Kenosis False Teaching
- Thread starter ChristisGod
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Let's explore this.
John wrote, "As He is, so are we in this world". What does that mean to you?
Another question would be to ask what do you mean exactly when you say, "into the same catagory as Jesus"? What exactly does "catagory" refer to here? We are both men. He is God and man, but I am only man. Does that clarify things for you?
Much love!
and why have you not once when I have asked you several time to exegete Philippians 2:5-8 ?
not once have you done so, why ?
I've responded to all of your questions whether you liked my answers or not is not the issue. I've answered them all. You do not do the same when I ask.
Double standard.
until you respond to this request I'm done answering your questions
and why have you not once when I have asked you several time to exegete Philippians 2:5-8 ?
not once have you done so, why ?
I've responded to all of your questions whether you liked my answers or not is not the issue. I've answered them all. You do not do the same when I ask.
Implied nothing. Quote the place that supports your outlandish claims.
Much love!
Because we are discussing a single word per your OP. Did Jesus empty Himself, or make Himself of no reputation. My reply is that we should use the primary meaning of the word, the same meaning that is used in every other place it appears in the New Testament. And that this meaning is supported by the context of the passage itself, and the rest of the Bible as it relates to this passage.
A word by word exegesis for 4 verses, well, we haven't even agreed on the meaning of the one specific word!
But then, it's not like either one of us are new to the Bible, right? We have a good working understanding of the passage, don't we? We understand the views each other holds, right?
Can you actually, in a correct and fair manner, express my view?
Much love!
Last edited:
I think that being able to fairly and correctly express other people's viewpoints, even if we don't hold them ourselves, is meaningful and useful.
@Christophany 's view on the Kenoo spoken of in Philippians, and please, correct me if I'm wrong, this is as I understand him.
The kenoo that Christ did was to not come with the pomp and circumstance of the Eternal and All Powerful Creator, and instead chose to conceal this in the form of a man who came to serve.
But His eternal and all emcompassing power was nonetheless seen in the works He performed, the dead raised, He knew what was in their hearts, because He knew what was in man. God has all power, and the fullness of God was in Christ. So when you saw Jesus doing works of power, He was doing what He does, He is God.
Is this right?
Much love!
@Christophany 's view on the Kenoo spoken of in Philippians, and please, correct me if I'm wrong, this is as I understand him.
The kenoo that Christ did was to not come with the pomp and circumstance of the Eternal and All Powerful Creator, and instead chose to conceal this in the form of a man who came to serve.
But His eternal and all emcompassing power was nonetheless seen in the works He performed, the dead raised, He knew what was in their hearts, because He knew what was in man. God has all power, and the fullness of God was in Christ. So when you saw Jesus doing works of power, He was doing what He does, He is God.
Is this right?
Much love!
Last edited:
Words only have meanings in the context in which they are used so this is why I'm asking you. I have done it several times in this thread and you seem to just be making excuses.
So until you give you opinion via exegesis of the text in question Philippians 2:5-8 I'm not answering anymore of your onslaught of questions directed at me.
This is a fair request considering the discussion is Philippians 2:5-8
Phil 2:5-8
5 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
hope this helps !!!
OK. You didn't have to anyway, you know.
You know the NIV isn't really a translation there, right? Well, that is, unless you're OK with a more interpretive "thought for thought" approach. Personally I find the translation there to go well beyond what was actually written.
There's a real beauty in the flow of the passage.
In the form of God belonging
Deems equality with God not snatching
But empties self
Form of slave getting
In likeness of humans becoming
And schematic being found as human
He makes low Self becoming obedient unto death
Death yet of the cross
Much love!
So then why is there any conflict between you and the OP? What you are saying is that Christ did not "empty" Himself. And that is correct. That word should be translated as in the KJV -- "made Himself of no reputation".
Jesus could have taken back His omnipower at anytime, I think! He became obedient unto death. He said, No one takes My life from Me, I lay it down. He said, I have life in Myself. He became obedient even all the way to death on the cross. Not using His power to free Himself. Not using His power to feed Himself, or to promote Himself, or to defend Himself.
Much love!
Much love!
While I love the King James, in this case, that's not really intrinsic to the meaning of the word, and supports a particular application, specifically, what Jesus emptied Himself of. It's not actually stated there in that word. The translators chose an interpretation, and a word study in the NT shows how this word is used.
I think I posted all the passages up there somewhere.
Much love!
And rightly so. Had they simply translated that word, it would have been thoroughly misleading ( as seen in the modern versions).
"The kenosis theory states that Jesus gave up some of His divine attributes while He was a man here on earth. These attributes were omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. Christ did this voluntarily so that He could function as a man in order to fulfill the work of redemption. This view was first introduced in the late 1800s in Germany with Gottfried Thomasius (1802-75), a Lutheran theologian.
Phil. 2:5-8 does not teach that Jesus gave up any of His divine attributes since it says nothing of those attributes. Instead, it is speaking of His humility that moved him, according to the will of the Father, to leave His majestic state in heaven and enter into the humble position of human nature...
The Kenosis theory is a dangerous doctrine because if it were true, then it would mean that Jesus was not fully divine. If Jesus was not fully divine, then His atoning work would not be sufficient to atone for the sins of the world.
The correct doctrine is the Hypostatic Union--that Jesus is both fully God and fully man (Col. 2:9) and did not give up any divine attributes while as a man on earth."
Kenosis | CARM.org
Of course He is fully God and fully Man, just the same, He died. He did that on purpose, and this was as at all other times refraining from using any of His "omni" powers.
This does not mean Jesus wasn't God. It means He lived as a man.
Much love!
The humble position of human nature . . . what does that mean exactly? Because it sounds like what I think.
Much love!
Similar threads
