Is Jesus really God ?

[MarkT]

Jesus was God in the sense Jesus is God's name and he was God's Word. But God isn't a man. Was God's name divine? Yes. But then he emptied himself to become one of us.

It seems to me everyone is ignoring what Jesus said about himself. And you're polluting the water with your feet. Jesus said he was the light; the temple in whom God dwelt. And he told us he was the Son of God. But apparently you don't want to hear that. So you ignore the words of God that came to Peter. You have built your house on sand. It doesn't matter, Catholic or Protestant, you've all gone astray after false teachers.

 

[Free]

Remember when Jesus was on the cross/stake he said Father why have you forsaken me?
That right there is proof that Jesus is not God but he is in tune with him. Also Jesus prayed to God throughout the bible. If he was God then he would not even need to pray. Jehovah and Jesus are two separate people. It is like the president and a vice president. God lets Jesus do certain things. Also the bible states that God is the only one who knows when Armageddon will occur. That means Jesus does not know when it will happen but he will be ready to return to the Earth. Here are a few scriptures that shows they are 2 different people.......
John 14:28 You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.


John 3:16For God(Jehovah) so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son(Jesus), that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Nothing you have stated shows that Jesus is not God. There is much more that Scripture shows concerning who God is and who Jesus is. To ignore the rest is to take the above passages out of context.

Jesus was God in the sense Jesus is God's name and he was God's Word. But God isn't a man. Was God's name divine? Yes. But then he emptied himself to become one of us.

It seems to me everyone is ignoring what Jesus said about himself. And you're polluting the water with your feet. Jesus said he was the light; the temple in whom God dwelt. And he told us he was the Son of God. But apparently you don't want to hear that. So you ignore the words of God that came to Peter. You have built your house on sand. It doesn't matter, Catholic or Protestant, you've all gone astray after false teachers.

Well of course we have. Your argument that Jesus said he was the Son of God does not in any way mean that he is not also God. Nothing you stated proves that Jesus isn't God. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion but don't state that those who disagree with you have gone after false teachers, especially when you have given nothing to back that statement up.

 

[Drew]

Jesus was God in the sense Jesus is God's name and he was God's Word. But God isn't a man. Was God's name divine? Yes. But then he emptied himself to become one of us.

I do not think this is a fair criticism of the "Jesus is divine" position.

You are basically arguing as follows:

1. Jesus is a man;
2. God cannot be a man;
3. Therefore, Jesus cannot be God.

Those of us who embrace Jesus' divinity will agree with point 1 (obviously). But I would challenge point 2. The Trinitarian (or, more narrowly those who assert Jesus is "God") will legitimately object that there is simply no Biblical grounds for asserting that God cannot take human form.

I am sure you will cite texts like the one in Numbers that says "God is not a man". Fair enough - at first glance this would appear to argue against Jesus' divinity.

However, I think things are not this simple. The Numbers text is actually this:

God is not a man, that He should lie,Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it?Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

I think it is clear that the intent of the writer here is to distinguish between God, on the one hand, and fallen sinning man, on the other. In other words, the author is really saying "God does not share man's proclivity to lie". But this is not to deny the possibility that a second divine person - Jesus - cannot take human form. The author is not saying "God cannot take human form", he is instead saying that God does not share the general human trait of lying.

Besides, as I have reminded other posters, those who deny Jesus' divinity have to do business with arguments to the contrary. I have produced arguments in posts 121, 122, 140, 144, 272, and 274. You need to engage those arguments in order to credibly establish your position that Jesus is not divine.

 

[Drew]

Jesus said he was the light; the temple in whom God dwelt. And he told us he was the Son of God.

I think this claim on the part of Jesus is a clear affirmation that He is indeed God. I am not sure what specific text you refer to here, but I do agree that, at on several occasions, Jesus indeed declares that He is the "true" temple.

You seem to think that this denies Jesus' divinity, and I suggest the essence of your argument is an implicit distinction between the temple as a "container" and the "thing that it contains". In other words, you appear to be arguing thus:

1. Jesus declares Himself to be a temple;
2. The temple is the traditional place which "contains" God;
3. However, the container is not to be confused with that which it contains;
4. Therefore, Jesus is effectively denying that He is God.

