Jesus denied being God

What Paul told the church of Philippi was to have the same mind of Jesus. What you're proposing would require the members of the church to have the same mind as God. What you're applying to Jesus is what Paul said the church of Philippi should be applied to them. You have a category error which is why what you're proposing isn't possible.

For starters, having the mind of God is not something you or anyone else can attain. You aren't the all-knowing Creator and neither is Jesus or else Paul would have, in effect, telling them to have the same mind as the Creator. That opens a whole 'nother can of worms, I am sure, because you believe Jesus is the Creator when Scripture never says he is. For the record, all instances that refer to Jesus and something that was made or created refer to the instrumentality of Jesus, not Jesus being the Creator. Is the potter the clay or the person? Is the plumber the wrench or the person?

So Paul wasn't say "Hey, have the mind of Jesus and by the way in Jesus' mind he is God for X reasons..." That wasn't what Paul was saying unless you believe Paul taught people they can become God. I am not assuming you don't believe this because there are some sects that do believe Christians become god's of their own realm in the afterlife.

So the bit concerning Jesus being in the "form" of God in Philippians 2:5-8 refers to outward appearances. You did accurately and astutely confirm God does not have an outward appearance, but God can be imitated with outward appearances, i.e., acts of love, righteousness, holiness, the general fruits of the spirit, etc. So that's what the outward appearance of God means. It doesn't mean God looks like a human (some people believe that too)
You are dodging

The issue is your proclamation that the Word is an impersonal thing

Philippians 2:5–8 (NIV) — 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!

Philippians 2:5–7 (NASB 2020) — 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men.

Can an impersonal thing

have an attitude or mindset?

Exist in the form or nature of God?

Consider?

empty himself or make himself nothing


PS any personal being can have an attitude of humility
 
I'm starting to think I'm being accused often on here for not addressing the issue because you can't get me in your box. You guys come up with some pretty far out statements. You... not me. Think Jesus is in the form. Then you use your thinking and say I'm not responding when you can't twist me into believing like you. God's form is spirit. Jesus was born a man.
And I think you are dodging the issue

You guys have been claiming the word was impersonal thing or plan

Then explain how a plan can do the things mentioned in Phil 2:6

How does a plan

exist in the form of God?

Consider ?

Make himself nothing?

You are not addressing the issue, and it has nothing to do with putting you in a box

It has everything to do with asking you to justify your claim, but it does not appear you nor your peers can do so
 
A stretch after reading that a servant is not greater than his master.
A human father is "greater" than his human son but they are still human. In a similar sense, God the Son is subordinate to God the Father but they are still God.
That's why John 3 says this

16For God so loved the world that He gave His one and onlye Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.
Thanks for that verse. That reinforces Trinitarianism in that there is no salvation without God the Father and Jesus (God the Son). Keep those Trinitarian verses coming!
 
None of the above that you list are teachings. None of them are a few paragraphs or a chapter or two clearly teaching the trinity. All you folks ever put in front of me are scrapes of half verses scattered all over the Bible. And all of them are either taken out of context, not understood in the culture they are written in, or from bad translations. Here I will look into one that you listed...

John 14:20
In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.


Does this mean I am God because I also am in Christ?
This thread is not about the trinity, therefore nothing regarding such is intended to teach anything about such.
 
“considered equality with God not something to be grasped at.” After saying that Christ was in the form of God, Philippians 2:6 goes on to say that Christ “considered being equal with God not something to be grasped at.” Translated that way, the phrase is a powerful argument against the Trinity. If Jesus were God, then it would make no sense at all to say that he did not “grasp” at equality with God because no one grasps at equality with himself. It only makes sense to compliment someone for not seeking equality when he is not equal. Some Trinitarians say, “Well, he was not grasping for equality with the Father.” That is not what the verse says. It says Christ did not grasp at equality with God, which makes the verse nonsense if he were God.
Referring to Jesus, Philippians 2:6 says, “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to His own advantage.” The King James Version (KJV) puts the verse this way: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The difference in wording here is due to the differing interpretations of the Greek word harpagmon, which can be literally translated as “robbery” or “plunder.”

