Is Jesus FULLY God & Praying

[Free]

I've heard the phrase "not robbery" explained to mean: "Not a thing to be grabbed at."

Yes, it has the meaning of "not something to be forcibly retained or held on to." And this fits very well the context of the passage that I have given above.

Robbers take. They don't retain. Since when does a robber retain? The RSV has it, 'who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." The best understanding is equality with God is not something to be stolen or grasped. It's not a thing to be taken from God. Also it is not something that can be attained.

I suggest you do some study on the Greek word which is translated as "robbery" in some translations.

Also Paul did not say he was God in nature. He said he was in the form of God. Speaking of context, you can not create the context and say it fits the context.

Yes, what Paul is actually saying in the Greek is that Jesus is in nature, God.

As for the context, please tell us what it is and how your understanding of verse 6 fits.

Jesus said the Father is greater than I, and everything in the Bible must be seen in that light. Therefore the Trinity context and the co-equal thing is crushed.

We have to include that passage and take it into account, of course, but to say that "everything in the Bible must be seen in that light" is absolutely wrong. You have zero basis for that passage to trump others which clearly speak of his deity.

This is precisely the significant error that I have mentioned several times in this thread. Passages on Jesus' deity do not trump those speaking of his humanity, and those speaking of his humanity do not trump those speaking of his deity.

 

[MarkT]

I suggest you do some study on the Greek word which is translated as "robbery" in some translations.

Not necessary. The RSV doesn't say robbery anyways.

Also Paul did not say he was God in nature. He said he was in the form of God. Speaking of context, you can not create the context and say it fits the context.

Yes, what Paul is actually saying in the Greek is that Jesus is in nature, God.

Paul said he was in the form or likeness of God. I agree. Jesus said seeing him was seeing the Father. But that does not mean he was the Father or equal to the Father, especially considering Jesus himself said the Father is greater than I.

As for the context, please tell us what it is and how your understanding of verse 6 fits.

In context Paul is instructing the Philippians to be humble, to not think highly of themselves, following Jesus's example. Jesus humbled himself and became obedient, which means he didn't make himself God or equal to God. He was obedient unto death.

Jesus said the Father is greater than I, and everything in the Bible must be seen in that light. Therefore the Trinity context and the co-equal thing is crushed.

We have to include that passage and take it into account, of course, but to say that "everything in the Bible must be seen in that light" is absolutely wrong. You have zero basis for that passage to trump others which clearly speak of his deity.

This is precisely the significant error that I have mentioned several times in this thread. Passages on Jesus' deity do not trump those speaking of his humanity, and those speaking of his humanity do not trump those speaking of his deity.

It doesn't work that way. Jesus said the Father is greater than I. His words are life. Without his words you have no life, just empty philosophy.

 

[MarkT]

His deity is not the issue. The issue is the co-equal part. I agree he was the God of Israel. The thing is the Father is greater. The Father is the true God.

 

[Brother Mike]

It doesn't work that way. Jesus said the Father is greater than I. His words are life. Without his words you have no life, just empty philosophy.

I am looking at the Robbery part........ Thought it NOT .......... Possibly attainable.

I find error when your unable to match all the scriptures................ ALL MUST MATCH or you end up picking and choosing like all false doctrines do.

Jesus did say, My Father is greater than I...................... Now everything else must line up with this. EVERYTHING.
Jesus said why call me good, there is none good but my father.
I only speak what I hear my Father speak.
In my father's house.....................

Jesus made no illusion that His Father God was in fact greater than him.

Robbery............... This is a tough one. A thing to be sized or something seized. The word was used on time in the Bible and it appears Scholars are clueless to it's true meaning to have already, or to be sought after? Did Jesus feel being Equal with God was not attainable? Or did He feel that it was not wrong to be equal with God?

Could it mean He felt it not necessary to be Equal with God, having laid down everything?

Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

This is where I have the issue. Jesus took upon him the form of a servant, not the form of being like God. It appears that He had a choice here. Not that He could or could not.

Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

he became humble, and became obedient. These seem to be choices he had made. Which tells me he did not go after the equality of God.

Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

This denotes back all authority over to the Father who gave him a name, and exalted Him. You can't exalt someone that is equal with you, nor do equals look to be exalted by each other having no authority to do so.

Jesus said my Father is greater than I. Was a form of God the Father, Like the Father having seen Jesus, seen the Father, but Not the Father or creator. The Father is greater with the authority to exalt Jesus.

However Jesus laid down everything. What He give up?

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. Apparently before the Earth was formed. The Father Had given His son Glory at one time. Once again, you can't give glory to someone that is equal with you, and Jesus was seeking this again and would not have to if He was equal with the Father.

I don't see any confusion here. I do see 2 Gods though. One that had Glory with His father, came and emptied himself not seeking his own or former glory. Made himself a servant, like a man by which God exalted him again and gave him all things. We are Joint heirs with Jesus, not the Father that made everything.

Mike.

 

[Sparkey]

Did Jesus feel being Equal with God was not attainable? Or did He feel that it was not wrong to be equal with God?

Could there be another thought about this? I don't think that it's a case of "either or" here. What about the possibility of that man, known as Jesus, thinking that it (being equal with God) was attainable but not something to be stolen or seized? Could Jesus have thought that this was something that would be given to him? That there was no need to grab, but instead the need was to do the Will of the Father and be the true light of the world.

Perhaps we are saying the same things, but in slightly different words?

 

[Brother Mike]

That there was no need to grab, but instead the need was to do the Will of the Father and be the true light of the world.

Perhaps we are saying the same things, but in slightly different words?

I think that is very good assertion of what possibly happened. It's really hard to get the definition of "Robbery" since nobody seems to know exactly and the Bible being about the only source this word is ever mentioned anywhere in the Greek.

I went and saw what others were arguing about and they are arguing the deity of Jesus, to prove a definition of a Greek Word. That is DUMB!!!! I concluded that nobody really knew. To rob or plan to rob... To see something you want to forcefully take or something you have taken?

So in light of the scriptures below and what you said Sparrowhawke it makes sense. What ever route you take, attainable or not Jesus Became a servant. Now God is a humble God, and full of kindness and love. So Jesus takes on the Nature of God, but leaves the power behind.

Jesus did say at anytime I can call a legion of Angels in to save me. That is lots of power here, or Lots of Favor with God. Which one? Jesus only did what He Father said do.

Sparrowhawke I believe we are saying almost the same thing. Your understanding is good enough for me. Thank you for sharing that, because I honestly can NOT say Robbery means this or that, and from looking at the so called experts they can't seem to figure it either.

I only use one Doctrine to interpret scriptures. That doctrine states that God is extremely good, and good to us. I don't have a trinity, election, or any other way I view scriptures. Even the bad places I look for Good as God is trashing Sodom with fire. God is good, or his judgments are good.

Blessings......

Mike.

 

[Guest]

His deity is not the issue. The issue is the co-equal part. I agree he was the God of Israel. The thing is the Father is greater. The Father is the true God.

Ty for keeping it simple, well said.

 

[By Grace]

Right, in the beginning there was the Word, with God, was God the same (verse 2) John used with God, was God, the same as God. It's a hard passage for Trinity and Non Trinity. We can't put (a) God that is not in the Greek. The word was God, the same. Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

In another post after this, you downplayed the usage of Greek in dealing with things as "stupid". that indicates that you may be unfamiliar with the fact that the language is the original language that the Apostles and Gospel writers used. Further you seem not to be aware of the Granville Sharp Rule of Greek grammar. without going into too much detail, the phrase "the word was God" (in Greek) is correct because it is a predicate nominative, and it means exactly the same thing as "the word" in the beginning of the verse. Because "the word" is definite, so also is "God" definite, so as to properly read it as "the God"

John keeps them both equal and same but with each other.

Could you say that in another manner?

The KJV does make Jesus the Creator. So, it would be natural to believe that. I myself only use the KJV, I think it's the best translation, hands down. The problem is that the scribes of the KJV did their best to included the Trinity Doctrine where they could. It makes sense because they felt the Doctrine was correct and no need to confuse anyone. Give them the proper understanding according to what is right.

You are making an allegation for which there are no facts. Yours is a false generalization, and there is no evidence of a "theological correcting" of the old manuscripts there would be evidence.

