Jesus totally did it on His own power. And He knew because He was God, not because God told Him. I don't know where you got these ideas but they are not biblical at all.
-
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!
Kenosis and Hypostasis
- Thread starter Goinheix
- Start date
- Status
Jesus totally did it on His own power. And He knew because He was God, not because God told Him. I don't know where you got these ideas but they are not biblical at all.
I loose the point. What are you trying to prove? If it is about how many things Jesus knew...I can replay with how many he did not know. He didnt know that Lazarus were sick and was necesary for Mary to send a messanger.
,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Last edited by a moderator:
God has divine attributes. You need to know them and define them, otherwise you do not know who God is. Is Jesus God? Yes or no? If yes, then how do you know? Who is God the Father? How do you define who He is? What characteristics does he have.
If God is simply God, without "divine attributes," then which God do you worship:
Allah? Buddha? Ganesh? Vishna? Which one is your god? If God is god, he must be defined in some way, defined to differentiate Himself from all the other gods of the world.
Muslims will say the same thing about Allah.
The Muslims have 99 attributes for their God, Allah. How is your God any different than their God? Think of that--99 divine attributes of Allah! What are the divine attributes of the God you worship?
This is akin to a Mormon belief. Do you mean that God was once a man? What do you mean by "saint"? Where does it say God was ever a "saint"?
God is not a saint. A saint is a believer who has set himself apart from sin.
God was never an unbeliever and was never in sin to be set apart from sin. To suggest this is blasphemous.
God never lacks anything. The Bible clearly states that.
Satan was deceived and was kicked out of heaven.
God is not and cannot be independent of his attributes. His attributes are what define him. He is what he is because of his attributes. Does God have divine attributes or Satanic attributes. Why or why not? How does the God that you serve have different attributes than Allah or does he? Perhaps he is more like Buddha? Is he? That all depends on the attributes that he has. Is he a God of hate or of love? Who is God? We know him by his attributes.
If it was a total emptying there would be no God left. That doesn't make sense. God is spirit. How do you empty a spirit?
Yes, it was partial. He left the glories of heaven. He emptied himself of the form that he had: spirit form. He became a man.
That is not what it says. Go and read Barnes again. Also read the account as it is given in the KJV, a much more accurate rendering.
You are wrong and very confused. To be God, God must have divine attributes; if He does not have divine attributes he is not God. So is he God or is he not God. If He is God, then he has divine attributes. You cannot get around this.
They are inseparable.
No. I am not God and therefore do not have divine attributes.
Only God has divine attributes.
No. God must have divine attributes, else he is not God.
God always has divine attributes; they are the characteristics that define him as God.
False. He was totally man and totally God at the same time--having all of his divine attributes also. He chose not to exercise them at times. He told Peter to put up his sword. Then he said, "Do you not know that I could (exercise my divine attribute) and call 12 legions of angels."
No it isn't. It was simply to give up his glory, his place in heaven, his form or spirit; not his deity or divine attributes.
If he didn't have divine attributes he wasn't God. It is his divine attributes that characterize him as God. He is and was divine with all the attributes displayed to prove it.
God has divine atributes...He is not divine atributes.
I know the divine atributes that God has...but I knew God before learnig about his divine atributes. I did knew and trusted is God way before knowing any of his atributes.
Jesus is God. Yes he is; and yet dont had any divine atribute.
I know Jesus is God because I read it in Jhon, the first book i read. I knew Jesus was God way before knowing the divine atributes of God. If you or anyone will wait until found a divine atribute on Jesus; then nobody will believe that Jesus is God. If Jesus as God depent on knowing the divine atributes on him, it will be impossible to arrive to the conclucion of Jesus being God. Because in the Gospels we dont read of any divine atribute on Jesus.
God the Father is the one who describes himself as I am. God is God and I describe him as being God. Hes characteristic is to be God.
In times of Moses it were many gods. At that time God identifies himself as being God. That is enough to make a difference between God and the gods.
What if we take a god like Zeus? If we found that the greek mytology describes him as eternal, allmighty, etc etc...will Zeus be God? God is not a colection of atributes.
Yes God was a man. God was Jesus. Jesus was a man and was God. In Jesus, God was a man.
I never say that God is a saint. I say, and the Bible say, that God is saint.
Jesus was God, Jesus took our sin on him to the cross. God took our sins on him to the cross. Being in contact with sin, God the Son ceaced to be saint.
