I am glad you liked my post enough to report it:thumbs::thumbs:I stand by it. Here is something else for you to report......even the Demon spirits knew who Jesus was......when others could not see beyond the veil of His servant body;
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Can we discuss Kenosis?
- Thread starter Goinheix
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I am glad you liked my post enough to report it:thumbs::thumbs:I stand by it. Here is something else for you to report......even the Demon spirits knew who Jesus was......when others could not see beyond the veil of His servant body;
Sigh... I guess I will have to ...
You asked for a Baptist Confession supporting the divine attributes, here it is:
The 1689 Confession states: being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her: and the power of the Most High overshadowing her;
Mary became pregnant or conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit; this was in her womb; she was a virgin. These are all very important elements to Christ having a human nature. This incarnation was not a mystical, spiritual, or non-material pregnancy; it was physical and Jesus developed as any other human would in his mother’s womb. But there was a difference was that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit’s power which overshadowed her; the fallen nature of Adam was not passed onto Jesus as it would have through the seed of a fallen man. Obviously, I am not exactly saying that sin, in a purely physically way, passes through the seed of a man into the egg of a woman, and that only in this physical way is sin passed to each human. The imputation of sin to all of Mankind by Adam’s first transgression is a spiritual matter. It is the judgment upon all mankind since Adam sinned as our federal head.
- Baptist Catechism
- Q25: How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
A25: Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her yet without sin.
I can’t pretend to have this all worked out, but we cannot forget that Jesus was sinless (and is still sinless) because he was very God of very God. Certainly the virgin birth, by the power of the Spirit, assures us that the Second Adam did not inherit Adam’s sin, and that as one who is not born by ordinary generation he did not inherit Adam’s sin, but was born in holiness. This Second Adam would be tempted by the serpent as was the first, but the Second Adam would not succumb; he would triumph over the devil, thus crushing the serpent under his feet.
The 1689 Confession states: and so was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and David according to the Scriptures;
Jesus was born of a the virgin Mary, but there was a context for the birth of this promised One in history (the fullness of times). He was born, according to the Scripture’s predictions, to the tribe of Judah, from the lineage of Abraham and David as was promised.
This is all so historical, so human, and yet so supernatural all at the same time. God used ordinary providence, but he also worked freely outside of ordinary providence by the virgin birth of Jesus. Truly prophecy is a supernatural in its revelation, and add to this the supernatural fulfillment, but in all this supernatural there seems to be a natural or ordinary providence aspect.
Here we come to a finalizing of section two. The first movement, as it were, declared the deity of Christ, the second movement declared the humanity of Christ, and now the defining, fencing, and distinctions that need to be made in relation to the ”two natures in one person” are stated.
The 1689 Confession states: so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person,
This portion reiterates the fullness each of the two natures. Jesus is very God, eternal God, and fully God. Jesus us fully human, being born of a woman from her womb, and born of a woman under the law. These two natures are whole; they are not partial or lacking in any respect. But while they are whole, they are also distinct. They are separate natures. But while they are whole and distinct, they are also joined inseparably to one person. It would do us well to make sure we grasp these three aspects before moving on from here.
- 1. Two whole and perfect natures.
- 2. The two natures are distinct
- 3. The two natures are inseparably joined to one person
What about the divine atributes. Did Jesus had divine atributes or not? Where is that clarified in that statement of faith?
No where in the entire Bible is say that for being God it have to have this and that atribute. If God do not have any divine atribute, still he is God. God is not the divine atributes; God have divine atributes.
You never answered webdogs question........answer it if you can.:type:
Then you need to go back and study more because we're not buying what you are teaching. I do hope that you are not a pastor because you are teaching heresy.
you are being reported for acusing me of teaching heresy.
show a baptist statement of faith contrary to my teaching
show a creed contrary to my teaching
show a biblical text contrary to my teaching
freeatlast
New Member
Jesus remained no less God. In fact, there is not degrees on being God. Either was completely God or was not God at all. Nothing in between. And Jesus was God as being fully God.
I dont like the expresion "lais aside" but if what Jesus did in kenosis was to laid aside, then he laid aside the whole of his characteristics of God (I am using your words, on wich i am not confortable) and from birth to resurrection he haven had them at hand or could use them at all.
I think we agree, but because of the language problem and semantics I might at some point need to take that back.
What verse is that please?
Philipians 2
I am glad you liked my post enough to report it:thumbs::thumbs:I stand by it. Here is something else for you to report......even the Demon spirits knew who Jesus was......when others could not see beyond the veil of His servant body;
you shall provide verses saying that i am wrong and quit calling me things.
you are reported again.
You never answered webdogs question........answer it if you can.:type:
i ma bombarded with too many posts.
can you repeat the question?
you shall provide verses saying that i am wrong and quit calling me things.
you are reported again.
You obviously are having fun at our expense. I will ignore you from now on. I do pray that you find a relationship with Christ, the Divine Savior, before it is too late.
No, it is an opinion. If it said that, the KJV translators would have translated it that way. But it doesn't say that.it is not an opinion. the fact is that the greek say empty and that fact can not be refuted. Paul say to the Philipians that God the Son did empty himself. That is a fact out of question.