However, if one grants the possibility of incarnation - if one allows the possibility that God can incarnate in human form - then the very thing you would expect a person to say, who is factually the incarnation of God, is that they are indeed the "temple" - it is the perfect metaphor for saying "I am the embodiment of the living God" precisely because the temple is indeed the physical structure in which God lives.

I would think that an assertion "I am the temple" is about as close any Jew could come to making the explicit declaration "I am the incarnation of Israel's God".

 

[Drew]

Paul first refers to the idols to which sacrifices are made, and concerning theses states that there are those that are called ‘gods’. An idol, of course, is nothing; that which is made by the hands of men that is worshiped as “gods†“by nature are not gods.†(Galatians 4:8, ESV) By nature that which is made and formed by the hands men to which men make sacrifices has no “might†of itself to either cause harm are to cause good. (Psalm 115:4-8; 135:15-18; Isaiah 44:9-20) However, Paul, in harmony with the Old Testament, says that those who make offerings to such idol-gods are actually making offerings to demons, and not to the one true God. (Deuteronomy 32;17; Psalm 106:37; 2 Corinthians 10:20) These demons do have power, and are “by nature†mighty, but the man-made idol (gods) have no power, and thus, are not, by nature, mighty, and are certainly not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Paul, in speaking of the idols ‘gods’ says that there are many that are “called†gods, but he adds to that “there are many gods.†Is he simply repeating himself? Evidently not; rather, he is contrasting those that are “called†gods with others that are indeed “godsâ€. By comparing spiritual revelation with spiritual revelation, we conclude that in the latter usage, Paul speaking of “gods†in the sense of might and power as contrasted with idols, which have no might or power.

I understand that you are drawing a distinction between "idols" that are simply man-made artefacts and true demons. Fair enough, but I do not see how this refutes my argument. My argument is that the "God is one" declaration was never an inner analysis of the nature of God, but rather a polemical battle-cry against other gods. So while what you say here may well be true and interesting in its own right, I do not see how this point undermines the thesis of my argument.

That there indeed are many “gods†–mighty ones — is affirmed by Jesus. (John 10:34,35) The “gods†that Jesus referred to are the “sons of God†to whom the Logos came, and who received him. (Psalm 82:1,6,7; John 1:10-12) These are not false gods; but neither are they the one true God, the Might of the universe. They are mighty (gods – el, elohim, theoi) because of the power and authority given to them by the one true Might. Nevertheless, even the demons have been given great might from the only true Might, and they have misused that might. As to the promises of demons, however, they are false gods, but as to their being, by nature, they are true gods, that is, they really do have power and might.

Again, this may be true but it is not a critique of my argument. Yes, there may well be demons of great might. But how does that challenge the first thread of my argument - that the "God is one" declaration was never an inner analysis of the nature of the Jewish God. If it were, those of us who affirm Jesus' divinity would be in a difficult position indeed. But I see no challenge here to my claim that Paul is tying in to the long Jewish tradition of understanding the "Our God is one" claim as a battle cry against pagan idols (or perhaps even "real demons") and not an inner analysis of God that addressed the possibility of multiple "persons" within the Godhead.

Let's say I am mistaken in overlooking the possibility that Paul was directing his critique only against "idols that are mere physical objects" and is including "real demons" in the set of things he is setting agains the true God - the God of Israel.

How does this constitute an argument that the "our God is one" works against the assertion that the God of Israel has multiple persons?

 

[zionwarrior]

Remember when Jesus was on the cross/stake he said Father why have you forsaken me?
That right there is proof that Jesus is not God but he is in tune with him. Also Jesus prayed to God throughout the bible. If he was God then he would not even need to pray. Jehovah and Jesus are two separate people. It is like the president and a vice president. God lets Jesus do certain things. Also the bible states that God is the only one who knows when Armageddon will occur. That means Jesus does not know when it will happen but he will be ready to return to the Earth. Here are a few scriptures that shows they are 2 different people.......
John 14:28 You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.


John 3:16For God(Jehovah) so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son(Jesus), that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

It shows you God's power. He can send his son to do his will while he is up in heaven still doing other things at the same time. That is a scary thought....

The fact that Satan tempted Jesus when he was in the desert is also another supporting that Jesus is not God. For God cannot be tempted.

