Kenosis Heresy

johnny guitar

Well-known member
But how does hypostatizing the Jesus-God-The-Son union make any real difference? It's just a philosophical game to achieve the result that is conformant to your doctrine.

You will tell me that the hypostatic union (assumption of an impersonalized body/soul) removes the need for any true human person in Jesus, so that Jesus may be regarded as a fully divine person, which then mandates a need for the separate enhypostasis doctrine.

Trinitarians assert that Jesus did not pretend to be human—He possessed real human personhood. They eventually came up with the word enhypostasis to denote this as a "fact." But is it a fact that logically follows from the proposition of "one divine person"? They posit that Jesus was really “in” human nature and was a real human person, by virtue of his divine person being "extended," but why should anyone assume this makes Christ a real human?

For the problem as I see it, is that it becomes unscriptural. Paul in Phil 2:6,7 talks about Christ Jesus' "existence" (i.e. his "nature" in Trinitarian terminology) being emptied, not extended.

For Trinitarians, Christ is a "god man," never a true man. But in the bible, Christ's very hypostasis mutated to become a human. Trinitarians trivialize this by relying on contrived doctrines such as "enhypostasis" and the "hypostatic union."
Christ is THE God-Man. True God, True Man.
The rest is endless gibberish.
 

cjab

Well-known member
The above is the mistake of the majority on this forum, for Paul was never saying that Jesus emptied himself of his actual nature or essence but rather he emptied himself of his higher position with God and which was his birth right to rule all nations with a rod of iron and as no other man was ever given except Jesus and this is what Paul was meaning by the words "form of God".

For when we think of the word God, we think of the supreme ruler of heaven and earth and therefore Jesus being in the "form of God" refers to his being anointed just under God himself to rule all nations with a rod of iron and in the characteristics of God therefore.
The term "form of God" has no precedent for referring to God's annoited.

If Paul was speaking of Jesus existing originally as God, he would have just said that and not used the words "form of God" instead because the Greek word for form which is "morphe" never refers to the actual nature or essence itself but only the form as in its characteristics and outward appearance alone.
The whole point is that Jesus wasn't the Father and so wasn't God. But he was in the form of God as he is one with God.

Paul was saying the same basic thing by his words in Colossians 1:15 "who is the image of the invisible God" the firstborn of all creation".
No he is not as no created man is the "image of the invisible God." Such is blasphemous, and Islamic: a gross heresy that in ages past would had have you convicted of the crime of blasphemy.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
The term "form of God" has no precedent for referring to God's annoited.


The whole point is that Jesus wasn't the Father and so wasn't God. But he was in the form of God as he is one with God.


No he is not as no created man is the "image of the invisible God." Such is blasphemous, and Islamic: a gross heresy that in ages past would had have you convicted of the crime of blasphemy.
Good bye
 

Anthony

Active member
Christ is THE God-Man. True God, True Man.
The rest is endless gibberish.
He is not God-Man but God in the form of Man. The confusion is all around His temporary mortality in likeness of sinful man. YHWH revealed Himself in duality of powers - invisible God as well as in the form of man.

Gen 1:26 - Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness - reveals duality of powers within God.

The image of The invisible God is in the form of Man to whom the chosen ones must conform to. That's the Divine plan of salvation.

What's the meaning of The Word of God? The Word is before the invisible transcendent God and His people. Transcend God is inaccessible to the creatures but made accessible through the Living Word.

Targums rightfully replace God with The Word because He fills the vacuum between transcendent God and His creatures especially the chosen ones.

Ps 33: 6 (32:6) By the word of the Lord the heavens were established; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

John 1:3 All things were made through Him, and nothing that was made was made without Him.

All creation came to be by the Word of transcendent God.

Yeshua is the Living Word of inaccessible, invisible, transcendent God Whom no one has seen nor can see.

This is basically misunderstood in Christendom.

In Exod 33 - The same YHWH presents Himself in duality of powers - whose face can't be seen but only His hinder part which is represented by Christ Himself.

Remember this : Invisible God - His exact image in Man's form - This duality of powers create makind in the image that's conformed to this likeness.