However, given the fact of Jesus’ deity, it’s probably better and more theologically accurate to understand the word as meaning “a thing to clutch” or “something to hang on to at all costs.”

What the apostle Paul is saying in Philippians 2:6 is that Jesus did not try to “hang on to” or “clutch” His uniquely divine status and role as the Son of God in His incarnation. Rather, He willingly let go of that and “emptied himself (Philippians 2:7, ESV) in order to fulfill His Father’s will in becoming human.

Philippians 2:6 is a part of a larger passage (Philippians 2:5–11) that highlights Jesus’ humility as He emptied Himself and became human. The passage has a rhythmic and poetic nature, and Bible scholars believe it to be an early hymn Christians used to confess and affirm Jesus’ divinity. Paul uses this poem as a call to believers to imitate Christ’s humility and service in their relationships with one another. In other words, Paul wanted them to act Christlike by being humble in their fellowship.

It is important to note that, while Jesus did not think it robbery to be equal with God in His incarnation, He did not cease being God. Jesus is fully God and one with the Father (John 8:58; 10:30). He has always existed from eternity past. In fact, Philippians 2:6 hints at Jesus’ eternal preexistence in saying that He always existed in the “form of God” (see also John 1:1, 14). (follow along in Got Questions....

IOW... as part of the plan for humanity's salvation, our Savior needed to be flesh and blood for a time.

Now, as you mentioned the third part of the Godhead above...

Christ is and always has been the eternal Word of God, Who was and is and is to come the Almighty. In essence, form, character, and attributes He is fully God, and He remains the God of all gods and Light of all lights. The Son of God does not simply resemble God, but He is equal with the Father; equal in every aspect of His deity, His majesty, and His character. Christ is the incarnate Word, and the Word was made flesh and tabernacled among the people that He Himself had created; and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

Christ was and is and always will remain an equal member of the triune Godhead. He has and will always remain equal with the Father, which is an eternal status that can never be altered. But for a time, He chose to lay aside the heavenly position that he had enjoyed with the Father for all eternity, and enter into His own creation as a member of the human race so that as Man, He could redeem the human race from their sin, and restore them into a right relationship with God, by faith.

Christ was not only equal with the Father in PERSON, but He was also equal with the Father in POSITION. Christ was positionally equal with the Father, but He chose to lay aside the eternal glory that He shared with the Father, for a time, and take upon Himself the form of a servant.

Although still fully God in Person, Christ chose to lay aside His glory POSITIONALLY. He set aside His heavenly garments of glory and dressed Himself in lowly humanity, in selfless humility, and gracious condescension, and He did it for our sake. It was on our account that Christ willingly set aside His heavenly position and His eternal glory so that by faith, we could be redeemed from slavery to sin and the penalty of death.

Because He was willing to lay aside His glory for us, we have been returned into fellowship with God and positioned in HIM through time and into eternity - by faith. Although Christ existed in the form of God, in essence, element, character, and attributes, He did not consider His great position of glory to be grasped hold of and held onto forever, for to do so would have rendered humanity forever separated from God.

Christ is equal with God in Person, but He was willing to give up His heavenly position for a time because a race of fallen men needed to be redeemed, and there was no one else able to pay the price of sin for the lost and dying race of humanity.

And so for your sake and for mine, the Son of God Who existed in the form of God from eternity, did not regard equality with God to be a thing to be grasped and held onto, but laid it aside.
He set aside His positional glory for your sake and for mine, to be born to die for our sins so that we might be reborn to live with Him in the glory that He enjoys with the Father, from all eternity.

Source: https://dailyverse.knowing-jesus.com/philippians-2-6
 
Last edited:
And I think you are dodging the issue

You guys have been claiming the word was impersonal thing or plan

Then explain how a plan can do the things mentioned in Phil 2:6

How does a plan

exist in the form of God?