 

[zionwarrior]

Im affraid no matter what either side says, the other will not concede to anything. The excercise is infact futile.

Im sure Satan is happy with the way the debate is progressing as the wedge is driven deeper into the heart of Christianity.

The only usefull way is to present ones evidence and let the reader make up their own mind through prayers of supplication to God, and ask for his Spirit to guide them.

God doesn't want our faith decided by man and his theological nonsense. With a pure heart and a genuine need to know Gods truth as he intends it to be known, the Spirit will guide us to 'Gods will'.

 

[demonXecutor]

KJV Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.

Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
Rev 22:13 I AM Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

This stuff will NEVER make any sense to the flesh. This is where FAITH comes in. All I know is this--You have to have all three. If either one is missing, you're LOST.

Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

 

[MarkT]

Well of course we have. Your argument that Jesus said he was the Son of God does not in any way mean that he is not also God. Nothing you stated proves that Jesus isn't God. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion but don't state that those who disagree with you have gone after false teachers, especially when you have given nothing to back that statement up.

When Paul said, "He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation" Colossians 1:15 RSV, does that make him God? If I am the image of my Father, does that make me my Father? Was God the first born of all creation?

The words Jesus gave us are my argument -

Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. John 8:42 RSV

Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God. John 8:54 RSV

do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? John 10:36 RSV

Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, John 13:3 RSV

Who raised Jesus from the dead? God. You're not giving God any glory. You're saying Jesus raised himself. Did Jesus die on the cross? Yes. God can not die. Who intercedes for us in the presence of God? Heb. 9:24 The Lord Jesus Christ. "We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Colossians 1:3

All I'm saying is you're building on sand. The 'rock' is Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. It's not Jesus is really God. To follow Jesus, you have to build on the true words of God, not on what somebody else thinks.

False teachers made God a man, thereby glorifying the flesh, and in effect making flesh and blood equal to God, and because of that, the world thinks God is a man made invention.

The Father is God over all. He is the one who sent his Word, the one who appointed Jesus the heir of all things, the one who gave him his name, and his authority, and his power. My understanding isn't perfect either but I would say God's Word was the workman who created all things in the beginning. In effect he did God's work in God's name; not to take any credit or glory away from God. He didn't consider himself anything. He knew he came from God, and God was doing the creating. He only did what he saw God doing. To all intents and purposes, he was God to Abraham. He was God to Moses. He was the one who said, 'I AM WHO I AM'. He was the one who said, The LORD is my name forever. But he did so because he saw the Father doing so. The LORD was the God of Israel. But God was his God. That's why the scripture says, 'The Lord said to my Lord.' Mt. 22:44 The LORD spoke through the prophets but God spoke through the LORD. Hence the fulfillment of prophecy, 'They shall be taught by God'.

It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. John 6:45 RSV

 

[MarkT]

Phil 2:5 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 emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

 

[zionwarrior]

Phil 2:5 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 emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

I wish to address this also, as it has not been raised before, and has on the surface some merit for the trinitarian view point. But this article explains it better than I can.

Philippians 2:6-11 Jesus in the form morphe of God

 

[MarkT]

I do not think this is a fair criticism of the "Jesus is divine" position.

You are basically arguing as follows:

1. Jesus is a man;
2. God cannot be a man;
3. Therefore, Jesus cannot be God.

Those of us who embrace Jesus' divinity will agree with point 1 (obviously). But I would challenge point 2. The Trinitarian (or, more narrowly those who assert Jesus is "God") will legitimately object that there is simply no Biblical grounds for asserting that God cannot take human form.

I am sure you will cite texts like the one in Numbers that says "God is not a man". Fair enough - at first glance this would appear to argue against Jesus' divinity.

However, I think things are not this simple. The Numbers text is actually this:

God is not a man, that He should lie,Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it?Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

I think it is clear that the intent of the writer here is to distinguish between God, on the one hand, and fallen sinning man, on the other. In other words, the author is really saying "God does not share man's proclivity to lie". But this is not to deny the possibility that a second divine person - Jesus - cannot take human form. The author is not saying "God cannot take human form", he is instead saying that God does not share the general human trait of lying.

