Are we under any covenants?

[TomL]

@Peterlag debunked your presentation of the word "form" in his thoughtful response above. You need to address that instead of just disregarding it like it never happened. Since form refers to the physical, outward, appearance then your premise regarding a pre-existence is moot unless you're saying Jesus pre-existed as a literal human, which I don't believe you are.

Sorry no he did not

He expressed his opinion ignored the lexical data and the point of the passage which you do as well

The pre-existence of Christ which is my point, not so much the meaning of morphe

but Morphe

Noun Usage
1. form (essence)† — the expression of something (such as a visual, spatial, or preternatural expression) that reflects or manifests fully and truly (and permanently) the essence of what something is. Related Topics: Nature; Form.
Php 2:6 ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ
Php 2:7 ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου
2. form (manifestation)† — a particular mode in which something is existing. Related Topic: Form.
Mk 16:12 ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ πορευομένοις
Rick Brannan, ed., Lexham Research Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Lexham Research Lexicons; Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020).

μορφή, -ῆς, ἡ, [fr. root signifying ‘to lay hold of’, ‘seize’ (cf. Germ. Fassung); Fick, Pt. i. p. 174; Vaniček p. 719], fr. Hom. down, the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance: children are said to reflect ψυχῆς τε καὶ μορφῆς ὁμοιότητα (of their parents), 4 Macc. 15:3 (4); ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ, Mk. 16:12; ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, Phil. 2:6; μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ibid. 7;—this whole passage (as I have shown more fully in the Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. for 1873, p. 33 sqq., with which compare the different view given by Holsten in the Jahrbb. f. protest. Theol. for 1875, p. 449 sqq.) is to be explained as follows: who, although (formerly when he was λόγος ἄσαρκος) he bore the form (in which he appeared to the inhabitants of heaven) of God (the sovereign, opp. to μορφ. δούλου), yet did not think that this equality with God was to be eagerly clung to or retained (see ἁρπαγμός, 2), but emptied himself of it (see κενόω, 1) so as to assume the form of a servant, in that he became like unto men (for angels also are δοῦλοι τοῦ θεοῦ, Rev. 19:10; 22:8 sq.) and was found in fashion as a man. (God μένει ἀεὶ ἁπλῶς ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ μορφῇ, Plat. de rep. 2 p. 381 c., and it is denied that God φαντάζεσθαι ἄλλοτε ἐν ἄλλαις ἰδέαις … καὶ ἀλλάττοντα τὸ αὐτοῦ εἶδος εἰς πολλὰς μορφὰς … καὶ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἰδέας ἐκβαίνειν, p. 380 d.; ἥκιστʼ ἂν πολλὰς μορφὰς ἴσχοι ὁ θεός, p. 381 b.; ἑνὸς σώματος οὐσίαν μετασχηματίζειν καὶ μεταχαράττειν εἰς πολυτρόπους μορφάς, Philo leg. ad Gaium § 11; οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ τὸ νόμισμα παράκομμα καὶ θεοῦ μορφὴ γίνεται, ibid. §14 fin.; God ἔργοις μὲν καὶ χάρισιν ἐναργὴς καὶ παντὸς οὑτινοσοῦν φανερώτερος, μορφήν δὲ καὶ μέγεθος ἡμῖν ἀφανέστατος, Joseph, c. Ap. 2, 22, 2.)*

Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm’s Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (New York: Harper & Brothers., 1889), 418.


FORM (Noun)
1. morphe (μορφή, 3444) denotes “the special or characteristic form or feature” of a person or thing; it is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Phil. 2:6, 7, in the phrases “being in the form of God,” and “taking the form of a servant.” An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: “morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists.… Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ.… For the interpretation of ‘the form of God’ it is sufficient to say that (1) it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them


W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, 1996), 251.

Morphḗ in Phil. 2:6–8 presumes an obj. reality. No one could be in the form (morphḗ) of God who was not God. However, morphḗ is not the shaping of pure thought. It is the utterance of the inner life, a life that bespeaks the existence of God. He who had been in morphḗ Theoú, in the form of God, from eternity (John 17:5

Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000).

 

[Peterlag]

The meaning of the word translated form is not the issue

His existing at that time before he became a man even before the world was is

You have not addressed it

If there was a trinity. Then it would have been taught in the Scriptures. Not a word here that can mean 30 different meanings like the word "logos" or a word scattered someplace else halfway across the Bible. Something that important would have been taught. And yet the Jews never said a word about it nor any teaching on it in the New Testament. And then there are all kinds of clear whole teachings stating Jesus was a man. And all of these you ignore by saying that was his man side.

This “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible and contradicts the Bible and the laws of nature that God set up. Nothing can be 100% of two different things. Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100% man, and that is not a “mystery” but it's a contradiction and a talk of nonsense. A fatal flaw in the “dual nature” theory is that both natures in Jesus would have had to have known about each other. The Jesus God nature would have known about his human nature, and (according to what the Trinitarians teach) his human nature knew he was God, which explains why Trinitarians say Jesus taught that he was God. The book of Hebrews is wrong when it says Jesus was “made like his brothers in every respect” if Jesus knew he was God (Hebrews 2:17). Jesus was not made like other humans in every way if Jesus was 100% God and 100% human at the same time. In fact, he would have been very different from other humans in many respects.

For example, in his God nature he would not have been tempted by anything (James 1:13), and his human part would not have been tempted either since his human nature had access to that same knowledge and assurance. It is written he was tempted in every way like we all are (Hebrews 4:15). Furthermore, God does not have the problems, uncertainty, and anxieties that humans do, and Jesus would not have had those either if he knew he was God. Also, Luke 2:52 says Jesus grew in wisdom, but his human part would have had access to his God part, which would have given him infinite and inherent wisdom. Hebrews says Jesus “learned obedience” by the things that he suffered, but again, the human part of Jesus would have accessed the God part of him and he would not have needed to learn anything.

Kenotic Trinitarians claim that Jesus put off or limited His God nature, but that theology only developed to try to reconcile some of the verses about what Christ experienced on the earth. The idea that God can limit what He knows or experiences as God is not taught or explained in Scripture, and Kenotic Trinitarianism has been rejected by orthodox Trinitarians for exactly that reason. The very simple way to explain the “difficult verses” that Kenotic Trinitarians are trying to explain about Christ’s human experiences is to realize that Jesus was a fully human being, and not both God and man at the same time. Some assert we have to take the Trinity “by faith” but that is not biblical either.

 

[dwight92070]

TomL,
I appreciate your knowledge of Greek and the word study that you did there, but isn't it true that in a good translation like the NASB (1995) and the KJV, or the NKJV, much of that work has already been done for us? The real problem is that if they don't believe a good English translation, then why would they believe the original Greek? The real issue is their rejection of the truth, whether it's in Greek or English.
In my opinion, that's who we're dealing with and what we're dealing with, when people give all kinds of reasons why the Bible doesn't say what it does say. John chapter one is the classic example. They have so many alternate views on this chapter, that they could write a book. The only view that they reject, is what John actually said. What they're really saying is "We'll accept anything but the truth." or "As long as it disproves that Jesus is God, we'll take it."

 

[Peterlag]

Those are well-known and clever words. Sometimes they are true and sometimes they are not.

If they were always true, then Jesus lost His debate with the scribes and Pharisees, when He sharply insulted them in Matthew 23.

Jesus' words there show that sometimes certain people deserve an insult, by a person who is speaking the truth, because they are sinfully rejecting the truth.

The Socrates quote also shows us that we can't rely on his words vs. the words of scripture.

Once again, I'm amazed at the false quote you came up with, which is not even from the Bible - but then you don't believe Jesus is God, so I shouldn't be surprised. Believing that Jesus is not God, is also not from the Bible.

Not to mention that you've served up your share of insults yourself.

If there was a trinity. Then it would have been taught in the Scriptures. Not a word here that can mean 30 different meanings like the word "logos" or a word scattered someplace else halfway across the Bible. Something that important would have been taught. And yet the Jews never said a word about it nor any teaching on it in the New Testament. And then there are all kinds of clear whole teachings stating Jesus was a man. And all of these you ignore by saying that was his man side.

