Kenosis Heresy

civic

Well-known member
You wrote in your OP "that Jesus self limited his divine prerogatives via the incsrnation".
Does this mean that Jesus self limited his divine attributes in the incarnation and was unaware of them or that he was aware of them during his incarnation but just didn't use them?

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm Oneness in regard to my view of God.
aware and didnt use them
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
That is what the kenosis theory is all about, trying to find a way to explain how Jesus can be God and reconcile it with the many things he says that make it sound as though he is not.

Its your assumption that attributes were removed when he became a man. You don't allow for other possibilities. IMO, you limit God like the pharisees did. Mark 12:24

Thank you for your thoughtful response.
There is no assumption at all in what I said, for when he said he didn't know and that only the Father does alone, that is totally different from him refraining from using his omniscience to reveal things to his disciples and saying "I choose not to tell you" and beside this, what would be the point in it anyhow?

For if he is God and God wants all of us to know this, then this kenosis thing would be like some sort of a senseless and pointless game.

The fact is, that in Philippians 2:5-11, Paul was never speaking of Jesus as anything other than a man in regards to his actually ontology but rather he is speaking of Jesus as a man quite different than any other in that he was born to be in the form "morphe" of God and meaning he was given authority just under that of God himself and far above what any other man ever had or will.

Therefore he emptied "kenosis" of his using his authority from God for anything other than promoting his Father and fulfilling his Father's will to make himself a servant and by this becoming like "homoiomai" other men and while by his God given authority, he was not like any of them.

For if Paul wanted to tell us that Jesus was God and then became also a man, he certainly wouldn't have used Greek words like "huparchon" or "morphe" or "homoiomai" or "isa" which translated is "equal", but instead he would have said something like this below.

Who although existing "eimi" as the eternal God, he did not consider his being God something to cling to tightly but instead he emptied himself and he made himself a servant by became a man.

Notice, there would have been no need for these other words like "form" and "equal" and "likeness".

For when something or someone is said to be the equal of something or someone, this never means that they are the very thing or someone that they are equal unto, for that isn't even what being equal means, but only that they are on the same level as but not the same substance or being as what they are the equal of.

Like for instance, a woman is equal unto the man, but she is not the man by being equal unto him, for that is not what equal ever means.
 

cjab

Well-known member
There is no assumption at all in what I said, for when he said he didn't know and that only the Father does alone, that is totally different from him refraining from using his omniscience to reveal things to his disciples and saying "I choose not to tell you" and beside this, what would be the point in it anyhow?

For if he is God and God wants all of us to know this, then this kenosis thing would be like some sort of a senseless and pointless game.

The fact is, that in Philippians 2:5-11, Paul was never speaking of Jesus as anything other than a man in regards to his actually ontology but rather he is speaking of Jesus as a man quite different than any other in that he was born to be in the form "morphe" of God and meaning he was given authority just under that of God himself and far above what any other man ever had or will.

Therefore he emptied "kenosis" of his using his authority from God for anything other than promoting his Father and fulfilling his Father's will to make himself a servant and by this becoming like "homoiomai" other men and while by his God given authority, he was not like any of them.

For if Paul wanted to tell us that Jesus was God and then became also a man, he certainly wouldn't have used Greek words like "huparchon" or "morphe" or "homoiomai" or "isa" which translated is "equal", but instead he would have said something like this below.

Who although existing "eimi" as the eternal God, he did not consider his being God something to cling to tightly but instead he emptied himself and he made himself a servant by became a man.

Notice, there would have been no need for these other words like "form" and "equal" and "likeness".
That unitarian nonsense is such a ridiculous notion I wonder how you can cling to it. All things are created through the Word (son of God), by both Paul's (1 Cor 8:6) and John's (Jhn 1:3, Rev 3:14) accounts. Moreover how can the light have shine in the darkness but the darkness comprehend it not if Jesus was just a man? How can Jesus be the beginning of the creation of God? Heb Ch.1 plainly says the son pre-existed.

Moreover you say "Paul is speaking of Jesus as a man quite different than any other" is contradicted by Heb 2:17: Jesus was a man just like any other human being, except for his origination.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Of course the Son was/is aware of Himself as God.

The stupidity in the assumption is all yours .
May be you should charge the author of Hebrews for promulgating a false Christ. Put him on trial for heresy, as is the Trinitarian wont.