Consider ?

Make himself nothing?

You are not addressing the issue, and it has nothing to do with putting you in a box

It has everything to do with asking you to justify your claim, but it does not appear you nor your peers can do so
in Gods form and EQUALITY with God was His. But as we know they make word salad out of that passage to deny Christ of His Glory, Honor, Praise, Worship and Prayer due His GOOD/HOLY Name above all names.

And those who do not honor the Son equally with the Father deny Him. Those who deny the Son, the Father will also deny.
 
in Gods form and EQUALITY with God was His. But as we know they make word salad out of that passage to deny Christ of His Glory, Honor, Praise, Worship and Prayer due His GOOD/HOLY Name above all names.

And those who do not honor the Son equally with the Father deny Him. Those who deny the Son, the Father will also deny.
When the alpha and omega speaks , When HE who created all does speak
Who is man to deny His words . Exactly my friend .
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with GOD and GOD was the Word
and the Word became flesh . Pretty clear if ya ask me as to what that means . It means WHAT IT SAYS .
IF you have seen ME phillip you have SEEN the FATHER . GOD is HIS SPIRIT , HE IS HIS WORD . And no man can alter or change
that FACT .
 
in Gods form and EQUALITY with God was His. But as we know they make word salad out of that passage to deny Christ of His Glory, Honor, Praise, Worship and Prayer due His GOOD/HOLY Name above all names.

And those who do not honor the Son equally with the Father deny Him. Those who deny the Son, the Father will also deny.
Its called word play my friend or word salad as you did say .
 
When the alpha and omega speaks , When HE who created all does speak
Who is man to deny His words . Exactly my friend .
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with GOD and GOD was the Word
and the Word became flesh . Pretty clear if ya ask me as to what that means . It means WHAT IT SAYS .
IF you have seen ME phillip you have SEEN the FATHER . GOD is HIS SPIRIT , HE IS HIS WORD . And no man can alter or change
that FACT .
Rev 22:13, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

We can see here that Whoever is the Alpha/Omega also claims to be the first/last AND the beginning/end. It’s the same Person.

If we look back in Rev 1:17-18 we see the following:

“…Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.”

So, the One Who is first/last (and then is also Alpha/Omega and beginning/end) is the same Person who was dead and is alive forever more. It doesn’t take a scholar to figure out Who is the One speaking here. It does take a lot of mental gymnastics to explain away something so obvious.

The term "first/last" is used 4 times in Rev. Twice it is used along with "Alpha/Omega" with the Person claiming to be "first/last" AND the "Alpha/Omega."

"Alpha/Omega" is used 4 times in Rev. Twice with "first/last" and twice with "beginning/end."

"Beginning/end" occurs 3 times: twice with "Alpha/Omega" and once with "Alpha/Omega" AND "first/last."

In all of these texts, the speaker always refers to Himself with both or all of the titles. To say, "Well, this time it's Jehovah who is the first/last, this next time it's Jesus, then later it's Jehovah again..." is the mental gymnastics to which I referred.

Is God the first/last or is Jesus the first/last? Is God the Alpha/Omega or is Jesus the Alpha/Omega? Is God the beginning/end or is Jesus the beginning/end. An obvious way to reconcile the verses is to understand that Jesus is God.

According to unitarians, it seems God claimed to be the first/last in one sense while Jesus claimed to be first/last in another sense. You seem to gloss over the blatant connection of first/last with beginning/end and Alpha/Omega. In each verse, the Speaker who claims one title also claims one or both of the others. It's all the same person.

