civic
Well-known member
Yes there is the Kenosis coming out here can’t you tell
An honest inquiry into the nature of Christology by a Trinitarian
- Thread starter Dizerner
- Start date
Yes, that was part of Jesus' Kenosis on Earth. Nevertheless, the Trinity always works together.
civic
Well-known member
But He did not give up any Divine attributes they remained fully in Him but did not use them to His own advantage as Phil 2 declares.
Dizerner
Well-known member
If NOTHING was emptied the Bible is LYING.
You can PLAY with that logic all you want like a Calvinist saying they believe in "FREE" will.
But you're fooling no one but yourself.
civic
Well-known member
Philippians 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
These translation capture the meaning of the text in its CONTEXT.
New International Version
rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
New Living Translation
Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form,
New King James Version
but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
King James Bible
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Thayers Greek Lexicon
namely, τοῦ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ or τῆς μορφῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ, i. e. he laid aside equality with or the form of God (said of Christ), Philippians 2:7
Strongs Lexicon
From kenos; to make empty, i.e. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify -- make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain.
Louw Nida Greek Lexicon
87.70 κενόωb: to completely remove or eliminate elements of high status or rank by eliminating all privileges or prerogatives associated with such status or rank.
What Paul makes very clear in this passage is that in addition to being God, He became man. The Incarnation was not a subtraction of His deity but an addition of humanity to His nature. This passage does not say Jesus gave up His deity but that He laid aside His rights as Deity, assuming the form of a servant in verse 7. The text says He was in the form of God or being in the very nature of God in 2:6. Just as He took upon Himself the "form of a servant" which is a servant by nature, so the "form of God" is God by nature. The word "being" from the phrase: being in the very form of God is a present active participle. This means "continued existence" as God. What Paul is actually saying here is Jesus has always been and still is in the "form of God". If you continue reading the passage Paul really drives this point home so that his readers have no doubt what he is trying to get across to the Philippians. Paul says that every knee will bow and will one day Confess Jesus is LORD. Paul takes the passage in Isaiah 45:23 which clearly refers to Yahweh a name used for God alone and says this of Jesus. The fulfillment of YHWH in Isaiah 45 is none other than Jesus who is God(Yahweh) in the flesh.
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. All the FULLNESS of DEITY dwells in bodily form. Col 1:19;2:9. Jesus was and is fully God lacking nothing in His Deity.
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.
Even through Christ existed in the form of God He did not regard equality with God something that He needed to reach for or grasp. Why because it was already His and never gave that up for a millisecond.
Paul is using syllogisms from the text in Philippians 2.
Just as the term “form of God” in verse six does not mean “less than God” because of the phrase “equality with God" in the prior passage.
It goes to reason in the same way with the 2 phrases in the “form of a servant” and in the “likeness of man” in verse seven do not mean that Jesus was any “less than human,” but instead means He was the same or “equal with all humans.”
That is how the passage reads and how it is to be understood in its " CONTEXT ".
In Colossians 1:19 and Colossians 2:9 the Apostle Paul said, For in HIM (CHRIST) ALL of the “ fullness of deity dwells bodily. “Did Paul use the word fullness there to mean partially? NO as Jesus did not empty Himself of His Deity. Jesus Divinity is FULL, complete lacking in nothing. The ENTIRE Fullness of Deity dwells (is present) bodily in Jesus.
conclusion:When Jesus came to earth He laid aside or emptied Himself of something. There are many misconceptions at to what He set aside. It was not His Deity. Jesus could not empty Himself of His Deity - He could not stop being God. He was always God the Son. He could not exchange His Deity for His humanity. Neither did He set aside only some of His divine attributes and keep others. In addition, Jesus always knew He was God and possessed these divine attributes - He was not ignorant of who He was or what He could do. Moreover Jesus allowed the people to know that He had such powers. Neither did Jesus set aside the use of His relative attributes such as being all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere present. Those powers were always present with Him.When Jesus became a human being He divested Himself of certain rights as God the Son. This can be seen in three ways. First He restricted Himself to a human body with all its limitations. He gave up His position when He became a human being. Second He veiled or hid His glory from the people. Finally, He exercised His relative attributes only by the will of God the Father - never on His own initiative. Conclusion by Stewart
hope this helps !!!
