Is God a deceptive trickster?

[Free]

Now this does not say that Jesus is God or the same as God. It says, “He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.†Being equal does not equate to being the same thing.

How can anyone or anything be equal to God but not be God? What do you believe "equal" to mean? Equal in some things but not in others? What determines what is equal and what is not?

I take equal to mean "equal".

You know there are some fascinating instances in scripture that give us insight into things like this, so let’s take something from scripture because it is right for us to do so now.

We cannot automatically take such instances and directly apply them to God. It is like people taking "Son of God" to mean something similar to the human begetting of sons. But a quick reading of the gospels shows this isn't the case; "Son of God" carries with it a much greater meaning than simply "son of ...".

Therefore He thought it not robbery to be equal (but not the same as) God. And this is spelled out precisely and without any element of doubt in scripture.

So why do you stick to just one possible meaning of "thought it not robbery"? The NASB and ESV translate harpagmos as "a thing to be grasped". The word harpagmos also carries the meaning "something to be forcibly retained or held on to". In other words, it is entirely possible for this verse to be saying, as I will argue, that Jesus, as God, did not consider his equality with the Father (and Spirit) something to hold on to.

I believe this understanding is far better than yours based on the context, which you didn't address.:

Phil. 2:5-8, "5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

Some important points are as follows:

1. Christ was "in the form of God".
2. Christ "made himself nothing" or "emptied himself".
a. Christ was made "nothing" or "empty".
b. Christ did the emptying.
3. Being made nothing, Christ took "the form of a servant," "the likeness of men," "human form".
4. Christ did the humbling.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Consider what it says in Corinthians 15.
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

And in response I will ask you to consider Colossians 1:15-20:

"15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."

Christ clearly is not created.

Is Jesus, Lord of all creation? Yes He is. Is He my Lord? Yes He is. Because His Father has exalted Him above every other. As scripture rightly says, ‘Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.’ And this spells out the right perspective on their relationship. Jesus is Lord and His father is God.

So then you must believe that the Father is no longer Lord. He cannot therefore be, as the OT states, "King of kings and Lord of lords". You have removed the Father from the realm of Lordship.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that the word for "Lord" is also the same as that used of God throughout the entire NT. While this does not mean that every instance of it in reference to Christ means that he is God, we cannot just ignore the implication for many passages. I don't disagree that Romans 10:9 is talking about Christ being Lord over us, but it certainly means more than just that. The confession involves Christ both as Lord and LORD.

Now if you cannot accept this, that’s fine. Continue believing as you will. I am not going to deny you your beliefs, nor the relationship that you have with God.

That sounds nice and all but you clearly are ignoring the implications of this discussion of Christ's deity. If Christ isn't God, then I am guilty of idolatry and worshiping the wrong God. If Christ is God, then you are guilty of not worshiping the God of the Bible. Either way you slice it this is an extremely important topic essential to salvation, one which we shouldn't be content to just continue believing as we will.

But two things I ask. Please refrain from taking the so-called mantle of one who sees himself as having the mind of Christ (as someone else on this board has) and judging others to be unfit for the kingdom of God merely on the basis of a doctrine that does not agree with yours.

As I have pointed out, this it not merely about doctrines that disagree, it is about far more than that. This is about the very nature of God. From your position I could argue that Mormons and JWs are also Christians. I could argue for a whole lot of other groups too. However, if there is a fundamental disagreement about who God and Christ even are, then obviously only one group can be Christian.

All I want to do is show that the orthodox understanding of the nature of God is the most correct and takes into account the most Scripture.

Do you believe that beliefs are important in being a Christian, that in order to be called a Christian one must believe certain things? If not, then Jesus was wrong and the way is most certainly broad that leads to salvation.

 

[Georges]

Now this does not say that Jesus is God or the same as God. It says, “He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.†Being equal does not equate to being the same thing.

How can anyone or anything be equal to God but not be God? What do you believe "equal" to mean? Equal in some things but not in others? What determines what is equal and what is not?

The Jewish Law of Agency....Hello? is this mike on?....Jesus was a Jew....the Disciples...all Jews....Paul a Jew (or wannabe).....