This “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible and contradicts the Bible and the laws of nature that God set up. Nothing can be 100% of two different things. Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100% man, and that is not a “mystery” but it's a contradiction and a talk of nonsense. A fatal flaw in the “dual nature” theory is that both natures in Jesus would have had to have known about each other. The Jesus God nature would have known about his human nature, and (according to what the Trinitarians teach) his human nature knew he was God, which explains why Trinitarians say Jesus taught that he was God. The book of Hebrews is wrong when it says Jesus was “made like his brothers in every respect” if Jesus knew he was God (Hebrews 2:17). Jesus was not made like other humans in every way if Jesus was 100% God and 100% human at the same time. In fact, he would have been very different from other humans in many respects.

For example, in his God nature he would not have been tempted by anything (James 1:13), and his human part would not have been tempted either since his human nature had access to that same knowledge and assurance. It is written he was tempted in every way like we all are (Hebrews 4:15). Furthermore, God does not have the problems, uncertainty, and anxieties that humans do, and Jesus would not have had those either if he knew he was God. Also, Luke 2:52 says Jesus grew in wisdom, but his human part would have had access to his God part, which would have given him infinite and inherent wisdom. Hebrews says Jesus “learned obedience” by the things that he suffered, but again, the human part of Jesus would have accessed the God part of him and he would not have needed to learn anything.

Kenotic Trinitarians claim that Jesus put off or limited His God nature, but that theology only developed to try to reconcile some of the verses about what Christ experienced on the earth. The idea that God can limit what He knows or experiences as God is not taught or explained in Scripture, and Kenotic Trinitarianism has been rejected by orthodox Trinitarians for exactly that reason. The very simple way to explain the “difficult verses” that Kenotic Trinitarians are trying to explain about Christ’s human experiences is to realize that Jesus was a fully human being, and not both God and man at the same time. Some assert we have to take the Trinity “by faith” but that is not biblical either.

 

[Runningman]

Sorry no he did not

He expressed his opinion ignored the lexical data and the point of the passage which you do as well

The pre-existence of Christ which is my point, not so much the meaning of morphe

but Morphe

Noun Usage
1. form (essence)† — the expression of something (such as a visual, spatial, or preternatural expression) that reflects or manifests fully and truly (and permanently) the essence of what something is. Related Topics: Nature; Form.
Php 2:6 ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ
Php 2:7 ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου
2. form (manifestation)† — a particular mode in which something is existing. Related Topic: Form.
Mk 16:12 ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ πορευομένοις
Rick Brannan, ed., Lexham Research Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Lexham Research Lexicons; Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020).

μορφή, -ῆς, ἡ, [fr. root signifying ‘to lay hold of’, ‘seize’ (cf. Germ. Fassung); Fick, Pt. i. p. 174; Vaniček p. 719], fr. Hom. down, the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance: children are said to reflect ψυχῆς τε καὶ μορφῆς ὁμοιότητα (of their parents), 4 Macc. 15:3 (4); ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ, Mk. 16:12; ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, Phil. 2:6; μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ibid. 7;—this whole passage (as I have shown more fully in the Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. for 1873, p. 33 sqq., with which compare the different view given by Holsten in the Jahrbb. f. protest. Theol. for 1875, p. 449 sqq.) is to be explained as follows: who, although (formerly when he was λόγος ἄσαρκος) he bore the form (in which he appeared to the inhabitants of heaven) of God (the sovereign, opp. to μορφ. δούλου), yet did not think that this equality with God was to be eagerly clung to or retained (see ἁρπαγμός, 2), but emptied himself of it (see κενόω, 1) so as to assume the form of a servant, in that he became like unto men (for angels also are δοῦλοι τοῦ θεοῦ, Rev. 19:10; 22:8 sq.) and was found in fashion as a man. (God μένει ἀεὶ ἁπλῶς ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ μορφῇ, Plat. de rep. 2 p. 381 c., and it is denied that God φαντάζεσθαι ἄλλοτε ἐν ἄλλαις ἰδέαις … καὶ ἀλλάττοντα τὸ αὐτοῦ εἶδος εἰς πολλὰς μορφὰς … καὶ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἰδέας ἐκβαίνειν, p. 380 d.; ἥκιστʼ ἂν πολλὰς μορφὰς ἴσχοι ὁ θεός, p. 381 b.; ἑνὸς σώματος οὐσίαν μετασχηματίζειν καὶ μεταχαράττειν εἰς πολυτρόπους μορφάς, Philo leg. ad Gaium § 11; οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ τὸ νόμισμα παράκομμα καὶ θεοῦ μορφὴ γίνεται, ibid. §14 fin.; God ἔργοις μὲν καὶ χάρισιν ἐναργὴς καὶ παντὸς οὑτινοσοῦν φανερώτερος, μορφήν δὲ καὶ μέγεθος ἡμῖν ἀφανέστατος, Joseph, c. Ap. 2, 22, 2.)*

Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm’s Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (New York: Harper & Brothers., 1889), 418.


FORM (Noun)
1. morphe (μορφή, 3444) denotes “the special or characteristic form or feature” of a person or thing; it is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Phil. 2:6, 7, in the phrases “being in the form of God,” and “taking the form of a servant.” An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: “morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists.… Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ.… For the interpretation of ‘the form of God’ it is sufficient to say that (1) it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them


W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, 1996), 251.

Morphḗ in Phil. 2:6–8 presumes an obj. reality. No one could be in the form (morphḗ) of God who was not God. However, morphḗ is not the shaping of pure thought. It is the utterance of the inner life, a life that bespeaks the existence of God. He who had been in morphḗ Theoú, in the form of God, from eternity (John 17:5

Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000).

Your private interpretation of "form" morphe is demonstrated to have been inconsistent with Scripture. An example was given in which the form or Jesus changed on the mount of transfiguration. In which case, your argument for the word morphe referring to the inner nature of God falls apart. Now it would be that God's nature changed.

This is also apparent in Mark 16:12, which says "After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country." So in order for your argument to hold any consistency, it must contradict itself, and thus actually prove Jesus isn't God for having a nature that changes. When the word we are dealing with here is understood by its proper definition then there aren't any issues that rise up.

Trinitarians actually agree with the Bible on this point as well. There is the Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon which states morphe means form. Walter Bauer's lexicon says morphe means the form, outward appearance, and/or shape. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says morphe means the form or external appearance. Thayer's lexicon says morphe means "form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance."

The way you're using this word is foreign in Greek literature as well. You're free to look up Greek literature that contains the word you're talking about. So you have a theological definition that is not even consistent with your theology or the Bible, not a literal definition. The literal definition contradicts what your premise is and works good all over the Bible. I strongly believe you are going the wrong direction with this.

 

[TomL]

Your private interpretation of "form" morphe is demonstrated to have been inconsistent with Scripture. An example was given in which the form or Jesus changed on the mount of transfiguration. In which case, your argument for the word morphe referring to the inner nature of God falls apart. Now it would be that God's nature changed.

That is funny seeing as I am not the author of all those lexicons you just ignored

but Morphe

Noun Usage
1. form (essence)† — the expression of something (such as a visual, spatial, or preternatural expression) that reflects or manifests fully and truly (and permanently) the essence of what something is. Related Topics: Nature; Form.
Php 2:6 ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ
Php 2:7 ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου
2. form (manifestation)† — a particular mode in which something is existing. Related Topic: Form.
Mk 16:12 ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ πορευομένοις
Rick Brannan, ed., Lexham Research Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Lexham Research Lexicons; Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020).

