Kenosis False Teaching

[CharismaticLady]

well CL, you have answer the "GREATER THAN" question that I have been preaching all along.
in a diversified G2758 κενόω kenoo states, he could not indwell all believers, so that's why he said, I must go to my Father/Spirit, for the Father/Spirit is "GREATER" than him. oh yes, in quantity and not in quality. for in flesh without powers he could not indwell every believer, nor be everywhere at the same time. but he said this,
John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;"
John 14:17 "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (oh my God, JESUS just told them, "he who was dwelling with them... now, he himself, and "shall"... future tense dwell IN, IN, IN, them... lets see it, next verse).
John 14:18 "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." (BINGO, case closed)

he, Jesus go to his Spirit/Father, and is glorified in his "OWN" Spirit John 17:5. and returns in Spirit to in dwell then.... verse 17b, "for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." How plain can one gets?

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

Yep, you get it!

 

[dev553344]

The term kenosis refers to the doctrine of Christ’s “self-emptying” in His incarnation. The word comes from the Greek of Philippians 2:7, which says that Jesus “emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (ESV). The word translated “emptied” is a form of kenoó, from which we get the word kenosis.

Kenoticism, also known as kenotic theology or kenotic Christology, is an unbiblical view of Christ’s nature. Kenoticism teaches that the divinity of the Son of God was somehow lost or lessened when the Lord took on human flesh and entered our world.

The word kenoticism comes from the Greek word kenoó, a form of which is translated “emptied” in some translations of Philippians 2:7. Writing about Christ, Paul says, “Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied [ekenōsen] Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:6–7, NASB).

Kenotic theology or kenotic Christology, first introduced in the late 1800s by German theologian Gottfried Thomasius (1802—75), is based on the idea that Jesus actually laid aside some of His divinity in order to be more like human beings. Philippians 2:6–7 is used as the proof text for this idea. Jesus “emptied” Himself, according to kenoticism, of His divine attributes.

The biblical truth is that Jesus Christ fully possessed both a divine nature and a human nature, and the two natures co-existed in what is often called the hypostatic union. Kenoticism is an attempt to redefine the nature of Christ. Interestingly, it is only the divine nature of Christ that kenoticism calls into question, not His human nature. Most people can easily accept the reality of Jesus’ humanity. Few would argue with the fact that Jesus was born, lived, and died as a human being. What is harder to accept is that He was born, lived, and died—and rose again—as God incarnate.

If Jesus divested Himself of some of His divine attributes, as some teach, then we have some theological problems. First, emptying Himself of any part of His divinity would render Jesus less than fully divine. If He had temporarily laid aside His omniscience, omnipotence, etc., He would have ceased being the divine Son of God. But God cannot stop being God, even for a moment.

Another significant problem with kenotic Christology involves the eternal destiny of all who follow Christ. No mere human being can fulfill the role of Savior. If Jesus were not the infinite second Person of the triune God, His sacrifice would be insufficient. If Christ were not divine, if He had given up His divinity at any point in time, the efficacy of His sacrifice on the cross would be nullified. To be the Savior, Jesus was at every moment both fully God and fully man.

How, then, do we understand Philippians 2:6–7, which says that the Son of God “emptied” Himself as He took on the form of a servant? In what way did Jesus “empty” Himself? We begin with context. Verses 1—5 describe the attitude believers should adopt, one that “was also in Christ Jesus.” Believers are to exhibit humility and lowliness of mind, having the same self-sacrificial mindset that Jesus had. He didn’t use His equality with God to His own advantage; rather, He took on the form of a servant. Believers are to emulate Christ by becoming humble and obedient. Believers do not put off their human attributes and become something else, any more than Jesus put off His divine attributes. Rather, they look to Jesus as their example and subjugate their impulses and desires for the sake of others.

Christ’s “emptying” of Himself was the laying aside of the privileges of divinity, not divinity itself. In heaven, the Son of God possessed infinite honor and glory and adoration. But He chose to leave that position of honor, and He “made himself nothing” (Philippians 2:7). When He came to earth, He veiled His glory and chose to occupy the position of a slave. The kenosis spoken of in Philippians 2:7 was a self-renunciation but not an emptying of deity. Jesus never ceased to be God, and He did not exchange deity for humanity.

What Jesus did was set aside His heavenly glory. And He voluntarily refrained from using His divinity to make His way easier. His miracles were not done to benefit Himself but to help others. During His earthly ministry, Christ completely submitted Himself to the will of the Father (John 5:19). John Walvoord explains it this way: “The act of kenosis . . . may . . . be properly understood to mean that Christ surrendered no attribute of Deity, but that He did voluntarily restrict their independent use in keeping with His purpose of living among men and their limitations” (Jesus Christ Our Lord, p. 144).

