The Trinity

[Free]

Now you've got me curious if you're a faith alone proponent. But the majority of supposed believers in Christ are both trinitarian and faith alone believers aren't they?. That should cause one to very closely study those doctrines and verses within context one might believe supports them in my opinion.

That the Trinity is biblical is without question. I have studied it quite thoroughly, and debated it, for over 20 years and have come to believe it’s true precisely because I don’t divorce verses from their context as I see every anti-Trinitarian do.

That justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone I also believe to be true. But that isn’t the topic of this thread.

 

[WordWhisper’r]

Not sure where you see nine members within the OP as he is only speaking about the Father, Son Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Could you elaborate a little on your statement?

If you count the seven spirits of God, (which is the Holy Spirit), you actually would have nine… yet, still just one. Just sayin’

 

[popsthebuilder]

That the Trinity is biblical is without question. I have studied it quite thoroughly, and debated it, for over 20 years and have come to believe it’s true precisely because I don’t divorce verses from their context as I see every anti-Trinitarian do.

That justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone I also believe to be true. But that isn’t the topic of this thread.

So you see no merit in examining these things? You've deemed your study on the subjects forever sufficient? Who do you think the mass is? Surely the few are separate and different from the many. I've studied the doctrines myself and have found them antithetical to the teachings ascribed to Christ and, the workings of the Spirit and the convictions of the conscience.

The doctrine of the trinity is false on every level and in every way. And why isn't it "four" instead of "three" in this doctrine in your opinion? Is not Jesus, as man, wholly GOD (one being), and wholly man (one being (according to the doctrine of the trinity))? That's two right there. Then you still have father and spirit which would be two more.

Another oddity to me would be that according to most believers the person is made up of both body and spirit. Those the three or four persons would each have there own spirit and body; yet there is one body and one Spirit according to scripture.

- Do you deny that there is One Spirit?
- Do you deny that the One Spirit is the Spirit of the FATHER?
- Do you deny that the One Spirit is the Spirit of the Christ of GOD?
- Do you deny that the word "Christ" refers to the one anointed with the Spirit of GOD?

 

[popsthebuilder]

If you count the seven spirits of God, (which is the Holy Spirit), you actually would have nine… yet, still just one. Just sayin’

The seven "spirits" of GOD seems to refer to characteristics or attributes of GOD.

There is surely only One Spirit. Don't you agree?

 

[WordWhisper’r]

The seven "spirits" of GOD seems to refer to characteristics or attributes of GOD.

There is surely only One Spirit. Don't you agree?

God is One, always has been, always will be.

 

[grace2]

God is One, always has been, always will be.

You mean God is triune which is a manmade god..

 

[WordWhisper’r]

You mean God is triune which is a manmade god..

If I didn’t say that, I didn’t mean that.

Why do you bait people? You approach as a caring person, and you wait for someone to say something you disagree with and you ambush them. With me, you actually made up a very manipulative statement that intentionally misrepresented me.

Are you evil? Or just no conscience?

 

[grace2]

If I didn’t say that, I didn’t mean that.

Why do you bait people? You approach as a caring person, and you wait for someone to say something you disagree with and you ambush them. With me, you actually made up a very manipulative statement that intentionally misrepresented me.

Are you evil? Or just no conscience?

Bye, friend.

 

[BB1956]

Speaking of the trinity, people are saying its biblical, that the scriptures say that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, that the three are equal in deity, power and essence.

I've never seen the trinity doctrine written down anywhere in the scriptures. People taking such scriptures like Matthew 28:19 teaching Matthew 28:19 is a doctrine only prove to me they have no clue what a doctrine is.

The scriptures nowhere teach that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are equal. In fact the scriptures when it comes to the true God and his only begotten Son teach a Father Son relationship. We humans understand a Father Son relationship. The Father is older, wiser, has more authority, the Son is submissive to his Father recognizing that his Father is older and wiser and has more authority. This is exactly how the scriptures present the relationship of the true God and his Son Jesus Christ.

 

[grace2]

If I didn’t say that, I didn’t mean that.

Why do you bait people? You approach as a caring person, and you wait for someone to say something you disagree with and you ambush them. With me, you actually made up a very manipulative statement that intentionally misrepresented me.

Are you evil? Or just no conscience?

I apologize if you are not a Trinity doctrine believer.