What they did was take the Greek Word DIA and just translate it into "BY" Everything was made "BY" Jesus. That is sort of correct, but the reader can be confused. dia= BY A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; by reason of, by the act of, through something, because of something. By the means of something, By the grounds of something. Something done through something else. (Strongs and Thayer)

Depending upon the context, the word can ALSO be translated as "in" "by" "after" or "through".
In Matthew check out 2:2; 7:13; 12:43; 18:7; 26:24; 27:19 and Mark 2:1

There is no 100% correspondence if English words with Greek words. Greek is a very precise language, and that sublimity is not always picked up in the English translations..

 

[Free]

I suggest you do some study on the Greek word which is translated as "robbery" in some translations.

Not necessary. The RSV doesn't say robbery anyways.

Then why do you keep using this argument: "Robbers take. They don't retain. Since when does a robber retain?" Even the RSV translation could very well be looked at as being in agreement with what I have stated.

So I must still suggest you look up the meaning of the word used there as it most certainly can have the meaning which I have given.

Also Paul did not say he was God in nature. He said he was in the form of God. Speaking of context, you can not create the context and say it fits the context.

Yes, what Paul is actually saying in the Greek is that Jesus is in nature, God.

Paul said he was in the form or likeness of God. I agree. Jesus said seeing him was seeing the Father. But that does not mean he was the Father or equal to the Father, especially considering Jesus himself said the Father is greater than I.[/QUOTE]
No one is saying that Jesus was the Father. That would be the error of modalism/Sabellianism. But is he equal to the Father? Yes.

As for the context, please tell us what it is and how your understanding of verse 6 fits.

In context Paul is instructing the Philippians to be humble, to not think highly of themselves, following Jesus's example. Jesus humbled himself and became obedient, which means he didn't make himself God or equal to God. He was obedient unto death.

You first say that "Speaking of context, you can not create the context and say it fits the context," which I stated was about humility--"the main point of this passage is humility"--and then you go on to say that "In context Paul is instructing the Philippians to be humble."

So which is it? Did I "create the context" or are we both in agreement that it is about humility?

To say that we are to be humble by not making ourselves equal to God or make ourselves Gods completely loses all force of the argument. We are creatures, we can never be equal to the Creator, we can never be God. So how is it humble to never try to be something we can't be?

The only reason Paul's argument has any force is because we see that Jesus, who was God in nature, "emptied himself" and took upon himself "the form of a servant."

There really is a lot being said here that is being overlooked, and that must be overlooked, to deny that this passage clearly shows that Jesus is God. I will post more when I get time, although what I will show does linger around in a few old threads.

Jesus said the Father is greater than I, and everything in the Bible must be seen in that light. Therefore the Trinity context and the co-equal thing is crushed.

We have to include that passage and take it into account, of course, but to say that "everything in the Bible must be seen in that light" is absolutely wrong. You have zero basis for that passage to trump others which clearly speak of his deity.

This is precisely the significant error that I have mentioned several times in this thread. Passages on Jesus' deity do not trump those speaking of his humanity, and those speaking of his humanity do not trump those speaking of his deity.

It doesn't work that way. Jesus said the Father is greater than I. His words are life. Without his words you have no life, just empty philosophy.[/QUOTE]
I am astounded, although not really surprised, that someone would, without any basis whatsoever, simply say that "it doesn't work that way." It does, in fact, very much "work that way." That is not only a basic rule of proper biblical interpretation, it is that much more important when we are dealing with the very nature of God and just who Jesus is, the most central figure not only in Scripture but in all of history and without whom we have no salvation.

You simply have no exegetical grounds to use one statement of Jesus' to overrule all else the Bible says about him. To do so is to commit a serious exegetical error by taking the verse of the context of the entirety of Scripture, and this in turn leads to theological error.

And of course your argument also implies that I am somehow ignoring what Jesus said, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. You are undermining the rest of Scripture by erroneously using one statement of Jesus' to overrule all else that is said about him, whereas my position takes all into account and makes sense of it.

 

[Free]

His deity is not the issue. The issue is the co-equal part. I agree he was the God of Israel. The thing is the Father is greater. The Father is the true God.

