Jesus the Man Before John !

[RandyK]

Jesus is repeatedly said to be a man from heaven, a man who descended from the sky, a man sent by God, etc. Yes, we can say he's the definitive Son of God, but that really wasn't his exclusive point. One of his points is that you can be the Son of God, too, which is why he proved that saying such is neither blasphemy nor a claim to being God Himself. (See John 10:34-36)

So we can all be elohim:

Psalm 82​

6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.​

Also, let's be clear which sense of the word god we are talking about because that word is a lot more nuanced in Hebrew and Greek than it is in English.

Words are indeed "nuanced" because words are flexible, and obtain their nuanced meaning from the context in which they are used. I could say I set anchor, referring to a boat anchor. Or, I could say I named a dozer "Anchor." The word "anchor" obtains its meaning from how I use it. It can be used flexibly, although some meanings are more consistent.

The word "elohim" is plural and probably emerged from a polytheistic society. Their word for divine things encompassed the idea of many or several gods. Elohim is plural.

But when the Hebrews wished to express in the language of the pagans the idea of one God, they would use the same word, only applied in the context of a single God. Elohim then became "God" used in the singular sense. "I, the many-gods, am really only One."

To apply the term to non-divine men is simply to apply some divine-like attribute to them, such as might be applied to priests. Since they represented Deity, they might be viewed as "elohim," or God-like men, or men with divine authority.

I'm not an authority on the language. This is just how I've come to hear about it through the years. I could ask my brother, if it comes down to that?

I'm a bit suspicious of these kinds of conversations, though I could be wrong. LDS tends to view God as human in some ways. Attributing to God a kind of "body" sounds very "Mormonish" to me.

It's not that I mind talking to Mormons. But it would be nice to know why these kinds of conversations come up?

 

[LeviR]

God did say He isn't a man though didn't He? Think Hosea 11:9, Numbers 23:19. Seems there is a road block to the many became a living soul idea. By soul, do you mean in the sense that man became a living being?

I didn’t say God was a man. Man was made in His image and likeness.
The first man was formed directly from the earth. Formed into the image and likeness of God. Every other man who is his progeny is made indirectly from the earth.
Jesus as a son of man, was also made indirectly from the earth.
That image and likeness is mortal.
He who is born of Spirit is spirit, like God is Spirit. And like Jesus is spirit.
If you question being born of Spirit refers to being born again from the dead with a spirit body and called spirit.
I’ll just ask you a question about what the text says regarding born of Spirit is spirit.

Are normal mortal men who are born of Spirit, but not raised from the dead, like the wind that you can’t tell from where they come or where they go?

My answer is no. But angels who are made in the image and likeness of God and called men, can only be seen if the eyes of mortal men are opened by the power of God so they can be seen.
Therefore you couldn’t tell from where they came or where they go. Nor could you ever find one.
But mortal man, he can be followed.

 

[Runningman]

I didn’t say God was a man. Man was made in His image and likeness.
The first man was formed directly from the earth. Formed into the image and likeness of God. Every other man who is his progeny is made indirectly from the earth.
Jesus as a son of man, was also made indirectly from the earth.
That image and likeness is mortal.
He who is born of Spirit is spirit, like God is Spirit. And like Jesus is spirit.
If you question being born of Spirit refers to being born again from the dead with a spirit body and called spirit.
I’ll just ask you a question about what the text says regarding born of Spirit is spirit.

Are normal mortal men who are born of Spirit, but not raised from the dead, like the wind that you can’t tell from where they come or where they go?

Needing to be born again pre-supposes someone was already born in the right condition before a second birth being required. I don't buy into their original sin doctrine and more than one spiritual death is entirely possible if that helps clarify my perspective. That might be controversial since the Bible doesn't directly say this, but there is some evidence for it.

But like Adam, Jesus could have hypothetically sin because he was tempted to like a normal man. As James said, temptation refers to a desire that someone already has.

So to answer your question my answer is also no,

My answer is no. But angels who are made in the image and likeness of God and called men, can only be seen if the eyes of mortal men are opened by the power of God so they can be seen.
Therefore you couldn’t tell from where they came or where they go. Nor could you ever find one.
But mortal man, he can be followed.

