Kenosis heresy

[Taken]

What Paul makes very clear in this passage is that in addition to being God, He became man.
hope this helps !!!

I get your point...
But this gives me pause:

"God, He became a man".

Likeness AS a man.
Fashion AS a man.
Keeps it more in context IMO.

Newer / Modern rewritten versions of Scripture have Replaced "man"...with HUMAN.

And even EXPAND ^^ That to attributing His "Being" HUMAN...to Mary's Seed and of all things Mary's DNA !!!

God Does NOT Change.
As you rightly pointed out...
He took "upon Himself"....
Which reveals... Hisself Did Not Change...
Hisself Remained "Under" the Likeness He took upon Himself.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[bbyrd009]

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus

next.............

lol

 

[ChristisGod]

lol

Thanks I'm one of those who loves irony. Caught with my hands in the cookie jar lol.

 

[DNB]

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

Phil 2:5-8
5 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.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
NASB

Either theory is incorrect, kenosis or hybrid.
It is an absurd notion to think that, according to trinitarian theology, the triune god who both devised and orchestrated the plan and logistics of Redemption, to ever have such sentiments pass through his mind. How can an omniscient entity establish a protocol for the Atonement, and then when deployed, contemplate a potential option to undermine it, as in remaining equal to God, when a fallible human was required for sacrifice? This is not what the passage is attempting to convey.

But, on the contrary, these are clearly the sentiments of a 1st century man who was aware of his virgin birth, and who had read and understood all the Scriptures pertaining to himself, that is, recognizing his pre-eminence and Messiaship (form of a god to his brethren). But, realizing that both potency wise and ontologically, equality with God was not a feasible or plausible consideration. He therefore remained with the mindset that his God-given ontology and mandate dictated - humility and servant. And thus, Paul is prescribing that we humans adopt this mentality. Which, would be ludicrous, too hypothetical and unfathomable, if Paul was analogizing the kenosis/hybrid logistic, to a disposition that we creatures are to emulate? An utterly ridiculous principle!

 

[ChristisGod]

Either theory is incorrect, kenosis or hybrid.
It is an absurd notion to think that, according to trinitarian theology, the triune god who both devised and orchestrated the plan and logistics of Redemption, to ever have such sentiments pass through his mind. How can an omniscient entity establish a protocol for the Atonement, and then when deployed, contemplate a potential option to undermine it, as in remaining equal to God, when a fallible human was required for sacrifice? This is not what the passage is attempting to convey.

But, on the contrary, these are clearly the sentiments of a 1st century man who was aware of his virgin birth, and who had read and understood all the Scriptures pertaining to himself, that is, recognizing his pre-eminence and Messiaship (form of a god to his brethren). But, realizing that both potency wise and ontologically, equality with God was not a feasible or plausible consideration. He therefore remained with the mindset that his God-given ontology and mandate dictated - humility and servant. And thus, Paul is prescribing that we humans adopt this mentality. Which, would be ludicrous, too hypothetical and unfathomable, if Paul was analogizing the kenosis/hybrid logistic, to a disposition that we creatures are to emulate? An utterly ridiculous principle!

Give us a scripture for the requirement for a " fallible human being required for sacrifice "

 

[FollowHim]

Actually Scripture says no such thing. Quite the opposite. Here is one example from John 1:43-50:

43 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me. 44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. 46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.

47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! 48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. 49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. 50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.

In this one example we see Jesus acting as God. When He said "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!" Christ has examined Nathanael's heart and rendered judgment. And only God knows hearts. Then Jesus showed His omniscience by telling Nathanael exactly where he was BEFORE Philip called him. Jesus was nowhere in sight when Philip went to seek Nathanael. But He knew his exact location. As a result of this disclosure, Nathanael was convinced that Jesus is God by calling Him "the Son of God, and the King of Israel" (and only God is King of Israel, while "Son of God" meant God to the Jews).

This is certainly one passage of a word of knowledge. But Jesus had to learn, did not know some things the only the Father knew.
And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.
Luke 2:52

I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.
John 8:28

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Mark 13:32

Clearly these verses teach the Son and the Father are different. The Son is limited. Chosen limitations does not deny His divinity but the proof of how He is the source of life not because of His attributes but because of who He is. God bless you

 

[Enoch111]

The Son is limited.

There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between "the Son is limited" and "the Son chose to fully submit to the Father in His humanity".

The obedience of Christ to the Father ("He humbled Himself") and His submission to the Law of Moses ("and became obedient unto death") was necessary in order to fulfil His role as the perfect sinless Man. But at NO TIME was He limited. He Himself said that He could have called down twelve legions of angels had He chosen to escape the crucifixion.

All of this means that you a a very FLAWED understanding of the humanity of Christ. Time to go back to square one.

 

[justbyfaith]

@Enoch111,

Do you ignore what it says in Mark 13:32 about the fact that Jesus wasn't Omniscient?

 

[DNB]

Give us a scripture for the requirement for a " fallible human being required for sacrifice "

The fundamental principle of the judicial aspect of the Atonement, is didactically explained below.