All triune God believers claim God is one too but they mean God the Father, God the Son and God the HS make one God.

blessings.

 

[Free]

So you see no merit in examining these things?

Did I say that anywhere?

You've deemed your study on the subjects forever sufficient?

I'm always open to changing my mind, but I have yet to see any substantial and significant refutation of the Trinity. Combined with the fact that the Trinity has been at the core of the Christian faith for over 1600 years, especially when the Reformers kept the doctrine, it is most likely true. Not that the majority makes it correct, but that it has stood the test of time and of strong differences in theology and doctrinal beliefs. Numerous scholars past and present find ample support for the doctrine, although there are many discussions about finer nuances.

Who do you think the mass is?

Mostly the world but many who believe they are saved but are not.

Surely the few are separate and different from the many.

Yes, the number of true believers are relatively few.

I've studied the doctrines myself and have found them antithetical to the teachings ascribed to Christ and, the workings of the Spirit and the convictions of the conscience.

The very opposite of me then.

The doctrine of the trinity is false on every level and in every way.

It is by far the best explanation of all that God reveals about himself in the Bible. Based on what Jesus, John, Paul, and Peter write, the Trinity is the only, or at least the best, rational conclusion.

And why isn't it "four" instead of "three" in this doctrine in your opinion? Is not Jesus, as man, wholly GOD (one being), and wholly man (one being (according to the doctrine of the trinity))? That's two right there. Then you still have father and spirit which would be two more.

Why should it be four? I don't see how your conclusion follows. The doctrine of the Trinity is largely a doctrine of the ontological nature of God—God has he self-existed for all eternity past--three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial, divine persons within the one being that is God. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, the preincarnate Word, who "became flesh." He has two natures, God and man, perfectly united but not mixed within his body. He is still one person, but your question assumes that he should either have a split personality or have deified his human nature, so as to somehow constitute two separate persons.

Another oddity to me would be that according to most believers the person is made up of both body and spirit. Those the three or four persons would each have there own spirit and body; yet there is one body and one Spirit according to scripture.

I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

- Do you deny that there is One Spirit?

There is one substance that is God and there is one Holy Spirit.

- Do you deny that the One Spirit is the Spirit of the FATHER?
- Do you deny that the One Spirit is the Spirit of the Christ of GOD?

The Holy Spirit is called, among other things, both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9), yet remains distinct as a person. There is no mention in the Bible of "the Spirit of the Father."

- Do you deny that the word "Christ" refers to the one anointed with the Spirit of GOD?

No.

 

[Free]

Speaking of the trinity, people are saying its biblical, that the scriptures say that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, that the three are equal in deity, power and essence.

I've never seen the trinity doctrine written down anywhere in the scriptures. People taking such scriptures like Matthew 28:19 teaching Matthew 28:19 is a doctrine only prove to me they have no clue what a doctrine is.

The scriptures nowhere teach that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are equal. In fact the scriptures when it comes to the true God and his only begotten Son teach a Father Son relationship. We humans understand a Father Son relationship. The Father is older, wiser, has more authority, the Son is submissive to his Father recognizing that his Father is older and wiser and has more authority. This is exactly how the scriptures present the relationship of the true God and his Son Jesus Christ.

And, yet, a son is always of the same nature as his father. Therefore, if the Father is God, the Son can be no different. Be very careful in extrapolating from human experience to God.

The foundations of the Trinity are everywhere in the NT and in places in the OT.

 

[CherubRam]

Trinity
In the fourth-century, Marcellus of Ancyra declared that the idea of the Godhead existing as three hypostases came from Plato, through the teachings of Valentinus. Valentinus is quoted as teaching that God is three, three prosopa (persons) called the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit:

These men also taught three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. It was believed he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but he was discovered to have taken this from Hermes and Plato.

Valentinus (also spelled Valentinius) (c.100 - c.160) was known as a early Christian Gnostic Theologian.

It should be noted that Nag Hammadi library Sethian text such as Trimorphic Protennoia identify Gnosticism as also professing Father, Son and feminine wisdom Sophia or as Professor John D Turner denotes, God the Father, Sophia the Mother, and Logos the Son.

Note: Orthodox Jews did not believe God was a Trinity.

Note: Resent Pagan converts to Christianity proclaimed the Holy Spirit is a third person in the 4 century AD.
Before then "Holy Spirit" was a title for God the Father.