Heb 2:17 "For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people."
 

civic

Well-known member
May be you should charge the author of Hebrews for promulgating a false Christ. Put him on trial for heresy, as is the Trinitarian wont.

Heb 2:17 "For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people."
And what does that have to with the price of tea in China ( His Deity ) ???

This is starting to verge on the dumb n dumber with your replies.
 

Caroljeen

Active member
There is no assumption at all in what I said, for when he said he didn't know and that only the Father does alone, that is totally different from him refraining from using his omniscience to reveal things to his disciples and saying "I choose not to tell you" and beside this, what would be the point in it anyhow?

For if he is God and God wants all of us to know this, then this kenosis thing would be like some sort of a senseless and pointless game.

The fact is, that in Philippians 2:5-11, Paul was never speaking of Jesus as anything other than a man in regards to his actually ontology but rather he is speaking of Jesus as a man quite different than any other in that he was born to be in the form "morphe" of God and meaning he was given authority just under that of God himself and far above what any other man ever had or will.

Therefore he emptied "kenosis" of his using his authority from God for anything other than promoting his Father and fulfilling his Father's will to make himself a servant and by this becoming like "homoiomai" other men and while by his God given authority, he was not like any of them.

For if Paul wanted to tell us that Jesus was God and then became also a man, he certainly wouldn't have used Greek words like "huparchon" or "morphe" or "homoiomai" or "isa" which translated is "equal", but instead he would have said something like this below.

Who although existing "eimi" as the eternal God, he did not consider his being God something to cling to tightly but instead he emptied himself and he made himself a servant by became a man.

Notice, there would have been no need for these other words like "form" and "equal" and "likeness".

For when something or someone is said to be the equal of something or someone, this never means that they are the very thing or someone that they are equal unto, for that isn't even what being equal means, but only that they are on the same level as but not the same substance or being as what they are the equal of.

Like for instance, a woman is equal unto the man, but she is not the man by being equal unto him, for that is not what equal ever means.
The point was that humans couldn't save themselves so God took the form of man and came to redeem us. Our redeemer had to be a man not a bull or a goat. Unfortunately we have all sinned and not one of us could qualify to be a sinless atonement. Hebrews 2: 14-17, Romans 5:18-19, Hebrews 10: 3-5, Hebrews 9: 12-14, Romans 10:23

If someone is said to be equal with someone, they couldn't be the same someone but since God is unique, the only one of a kind, if you're equal to God doesn't it follow that you must be God?

As for Jesus being God, I don't want to argue that fact.
 
Last edited:

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
The point was that humans couldn't save themselves so God took the form of man and came to redeem us. Our redeemer had to be a man not a bull or a goat. Unfortunately we have all sinned and not one of us could qualify to be a sinless atonement. Hebrews 2: 14-17, Romans 5:18-19, Hebrews 10: 3-5, Hebrews 9: 12-14, Romans 10:23
That might sound good to you, for it did to me for the thirty plus years of my conversion when I was a trin also but it is false doctrine nevertheless.

As far as your passages above, you actually chose some of the weakest to try and prove your position through, first off, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in Romans 5:18-19 that reveals that Jesus was God or even had to be either.

For Paul is comparing the one man Adam with the one man Jesus Christ and he says over and over again in different words, that just as it was by one man who sinned and brought death on his offspring, so it is by the righteousness of the one man Jesus Christ that all men through faith become righteous and obtain eternal life

Concerning Hebrews 2:14-17, this is not saying that he made the choice to became a human being however and that cannot be proven either, it only means that because we are human Jesus had to be a human being and one by the Bible definition also and by the way, this means he couldn't also be God like you are falsely believing about him.

Concerning Hebrew 10:3-5 neither does this mean that Jesus was God either, but his point was that God sent him into the world as a true human being and with a human body that was prepared to become the sacrifice for sins and that the bulls and goats could never be.

Concerning Hebrews 9:12-14 I don't suppose you payed much attention to the word "through the eternal Spirit" and it was the Spirit that was the anointing upon and within Christ that prepared him to become the sacrifice for sins and that is what this is talking about and when you see the words "Spirit of Christ" it is referring to the Spirit by which he was anointed and not his own human spirit.


Now concerning Romans 10:23, there is no Romans 10:23, for Romans 10 only goes up to verse 21.


