Can we discuss Kenosis?

If you are correct, then Jesus had all divine atributes. In that case, it will be easy for you to demostrate some of the many divine atributes Jesus had.

If you can not found Jesus having any divine atribiute, then you are wrong.

Simple like that.

 

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:


That is OK. Kenosis is bringing to emptiness, nothingness. If Jesus did kenosis of being red, then he was no red at all. If Jesus did kenosis of being hot, then he was absolutely freezing. If Jesus did kenosis of being rich, then he was totally poor with not one cent.

The question is what did Jesus kenosis of?

 

(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.

It is correct that Christ cannot desvist himself of his divine nature and perfection. Jesus continues to be God.

It is not correct that Christ could not cease to be omnipotent, and omnipresent. To be omnipotent and omnipresent is not his nature but his atributes. In fact, it was many things that Jesus cloud not do, meaning that Jesus was not omnipotent. In fact Jesus always was in an specific place. Definatly Jesus was not omnipresent.

 

(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the symbols or the manifestation of his glory, or that the outward expressions of his majesty in heaven might have been withdrawn.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,

Yes it is conceivible that Jesus did laid aside some of his divine atributes for some time. It is not conceivible that he did it with all his atributes and for all the time. It is not conceivible that in four Gospels preaching a Jesus God, did not includem not even a single demostration of at least one of the many divine atributes of Jesus.

More conceivible is to accept that Jesus did not have any divine atribute. If we dont think this way, then it will be possible to say that Moses, Abraham and many others did have divine atributes and decides to laid it aside.

 

(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.

The above supposed no change in the divine atributes; but I have proved that the above is wrong.

The Sun can loose its light and temperature. Astronomers have messure how many millons years will take for the Sun cold down. But despite becoming a cold and obscure body it will continue to be the Sun. The heat and light of the Sun are its atributes, and despite loosing its stributes it will continue to be the Sun. God the Son without atributes continues to be God. Only that contrary to the Sun he did recieve the full glory.

 

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.

The lenguage of the apostle implies that Christ did empty of being equal to God. Becoming humble is not emptying in nothing. In fact, the hubleing comes later, after the emptying. Furst the emptying, and then the humbling in addition.

Jesus did empty of his divine atributes, and also humbled into a servant.

 

Yes, no, yes no, yes no yes no yes no. For how long will you repeat the same and I will replay the same?

The list of atributes is something prepared by men. God is eternal. That is in the Bible. God is omnipresent. That is in the Bible. God is allmighty. That is in the Bible. We, humans, call them atributes. Is it a correct name? Are those fact atributes of God? If the word atribute implies that anything without the atributes is something else...then the word "atributes" is a bad choise.

If God ceases to be God for not having an atribute; then we shall not call atributes to the fact of God being eternal, omnipresent and allmighty. In that case, God is allmighty and to be allmighty is npot a divine atribute. Being allmighty is something else. Because if God ceases to be allmigtty he continues to be God.

I think will be better to quit saying "atribute" where the Bible didnt say "atribute".

 

You have call me heretic so many times that now is when i will recieve a punishment for saying the same. Heresy is what you are saying. Saying that Jesus did not experienced kenosis is heresy. Saying that Jesus has divine atributes is heresy. Before all of you, including your teachers, nobody has teached that heresy.

The heresy of Jesus with divine atributes is not in the baptist statement of faith; it is not in any creed.

All the verses quoted refers to Christ before and after the minitery on Earth. no one refers to Jesus while he did keniosis himself.

 

Jesus is God. We did agree on that from the very begining.
Do you have any verse saying that Jesus had any divine atribute? No, you dont.

 

How do YOU think he knew who satan was? Because I dont see how it proves of Jesus having any divine atribute.

 

Mark have two options, to use "him" or to use "her". Mark knew it was a woman. He knew that years after the fact. Mark choose "her" but did not men that Jesus knew that it was a woman.

Even if Jesus knew it was a woman; Jesus didnt know who in particular. Jesus is looking around trying to found out.

If Jesus knew exactly who did touch him; even in that case Jesus didnt know where she was hiding in the multitude. Jesus is looking around because he dont know where she is; or who she is; or who it was.

Also I agree that many times Jesus did formulate questions not because he didnt know. It is difficult to figure out for sure the meaning of Jesus questions. But there is times when Jesus is informed without formulating any question. Jesus was informed of the arrest of jhon and did take a decicion after that news. Jesus was informed of the dead of Lazarus.

The most demostrative sign of Jesus not knowing something is when he refuses to drink after testing (at the cross). Jesus didnt know what it was until he test it.

 

Good point. We can say wich God Jesus was afteer knowing his divine atributes. If we found that Jesus had the atributes of Ganesh, then we must conclude that Jesus was Gadesh. The key point is to spot and identify the divine atributes of God and compare them to different Gods.

Please list the divine atributes that Jesus had.