 

[hawkman]

King James Bible
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


The Father
The Son
The Holy Ghost

I count three . Which one(s) you leaving out ?

 

[popsthebuilder]

And, yet, a son is always of the same nature as his father. Therefore, if the Father is God, the Son can be no different. Be very careful in extrapolating from human experience to God.

The foundations of the Trinity are everywhere in the NT and in places in the OT.

So you also deny that the Christ of GOD is subsidiary to GOD? That all things being placed under His feet excepting the One having placed all things under Him shows that Christ Jesus is not equal to GOD in power and knowledge? Jesus didn't place himself over all things or equate self to GOD almighty. Such a notion is extrabiblical.

 

[Free]

So you also deny that the Christ of GOD is subsidiary to GOD?

Yes.

That all things being placed under His feet excepting the One having placed all things under Him shows that Christ Jesus is not equal to GOD in power and knowledge?

I deny it shows that, yes.

Jesus didn't place himself over all things or equate self to GOD almighty. Such a notion is extrabiblical.

He didn’t place himself over all things, but he did equate himself to God, which is precisely why the other NT writers do as well. Remember my points on Phil 2:5-8, which you didn’t address?

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.
Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ESV)

Some important points to note about this passage:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1--"the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The NIV has a clearer rendering of what is meant in verse 6: "being in very nature God." The Expositor's Greek Testamentand M. R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) agree. That Paul is referring to the divinity of Christ is without question.
2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, he did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation. Again, the NIV brings out the meaning a bit better: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
3. He, being Jesus, emptied himself. Firstly then, it was he who did the emptying. And, secondly, he emptied himself of something. That is, there is something that he emptied himself of something that was necessary in the taking on of the human form. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind. Whatever Paul means here, and we must always be careful to not say more or less than what the Bible says, Jesus, as God Incarnate, still maintains his full deity in becoming truly and fully human.
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant," "being born in the likeness of men"--this is what John 1:14is speaking of. Paul is contrasting Jesus's "being born in the likeness of men" with being in the "form of God."
5. Being found in "human form"--again, as opposed to his having been in "the form of God"--he "humbled himself by becoming obedient."

The whole point of this passage is to show the humility of Christ, which we are to have (verses 1-5). There is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than that of God (the Son) coming to earth and taking on the form of one of his creatures.

So, on the one hand, the Father exalted the Son and set him over all things, which was done for our benefit, so that we would see his exaltation and understand who he is. But, on the other hand, prior to his incarnation, he emptied himself and humbled himself in becoming human, in going from being in the form of God to being in the form of man.

 

[CherubRam]

Yes.


I deny it shows that, yes.


He didn’t place himself over all things, but he did equate himself to God, which is precisely why the other NT writers do as well. Remember my points on Phil 2:5-8, which you didn’t address?

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.
Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ESV)

Some important points to note about this passage:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1--"the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The NIV has a clearer rendering of what is meant in verse 6: "being in very nature God." The Expositor's Greek Testamentand M. R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) agree. That Paul is referring to the divinity of Christ is without question.
2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, he did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation. Again, the NIV brings out the meaning a bit better: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
3. He, being Jesus, emptied himself. Firstly then, it was he who did the emptying. And, secondly, he emptied himself of something. That is, there is something that he emptied himself of something that was necessary in the taking on of the human form. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind. Whatever Paul means here, and we must always be careful to not say more or less than what the Bible says, Jesus, as God Incarnate, still maintains his full deity in becoming truly and fully human.
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant," "being born in the likeness of men"--this is what John 1:14is speaking of. Paul is contrasting Jesus's "being born in the likeness of men" with being in the "form of God."
5. Being found in "human form"--again, as opposed to his having been in "the form of God"--he "humbled himself by becoming obedient."

The whole point of this passage is to show the humility of Christ, which we are to have (verses 1-5). There is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than that of God (the Son) coming to earth and taking on the form of one of his creatures.

So, on the one hand, the Father exalted the Son and set him over all things, which was done for our benefit, so that we would see his exaltation and understand who he is. But, on the other hand, prior to his incarnation, he emptied himself and humbled himself in becoming human, in going from being in the form of God to being in the form of man.

Philippians 2:6 Commentary.



Isaiah 40:25
“To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.

Isaiah 46:5
“With whom will you compare me or count me equal? To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?