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... rch=Agency

...The Law of Agency deals with the status of a person (known as the agent) acting by direction of another (the principal), and thereby legally binding the principal in his connection with a third person. The person who binds a principal in this manner is his agent, known in Jewish law as sheluaḥ or sheliaḥ (one that is sent): the relation of the former to the latter is known as agency (sheliḥut). The general principle is enunciated thus: A man's agent is like himself (Ḳid. 41b).

and...

Under the Jewish law an agent may be appointed without the formality of writing, that is, by spoken words; and witnesses are not needed to give effect to these words, except to prove, in case of dispute, that authority had been given, and the extent of such authority. The standard authorities draw this conclusion from the remark in Ḳiddushin, 65b, that witnesses are needed only to meet denials.

and...

An agent may appoint a subagent (Ḳid. 41a);

This is how Jesus can be the equal to God without being God....Jesus claimed he was the "sent one" or "Agent" of God...


I take equal to mean "equal".

You know there are some fascinating instances in scripture that give us insight into things like this, so let’s take something from scripture because it is right for us to do so now.

We cannot automatically take such instances and directly apply them to God. It is like people taking "Son of God" to mean something similar to the human begetting of sons. But a quick reading of the gospels shows this isn't the case; "Son of God" carries with it a much greater meaning than simply "son of ...".

Therefore He thought it not robbery to be equal (but not the same as) God. And this is spelled out precisely and without any element of doubt in scripture.

So why do you stick to just one possible meaning of "thought it not robbery"? The NASB and ESV translate harpagmos as "a thing to be grasped". The word harpagmos also carries the meaning "something to be forcibly retained or held on to". In other words, it is entirely possible for this verse to be saying, as I will argue, that Jesus, as God, did not consider his equality with the Father (and Spirit) something to hold on to.

I believe this understanding is far better than yours based on the context, which you didn't address.:

Phil. 2:5-8, "5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

Some important points are as follows:

1. Christ was "in the form of God".
2. Christ "made himself nothing" or "emptied himself".
a. Christ was made "nothing" or "empty".
b. Christ did the emptying.
3. Being made nothing, Christ took "the form of a servant," "the likeness of men," "human form".
4. Christ did the humbling.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Consider what it says in Corinthians 15.
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

And in response I will ask you to consider Colossians 1:15-20:

"15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."

Christ clearly is not created.

Is Jesus, Lord of all creation? Yes He is. Is He my Lord? Yes He is. Because His Father has exalted Him above every other. As scripture rightly says, ‘Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.’ And this spells out the right perspective on their relationship. Jesus is Lord and His father is God.

So then you must believe that the Father is no longer Lord. He cannot therefore be, as the OT states, "King of kings and Lord of lords". You have removed the Father from the realm of Lordship.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that the word for "Lord" is also the same as that used of God throughout the entire NT. While this does not mean that every instance of it in reference to Christ means that he is God, we cannot just ignore the implication for many passages. I don't disagree that Romans 10:9 is talking about Christ being Lord over us, but it certainly means more than just that. The confession involves Christ both as Lord and LORD.

Now if you cannot accept this, that’s fine. Continue believing as you will. I am not going to deny you your beliefs, nor the relationship that you have with God.

That sounds nice and all but you clearly are ignoring the implications of this discussion of Christ's deity. If Christ isn't God, then I am guilty of idolatry and worshiping the wrong God. If Christ is God, then you are guilty of not worshiping the God of the Bible. Either way you slice it this is an extremely important topic essential to salvation, one which we shouldn't be content to just continue believing as we will.

But two things I ask. Please refrain from taking the so-called mantle of one who sees himself as having the mind of Christ (as someone else on this board has) and judging others to be unfit for the kingdom of God merely on the basis of a doctrine that does not agree with yours.

As I have pointed out, this it not merely about doctrines that disagree, it is about far more than that. This is about the very nature of God. From your position I could argue that Mormons and JWs are also Christians. I could argue for a whole lot of other groups too. However, if there is a fundamental disagreement about who God and Christ even are, then obviously only one group can be Christian.

All I want to do is show that the orthodox understanding of the nature of God is the most correct and takes into account the most Scripture.