Last edited:
101G
Well-known member
this is the crust of the MATTER. God changed not, he took on a nature so, he could die from it. Hebrews 2:16 "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." notice that word, "Took on" now this, 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;"
do you see a pattern? "took on, partake, and "Took Past". do you know the difference in "Partake", and "Took Part?" if you do we can continue.
101G.
Grace ambassador
Well-known member
Thanks = Great Summary...
...Borrowed from 'Internet Summarizer':
Perichoresis refers to the binding of the Trinity, the two natures of Jesus Christ, and God's omnipresence.
+
From 'gospel coalition':
The word circulatio is also sometimes used as a way of metaphorically describing the unceasing circulation of the divine essence, such that each person is in the other two, while the others are in each one.
-----------
Thus, I will have to do an Update
(of Reasons 118a and 119 of Over 160 For The Triune GodHead), adding:
Because of Christ, as "The Son of man" Submitting To The Holy Spirit For "Power in His Ministry"
that would make Him, Like The Holy Spirit, Doubly Humble, as He Had Already Humbled Himself
To The Father, "To Be Sent to earth For our Salvation."
Amen.
Dizerner
Well-known member
It seems the real author was not credited:
In What Sense Did Jesus Empty Himself? (Kenosis, Condescension of Christ)
In the second chapter of the letter to the Philippians the Apostle Paul made the following statement about Christ. Have this attitude in yourselves which was
www.blueletterbible.org
I find his summary full of doublespeak and logically contradicting his own assertions
Dizerner
Well-known member
He has already said Jesus cannot set aside divine attributes, divine attributes contain those rights by definition.
If Jesus retained his divine attributes he experienced no change of location, for omnipresence is everywhere. By definition omnipresence cannot be "restricted" or have "limitations" or "give up a position."
God already veils his glory—this is not some "new" thing Jesus did.
Complete subordination of the will entails a lot of theological baggage with it. But again, Jesus could be subordinate even in heaven.
civic
Well-known member
You are right regarding that summary is from Stewart . That was unintentional. I’ll edit that in my post . Sorry about thatIt seems the real author was not credited:
In What Sense Did Jesus Empty Himself? (Kenosis, Condescension of Christ)
In the second chapter of the letter to the Philippians the Apostle Paul made the following statement about Christ. Have this attitude in yourselves which was
I find his summary full of doublespeak and logically contradicting his own assertions
Wrangler
Well-known member
Dizerner
Well-known member
"Cursed is the man who trusts in man." Can't really disprove this from a man's dictionary.
Now we see God telling us as high above the heavens, is how higher his thoughts are than that dictionary.
And it's obviously not a fallacy if it's true, because you would need a justified path to ultimate knowledge.
See here:
Wrangler
Well-known member
The 10C are pretty clear.
It makes no sense that the God setting the standard of explicit and clear communication in the whole of human experience - etching it in stone - suddenly upon making his word flesh can only speak in riddles - in direct contradiction to Scripture. Trinitarians insist everything is written between the lines.
Our letters have been straightforward, and there is nothing written between the lines and nothing you can’t understand.
2 Corinthians 1:13 (NLT)
Dizerner
Well-known member
Do you still keep the Sabbath day?
Wrangler
Well-known member
Indeed, trinitarians confuse doing with Being. Becoming, leading, emptying are verbs. Doing does not change ones nature as a Being. One does not "put aside" their nature. That is just more action, more doing.
For instance, Lebron James may play basketball below the level of his 3 yo nephew. Doing this does not put aside his intrinsic nature. That is the metaphysical nature of reality, the Law of Identity forbids one to cast off the inherent nature of a thing.
Wrangler
Well-known member
Agreed. It is wholly inappropriate.
Ex post facto. You are reasoning that because such IDOLATRY of Jesus is displayed, he must be the real thing.