At times, Jesus intentionally veiled His attributes that at other times were fully on display. When He healed the sick, walked on water, fed the 5,000, and raised Lazarus from the dead, Jesus’ divine nature was fully evident. When He allowed Himself to be hungry, thirsty, beaten, abused, and crucified without retaliating, He was intentionally restricting His divine power. He did not give up His power; rather, He chose to subjugate it for a greater good. But at no time during His life was Christ ever without the fullness of divinity (see Colossians 2:9).

Discussions of kenoticism are complicated by the fact that sometimes the term kenosis is used as a synonym for kenoticism. The Bible teaches the kenosis of Christ, but it does not teach that Jesus gave up any divine attributes. Kenosis must be understood within the larger context of the whole of Scripture. And when teachers speak of kenosis, we must be sure to understand how they are using the term. Kenoticism is a heresy that takes the biblical concept of kenosis too far.got?

hope this helps !!!

Ketosis is also a false teaching. If you have a low carb diet you could form ketosis and drain your brain of vital energy Just a thought really, Cheers.

p.s. fasting is ok though.

Ketosis - Wikipedia

 

[jaybird]

it sounds to me like this teaching is taught against because it does not add up with the trinity doctrine. it may not sync well with man made theology but IMO it fits just fine with the bible.

 

[DNB]

I don't have the rona.
I never had the rona.
and I'm not going to get the rona.
My hands are clean

Then yes, a handshake for sure!

 

[justbyfaith]

The first reason that they wanted to stone him was because they understood him to be placing himself before Abraham - the Patriarch of their religion. This is reasonable.
The 2nd time was due to a misunderstanding, and Jesus even corrected them on how he applied the term Son of God, giving it a sense in which God even called men gods.
Both notions of him claiming to be God, are dispelled within the context themselves.

They picked up stones to stone Him both times because He was claiming to be God both times.

In John 8:58, Jesus claims to be the voice that spoke to Moses in the burning bush account (Exodus 3:14).

In John 10:31-33, yes, Jesus qualifies His statement by saying that we are gods to whom the word of God will come...I believe that He is speaking of the fact that He will indwell believers with His Spirit (2 Timothy 1:14) and that our spirit will become one with His Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:17) and that we will be filled with all the fulness of God (Ephesians 3:19)...

But here, Jesus is not backpedaling concerning what He said that led the Pharisees to pick up stones to stone Him...that He and His Father are ONE (John 10:30).

I explained John 8:58 in my last post to you. He was claiming precedence over Abraham, the forefather of their faith - that's enough to raise the ire of the any Jew.
Jesus claimed to be the promised Messiah, nothing more. This, I accept.

Jesus is claiming to be the great I AM in this verse...the voice that spoke to Moses in the burning bush account...the God of Israel (Exodus 3:13-15).

Also, if you accept that Jesus is the promised Messiah, do you not know that Isaiah 9:6 is a Messianic verse? It proclaims that the Son that is given will have the name of "The everlasting Father" among other names...in order to dispute this you have to change the wording of the kjv not once, but twice.

I suppose that you can pick your translation to tell you what your itching ears want to hear...but you are not going to come up with sound doctrine in your final outcome.

You are on dangerous ground if you reject the plenary inspiration of the kjv of the Bible...if you are wrong, and it contains the Lord's unadulterated message, then you are going to miss out on the message of salvation because you rejected as authoritative the version of the Bible that is the unadulterated word of God.

 

[Enoch111]

This post doesn’t make much sense.

It will to those who know the difference between the Mormon Jesus and the Bible Jesus.

'Mormon theologian and Apostle Bruce McConkie states, “[A] plurality of gods exist … there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods.”3'
3 Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, (Salt Lake: Bookcraft, 1991), 576-577.

'[Mormon] Church president James Talmage stated, “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are as distinct in persons and individualities as are any three personages in mortality.”5'
5 James Talmage, The Articles of Faith (Salt Lake: Deseret Book Company, 1984), 37.

Mormon Doctrine of God | Bible.org

 

[ChristisGod]

Yep, you get it!

yes we know your jesus was not god for 33 years which is the heresy/false teaching known as kenosis.

How was the Father greater ?

During the incarnation, Jesus was temporarily “made lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2:9), which refers to Jesus’ status. The doctrine of the incarnation says that the second Person of the Trinity took on human flesh. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, Jesus was fully human and “made lower than the angels.” However, Jesus is fully divine, too. By taking on human nature, Jesus did not relinquish His divine nature—God cannot stop being God. How do we reconcile the fact that the second Person of the Trinity is fully divine yet fully human and by definition “lower than the angels”? The answer to that question can be found in Philippians 2:5-11. When the second Person of the Trinity took on human form, something amazing occurred. Christ “made himself nothing.” This phrase has generated more ink than almost any other phrase in the Bible. In essence, what it means is that Jesus voluntarily relinquished the prerogative of freely exercising His divine attributes and subjected Himself to the will of the Father while on earth.

