now go to dictionary.com and look up what "SORT" and see what it means, and that should put to rest the polytheistic ERROR in God as being the "ANOTHER", or the EQUAL "SHARE" of himself.

see your polytheism is in ERROR with God as the H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem'), which is [plural of H433]. see the ERROR now? for God is ONE as the H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m.
אֱלֹהַּ 'eloahh (el-o'-ah) [shortened (rarely)]
1. one with supreme strength and ability.
2. the Supreme Being, God the Creator, Yahweh by name.
3. a supreme entity, a god-like creature (that is, one of God's supreme creations, or one of man's inventions).
[probably prolonged (emphat.) from H410]
KJV: God, god.

this ONE in definition #1. is God the "Yachid" means alone as in Isaiah 44:24.
Your theological construct is based on the humanism you import to the Trinity, and not actually what this name Trinity expresses.
no such thing.
Like Aquinas says" the distinction between the Father and the Son is that the Father is the Father and the Son is the Son".
that's an IGNORANT Statement without merit. Titles are not PERSONS.

PICJAG, 101G.
 

aeg4971

Active member
ERROR, ANOTHER AS G243 STATES IS NOT polytheism, listen, Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort;

now go to dictionary.com and look up what "SORT" and see what it means, and that should put to rest the polytheistic ERROR in God as being the "ANOTHER", or the EQUAL "SHARE" of himself.

see your polytheism is in ERROR with God as the H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem'), which is [plural of H433]. see the ERROR now? for God is ONE as the H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m.
אֱלֹהַּ 'eloahh (el-o'-ah) [shortened (rarely)]
1. one with supreme strength and ability.
2. the Supreme Being, God the Creator, Yahweh by name.
3. a supreme entity, a god-like creature (that is, one of God's supreme creations, or one of man's inventions).
[probably prolonged (emphat.) from H410]
KJV: God, god.

this ONE in definition #1. is God the "Yachid" means alone as in Isaiah 44:24.

no such thing.

that's an IGNORANT Statement without merit. Titles are not PERSONS.

PICJAG, 101G.

What is ignorant is your comprehension skills . You never refute anything I say , you only attempt to say it another way without actually changing anything I stated in the first place.

Like Aquinas says" the distinction between the Father and the Son is that the Father is the Father and the Son is the Son".

Anything else is polytheism and foolishness. So you can shut up talking to me. Don't even call me ignorant as you are not intellectually qualified to reproach me EVER.

Good day sir...... Alan
 

101G

Well-known member
What is ignorant is your comprehension skills . You never refute anything I say , you only attempt to say it another way without actually changing anything I stated in the first place.

Like Aquinas says" the distinction between the Father and the Son is that the Father is the Father and the Son is the Son".
that way is NONSENSE, and here's why, Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

is not "CHRIST" the Son? and the "Spirit" God? per John 4:24a.... is it not.

well now aeg4971 tell us how is the Son, (the Spirit of Christ), is different in Spirit from the one whom you calls the Father, (the Spirit of God).

cain't wait to hear that answer.

PICJAG, 101G.
 

101G

Well-known member
If Jesus is God Jesus made himself nothing then God made himself nothing. That's not scriptural. When Jesus emptied himself God was still in heaven. That's who he prayed to.
he made who himself nothing, the Ordinal First, or the Ordinal Last? which one?

PICJAG, 101G.
 

101G

Well-known member
If Jesus is God Jesus made himself nothing then God made himself nothing. That's not scriptural. When Jesus emptied himself God was still in heaven. That's who he prayed to.
see Rodger, you have stumble onto what I been saying, Jesus was in Heaven at the same time in FLESH and BLOOD as a MAN, on earth, in the G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') STATE. this is the H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym of God in Heaven, (the Ordinal First), and on Earth as MAN, (the Ordinal Last).

this is what the Greek word G243 allos express. and what the scripture Phil 2:6 & 7 states. .... BINGO.

PICJAG, 101G.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
see Rodger, you have stumble onto what I been saying, Jesus was in Heaven at the same time in FLESH and BLOOD as a MAN, on earth, in the G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') STATE. this is the H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym of God in Heaven, (the Ordinal First), and on Earth as MAN, (the Ordinal Last).

this is what the Greek word G243 allos express. and what the scripture Phil 2:6 & 7 states. .... BINGO.