Philippians 2:5-7
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Yahshua: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

That word "equal" could be translated in other words, such as, "equated," or "counted," or "equality." If Yahshua states that "The Father is greater than I" and refers to his Father in prayer as "You, the only true God." It's kind of obvious that he's not equal to the one who sent him. "God exalted him," he did not exalt himself.

Here is an alternate reading of Philippians 2:6. Who being in the form of God did not think equality with God as obtainable.

The alternate translation must be correct, because thinking of yourself as equal to God is not humble. Besides that, it would be a contradiction to other scriptures.

 

[Free]

Philippians 2:6 Commentary.



Isaiah 40:25
“To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.

Isaiah 46:5
“With whom will you compare me or count me equal? To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?

Philippians 2:5-7
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Yahshua: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

That word "equal" could be translated in other words, such as, "equated," or "counted," or "equality."

I don’t see any issue with “equality;” it’s the Greek word harpagmos, translated as “robbery” in the KJV.

Php 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; (NIV)

Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, (NRSV)

If Yahshua states that "The Father is greater than I" and refers to his Father in prayer as "You, the only true God." It's kind of obvious that he's not equal to the one who sent him. "God exalted him," he did not exalt himself.

Again, Phil 2:5-8 explains why, as James R. White states, a difference in function does not indicate an inferiority of nature. Numerous passages support the deity of Jesus.

Here is an alternate reading of Philippians 2:6. Who being in the form of God did not think equality with God as obtainable.

The alternate translation must be correct, because thinking of yourself as equal to God is not humble. Besides that, it would be a contradiction to other scriptures.

That reading proves difficult in addressing the points I gave. It also presumes that the Son isn’t God, despite the verse stating that he was “in the form of God” (and that was prior to him becoming a man). I agree that thinking of oneself as not being equal to God isn’t being humble, if one isn’t actually God, but neither is not thinking “equality with God as obtainable.” That is simply the proper creaturely attitude toward God that many besides Jesus had. Besides, the issue was that they were not treating each other well, not that they were thinking equality with God was obtainable. They were equals acting superior to one another, but Jesus was equal to the Father yet humbled himself to become a man.

The reading I have given, based on the points I have brought out from the text and its being consistent with many other texts, is better, in my opinion. It states the greatest humility possible—the creator who became one of his creatures and limited his glory for the purpose of the salvation of humans and the redemption of all creation.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Did I say that anywhere?

You strongly implied it. Im glad I evidently mistook your words.

I'm always open to changing my mind, but I have yet to see any substantial and significant refutation of the Trinity. Combined with the fact that the Trinity has been at the core of the Christian faith for over

I wouldn't overlook the fact that christianity started when Jesus walked the earth some 2000 years ago. Four hundred years is a long time to screw some stuff up. Also. Faith in GOD predates "Christianity". What caused you to deduce that whatever the reformation concluded was amis with the ancient RCC, must have been the only things that had been misinterpreted? Pretty sure the "reformation" was guilty of some pretty heinous atrocities. Or are we not to know them by their fruits?

1600 years, especially when the Reformers kept the doctrine, it is most likely true. Not that the majority makes it correct, but that it has stood the test of time and of strong differences in theology and doctrinal beliefs.

Withstood the test of time!? You must not think 2/3rds of the abrahamic faiths are valid whatsoever...so I guess you can alro disregard all of the it and any other non nt writings? Making a doctrine law of the land and condemning, murdering, and exiling all who oppose all while burning any contrary evidence and writings is not standing the test of time to me. Nor is landgrabbing, pillaging, and waging war things I would consider fruit of the Spirit filled believer or body of Christ.


Numerous scholars past and present find ample support for the doctrine, although there are many discussions about finer nuances.

I'm not a scholar, but I am genuine and came into faith without any bias and with an opened heart. The trinity doctrine is read into scripture via sporadic piecemeal, and gross misunderstanding. Similar to how the supposed jew misunderstood all things regarding faith nearly.

Mostly the world but many who believe they are saved but are not.

How can the many refer to the world? To me it refers strictly to the supposed believer alone. Thankfully our GOD is merciful and will not hold the ignorant to the measurement weighed against the one who knows and knowingly deceives.

Yes, the number of true believers are relatively few.


The very opposite of me then.

Let's discuss

It is by far the best explanation of all that God reveals about himself in the Bible. Based on what Jesus, John, Paul, and Peter write, the Trinity is the only, or at least the best, rational conclusion.