The title Father specific vti covenant relationship between God and Israel, His people. Israel, Is His son. The Son of God represents His covenant spiritual Israel. Since His people Israel couldn't keep His Torah, The Son of God must represent the seed of Abraham to deliver them from their disobedience to His Torah.

Much of the confusion in Christendom is because they fail to understand historical Israel from which spiritual Israel is carved. We must see ourselves grafted to the covenant Olive Tree among natural branches.
 
Last edited:

Kampioen

Active member
But how does hypostatizing the Jesus-God-The-Son union make any real difference? It's just a philosophical game to achieve the result that is conformant to your doctrine.

You will tell me that the hypostatic union (assumption of an impersonalized body/soul) removes the need for any true human person in Jesus, so that Jesus may be regarded as a fully divine person, which then mandates a need for the separate enhypostasis doctrine.

Trinitarians assert that Jesus did not pretend to be human—He possessed real human personhood. They eventually came up with the word enhypostasis to denote this as a "fact." But is it a fact that logically follows from the proposition of "one divine person"? They posit that Jesus was really “in” human nature and was a real human person, by virtue of his divine person being "extended," but why should anyone assume this makes Christ a real human?

For the problem as I see it, is that it becomes unscriptural. Paul in Phil 2:6,7 talks about Christ Jesus' "existence" (i.e. his "nature" in Trinitarian terminology) being emptied, not extended.

For Trinitarians, Christ is a "god man," never a true man. But in the bible, Christ's very hypostasis mutated to become a human. Trinitarians trivialize this by relying on contrived doctrines such as "enhypostasis" and the "hypostatic union."

Jesus is human in that He had a human mindset ie God ie the Word (rather than a created awareness) under the influence of the non-omniscient human senses/soul, in a human body, together constituting a man, the hypostatic union.

He emptied Himself of the use of His power by the lack of the ability of the human mindset to use that power.

God by omniscience alone already experiences all non-omniscient scenarios, while remaining God. He did this in real time when He became a man.

That is the conclusion that I see reconciles Scriptures.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Church of God. Standard Pauline phrase. Constrast in particular 1 Cor 11:3 (God is the head of Christ) with 1 Cor 11:16 (Churches of God).

You seem to be running away from the verse.
That's actually LOOK at it and DISCUSS it.

Acts 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

There is a pronoun there, "his", which you seem afraid to discuss or address.
Who is the referent for the "his" referring to "own blood"?

Is it "the church of God"? Does a church purchase people with blood?
Is it, "the Holy Spirit"? Did the Holy Spirit die on a cross and spill blood?
Or is it, "God" (from, "Church of GOD")?

Please share your thoughts...

The article is omitted before Σωτῆρος because this word is defined by the genitive ἡμῶν, and because the apposition precedes the proper name : of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

This seems to be a very ignorant criticism, and demonstrates that you (and Winer) have a lack of understanding of Greek and the GS rule. I don't think you've studied the GS construction at all.

Phil. 2:25 … Epaphroditus my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, …

"brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier" are all inn apposition to "Epaphroditus".
Is he not all of those things?!

Heb. 3:1 … consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest

"apostle and high priest" is in apposition to "Jesus".
Is He not both of those things?!

Heb. 12:2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith,

"the founder and perfecter" is in apposition to "Jesus".
Is He not both of those things?!

2Pet. 1:11 … kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

"Lord and Savior" is in apposition to "Jesus Christ".
Is He not both of those things?!

2Pet. 2:20 … the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus …

"Lord and Savior" is in apposition to "Jesus Christ".
Is He not both of those things?!

2Pet. 3:18 … knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. …

"Lord and Savior" is in apposition to "Jesus Christ".
Is He not both of those things?!

Jude 4 … and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

"Master and Lord" is in apposition to "Jesus Christ".
Is He not both of those things?!

Rev. 1:9 I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation …

"brother and partner" are in apposition to "John".
Is he not both of those things?!

I don't think you've studied out the issue at all, and quite frankly, I don't even think you can read a lick of Greek. I think you simply search the Internet looking for resources which sound like they might be able to attack the GS rule.

Can you provide ANY examples of the GS rule where it is apposition to a name, and it doesn't hold true? ANY at all? I'm guessing you wouldn't even know where to look.
 

