Kenosis and Hypostasis

[mandym]

Sometimes we need to be comfortable understanding that we cannot know all the explicit details of a doctrine or God.

 

[Goinheix]

Sometimes we need to be comfortable understanding that we cannot know all the explicit details of a doctrine or God.

But at least we can understand very easely the doctrine of kenosis. Paul did explained to the Philipians in very few words and they did understood it.

God the Son did emtied himself of all divine atributes and yet continues to be God. Because being or not being God is not conected to the divine atributes.

In few words, Jesus did not have any of the divine atributes. He was not omnipotent, omniscient or had any other supernatural hability, capacity or power that made him any higher that any other man. He did live as man with not any privilege or help. And did it with no sin.

Probably we can not understand some doctrines, but those we understand we have to keep and teach.

 

[Iconoclast]

But at least we can understand very easely the doctrine of kenosis. Paul did explained to the Philipians in very few words and they did understood it.

God the Son did emtied himself of all divine atributes and yet continues to be God. Because being or not being God is not conected to the divine atributes.

In few words, Jesus did not have any of the divine atributes. He was not omnipotent, omniscient or had any other supernatural hability, capacity or power that made him any higher that any other man. He did live as man with not any privilege or help. And did it with no sin.

Probably we can not understand some doctrines, but those we understand we have to keep and teach.

This is not biblical teaching...this is error.

Now the big question: was Jesus omniscient?
If Jesus was in fact omniscient, then my opinion is in problems.

24But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,

25And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

 

[Goinheix]

This is not biblical teaching...this is error.

It is biblical...only that you dont like it.

 

[Goinheix]

24But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,

25And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

I asume that your answer is that Jesus was omniscience. In that you are absolutely wrong...and I am talking of the Bible not of an opinion.

The fact that Jesus knew the thots of men is because he knew very well our nature. It is not saying that he was reading our minds like an X-Man.

There is a long list of what Jesus did not know, and probably I will forget some of them:
Jesus didnt know who touches him in the case of the woman with blod flow.
Jesus didnt know of the dead of Lazarus.
Jesus didnt know where Lazarus was laid.
Jesus didnt know what was brough to him to drink at the cross.
And believe me that the list continues.

The point is that for being omniscient it is necesary to know absolutely all. Even if we understand that Jesus literally knew every men; that is not enough. It is necesary he knew for example the day of his own return.

 

[Matt Black]

I am not sure if I undersdtand your post; but strongly believe that my posts are not being understood.

We can not denay kenosis, we can not make a christology ignoring it or pretendidng is not writen in the NT. If God the Son was God before kenosis and he continues to be God after kenosis; then we have to figure out what kenosis means.

You're still being too binary in your thinking, too Western. Jesus can be fully God, and yet self-limit the Divine manner of His existence as fully Man, thus whilst He remained, for example, omniscient as to His Divine Nature, He chose to not operate with that faculty during His Incarnation.

 

[glfredrick]

Here is a good article that can add to the discussion:

http://kenosis.info/index.shtml

From that article (cited in the article: Rodney Decker, "Philippians 2:5-11, The Kenosis," at http://www.bbc.edu/courses/BBS/RDecker/DckrKen.htm.). Common modern thoughts about the kenosis with the writers who stated them:

1."Christ had a human soul, to which the Logos imparted his divinity, little by little until he became completely divine" (Dorner).

2.Christ "laid aside his deity which was then restored at the ascension" (Gess and Beecher).

3.He "abandoned certain prerogatives of the divine mode of existence in order to assume the human," e.g., omniscience" (Gore).

4."He surrendered the external, physical attributes of omniscience, though retaining the attributes of love and truth (A. M. Fairbairn). This was also held by Thomasius, Deilitzsch, and H. Crosby."

5.Christ "lived a double life from two, non-communicating life centers. As God, he continued his Trinitarian and providential existence, and as man he was united with a human nature. He did not know consciously anything of his divine, Trinitarian existence" (Martensen).

6."He disguised his deity and attributes, not by giving them up, but by limiting them to a time-form appropriate to a human mode of existence ... His attributes could only be expressed in relation to the (human) time and space that his human form could experience" (Ebrard).

7."He gave up the use of the attributes (cf. Carson, FD&FPJ, 35)."

8."He gave up the independent exercise of the divine attributes (Strong, ST, 703)."

9."He limited himself to the voluntary non-use of the attributes (Walvoord)."

 

[annsni]

It is biblical...only that you dont like it.