Dizerner
Well-known member
This is just based in limited human philosophical reasoning, not the Word of God.
We are new creations in Christ, the old has passed away.
Thank you for the topic, and the invite to share what the Scriptures have shown me. And to see that there are others who have a similar belief and Awe about what the Christ really sacrificed for me. If you don't mind, I would like to say almost the same thing, but perhaps in another light.
It is written in 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;
And Hebrews 4: 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
And again;
Phil. 2: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
So the Christ, the Rock of Israel, was once "In the form of God". Isn't this when HE was up "where HE was before". When Abraham saw His Day and was Glad. Isn't this the Rock of Salvation that Israel lightly esteemed in Duet. 32, "Being in the Form of God?
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man,
When would this Christ understand who HE was? Wouldn't this be after a certain age? I mean, surely HE didn't know who HE was at 2 years old but at some point as "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.", He found that HE was the Prophesied Christ in the fashion of a man, and at 12 years old, He understood more than HE did at 5. "How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" After all, the Angel told Mary who HE was, she should have known. So what would this human boy do when HE found out who HE was?
"he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." "He learned obedience from the things HE suffered".
And How did His Father reward Him?
9 Wherefore (Because of this) God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: as prophesied.
Ps. 45: 6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore (Because of this) God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Here is the major problem I have with the popular doctrine that Jesus was really God and not human like you and I. That HE was God in the flesh, with access to Godly Powers that no other human in history possessed. And when the going got tough, as it does for all humans, HE just kicked in some God Power no other human ever had, and by this HE Overcame temptation. So then, in this popular doctrine, Jesus wasn't really a man in all ways as His Brethren. He cheated. He basically looked like a man, but really wasn't. And God was in on it as well. Because it is written in both the Law and Prophets, and the New Testament, that God rewarded Jesus "Because" He humbled Himself to God and became obedient unto death. But really, HE was God and couldn't Sin, Couldn't Die, couldn't be tempted, and all these things written about Him becoming a man were untrue. The devil tempting Him was a show, His death, also nothing but show because Jesus had no real danger, His life was never in real peril, HE was never in danger of sinning. He really didn't risk anything, because He was God.
It's like God was the Coach refusing performance enhancing drugs to everyone on the team except his son. And then when his son outperforms everyone else, he rewards his son with a reward greater than all other players.
Jesus said HE had the power to lay down His Life. I don't believe HE lied. I believe HE Offered Himself to His Father for me from the foundation of the world. That HE risked His Immortality and became a human to be the perfect High Priest advocating between me and His Father. He Risked HIS Life for me.
For me, it demeans His Life, and His Sacrifice to imply that HE was God that looked like a man but had powers no other human has ever had. And it's demeaning to God, to imply that God gave Him such a great reward and Glory and Power, for risking Nothing.
I understand that this is not a popular perspective, but this is how the Christ influenced me, and why what HE did and endured for me is so powerful, and worthy of my deepest and most heartfelt honor and servitude. You are the first person I have ever heard that understands in this way too. "
Great topic and thank you for it.
Dizerner
Well-known member
I think cheating requires certain conditions to be fulfilled that Jesus' divinity does not necessarily entail.
"Cheating" requires some set rules governing reality be adhered to, and it is usually implied the rules are moral and cheating is immoral.
Thus to make Jesus cheat by having a divine nature we have to impose a rule that is not actually a rule God has in his Word.
We, as the creation that has fallen, have an inordinate desire within us to prove we are good enough all on our own, and the reason for this is:
Pride.
So my view of the rules do not include humans somehow proving they are good enough; that violates the whole principle of grace to begin with:
God does for man, what man could never do for himself.
God's rule set are these:
1. The Law of God must be fully kept, both positively in demands, and negatively in punishments.
2. God's holiness must be fully honored and vindicated in every degree.
And since utilizing a divine nature would not necessarily violate God's Law, there can be no accusation of cheating anywhere.
But it was a very thoughtful and direct objection that was clearly stated, and I appreciate the pushback.
Similar threads