Another thing to consider is the fact that subservience in role does not equate to subservience in essence. For example, consider an employer/employee relationship. The employer has the right to make demands of the employee, and the employee has the obligation to serve the employer. The roles clearly define a subservient relationship. However, both people are still human beings and share in the same human nature. There is no difference between the two as to their essence; they stand as equals. The fact that one is an employer and the other is an employee does nothing to alter the essential equality of these two individuals as human beings. The same can be said of the members of the Trinity. All three members (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are essentially equal; i.e., they are all divine in nature. However, in the grand plan of redemption, they play certain roles, and these roles define authority and subservience. The Father commands the Son, and the Father and the Son command the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, the fact that the Son took on a human nature and made Himself subservient to the Father in no way denies the deity of the Son, nor does it diminish His essential equality with the Father. The “greatness” spoken of in this verse, then, relates to role, not to essence.got?

hope this helps !!!

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all.

Eve the mother of all living.. (sons of God)

100% correct, whay was she the MOTHER of "ALL LIVING, because the children she had before the fall was "Spiritual ALIVE" to God. hence the fall from grace. these children that was born in the Garden was "Spiritually Alive to God. and when Adam Died, all dided Spiritually, meaning FELLOWSHIP with God was interrupted. but our RELATIONSHIP was never broken...... again the reason for "SALVATION".

Ziggy, you got that one....

And Adam knew that if she (church) died all the children would die with her.
Adam laid his own life down, not saying he was happy about it, I think he was pretty disappointed

I believe I know what you're getting at here... Ephesians 5:24 "Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."Ephesians 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" (smile)

Adam laid his own life down, not saying he was happy about it, I think he was pretty disappointed,
nevertheless Adam was not deceived and Laid his life on the line for the church and the children that were yet to come.
Now are we the sons of God and it doth not yet appear what we shall be...
And Jesus said, He lays his life down he is able to take it back up again, and so He is is the first Adam raised from the dead,
then the church which holds all the children.
Jhn 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

interesting.... really interesting. it's alway good to hear a different prospective on a scripture.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Jane_Doe22]

It will to those who know the difference between the Mormon Jesus and the Bible Jesus.

'Mormon theologian and Apostle Bruce McConkie states, “[A] plurality of gods exist … there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods.”3'
3 Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, (Salt Lake: Bookcraft, 1991), 576-577.

'[Mormon] Church president James Talmage stated, “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are as distinct in persons and individualities as are any three personages in mortality.”5'
5 James Talmage, The Articles of Faith (Salt Lake: Deseret Book Company, 1984), 37.

Mormon Doctrine of God | Bible.org

Your quoting of things is... extremely off and doesn't make sense (speaking as a person whom has studied both sides of this issue very thoroughly). Just saying. I totally acknowledge that you probably don't have any interest to study this through.

And this really doesn't really to anything Ziggy said/is saying.

 

[ChristisGod]

Yep, you get it!

women submit to their husbands.

they are placed above them in the home and church yet they are no less human then men. you do not understand the purpose of roles in a position. the same is true in the Trinity. Jesus obeyed the Father, the Holy Spirit obeys the Son yet both are still completely God lacking in nothing. its a difference in roles. the same with a pastor His role is overseer as are the elders but they are no more saved, holy or a christian than their flock. its a difference in roles.

 

[Ziggy]

Your quoting of things is... extremely off and doesn't make sense (speaking as a person whom has studied both sides of this issue very thoroughly). Just saying. I totally acknowledge that you probably don't have any interest to study this through.

And this really doesn't really to anything Ziggy said/is saying.

I made a mistake in one of posts regarding personages rather than persons.
I think Enoch was trying to show me that there is a difference in the wording according to different beliefs.
And I appreciate that.. because truly I don't know them all, hardly any actually LOL

It's ok, I learned something new
HUGS

 

[CharismaticLady]

yes we know your jesus was not god for 33 years which is the heresy/false teaching known as kenosis.

How was the Father greater ?

During the incarnation, Jesus was temporarily “made lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2:9), which refers to Jesus’ status. The doctrine of the incarnation says that the second Person of the Trinity took on human flesh. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, Jesus was fully human and “made lower than the angels.” However, Jesus is fully divine, too. By taking on human nature, Jesus did not relinquish His divine nature—God cannot stop being God. How do we reconcile the fact that the second Person of the Trinity is fully divine yet fully human and by definition “lower than the angels”? The answer to that question can be found in Philippians 2:5-11. When the second Person of the Trinity took on human form, something amazing occurred. Christ “made himself nothing.” This phrase has generated more ink than almost any other phrase in the Bible. In essence, what it means is that Jesus voluntarily relinquished the prerogative of freely exercising His divine attributes and subjected Himself to the will of the Father while on earth.