Albert Barnes gives a good explanation of the term:
The essential idea is that of bringing to emptiness, vanity, or nothingness; and, hence, it is applied to a case where one lays aside his rank and dignity, and becomes in respect to that as nothing; that is, he assumes a more humble rank and station. In regard to its meaning here, we may remark:
(1) that it cannot mean that he literally divested himself of his divine nature and perfections, for that was impossible. He could not cease to be omnipotent, and omnipresent, and most holy, and true, and good.
(2) it is conceivable that he might have laid aside, for a time, the symbols or the manifestation of his glory, or that the outward expressions of his majesty in heaven might have been withdrawn. It is conceivable for a divine being to intermit the exercise of his almighty power, since it cannot be supposed that God is always exerting his power to the utmost. And in like manner there might be for a time a laying aside or intermitting of these manifestations or symbols, which were expressive of the divine glory and perfections. Yet,
(3) this supposes no change in the divine nature, or in the essential glory of the divine perfections. When the sun is obscured by a cloud, or in an eclipse, there is no real change of its glory, nor are his beams extinguished, nor is the sun himself in any measure changed. His luster is only for a time obscured. So it might have been in regard to the manifestation of the glory of the Son of God. Of course there is much in regard to this which is obscure, but the language of the apostle undoubtedly implies more than that he took an humble place, or that he demeaned himself in an humble manner. In regard to the actual change respecting his manifestations in heaven, or the withdrawing of the symbols of his glory there, the Scriptures are nearly silent, and conjecture is useless - perhaps improper. The language before us fairly implies that he laid aside that which was expressive of his being divine - that glory which is involved in the phrase “being in the form of God” - and took upon himself another form and manifestation in the condition of a servant.
I think we agree, but because of the language problem and semantics I might at some point need to take that back.
in few werods...do you accept that the Jesus of Nazaret walking Galily and teaching the disciples did not know everithing, that did know only things that a man or a prophet sahll know, and nothing further?
Because:
All that arguin is not empty blha blha. Jesus did live by faith. By faith he did accept the fact that he was the Christ. Jesus didnt know he was the Christ as he knew the color of his eyes or knew the name of the guy next door. Jesus learned and believed that he was the Christ by faith. He knew he was the Christ by fauth, the same way we know he is the Christ by faith.
You obviously are having fun at our expense. I will ignore you from now on. I do pray that you find a relationship with Christ, the Divine Savior, before it is too late.
sorry you give up on learning the true about your savour and lord.
go ahead and continue with those wrong believes that you coulding support against the light.
It is not in the KJV, Amy. It is Phil.2:7 found mostly in the mv's. He thinks that the KJV is an inferior translation.I cannot find the word "emptied" in the KJV. Can someone point me to a verse that uses this word regarding Jesus?
No, it is an opinion. If it said that, the KJV translators would have translated it that way. But it doesn't say that.
Albert Barnes gives a good explanation of the term:
Kenosis is a word used by Paul, it means to empty in any greek dictionary around the world. All the false talking of Barnes have me care less. It is all human thinking with not base on the Bible.
Okay -- should we report your post? For the exact same reasons you reported just about everyone else?sorry you give up on learning the true about your savour and lord.
go ahead and continue with those wrong believes that you coulding support against the light.
I look forward to the parallel thread -- because the question is not "if" He walked over the water.I can see that Jesus wlaking or not over the water is a great thing. This thread is about kenosis and hypostasis. Even Jesus walked over the water, it does not mean he had any divine atribute. Then for the only porpose of this thread I accept that Jesus did walked over the water. Jesus did in fact walk over the water and yet means nothing concerning Jesus suposed divine atributes.
Situation remain unchanged: Jesus did not have any divine atribute.
(In a pararlel threat i will discuss if Jesus walked over the water)
freeatlast
New Member
in few werods...do you accept that the Jesus of Nazaret walking Galily and teaching the disciples did not know everithing, that did know only things that a man or a prophet sahll know, and nothing further?
Because:
All that arguin is not empty blha blha. Jesus did live by faith. By faith he did accept the fact that he was the Christ. Jesus didnt know he was the Christ as he knew the color of his eyes or knew the name of the guy next door. Jesus learned and believed that he was the Christ by faith. He knew he was the Christ by fauth, the same way we know he is the Christ by faith.
No I would not go that far. I do agree that He did not know at least one thing which He stated in scripture, but for me to say He knew nothing and especially His own Deity I categorically reject. He knew that He was the Christ.
As to Him walking by faith. I am not going to commit on that since there are some implications in how you stated it that I am not comfortable with.
If God does not have divine attributes then God is a man like you and I.No where in the entire Bible is say that for being God it have to have this and that atribute. If God do not have any divine atribute, still he is God. God is not the divine atributes; God have divine atributes.
The fact that God does have divine attributes makes him God.
Divine--"of God" Divine is what characterizes God.
The very word "divine" comes from the Middle English "diviness" a word that means "God."
Thus when we say divine attributes we say those characteristics which define God, which make him different than all else. If he doesn't have divine attributes he is not God. He is something else.
God must, of a necessity, have divine attributes. If he doesn't he would not be God.
Jesus Christ, must of a necessity, have divine attributes. If he doesn't he would not be God.
Thus Christ is God. Christ has divine attributes. It can be no other way.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.