Do you believe that beliefs are important in being a Christian, that in order to be called a Christian one must believe certain things? If not, then Jesus was wrong and the way is most certainly broad that leads to salvation.

Why cannot anyone recognize that Jesus is God by the Law of Agency?....Is it because it's a "Jewish principle" and everything "Jewish" in Christianity comes from the Devil?

Agency is a simple concept....and it works perfectly with the Gospels...

 

[Free]

But the Law of Agency clearly will not work in the passage being discussed as the context makes clear.

 

[Packrat]

I have been wondering why the three person God repeatedly and consistently represented himself as one person to the Jews of the Old Testament.

To my knowledge, the Old Testament does give evidence of God's multiplicity (if that's the right word). Elohiym, I think, is the plural form of God. It is sometimes used with accompanying singular-case words when speaking of God as opposed to the plural-case words when Elohiym is used to refer to false gods.

I would like, though, for someone to show me where in the Old Testament it speaks of the coming Messiah, who would judge the world and bring peace to it, as being the Son of God. I think that there were many messiahs in Israel's history - not just one. However, there was One prophesied of who would do these things.

:edited Bible to 'Old Testament' in the last paragraph

 

[Georges]

But the Law of Agency clearly will not work in the passage being discussed as the context makes clear.

That's an easy statement to make....now, tell me why......

Agency works very (extremely) well with the context.....as a matter of fact it works better than any explanation I've ever seen on the matter.

I've posted the concept in black and white and even in large letters.....can't miss it.....visually, that is....you can miss the concept though....

The article can't explain "equal to" any clearer.....

 

[Free]

But the Law of Agency clearly will not work in the passage being discussed as the context makes clear.

That's an easy statement to make....now, tell me why......

Agency works very (extremely) well with the context.....as a matter of fact it works better than any explanation I've ever seen on the matter.

I've posted the concept in black and white and even in large letters.....can't miss it.....visually, that is....you can miss the concept though....

The article can't explain "equal to" any clearer.....

But you are still stuck on "equal to" and have missed everything I said in my post. I'll repost the main points:

1. Christ was "in the form of God".
2. Christ "made himself nothing" or "emptied himself".
a. Christ was made "nothing" or "empty".
b. Christ did the emptying.
3. Being made nothing, Christ took "the form of a servant," "the likeness of men," "human form".
4. Christ did the humbling.

Now, what conclusions can be drawn from this? The points alone show that Agency will not work, but in addition they show how "equal to" should be understood.

 

[mutzrein]

Now this does not say that Jesus is God or the same as God. It says, “He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.†Being equal does not equate to being the same thing.

How can anyone or anything be equal to God but not be God? What do you believe "equal" to mean? Equal in some things but not in others? What determines what is equal and what is not?

I take equal to mean "equal".

Talk about me not accepting things being equal!

Equal in the way you are interpreting it plainly does not mean equal. And this is why your interpretation is flawed. If as you say Jesus and God are equal then how come Jesus in under subjection to the Father. How come Jesus is seated on the right hand of God. How come the Father judges no-one but has entrusted all judgement to the son. How come God knows when Jesus will return to judge but Jesus doesn’t. They certainly don't sound equal to me in the way you want to interpret it. And on and on I could go.

The point is, it does not say Jesus is equal to God – as you have misquoted.
So lets try again.
There is a difference between these two statements.
I am equal with my Father.
I am equal to my father.

If you cannot see it then who am I to argue. But this is what happens when it is assumed that scripture needs to be intellectualised in order to understand it. Perhaps I shouldn’t even consider reasoning this through with you because it is plainly the intellectual approach that man has adopted that stops him coming to God. But you know what, in spite of it – and in spite of yours and others assertions about needing to accept this doctrine in order to be a Christian – others are coming to Christ without any knowledge of what you claim to be necessary for salvation. Doesn’t that bother you? Or would you want to try to shut them out of the kingdom of God also?

Now if you say you see or understand what it is that God requires, yet you cannot see beyond this tradition and doctrine of man, then again I should not even consider going any further. But then I think, maybe there are others reading this who have been hoodwinked, yet desire to know what it is to walk in faith rather than after the traditions of man - so I will carry on. I will respond to some other points in future posts.