μορφή, -ῆς, ἡ, [fr. root signifying ‘to lay hold of’, ‘seize’ (cf. Germ. Fassung); Fick, Pt. i. p. 174; Vaniček p. 719], fr. Hom. down, the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance: children are said to reflect ψυχῆς τε καὶ μορφῆς ὁμοιότητα (of their parents), 4 Macc. 15:3 (4); ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ, Mk. 16:12; ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, Phil. 2:6; μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ibid. 7;—this whole passage (as I have shown more fully in the Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. for 1873, p. 33 sqq., with which compare the different view given by Holsten in the Jahrbb. f. protest. Theol. for 1875, p. 449 sqq.) is to be explained as follows: who, although (formerly when he was λόγος ἄσαρκος) he bore the form (in which he appeared to the inhabitants of heaven) of God (the sovereign, opp. to μορφ. δούλου), yet did not think that this equality with God was to be eagerly clung to or retained (see ἁρπαγμός, 2), but emptied himself of it (see κενόω, 1) so as to assume the form of a servant, in that he became like unto men (for angels also are δοῦλοι τοῦ θεοῦ, Rev. 19:10; 22:8 sq.) and was found in fashion as a man. (God μένει ἀεὶ ἁπλῶς ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ μορφῇ, Plat. de rep. 2 p. 381 c., and it is denied that God φαντάζεσθαι ἄλλοτε ἐν ἄλλαις ἰδέαις … καὶ ἀλλάττοντα τὸ αὐτοῦ εἶδος εἰς πολλὰς μορφὰς … καὶ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἰδέας ἐκβαίνειν, p. 380 d.; ἥκιστʼ ἂν πολλὰς μορφὰς ἴσχοι ὁ θεός, p. 381 b.; ἑνὸς σώματος οὐσίαν μετασχηματίζειν καὶ μεταχαράττειν εἰς πολυτρόπους μορφάς, Philo leg. ad Gaium § 11; οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ τὸ νόμισμα παράκομμα καὶ θεοῦ μορφὴ γίνεται, ibid. §14 fin.; God ἔργοις μὲν καὶ χάρισιν ἐναργὴς καὶ παντὸς οὑτινοσοῦν φανερώτερος, μορφήν δὲ καὶ μέγεθος ἡμῖν ἀφανέστατος, Joseph, c. Ap. 2, 22, 2.)*

Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm’s Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (New York: Harper & Brothers., 1889), 418.


FORM (Noun)
1. morphe (μορφή, 3444) denotes “the special or characteristic form or feature” of a person or thing; it is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Phil. 2:6, 7, in the phrases “being in the form of God,” and “taking the form of a servant.” An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: “morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists.… Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ.… For the interpretation of ‘the form of God’ it is sufficient to say that (1) it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them


W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, 1996), 251.

Morphḗ in Phil. 2:6–8 presumes an obj. reality. No one could be in the form (morphḗ) of God who was not God. However, morphḗ is not the shaping of pure thought. It is the utterance of the inner life, a life that bespeaks the existence of God. He who had been in morphḗ Theoú, in the form of God, from eternity (John 17:5

Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000).

This is also apparent in Mark 16:12, which says "After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country." So in order for your argument to hold any consistency, it must contradict itself, and thus actually prove Jesus isn't God for having a nature that changes. When the word we are dealing with here is understood by its proper definition then there aren't any issues that rise up.

Trinitarians actually agree with the Bible on this point as well. There is the Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon which states morphe means form. Walter Bauer's lexicon says morphe means the form, outward appearance, and/or shape. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says morphe means the form or external appearance. Thayer's lexicon says morphe means "form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance."

The way you're using this word is foreign in Greek literature as well. You're free to look up Greek literature that contains the word you're talking about. So you have a theological definition that is not even consistent with your theology or the Bible, not a literal definition. The literal definition contradicts what your premise is and works good all over the Bible. I strongly believe you are going the wrong direction with this.

And again God does not have an outward form, so the word must be used in another sense as the lexicons show

Bottom line however both you, and he continue failing to account for the fact Christ existed in another form before becoming flesh thus is shown as pre-existing and in that form he was able to consider and example humility showing himself a personal being not an impersonal plan as was claimed

 

[Runningman]

That is funny seeing as I am not the author of all those lexicons you just ignored

but Morphe

Noun Usage
1. form (essence)† — the expression of something (such as a visual, spatial, or preternatural expression) that reflects or manifests fully and truly (and permanently) the essence of what something is. Related Topics: Nature; Form.
Php 2:6 ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ
Php 2:7 ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου
2. form (manifestation)† — a particular mode in which something is existing. Related Topic: Form.
Mk 16:12 ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ πορευομένοις
Rick Brannan, ed., Lexham Research Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Lexham Research Lexicons; Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020).

μορφή, -ῆς, ἡ, [fr. root signifying ‘to lay hold of’, ‘seize’ (cf. Germ. Fassung); Fick, Pt. i. p. 174; Vaniček p. 719], fr. Hom. down, the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance: children are said to reflect ψυχῆς τε καὶ μορφῆς ὁμοιότητα (of their parents), 4 Macc. 15:3 (4); ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ, Mk. 16:12; ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, Phil. 2:6; μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ibid. 7;—this whole passage (as I have shown more fully in the Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. for 1873, p. 33 sqq., with which compare the different view given by Holsten in the Jahrbb. f. protest. Theol. for 1875, p. 449 sqq.) is to be explained as follows: who, although (formerly when he was λόγος ἄσαρκος) he bore the form (in which he appeared to the inhabitants of heaven) of God (the sovereign, opp. to μορφ. δούλου), yet did not think that this equality with God was to be eagerly clung to or retained (see ἁρπαγμός, 2), but emptied himself of it (see κενόω, 1) so as to assume the form of a servant, in that he became like unto men (for angels also are δοῦλοι τοῦ θεοῦ, Rev. 19:10; 22:8 sq.) and was found in fashion as a man. (God μένει ἀεὶ ἁπλῶς ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ μορφῇ, Plat. de rep. 2 p. 381 c., and it is denied that God φαντάζεσθαι ἄλλοτε ἐν ἄλλαις ἰδέαις … καὶ ἀλλάττοντα τὸ αὐτοῦ εἶδος εἰς πολλὰς μορφὰς … καὶ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἰδέας ἐκβαίνειν, p. 380 d.; ἥκιστʼ ἂν πολλὰς μορφὰς ἴσχοι ὁ θεός, p. 381 b.; ἑνὸς σώματος οὐσίαν μετασχηματίζειν καὶ μεταχαράττειν εἰς πολυτρόπους μορφάς, Philo leg. ad Gaium § 11; οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ τὸ νόμισμα παράκομμα καὶ θεοῦ μορφὴ γίνεται, ibid. §14 fin.; God ἔργοις μὲν καὶ χάρισιν ἐναργὴς καὶ παντὸς οὑτινοσοῦν φανερώτερος, μορφήν δὲ καὶ μέγεθος ἡμῖν ἀφανέστατος, Joseph, c. Ap. 2, 22, 2.)*

Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm’s Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (New York: Harper & Brothers., 1889), 418.


FORM (Noun)
1. morphe (μορφή, 3444) denotes “the special or characteristic form or feature” of a person or thing; it is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Phil. 2:6, 7, in the phrases “being in the form of God,” and “taking the form of a servant.” An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: “morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists.… Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ.… For the interpretation of ‘the form of God’ it is sufficient to say that (1) it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them


W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, 1996), 251.

Morphḗ in Phil. 2:6–8 presumes an obj. reality. No one could be in the form (morphḗ) of God who was not God. However, morphḗ is not the shaping of pure thought. It is the utterance of the inner life, a life that bespeaks the existence of God. He who had been in morphḗ Theoú, in the form of God, from eternity (John 17:5

Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000).




And again God does not have an outward form, so the word must be used in another sense as the lexicons show

Bottom line however both you, and he continue failing to account for the fact Christ existed in another form before becoming flesh thus is shown as pre-existing and in that form he was able to consider and example humility showing himself a personal being not an impersonal plan as was claimed

Either Scripture is wrong or you and your sources are wrong. Correct, God does not have an outward form which is what we have been telling you. You just said it. There words are in your mouth, but the puzzle pieces aren't connecting. Since God does not have an outward form then Jesus being in the form of the invisible God means that Jesus is not himself God, but the outward appearance of God can be physically represented by holy living, acts of righteousness and love. This is something the church of Philippi can do... that's why Paul told them to have the mind of Jesus. Getting it now?

 

[DavidTree]

Precious friends, for your prayerful and Careful consideration:

"When the Bible speaks of covenants in the specific sense, it is speaking of the covenants given to God’s chosen nation Israel. No one today in the dispensation of Grace is a partaker of the covenants which are made between Israel and God.

Hebrews 8:7 speaks of the first covenant and the second covenant given to Israel. The first covenant describes the Law as given to Israel at Horeb:


The second covenant, or ‘better covenant’, is the ‘new covenant’ also given to Israel (Heb 8:13, 12:24).


And again in Jeremiah:


Knowing that the covenants were given to Israel and Judah, Paul stated concerning his brethren according to the flesh, Israel,


Gentiles and the Body of Christ

The covenants were between God and Israel regarding their future redemption as spoken of by the prophets since the world began. However, Gentiles in time past as well as those in the body
of Christ today are not a part of the covenants.