Another thing to consider is the fact that subservience in role does not equate to subservience in essence. For example, consider an employer/employee relationship. The employer has the right to make demands of the employee, and the employee has the obligation to serve the employer. The roles clearly define a subservient relationship. However, both people are still human beings and share in the same human nature. There is no difference between the two as to their essence; they stand as equals. The fact that one is an employer and the other is an employee does nothing to alter the essential equality of these two individuals as human beings. The same can be said of the members of the Trinity. All three members (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are essentially equal; i.e., they are all divine in nature. However, in the grand plan of redemption, they play certain roles, and these roles define authority and subservience. The Father commands the Son, and the Father and the Son command the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, the fact that the Son took on a human nature and made Himself subservient to the Father in no way denies the deity of the Son, nor does it diminish His essential equality with the Father. The “greatness” spoken of in this verse, then, relates to role, not to essence.got?

hope this helps !!!

I see you either don't read or want to understand what I say, so I'll make this short. Jesus was always God. Now go ahead and keep bearing false witness. That seems to be what you like to do...

 

[CharismaticLady]

women submit to their husbands.

they are placed above them in the home and church yet they are no less human then men. you do not understand the purpose of roles in a position. the same is true in the Trinity. Jesus obeyed the Father, the Holy Spirit obeys the Son yet both are still completely God lacking in nothing. its a difference in roles. the same with a pastor His role is overseer as are the elders but they are no more saved, holy or a christian than their flock. its a difference in roles.

I understand that better than you do.

 

[Ziggy]

women submit to their husbands.

they are placed above them in the home and church yet they are no less human then men. you do not understand the purpose of roles in a position. the same is true in the Trinity. Jesus obeyed the Father, the Holy Spirit obeys the Son yet both are still completely God lacking in nothing. its a difference in roles. the same with a pastor His role is overseer as are the elders but they are no more saved, holy or a christian than their flock. its a difference in roles.

Can I ask you a serious question??

What difference does it make if God sent his son to act in his stead, or if he came himself?
I am curious why this would cause such a division in the church?

Thank You

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I made a mistake in one of posts regarding personages rather than persons.
I think Enoch was trying to show me that there is a difference in the wording according to different beliefs.
And I appreciate that.. because truly I don't know them all, hardly any actually LOL

It's ok, I learned something new
HUGS

In this regard though there isn't a difference: both Athanasian Christians and LDS Christians believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three different persons in one God. The difference is in the how: Ahtanasian Christians being through consubstanstaion, and LDS Christians through unity.
(Sorry, for the giant words- this is a big area of study and I'm trying to keep this reply short)

 

[ChristisGod]

Can I ask you a serious question??

What difference does it make if God sent his son to act in his stead, or if he came himself?
I am curious why this would cause such a division in the church?

Thank You

Its not an either / or its both. Jesus is the Lamb who was slayed before the foundation of the world. It was the plan all along within the Godhead.

 

[Ziggy]

In this regard though there isn't a difference: both Athanasian Christians and LDS Christians believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three different persons in one God. The difference is in the how: Ahtanasian Christians being through consubstanstaion, and LDS Christians through unity.
(Sorry, for the giant words- this is a big area of study and I'm trying to keep this reply short)

This church... we call a body... needs some work.
We aught to be trying to put away the differences and find the common ground to start building.
Looks like evrytime it starts to take shape, someone hands out donuts and milkshakes!!

In times like these... and they are going to get rough folks.. Im serious.
We need to work around these disputes and try to come together.
Divided we are weak.. Together we are strong.

HUGS

 

[ChristisGod]

I see you either don't read or want to understand what I say, so I'll make this short. Jesus was always God. Now go ahead and keep bearing false witness. That seems to be what you like to do...

No your jesus was not God for 33 years as you said for He did not have any of the omni attributes.

Can the Father be God is He is not Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Immutable, Self-Existent, Transcendent or Sovereign ? yes or no

 

[Ziggy]

Its not an either / or its both. Jesus is the Lamb who was slayed before the foundation of the world. It was the plan all along within the Godhead.

And you use the word Godhead.. and I can understand that.

But the 3 in God and how I understand it is..
1: God's Holy Spirt = God's mind
2: God's Son = God's heart
3: God the Father = God's will

These 3 are the same 3 God gave man.
He gave us a mind, a heart and a will.
And these 3 are to join with his 3
and these what is now become 2 are joined together to become 1.

Don't just toss it out.. think about it ..
just think about it..
HUGS

 

[CharismaticLady]

No your jesus was not God for 33 years as you said for He did not have any of the omni attributes.

Can the Father be God is He is not Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Immutable, Self-Existent, Transcendent or Sovereign ? yes or no

There you go again. Oh well. We are not talking about the Father, but the Son.