Philosophically speaking, more than one God is a logical impossibility. Theologically speaking, this is polytheism which clearly goes against all of Scripture. There was, is, and only ever will be one God.

 

[Brother Mike]

In another post after this, you downplayed the usage of Greek in dealing with things as "stupid". that indicates that you may be unfamiliar with the fact that the language is the original language that the Apostles and Gospel writers used.

NO,But what I am familiar with IS........ people making adjectives, into nouns and fixing the Greek up to suit their doctrine. Often is the reality that we have no other source but the Bible to interpret One Greek word and so have to examine the passage in the concept it was used and thus need to be more context sensitive, rather than (Exact what we think the Greek word is sensitive) This is how people remove Eternal punishment and miss the whole concept. Even changing the Word anions into a Noun like Aion to twist and suit their own pleasures of avoiding eternal punishment.

You are making an allegation for which there are no facts. Yours is a false generalization, and there is no evidence of a "theological correcting" of the old manuscripts there would be evidence.

I gave the scriptures of the KJV and other translations making Jesus Creator and not creator.

Depending upon the context, the word can ALSO be translated as "in" "by" "after" or "through".
In Matthew check out 2:2; 7:13; 12:43; 18:7; 26:24; 27:19 and Mark 2:1

There is no 100% correspondence if English words with Greek words. Greek is a very precise language, and that sublimity is not always picked up in the English translations..

The Word DIA means through....... After it's because of, or for, something else. If I said I ran Dia "by" you to get to the quarter back, I had to get past you to get to the quarter back. It's correct. "BY"

I had to go through some, to get something else done.

If you believe in Trinity such as the KJV writers did then you do whatever possible to lump 3 gods into one. Unlike some other translations did. However as I also pointed out because of this, they could not be consistent because Jesus is not the creator................... He never said He was the creator but an heir of things made through Him and for him.

If you want to believe ONE GOD made everything then lost his mind and gave everything back to himself, be my guest. I won't try to stop you.

If you don't want to believe that, then join the team, because I did not say you where not right in the way DIA was used. I said the KJV had an agenda which you can see in many scriptures like most other bibles such as the NIV that do what they can to "Remove" any deity from Jesus. I think you understand the concept of Doctrines change interpretations.

The whole thread is if Jesus is God, who the heck Jesus praying to......... My answer is he is Praying to the Father that is Not Jesus. Simple enough.

Be blessed.

Mike.

 

[MarkT]

Then why do you keep using this argument: "Robbers take. They don't retain. Since when does a robber retain?" Even the RSV translation could very well be looked at as being in agreement with what I have stated.

So I must still suggest you look up the meaning of the word used there as it most certainly can have the meaning which I have given.

A robber takes what is not his. Correct? So how can you say 'not robbery' means "not something to be forcibly retained or held on to."? To retain or to hold on to a thing suggests the thing belongs to the robber, but clearly this is not what robbery implies. Robbery implies the thing is not his. In this case equality with God was not his. It was not a thing to be grasped or attained. Attained suggests it was not his. Retained suggests it was his. See my point? The word translated robbery or not robbery suggests equality with God was not his and a thing that can not be attained.

Also Paul did not say he was God in nature. He said he was in the form of God. Speaking of context, you can not create the context and say it fits the context.

Yes, what Paul is actually saying in the Greek is that Jesus is in nature, God.

Paul said he was in the form or likeness of God. I agree. Jesus said seeing him was seeing the Father. But that does not mean he was the Father or equal to the Father, especially considering Jesus himself said the Father is greater than I.[/QUOTE]

No one is saying that Jesus was the Father. That would be the error of modalism/Sabellianism. But is he equal to the Father? Yes.

As for the context, please tell us what it is and how your understanding of verse 6 fits.
In context Paul is instructing the Philippians to be humble, to not think highly of themselves, following Jesus's example. Jesus humbled himself and became obedient, which means he didn't make himself God or equal to God. He was obedient unto death.

You first say that "Speaking of context, you can not create the context and say it fits the context," which I stated was about humility--"the main point of this passage is humility"--and then you go on to say that "In context Paul is instructing the Philippians to be humble."