Paul says,


In order for a Gentile in time past to get the blessings of God they had to follow the provisions of the covenant. (See “Did Gentiles in the Old Testament get saved?” for more.) However, they were estranged from the covenants given to Israel.

During the dispensation of Grace, believers receive the benefits of the redemptive work of Christ
on the cross outside of any covenant relationship. It was purely by God’s grace that we receive
eternal life and the blessings associated with salvation. Otherwise grace would not be grace
(Romans 11:6).

Today there is neither Jew nor Gentile. There is no special status before God for any nation today.


Instead of a covenant providing the necessary terms of redemption, believers today are
of the same body and partakers of the promise in Christ by the gospel of the grace of God
(Eph 3:6, Titus 1:2-3). We receive the mercy and the grace of God apart from our adherence
to any covenant given in time past, we receive it by faith (Romans 5:1, 8-10)."

(J Johnson, a fellow Grace ambassador)

Amen.

View attachment 602

The covenants were between God and Israel regarding their future redemption as spoken of by the prophets since the world began. However, Gentiles in time past as well as those in the body
of Christ today are not a part of the covenants.

ANTICHRIST lies which comes from the LIE of pre-trib rapture

REPENT from lying against the words and the Eternal Covenant of ELOHIM

ELOHIM established HIS Eternal Covenant for ALL nations = Genesis 3:15

So the Lord God said to the serpent:

“Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.
15And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head = GOSPEL
And you shall bruise His heel.”

And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

That DAMNABLE pre-trib heresy is prepared for the FIRE
Any word or doctrine that opposes the word of MESSIAH is antichrist

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
But as many as received Him, to them(Jew & Gentile) He gave the right to become sons of God,
to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

This TRUTH has been color-coded to help you SEE​

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

the pre-fibbers and the unrepentant Israel of the flesh SHARE in the same heresy;

Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.
For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness,
have not submitted to the righteousness of God.
For MESSIAH is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

REPENT from mishandling God's words for a DAMNABLE Heresy that comes from seeking honor from men.

 

[Peterlag]

Your private interpretation of "form" morphe is demonstrated to have been inconsistent with Scripture. An example was given in which the form or Jesus changed on the mount of transfiguration. In which case, your argument for the word morphe referring to the inner nature of God falls apart. Now it would be that God's nature changed.

This is also apparent in Mark 16:12, which says "After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country." So in order for your argument to hold any consistency, it must contradict itself, and thus actually prove Jesus isn't God for having a nature that changes. When the word we are dealing with here is understood by its proper definition then there aren't any issues that rise up.

Trinitarians actually agree with the Bible on this point as well. There is the Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon which states morphe means form. Walter Bauer's lexicon says morphe means the form, outward appearance, and/or shape. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says morphe means the form or external appearance. Thayer's lexicon says morphe means "form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance."

The way you're using this word is foreign in Greek literature as well. You're free to look up Greek literature that contains the word you're talking about. So you have a theological definition that is not even consistent with your theology or the Bible, not a literal definition. The literal definition contradicts what your premise is and works good all over the Bible. I strongly believe you are going the wrong direction with this.

From secular writings, we learn that the Greeks used morphē to describe when the gods changed their appearance. Kittel points out that in pagan mythology, the gods change their forms (morphē), and especially notes Aphrodite, Demeter, and Dionysus as three who did. This is clearly a change of appearance, not nature. Josephus, a contemporary of the apostles, used morphē to describe the shape of statues.

The Jews translating the Septuagint used morphē several times, and it always referred to the outward appearance. Job says, “A spirit passed before my face. The hair of my flesh stood up. It stood still but I could not discern its appearance. A form (morphē) was before my eyes. There was silence, then I heard a voice” (Job 4:15-16). There is no question here that morphē refers to the outward appearance. Isaiah has the word morphē in reference to man-made idols: “The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in the form (morphē) of man, of man in all his glory, that it may dwell in a shrine” (Isa. 44:13). It would be absurd to assert that morphē referred to “the essential nature” in this verse, as if a wooden carving could have the “essential nature” of man. The verse is clear: the idol has the “outward appearance” of a man. According to Daniel 3:19, after Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s image, he became enraged and “the form (morphē) of his appearance” changed. The NASB says, “his facial expression” changed. Nothing in his nature changed, but the people watching could see that his outward appearance changed.

For still more documentation that the Jews used morphē to refer to the outward appearance, we turn to what is known as the “Apocrypha,” books written between the time of Malachi and Matthew. “Apocrypha” literally means “obscure” or “hidden away,” and these books are rightly not accepted by most Protestants as being part of the true canon, but are accepted by Roman Catholics and printed in Catholic Bibles. Our interest in them is due to the fact that they were written near the time of the writing of the New Testament, were known to the Jews at that time, and contain the word morphē. In the Apocrypha, morphē is used in the same way that the Septuagint translators use it, i.e., as outward appearance. For example, in “The Wisdom of Solomon” is the following: “Their enemies heard their voices, but did not see their forms” (18:1). A study of morphē in the Apocrypha will show that it always referred to the outer form.

Another reason that morphē does not refer to the essential nature of Christ in this context is that if the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say that? If Jesus is God, say that, don’t say he has the “essential nature of God.” Of course God has the “essential nature” of God, so why would anyone make that point? This verse does not say, “Jesus, being God,” but rather, “being in the form of God.” Paul is reminding the Philippians that Jesus represented the Father in every possible way.

So what can we conclude about morphē? The Philippian church consisted of Jews and converted Greeks. From the Septuagint and their other writings, the Jews were familiar with morphē referring to the outward appearance, including the form of men and idols. To the Greeks, it also referred to the outward appearance, including the changing outward appearance of their gods and the form of statues. The only other New Testament use of morphē outside Philippians is in Mark, and there it refers to the outward appearance. Also, the words related to morphē clearly refer to an outward manifestation or appearance. We assert the actual evidence is clear: the word morphē refers to an outward appearance or manifestation. Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God, so much so that he said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Christ always did the Father’s will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.

Schema, as Kittel points out, can be synonymous with morphē, but it has more of an emphasis on outward trappings rather than outward appearance, and often points to that which is more transitory in nature, like the clothing we wear or an appearance we have for just a short time. As human beings, we always have the outward form (morphē) of human beings. Yet there is a sense in which our schema, our appearance, is always changing. We start as babies, and grow and develop, then we mature and age. This is so much the case that a person’s outward appearance is one of the most common topics of conversation between people when they meet. We say, “Wow, you’ve lost weight,” or “You have changed your hairstyle,” and point out even minor changes in appearance.

Like the rest of us, Christ was fully human and had the outward form (morphē) of a human. However, because he always did the Father’s will and demonstrated godly behavior and obedience, he therefore had the outward “appearance” (morphē) of God also. Also, like the rest of us, his appearance (schema) regularly changed. Thus, in Philippians 2:6-8, schema can be synonymous with morphē, or it can place an emphasis on the fact that the appearance Christ had as a human being was transitory in nature. The wording of Philippians 2:6-8 does not present us with a God-man, with whom none of us can identify. Rather, it presents us with a man just like we are, who grew and aged, yet who was so focused on God in every thought and deed that he perfectly represented the Father.

 

[Grace ambassador]

damnable lies of pre-trib heresy? don't think so:

Great Grace Departure!

repent from mishandling the Word of Truth - already done that:

Handling The Precious Word Of Life!​

Amen.

 

[dwight92070]

So if He was just fully man LIKE US, then why was he born unlike any other man? Why did He not have a father who was fully man LIKE US? Did your mother tell you that when you were conceived in her womb, it was actually the Holy Spirit coming upon her, and the power of the Most High (God) overshadowing her, that caused conception to take place? Did your father confide in you(when you became an adult), that he did not have sexual relations with your mom until after you were born? So that your birth was not only a miracle, but a miracle that NEVER happened before or since then, where God Himself fathered a child with a human woman.

Given that scriptural information, it is LAUGHABLE to call Jesus just fully man like the rest of us.

