Kenosis Heresy

johnny guitar said:
NO, it does NOT.
God indwelling someone does NOT make someone God.
Click to expand...
Why then do you call Jesus Christ God?

What's the difference between God the Son indwelling the human Christ, and God the Holy Spirit indwelling a believer?
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
Why then do you call Jesus Christ God?

What's the difference between God the Son indwelling the human Christ, and God the Holy Spirit indwelling a believer?
Click to expand...
Because He IS God.
God The Son indwelling the human Christ?????Incomprehensible question.
 
johnny guitar said:
-->Why then do you call Jesus Christ God?
-->What's the difference between God the Son indwelling the human Christ, and God the Holy Spirit indwelling a believer?

Because He IS God.
God The Son indwelling the human Christ?????Incomprehensible question.
Click to expand...
Again, if "Jesus is GOD" because God the Son indwelt the human Jesus,
Why cannot it be said "johnny guitar is God" because God the Holy Spirit indwells the human johnny guitar?
 
cjab said:
Again, if "Jesus is GOD" because God the Son indwelt the human Jesus,
Why cannot it be said "johnny guitar is God" because God the Holy Spirit indwells the human johnny guitar?
Click to expand...
If you want to write your own Bible and make it say what you want it to. Feel free. But I'll rely on the one we have.
 
OldShepherd said:
If you want to write your own Bible and make it say what you want it to. Feel free. But I'll rely on the one we have.
Click to expand...
I thought you might have said, "because there is no actual human person in Jesus," which obliges Trinitarianism to be more than a trifle docetic (i.e. Jesus only seemed to be human) if is to be faithful to the "Jesus is God" idea.
 
Kampioen said:
Numbers 23:19 is referring to that God doesn't lie, and thus is not a man, since a man would lie and repent. ...

But Jesus is a man that didn't lie. God can become one of those, a man none other than God ie the Word made flesh. So there is no contradiction.
Click to expand...
I would go further than by that! Christ's body wasn't by immaculate conception of Mary as RCC teaches. His Body was chosen for Him from heaven. Consider this scripture:

Rom 7:
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

While we know Christ didn't teach us canibalism, we know what He meant by when He said this:

John 6: 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
: 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Christ came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh (mortality) but not EXACTNESS of sinful flesh where Paul said of himself that nothing good dwells in his flesh.

The OT does say YHWH is a Man of war - Exod 15:3 .

Jacob did wrestle with a Man whom Jacob calls seeing God and he calls the place of encounter as 'PeniEl'.

EZK 1:26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.

You are right in saying that when it is said 'God is not a man....' it refers to sinful man.
 
cjab said:
Scripture doesn't rule out angels being involved with nature. Consider the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by an angel. Genesis 18:20 ff. We don't know when the angels were created. All we know is that the Son is "the beginning of creation of God."

We don't know what to what use the angels were put in the creation of the world, if any. All you can know is that the word of God that caused the creation of the world & its redemption issued from God himself. The service of the angels is limited, but still service. These passages distinguish the angels from the son in terms of authority.


Time-Keepers? Created by Walt Simonson and Sal Buscema, the Time Variance Authority first appeared in the pages of Marvel Comics via a 1986 issue of Thor.


I am not making an exception. There is only one recorded instance in the entire bible of gibor being applied on its own to el (singular), and that is in Isaiah 10:21, in the context of the redemption of the remnant of Israel. So in Isaiah 9:5,6 and in Isaiah 10:21 I see the references to the character of God in terms of his redemptive capacity. "El gibor" remains a very unusual term for God: not a term one would use for creating a synonymity with the Father, but one sufficient for establishing a relation between the redemptive side of God and this son.

Other instances of gibor are combined with other adjectives when describing God's qualities.

BTW I also overlooked another possibility, that Pele-joez-el-gibbor-abi-ad-sar-shalom can be construed as "Wonderful in counsel is God the mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace." (Hertz 1968)


Why not a counselor? Was not Christ a counselor and the one "through" whom all things were made? Does not the Holy Spirit take from what is Christ's and make it known to humans?

Jhn 16:14 "He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."


My denominational "baggage" in not unitarian but trinitarian. Unitarianism is frequently confounded with arianism and / or soccianism, which is unacceptable; and which is one reason one why I would never call myself a unitarian, just because it conveys so many things that are heretical. As so many self-professing unitarians are really into arian and / or soccian heresies, or outright rejection of the entire concept of sonship, unitarianism has ceased to be meaningful, even if conceptually it remains distinguishable and severable from both arianism and soccianism. I repudiate all arian and soccinian views period. Such discount the pre-existence of Christ and / or his eternal co-existence with the Father, which I see Oneness as also discounting, which is another form of unitarianism that owes far too much to pagan conceptions of divinity (Gods metamorphosing themselves).

I am amenable to trinitarians who do not seek to promote "God the Son" theology, as so many do. I see "God the Son" theology as inherently pagan, as it denotes "sonship" by reference to the process of begetting of pagan gods.


Mixed metaphors. One is talking about YHWH sustaining and providing for Israel, the other about Israel's redemption from sin.


Because YHWH denotes the Father and the Word together in a vertically aligned "oneness." Christ is the redemption of YHWH. YHWH is in terms of personhood, the Father, the head of that hierarchy (1 Cor 11:3).
Click to expand...
I've made my point and am not going to argue over it again.

As The Ordinal First, He is The Father and as The Ordinal Last He is The Son. The same person in dispensation of time. There is no Father speaking in the NT but He spake IN the Son - Heb 1:1.

Therefore, YHWH revealed Himself in duality of powers - as The First and The Last.

Sorry, God didn't take Angels in counsel while creating man. He uses them in service of His elect or in judgement as in Sodom
 
cjab said:
Again, if "Jesus is GOD" because God the Son indwelt the human Jesus,
Why cannot it be said "johnny guitar is God" because God the Holy Spirit indwells the human johnny guitar?
Click to expand...
Same silliness as virtually all heterodox folks. Vainly trying to find some word or phrase they can twist to attack Christianity.
 
cjab said:
Again, if "Jesus is GOD" because God the Son indwelt the human Jesus,
Why cannot it be said "johnny guitar is God" because God the Holy Spirit indwells the human johnny guitar?
Click to expand...
You are just making Jesus a Spirit (God) filled Christian ie two beings, not God.
 
Kampioen said:
You are just making Jesus a Spirit (God) filled Christian ie two beings, not God.
Click to expand...
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."
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

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.

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".
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
* * *
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."
Click to expand...
If you intend to discuss Trintarianism I suggest you first learn what you are taking about. I do not know of any Trinitarian who ever said "Christ is a 'god man,' never a true man." That is a straw man argument. The majority view is "fully man, fully God."
 
cjab said:
I thought you might have said, "because there is no actual human person in Jesus," which obliges Trinitarianism to be more than a trifle docetic (i.e. Jesus only seemed to be human) if is to be faithful to the "Jesus is God" idea.
Click to expand...
Is this supposed to make any sense? I am absolutely sure I never said anything like "because there is no actual human person in Jesus,." Here is the Christian view Jesus was fully man, fully God.
 
cjab said:
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."
Click to expand...
Christ is THE God-Man. True God, True Man.
The rest is endless gibberish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top