Really interesting thread of questioning that made me sweat a bit because it definitely feels like "answer right.. yay not a heretic.. answer wrong and totally heretic and apostate and uh oh"

But I had to do some research on one of the specific questions because I wasn't too familiar with the term and as it turns out, would prefer to not be a heretic.

Some of my reading:

https://heidelblog.net/2016/08/a-brief-history-of-the-kenosis-theory/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis

Basically there is differing commentary on .. how Christ's divinity was limited when he died or maybe more aptly described... if Christ were a pitcher of oil and water in equal parts, how much did the ratio change (if at all) when in Philippians 2 he

Quote:

---

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death
even death on a cross!

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

---

This needed to be an option for way more of those questions.

I had to grammar rocket this one

Yeah, I'd rather spend my time trying to understand what God has written rather than what some theologian has written. IOW, are we trying to struggle with the meaning of a certain passage here, or assess the meaning of some creedal formulation? In the case of your last example, it's hard to imagine that I would understand God any better by understanding the question.

Strong translation essential
I recommend
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-David-Bentley-Hart/dp/0300186096

94chem said:

---

Yeah, I'd rather spend my time trying to understand what God has written rather than what some theologian has written. IOW, are we trying to struggle with the meaning of a certain passage here, or assess the meaning of some creedal formulation? In the case of your last example, it's hard to imagine that I would understand God any better by understanding the question.

---

Right, so the whole point of the thread of questioning is to understand the nature of Christ, esp as described in this passage:

Quote:

---

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death
even death on a cross!

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

---

Christ fully God (always) and fully man (33 to now)
Logos - Reason and Order of all creation - before and after Incarnation
Son of Man = corrector of Adam, the "first man," not first hominid but first priest of the Promise (Sacrifice of the Mass)
Passages must be read Sacramentally"

I have had this open for a couple of days, and I finally had the chance to circle back.

First of all, I note with interest that the term has apparently fallen out of favor. I confirmed with a quick a study of Christians (N=1). Results follow:



I make that joke just to say that, "The Kenosis of the Word: ontological, psychological, both, or neither" is kind of a strange way to ask the question. Maybe it's about showing of theology cred.

Regardless of what we call it, I'm reading the discussion (both from the Twitter polls and the text from Philippians) to mean, "how did the incarnation affect Jesus's nature?" Correct me if I'm taking this in the wrong direction. There are a few passages that come to mind off the top of my head. Nothing too deep here, but these are the thoughts that immediately occur to me.

Luke 2:52 said:

---

And Jesus increased in widom and in stature and in favor with God and man.

---

This is right after 12-year-old Jesus has been talking theology in the temple. We are told that "all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers," but growing in wisdom implies a very human development. I think if I were trying to conceptualize a fully-God/fully-man, I would expect him to have divine wisdom but to grow in knowledge instead.

John 11:11-14 said:

---

After saying these things, he said to them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him." The disciples said to him, "Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover." Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus told them plainly, "Lazarus has died..."

---

So how does Jesus know what's going on with Lazarus? The last time he had heard anything was two days before when he was told that Lazarus was sick; Jesus said he would be fine. So clearly when Jesus received the news, he already knew that Lazarus's death was imminent and that it would be used for the glory of the Father and the So if Jesus developed intellectually as a man, how could he know that?

Matthew 26:39, 42 said:

---

And going a little farther, he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will..." Again, for the second time he wenta way and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done."

---

The answer, so far as I am able to surmise, is that Jesus was in perfect communion with the Father. Damaged as we are by sin, we can only begin to imagine what that is like until we are glorified in the end.

Really like that translation

His divinity was in no way limited. The Church's teaching is He became man without change. The scriptures say in him the fullness was pleased to dwell.

St John has two really great homilies on this passage.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230206.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230207.htm

Of course it wasn't. I don't think anyone here is saying that. But what does it mean? In what ways did Jesus experience life in earth differently than you and I do?

In the OP it says how His divinity was limited when He died. His divinity was not limited. As for oil and water, this is a not-good analogy, because oil and water don't mix. The Chalcedonian confession says Jesus Christ is

Quote:

---

THEREFORE, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge
one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, complete in Godhead and complete in manhood,
truly God and truly man,
consisting also of a reasonable soul and body;
of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead,
and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood;
like us in all respects, apart from sin;
as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages,
but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the Theotokos;
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten,
recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation;
the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union,
but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence,
not as parted or separated into two persons,
but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ;
even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us,
and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

---

So... I think the safest and pious-est way is to say that his kenosis or emptying was that of becoming man at all.

I have seen other fathers write about three kenotic acts: His Incarnation, His baptism, and His death. They write about them in terms of humbling, being lowly. This is exactly the sense that St Paul wrote in Philippians, linked it to having the same mind in us - one of humility, being lowly in spirit.

The only "strong" language I can recall about the difference, aside from the fact that He knew no sin, was in particular that His sinlessness meant He had a different will than us. Even thought we confess He had two wills, one proper to each nature, His human will was not marred by the fall and therefore "worked" differently than ours. St Maximos wrote about this, the natural will vs the gnomic will. Our gnomic will is how we use or actualize the will as individual human persons. Since our nature is tarnished by sin, we deliberate because we are changeable, subject to passions or desires, ignorant, and of course also to actually sinning.

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2016/08/03/st-maximus-the-confessor-on-the-will-natural-and-gnomic/

Anytime you are trying to eff out the ineffable, the analogies are going to be incomplete and bad. Sometimes.. it is hard to find the correct words though.

You are always going to end up here


In fact, iirc oil and water is one of the analogies in the video.

My response to the poster after a bunch of thinking was finally this:

Then maybe I am talking to myself over here.

Quote:

---

emptying was that of becoming man at all.

---

Men are empty. One more reason chicks rule and boys drool.

Matthew 24:36. Unless he was lying, he set aside some portion of his omniscience.

And in the eucharist, he allegedly possesses a quality that he did not possess during his incarnation (omnipresence).

The kenosis passage is a hymn, correct? Which would make it like a psalm, correct? Is there a difference between a primer and a treatise?