 

[TomL]

Either Scripture is wrong or you and your sources are wrong. Correct, God does not have an outward form which is what we have been telling you. You just said it. There words are in your mouth, but the puzzle pieces aren't connecting. Since God does not have an outward form then Jesus being in the form of the invisible God means that Jesus is not himself God, but the outward appearance of God can be physically represented by holy living, acts of righteousness and love. This is something the church of Philippi can do... that's why Paul told them to have the mind of Jesus. Getting it now?

Or your understanding of morphe is wrong

the lexicons prove you wrong

Scripture proves you wrong
'
Hebrews 1:3 (ESV) — 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

and your logic is absurd, the plain answer is morphe in this case carries another meaning other than what you would like

The lexicons tell us what that is, and it is not your made up definition

 

[DavidTree]

damnable lies of pre-trib heresy? don't think so:

Great Grace Departure!

repent from mishandling the Word of Truth - already done that:

Handling The Precious Word Of Life!​

Amen.

When you say "two covenants" you LIE against God's words of ONE Covenant for Jew & Gentile

Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
Now in Christ Jesus you GENTILES who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both Jew & Gentile one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. ​

For through Him we/Jew & Gentile BOTH have access by ONE SPIRIT to the FATHER​

Now, therefore, you Gentiles are no longer strangers and foreigners,

but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,

having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,

Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together,
grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

REPENT from your damnable heresies of separating Jew from Gentile in Yahshuah HaMashiach

 

[Runningman]

From secular writings, we learn that the Greeks used morphē to describe when the gods changed their appearance. Kittel points out that in pagan mythology, the gods change their forms (morphē), and especially notes Aphrodite, Demeter, and Dionysus as three who did. This is clearly a change of appearance, not nature. Josephus, a contemporary of the apostles, used morphē to describe the shape of statues.

The Jews translating the Septuagint used morphē several times, and it always referred to the outward appearance. Job says, “A spirit passed before my face. The hair of my flesh stood up. It stood still but I could not discern its appearance. A form (morphē) was before my eyes. There was silence, then I heard a voice” (Job 4:15-16). There is no question here that morphē refers to the outward appearance. Isaiah has the word morphē in reference to man-made idols: “The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in the form (morphē) of man, of man in all his glory, that it may dwell in a shrine” (Isa. 44:13). It would be absurd to assert that morphē referred to “the essential nature” in this verse, as if a wooden carving could have the “essential nature” of man. The verse is clear: the idol has the “outward appearance” of a man. According to Daniel 3:19, after Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s image, he became enraged and “the form (morphē) of his appearance” changed. The NASB says, “his facial expression” changed. Nothing in his nature changed, but the people watching could see that his outward appearance changed.

For still more documentation that the Jews used morphē to refer to the outward appearance, we turn to what is known as the “Apocrypha,” books written between the time of Malachi and Matthew. “Apocrypha” literally means “obscure” or “hidden away,” and these books are rightly not accepted by most Protestants as being part of the true canon, but are accepted by Roman Catholics and printed in Catholic Bibles. Our interest in them is due to the fact that they were written near the time of the writing of the New Testament, were known to the Jews at that time, and contain the word morphē. In the Apocrypha, morphē is used in the same way that the Septuagint translators use it, i.e., as outward appearance. For example, in “The Wisdom of Solomon” is the following: “Their enemies heard their voices, but did not see their forms” (18:1). A study of morphē in the Apocrypha will show that it always referred to the outer form.

Another reason that morphē does not refer to the essential nature of Christ in this context is that if the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say that? If Jesus is God, say that, don’t say he has the “essential nature of God.” Of course God has the “essential nature” of God, so why would anyone make that point? This verse does not say, “Jesus, being God,” but rather, “being in the form of God.” Paul is reminding the Philippians that Jesus represented the Father in every possible way.

So what can we conclude about morphē? The Philippian church consisted of Jews and converted Greeks. From the Septuagint and their other writings, the Jews were familiar with morphē referring to the outward appearance, including the form of men and idols. To the Greeks, it also referred to the outward appearance, including the changing outward appearance of their gods and the form of statues. The only other New Testament use of morphē outside Philippians is in Mark, and there it refers to the outward appearance. Also, the words related to morphē clearly refer to an outward manifestation or appearance. We assert the actual evidence is clear: the word morphē refers to an outward appearance or manifestation. Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God, so much so that he said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Christ always did the Father’s will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.

Schema, as Kittel points out, can be synonymous with morphē, but it has more of an emphasis on outward trappings rather than outward appearance, and often points to that which is more transitory in nature, like the clothing we wear or an appearance we have for just a short time. As human beings, we always have the outward form (morphē) of human beings. Yet there is a sense in which our schema, our appearance, is always changing. We start as babies, and grow and develop, then we mature and age. This is so much the case that a person’s outward appearance is one of the most common topics of conversation between people when they meet. We say, “Wow, you’ve lost weight,” or “You have changed your hairstyle,” and point out even minor changes in appearance.

Like the rest of us, Christ was fully human and had the outward form (morphē) of a human. However, because he always did the Father’s will and demonstrated godly behavior and obedience, he therefore had the outward “appearance” (morphē) of God also. Also, like the rest of us, his appearance (schema) regularly changed. Thus, in Philippians 2:6-8, schema can be synonymous with morphē, or it can place an emphasis on the fact that the appearance Christ had as a human being was transitory in nature. The wording of Philippians 2:6-8 does not present us with a God-man, with whom none of us can identify. Rather, it presents us with a man just like we are, who grew and aged, yet who was so focused on God in every thought and deed that he perfectly represented the Father.

Brilliant. You absolutely understand this completely and you have a mountain of proof on your side to support this.

Upon testing the consistency of the word "form" referring to a nature, it doesn't jive with the rest of Scripture. That's why I call what they use a theological definition rather than a textbook definition. They do it all the time with a bunch of different problematic words.

Begotten is another one of them. Words don't mean what words mean when theology is at stake. Things just get spiritualized, allegorized, changed, or denied. The way to really get them in a corner is not only to do what you're doing, but also to demonstrate the consistency of their theological usages is not consistent in Scripture.

 

[Runningman]

Or your understanding of morphe is wrong

the lexicons prove you wrong

Scripture proves you wrong

Lexicons say I am correct. Dictionaries say I am correct. Commentaries say I am correct. The biblical usage of this word in Mark 16 and the Septuagint say I am correct. Read what @Peterlag wrote. He just dropped a gold mine of good information in this thread. We are trying to help you.

'
Hebrews 1:3 (ESV) — 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Different subject and context to Philippians 2:6. The context of Philippians 2:6 is related to instructing the Philippians on how to have the mind of Christ. And yes we can also have the divine nature.

and your logic is absurd, the plain answer is morphe in this case carries another meaning other than what you would like

Why isn't your doctrine for this word the same in Mark 16:12 where Jesus' form changed? Jesus' nature changed? Yes or no.

The lexicons tell us what that is, and it is not your made up definition

There is the Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon which states morphe means form. Walter Bauer's lexicon says morphe means the form, outward appearance, and/or shape. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says morphe means the form or external appearance. Thayer's lexicon says morphe means "form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance."

 

[civic]

Lexicons say I am correct. Dictionaries say I am correct. Commentaries say I am correct. The biblical usage of this word in Mark 16 and the Septuagint say I am correct. Read what @Peterlag wrote. He just dropped a gold mine of good information in this thread. We are trying to help you.

Different subject and context to Philippians 2:6. The context of Philippians 2:6 is related to instructing the Philippians on how to have the mind of Christ. And yes we can also have the divine nature.


Why isn't your doctrine for this word the same in Mark 16:12 where Jesus' form changed? Jesus' nature changed? Yes or no.


There is the Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon which states morphe means form. Walter Bauer's lexicon says morphe means the form, outward appearance, and/or shape. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says morphe means the form or external appearance. Thayer's lexicon says morphe means "form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance."

No proof just special pleading as there is more than one meaning with morphe.

Morphe

NT:3444† ‎morfh/‎a, ‎h=$ ‎f: the nature or character of something, with emphasis upon both the internal and external form - 'nature, character.' ‎o^$ e)n morfh=| qeou= u(pa/rxwn ‎'he always had the very nature of God' Phil 2:6; ‎morfh\n dou/lou labw/n ‎'he took on the nature of a servant' Phil 2:7. In view of the lack of a closely corresponding lexical item such as 'nature,' it may be necessary to restructure the form of Phil 2:7 as 'he became truly a servant.'