Besides, as I have reminded other posters, those who deny Jesus' divinity have to do business with arguments to the contrary. I have produced arguments in posts 121, 122, 140, 144, 272, and 274. You need to engage those arguments in order to credibly establish your position that Jesus is not divine.

That’s right. He’s saying God doesn’t lie. But then again he is saying God isn’t a man also. Because he isn’t a man, he doesn’t lie. Also in the light of Christ, God is spirit - “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." John 4:24

But I’m not denying that the second divine person, as you put it, could not take human form. He did. That’s why the Trinity isn’t that far off. But your conclusion is off if you think God became a man. Stick with the second divine person. That position isn’t bad. But if you want to argue that God can take human form ie. become a man, then it would argue that he could lie if he did so - if he became a man.

Numbers 23:19 RSV
God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?

1 Samuel 15:29 RSV
And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent."

Certainly it would make his word untrue. God said he is not a man, but according to you, he became a man. Either his word is true, or your conclusion is false.

Actually those words came from the LORD. Again we see the LORD talking about God. Also the LORD said God is not man that he should lie. The implication here is that God has no need to lie - he is not a man. He has no needs. At least he doesn't have the same needs we have. Everything belongs to him already, all power, all glory. He has no need to lie. If God became a man and still had no needs, then he wouldn't be like us - he wouldn't share in our desires, our suffering. Then it would be too much to ask us to be like him since we are men and flesh and blood and we do have needs. But the fact is Jesus did suffer. He did share in our suffering. He had needs.

 

[MarkT]

I wish to address this also, as it has not been raised before, and has on the surface some merit for the trinitarian view point. But this article explains it better than I can.

Philippians 2:6-11 Jesus in the form morphe of God

I don’t think this author understands much better.

Paul said ‘in the form of God’ and that would suggest he was like God in appearance and power. ‘Form’ suggests likeness. It could be in appearance, shape, etc. as something that looks like something else. Having the same appearance. Form suggests appearance. But that’s consistent with my understanding. He was like God in his appearance. And Jesus said seeing him was seeing the Father.

But what Paul is talking about in his letter is before he became a man. The LORD was God to the ancient Hebrews. Now the author goes on about emptying himself without any understanding. The LORD did empty himself of his immortal self when he became a man. That’s form too if immortality counts as a likeness.

If Jesus was God, then Paul would not have used the word ‘form’, and he would not have said, ‘he is the image of the invisible God’. Col. 1:15

And Jesus would not have said, ‘a servant is not above his master. It is enough for a servant to be like his master’. We know Jesus came to serve. Mr. 10:45 Mt. 20:28 And God was his master. So he was like God but not equal to or above his master.

 

[Drew]

Im affraid no matter what either side says, the other will not concede to anything. The excercise is infact futile.

The responsiblity for this lies largely at your feet, ZW - you persistently refuse to engage arguments that challenge your position.

I have no idea how you rationalize this to yourself - I could not. To be fair, there are a lot of posts and each of us needs time to get around to dealing with opposing arguments.

But you have had plenty of time, and been repeatedly reminded about the posts to which you have not responded.

God doesn't want our faith decided by man and his theological nonsense.

I am always fascinated by this strategy - you are basically avoiding the responsibility of actually dealing with challenging arguments by pre-emptively dimiss them as theological nonsense dreamed up by "man".

Well, unless you yourself are not a man (person), and unless you yourself do not make your points theologically - which you obviously do just like the rest of us - then I do not see how this critique of yours does not backfire on you.

 

[Drew]

But I’m not denying that the second divine person, as you put it, could not take human form. He did. That’s why the Trinity isn’t that far off. But your conclusion is off if you think God became a man. Stick with the second divine person. That position isn’t bad. But if you want to argue that God can take human form ie. become a man, then it would argue that he could lie if he did so - if he became a man.

I think I mistunderstood your position - and I substantially agree with you here.

 

[Free]

I wish to address this also, as it has not been raised before, and has on the surface some merit for the trinitarian view point. But this article explains it better than I can.

Philippians 2:6-11 Jesus in the form morphe of God

Several assumptions and errors are made by the author which I don't have the time to address now, suffice it to say that as most non-trinitarian arguments go, they focus on one part of a verse or passage and completely miss the context. They can't see the forest for the trees, so to speak.