I agree with this.

 

[Runningman]

Words are indeed "nuanced" because words are flexible, and obtain their nuanced meaning from the context in which they are used. I could say I set anchor, referring to a boat anchor. Or, I could say I named a dozer "Anchor." The word "anchor" obtains its meaning from how I use it. It can be used flexibly, although some meanings are more consistent.

The word "elohim" is plural and probably emerged from a polytheistic society. Their word for divine things encompassed the idea of many or several gods. Elohim is plural.

But when the Hebrews wished to express in the language of the pagans the idea of one God, they would use the same word, only applied in the context of a single God. Elohim then became "God" used in the singular sense. "I, the many-gods, am really only One."

To apply the term to non-divine men is simply to apply some divine-like attribute to them, such as might be applied to priests. Since they represented Deity, they might be viewed as "elohim," or God-like men, or men with divine authority.

I'm not an authority on the language. This is just how I've come to hear about it through the years. I could ask my brother, if it comes down to that?

I'm a bit suspicious of these kinds of conversations, though I could be wrong. LDS tends to view God as human in some ways. Attributing to God a kind of "body" sounds very "Mormonish" to me.

It's not that I mind talking to Mormons. But it would be nice to know why these kinds of conversations come up?

Good point, but the word elohim also applies to singular beings like false gods and individual people without any hint they are a compound god or compound person.

I think you hit pretty close to how elohim is used in the Bible. While it's a plural word, it applies to singular beings to amplify a divine-like attribute such as majesty, righteousness, holiness, etc. This is also a big reason why I don't believe it necessarily supports God being a Trinity.

 

[LeviR]

Needing to be born again pre-supposes someone was already born in the right condition before a second birth being required. I don't buy into their original sin doctrine and more than one spiritual death is entirely possible if that helps clarify my perspective. That might be controversial since the Bible doesn't directly say this, but there is some evidence for it.

But like Adam, Jesus could have hypothetically sin because he was tempted to like a normal man. As James said, temptation refers to a desire that someone already has.

So to answer your question my answer is also no,

I agree with this.

The first birth Jesus is speaking of in John 3 is in water. That refers to baptism for the remission of sins.
Some say it means being born of the water of a woman’s womb. Which I find to be irrelevant here.
When someone is born by immersion in water Thier past sins are forgiven in Christ.
However, we don’t remain that way. We sin again.
And when we do sin again, we have Jesus as our mediator, who is faithful to forgive us.

When we are born again by the Spirit and are spirit, we come from the grave again having all sins forgiven and can no longer sin again. We are immortal. Death no longer has power over us.

And we are like the angels….like the wind….you can’t tell from where they come and where they go. The Spirit keeps closed the eyes of mortal men to see their spirit bodies. When they are seen, it’s because the Spirit opens the eyes to see them. Not that they are immaterial.

 

[RandyK]

Good point, but the word elohim also applies to singular beings like false gods and individual people without any hint they are a compound god or compound person.

Actually, that's precisely the point I had wished to make! Perhaps I wasn't clear enough?

Elohim apparently had a plural origin, indicating that when 1st used the term for "God" implied a plurality of gods. But the word evolved to refer to any sense of "God," whether plural or singular. The term came to be neutral with respect to how many gods there were, many or one.

I think you hit pretty close to how elohim is used in the Bible. While it's a plural word, it applies to singular beings to amplify a divine-like attribute such as majesty, righteousness, holiness, etc. This is also a big reason why I don't believe it necessarily supports God being a Trinity.

Yea, I'm not sure the word has anything to do with the concept of God being a Trinity. I believe in the Trinity, but the plural form of "Elohim" only has to do with the origin of the word referencing a plurality of gods--not a plurality of Persons within one God.

 

[brightfame52]

The Person of Christ is very fascinating ! 2

 

[LeviR]

Actually, that's precisely the point I had wished to make! Perhaps I wasn't clear enough?