 

[Free]

If as you say Jesus and God are equal then how come Jesus in under subjection to the Father. How come Jesus is seated on the right hand of God. How come the Father judges no-one but has entrusted all judgement to the son. How come God knows when Jesus will return to judge but Jesus doesn’t. They certainly don't sound equal to me in the way you want to interpret it. And on and on I could go.

I'm sure you could go on and on, but in this instance you are again ignoring what the rest of the passage is saying. Firstly, it is clear that Christ was equal with God prior to the Incarnation. Secondly, the passage very clearly states that Christ emptied himself and made himself subject to the Father.

But this is what happens when it is assumed that scripture needs to be intellectualised in order to understand it. Perhaps I shouldn’t even consider reasoning this through with you because it is plainly the intellectual approach that man has adopted that stops him coming to God.

Scripture as a whole doesn't need to be intellecutalized in order to understand it, but certain parts do require reasoning and rational thought. To say that we can't use reasoning in order to understand what Scripture states is to ignore what God says in Scripture about the matter.

But you know what, in spite of it – and in spite of yours and others assertions about needing to accept this doctrine in order to be a Christian – others are coming to Christ without any knowledge of what you claim to be necessary for salvation. Doesn’t that bother you? Or would you want to try to shut them out of the kingdom of God also?

This then begs the question of whether or not these people are really saved. If it can be shown from Scripture, or even reasoned from Scripture, that one must at least believe in the deity of Christ to be saved, then these people are not really saved.

On the other hand, to accept that these people are saved implies that those who believe in the deity of Christ are not saved. If you want to argue that that is not the case, then you must explain how it is that people with such divergent views of the very nature of God and Christ can all be saved. Christ is either God or he is not and salvation rests on one or the other.

And, yes, it greatly bothers me that people are being taught that you don't need to believe that Christ is who he said he is and still be saved.

But then I think, maybe there are others reading this who have been hoodwinked, yet desire to know what it is to walk in faith rather than after the traditions of man - so I will carry on.

This is a very post-modern type of thinking - "anti-tradition," "anti-establishment". But the whole problem with this argument is that Christianity is a religion of history and tradition. Tradition is what keeps us rooted in the history of Christianity. Once tradition is done away with and deemed unnecessary, then beliefs stray.

 

[mutzrein]

You know there are some fascinating instances in scripture that give us insight into things like this, so let’s take something from scripture because it is right for us to do so now.

We cannot automatically take such instances and directly apply them to God. It is like people taking "Son of God" to mean something similar to the human begetting of sons. But a quick reading of the gospels shows this isn't the case; "Son of God" carries with it a much greater meaning than simply "son of ...".

Of course “Son of God†carries with it much greater meaning than any other ‘son of…’ – and that is why the many cannot understand it. They try to apply human reasoning and logic to things of the Spirit.

This is exactly why your theology and tradition has you in a strait-jacket – so much so that you cannot move while you are within its restraints. And you want to put others under the same bondage. That is exactly what the Pharisees did. They wanted to shut Jesus down because he bucked their law and traditions. He went around healing people and doing good and they, being extremely jealous killed the son of God.

But just so you know. I’m not picking instances automatically. Even as Jesus was obedient to the command of His Father so do I also need to be obedient to Him. And the command is not one which is written down. It is not tradition or law or man-made theology. It is by means of the Spirit that I walk in response to His commands. And since He showed me this in order that those with eyes to see and ears to hear would understand, take it up with Him.

 

[TanNinety]

1. Christ was "in the form of God".
2. Christ "made himself nothing" or "emptied himself".
a. Christ was made "nothing" or "empty".
b. Christ did the emptying.
3. Being made nothing, Christ took "the form of a servant," "the likeness of men," "human form".
4. Christ did the humbling.

Though at face value this might look like a trinitarian makes a good point. These statements pose difficult questions to trinitarians themselves.

1. Christ was “in the form of God� Is Jesus God or is He in the “form of God�
2. a. “made himself nothing†or “emptied himselfâ€Â. What did He empty Himself of? Deity? Being God? Or just the form of God?
2. b. made “nothing†or “emptyâ€Â. So Jesus emptied Himself of being God? ..So at this point there was only a twinity up in heaven until the resurrection?
3. “the form of a servantâ€Â, “the likeness of menâ€Â, “human form†..so now the second personality of the godhead is made into a human? And after the resurrection Jesus kept His human form for now and all eternity?