So which is it? Did I "create the context" or are we both in agreement that it is about humility?

To say that we are to be humble by not making ourselves equal to God or make ourselves Gods completely loses all force of the argument. We are creatures, we can never be equal to the Creator, we can never be God. So how is it humble to never try to be something we can't be?

The only reason Paul's argument has any force is because we see that Jesus, who was God in nature, "emptied himself" and took upon himself "the form of a servant."

Actually he said being in the form of God he emptied himself. Then being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death. Obedient to the Father, the true God. The Son was obedient to the Father. The Son served the Father.

Jesus said the Father is greater than I, and everything in the Bible must be seen in that light. Therefore the Trinity context and the co-equal thing is crushed.

We have to include that passage and take it into account, of course, but to say that "everything in the Bible must be seen in that light" is absolutely wrong. You have zero basis for that passage to trump others which clearly speak of his deity.

This is precisely the significant error that I have mentioned several times in this thread. Passages on Jesus' deity do not trump those speaking of his humanity, and those speaking of his humanity do not trump those speaking of his deity.

It doesn't work that way. Jesus said the Father is greater than I. His words are life. Without his words you have no life, just empty philosophy.[/QUOTE]

I am astounded, although not really surprised, that someone would, without any basis whatsoever, simply say that "it doesn't work that way." It does, in fact, very much "work that way."

His words are life. 'the Father is greater than I' 'the Father is greater than all'.

 

[MarkT]

Do you think Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ would not know what Jesus said about the Father being greater than him? There's no co-equal. No one is greater than the Father. So Paul is saying the Son was in the form of God, the Father. And being in the form of God suggests a mould and a Moulder - the Father. Substantively I believe he was the light, as, according to Isaiah, the LORD said, 'I form light' Isa. 45:7 He was formed by the Father in the beginning.

 

[Free]

A robber takes what is not his. Correct? So how can you say 'not robbery' means "not something to be forcibly retained or held on to."? To retain or to hold on to a thing suggests the thing belongs to the robber, but clearly this is not what robbery implies. Robbery implies the thing is not his. In this case equality with God was not his. It was not a thing to be grasped or attained. Attained suggests it was not his. Retained suggests it was his. See my point? The word translated robbery or not robbery suggests equality with God was not his and a thing that can not be attained.

My whole point, which I have made quite clear, is that the Greek word behind "robbery," harpagmos, has more than one meaning. "Robbery" is just one meaning of the word which certain translators decided to use. Another meaning is "a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained" (Thayer). And it is that meaning which best fits the context.

Yes, what Paul is actually saying in the Greek is that Jesus is in nature, God.

Paul said he was in the form or likeness of God. I agree. Jesus said seeing him was seeing the Father. But that does not mean he was the Father or equal to the Father, especially considering Jesus himself said the Father is greater than I.

No one is saying that Jesus was the Father. That would be the error of modalism/Sabellianism. But is he equal to the Father? Yes.

As for the context, please tell us what it is and how your understanding of verse 6 fits.
In context Paul is instructing the Philippians to be humble, to not think highly of themselves, following Jesus's example. Jesus humbled himself and became obedient, which means he didn't make himself God or equal to God. He was obedient unto death.

You first say that "Speaking of context, you can not create the context and say it fits the context," which I stated was about humility--"the main point of this passage is humility"--and then you go on to say that "In context Paul is instructing the Philippians to be humble."

So which is it? Did I "create the context" or are we both in agreement that it is about humility?

To say that we are to be humble by not making ourselves equal to God or make ourselves Gods completely loses all force of the argument. We are creatures, we can never be equal to the Creator, we can never be God. So how is it humble to never try to be something we can't be?

The only reason Paul's argument has any force is because we see that Jesus, who was God in nature, "emptied himself" and took upon himself "the form of a servant."

Actually he said being in the form of God he emptied himself. Then being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death. Obedient to the Father, the true God. The Son was obedient to the Father. The Son served the Father.

I agree but for some reason you have ignored the obvious. You go right from saying that Jesus was "in the form God" and "emptied himself" (think about those two statements), to then saying he was then "found in human form" whereby "he humbled himself". There is so much that is said in those statements.