Elohim apparently had a plural origin, indicating that when 1st used the term for "God" implied a plurality of gods. But the word evolved to refer to any sense of "God," whether plural or singular. The term came to be neutral with respect to how many gods there were, many or one.

Yea, I'm not sure the word has anything to do with the concept of God being a Trinity. I believe in the Trinity, but the plural form of "Elohim" only has to do with the origin of the word referencing a plurality of gods--not a plurality of Persons within one God.

When Jesus said his Father was the only true God, he refers to only one person as being the only true God. We would not say the Father is the only true Gods.
This is very clear and unambiguous language from Jesus himself. For anyone to deny it means they don’t believe it.

 

[RandyK]

When Jesus said his Father was the only true God, he refers to only one person as being the only true God. We would not say the Father is the only true Gods.
This is very clear and unambiguous language from Jesus himself. For anyone to deny it means they don’t believe it.

Yes, Jesus knew well the Hebrew belief that "God is one." The indication is that He is ultimately a transcendant Person, with no prohibition on His ability to reveal Himself in other personages.

The Hebrews well knew that God had revealed Himself in theophanies, in the form of angels or men. So the idea that God cannot express His transcendant Person in a Trinity is not even being considered as an argument. It is assumed that if the Spirit can "move over the face of the deep," then God, who is everywhere present can obviously be both the source of His Person and expressive of Himself as a distinct Person in time.

The plural form for "God," which is "elohim," had nothing to do with God's inability to be expressed as a multiplicity of Persons. It was simply the origin of the word for "God" in a time when people believed there were "many gods."

 

[LeviR]

The Person of Christ is very fascinating ! 2

He was the promised seed(child) of Abraham and David. They are his forefathers. Jesus was a Jewish man made of a woman and made under the law.

He was conceived in the womb of his mother by the Holy Spirit. And was therefore called the son of the Highest.
Being son of the Highest had nothing to do with his nature. Being son of man did. He was a son of Adam(man) by nature. Adam was mortal and so was Jesus.

The Trinitarian has only one text from scripture that they claim explicitly says Jesus had two natures. All other claims of the same are only implied. They claim the word translated as “form” of God means “nature” of God. But that’s not what the word “form” means.

The word means similitude or image.

If you use the NIV, it’s the only translation to use “nature” rather than “form”.

The scriptures which imply Jesus as being God(the Father), do not imply Jesus had another nature than the one he had when born of Mary. They refer to, and are attributed to, the Spirit of the Father which dwelt in him without measure or limit.

First of all, if Jesus, when born of Mary was fully God, he would not be given the Holy Spirit of the Father without limit. He would not need it or Him. He could speak the words and do the works all by Himself.
However, he said he could do nothing of himself. He had to have the Spirit of the Father. And so, he did indeed attribute everything he had and could say or do to his Father by the Spirit given to him.

 

[LeviR]

Yes, Jesus knew well the Hebrew belief that "God is one." The indication is that He is ultimately a transcendant Person, with no prohibition on His ability to reveal Himself in other personages.

The Hebrews well knew that God had revealed Himself in theophanies, in the form of angels or men. So the idea that God cannot express His transcendant Person in a Trinity is not even being considered as an argument. It is assumed that if the Spirit can "move over the face of the deep," then God, who is everywhere present can obviously be both the source of His Person and expressive of Himself as a distinct Person in time.

The plural form for "God," which is "elohim," had nothing to do with God's inability to be expressed as a multiplicity of Persons. It was simply the origin of the word for "God" in a time when people believed there were "many gods."

The word theophany indicates God has no body. But He does have not only a body, but a location.
I don’t know what something that is immaterial means except that it has no physical body. If it has no physical body then nothing can be made in its image and likeness.
How does something immaterial have a location?
If we say God is immaterial and His Spirit is immaterial how is it that He can send His Spirit without Himself being where He sends His Spirit?
We don’t believe that the Father who sends His Spirit actually sends Himself. He is only sending His power, His word, His knowledge, and His wisdom. Things that can be said of Himself, but not actually Himself.
To be sent refers to coming from a location. And it is said that God’s
holy habitation is in heaven. A location.
When we say God is a Spirit and has Spirit that proceeds from Him, we are referring to a Spirit which has a location and to His Spirit which can be anywhere.