Rom 1:21 because, having known God they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor gave thanks, but were made vain in their reasonings, and their unintelligent heart was darkened, Rom 1:22 professing to be wise, they were made fools, Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of fowls, and of quadrupeds, and of reptiles.

To say that God put on a human face as Jesus for all eternity is Romans 1:23.

4. Christ did the “humblingâ€Â, “emptyingâ€Â, “become nothingâ€Â. If one godhead can do this can the rest of the godheads do this? ..so Father can empty Himself and become nothing, Holy Spirit can become nothing and obviously you believe Jesus can become “nothingâ€Â. So there is a possibility that three of the godheads can “empty†themselves and thus there is a possibility that God can take Himself out of existence and cannot exist?

Trinitarians who use the cliché “God doesn’t change†will turn right around and say that one part of the godhead has forever changed to a glorious human form.

If Jesus indeed emptied Himself, then why do you say when He was on earth He was 100%God and 100%man? Well did He empty Himself or not? How can something be empty that is 100% full? Please dont pull a "with God illogicality is possible".

God made man in His image in the garden. Then man made God in his image in tradition.

 

[Heidi]

This is ridiculous. All people have to do is believe Jesus and all their questions will be answered. Jesus says; "For the Father is greater than I." That is not a lie. That is not a lie. That is not a lie. Jesus is the Son of God who is completely filled with God's Spirit. Everything he says comes from God's Spirit inside of him.

"The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather it is the Father living in me that is doing the work." That says it all! Jesus makes a specific distinction here between him and His Father.
And since evewrything that comes out of Jesus is from the Spirit of God in him, when one looks at Jesus he sees God. End of Story.

 

[Georges]

But the Law of Agency clearly will not work in the passage being discussed as the context makes clear.

That's an easy statement to make....now, tell me why......

Agency works very (extremely) well with the context.....as a matter of fact it works better than any explanation I've ever seen on the matter.

I've posted the concept in black and white and even in large letters.....can't miss it.....visually, that is....you can miss the concept though....

The article can't explain "equal to" any clearer.....

But you are still stuck on "equal to" and have missed everything I said in my post. I'll repost the main points:

1. Christ was "in the form of God".

Did Christ say that?


2. Christ "made himself nothing" or "emptied himself".

Did Christ say that?

a. Christ was made "nothing" or "empty".

Did Christ say that?

b. Christ did the emptying.

Did Christ say that?

3. Being made nothing, Christ took "the form of a servant," "the likeness of men," "human form".

Did Christ say that?

4. Christ did the humbling.

Did Christ say that?

Now, what conclusions can be drawn from this?

That Paul is the only one who promoted this.....cause Jesus nor any of the other Apostles stated any of the above......

The points alone show that Agency will not work, but in addition they show how "equal to" should be understood.

Yes, you are right in your statement if Paul is right in his.....actually...did Paul ever equate Jesus to God? I don't think so...I'll look into that.

 

[gingercat]

This is ridiculous. All people have to do is believe Jesus and all their questions will be answered. Jesus says; "For the Father is greater than I." That is not a lie. That is not a lie. That is not a lie. Jesus is the Son of God who is completely filled with God's Spirit. Everything he says comes from God's Spirit inside of him.

"The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather it is the Father living in me that is doing the work." That says it all! Jesus makes a specific distinction here between him and His Father.
And since evewrything that comes out of Jesus is from the Spirit of God in him, when one looks at Jesus he sees God. End of Story.

This is good one Heide :angel: :angel: :angel:

 

[Free]

1. Christ was "in the form of God".
2. Christ "made himself nothing" or "emptied himself".
a. Christ was made "nothing" or "empty".
b. Christ did the emptying.
3. Being made nothing, Christ took "the form of a servant," "the likeness of men," "human form".
4. Christ did the humbling.

Though at face value this might look like a trinitarian makes a good point. These statements pose difficult questions to trinitarians themselves.

