Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Representative View of Kenosis.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A Representative View of Kenosis.

    Blue Letter Bible, representing a MAINSTREAM view?

    When He was here upon the earth Jesus was all knowing, or omniscient, yet He did not know the time of His Second Coming. Although He was all-powerful, or omnipotent, He prayed to God to raise Lazarus from the dead. Jesus, as God, was everywhere present, or omnipresent, but He could only be at one place at a time. These attributes were always with Him - He simply chose not to use them apart from the will of the Father.

    This from this site, which may or may not be "approved" by the powers that be here, but in any case MIGHT represent a commonsense consideration. Notice that I did not cut 'n' paste a large section.

    https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/...tewart_795.cfm

    First problem of course is...why would Jesus CHOOSE not to know something, or CHOOSE to subordinate himself to his Father for power, inspiration, or understanding?

    Same problem of course, for the Dual-Natured Jesus. The PROBLEM of course is...how do two UNMESHABLE natures really in fact MESH in real life. Human and divine?

    I think many or most Christians view Philippians 2 as describing an EMPTYING of what I recently saw a colleague describe as "divine prerogatives." Which he then proceeded to show, really are for all, when considering God, divine ATTRIBUTES.

    All-knowing (omniscience), being all-powerful, being omnipresent...these are really in the simplest terms, in the Judeo-Christian faith, CHARACTERISTICS, or ATTRIBUTES of God.

    So...not having these characteristics or attributes of God NEGATES BY DEFINITION Jesus being God at all.

    This guy, Don Stewart is saying that Jesus relinquishes his INDEPENDENCE by willful force, to the presupposed TRI-UNITY. To in other words, his Father (and the Holy Spirit). All he is actually doing is delineating the presupposition itself, of Trinity.

    Second problem, Don Stewart is only considering a FEW things Jesus subordinated himself to...when in fact there were at least five things he did not know, and many places in which he showed and told of a total DEPENDENCE upon his Father and God for inspiration, power, life itself, as well as glorification.

    Third thing, this whole scenario of Don Stewart is entirely IMAGINED since the Bible never depicts ANY OF THIS, the Three Persons of Godhead becoming HARMONIOUS in equality, instead of INDEPENDENT as God-autonomous beings. Indeed, a Three-Being God ITSELF as concept is entirely MISSING in Text. It IN FACT is something DRUMMED-UP in the minds of the minions, not a faithful idea or conceptualization at all, but something FORMULATED as late as the Council of Constantinople, 381 A.D.

    Fourth thing, this here excerpt which was in general APPROVED of the Blue Letter Bible people, is not the actual DEFINITION of Kenosis at all. GOOGLE the view and find your way. The HISTORICAL definition is really out there, but does not MATCH what Don Stewart has come up with.

    In John of the Cross' thinking, kenosis is the concept of the 'self-emptying' of one's own will and becoming entirely receptive to God and the divine will. It is used both as an explanation of the Incarnation, and an indication of the nature of God's activity and will. -- wiki definition, which must take into account different denominational views.

    See the inherent problem HERE folks? Receptive to God when HE is God? Incarnation is GOD "taking on flesh," so how is GOD becoming receptive to HIMself? The democratic view of "kenosis" in other words makes not a SMIDGEN of sense. But then again, when THREE are considered God, then what ODDER concept is available to us? The trinitarian MUST consider the Holy Spirit and the Father and the Son all enmeshed, and harmonious instead of acting thinking or behaving independently.

    But then again, by definition of God, God HIMSELF makes no sense if his HISTORICAL and BIBLICAL characteristics are entirely changed, from KNOWING all things to NOT knowing all things. To BEING less than all-powerful or omnipresent. To being in other words, OTHER THAN God. Especially, the SINGULAR God depicted in Text, as a single HE, and HIM and in the first-person "I." In ALL WAYS the trinitarian is heinously PERVERTING basic biblical concepts. The SINGULAR pronouns and verbs in Text describe a SINGULAR God.

    To say with MY OWN CONCLUSIONS, that Kenosis makes NO SENSE in ANY sense of the word. God cannot EMPTY Himself of...being...God.

    Shema will change the Christian World.

    Turn it upside down. To where it once was, the POV of JESUS, his DISCIPLES and his SERVANTS.