 

[LeviR]

He was the promised seed(child) of Abraham and David. They are his forefathers. Jesus was a Jewish man made of a woman and made under the law.

He was conceived in the womb of his mother by the Holy Spirit. And was therefore called the son of the Highest.
Being son of the Highest had nothing to do with his nature. Being son of man did. He was a son of Adam(man) by nature. Adam was mortal and so was Jesus.

The Trinitarian has only one text from scripture that they claim explicitly says Jesus had two natures. All other claims of the same are only implied. They claim the word translated as “form” of God means “nature” of God. But that’s not what the word “form” means.

The word means similitude or image.

If you use the NIV, it’s the only translation to use “nature” rather than “form”.

The scriptures which imply Jesus as being God(the Father), do not imply Jesus had another nature than the one he had when born of Mary. They refer to, and are attributed to, the Spirit of the Father which dwelt in him without measure or limit.

First of all, if Jesus, when born of Mary was fully God, he would not be given the Holy Spirit of the Father without limit. He would not need it or Him. He could speak the words and do the works all by Himself.
However, he said he could do nothing of himself. He had to have the Spirit of the Father. And so, he did indeed attribute everything he had and could say or do to his Father by the Spirit given to him.

To see Jesus was to see the Father. And having been given the Father’s Spirit without limit, whatever could be attributed to the Father could be attributed to Jesus without Jesus having God’s nature. He had His Spirit without limit to time.
Jesus is called the Spirit when it’s said that where the Spirit is, there is liberty. “The Lord is that Spirit”.
The man Jesus had such a limitless measure of God’s spirit it need not for his nature as man to be anything but that.

 

[RandyK]

The word theophany indicates God has no body.

Where do you get that from? It sounds like you're assuming more than is there? An appearance of the divine does not necessarily assume a particular religious outlook, right?

The word itself is not used in the Bible, so the word may mean what we intend it to mean, depending on how we're using the word. Biblically, theophanies were purely something like divine holograms, but within the framework of something that does have a body, or real existence. Otherwise, it would only be a vision, right?

But He does have not only a body, but a location.

If God is transcendent, and He is, then you're engaging in idle speculation. He may or may not have a "body," depending on how you're using the term. But applying a term that normally applies to "created things" cannot be applied, as such, to God. I told you this earlier.

I don’t know what something that is immaterial means except that it has no physical body. If it has no physical body then nothing can be made in its image and likeness.
How does something immaterial have a location?

This is precisely the difference between the Father and the Holy Spirit. They are both ideas transmitting from the one God, and yet in effect the Spirit is viewed in geographical locations, moving over the deep or filling persons with power.

The Father, by definition, is the revelation of God as Source of all of His revelations. As the Source, he is differentiated, by revelation, from the emanations of His Person from its Source.

I know--this gets pretty "heady." ;)

If we say God is immaterial and His Spirit is immaterial how is it that He can send His Spirit without Himself being where He sends His Spirit?
We don’t believe that the Father who sends His Spirit actually sends Himself. He is only sending His power, His word, His knowledge, and His wisdom. Things that can be said of Himself, but not actually Himself.

You're missing the point about God's transcendence. He can't be broken up into parts, as if He belongs strictly to the world of creation. He doesn't remain the Father in eternity and then show Himself as a "power."

No, as a transcendent Being He is able to do things we cannot comprehend, and cannot understand in terms of His transcendence. He is able to transmit a revelation of His own Person in the finite, created world, which is what His Son is, both divine and human.

He does not just commit a part of Himself to Jesus, as if Jesus is half man and half God. No, Jesus is the fulness of the Divine Person compressed into the image of a created man. As a created being he is still representative of an uncreated Being, the Person of God. Jesus is the revelation of the Divine Person in terms expressed via creation.