1. Christ was “in the form of God� Is Jesus God or is He in the “form of God�
2. a. “made himself nothing†or “emptied himselfâ€Â. What did He empty Himself of? Deity? Being God? Or just the form of God?
2. b. made “nothing†or “emptyâ€Â. So Jesus emptied Himself of being God? ..So at this point there was only a twinity up in heaven until the resurrection?
3. “the form of a servantâ€Â, “the likeness of menâ€Â, “human form†..so now the second personality of the godhead is made into a human? And after the resurrection Jesus kept His human form for now and all eternity?

I'll answer your points but first show me why you translate the same phrase in two different ways; it is precisely the answer I was expected. You hit the nail on the head. Look at the bolded points, particularly the underlined portions.

Now, logically speaking, if Christ took "the form of a servant" and was found in "human form" means that Christ was "made into a human" as you stated, why are you confused about the meaning of Christ being "in the form of God"? Do you see the inconsistency in your translation?

This is a very important point: if by stating that Christ was in the form of a human means that he literally was human, then it necessarily follows that Christ "in the form of God" means that literally was God. The point is inescapable unless you want to deny that Christ was human also.

If you can satisfactorily clear this up, I will address the rest of your points.

This is ridiculous. All people have to do is believe Jesus and all their questions will be answered.

No offence Heidi, but your post is well, childlike in that it displays ignorance of how things really are. I assure you that I can say that I do believe Jesus, and so does mutzrein, Georges, and TanNinety, yet we all have very different answers from each other and you.

That Paul is the only one who promoted this.....cause Jesus nor any of the other Apostles stated any of the above......

When you don't have an answer, just poison the well. You've gone from "the passage is to be understood from the Law of Agency" to "it's all Paul's words, not Christ's". Which is it?

"1. Christ was "in the form of God".

Did Christ say that?"

Read John 1:1-3.

"3. Being made nothing, Christ took "the form of a servant," "the likeness of men," "human form".

Did Christ say that?"

Read John 1:14.

I assure you that Paul taught very much what Jesus revealed about himself. I will get into that later but this passage needs to be unpacked more first.

 

[Georges]

[quote="Free

That Paul is the only one who promoted this.....cause Jesus nor any of the other Apostles stated any of the above......

When you don't have an answer, just poison the well.

Oh I have an answer.....you won't like it or believe it.

You've gone from "the passage is to be understood from the Law of Agency" to "it's all Paul's words, not Christ's". Which is it?

Both.....Agency fits perfectly. And, Christ did not claim the points you made above.....

Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

I've presented Agency from the Jewish encyclopedia...if you can't put the verse together with the context...you won't ever.......cause your gonna believer what you are gonna believe....


"1. Christ was "in the form of God".

Did Christ say that?"

Read John 1:1-3.

I thought John wrote that....and I refer you to the Memra thread....

"3. Being made nothing, Christ took "the form of a servant," "the likeness of men," "human form".

Did Christ say that?"

Read John 1:14.

I thought John wrote that as well......again I refer you to the Memra thread on the other forum....it explains what the Jewish concept of the "Word" is and how the "Memra" is also seen as the OT representative of God....

I assure you that Paul taught very much what Jesus revealed about himself. I will get into that later but this passage needs to be unpacked more first.

I assure you that Paul taught a Jesus out of Gnostic/Mystery Religion mixed with Judaism....a different Jesus than taught by the other Apostles.

[/quote]

Read the Memra thread......

 

[Georges]

[quote="Free

That Paul is the only one who promoted this.....cause Jesus nor any of the other Apostles stated any of the above......

When you don't have an answer, just poison the well.

Oh I have an answer.....you won't like it or believe it.

You've gone from "the passage is to be understood from the Law of Agency" to "it's all Paul's words, not Christ's". Which is it?

Both.....Agency fits perfectly. And, Christ did not claim the points you made above.....

Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

I've presented Agency from the Jewish encyclopedia...if you can't put the verse together with the context...you won't ever.......cause your gonna believe what you are gonna believe....


"1. Christ was "in the form of God".

Did Christ say that?"

Read John 1:1-3.

I thought John wrote that....and I refer you to the Memra thread....

"3. Being made nothing, Christ took "the form of a servant," "the likeness of men," "human form".

Did Christ say that?"