I usually wait patiently for unitarians to reply but this point has been nagging at me so I have to comment preemptively. I really am baffled by their suggestion from other discussion in the past that “first/last” has some meaning here other than the obvious one (a title synonymous with Alpha/Omega). You even say that Alpha/Omega is never used of the Son? Incredible!! We both have said that context is king so I would like to remind other readers of the context of Rev 1:17-18 (beginning in v.10, Young’s Literal):

I was in the Spirit on the Lord's-day, and I heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last;' and, `What thou dost see, write in a scroll, and send to the seven assemblies that [are] in Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.'

And I did turn to see the voice that did speak with me, and having turned, I saw seven golden lamp-stands, and in the midst of the seven lamp-stands, [one] like to a son of man, clothed to the foot, and girt round at the breast with a golden girdle, and his head and hairs white, as if white wool -- as snow, and his eyes as a flame of fire; and his feet like to fine brass, as in a furnace having been fired, and his voice as a sound of many waters, and having in his right hand seven stars, and out of his mouth a sharp two-edged sword is proceeding, and his countenance [is] as the sun shining in its might.

And when I saw him, I did fall at his feet as dead, and he placed his right hand upon me, saying to me, `Be not afraid; I am the First and the Last, and he who is living, and I did become dead, and, lo, I am living to the ages of the ages. Amen! and I have the keys of the hades and of the death.

Do you realize this is one scene? The Speaker identifies Himself in v. 11 as “the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last.” John turns to see who is speaking and sees “one like to a son of man” (other translations have “the Son of man”). Perhaps John is saying, "I saw someone who looked like Jesus." Then finally, in v. 17-18, the Speaker indeed identifies Himself as the One who is living and became dead and is now alive again forever.

Unitarians: I guess you identify the Alpha and Omega in v. 8 as Jehovah and v. 11 as Jesus? I guess you don’t see the term “the First and the Last” as a title equivalent to “the Alpha and Omega”? If so, you are definitely seeing something in the text that an ordinary reading doesn’t see beacuse of your bias.

It’s a title ascribed to the Almighty. I didn’t think it needed a more precise definition to be understood. What about, “the one who is and who was and who to come”? Does that need to be defined? I guess we could talk about a precise definition but I don’t think that will change my point. The Alpha/Omega is self-described as “the Almighty (1:8) AND the First/Last (22:13). The First/Last is self-described as the one who was dead and is alive forever more (1:18). Again, there are either 2 people who are the first and last OR Jesus is the Almighty.

Conclusion: Scripture declares YHWH is the First and the Last and besides Me there is no God/YHWH. Christ is YHWH.

hope this helps !!!
 
When the alpha and omega speaks , When HE who created all does speak
Who is man to deny His words . Exactly my friend .
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with GOD and GOD was the Word
and the Word became flesh . Pretty clear if ya ask me as to what that means . It means WHAT IT SAYS .
IF you have seen ME phillip you have SEEN the FATHER . GOD is HIS SPIRIT , HE IS HIS WORD . And no man can alter or change
that FACT .
save-image.png
 
When the alpha and omega speaks , When HE who created all does speak
Who is man to deny His words . Exactly my friend .
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with GOD and GOD was the Word
and the Word became flesh . Pretty clear if ya ask me as to what that means . It means WHAT IT SAYS .
IF you have seen ME phillip you have SEEN the FATHER . GOD is HIS SPIRIT , HE IS HIS WORD . And no man can alter or change
that FACT .
save-image.png
 
You are dodging

The issue is your proclamation that the Word is an impersonal thing

Philippians 2:5–8 (NIV) — 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!

Philippians 2:5–7 (NASB 2020) — 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men.

Can an impersonal thing

have an attitude or mindset?

Exist in the form or nature of God?

Consider?

empty himself or make himself nothing
While corrupting the word "form" to mean "nature" in Philippians 2:6 is a common corruption in Trinitarian Bibles, it isn't supported by the context or definition of the word. Side question, did God's nature change in Mark 16:12?