I do not agree. Something else to discuss.

Why should it be four? I don't see how your conclusion follows.

1) Father
2) the Holy Spirit
3) Jesus (wholly man)
4) Jesus (wholly GOD)

The doctrine of the Trinity is largely a doctrine of the ontological nature of God—God has he self-existed for all eternity past--three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial, divine persons within the one being that is God.

That is said no where in any scripture or sacred texts relating even loosely to Christianity; unless you seek out Gnostic writings perhaps; and even then...

Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, the preincarnate Word, who "became flesh." He has two natures, God and man, perfectly united but not mixed within his body. He is still one person, but your question assumes that he should either have a split personality or have deified his human nature, so as to somehow constitute two separate persons.


I don’t understand what you’re saying here.


There is one substance that is God and there is one Holy Spirit.

I disagree. The one "substance" is the Holy Spirit which is GOD.

The Holy Spirit is called, among other things, both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9), yet remains distinct as a person. There is no mention in the Bible of "the Spirit of the Father."

I disagree again; Matthew 10:20

No.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Yes.

Who sent Christ? Who gave Him back His glory? Who did Christ pray to? Who did Christ say was His GOD, His Father?

I deny it shows that, yes.

It says expressly that Christ name was placed above all names except for the One having placed Christ over all other names. How is that not plain to you? There is no way to reasonably conflate the meaning of the text here; especially when one considers the simple reading of whole of the bible. We are never to conflate the material and temporal with the spiritual or eternal... In my opinion.

He didn’t place himself over all things, but he did equate himself to God, which is precisely why the other NT writers do as well. Remember my points on Phil 2:5-8, which you didn’t address?

Actually I brought up those verses only to be ignored and then have you post them again as if they support the idea that Jesus thought He was GOD almighty rather than united in Spirit with His LORD and ours.

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,

... You agree that a form of a thing is not the utter limit or reality of that thing I hope.
It's a figurative understanding of the word "form" anyway. A representative is not the same one as whom he is representing. An image is not also the original, nor does it create itself. The word is spoken by the one in whom the ideal lies and does it speak itself into existence.

Past that it plainly says He did not think to consider himself equal to GOD though He was in a form of, or representation of GOD. It says to have the same mind in us. And you would have us contend that each is GOD almighty I suppose. That's a joke; but hopefully you can see how easily your doctrine can lead to grand error.

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.
Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ESV)

The whole section you quoted attests to the fact that GOD is greater than Jesus, HIS Christ.

Some important points to note about this passage:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1--"the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

"was" GOD... before becoming man; having received back His glory upon ascension.

The NIV has a clearer rendering of what is meant in verse 6: "being in very nature God." The Expositor's Greek Testamentand M. R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) agree. That Paul is referring to the divinity of Christ is without question.

I prefer interlinears personally.
It starts off speaking of not been filled with vanity and haught, and goes on to show that even GOD'S Christ was utterly humble and submissive to GOD; His GOD. Both interlinears I've looked into denote and express that He did not consider self equal to GOD regardless of His placement; that placement that He received from GOD, not self; for submitting to the will of GOD; not for claiming to be equal or partner to GOD.

2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, he did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation. Again, the NIV brings out the meaning a bit better: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
3. He, being Jesus, emptied himself. Firstly then, it was he who did the emptying. And, secondly, he emptied himself of something. That is, there is something that he emptied himself of something that was necessary in the taking on of the human form. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind. Whatever Paul means here, and we must always be careful to not say more or less than what the Bible says, Jesus, as God Incarnate, still maintains his full deity in becoming truly and fully human.
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant," "being born in the likeness of men"--this is what John 1:14is speaking of. Paul is contrasting Jesus's "being born in the likeness of men" with being in the "form of God."
5. Being found in "human form"--again, as opposed to his having been in "the form of God"--he "humbled himself by becoming obedient."

The whole point of this passage is to show the humility of Christ, which we are to have (verses 1-5). There is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than that of God (the Son) coming to earth and taking on the form of one of his creatures.

So, on the one hand, the Father exalted the Son and set him over all things, which was done for our benefit, so that we would see his exaltation and understand who he is. But, on the other hand, prior to his incarnation, he emptied himself and humbled himself in becoming human, in going from being in the form of God to being in the form of man.