JNelson

Well-known member
Read the Chalcedon Creed.
It’s very telling when you need to direct others to a creed written hundreds of years after Christ because scriptures doesn’t have the answer. This clearly proves that the trinity and Christ’s dual nature is just some made up Greek philosophical nonsense
 

JNelson

Well-known member
Phil 2:5-8
In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
NIV

These translation capture the meaning of the text in its CONTEXT.


New International Version
rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

New Living Translation
Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form,

New King James Version
but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

King James Bible
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:


Thayers Greek Lexicon
namely, τοῦ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ or τῆς μορφῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ, i. e. he laid aside equality with or the form of God (said of Christ), Philippians 2:7

Strongs Lexicon
From kenos; to make empty, i.e. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify -- make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain.

Louw Nida Greek Lexicon
87.70
κενόωb: to completely remove or eliminate elements of high status or rank by eliminating all privileges or prerogatives associated with such status or rank.

What Paul makes very clear in this passage is that in addition to being God, He became man. The Incarnation was not a subtraction of His deity but an addition of humanity to His nature. This passage does not say Jesus gave up His deity but that He laid aside His rights as Deity, assuming the form of a servant in verse 7. The text says He was in the form of God or being in the very nature of God in 2:6. Just as He took upon Himself the "form of a servant" which is a servant by nature, so the "form of God" is God by nature. The word "being" from the phrase: being in the very form of God is a present active participle. This means "continued existence" as God. What Paul is actually saying here is Jesus has always been and still is in the "form of God". If you continue reading the passage Paul really drives this point home so that his readers have no doubt what he is trying to get across to the Philippians. Paul says that every knee will bow and will one day Confess Jesus is LORD. Paul takes the passage in Isaiah 45:23 which clearly refers to Yahweh a name used for God alone and says this of Jesus. The fulfillment of YHWH in Isaiah 45 is none other than Jesus who is God(Yahweh) in the flesh.

He self limited His divine prerogatives via the Incarnation as per Phil 2. In other words did not use them to His advantage but was in submission to the Father for 33 years to accomplish our salvation. All the FULLNESS of DEITY dwells in bodily form. Col 1:19;2:9. Jesus was and is fully God lacking nothing in His Deity.

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Even through Christ existed in the form of God He did not regard equality with God something that He needed to reach for or grasp. Why because it was already His and never gave that up for a millisecond.

Paul is using syllogisms from the text in Philippians 2.

Just as the term “form of God” in verse six does not mean “less than God” because of the phrase “equality with God" in the prior passage.

It goes to reason in the same way with the 2 phrases in the “form of a servant” and in the “likeness of man” in verse seven do not mean that Jesus was any “less than human,” but instead means He was the same or “equal with all humans.”

That is how the passage reads and how it is to be understood in its " CONTEXT ".

In Colossians 1:19 and Colossians 2:9 the Apostle Paul said, For in HIM (CHRIST) ALL of the “ fullness of deity dwells bodily. “Did Paul use the word fullness there to mean partially? NO as Jesus did not empty Himself of His Deity. Jesus Divinity is FULL, complete lacking in nothing. The ENTIRE Fullness of Deity dwells (is present) bodily in Jesus.

This is how one exegetes the passage rather than using eisegesis- reading ones own thoughts and ideas into the text.

hope this helps !!!
The word form (morphe) literally means outward appearance so Jesus had the outward appearance of God. Any man who comes performing miracles, signs and wonders like Jesus did is going to seem like a God to most. But we know based from Acts 2:22 and other verses that it was actually God performing these miracles through Jesus not that Jesus actually possessed this power innately.

When it says he did not count equality with God something to be grasped it means that even though he could do certain things God could he didn’t try and take advantage for personal gain.

Emptied himself means he made himself of no reputation, which contrasts with him not trying to exalt himself to take advantage for personal gain because he was equal with God. The Louw & Nida is excellent ‘to completely remove or eliminate elements of high status or rank by eliminating all privileges or prerogatives associated with such status or rank — ‘to empty oneself, to divest oneself of position’

Jesus being in the form of God talking about position, he is the son of God, the King of Israel, the Messiah. His position is next to God as ruler over all yet he humbled himself and took on the form (position) of a servant.