But what Paul is talking about in his letter is before he became a man. The LORD was God to the ancient Hebrews. Now the author goes on about emptying himself without any understanding. The LORD did empty himself of his immortal self when he became a man. That’s form too if immortality counts as a likeness.

If Jesus was God, then Paul would not have used the word ‘form’, and he would not have said, ‘he is the image of the invisible God’. Col. 1:15

And Jesus would not have said, ‘a servant is not above his master. It is enough for a servant to be like his master’. We know Jesus came to serve. Mr. 10:45 Mt. 20:28 And God was his master. So he was like God but not equal to or above his master.

I find your position extremely confusing. This really doesn't make sense of the passage.

 

[Free]

But I’m not denying that the second divine person, as you put it, could not take human form. He did. That’s why the Trinity isn’t that far off. But your conclusion is off if you think God became a man. Stick with the second divine person. That position isn’t bad. But if you want to argue that God can take human form ie. become a man, then it would argue that he could lie if he did so - if he became a man.

Here your position is polytheistic. The second divine person is God just as the first person is God, so to say that God became human is equivalent to saying that the second divine person became human. To differentiate between the second divine person and God, you make that person less than God but yet divine, and that is polytheism.

 

[demonXecutor]

KJV Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

(I am in the Father, and the Father in me) (he that hath seen me hath seen the Father)

The above scripture is not polytheism. Great thinkers and philosophers can only understand something by categorizing it and putting it in a neat little mortal box on the shelf of carnal reasoning.

polytheism: belief in a plurality of gods in which each deity is distinguished by special functions.

KVJ 1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

 

[Free]

I wish to address this also, as it has not been raised before, and has on the surface some merit for the trinitarian view point. But this article explains it better than I can.

Philippians 2:6-11 Jesus in the form morphe of God

To address the link:

2. The context of this passage must be carefully considered. Paul does not just start talking about Jesus ‘out of the blue’. He refers to the mind of Jesus in Phil. 2:5. Back in Phil. 1:27 Paul starts to speak of the importance of our state of mind. This is developed in the early verses of chapter 2: “Being of one accord, of one mind...in lowliness of mind...look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus...†(Phil. 2:2-5). Paul is therefore speaking of the importance of having a mind like that of Jesus, which is devoted to the humble service of others. The verses which follow are therefore commenting upon the humility of mind which Jesus demonstrated, rather than speaking of any change of nature. Just as Jesus was a servant, so earlier Paul had introduced himself with the same word (Phil. 1:1 cp. 2:7). The attitude of Jesus is set up as our example, and we are urged to join Paul in sharing it. We're not asked to change natures; we're asked to have the mind of Jesus- so that we may know the "fellowship of sharing in his [Christ's] sufferings, becoming like him in his death and so to attain to the resurrection from the dead" (Phil. 3:10,11).

The author is right that the context is being humble, just as Christ was:

Php 2:3 Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.
Php 2:4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
......
Php 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,
Php 2:13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Php 2:14 Do all things without grumbling or questioning, (ESV)

However, the author clearly misses the thrust of Paul's argument: it is precisely because Jesus was, in nature, God, that we see his humility in becoming human. It is impossible to show more humility than that. That is what we are to consider so that we become humble.

3. Jesus was “in the form of Godâ€. We have shown in an earlier study that Jesus was of human nature, and therefore this cannot refer to Christ having a Divine nature.

Begging the question, which then filters down some subsequent arguments which I will not address.

That “form†(Greek ‘morphe’) cannot refer to essential nature is proved by Phil. 2:7 speaking of Christ taking on “the form of a servantâ€.

Incorrect. Being in "the form of a servant" is equivalent to "being born in the likeness of men," meaning that he had a human nature. And so it is with being "in the form of God."

Remember, Paul is contrasting the two to show just how humble Christ was. If being "in the form of a servant" means he had a human nature, so "being in the form of God" means he had a divine nature, in some way (see below).