Read John 1:14.

I thought John wrote that as well......again I refer you to the Memra thread on the other forum....it explains what the Jewish concept of the "Word" is and how the "Memra" is also seen as the OT representative of God....

I assure you that Paul taught very much what Jesus revealed about himself. I will get into that later but this passage needs to be unpacked more first.

I assure you that Paul taught a Jesus out of Gnostic/Mystery Religion mixed with Judaism....a different Jesus than taught by the other Apostles.

Read the Memra thread......[/quote]

 

[mutzrein]

So why do you stick to just one possible meaning of "thought it not robbery"? The NASB and ESV translate harpagmos as "a thing to be grasped". The word harpagmos also carries the meaning "something to be forcibly retained or held on to". In other words, it is entirely possible for this verse to be saying, as I will argue, that Jesus, as God, did not consider his equality with the Father (and Spirit) something to hold on to.

If you want to base your theology or your relationship with God on a particular translation then you have missed the whole point. What difference does it make if it says “thought it not robbery†or “a thing to be grasped†or “Something to be forcibly retained or held on to.†Good grief - I don’t have to go into every jot and tittle to know what my relationship with God is.
If something as important as having a relationship with God has to be reduced to questioning whether it was entirely possible for something to mean what you wanted it to mean, would you not think that the vagueness of scripture which you are attempting to extract understanding from, would be more clear. I mean that is intellectualising it in the extreme.
And so the scripture is confirmed once again, “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse tocome to me to have life.â€Â

 

[mutzrein]

I believe this understanding is far better than yours based on the context, which you didn't address.:

Phil. 2:5-8, "5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

Some important points are as follows:

1. Christ was "in the form of God".
2. Christ "made himself nothing" or "emptied himself".
a. Christ was made "nothing" or "empty".
b. Christ did the emptying.
3. Being made nothing, Christ took "the form of a servant," "the likeness of men," "human form".
4. Christ did the humbling.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

And the important points are?

I am in the image of my father – flesh & blood. Am I my father? No.
Christ was in the form of His father – Spirit. Is He his Father? No.
Scripture says that man was made in the image of God. Does that make man God? No.

I make myself nothing – I walk in the Spirit that I might die to the flesh. Do I humble myself? Yes. How? By the Spirit. Even as a son of God I do this. How much more so did Jesus humble himself.

So what is the deal with being in the form of a servant, the likeness of man, human form. That doesn’t have anything to do with being God.

I am totally mystified that you can take any of this to even imply what you are trying to hold on to. In fact I’ve just realised that this is what it is. You are holding on to it for dear life. You believe that salvation comes because you believe it and you have been convinced or have convinced yourself that as long as you believe what you have been told – as long as you hold on to it – you are Free. Goodness. That is not freedom. That is bondage.

 

[Georges]

I believe this understanding is far better than yours based on the context, which you didn't address.:

Phil. 2:5-8, "5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

Some important points are as follows:

1. Christ was "in the form of God".
2. Christ "made himself nothing" or "emptied himself".
a. Christ was made "nothing" or "empty".
b. Christ did the emptying.
3. Being made nothing, Christ took "the form of a servant," "the likeness of men," "human form".
4. Christ did the humbling.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

And the important points are?

I am in the image of my father – flesh & blood. Am I my father? No.
Christ was in the form of His father – Spirit. Is He his Father? No.
Scripture says that man was made in the image of God. Does that make man God? No.

I make myself nothing – I walk in the Spirit that I might die to the flesh. Do I humble myself? Yes. How? By the Spirit. Even as a son of God I do this. How much more so did Jesus humble himself.

So what is the deal with being in the form of a servant, the likeness of man, human form. That doesn’t have anything to do with being God.

I am totally mystified that you can take any of this to even imply what you are trying to hold on to. In fact I’ve just realised that this is what it is. You are holding on to it for dear life. You believe that salvation comes because you believe it and you have been convinced or have convinced yourself that as long as you believe what you have been told – as long as you hold on to it – you are Free. Goodness. That is not freedom. That is bondage.

Good post.....and in the last paragraph you've hit the nail on the head in regard to most of Christianity....I almost lost my mind as I struggled with this very thing until I worked through it and found out my salvation is not in jeopardy because I retooled my theology. When I approached it logically, things fell into place...for the better.