Furthermore, it only gets silly nonsense in this version because it sounds like it's saying God did not consider equality with Himself something to be taken advantage of. That reads like word salad almost and this bad idea has come from people who wanted to write Jesus as God into the text. Does God need to consider equality with Himself if He's already God? No? But if someone who isn't God considers equality with God then they are not God. This is a bad translation. You were already shown a better one that actually follows sound reason and consistency. So better to just knock the one you're using down.

Furthermore, Jesus is not equal with God. He said so himself. Therefore, your proposed translation of Philippians 2 contains a contradiction.

John 14​
28You heard Me say, ‘I am going away, and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I.
John 10​
29My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand.​

I also might add, in the context past Philippians 2:8, Jesus is not spoken of as God, i.e., he was exalted by God, given a name above all names, doesn't receive glory when his name is bowed to, etc.

Philippians 2​
9Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place​
and gave Him the name above all names,​
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,​
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,​
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,​
to the glory of God the Father.

PS any personal being can have an attitude of humility
true
 
A human father is "greater" than his human son but they are still human. In a similar sense, God the Son is subordinate to God the Father but they are still God.

Thanks for that verse. That reinforces Trinitarianism in that there is no salvation without God the Father and Jesus (God the Son). Keep those Trinitarian verses coming!
"God the Son" isn't a Biblical concept. He's never called that. No one is greater than God, yet Jesus suggested John the Baptist is greater than him.

How's this for a "Trinitarian" verse?

Matthew 11
11Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet even the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
 
While corrupting the word "form" to mean "nature" in Philippians 2:6 is a common corruption in Trinitarian Bibles, it isn't supported by the context or definition of the word. Side question, did God's nature change in Mark 16:12?

Furthermore, it only gets silly nonsense in this version because it sounds like it's saying God did not consider equality with Himself something to be taken advantage of. That reads like word salad almost and this bad idea has come from people who wanted to write Jesus as God into the text. Does God need to consider equality with Himself if He's already God? No? But if someone who isn't God considers equality with God then they are not God. This is a bad translation. You were already shown a better one that actually follows sound reason and consistency. So better to just knock the one you're using down.

Furthermore, Jesus is not equal with God. He said so himself. Therefore, your proposed translation of Philippians 2 contains a contradiction.

John 14​
28You heard Me say, ‘I am going away, and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I.
John 10​
29My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand.​

I also might add, in the context past Philippians 2:8, Jesus is not spoken of as God, i.e., he was exalted by God, given a name above all names, doesn't receive glory when his name is bowed to, etc.

Philippians 2​
9Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place​
and gave Him the name above all names,​
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,​
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,​
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,​
to the glory of God the Father.


true
another fallacious argument rank and quality of being human/Deity are a misnomer. One has nothing to do with the other.

my authority which is God given/designed over my wife does not make her less of a human than I am. We are both completely human lacking nothing in our humanity.

the same is true with the Father and Son- Both are full and complete in their Deity lacking nothing.

rank, authority and roles have noting whatsoever to do with One being God or man. You are making a fallacious argument, a straw man.

hope this helps !!!
 
another fallacious argument rank and quality of being human/Deity are a misnomer. One has nothing to do with the other.

my authority which is God given/designed over my wife does not make her less os a human than I am. We are both completely human lacking nothing in our humanity.
Following your argument, you have soundly disproven that Jesus is not God. If you have authority over your wife then you are not your wife. IF Christ has authority over you then you're not Christ. If God has authority over Christ then Christ is not God. Your argument leads to the undoing of Trinitarianism.

1 Corinthians 11
3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
the same is true with the Father and Son- Both are full and complete in their Deity lacking nothing.
You're projecting the deity of Jesus. We have just proven that you are not your own wife therefore Jesus is not God.
rank, authority and roles have noting whatsoever to do with One being God or man. You are making a fallacious argument, a straw man.

hope this helps !!!
You're making a fallacious argument.
 
While corrupting the word "form" to mean "nature" in Philippians 2:6 is a common corruption in Trinitarian Bibles, it isn't supported by the context or definition of the word. Side question, did God's nature change in Mark 16:12?