Romans 5:12-21
5:12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[ChristisGod]

The fundamental principle of the judicial aspect of the Atonement, is didactically explained below.

Romans 5:12-21
5:12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

just as I thought an empty claim as nothing in this passage even hints at your conclusion that Jesus was a fallible man needed as a requirement to be a sacrifice for sin.

 

[DNB]

just as I thought an empty claim as nothing in this passage even hints at your conclusion that Jesus was a fallible man needed as a requirement to be a sacrifice for sin.

The analogous juxtaposition between himself and Adam, entirely and categorically delineates that, Christophany. That is how and why the Atonement works. First, it was not a god-man that sinned, and secondly, God cannot propitiate Himself. Both of these ludicrous propositions are dispelled in Paul's exposition on the Atonement. He is explaining both how and why, in God's wisdom, one act counteracts the other. Only a fallible creature can rectify the damage done by an equally fallible creature. Otherwise, Adam cannot be charged with defiance, as no other creature on earth was able to do what God demanded of him. But, Christ proved otherwise, only because he was a peer to Adam.

 

[Taken]

Just so you know never in a million years would I believe in oneness heresy. You can say it over and over until you are blue in the face but my mind would never reject the truth in exchange for a lie.

hope this helps !!!

Everyone has their own understanding of what things mean to them.

Could you give a brief statement of what...

Heresy means to you?
Kenosis heresy means to you?
Oneness heresy means to you?

Thanks,
Taken

 

[Taken]

Do you ignore what it says in Mark 13:32 about the fact that Jesus wasn't Omniscient?

jbf-
Follow the Truth.

Omniscient- meaning; knowing Everything.

Mark 13:
[32] But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Clearly Jesus revealed:
* No man knows All things.
* Jesus came to Earth AS the Son of man.
* Jesus was seen, heard, by men, was called a man.
* Jesus WAS foretold WOULD be Called;
The Son of God.
* "Jesus" STATED;
- All great buildings would fall.
- Men wanted to Know When that would happen.
- Jesus gave a list of things/ signs that would lead up to great buildings falling.
- Then Jesus added a Point.. that Only the Father knew The precise Day and Hour.

^^^
That knowledge IS What WAS TRUE ON THAT DAY the Conversation took place.

Follow the Truth of what Occurred AFTER... THAT Day.

Those same men LEARNED, that this Jesus, that had been teaching them...
IS Gods Christ Messiah.

Those same men...now trusting to believe JESUS IS the Christ Messiah of God...
THEREAFTER said:

John 16:30
[30] Now are we sure that thou knowest all things...


Those same men asked The Lord:
Acts1:
...Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

Acts 1:
[7] And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Follow the ORDER of the Truth.
What you Know One day is your Truth.
What you Learn Later may change your Truth to something else.

1) It is True on day you did not know whom you would marry.
2) And is True on another day you did know whom you would marry.

Neither are lies...but the 1), is no longer relevant or applicable once you Know 2).

The Fact is:
When The Disciples MET Jesus, they MET Jesus, as a man.
When they came to KNOW Jesus, they KNEW Him, to be Christ the Lord Jesus.

Their Understanding Changed.
Their Truth Changed.

* No, Jesus the man, did not know all things.
* Yes, Christ the Lord Jesus, does know all things.

If one Sticks with: Jesus is Not Omniscient...
Inanutshell they are revealing :
They Do Not Know Jesus is;
The Omniscient Christ the Lord Jesus.

Understand?

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Stumpmaster]

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.

Hi Christophany, Yes, I believe the obedience of Christ unto death for our salvation did require Him to empty Himself of His non-human position. Come the day that theological truth is decided by polls hell might just freeze over.

There are many verses that refer to the Father giving the Son whatever knowledge and power is necessary, so by virtue of the relationship of the incarnate Christ with His heavenly Father the omniscience of the Father is available to the Son.

Mat 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knows the Son, but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

The perfect agreement between the Father and the Son means the Son doesn't press for the exact time of His return, indicating that there is an understanding of Christ's mission as God in the flesh which requires some human limitations.

 

[Enoch111]

Hi Christophany, Yes, I believe the obedience of Christ unto death for our salvation did require Him to empty Himself of His non-human position.

What you are saying basically is that Jesus was NOT the God-Man. Just a mere Man. And that is nonsense. Jesus was always the God-Man with all the attributes of God. But He voluntarily set aside His glory and His divine privileges and prerogatives while on earth.

He was indeed omniscient, and the one instance where He said that only the Father knew the day and the hour does not apply anymore. That was true while He was on earth. But after His resurrection He was given ALL POWER AND AUTHORITY in Heaven and on earth by the Father.

 

[justbyfaith]

I suppose that it is possible that the risen Lord Jesus, living in a glorified body, knows all things and is Omniscient.

However, He is still a Man sitting on the right hand of the throne of God; and as such, He has a finite human brain (Just as He did when He spoke Mark 13:32).