PICJAG, 101G.
What's allos got to do with Phil 2:6-7?
 

101G

Well-known member
This is what John was trying to us in 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

it's the SAME one PERSON... "GOD", now made manifeste in Flesh ... a body. but God as the ORDINAL LAST, the EQUAL "SHARE" of himself in Flesh.

as for praying, is not the Spirit of God is God? yes, and it's the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost that pray for us? scripture, Romans 8:26 "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."

the Spirit of God, who is God, praying for us? so who is he praying to? many say the Father? lets see again,

Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

now if this is two or more Spirit then the Bible lie, meaning God lied, (God forbid), there is only "ONE" Spirit and that's JESUS. be ye he "Comforter", or " intercessior", or "1 John 2:1 "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:""

did one get this? who make intercession for us? is it the Christ, (the Spirit of Christ? who is the Holy Ghost? Romans 8:34 "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us."

right hand of God? is it not the Lord Jesus at the RIGHT HAND? yes, he's the HOLY SPIRIT. BINGO.

PICJAG, 101G.
 

101G

Well-known member
The word allos is not found in Phil 2:6-7.
no it is implied in the term "EQUAL",. for there is no one EQUAL ... "TO" God but there is one who is "EQUAL.... "WITH" God. see the difference? equal "WITH", and not "EQUAL "TO".

did you not READ in Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he."

did you notice the "with" there the "First is "WITH" the Last, the same "WITH" in John 1:1 in the Word being "WITH" GOD.... correct, well lets see the Revelation of the "WITH" in both scriptures,and as in Phil 2:6, listen,
Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."

JUST as the First is with the Last, who is also the same person, likewise the Word in John 1:1 is the same one Person, likewise in Phil 2:6 the same one person is EQUAL.... "WITH" ... God. HELLO... meaning the SAME ONE PERSON.

see the bible will interperte it ownself if you let it, meaning HIM, his Holy Word.


PICJAG, 101G.
 

aeg4971

Active member
that way is NONSENSE, and here's why, Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

is not "CHRIST" the Son? and the "Spirit" God? per John 4:24a.... is it not.

well now aeg4971 tell us how is the Son, (the Spirit of Christ), is different in Spirit from the one whom you calls the Father, (the Spirit of God).

cain't wait to hear that answer.

PICJAG, 101G.
I can't find one statement of yours that does not of itself and by itself signify a distinction in the supposita of which it is spoken. Quote as many scriptures as your heart is content , and we still we derive at adoring the distinction of persons and the SHARED EQUALITY of their majesty.

.........Alan
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
no it is implied in the term "EQUAL",. for there is no one EQUAL ... "TO" God but there is one who is "EQUAL.... "WITH" God. see the difference? equal "WITH", and not "EQUAL "TO".

did you not READ in Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he."

did you notice the "with" there the "First is "WITH" the Last, the same "WITH" in John 1:1 in the Word being "WITH" GOD.... correct, well lets see the Revelation of the "WITH" in both scriptures,and as in Phil 2:6, listen,
Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."

JUST as the First is with the Last, who is also the same person, likewise the Word in John 1:1 is the same one Person, likewise in Phil 2:6 the same one person is EQUAL.... "WITH" ... God. HELLO... meaning the SAME ONE PERSON.

see the bible will interperte it ownself if you let it, meaning HIM, his Holy Word.


PICJAG, 101G.
Bible versions are split as to whether Phil says he was equal. I say no.


  1. He was in the form of God; yet he laid no claim to equality with God, 7 but made himself nothing, assuming the form of a slave. (Revised English Bible)
  2. For the divine nature was his from the first; yet he did not think to snatch at equality with God, but made himself nothing, assuming the nature of a slave. (New English Bible)
  3. His nature is, from the first, divine, and yet he did not see, in the rank of Godhead, a prize to be coveted; (Knox)
  4. who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God (Darby)
 

101G

Well-known member
I can't find one statement of yours that does not of itself and by itself signify a distinction in the supposita of which it is spoken. Quote as many scriptures as your heart is content , and we still we derive at adoring the distinction of persons and the SHARED EQUALITY of their majesty.

.........Alan
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.
 

101G

Well-known member
Bible versions are split as to whether Phil says he was equal. I say no.