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

A few points to be said about the text:

1. Jesus was "in the form of God."
2. Yet, he "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," that is, "something to be retained or forcibly held on to" (a legitimate translation of the Greek word harpagmos).
3. He, Jesus, "made himself nothing." (emphasis added) It follows that a) he had the power to make himself nothing, b) if he became nothing, he had been "something," and that something was his being "in the form of God."

Now the main point, making the connections:

4. His being made nothing is further explained as "taking the form of a servant," "being born in the likeness of men" and "being found in human form ." Notice first that "being born in the likeness of men" is explaining what Paul just meant by "taking the form of a servant"--the two statements are saying the same thing. Next, notice that Paul is contrasting "the form of a servant" and "being found in human form" with what he first stated: "he was in the form of God." This is very significant. If one wants to believe that his being "in the form of God" is not a statement of his "being in very nature God" (NIV), then one must also believe that his "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" is not a statement about his human nature.

One could then argue that Jesus wasn't human either and now we know nothing about the nature of Jesus. But Paul's point is very clear here.

And one final point:

5. He "being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death." It was in his humility--"being found in human form"--that he submitted to the Father.

There is also more to be said if we get into the Greek. Regardless, Paul's point regarding humility is made only because we see the highest form of humility possible--God coming down and taking on human flesh. This passage shows precisely why Jesus can say "the Father is greater than I," even though he is equal with the Father.

Jesus said the Father is greater than I, and everything in the Bible must be seen in that light. Therefore the Trinity context and the co-equal thing is crushed.

We have to include that passage and take it into account, of course, but to say that "everything in the Bible must be seen in that light" is absolutely wrong. You have zero basis for that passage to trump others which clearly speak of his deity.

This is precisely the significant error that I have mentioned several times in this thread. Passages on Jesus' deity do not trump those speaking of his humanity, and those speaking of his humanity do not trump those speaking of his deity.

It doesn't work that way. Jesus said the Father is greater than I. His words are life. Without his words you have no life, just empty philosophy.[/QUOTE]

I am astounded, although not really surprised, that someone would, without any basis whatsoever, simply say that "it doesn't work that way." It does, in fact, very much "work that way."

His words are life. 'the Father is greater than I' 'the Father is greater than all'.

And I have just sufficiently shown the very reason why Jesus could make such a statement and yet still be equal with the Father.

 

[Free]

Do you think Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ would not know what Jesus said about the Father being greater than him? There's no co-equal. No one is greater than the Father. My understanding remains that the Father formed the Son in his image. He formed the light. Isa. 45:7 'I form light'.

And being in the form of God, or in that mould, the light emptied himself.

Paul knew what Jesus said and knew exactly what Jesus meant. There is absolutely no conflict between what Jesus said and what Paul wrote. And again, you are making connections where there are none.

 

[MarkT]

My whole point, which I have made quite clear, is that the Greek word behind "robbery," harpagmos, has more than one meaning. "Robbery" is just one meaning of the word which certain translators decided to use. Another meaning is "a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained" (Thayer). And it is that meaning which best fits the context.

Then not robbery would be 'not a thing to be seized'. I don't see how the same word could mean 'a thing to be held fast.' That would mean equality with God is not a thing to be held fast. Equality with God can not be held fast? That doesn't make sense.

I agree but for some reason you have ignored the obvious. You go right from saying that Jesus was "in the form God" and "emptied himself" (think about those two statements), to then saying he was then "found in human form" whereby "he humbled himself". There is so much that is said in those statements.

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

A few points to be said about the text:

1. Jesus was "in the form of God."
2. Yet, he "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," that is, "something to be retained or forcibly held on to" (a legitimate translation of the Greek word harpagmos).
3. He, Jesus, "made himself nothing." (emphasis added) It follows that a) he had the power to make himself nothing, b) if he became nothing, he had been "something," and that something was his being "in the form of God."