But I believe that His Spirit is Omniscient, as He released Him to the Father (and that He is His Spirit to a very great degree). And that His Spirit is also the Father, His pre-incarnate form as well as the Holy Ghost whom He released to the Father. And it is clear from holy scripture that the Father knows the day and hour of Christ's return.

 

[Stumpmaster]

What you are saying basically is that Jesus was NOT the God-Man. Just a mere Man. And that is nonsense. Jesus was always the God-Man with all the attributes of God. But He voluntarily set aside His glory and His divine privileges and prerogatives while on earth.

He was indeed omniscient, and the one instance where He said that only the Father knew the day and the hour does not apply anymore. That was true while He was on earth. But after His resurrection He was given ALL POWER AND AUTHORITY in Heaven and on earth by the Father.

You been too quick on the draw, Enoch, and have misunderstood the meaning of Christ's humiliation as it is called. My post did not deny the Deity of Christ, but reiterated what Philippians 2:5-8 and Hebrews 2:9-10 say, basically that Christ didn't refuse to become human but left heaven's glory to procure salvation for whosover.

 

[marks]

Hi Christophany, Yes, I believe the obedience of Christ unto death for our salvation did require Him to empty Himself of His non-human position. Come the day that theological truth is decided by polls hell might just freeze over.

There are many verses that refer to the Father giving the Son whatever knowledge and power is necessary, so by virtue of the relationship of the incarnate Christ with His heavenly Father the omniscience of the Father is available to the Son.

Mat 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knows the Son, but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

The perfect agreement between the Father and the Son means the Son doesn't press for the exact time of His return, indicating that there is an understanding of Christ's mission as God in the flesh which requires some human limitations.

Hi Stumpmaster,

And it's in this very fact that we can be assured that "as He is, so are we in this world". Jesus lived the perfect life, not merely "morally excellent" but the perfect life to be our Mediator.

8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

His perfect life in complete dependence means that the abundant life He offers comes in complete dependence, but that in complete dependence is sanctification.

This circles back around to, our walk is by faith, and not by sight. It's not about what we think we see in the world, or about ourselves, but what we believe about God. What we are relying on.

If we are relying on ourselves, we are not in complete dependence. Unless we believe God's promises, we will not give ourselves over to that dependency.

I think it comes to, be it to us according to our faith. Jesus didn't have anything extra in Himself to get Him through, only that He wasn't dealing with a corrupt flesh body. The Last Man, in Whom we can have incorruptibility.

Anyway, good post!

Much love!

 

[101G]

Addressing the OP, after reading many of the replies here, the scriptures interpret themselves. for the context is CLEAR, Jesus is God in NATURAL flesh, as, or in LIKENESS of a man, and JESUS in glorified flesh as God. as a Man without the attributes of being omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, which Philippians 2:7 & 8 clearly affirms. but being in the NATURE, "spirit" as God, meaning in a "shared" states of NATURE that is intrinsically the same which G243 allos points out clearly.

for the Holy Spirit by his apostle Paul wrote this in Philippians 2. the Lord Jesus two states as God. A. in Natural flesh and B. in Glorified flesh.
one need to examine Philippians 2:6 & 7 for his NATURAL State of flesh and blood and his ETERNAl/Glorified state in flesh and bone but no blood, Philippians 2:10 & 11. (all kjv). now, let's examine these two states.

Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
Philippians 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:"
Philippians 2:8 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
Philippians 2:9 "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:"
Philippians 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;"
Philippians 2:11 "And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God". here Jesus nature was never change, (only Shared), he's intrinsically God inherently, but devoid of his poweres which is his own will to be. supportive scripture, Philippians 2:7 "But made himself of no reputation. Now was this the Lord Jesus making himself of no reputation, or was it someone else? listen, Hebrews 2:7 "Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:" it seems like someone else made him lower... correct? no, incorrect. how do we know this? just read verses 10 & 11.
Philippians 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;"
Philippians 2:11 "And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

every knee should bow? and every tongue should confess? lets see who this is.... Isaiah 45:21 "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me."
Isaiah 45:22 "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else."
Isaiah 45:23 "I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear."

HOLD IT, "every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear?". is this not the LORD, the God of the OT? ..... (smile), but he said "UNTO ME", every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. but Philippians 2:10 states it's unto JESUS. correct for JESUS, the ordinal LAST is the "ME" in Isaiah 45:23, who is the ordinal FIRST. so the Kenosis heresy is just that, a heresy, for the Lord Jesus was in a "Shared" state, not a double states of GOD - MAN. he did not PARTAKE in our humanity, (he has no mommy or daddy), but took Part in the same. Hebrews 2:14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;" see the difference, "Partake" vs "Took part", big difference.


as for the Lord Jesus not knowing his return date and he's God, even after his resurrection and Glorificatation, then one need to read first Matthew 6:3, then Jeremiah 31:34, and then Revelation 5:1 to fully understand his not knowing of his return date.

PICJAG.

 

[justbyfaith]

I think that I still have to disagree with you, @101G, and say that to take part and partake are one and the same thing...they mean the same thing....while it seems that you almost base your entire doctrine on there being a difference between the two.