  1. He was in the form of God; yet he laid no claim to equality with God, 7 but made himself nothing, assuming the form of a slave. (Revised English Bible)
  2. For the divine nature was his from the first; yet he did not think to snatch at equality with God, but made himself nothing, assuming the nature of a slave. (New English Bible)
  3. His nature is, from the first, divine, and yet he did not see, in the rank of Godhead, a prize to be coveted; (Knox)
  4. who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God (Darby)
another excuse?, even in these, that you gave here above, the doctrine is clear, ONE PERSON, diversified in flesh. listen, "He was in the form of God; yet he laid no claim to equality with God" WHY? your next verse, 7 "but made himself nothing, assuming the form of a slave". because he G2758 κενόω kenoo HIMSELF... my GOD how hard is that to understand, and then this,

"2 For the divine nature was his from the first" thank you, the ORDINAL "FIRST", yes that's him. BINGO, and then this,

"His nature is, from the first, divine, and yet he did not see, in the rank of Godhead, a prize to be coveted" yes,, BECAUSE IT'S A "SHARED" NATURE. ..... HELLO.

"4. who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God" My God all are saying the same thing in a different way, look, "subsisting" means, maintain or support oneself, especially at a minimal level. BY BEING G2758 KENOO HE WAS AT A MINIMAL LEVEL, supportive scripture, again, Hebrews 2:16 "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."

Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."

there is that "subsisting" or minimal level..... BINGO.

PICJAG, 101G.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
another excuse?, even in these, that you gave here above, the doctrine is clear, ONE PERSON, diversified in flesh. listen, "He was in the form of God; yet he laid no claim to equality with God" WHY? your next verse, 7 "but made himself nothing, assuming the form of a slave". because he G2758 κενόω kenoo HIMSELF... my GOD how hard is that to understand, and then this,

"2 For the divine nature was his from the first" thank you, the ORDINAL "FIRST", yes that's him. BINGO, and then this,

"His nature is, from the first, divine, and yet he did not see, in the rank of Godhead, a prize to be coveted" yes,, BECAUSE IT'S A "SHARED" NATURE. ..... HELLO.

"4. who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God" My God all are saying the same thing in a different way, look, "subsisting" means, maintain or support oneself, especially at a minimal level. BY BEING G2758 KENOO HE WAS AT A MINIMAL LEVEL, supportive scripture, again, Hebrews 2:16 "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."

Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."

there is that "subsisting" or minimal level..... BINGO.

PICJAG, 101G.

Let me get this straight. Whether the text says he was equal with God or he was not equal with God has no impact on your theology?

So why make the point?
 

101G

Well-known member
Let me get this straight. Whether the text says he was equal with God or he was not equal with God has no impact on your theology?

So why make the point?
Let us be clear, and MAKE the POINT again, he is "EQUAL WITH" God, because he is God..... the Diversified Spirit, or as the Bible say in Genesis 1:1, God is the H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') meaning the plural of H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah), who is the ONLY TRUE and LIVING GOD. in the ECHAD of the First and the Last.

Now, do we make ourselves clear? if not just ask.

PICJAG, 101G.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Let us be clear, and MAKE the POINT again, he is "EQUAL WITH" God, because he is God..... the Diversified Spirit, or as the Bible say in Genesis 1:1, God is the H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') meaning the plural of H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah), who is the ONLY TRUE and LIVING GOD. in the ECHAD of the First and the Last.

Now, do we make ourselves clear? if not just ask.

PICJAG, 101G.

Your proof he was equal is this verse. You can cherry pick the version if you like but that is not proof.

Where's the proof?


  1. He was in the form of God; yet he laid no claim to equality with God, 7 but made himself nothing, assuming the form of a slave. (Revised English Bible)
  2. For the divine nature was his from the first; yet he did not think to snatch at equality with God, but made himself nothing, assuming the nature of a slave. (New English Bible)
  3. His nature is, from the first, divine, and yet he did not see, in the rank of Godhead, a prize to be coveted; (Knox)
  4. who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God (Darby)
 

101G

Well-known member
cherry pick the version
Cherry pick? lol. let see, Isaiah 28:10 "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:"

well the bible is clear on Cherry picking, well I suggest you start cherry picking.

Where's the proof?
did you not UNDERSTAND? Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." here God is the H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym, a plurality correct. now this, Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he."

is this a plurality of persons.... yes or NO?

looking to hear your answer,

PICJAG, 101G.
 
Top