If someone is said to be equal with someone, they couldn't be the same someone but since God is unique, the only one of a kind, if your equal to God doesn't it follow that you must be God?
No, but beside this, Philippians 2:6 never even says that Jesus was equal unto God but rather that being in the form of God and having authority just under that of God, he never took a thought for a robbery to make himself equal unto God.

If you are wondering what that means, just look at the Emperors of Rome that Paul was subject to living at that time and how with much less authority than Jesus had, it went to their heads and therefore they began to think of themselves as equal unto God and that is the temptation of men when they receive authority and Jesus had way more authority than any of them combined.
As for Jesus being God, I don't want to argue that fact.

No but instead you want to be left in your comfort zone and undisturbed like I did also until God finally got me to be honest with the many contradictions there are in the scriptures against the doctrines of the Trinity and Jesus as being God.

Oh for certain I was truly saved all the while I believed in these doctrines and I am thankful unto God that at least for the most part the gospel message itself is still pretty much like it was in the early church with only a few false ideas added to it.

But all of the churches bar none, are all in the apostasy that Paul and John and Jude and Peter warned was entering into the churches even back then and the root of it is the false doctrine that Yahweh God is a trinity and that Jesus is also Yahweh God.

By the way, I don't guess you know this, but God himself called his own human representatives by his own title of god or "elohim" and he did this in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9 and also in Psalm 45:6-7 and also in Psalm 82 and which Jesus quoted from in John 10. when he was falsely accused of making himself equal unto God only because he called God his Father.

He also did this in Isaiah 9:6 as well but these are titles of representation and they were never intended to mean that those who were given these titles were or would be Yahweh God and that is why the Jews never saw them to mean this either.
 
Last edited:

johnny guitar

Well-known member
There is no assumption at all in what I said, for when he said he didn't know and that only the Father does alone, that is totally different from him refraining from using his omniscience to reveal things to his disciples and saying "I choose not to tell you" and beside this, what would be the point in it anyhow?

For if he is God and God wants all of us to know this, then this kenosis thing would be like some sort of a senseless and pointless game.

The fact is, that in Philippians 2:5-11, Paul was never speaking of Jesus as anything other than a man in regards to his actually ontology but rather he is speaking of Jesus as a man quite different than any other in that he was born to be in the form "morphe" of God and meaning he was given authority just under that of God himself and far above what any other man ever had or will.

Therefore he emptied "kenosis" of his using his authority from God for anything other than promoting his Father and fulfilling his Father's will to make himself a servant and by this becoming like "homoiomai" other men and while by his God given authority, he was not like any of them.

For if Paul wanted to tell us that Jesus was God and then became also a man, he certainly wouldn't have used Greek words like "huparchon" or "morphe" or "homoiomai" or "isa" which translated is "equal", but instead he would have said something like this below.

Who although existing "eimi" as the eternal God, he did not consider his being God something to cling to tightly but instead he emptied himself and he made himself a servant by became a man.

Notice, there would have been no need for these other words like "form" and "equal" and "likeness".

For when something or someone is said to be the equal of something or someone, this never means that they are the very thing or someone that they are equal unto, for that isn't even what being equal means, but only that they are on the same level as but not the same substance or being as what they are the equal of.

Like for instance, a woman is equal unto the man, but she is not the man by being equal unto him, for that is not what equal ever means.
NO such thing as a man born in the form of God. Any man born is in the form of a MAN ONLY.
 

Tanachreader

Well-known member
No, but beside this, Philippians 2:6 never even says that Jesus was equal unto God but rather that being in the form of God and having authority just under that of God, he never took a thought for a robbery to make himself equal unto God.
Where does it say " and having authority just under that of God" in Phil 2:6 ?
What version is it?
Is it the YWI Bible 1.0

NIV
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

New Living Translation
Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.

English Standard Version
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Berean Study Bible
Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

Berean Literal Bible
Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider to be equal with God something to be grasped,

King James Bible
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

New King James Version
who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

New American Standard Bible
who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

NASB 1995
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

NASB 1977
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Amplified Bible
who, although He existed in the form and unchanging essence of God [as One with Him, possessing the fullness of all the divine attributes—the entire nature of deity], did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped or asserted [as if He did not already possess it, or was afraid of losing it];

Christian Standard Bible
who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage.

American Standard Version
who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
He who, while he was in the form of God, did not esteem this as a prize, that he was the equal of God,

Contemporary English Version
Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

English Revised Version
who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God,
 
Top