 

[Free]

Jesus is repeatedly said to be a man from heaven, a man who descended from the sky, a man sent by God, etc. Yes, we can say he's the definitive Son of God, but that really wasn't his exclusive point. One of his points is that you can be the Son of God, too,

Yes, Jesus is the one and only, unique Son of God, but Jesus never, ever says that anyone else "can be the Son of God," ever. There are two significant problems there. First, we can only be "a" son (or daughter) of God, never "the" son of God. And, second, only Jesus is the Son of God. Both you and LeviR need to be much more careful with when to capitalize "Son" and when not to. There is a reason the NT does it and we need to follow that convention. It's exactly the same difference between saying "a god" and "the God."

which is why he proved that saying such is neither blasphemy nor a claim to being God Himself. (See John 10:34-36)

It absolutely is a claim to be equal to God, to the Father, as the Jews fully understood:

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (ESV)

Jesus's argument is that if even the Judges were called "gods," being humans with God's divine authority to speak and act on his behalf, how much more is he actually God because he is the Son of God. That it isn't blasphemy in regards to himself is precisely because he is God and equal to the Father. It would have been and would be absolutely blasphemous for anyone else to claim to be the Son of God in the very same sense that Jesus claimed to be.

John has already stated this:

Joh 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV)

Those are John's words, yet he doesn't at all refute the idea. And, he has also already recorded Jesus's explicitly claiming to be God:

Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Joh 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (ESV)

Again, Jesus is comparing the temporary existence of Abraham with his own timeless existence. He didn't even say, "I was," as though he merely existed before Abraham. John the Baptist knew that Jesus (the Son) existed before he did, although John was born first:

Joh 1:15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”)
...
Joh 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Joh 1:30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ (ESV)

That was three attempts at stoning Jesus for blasphemy. Claiming to be God in human flesh, claiming equality with the Father, if one wasn't actually so, would be blasphemy. And, that was the claim that eventually led to his crucifixion:

Mat 26:63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”
Mat 26:64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Mat 26:65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. (ESV)

Not only does Jesus admit to being the Son of God, again claiming equality with God, he then claims the position of dignity and honor and says they will see him "coming on the clouds of heaven." In other words, they will see him coming as King and judge, whether it is to judge them and Jerusalem for rejecting him or the final judgement, or both.

So we can all be elohim:

Psalm 82​

6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.​

Also, let's be clear which sense of the word god we are talking about because that word is a lot more nuanced in Hebrew and Greek than it is in English.

All it means, as shown in particular context, is that these were mere humans who were chosen by God to be his representatives and judges, and that there judgements were to be considered as his judgements. Never does it mean that any such person was a god in any actual divine sense, as the Son of God is. That is, for humans it was merely a title conferred by God; for Jesus, as the one and only Son of God, it is a title that actually reveals his deity.

 

[RandyK]

Yes, Jesus is the one and only, unique Son of God, but Jesus never, ever says that anyone else "can be the Son of God," ever. There are two significant problems there. First, we can only be "a" son (or daughter) of God, never "the" son of God. And, second, only Jesus is the Son of God. Both you and LeviR need to be much more careful with when to capitalize "Son" and when not to. There is a reason the NT does it and we need to follow that convention. It's exactly the same difference between saying "a god" and "the God."


It absolutely is a claim to be equal to God, to the Father, as the Jews fully understood:

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (ESV)

Jesus's argument is that if even the Judges were called "gods," being humans with God's divine authority to speak and act on his behalf, how much more is he actually God because he is the Son of God. That it isn't blasphemy in regards to himself is precisely because he is God and equal to the Father. It would have been and would be absolutely blasphemous for anyone else to claim to be the Son of God in the very same sense that Jesus claimed to be.