(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission


2. The NT contains only a small sample of the wide range of meanings for ‎morfh/ ‎in classical and Hellenistic Greek ("shape, something known by the senses, esp. physical appearance, form, beauty, loveliness, outward form of appearance, appearance"). Its usage is limited to two areas. In Mark 16:12, the risen Lord appears "in another form" and therefore can not be recognized by his familiar physical form of appearance. The assumption here is that supernatural forms were capable of changing their ‎morfh/‎. In Phil 2:6f., however, we should not relate the twofold ‎morfh/ ‎of Christ to the concept of metamorphosis (contra Spicq). The antithetical description of the preexistent and earthly Christ does not derive from the idea of the adaptability of a divine being. ‎Morfh\ qeou= ‎and ‎morfh\ dou/lou ‎are metaphoric expressions (Hofius 58) that should be interpreted as poetic approaches to the state of Christ before and during his work on earth.

(from Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament © 1990 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)


3. Phil 2:6-7 speaks in hymnic style of the "form" of Christ. Exhorting to unselfish humility, the passage says that Jesus took the form of a ‎doúlos ‎in an act of exemplary renunciation. Prior to the incarnation he is in the form of God, i.e., he bears the image of the divine majesty, and after the incarnation he is exalted again as the ‎kýrios‎. In antithesis to the earlier and the later glory, his incarnation is a time of humble service when he bends his own will to that of others. His self-denial is not just the opposite of a selfish exploitation of his position but stands in the sharpest possible contrast to his former mode of being in divine power and splendor. He comes down from the height of glory to the abyss of lowliness as the Redeemer who is both above history and in history. There is here no mythical concept of a god in human form, nor is there any idea of a metamorphosis. Materially the phrase ‎morph¢¡ theoú ‎is wholly in the biblical tradition; it is not the same as the ‎eikœ¡n toú theoú ‎of, e.g., 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15

(from Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abridged edition, Copyright © 1985 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)


1. morphe (‎morfh/‎, NT:3444) denotes "the special or characteristic form or feature" of a person or thing; it is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Phil 2:6,7, in the phrases "being in the form of God," and "taking the form of a servant." An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: "morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists.... Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ.... For the interprehtion of 'the form of God' it is sufficient to say that (1) it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them, since they could have no actual existence without it; and (2) that it does not include in itself anything 'accidental' or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty, which may at one time be attached to the 'form,' at another separated from it....


"The true meaning of morphe in the expression 'form of God' is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase, 'form of a servant.' It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly antithetical, and that 'form' must therefore have the same sense in both."

(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

Philippians 2:6
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 ‎scheema ‎"fashion," comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. ‎Morfee ‎"form" (NOTE: I use "form" for the sake of the English reader, not as adequately express the original.) is identified with the essence of a person or thing: ‎scheema ‎"fashion" is an accident which may change without affecting the "form."

(from Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1997, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)


Philippians 2:6
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 coparticipant 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. To give expression to the essence of Deity implies the possession of Deity, for this expression, according to the definition of our word "form," comes from one's inmost nature. This word alone is enough to refute the claim of Modernism that our Lord emptied Himself of His Deity when He became Man.

(from Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament, Copyright 1940-55 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Copyrights © renewed 1968-73 by Jeannette I. Wuest. All rights reserved.)

hope this helps !!!

 

[dwight92070]

So if He was just fully man LIKE US, then why was he born unlike any other man? Why did He not have a father who was fully man LIKE US? Did your mother tell you that when you were conceived in her womb, it was actually the Holy Spirit coming upon her, and the power of the Most High (God) overshadowing her, that caused conception to take place? Did your father confide in you(when you became an adult), that he did not have sexual relations with your mom until after you were born? So that your birth was not only a miracle, but a miracle that NEVER happened before or since then, where God Himself fathered a child with a human woman.

Given that scriptural information, it is LAUGHABLE to call Jesus just fully man like the rest of us.

Quote Reply
Report

 

[Peterlag]

Brilliant. You absolutely understand this completely and you have a mountain of proof on your side to support this.

Upon testing the consistency of the word "form" referring to a nature, it doesn't jive with the rest of Scripture. That's why I call what they use a theological definition rather than a textbook definition. They do it all the time with a bunch of different problematic words.

Begotten is another one of them. Words don't mean what words mean when theology is at stake. Things just get spiritualized, allegorized, changed, or denied. The way to really get them in a corner is not only to do what you're doing, but also to demonstrate the consistency of their theological usages is not consistent in Scripture.

Here's some data on The Holy Spirit...

The words “HOLY SPIRIT” in the Bible are primarily used in two very different ways: One way is to refer to God Himself and the other is referring to God’s nature that He gives to people. God is holy and is spirit and therefore “the Holy Spirit” with a capital “H” and a capital “S” is one of the many “names” or designations for God. God gives His holy spirit nature to people as a gift and when HOLY SPIRIT is used that way it should be translated as the “holy spirit” with a lowercase “h” and a lowercase “s.” The Bible says there is one God, and one Lord, who is the man Jesus Christ; and one gift of the holy spirit. Most Christians are aware that the original manuscripts of the Bible were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. However, it's not well known that Hebrew and Aramaic do not have uppercase and lowercase letters, but rather they just have one form for their letters.

Greek does have upper and lowercase letters, but the early Greek manuscripts were all written with only uppercase letters. Therefore, the early manuscripts had no such thing as the “Holy Spirit” or the “holy spirit” because what was always written was the "HOLY SPIRIT." The capital or lowercase letters are always a translator’s interpretation whenever we read “Holy Spirit” or“holy spirit” or “Spirit” or“spirit” in the English Bible. The difference is usually due to the theology of the translator. The bottom line is we cannot know from the Hebrew or Greek texts whether the Author meant the “Holy Spirit” or the “holy spirit”because we must decide based on the context and scope of Scripture whether the reference being made is to God or God’s gift.

There are many descriptions, titles, and names for God in the Bible and I would like to add God’s proper name is “Yahweh” which occurs more than 6,000 times in the Hebrew Old Testament and is generally translated as “LORD.” But God is also referred to as Elohim, Adonai, El Shaddai, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel, Father, Shield, and by many more designations. Furthermore, God is holy (Leviticus 11:44), which is why He was called “the Holy One” (the Hebrew text uses the singular adjective “holy” to designate “the Holy One." He is also spirit (John 4:24). It makes perfect sense since God is holy and God is spirit that “Holy” and “Spirit” are sometimes combined and used as one of the many designations for God. Thus, the Hebrew or Greek words for the "HOLY SPIRIT" should be brought into English as the "Holy Spirit” when the subject of a verse is God.

None of the dozens of descriptions, titles, or names of God are believed to be a separate, co-equal “Person”in a triune God except for the “HOLY SPIRIT” and there is no solid biblical reason to make the "Holy Spirit” into a separate “Person.” In other contexts the “HOLY SPIRIT” refers to the gift of God’s nature that He placed on people and the new birth to the Christian, and in those contexts it should be translated as the “holy spirit." God placed a form of His nature which is “holy spirit” upon people when He wanted to spiritually empower them because our natural fleshly human bodies do not have spirit power of their own. This holy spirit nature of God was a gift from God to humankind and we see this in the case of Acts 2:38 when the spirit is specifically called a "gift" when given to the Christian.

God put the holy spirit upon Jesus immediately after he was baptized by John the Baptist because Jesus himself needed God’s gift of the holy spirit to have supernatural power just as the leaders and prophets of the Old Testament did. This fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies that God would put the holy spirit upon the Messiah enabling him in his ministry. The gift of the holy spirit was born “in” believers (John 14:17) after the Day of Pentecost rather than resting “upon” them and this is one reason why Christians are said to be “born again” of God’s spirit (1Peter 1:3, 23). Christians have spiritual power when they receive the gift of the holy spirit (Acts 1:8) because the holy spirit is born in them and becomes part of their very nature, and this is why Christians are called God’s “holy ones” which is usually translated as “saints” in the New Testament.