    Know God YHWH Elohim is One. And love Him with all. Mk 12, red letter words.

  • #2
    Originally posted by nothead View Post
    First problem of course is...why would Jesus CHOOSE not to know something, or CHOOSE to subordinate himself to his Father for power, inspiration, or understanding?
    Jesus was a role model for us. Perhaps you would disagree.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by nothead View Post
      So...not having these characteristics or attributes of God NEGATES BY DEFINITION Jesus being God at all.

      But John tells us the Word was God and was with God...then became flesh. Do you deny Jesus was born in the flesh?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by nothead View Post
        See the inherent problem HERE folks? Receptive to God when HE is God? Incarnation is GOD "taking on flesh," so how is GOD becoming receptive to HIMself? The democratic view of "kenosis" in other words makes not a SMIDGEN of sense. But then again, when THREE are considered God, then what ODDER concept is available to us? The trinitarian MUST consider the Holy Spirit and the Father and the Son all enmeshed, and harmonious instead of acting thinking or behaving independently.
        Phil 2 say Jesus took on the form of a servant....something I realize you need to deny..as your post above seemed to indicate. After all if Jesus is in the form of God..that is really God...then when Jesus took the form of a servant then He really was a servant.

        But, if you destroy Jesus servanthood..then you can claim Jesus wasn't really in the form of a servant...and...then conclude Jesus wasn't really in the form of God.

        Lots of twisting...Lots of work to erase the obvious and support the cult idea that Jesus isn't God.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by CrowCross View Post

          Jesus was a role model for us. Perhaps you would disagree.
          So is God a role model of sorts. Still...us KNOWING God is so far beyond us, we cannot imitate God anywhere's NEAR His perfection.

          ON the other hand, Jesus said his DISCIPLES would do GREATER works than him. How can THIS be sir? What is the OT verse sir?

          The formulation is this verse is known as the Imitatio Dei; a similar verse appears at Luke 6:36. The verse might be modeled on Leviticus 19:2, which says in the King James: "Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, You shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy." [1]

          There is some debate about the meaning of the injunction to be "perfect," since orthodox Christianity teaches that creatures cannot achieve God's level of perfection.

          The term rendered "perfect" in most English translations is τέλειοι (teleioi), the same word used in the Septuagint for תָּמִים and meaning "brought to its end, finished; lacking nothing necessary to completeness.".[2] According to Barnes, "Originally, it is applied to a piece of mechanism, as a machine that is complete in its parts. Applied to people, it refers to completeness of parts, or perfection, where no part is defective or wanting." [3] Some link the Gospel's use of the term with its use by the Greek philosophers. To them something was perfect if it fully be its intended function.

          One commentary offers, "Manifestly, our Lord here speaks, not of degrees of excellence, but of the kind of excellence which was to distinguish His disciples and characterize His kingdom. When therefore He adds, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect—He refers to that full-orbed glorious completeness which is in the great Divine Model, 'their Father which is in heaven.'" [4] Other scholars believe that Jesus is here setting a goal that is certain to be impossible, so that we will realize this and be humble. The pursuit of perfection is important, even if the attainment of it impossible.[5]

          Mt 5:48 wikopedia.


          The Leviticus passage renders "for" instead of "as." This is actually the true sense and Jesus was reiterating the true sense of the verse. BECAUSE God is moral and good, we are to be, although the Jew KNEW this was impossible to the level of God.

          So then, I refuted your view with an ORTHODOX so-called view sir. Defeated by your own bombed-out PETARD sir. No I would NOT disagree. But Jesus is not God, so then we CAN imitate him LITERALLY.

          And how many DID take up their crosses and follow him? The EXACT requirement of Luke 14:

          27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.


          Shema will change the Christian World.

          Turn it upside down. To where it once was, the POV of JESUS, his DISCIPLES and his SERVANTS.

          Know God YHWH Elohim is One. And love Him with all. Mk 12, red letter words.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by nothead View Post

            So is God a role model of sorts. Still...us KNOWING God is so far beyond us, we cannot imitate God anywhere's NEAR His perfection.

            ON the other hand, Jesus said his DISCIPLES would do GREATER works than him. How can THIS be sir? What is the OT verse sir?