John has already stated this:

Joh 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV)

Those are John's words, yet he doesn't at all refute the idea. And, he has also already recorded Jesus's explicitly claiming to be God:

Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Joh 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (ESV)

Again, Jesus is comparing the temporary existence of Abraham with his own timeless existence. He didn't even say, "I was," as though he merely existed before Abraham. John the Baptist knew that Jesus (the Son) existed before he did, although John was born first:

Joh 1:15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”)
...
Joh 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Joh 1:30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ (ESV)

That was three attempts at stoning Jesus for blasphemy. Claiming to be God in human flesh, claiming equality with the Father, if one wasn't actually so, would be blasphemy. And, that was the claim that eventually led to his crucifixion:

Mat 26:63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”
Mat 26:64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Mat 26:65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. (ESV)

Not only does Jesus admit to being the Son of God, again claiming equality with God, he then claims the position of dignity and honor and says they will see him "coming on the clouds of heaven." In other words, they will see him coming as King and judge, whether it is to judge them and Jerusalem for rejecting him or the final judgement, or both.


All it means, as shown in particular context, is that these were mere humans who were chosen by God to be his representatives and judges, and that there judgements were to be considered as his judgements. Never does it mean that any such person was a god in any actual divine sense, as the Son of God is. That is, for humans it was merely a title conferred by God; for Jesus, as the one and only Son of God, it is a title that actually reveals his deity.

I don't think anybody could've said it better. Well, maybe the Scripture authors themselves? ;)

 

[Free]

He was the promised seed(child) of Abraham and David. They are his forefathers. Jesus was a Jewish man made of a woman and made under the law.

He was conceived in the womb of his mother by the Holy Spirit. And was therefore called the son of the Highest.
Being son of the Highest had nothing to do with his nature.

It absolutely did. That is precisely why he is the Son of God.

Being son of man did. He was a son of Adam(man) by nature. Adam was mortal and so was Jesus.

The Trinitarian has only one text from scripture that they claim explicitly says Jesus had two natures. All other claims of the same are only implied. They claim the word translated as “form” of God means “nature” of God. But that’s not what the word “form” means.

The word means similitude or image.

No, it does not. I've provided this before:

Morphe, "form," has to do with the essence. He was in essence, in nature, God, just as in verse 7 he became a servant truly and inwardly. It is schēma, "fashion," in verse 8 that is the visual outward appearance. It means that his outward appearance to humans hid his essence, who he really was. However, we know that he wasn't a human in appearance only, that was an error John taught against (1 John 4:2; 2 John 1:7); he was truly and fully human. Therefore, how much more then is he truly and fully God. This is Paul's point with the use of homoiōmati, "likeness" in verse 8. It means that he was truly human, yet there was more to him than just human nature. Notice that he did not appear in the likeness of God. His full self was not fully expressed.

"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 Matt. 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 (ver. 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." (M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, p. 878).

Also, as Kenneth Wuest's Word Studies in the Greek New Testaments states:

"Thus the Greek word for "form" refers to that outward expression which a person gives of his inmost nature. This expression is not assumed from the outside, but proceeds directly from within. To illustrate: "I went to a tennis match yesterday. The winning player's form was excellent." We mean by that, that the outward expression he gave of his inward ability to play tennis, was excellent. The expression in this case took the form of the rhythmic, graceful, swift, and coordinated movements of his body and its members.

Our Lord was in the form of God. The word "God" is without the definite article in the Greek text, and therefore refers to the divine essence. Thus, our Lord's outward expression of His inmost being was as to its nature the expression of the divine essence of Deity. Since that outward expression which this word "form" speaks of, comes from and is truly representative of the inward being, it follows that our Lord as to His nature is the possessor of the divine essence of Deity, and being that, it also necessarily follows that He is absolute Deity Himself, a co-participant with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in that divine essence which constitutes God, God.

The time at which the apostle says our Lord gave expression to His essential nature, that of Deity, was previous to His coming to earth to become incarnate as the man Christ Jesus. But Paul, by the use of the Greek word translated "being," informs his Greek readers that our Lord's possession of the divine essence did not cease to be a fact when He came to earth to assume human form. The Greek word is not the simple verb of being, but a word that speaks of an antecedent condition protracted into the present. That is, our Lord gave expression to the essence of Deity which He possesses, not only before He became Man, but also after becoming man, for He was doing so at the time this Philippian epistle was being written." (vol. 2, pp. 62-63)

Also, according to Eerdmans The Expositor's Greek Testament:

"He means, of course, in the strictest sense that the pre-existing Christ was Divine. For μ. [μορφή] always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it." (vol 3, p. 436)

He chose to not appear in his glorious state, so as not to exploit his divine nature for his own ends, which perfectly fits the context.