 

[Free]

What difference does it make if it says “thought it not robbery†or “a thing to be grasped†or “Something to be forcibly retained or held on to.†Good grief - I don’t have to go into every jot and tittle to know what my relationship with God is.

It makes a world of difference. One implies that Christ wasn't God and so he did not try to become equal with him. The other implies that Christ was God and that in the plan of salvation he didn't think that his deity was something to be held onto so as to keep him from becoming human. The difference in translation is enormous.

If something as important as having a relationship with God has to be reduced to questioning whether it was entirely possible for something to mean what you wanted it to mean, would you not think that the vagueness of scripture which you are attempting to extract understanding from, would be more clear.

To me it is very clear, otherwise I wouldn't attempt to explain it or even believe it myself.

I am in the image of my father – flesh & blood. Am I my father? No.
Christ was in the form of His father – Spirit. Is He his Father? No.
Scripture says that man was made in the image of God. Does that make man God? No.

Firstly, that's Oneness theology not trinitarian. Secondly, as I have stated previously one cannot take what applies to man and apply it to God. The very idea of that is rather absurd and presumptuous. Thirdly, your attempts at explaining are still ignoring the obvious context, which I will get into below.

So what is the deal with being in the form of a servant, the likeness of man, human form. That doesn’t have anything to do with being God.

Well, you clearly missed the implications, which I pointed out in my response to TanNinety. Of course it has nothing to do with him being God, but if you admit that "taking the form of a servant" means that Christ was human, then it follows that "in the form of God" means that Christ was God.

I am totally mystified that you can take any of this to even imply what you are trying to hold on to.

Likewise I fail to see how one cannot see what I am presenting is based on a clear and plain reading of the text.

I'll help things along by giving the reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from this text and why the context is so important:

As I have already pointed out: if you admit that "taking the form of a servant" means that Christ was human, then it necessarily follows that "in the form of God" means that Christ was God. If you still want to argue that all it means is that Christ was Spirit like his Father, and then became human like man, you ignore the fact the he "emptied himself". Of what did he empty himself of if "being in the form of God" merely means that he was Spirit?

Particularly important is that Christ’s being “in the form of God†is directly linked to his not counting “equality with God a thing to be graspedâ€Â. Just as important is that that is all then linked to him emptying himself. Look at the construction of the verses:

Phi 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Phi 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

In other words, his being equal with God is based on his being in the form of God. This clearly implies much more than Christ simply being Spirit like the Father. And even moreso since this is all linked by “but†to Christ making himself nothing. Significant enough is that Christ emptied himself, it wasn’t done by the Father, but when answering what it was that Christ emptied himself of, one must take it in the immediate context that he was “in the form of God†but “did not count equality with God a thing to be graspedâ€Â.

Your interpretation on the other hand breaks all these linked ideas, separating them so that they lose their intended meaning. You cannot break them free from their context.

In fact I’ve just realised that this is what it is. You are holding on to it for dear life. You believe that salvation comes because you believe it and you have been convinced or have convinced yourself that as long as you believe what you have been told – as long as you hold on to it – you are Free.

And I suppose that you and Georges think none of this applies to either of you? Why is it I’m the one “holding on to it for dear life†when you are doing the same thing? Why is it that people who reject the orthodox teachings of the Church have a spiritual superiority complex? Perhaps that is the very reason why they reject orthodoxy. They always seem to think that they are the only ones who are truly free to think for themselves and find the truth. It really doesn't get much more arrogant than that.

Good post.....and in the last paragraph you've hit the nail on the head in regard to most of Christianity....I almost lost my mind as I struggled with this very thing until I worked through it and found out my salvation is not in jeopardy because I retooled my theology. When I approached it logically, things fell into place...for the better.

Again, this is pride and spiritual superiority. Not only that, you clearly have not approached this logically. First you say that Paul was using the Law of Agency. Then when I show why this cannot be, you put down Paul and say that neither Christ nor his Apostles made such claims. Then when I quote from John, an Apostle of Christ who made a similar claim, you argue that those weren't Christ's words. How far back are you going to go?