Furthermore, it only gets silly nonsense in this version because it sounds like it's saying God did not consider equality with Himself something to be taken advantage of. That reads like word salad almost and this bad idea has come from people who wanted to write Jesus as God into the text. Does God need to consider equality with Himself if He's already God? No? But if someone who isn't God considers equality with God then they are not God. This is a bad translation. You were already shown a better one that actually follows sound reason and consistency. So better to just knock the one you're using down.

Furthermore, Jesus is not equal with God. He said so himself. Therefore, your proposed translation of Philippians 2 contains a contradiction.

John 14​
28You heard Me say, ‘I am going away, and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I.
John 10​
29My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand.​

I also might add, in the context past Philippians 2:8, Jesus is not spoken of as God, i.e., he was exalted by God, given a name above all names, doesn't receive glory when his name is bowed to, etc.

Philippians 2​
9Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place​
and gave Him the name above all names,​
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,​
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,​
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,​
to the glory of God the Father.


true
Sorry you have not answered the objection and are dodging

You are dodging

The issue is your proclamation that the Word is an impersonal thing


not what you think morphe means and not your continued confusion between God being used as a proper name or adjectivally denoting a class of being

simply your argument the Word was a an impersonal thing



Philippians 2:5–8 (NIV) — 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!

Philippians 2:5–7 (NASB 2020) — 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men.

Can an impersonal thing

have an attitude or mindset?

Exist in the form or nature of God?

Consider?

empty himself or make himself nothing


Please address the real issue if you can
 
Sorry you have not answered the objection and are dodging

You are dodging

The issue is your proclamation that the Word is an impersonal thing


not what you think morphe means and not your continued confusion between God being used as a proper name or adjectivally denoting a class of being

simply your argument the Word was a an impersonal thing



Philippians 2:5–8 (NIV) — 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!

Philippians 2:5–7 (NASB 2020) — 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men.

Can an impersonal thing

have an attitude or mindset?

Exist in the form or nature of God?

Consider?

empty himself or make himself nothing


Please address the real issue if you can
Amen
 
Sorry you have not answered the objection and are dodging

You are dodging

The issue is your proclamation that the Word is an impersonal thing


not what you think morphe means and not your continued confusion between God being used as a proper name or adjectivally denoting a class of being

simply your argument the Word was a an impersonal thing



Philippians 2:5–8 (NIV) — 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!

Philippians 2:5–7 (NASB 2020) — 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men.

Can an impersonal thing

have an attitude or mindset?

Exist in the form or nature of God?

Consider?

empty himself or make himself nothing


Please address the real issue if you can
I have taken my time to give you well thought out answers to your questions, but you are disregarding everything I said, and copying and pasting your previously stated posts as if they have not been answered. I take it you don't have an answer. It's ok if you don't, you can just stop replying or say so.

Please address my posts to keep the conversation going or I can wait for someone else to.
 
I have taken my time to give you well thought out answers to your questions, but you are disregarding everything I said, and copying and pasting your previously stated posts as if they have not been answered. I take it you don't have an answer. It's ok if you don't, you can just stop replying or say so.

Please address my posts to keep the conversation going or I can wait for someone else to.
You have taken your time to dodge the issue

I disregard what you say because you are answering the objection to your doctrine

orry you have not answered the objection and are dodging

You are dodging

The issue is your proclamation that the Word is an impersonal thing


not what you think morphe means and not your continued confusion between God being used as a proper name or adjectivally denoting a class of being

simply your argument the Word was a an impersonal thing



Philippians 2:5–8 (NIV) — 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!

Philippians 2:5–7 (NASB 2020) — 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men.

Can an impersonal thing

have an attitude or mindset?

Exist in the form or nature of God?

Consider?

empty himself or make himself nothing


Please address the real issue if you can, or I will assume as I am sure others will assume you are running away from the issue
 
Back
Top Bottom