That is a pretty cocky attitude and one that will only make enemies.

However, I also disagree with you. In reading the gospels, we see clearly that Jesus knew much more than a man. He knew that the man's daughter was going to be raised from the dead - and He did that in His own power. He raised Lazarus by His own power. He knew that the blind man was blind just to bring glory to God when Jesus healed him. Jesus was more than a mere man on earth - He was still God.

 

[glfredrick]

That is a pretty cocky attitude and one that will only make enemies.

However, I also disagree with you. In reading the gospels, we see clearly that Jesus knew much more than a man. He knew that the man's daughter was going to be raised from the dead - and He did that in His own power. He raised Lazarus by His own power. He knew that the blind man was blind just to bring glory to God when Jesus healed him. Jesus was more than a mere man on earth - He was still God.

Indeed! He knew to go to the home of Lazarus, and explained to His disciples the reason why. Full divinity/deity, just not released on humanity -- largely for our sake. Who can view God in His full glory and live? :jesus:

 

[mandym]

But at least we can understand very easely the doctrine of kenosis. Paul did explained to the Philipians in very few words and they did understood it.

No he didn't and no we can't

 

[preacher4truth]

But at least we can understand very easely the doctrine of kenosis. Paul did explained to the Philipians in very few words and they did understood it.

God the Son did emtied himself of all divine atributes and yet continues to be God. Because being or not being God is not conected to the divine atributes.

In few words, Jesus did not have any of the divine atributes. He was not omnipotent, omniscient or had any other supernatural hability, capacity or power that made him any higher that any other man. He did live as man with not any privilege or help. And did it with no sin.

Probably we can not understand some doctrines, but those we understand we have to keep and teach.

Your conclusions are false and totally deficient. In your erroneous view man also can heal the sick and raise the dead, as you teach Jesus had no more abilities than other men. This is false teaching that you convey.

 

[Goinheix]

You're still being too binary in your thinking, too Western. Jesus can be fully God, and yet self-limit the Divine manner of His existence as fully Man, thus whilst He remained, for example, omniscient as to His Divine Nature, He chose to not operate with that faculty during His Incarnation.

That is a good human thinking, but had not biblical support at all.

 

[Goinheix]

Here is a good article that can add to the discussion:

http://kenosis.info/index.shtml

From that article (cited in the article: Rodney Decker, "Philippians 2:5-11, The Kenosis," at http://www.bbc.edu/courses/BBS/RDecker/DckrKen.htm.). Common modern thoughts about the kenosis with the writers who stated them:

Good human thinking but not biblical at all.

 

[Goinheix]

That is a pretty cocky attitude and one that will only make enemies.

However, I also disagree with you. In reading the gospels, we see clearly that Jesus knew much more than a man. He knew that the man's daughter was going to be raised from the dead - and He did that in His own power. He raised Lazarus by His own power. He knew that the blind man was blind just to bring glory to God when Jesus healed him. Jesus was more than a mere man on earth - He was still God.

He knew many things as prophets did in the pass. And the pass prophets had not divine atributes.

Jesus did nothing on his own power, but on the power of the Lord.

 

[Goinheix]

Indeed! He knew to go to the home of Lazarus, and explained to His disciples the reason why. Full divinity/deity, just not released on humanity -- largely for our sake. Who can view God in His full glory and live? :jesus:

good human thinking but not bilbical support.

 

[Goinheix]

No he didn't and no we can't

pay atention to my teaching and you will understand.

 

[Goinheix]

Your conclusions are false and totally deficient. In your erroneous view man also can heal the sick and raise the dead, as you teach Jesus had no more abilities than other men. This is false teaching that you convey.

My teaching is biblical. Jesus declared that we can do the same he did and greatest things. In fact we can resurrect persons. No that I myself can do it. I say that it is possible and did hapens that a christian bring a dead back to life.

 

[glfredrick]

Good human thinking but not biblical at all.

If you are trying to reconcile both kenosis and the hypostatic union, you will fail. The two are mutually exclusive in the form that you seek.

Several here on the board have tried to tell you as much, but you return with a very blunt "you are not scriptural" when in fact, we are scriptural.

The very idea of kenosis as you present does not exist in Scripture. It is a theological concept that you are importing into Scripture, then searching to find rationale to support. That is why you are having difficulty.

Perhaps, instead of asking us what WE think of kenosis (which we have told you now for multiple posts) it is time for YOU to tell us what is your idea of kenosis. It is a fair return on our investment in your mental exercise.