            The formulation is this verse is known as the Imitatio Dei; a similar verse appears at Luke 6:36. The verse might be modeled on Leviticus 19:2, which says in the King James: "Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, You shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy." [1]

            There is some debate about the meaning of the injunction to be "perfect," since orthodox Christianity teaches that creatures cannot achieve God's level of perfection.

            The term rendered "perfect" in most English translations is τέλειοι (teleioi), the same word used in the Septuagint for תָּמִים and meaning "brought to its end, finished; lacking nothing necessary to completeness.".[2] According to Barnes, "Originally, it is applied to a piece of mechanism, as a machine that is complete in its parts. Applied to people, it refers to completeness of parts, or perfection, where no part is defective or wanting." [3] Some link the Gospel's use of the term with its use by the Greek philosophers. To them something was perfect if it fully be its intended function.

            One commentary offers, "Manifestly, our Lord here speaks, not of degrees of excellence, but of the kind of excellence which was to distinguish His disciples and characterize His kingdom. When therefore He adds, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect—He refers to that full-orbed glorious completeness which is in the great Divine Model, 'their Father which is in heaven.'" [4] Other scholars believe that Jesus is here setting a goal that is certain to be impossible, so that we will realize this and be humble. The pursuit of perfection is important, even if the attainment of it impossible.[5]

            Mt 5:48 wikopedia.


            The Leviticus passage renders "for" instead of "as." This is actually the true sense and Jesus was reiterating the true sense of the verse. BECAUSE God is moral and good, we are to be, although the Jew KNEW this was impossible to the level of God.

            So then, I refuted your view with an ORTHODOX so-called view sir. Defeated by your own bombed-out PETARD sir. No I would NOT disagree. But Jesus is not God, so then we CAN imitate him LITERALLY.

            And how many DID take up their crosses and follow him? The EXACT requirement of Luke 14:

            27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

            "So is God a role model of sorts."........Yes. Jesus who is God the Son showed us how trust in the Father. While doing that He was subservient to the Father.

            Are you really saying Jesus isn't a roll model?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by CrowCross View Post

              Jesus was a role model for us. Perhaps you would disagree.
              Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

              Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

              Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

              Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

              Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

              Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

              Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
              Since there is only one Lord God then how do we see Jesus who is Lord and all should bow down to him?

              Do we bow down to the one Lord God or do we bow down to a role model of God?

              Is the Son of God a representative of God or God expressed as a referent?

              Is not the Father mentioned as well who we know to be God?

              Is the Father though God and Jesus calls the Father God a role model of himself?

              If the Father is the original and the Son is the express image of God then what is the difference?

              Is there anything in the scripture quoted stating that God emptied himself?

              Who took on the role of a human servant who was in the form of God?

              Does scripture mention anyone who was in the form of God other than this one and what does it mean to be in the form of God?

              Why would God need a representative to bow down to rather than God himself?

              Is it Jesus that took on the form of a servant or is it God who is the Word that took on the form of a servant called Jesus?

              If God is not emptying himself then what is God doing?

              How can God empty himself and still be God and have divine attributes?

              How can God be a God-man and still be God?

              How is it we have the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father and yet God is the one Lord? God has not changed has he?

              Is the purpose Of the Word made flesh God having a Father and Son relationship and through this relationship bringing other sons and daughters into the world?

              Is not the purpose of the Word made flesh to reconcile humanity unto God as new spiritual creations as sons and daughters in RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FATHER?

              Was there a Jesus as the Son of God before the Word was made flesh? We know that the Word is Jesus so how are we to understand it?

              Enough questions! May the Spirit guides us with answers so we may know God better in which to glorify him!

              God bless you,

              SeventhDay
              Last edited by SeventhDay; 10-12-19, 04:31 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post



                Since there is only one Lord God then how do we see Jesus who is Lord and all should bow down to him?
                Yes, one God...three persons....

                Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post
                Do we bow down to the one Lord God or do we bow down to a role model of God?
                Both.

                Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post
                Is the Son of God a representative of God or God expressed as a referent?
                Both. Sheeze, they asked Jesus to teach them how to pray....so the role model did just that.

                Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post
                Is not the Father mentioned as well who we know to be God?
                Yes....one God three persons.

                Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post
                Is the Father though God and Jesus calls the Father God a role model of himself?
                Did not Jesus teach people to be servants of God the Father? Did He not say...come, follow me.

                Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post
                If the Father is the original and the Son is the express image of God then what is the difference?
                Each of the Trinity are of the same essence or nature of God....each of the trinity are expressed differently as they are different persons yet the same in God as they all are the one God.

                Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post
                Is there anything in the scripture quoted stating that God emptied himself?
                Phil 2:7ish......Jesus was the form and equal to God. He didn't grasp on to it...and by not grasping "emptied himself"....became a servant.

                Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post
                Who took on the role of a human servant who was in the form of God?
                The Word that became flesh. I think you know ere to find it.

                Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post
                Does scripture mention anyone who was in the form of God other than this one and what does it mean to be in the form of God?
                It means to be God. Just as Jesus was a servant...so was He God. Considering the same word for form is used in both instances under the same context.....your theology would be forced to say if Jesus wasn't God then Jesus wasn't a servant.

                Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post
                Why would God need a representative to bow down to rather than God himself?
                He himself is God...what's the problem?

                Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post
                Is it Jesus that took on the form of a servant or is it God who is the Word that took on the form of a servant called Jesus?
                Lets say it this way...The pre-incarnate Jesus took on the form of a servant when the Word, who was the eternal pre-incarnate Jesus that became flesh.

                Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post
                If God is not emptying himself then what is God doing?
                The second of the God Head emptied Himself.

                Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post
                How can God empty himself and still be God and have divine attributes?
                Who says Jesus emptied Himself of His divinity? You might be able to say "glory" or some other aspect but did away with His divinity...nahhh.

                Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post
                How can God be a God-man and still be God?
                How could He not?

                Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post
                How is it we have the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father and yet God is the one Lord? God has not changed has he?
                You forgot God the Holy Spirit.

                [QUOTE=SeventhDay;n6130701]Is the purpose Of the Word made flesh God having a Father and Son relationship and through this relationship bringing other sons and daughters into the world?

                No, the Trinity had a perfect relationship from eternity past.

                Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post
                Is not the purpose of the Word made flesh to reconcile humanity unto God as new spiritual creations as sons and daughters in RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FATHER?
                Something like that.

                Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post
                Was there a Jesus as the Son of God before the Word was made flesh? We know that the Word is Jesus so how are we to understand it?
                If you existed in pre-incarnate heaven...if...and you walked up to the Word and called Him Jesus do you think the Word would Care? If you were around in the time of Christ ....and walked up to Jesus and called Him the Word do you think Jesus would care?

                Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post
                Enough questions! May the Spirit guides us with answers so we may know God better in which to glorify him!

                God bless you,

                SeventhDay
                Hope that helps

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by CrowCross View Post

                  "So is God a role model of sorts."........Yes. Jesus who is God the Son showed us how trust in the Father. While doing that He was subservient to the Father.

                  Are you really saying Jesus isn't a roll model?
                  Read again, moll model. ROLE model, not roll model, funnystuffs.
                  Shema will change the Christian World.

                  Turn it upside down. To where it once was, the POV of JESUS, his DISCIPLES and his SERVANTS.

                  Know God YHWH Elohim is One. And love Him with all. Mk 12, red letter words.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by CrowCross View Post

                    But John tells us the Word was God and was with God...then became flesh. Do you deny Jesus was born in the flesh?
                    Jesus was created and made in the flesh by the Father. When God UTTERS "Jesus" the Word became flesh.
                    Shema will change the Christian World.

                    Turn it upside down. To where it once was, the POV of JESUS, his DISCIPLES and his SERVANTS.

                    Know God YHWH Elohim is One. And love Him with all. Mk 12, red letter words.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by nothead View Post

                      Jesus was created and made in the flesh by the Father. When God UTTERS "Jesus" the Word became flesh.
                      Sounds like Mary's pregnancy only lasted a moment. God uttered "Jesus"...Mary became pregnant..and her belly popped out...and she immediately went into labor.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        [QUOTE=CrowCross;n6130765]

                        Yes, one God...three persons....



                        Both.



                        Both. Sheeze, they asked Jesus to teach them how to pray....so the role model did just that.



                        Yes....one God three persons.



                        Did not Jesus teach people to be servants of God the Father? Did He not say...come, follow me.



                        Each of the Trinity are of the same essence or nature of God....each of the trinity are expressed differently as they are different persons yet the same in God as they all are the one God.