He was something. He was the God of Israel, the Holy One of Israel, the light of Israel Isa. 10:17

Now the main point, making the connections:

4. His being made nothing is further explained as "taking the form of a servant," "being born in the likeness of men" and "being found in human form ." Notice first that "being born in the likeness of men" is explaining what Paul just meant by "taking the form of a servant"--the two statements are saying the same thing. Next, notice that Paul is contrasting "the form of a servant" and "being found in human form" with what he first stated: "he was in the form of God." This is very significant. If one wants to believe that his being "in the form of God" is not a statement of his "being in very nature God" (NIV), then one must also believe that his "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" is not a statement about his human nature.

Taking the form of a servant in the likeness of men is saying two things. He was born in the likeness of men and he came not to be served but to serve. The Spirit of God descended from heaven in the form of a dove. That doesn't mean the Spirit was a dove. But that was the form John saw. Likewise seeing Jesus was seeing the Father. Doesn't mean he was the Father. But that's who the disciples saw. The form of God is different from God himself. We're talking about forms and images. Jesus was like the Father, but he was not the Father. He came from the Father. Jesus was the God of Israel, but his power and authority came from the Father. Jesus said the Father is the true God and we have to worship him in spirit and truth. The Father is greater than all.

As to the nature of the Son, Jesus rebuked the man who called him good saying, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Mark 10:18

One could then argue that Jesus wasn't human either and now we know nothing about the nature of Jesus. But Paul's point is very clear here.

I think we should keep it in mind that when the Son of man returns He will take vengeance and he will spare no man. Doesn't sound like it will be a good day.

And one final point:

5. He "being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death." It was in his humility--"being found in human form"--that he submitted to the Father.

There is also more to be said if we get into the Greek. Regardless, Paul's point regarding humility is made only because we see the highest form of humility possible--God coming down and taking on human flesh. This passage shows precisely why Jesus can say "the Father is greater than I," even though he is equal with the Father.

Being in human form was humiliating? I don't know about that.

Let me say the Son humbled himself when he washed the disciples feet. Do you recall his sacrifice? He died for our sins.

It was the Son who came down to earth. It was the Son who suffered all the abuse. It was the Son who was crucified. It was not so much being human. It was letting himself be crucified by the Jews according to the will of the Father. It''s suffering all the abuse, not being believed, not judging, forgiving those who wanted to kill him. That was humbling. Paul tells us to have the same mind that was in Christ. He did not act out of selfishness but out of love. In obedience to the Father, he went to the cross. It's how he acted, his meekness. That is what Paul is trying to convey.

 

[By Grace]

I gave you references for the Greek word dia being used different ways. It is obvious that you did not take the time to look at those references, or do you take what I say as absolute truth?

But what I am familiar with IS........ people making adjectives, into nouns and fixing the Greek up to suit their doctrine

The English language is full of stuff like that as is Koine Greek. Have you ever heard about the president "helicoptering" to Camp David, or that he "helicoptered" to Andrews Air Force Base. of course "helicopter" is a noun, but you can see how that noun is used as a verb, and no one bats an eye at that. So just because you may not like it, it does not mean that someone arbitrarilly changed the Word of God; that is an assertion that has no merit.

If you believe in Trinity such as the KJV writers did then you do whatever possible to lump 3 gods into one.

You have that wrong, fellow! I believe in the Trinity because from Genesis 1:1 onward there are indications of the Trinity in the Bible, even though the word is not used.

He never said He was the creator but an heir of things made through Him and for him.

He has said this, and other similar things:

John 8: 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
​

And the writer of Hebrews said this

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
​

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

​

Paul said this in Colossians:

Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
​

As a result of these, and other Scriptures, I can not find any support for what you stated.

 

[Brother Mike]

I gave you references for the Greek word dia being used different ways. It is obvious that you did not take the time to look at those references, or do you take what I say as absolute truth?

I found no fault in what you said and were teaching me. I agree as Absolute Truth.

You have that wrong, fellow! I believe in the Trinity because from Genesis 1:1 onward there are indications of the Trinity in the Bible, even though the word is not used.

I fully understand that position. I only see ONE GOD myself in the OT. I See the Holy Spirit. However we are not going to end up agreeing on the conclusion.

As a result of these, and other Scriptures, I can not find any support for what you stated.

We go right back through the loop again here. Don't get me wrong, I use the KJV. Jesus being a heir in other scriptures can't be creator though.