If you use the NIV, it’s the only translation to use “nature” rather than “form”.

Because all the other versions are giving a word-for-word translation, whereas the NIV gives the thought that is meant. That is pretty much the main translation philosophy behind the NIV, being a dynamic equivalence translation.

The scriptures which imply Jesus as being God(the Father),

There many verses and passages that either imply or explicitly state that he is truly God, but there is not a single verse which as much as implies that Jesus is the Father.

do not imply Jesus had another nature than the one he had when born of Mary. They refer to, and are attributed to, the Spirit of the Father which dwelt in him without measure or limit.

First of all, if Jesus, when born of Mary was fully God, he would not be given the Holy Spirit of the Father without limit. He would not need it or Him. He could speak the words and do the works all by Himself.
However, he said he could do nothing of himself. He had to have the Spirit of the Father. And so, he did indeed attribute everything he had and could say or do to his Father by the Spirit given to him.

If one completely ignores passages such as 2 Cor 8:9 and Phil 2:5-8, then you might have an argument.

2Co 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ: Though He was rich, for your sake He became poor, so that by His poverty you might become rich. (ESV)

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 emptied himself, by 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)

 

[Runningman]

The first birth Jesus is speaking of in John 3 is in water. That refers to baptism for the remission of sins.

Agreed.

Some say it means being born of the water of a woman’s womb. Which I find to be irrelevant here.

Why would Jesus tell someone who already knew they were born of a woman that they needed to be born of a woman? I think people say that because they want to distance themselves from works, but water baptism and the symbolic birth are all over the New Testament. No one ever went around preaching "You must be born of a woman" and if they did I guess they would be trying to be a comedian.

When someone is born by immersion in water Thier past sins are forgiven in Christ.
However, we don’t remain that way. We sin again.
And when we do sin again, we have Jesus as our mediator, who is faithful to forgive us.

I believe what James said in the first chapter applies repeatedly. How could sin result in death if someone were already dead? However, sin can result in death if they were already alive or born again.

James 1
13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Apostle John talked about it too:

1 John 5
16If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

This is going to be a bit heavy, but God is always having to bring people back to life on a spiritual level. Ever sinned and felt like a part of you had died, but you couldn't really explain it? You weren't imagining that. A part of you actually died. God has to re-establish a personal covenant with people for legal reasons, but I would say most people aren't aware this is happening.

Just to demonstrate this is actually Biblical, too, God makes many personal covenants with His people. With Noah Genesis 9:8-11, He did it with Abraham in Genesis 15:18, 17:1-2, a covenant with the house of Eli in 1 Sam. 2:35, with King David in 2 Sam. 7:12-16, etc.

When we are born again by the Spirit and are spirit, we come from the grave again having all sins forgiven and can no longer sin again. We are immortal. Death no longer has power over us.

And we are like the angels….like the wind….you can’t tell from where they come and where they go. The Spirit keeps closed the eyes of mortal men to see their spirit bodies. When they are seen, it’s because the Spirit opens the eyes to see them. Not that they are immaterial.

amen .

 

[Runningman]

Yes, Jesus is the one and only, unique Son of God, but Jesus never, ever says that anyone else "can be the Son of God," ever. There are two significant problems there. First, we can only be "a" son (or daughter) of God, never "the" son of God. And, second, only Jesus is the Son of God. Both you and LeviR need to be much more careful with when to capitalize "Son" and when not to. There is a reason the NT does it and we need to follow that convention. It's exactly the same difference between saying "a god" and "the God."


It absolutely is a claim to be equal to God, to the Father, as the Jews fully understood:

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (ESV)

Jesus's argument is that if even the Judges were called "gods," being humans with God's divine authority to speak and act on his behalf, how much more is he actually God because he is the Son of God. That it isn't blasphemy in regards to himself is precisely because he is God and equal to the Father. It would have been and would be absolutely blasphemous for anyone else to claim to be the Son of God in the very same sense that Jesus claimed to be.