In that case God is not allmighty and omnipotent. If God cannot something, then his capacity to do and can is limited. There is things God cannot do.
But God can be independent of his atributes and is. God did define himself not by his atributes but as being who he is : God. God defines hionmself as I am. God did not define never ever as his atributes.
You have backward. God have divine atributes for being God, not that he is God for having divine atributes.
It may be of some interest to note the position on kenosis taken by Orthodox Christians. Specifically, maybe I can offer something on the classic "hymn of kenosis" in Philippians 2:5-11, and then touch on some of the finer points of Christology as detailed by the great theologian, St. Athanasius. Forgive me if this a bit long, but there's a lot to cover.
Regarding the hymn of kenosis ("He emptied Himself, and took on the form of a servant..."): What does Paul intend by including this here? Is he talking about the Incarnation, about Christ's sufferings, or about something else? Well, to put it into context, if we look back at 1:27, “Only let your manner of life be worthy of the Gospel of Christ…stand in one spirit, one mind…” we can get a clearer picture.
Paul is not arguing about how one is to understand Jesus. What Paul is doing here is saying not who Jesus is, but rather they (the Philippians, and by extension, us) are to have this mind, and then he speaks about the one who was equal to God and emptied Himself.
When you count others better than yourself, have this mind. What he is saying is that human beings have a tendency to assert our equality as a thing to be grasped; but equality is actually emptying yourself; the expression of that is the unity of mind, the sameness of the thinking, the working side-by-side. In summary, the definition of what it is to be equal is in fact to empty oneself as Christ did.
Now, to get a bit more theological, we can still look at this in terms of Christology (although I don't think that's the main purpose of this passage.)
The whole issue centers on Christology:
It isn't so much that Jesus is "God and man"....rather, He is God become man. As God, He wills Himself to be limited as a human being is...rather than being a sign of weakness, this is a sign of great power.
St. Athanasius, struggling against the Arians, writes remarkably on this in his treatise On the Incarnation. Just to paraphrase some of St. Athanasius thoughts on this:
1. The Son is truly divine. Not by participation from the outside, but He is what it is to be God.
2. The Son is the guarantee of the presence of God in His Word. The locus of this is in the Incarnation.
3. St. Athanasius' entire argument (and this is where kenosis comes into play) hinges on the Cross. The Cross is apparent degradation, but Athanasius insists that the more Christ (on the Cross) is mocked, the more He is proclaimed divine. His degradation is actually a manifestation of His glory.
4. God proves His divinity by the works that He does. His death is not the death of another man, but it is the death of God as a man. It is a voluntary death, and by the Word coming into the body, it dies not out of necessity, but voluntarily.
St. Athanasius doesn't develop Christology as many Christians do today; many today tend to see Christology exclusively as a matter of "composition" (word and man, 2 natures, etc...) Athanasius sees the Incarnation not in terms of composition, but of attribution and predication. We know Him to be human by the things He does, and to be God (again) by the things He does.
In other words, to know that Jesus Christ is God become man, we don’t do it by “cataloging” His composition; it is by seeing the things He does – He eats/drinks/sleep; He is human. He heals/forgives/raises the dead; He is God.
Again, in regards to kenosis/self-emptying: By becoming flesh, the flesh has become “proper” to the Son. He appropriates the flesh, and makes it His own, and makes Himself known by it. Thus, all things that belong to the flesh now belong to the Word; but they belong to Him only in respect to that body which is His, not in respect to His divinity.
He is not God and man...He is God become man. What we're doing is applying human properties to a divine subject. So, when the Word becomes flesh, there is no diminution of the status of the Word; the Word doesn’t become less than what He was. He doesn’t become a servant; rather, He takes the form of a servant and transforms it. His taking of it is simultaneous with the transformation into a lordly form. Thus, it is in the form of a servant that He is shown to be Lord of all.
Regarding the hymn of kenosis ("He emptied Himself, and took on the form of a servant..."): What does Paul intend by including this here? Is he talking about the Incarnation, about Christ's sufferings, or about something else? Well, to put it into context, if we look back at 1:27, “Only let your manner of life be worthy of the Gospel of Christ…stand in one spirit, one mind…” we can get a clearer picture.