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

It was as this verse said, it was by Jesus being appointed an heir and Jesus by whom the worlds were made.

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Jesus is God, the image of God, but Not His father. We are also in the Image of God, and definitely not Jesus or His father.

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

This makes it look a whole lot like Jesus created all things. It does not match the Heb account of Being a heir of all things.

YLT:
Col 1:16 because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created,

This is what I am looking at which is more consistent with the word DIA and keeps the KJV consistent. The Father is the Creator, Not the Son who is heir.

Grace, Keep in mind that the main purpose of the Trinity Doctrine is the belief in Monotheism. There is only One God. So any understanding of God comes to just ONE.

However............... It depends on what Trinity Doctrine you plan to use. Because Trinity Doctrine states there are 3 that are coequal, and distinct persons, each fully God. (Except the Methodist version)

So, you can have the 1st Person create everything for the 2nd person. Each person working as equal and ONE. This would be the correct manner to explain who was Jesus praying to because it's in the very Doctrine itself.

However, these 3 are separate and distinct, Deities, are just ONE GOD. That is the Trinity Doctrine that 3 are One. Oneness believes Jesus is God incarnate, that God personally came in the flesh as there is only ONE GOD. This one God manifest Himself in 3 distinct personalities. That is 1 Are 3, Not 3 Are 1.

The first real published version of the Trinity states that These 3 are God of God. There are 3 that are God, but of ONE GOD. From there folks have changed it a bit to suite their belief but all conclude the defense of Monotheism.

If we continue like this, then we are going to agree within the terms of the Doctrine itself, until we do the math. The Mystery of having 3 Gods that are really one. This mystery is mentioned in most all the Doctrines. Methodist says Puzzle.

That is where we are going to end up.

Jesus is God, Just like His father. That makes 2. This is the wall we are going to come to every time. That is the Mystery part added to the Doctrine itself. You believe it or don't. That is the choice you make, if you don't believe it then you believe in Polytheism. That is going to get you kicked out of most churches.

God bless and thank you for writing me back.

Mike.

 

[By Grace]

This makes it look a whole lot like Jesus created all things. It does not match the Heb account of Being a heir of all things.

You create a false dichotomy here. The words say what they mean, and mean what they say.

Here is the orthodox statement about the Trinity:

In the Bible God is manifested as three distinct and divine Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That there are three distinct Persons is manifested that each Person exhibits a distinct will, intellect and emotion.

Jesus Christ is one distinct and divine Person, Who has two separate natures. As such He is 100 % God, and 100% man, simultaneously, without corruption, mixture or blending of those separate Natures. There is no "God part" in Jesus, and no "man part" of Jesus. While there are references to Jesus in the OT as The Angel of the Lord, there never was a time when Jesus did not exist; that is a function of His eternal nature being God in the flesh. Therefore the One who wrestled with Jacob is the same One who appeared in the flesh as a baby, born from a virgin in accordance with the prophecies of his birth.

 

[Sparkey]

That would mean equality with God is not a thing to be held fast. Equality with God can not be held fast? That doesn't make sense.

I'm stretching to understand various meanings here. Not trying to say that I'm an expert in any way because I'm not. Regarding the "not to be held fast" concept it could mean that this is something that does not require effort or work to retain. My thought goes toward what we shall be. How we do not know what that is but are assured that we will be like Jesus. This, for me, is something that I do look forward to but is not something that I should steal or grasp at. What I find interesting is the Scripture that states something to the effect of "Heaven is taken by force." It gives tension and contrast that shows such depth regarding our instruction.

Returning the the first thought: when it is bestowed and all things are revealed and after we are shown as the finished work of God, having matured, these things that are done in us become completed works. We will be like Him for we see Him face to face? Could this scripture and all the various meanings behind the choice of that particular word convey multiple meanings? So that, in essence, we are also assured that what is given will not be taken by force -AND- will not need force to retain?

Just a thought, again: no expert but trying to understand is all.

Feel free to disagree as it isn't even a sure and certain thing in me for truly it is through a glass, darkly that we see. The fact remains: I have not attained. We are admonished to press in and to run the race with the understanding that with God's help, we shall cross that finish line.