God put His gift of the “holy spirit” or the “spirit” on as many people as He deemed necessary in the Old Testament, and we see this when we look at how God took the spirit that was upon Moses and put it upon the70 elders of Israel. However, today everyone who makes Jesus Christ their Lord receives the indwelling gift of the holy spirit and that's why Peter on the Day of Pentecost quoted the prophecy in Joel that said God would “pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." Many scholars admit the concept of the Trinity that also includes reference to the "Holy Spirit” as an independent “Person” cannot be found in the Old Testament. The Jews to whom the Old Testament was given did not recognize any such being. It's a well-known historical fact that “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone,” was the cry of Israel. No verse or context openly states or even directly infers that there is a separate “Person” called “the Holy Spirit."

Almost every English version translates John 14:17 similarly to “even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him.” Translators capitalize “Spirit” and use “he” and “him” because of their theology. The Greek word “spirit” is neuter and the text could also be translated as “the spirit of truth” and paired with “which” and “it.” The New American Bible reads “which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it.” Capitalizing the “H” and “S” and using the English pronoun “He” is appropriate when God is being referred to as “the Holy Spirit.” However, when we see the “h” and “s” having the lowercase such as "the holy spirit" and all the pronouns referring to that spirit being impersonal such as “it” and “which” is when the subject under discussion is the gift of God’s nature.

One of the ways we know that “pneuma hagion”often refers to the gift of God’s nature is that it “belongs” to God, who calls it “my” spirit. The spirit is called “God’s” spirit in many verses and King David understood the holy spirit belonged to God because he wrote “…do not take your holy spirit from me.” The Bible shows us that “the holy spirit” is under God’s authority and direction, which makes sense when we understand it's the gift of His nature that He gives to believers. The words “Messiah” in Hebrew (mashiyach מָשִׁיחַ) and “Christ” in Greek (christosΧριστός) both mean “anointed one.” Thus, the early Christians would have known him as “Jesus the anointed one.” God “anointed” Jesus Christ with the holy spirit and that's why Jesus was said to have been “anointed” even though people knew he had never been formally anointed with oil (Acts 4:27;10:38).

We have no evidence in the Bible that “the Holy Spirit” was ever used as a name because no one ever used it in a direct address. Many people spoke or prayed directly to God, starting out by saying “O Yahweh” (translated as “O LORD” in almost all English versions). Furthermore, the name “Jesus” is a Greek form of the name “Joshua” (in fact, the King James Version confuses “Joshua” and “Jesus” in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8) and many people spoke “to Jesus” in the Bible. But no one in the Bible ever used “the Holy Spirit” in a direct address because there's simply no actual name for any “Person” known as “the Holy Spirit” anywhere in the Bible.

The “holy spirit” God gave in the Old Testament was God’s nature, but after the Day of Pentecost He gave His nature in a new and fuller way than He had ever given it before and this is what was foretold in the Old Testament (Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26). It was because this new spirit was promised in the Old Testament that the New Testament calls it “the promised holy spirit” Ephesians 1:13; Acts 2:33; Galatians 3:14). We have the “first fruits” of the spirit (Romans 8:23) because Christians are the first to receive this new spirit and that's why we have the guarantee that we will be in the coming Messianic Kingdom.

The gift of the holy spirit that Christians have is a gift and thus an “it.” Jesus told the apostles that the spirit would be “in” them (John14:17)—which is what happened on the Day of Pentecost when the holy spirit went from being with or “upon” people in the Old Testament and Gospels to being born “in” people on and after the Day of Pentecost. The spirit is sent by the Father (John 14:16-17) and Jesus (John 16:7). It does not speak on its own, but it speaks only what it hears (John 16:13). Thus, the gift of the holy spirit is directed by God and Jesus, which is what we would expect since it's God’s nature born in us. The gift of the holy spirit is the nature of God, and when it's born in us it becomes part of our very nature (2 Peter 1:4).

God does not change, but the gift of God’s holy spirit that believers have today is different from the spirit that God gave in the Old Testament, and so the gift of God’s spirit has changed. The simple and straightforward reading of the Scripture is that there is one God, who is sometimes referred to as “the Holy Spirit” and one Lord who is the man Jesus Christ, and one gift of the holy spirit that is the nature of God that He gives to people.

 

[Runningman]

No proof just special pleading as there is more than one meaning with morphe.

Morphe

NT:3444† ‎morfh/‎a, ‎h=$ ‎f: the nature or character of something, with emphasis upon both the internal and external form - 'nature, character.' ‎o^$ e)n morfh=| qeou= u(pa/rxwn ‎'he always had the very nature of God' Phil 2:6; ‎morfh\n dou/lou labw/n ‎'he took on the nature of a servant' Phil 2:7. In view of the lack of a closely corresponding lexical item such as 'nature,' it may be necessary to restructure the form of Phil 2:7 as 'he became truly a servant.'

(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission


2. The NT contains only a small sample of the wide range of meanings for ‎morfh/ ‎in classical and Hellenistic Greek ("shape, something known by the senses, esp. physical appearance, form, beauty, loveliness, outward form of appearance, appearance"). Its usage is limited to two areas. In Mark 16:12, the risen Lord appears "in another form" and therefore can not be recognized by his familiar physical form of appearance. The assumption here is that supernatural forms were capable of changing their ‎morfh/‎. In Phil 2:6f., however, we should not relate the twofold ‎morfh/ ‎of Christ to the concept of metamorphosis (contra Spicq). The antithetical description of the preexistent and earthly Christ does not derive from the idea of the adaptability of a divine being. ‎Morfh\ qeou= ‎and ‎morfh\ dou/lou ‎are metaphoric expressions (Hofius 58) that should be interpreted as poetic approaches to the state of Christ before and during his work on earth.

(from Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament © 1990 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)


3. Phil 2:6-7 speaks in hymnic style of the "form" of Christ. Exhorting to unselfish humility, the passage says that Jesus took the form of a ‎doúlos ‎in an act of exemplary renunciation. Prior to the incarnation he is in the form of God, i.e., he bears the image of the divine majesty, and after the incarnation he is exalted again as the ‎kýrios‎. In antithesis to the earlier and the later glory, his incarnation is a time of humble service when he bends his own will to that of others. His self-denial is not just the opposite of a selfish exploitation of his position but stands in the sharpest possible contrast to his former mode of being in divine power and splendor. He comes down from the height of glory to the abyss of lowliness as the Redeemer who is both above history and in history. There is here no mythical concept of a god in human form, nor is there any idea of a metamorphosis. Materially the phrase ‎morph¢¡ theoú ‎is wholly in the biblical tradition; it is not the same as the ‎eikœ¡n toú theoú ‎of, e.g., 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15

(from Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abridged edition, Copyright © 1985 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)


1. morphe (‎morfh/‎, NT:3444) denotes "the special or characteristic form or feature" of a person or thing; it is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Phil 2:6,7, in the phrases "being in the form of God," and "taking the form of a servant." An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: "morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists.... Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ.... For the interprehtion of 'the form of God' it is sufficient to say that (1) it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them, since they could have no actual existence without it; and (2) that it does not include in itself anything 'accidental' or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty, which may at one time be attached to the 'form,' at another separated from it....


"The true meaning of morphe in the expression 'form of God' is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase, 'form of a servant.' It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly antithetical, and that 'form' must therefore have the same sense in both."

(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

Philippians 2:6
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 ‎scheema ‎"fashion," comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. ‎Morfee ‎"form" (NOTE: I use "form" for the sake of the English reader, not as adequately express the original.) is identified with the essence of a person or thing: ‎scheema ‎"fashion" is an accident which may change without affecting the "form."

(from Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1997, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)


Philippians 2:6
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 coparticipant 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. To give expression to the essence of Deity implies the possession of Deity, for this expression, according to the definition of our word "form," comes from one's inmost nature. This word alone is enough to refute the claim of Modernism that our Lord emptied Himself of His Deity when He became Man.

(from Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament, Copyright 1940-55 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Copyrights © renewed 1968-73 by Jeannette I. Wuest. All rights reserved.)

hope this helps !!!

They're using the theological definition created by Trinitarianism. Greek isn't a secret language. It's used in the present day and the word morphe does not refer to someone's inner nature in the Greek language. You're free to plug μορφῇ into Google translate and watch it show you what the definition of it is and it refers to the shape of something.

So the distinct disadvantage that you and your theologians are at is that it's you against the world, pretty much. No one really agrees with what you're saying, anywhere, except a small group of theologians who prefer Jesus be God, but even in this case the Bible becomes your enemy. The Bible doesn't provide any consistency for your interpretation to be viable without also simultaneously proving that Jesus is not God, such as in Mark 16:12, where, by your definition, Jesus' inner nature changed and ceased being God.