                        Phil 2:7ish......Jesus was the form and equal to God. He didn't grasp on to it...and by not grasping "emptied himself"....became a servant.



                        The Word that became flesh. I think you know ere to find it.



                        It means to be God. Just as Jesus was a servant...so was He God. Considering the same word for form is used in both instances under the same context.....your theology would be forced to say if Jesus wasn't God then Jesus wasn't a servant.



                        He himself is God...what's the problem?



                        Lets say it this way...The pre-incarnate Jesus took on the form of a servant when the Word, who was the eternal pre-incarnate Jesus that became flesh.



                        The second of the God Head emptied Himself.



                        Who says Jesus emptied Himself of His divinity? You might be able to say "glory" or some other aspect but did away with His divinity...nahhh.



                        How could He not?



                        You forgot God the Holy Spirit.

                        Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post
                        Is the purpose Of the Word made flesh God having a Father and Son relationship and through this relationship bringing other sons and daughters into the world?

                        No, the Trinity had a perfect relationship from eternity past.



                        Something like that.



                        If you existed in pre-incarnate heaven...if...and you walked up to the Word and called Him Jesus do you think the Word would Care? If you were around in the time of Christ ....and walked up to Jesus and called Him the Word do you think Jesus would care?



                        Hope that helps
                        Why should we see God as three persons? If Jesus is God are we seeing him as three persons.? If Jesus is God then we should see him as one person!

                        Did Jesus say the Father and the Son were three or did he say the Father and Son are one!

                        If you understood how "Word" is used as a referent and can be used as referents then you you would understand what Father and Son means. The Word however is one because the Word is the Lord God who is one Lord God not three.

                        Are we bowing down to one God or three Gods? Does God want us to bow down to three Lord Gods? Are we only bowing down to one Lord God when we bow down to Jesus? Would the Son ask us to bow down to the Son or the Father who he called God?

                        Why would Jesus say to come and follow me if he was not God who is the Father? Why would Jesus say if you have seen me you have seen the Father. Why would Jesus say the Son and the Father are one and not three?

                        Is not God one Lord God then why would he have to be three of anything sharing the same nature? God states that he is one Lord God and not three Gods sharing the same natures as persons. Since God is one Lord God then three Lords as persons each called God would indeed be three Gods unless you do not know how to add.

                        Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
                        Where do you get "not grasping on to it" meaning emptying himself? Actually, God is fully divine and not emptying himself at all but taking on the role of a human servant of God. There is no God-man or Divine man in that role and God did not empty himself either!

                        Jesus was in the form of God means that he was God (even you have stated that) but God in the role of the Son did not make himself equal with God who is the Father.

                        Where is there mentioned a "pre-incarnate" Jesus when Jesus is the one Lord God who is self-existent. However, a Son coming into the world is a creation and a creation is not self-existent but Jesus is. Jesus is the Word made flesh but this includes the Father in relationship with the Son or there is no Jesus at all!

                        The Father and Son in relationship is who Jesus is and we see this in John 1:14,18. We see this in what Jesus said "the Father and I are one". There is no Jesus if there is no Father in the Son and Son in the Father!

                        Father and Son are "referents" of the one Lord God not three Lord Gods!

                        The Word is God as the divine expression who expresses himself as referents. Father, Son, creator, life and light are mentioned in John's prologue and some of the same referents are mentioned in !John 1:1-3.

                        God bless you,

                        SeventhDay
                        Last edited by SeventhDay; 10-12-19, 06:39 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post
                          If you understood how "Word" is used as a referent and can be used as referents then you you would understand what Father and Son means. The Word however is one because the Word is the Lord God who is one Lord God not three.


                          God bless you,

                          SeventhDay
                          That's NOT what John 1 says....

                          In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God....the Word became flesh.


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by CrowCross View Post

                            That's NOT what John 1 says....

                            In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God....the Word became flesh.

                            Yes, John is referring to one person through out his prologue not three persons.

                            God bless you,

                            SeventhDay

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post

                              Yes, John is referring to one person through out his prologue not three persons.

                              God bless you,

                              SeventhDay
                              2 persons being referred to in Jn 1:1.
                              Proverbs 30:28
                              You can catch a lizard with your hands, Yet she is in kings' palaces.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X