 

[glfredrick]

good human thinking but not bilbical support.

Of course there is biblical support. It is right here:

John 11:11-15 (NASB) 11 This He [Jesus] said, and after that He said to them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I go, so that I may awaken him out of sleep." 12 The disciples then said to Him, "Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover ." 13 Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking of literal sleep. 14 So Jesus then said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead, 15 and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, so that you may believe; but let us go to him."

There is no way that Jesus could have known that Lazarus had died. The message he received earlier from Mary and Martha indicated that he was just sick.

John 11:1-6 (NASB) 1 Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 It was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. 3 So the sisters sent word to Him, saying, "Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick." 4 But when Jesus heard this, He said, "This sickness is not to end in death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it." 5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6 So when He heard that he was sick, He then stayed two days longer in the place where He was.

Jesus even knew when He received the first message that Lazarus would not be dead once He completed His ministry before His disciples, but in human terms, Lazarus did indeed die and was prepped for the grave and placed there for longer than the typical Jewish mandate, at which time one was not to open the grave. Jesus, however, did something that no human could do -- first He knew His plan in advance, second, He knew that He would ultimately raise Lazarus from the dead to build the faith of His disciples, third He waited until He knew (though no further human messenger was sent) that Lazarus was indeed dead and buried, and fourth, He supernaturally walked through an area with His band of disciples where He should have been killed in order to raise up a man who was 3 days dead.

 

[Goinheix]

If you are trying to reconcile both kenosis and the hypostatic union, you will fail. The two are mutually exclusive in the form that you seek.

Several here on the board have tried to tell you as much, but you return with a very blunt "you are not scriptural" when in fact, we are scriptural.

The very idea of kenosis as you present does not exist in Scripture. It is a theological concept that you are importing into Scripture, then searching to find rationale to support. That is why you are having difficulty.

Perhaps, instead of asking us what WE think of kenosis (which we have told you now for multiple posts) it is time for YOU to tell us what is your idea of kenosis. It is a fair return on our investment in your mental exercise.

Now i feel like we are having an inteligent talk.

Both, hypostasis ans kenosis are in the Bible. For some reason christians tend to take only one and exclude the other.

First it is necesary to explain what I think of God. I understand that God is God, as he say I am. God is God because he is God, and the solely fact that he is God is enough for him to be God. There is nothing aditional for God to be God as the simple fact of him being God.

We can complement by adding that God is the creator of all that exist. But God was God even before the creation and did not became God because the creation. God do love us, but God is God besides if he loves us or not. For God to be God do not depend in the fact that he loves us.

In the same way, we can search in the Bible for some characteristics of God. We cal them divine atributes. We learn that God is eternal, is saint, is allmighty. Those are detail of God, partials trues about God. God is not just eternal, he is more than only eternal, he is God. God is God by himself, because he is God. God is not God for being eternal, but he is eternal for being God.

Now the queation is: can God sease to be saint and continues to be God? To be saint is one of the characteristic that we descover studying him. Can God be God and yet not be saint? Is not being saint enough to for God to stop being God. Is God because he is saint, or is he saint because he is God?

Satan had that question. Satan thot that probably, if God seaced to be saint he will seace to be God. Satan thot in the possibility that God taking over him all the sins of the humanity will seace to be God. Because having such contact with the sin will means that is not anymore saint. Will the ñack of one divine atribute destroy God?

The answer was NO. God proved that he continues to be God despite and besides havings this and that divine atribute. God is not God for having divine atributes and will be God independently of the divine atributes.

This is how I understand kenosis. Kenosis is emptying. It is a total and absolute emptying. It is not a partial lessening or seting aside, or veiling for a while. Kenosis is emtying to zero. Emptying of what? Emptying of having the divine atributes. Is that meaning to quit being God? Not at all. Being God and having divine atributes have litle conection.

What is the conection between being God and having divine atributes?
If one is not God, can not have divine atributes.
If one have divine atributes, must be God.
If one dont have divine atributes, still can be God.
If one is God, might have divine atributes.

In the other hand, it was necesary for God the Son to live as man and without sin. In order to liove as man, it was necesary for God the Son to empty himself of all divine atributes. Otherwise, he would not live as a man.

Then, kenosis is the first part: to give up on all the privileges and advantages of having divine atributes. The second part is God the Son became flesh and be God in a human body.

In concecuence: God lived as man; being the man named Jesus of Nazaret. But Jesus of Nazaret, being God did not have any divine atributes.