Is God a deceptive trickster?

[Georges]

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.

That is not Oneness theology....M's statement is very closely aligned to Arian Theology (which is correct, or as close as possible BTW). Oneness theology states that God, The Son, The Holy Spirit are the same being and the office that is used depends on the situation....If the situation calls for God the Father, then the Father is utilized and the other 2 "personalities" step back. If the situation calls for the Son....the Father and Spirit personalities of the entity step back...If the situation calls for the Spirit, the Father and Son personalities step back....One body...3 offices....You can picture Oneness this way.......One Body, 3 hats.....When the situation calls for the Father, then the Body puts on the Father hat and acts accordingly. When the situation calls for the Son....the Body puts on the Son hat and acts accordingly....and when the situation calls for the Spirit, the Body puts on the Spirit's hat and acts accordingly.....that's oneness....


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.

Actually it is not......God's relationship to his son is exactly like a man's relationship (ideally) should be with his son's....God and Jesus are the ideal Father/Son relation.

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.

Agency....still not getting it..... makes Jesus God as God's agent according to the law of Agency.

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.

Consider this....as the agent...of course he would copy/imitate his Father....He was God in that as the agent...he imitated his heavenly Father.

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?

Isn't that a Mystery Religion belief? That a God made himself a man...?

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,

simply means Jesus thought there was no problem in acting as the Agent of God, thus making him (Jesus) God without being God.....and no one else should have that problem believing it either.


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.

That's Gnosticism.....you are saying Jesus wasn't human, but ethereal being come to eath....

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?

Does, or did.....

Why is it I’m the one “holding on to it for dear life†when you are doing the same thing?

Cause personally, I've been there...

Why is it that people who reject the orthodox teachings of the Church have a spiritual superiority complex?

I don't...if you feel I do, that may be your inferiority complex...not trying to be mean...but I guarantee you I don't have a SC....you mistake that for confidence. I'm no better than any other man....or woman and don't pretend to be.

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.

Not really....it's just that when I rejected trinitarianism....everything became much clearer and logical...through the Jewish roots anyway. And I am as I had said unincumbered by the "if you don't believe in the trinity you'll go to hell" attitude that many Christians have.

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.

Missed it again.....pride, no....confidence, yes....Spiritual Superiority is a lie....flat out....and I'll thank you in advance for the apology for the defamation you should render.

Not only that, you clearly have not approached this logically.

I usually do but if it hasn't happened this time, I'll try to rectify it.

First you say that Paul was using the Law of Agency.

In the verse that is true...

Then when I show why this cannot be, you put down Paul and say that neither Christ nor his Apostles made such claims.

That is because you are the one using statements made by Paul and not Christ....

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?

Hello....John wrote the words.....not Christ......In John 1 he claimed Christ was the Memra.....if you had read the Memra article from Jewishencyclopedia.com you would have "hopefully" understood that the Memra was not God...but God's OT representative....seen as God himself...

Now, if you think that is Spiritual Superiority...I think it is just good old fashion leg work on my part researching it....

Come on Free.......

 

[mutzrein]

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.

And who said Christ was created? I certainly didn’t.

That scripture absolutely confirms who Jesus is. He is the image of the invisible God. It doesn’t say he is God. For by Him and through Him and for Him all things were created. Now since you have quoted this I can see that you don’t understand the relationship that Jesus (The Word of God) has with the Father. Otherwise you would not have quoted it.

Now I have given consideration to the scripture you quoted. What do you say about this scripture then, '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.'

Or is it hidden from you too?