Taking the form of a servant is also the outward appearance of a servant. It shows the contrast in how he lived his life, he performed miracles and people followed him by the thousands yet in contrast he refused to be crowned king, he had no place to lay his head and humbly served others.

This is the contrast Paul is making not that he was God and became a human being that is being horrendously read into the text.

Jesus continued to humble himself and did so even unto death and then in v. 9, God, because of this highly exalted him. This is exactly what Jesus said in Matt. 23:12. No one has or can humble himself more than Christ and no can ever be exalted as high as Christ, to the right of God, the Most High, the Majesty on High.

By being exalted over all creation he was GIVEN a name above all names and when we bow and confess him as Lord it’s all to the glory of God the Father.

It’s very simple, Jesus, the most important man in the world lived and died as a humble servant and was therefore exalted, he is our example to be humble and serve others and to regard them higher than ourselves.
 

civic

Well-known member
It’s very telling when you need to direct others to a creed written hundreds of years after Christ because scriptures doesn’t have the answer. This clearly proves that the trinity and Christ’s dual nature is just some made up Greek philosophical nonsense
I don't need the creeds to support the Deity of Christ or the Trinity. Both are found in the Old and New Testaments.

next
 

civic

Well-known member
The word form (morphe) literally means outward appearance so Jesus had the outward appearance of God. Any man who comes performing miracles, signs and wonders like Jesus did is going to seem like a God to most. But we know based from Acts 2:22 and other verses that it was actually God performing these miracles through Jesus not that Jesus actually possessed this power innately.

When it says he did not count equality with God something to be grasped it means that even though he could do certain things God could he didn’t try and take advantage for personal gain.

Emptied himself means he made himself of no reputation, which contrasts with him not trying to exalt himself to take advantage for personal gain because he was equal with God. The Louw & Nida is excellent ‘to completely remove or eliminate elements of high status or rank by eliminating all privileges or prerogatives associated with such status or rank — ‘to empty oneself, to divest oneself of position’

Jesus being in the form of God talking about position, he is the son of God, the King of Israel, the Messiah. His position is next to God as ruler over all yet he humbled himself and took on the form (position) of a servant.

Taking the form of a servant is also the outward appearance of a servant. It shows the contrast in how he lived his life, he performed miracles and people followed him by the thousands yet in contrast he refused to be crowned king, he had no place to lay his head and humbly served others.

This is the contrast Paul is making not that he was God and became a human being that is being horrendously read into the text.

Jesus continued to humble himself and did so even unto death and then in v. 9, God, because of this highly exalted him. This is exactly what Jesus said in Matt. 23:12. No one has or can humble himself more than Christ and no can ever be exalted as high as Christ, to the right of God, the Most High, the Majesty on High.

By being exalted over all creation he was GIVEN a name above all names and when we bow and confess him as Lord it’s all to the glory of God the Father.

It’s very simple, Jesus, the most important man in the world lived and died as a humble servant and was therefore exalted, he is our example to be humble and serve others and to regard them higher than ourselves.
I see you did not address the text but ran away from Phil 2 which is very telling.
 

Tanachreader

Well-known member
It’s very telling when you need to direct others to a creed written hundreds of years after Christ because scriptures doesn’t have the answer. This clearly proves that the trinity and Christ’s dual nature is just some made up Greek philosophical nonsense
You direct other to a creed from Transylvania
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
It’s very telling when you need to direct others to a creed written hundreds of years after Christ because scriptures doesn’t have the answer. This clearly proves that the trinity and Christ’s dual nature is just some made up Greek philosophical nonsense

If the creeds have no value because they were written "hundreds of years after Chirst", then your posts must be worthless, because they are written THOUSANDS of years after Christ.
 

JNelson

Well-known member
You direct other to a creed from Transylvania
No idea what creed your talking about and much less would I ever refer anyone to read a creed instead of scriptures. Your friend Johnny did just that because it’s clear the Bible doesn’t teach it.
 

Tanachreader

Well-known member
Of course you think he’s doing fine, you both deny that the God of Jesus is not the only true God as Jesus himself taught.
so God saying His Son is God isn’t true for you.
Also read and open those blind eyes.

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
 
Top