So what you're providing amounts to philosophy, not Scripture.

 

[Runningman]

Here's some data on The Holy Spirit...

The words “HOLY SPIRIT” in the Bible are primarily used in two very different ways: One way is to refer to God Himself and the other is referring to God’s nature that He gives to people. God is holy and is spirit and therefore “the Holy Spirit” with a capital “H” and a capital “S” is one of the many “names” or designations for God. God gives His holy spirit nature to people as a gift and when HOLY SPIRIT is used that way it should be translated as the “holy spirit” with a lowercase “h” and a lowercase “s.” The Bible says there is one God, and one Lord, who is the man Jesus Christ; and one gift of the holy spirit. Most Christians are aware that the original manuscripts of the Bible were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. However, it's not well known that Hebrew and Aramaic do not have uppercase and lowercase letters, but rather they just have one form for their letters.

Greek does have upper and lowercase letters, but the early Greek manuscripts were all written with only uppercase letters. Therefore, the early manuscripts had no such thing as the “Holy Spirit” or the “holy spirit” because what was always written was the "HOLY SPIRIT." The capital or lowercase letters are always a translator’s interpretation whenever we read “Holy Spirit” or“holy spirit” or “Spirit” or“spirit” in the English Bible. The difference is usually due to the theology of the translator. The bottom line is we cannot know from the Hebrew or Greek texts whether the Author meant the “Holy Spirit” or the “holy spirit”because we must decide based on the context and scope of Scripture whether the reference being made is to God or God’s gift.

There are many descriptions, titles, and names for God in the Bible and I would like to add God’s proper name is “Yahweh” which occurs more than 6,000 times in the Hebrew Old Testament and is generally translated as “LORD.” But God is also referred to as Elohim, Adonai, El Shaddai, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel, Father, Shield, and by many more designations. Furthermore, God is holy (Leviticus 11:44), which is why He was called “the Holy One” (the Hebrew text uses the singular adjective “holy” to designate “the Holy One." He is also spirit (John 4:24). It makes perfect sense since God is holy and God is spirit that “Holy” and “Spirit” are sometimes combined and used as one of the many designations for God. Thus, the Hebrew or Greek words for the "HOLY SPIRIT" should be brought into English as the "Holy Spirit” when the subject of a verse is God.

None of the dozens of descriptions, titles, or names of God are believed to be a separate, co-equal “Person”in a triune God except for the “HOLY SPIRIT” and there is no solid biblical reason to make the "Holy Spirit” into a separate “Person.” In other contexts the “HOLY SPIRIT” refers to the gift of God’s nature that He placed on people and the new birth to the Christian, and in those contexts it should be translated as the “holy spirit." God placed a form of His nature which is “holy spirit” upon people when He wanted to spiritually empower them because our natural fleshly human bodies do not have spirit power of their own. This holy spirit nature of God was a gift from God to humankind and we see this in the case of Acts 2:38 when the spirit is specifically called a "gift" when given to the Christian.

God put the holy spirit upon Jesus immediately after he was baptized by John the Baptist because Jesus himself needed God’s gift of the holy spirit to have supernatural power just as the leaders and prophets of the Old Testament did. This fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies that God would put the holy spirit upon the Messiah enabling him in his ministry. The gift of the holy spirit was born “in” believers (John 14:17) after the Day of Pentecost rather than resting “upon” them and this is one reason why Christians are said to be “born again” of God’s spirit (1Peter 1:3, 23). Christians have spiritual power when they receive the gift of the holy spirit (Acts 1:8) because the holy spirit is born in them and becomes part of their very nature, and this is why Christians are called God’s “holy ones” which is usually translated as “saints” in the New Testament.

God put His gift of the “holy spirit” or the “spirit” on as many people as He deemed necessary in the Old Testament, and we see this when we look at how God took the spirit that was upon Moses and put it upon the70 elders of Israel. However, today everyone who makes Jesus Christ their Lord receives the indwelling gift of the holy spirit and that's why Peter on the Day of Pentecost quoted the prophecy in Joel that said God would “pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." Many scholars admit the concept of the Trinity that also includes reference to the "Holy Spirit” as an independent “Person” cannot be found in the Old Testament. The Jews to whom the Old Testament was given did not recognize any such being. It's a well-known historical fact that “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone,” was the cry of Israel. No verse or context openly states or even directly infers that there is a separate “Person” called “the Holy Spirit."

Almost every English version translates John 14:17 similarly to “even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him.” Translators capitalize “Spirit” and use “he” and “him” because of their theology. The Greek word “spirit” is neuter and the text could also be translated as “the spirit of truth” and paired with “which” and “it.” The New American Bible reads “which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it.” Capitalizing the “H” and “S” and using the English pronoun “He” is appropriate when God is being referred to as “the Holy Spirit.” However, when we see the “h” and “s” having the lowercase such as "the holy spirit" and all the pronouns referring to that spirit being impersonal such as “it” and “which” is when the subject under discussion is the gift of God’s nature.

One of the ways we know that “pneuma hagion”often refers to the gift of God’s nature is that it “belongs” to God, who calls it “my” spirit. The spirit is called “God’s” spirit in many verses and King David understood the holy spirit belonged to God because he wrote “…do not take your holy spirit from me.” The Bible shows us that “the holy spirit” is under God’s authority and direction, which makes sense when we understand it's the gift of His nature that He gives to believers. The words “Messiah” in Hebrew (mashiyach מָשִׁיחַ) and “Christ” in Greek (christosΧριστός) both mean “anointed one.” Thus, the early Christians would have known him as “Jesus the anointed one.” God “anointed” Jesus Christ with the holy spirit and that's why Jesus was said to have been “anointed” even though people knew he had never been formally anointed with oil (Acts 4:27;10:38).

We have no evidence in the Bible that “the Holy Spirit” was ever used as a name because no one ever used it in a direct address. Many people spoke or prayed directly to God, starting out by saying “O Yahweh” (translated as “O LORD” in almost all English versions). Furthermore, the name “Jesus” is a Greek form of the name “Joshua” (in fact, the King James Version confuses “Joshua” and “Jesus” in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8) and many people spoke “to Jesus” in the Bible. But no one in the Bible ever used “the Holy Spirit” in a direct address because there's simply no actual name for any “Person” known as “the Holy Spirit” anywhere in the Bible.

The “holy spirit” God gave in the Old Testament was God’s nature, but after the Day of Pentecost He gave His nature in a new and fuller way than He had ever given it before and this is what was foretold in the Old Testament (Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26). It was because this new spirit was promised in the Old Testament that the New Testament calls it “the promised holy spirit” Ephesians 1:13; Acts 2:33; Galatians 3:14). We have the “first fruits” of the spirit (Romans 8:23) because Christians are the first to receive this new spirit and that's why we have the guarantee that we will be in the coming Messianic Kingdom.

The gift of the holy spirit that Christians have is a gift and thus an “it.” Jesus told the apostles that the spirit would be “in” them (John14:17)—which is what happened on the Day of Pentecost when the holy spirit went from being with or “upon” people in the Old Testament and Gospels to being born “in” people on and after the Day of Pentecost. The spirit is sent by the Father (John 14:16-17) and Jesus (John 16:7). It does not speak on its own, but it speaks only what it hears (John 16:13). Thus, the gift of the holy spirit is directed by God and Jesus, which is what we would expect since it's God’s nature born in us. The gift of the holy spirit is the nature of God, and when it's born in us it becomes part of our very nature (2 Peter 1:4).

God does not change, but the gift of God’s holy spirit that believers have today is different from the spirit that God gave in the Old Testament, and so the gift of God’s spirit has changed. The simple and straightforward reading of the Scripture is that there is one God, who is sometimes referred to as “the Holy Spirit” and one Lord who is the man Jesus Christ, and one gift of the holy spirit that is the nature of God that He gives to people.

We have very similar beliefs about this and you made a lot of good points. The holy spirit should not be capitalized where it's a thing or gift in the context. However, God is a holy Spirit and therefore it's not wrong to call the Father Holy Spirit, which is what they did sometimes. It's clear the Holy Spirit is not a third person in Scripture any way. There are a number of valid points for this.