The Greek word ‘morphe’ means an image, impress or resemblance. Human beings can have a ‘morphe’. Gal. 4:19 speaks of “Christ (being) formed in†believers. Because he had a perfect character, a perfectly God-like way of thinking, Jesus was “in the form of Godâ€. Because of this, Jesus did not consider equality with God “something to be grasped atâ€. This totally disproves the theory that Jesus was God. Even according to the N.I.V. translation, Jesus did not for a moment entertain the idea of being equal with God; he knew that he was subject to God, and not co-equal with Him. There are many examples in the Greek Old Testament of the Greek word morphe being used to mean 'outward form' rather than 'essential nature'- e.g. Jud. 8:18 [men had the morphe , the outward appearance, of a king's sons]; Job 4:16 ; Is. 44:13 [a carpenter makes an idol in the morphe or outward appearance of a human being- but not in the very nature of a human being!]; Dan 3:19 [the king's morphe or appearance changed because he got angry; his essential nature remained the same]. And likewise in the Apocrypha: Tobit 1:13; Wis. 18:1; 4 Macc. 15:4. If Paul meant nature or essence he would have used the word ousia or physis- as he does in Gal. 2:16 where he speaks of "We who are Jews by nature [physis]...".

From Vincent's Word Studies:

Being. Not the simple είναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jam_2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character. Thus it is distinguished from σχῆμα fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. Μορφή form is identified with the essence of a person or thing: σχῆμα fashion is an accident which may change without affecting the form. For the manner in which this difference is developed in the kindred verbs, see on Mat_17:2.
As applied here to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself. We have no word which can convey this meaning, nor is it possible for us to formulate the reality. Form inevitably carries with it to us the idea of shape. It is conceivable that the essential personality of God may express itself in a mode apprehensible by the perception of pure spiritual intelligences; but the mode itself is neither apprehensible nor conceivable by human minds.
This mode of expression, this setting of the divine essence, is not identical with the essence itself, but is identified with it, as its natural and appropriate expression, answering to it in every particular. It is the perfect expression of a perfect essence. It is not something imposed from without, but something which proceeds from the very depth of the perfect being, and into which that being perfectly unfolds, as light from fire. To say, then, that Christ was in the form of God, is to say that He existed as essentially one with God. The expression of deity through human nature (Phi_2:7) thus has its background in the expression of deity as deity in the eternal ages of God's being. Whatever the mode of this expression, it marked the being of Christ in the eternity before creation. As the form of God was identified with the being of God, so Christ, being in the form of God, was identified with the being, nature, and personality of God.
This form, not being identical with the divine essence, but dependent upon it, and necessarily implying it, can be parted with or laid aside. Since Christ is one with God, and therefore pure being, absolute existence, He can exist without the form. This form of God Christ laid aside in His incarnation.

Clearly, one cannot say that if Paul meant "this" he would have used such-and-such a word. That is an exegetical error on the part of the author.

 

[Free]

As to "Jesus did not consider equality with God “something to be grasped at" meaning "Jesus did not for a moment entertain the idea of being equal with God," the author again uses only one definition of the word. Again, from VWS's:

Robbery is explained in three ways. 1. A robbing, the act. 2. The thing robbed, a piece of plunder. 3. A prize, a thing to be grasped. Here in the last sense.
Paul does not then say, as A.V., that Christ did not think it robbery to be equal with God: for, 1, that fact goes without. saying in the previous expression, being in the form of God. 2. On this explanation the statement is very awkward. Christ, being in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be equal with God; but, after which we should naturally expect, on the other hand, claimed and asserted equality: whereas the statement is: Christ was in the form of God and did not think it robbery to be equal with God, but (instead) emptied Himself. Christ held fast His assertion of divine dignity, but relinquished it. The antithesis is thus entirely destroyed.
Taking the word ἁρπαγμὸν (A.V., robbery) to mean a highly prized possession, we understand Paul to say that Christ, being, before His incarnation, in the form of God, did not regard His divine equality as a prize which was to be grasped at and retained at all hazards, but, on the contrary, laid aside the form of God, and took upon Himself the nature of man.


Anyway, that is all I have time for tonight. I'll address the rest tomorrow, including my own arguments on the passage which are posted several times elsewhere on these forums.

Needless to say, this passage is a clear statement of the full deity of Christ--his equality with the Father, yet his willingness to submit to the Father in humility for the salvation of man. This is one of the key passages in understanding all of Christ's statements about "the Father is greater than I," etc.