Paul is not arguing about how one is to understand Jesus. What Paul is doing here is saying not who Jesus is, but rather they (the Philippians, and by extension, us) are to have this mind, and then he speaks about the one who was equal to God and emptied Himself.
When you count others better than yourself, have this mind. What he is saying is that human beings have a tendency to assert our equality as a thing to be grasped; but equality is actually emptying yourself; the expression of that is the unity of mind, the sameness of the thinking, the working side-by-side. In summary, the definition of what it is to be equal is in fact to empty oneself as Christ did.
Now, to get a bit more theological, we can still look at this in terms of Christology (although I don't think that's the main purpose of this passage.)
The whole issue centers on Christology:
It isn't so much that Jesus is "God and man"....rather, He is God become man. As God, He wills Himself to be limited as a human being is...rather than being a sign of weakness, this is a sign of great power.
St. Athanasius, struggling against the Arians, writes remarkably on this in his treatise On the Incarnation. Just to paraphrase some of St. Athanasius thoughts on this:
1. The Son is truly divine. Not by participation from the outside, but He is what it is to be God.
2. The Son is the guarantee of the presence of God in His Word. The locus of this is in the Incarnation.
3. St. Athanasius' entire argument (and this is where kenosis comes into play) hinges on the Cross. The Cross is apparent degradation, but Athanasius insists that the more Christ (on the Cross) is mocked, the more He is proclaimed divine. His degradation is actually a manifestation of His glory.
4. God proves His divinity by the works that He does. His death is not the death of another man, but it is the death of God as a man. It is a voluntary death, and by the Word coming into the body, it dies not out of necessity, but voluntarily.
St. Athanasius doesn't develop Christology as many Christians do today; many today tend to see Christology exclusively as a matter of "composition" (word and man, 2 natures, etc...) Athanasius sees the Incarnation not in terms of composition, but of attribution and predication. We know Him to be human by the things He does, and to be God (again) by the things He does.
In other words, to know that Jesus Christ is God become man, we don’t do it by “cataloging” His composition; it is by seeing the things He does – He eats/drinks/sleep; He is human. He heals/forgives/raises the dead; He is God.
Again, in regards to kenosis/self-emptying: By becoming flesh, the flesh has become “proper” to the Son. He appropriates the flesh, and makes it His own, and makes Himself known by it. Thus, all things that belong to the flesh now belong to the Word; but they belong to Him only in respect to that body which is His, not in respect to His divinity.
He is not God and man...He is God become man. What we're doing is applying human properties to a divine subject. So, when the Word becomes flesh, there is no diminution of the status of the Word; the Word doesn’t become less than what He was. He doesn’t become a servant; rather, He takes the form of a servant and transforms it. His taking of it is simultaneous with the transformation into a lordly form. Thus, it is in the form of a servant that He is shown to be Lord of all.
If God is spirit, and Christ did empty himself of being spirit. Then he was simply a man and no spirit or God at all. You dont make sense. Kenosis implies total emptiness. A cup is empty when there is nothing in it. A theater is empty when nobody is in it. Greek kenosis and english empty impies a total emptiness, never partial.
I am not wrong and am not confused at all. In fact, you and nobody can prove me wrong. I gave you the oportunity to signal a single divine atribute in Jesus and all of you failed. Jesus did not have any divine atribute and you can not show the oposite. But I can and did proved all the divine atributes Jesus clearly did not have.
God is God because he is God. And there is not "must" in reference to God. The atributes that you see in God belong to God but dont are God.
Tom Bryant
Well-Known Member
Jesus was totally man and totaly God. That is out of question. All we agree that Jesus was fully God. Jesus was fully God without divine atributes because being God and having divine atributes are independent.
No where in the Bible we read that Jesus did chose not to exercise his atributes. To call legions of angels is not a divine atribute. The concept of Jesus having all divine atributes but cvhoosing not to use it is totally false.
I can say that Paul, or Peter, or David, or any person in the Bible did have all divine atributes but he choose not to exercise it. That thinking and teaching is very easy and false,
You don't believe this. You believe That Jesus ceased from being God. You play around with words, but it doesn't hide what you really believe. Skandelon gave you plenty of divine attributes that Jesus has. What makes a person a person is having human attributes. If Jesus doesn't have divine attributes, he isn't God. Your position is heresy. (oh, and you can tell the Admins and mods I told you that if you like). You deny the deity of Christ.
Here are the divine attributes of Jesus
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status