John has already stated this:

Joh 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV)

Those are John's words, yet he doesn't at all refute the idea. And, he has also already recorded Jesus's explicitly claiming to be God:

Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Joh 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (ESV)

Again, Jesus is comparing the temporary existence of Abraham with his own timeless existence. He didn't even say, "I was," as though he merely existed before Abraham. John the Baptist knew that Jesus (the Son) existed before he did, although John was born first:

Joh 1:15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”)
...
Joh 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Joh 1:30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ (ESV)

That was three attempts at stoning Jesus for blasphemy. Claiming to be God in human flesh, claiming equality with the Father, if one wasn't actually so, would be blasphemy. And, that was the claim that eventually led to his crucifixion:

Mat 26:63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”
Mat 26:64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Mat 26:65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. (ESV)

Not only does Jesus admit to being the Son of God, again claiming equality with God, he then claims the position of dignity and honor and says they will see him "coming on the clouds of heaven." In other words, they will see him coming as King and judge, whether it is to judge them and Jerusalem for rejecting him or the final judgement, or both.


All it means, as shown in particular context, is that these were mere humans who were chosen by God to be his representatives and judges, and that there judgements were to be considered as his judgements. Never does it mean that any such person was a god in any actual divine sense, as the Son of God is. That is, for humans it was merely a title conferred by God; for Jesus, as the one and only Son of God, it is a title that actually reveals his deity.

The Pharisees accused him of claiming to be God and you are making the same argument as they are by saying Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus' answer applies to you and the Pharisees.

Contrary to the accusations against Jesus (John 10:33) he quoted Psalm 82:6 informing them that they are all gods and sons of God(John 10:34.) After that, he said he is the son of God so how could you accuse him for blasphemy for that?

John 10
36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?

Psalm 82
6I have said, ‘You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.’

The point is the same thing that they accused Jesus of also applies to his accusers. The answer is they cannot rightly accuse Jesus of blasphemy anymore than they can accuse each other blasphemy for repeating the same words as Jesus. Jesus, therefore, made the best argument against his own deity possible. We have it directly from his own mouth that he is indeed not God.

 

[KV-44-v1]

The Pharisees accused him of claiming to be God

That's because He was. But that was true, not slander.

and you are making the same argument as they are by saying Jesus is God.

You make the same argument as the worldly world. The majority of humans push false teachings. The "Jesus not God" teaching is peddled by the world - NOT the Word. Why do you think Islam and cults try to force Jesus into a little box of "Not God"?

Oh Yes, belittling Jesus is pretty much belittling God.
If Jesus weren't God, the pharisees would not go after Him like that, and He would just be another sinful human who isnt God.

REALIZE THE IMPLICATIONS OF YOUR WORLDVIEW.

Do you really believe that "Jesus the Not-God" was magically sinless but somehow not God? That's absurd and humanistic, implying that us fallen humans on this earth can be guranteed to never sin from birth to death too.

 

[KV-44-v1]

The Pharisees accused him of claiming to be God and you are making the same argument as they are by saying Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus' answer applies to you and the Pharisees.

Contrary to the accusations against Jesus (John 10:33) he quoted Psalm 82:6 informing them that they are all gods and sons of God(John 10:34.) After that, he said he is the son of God so how could you accuse him for blasphemy for that?

John 10
36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?

Psalm 82
6I have said, ‘You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.’

The point is the same thing that they accused Jesus of also applies to his accusers. The answer is they cannot rightly accuse Jesus of blasphemy anymore than they can accuse each other blasphemy for repeating the same words as Jesus. Jesus, therefore, made the best argument against his own deity possible. We have it directly from his own mouth that he is indeed not God.

False equivalence, Jesus calling them "gods" is in much a different sense than Jesus being THE Son of God.


Why does The Bible differntiate sonS of God and THE Son of God? Oh right! Jesus IS God!

Unitaranism is a gross lie/error designed to appease the sinful human flesh who loves making God to be at their level!