Peterlag
Well-known member
It doesn't say he existed in the form of God and then was made flesh.
Jesus denied being God
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
Oh but it does if you read the texct and forget your theology
Philippians 2:5–8 (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. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross.
The form of God is not the form of a servant. He existed in the form of God but emptied himself
How did he emply himself ?
By taking the form of a servant and being found in appearance as a man
I don't know, but they do deny some pretty obvious things. So there does seem to be some hostility there
Runningman
Well-known member
What is your beef with the Father being the only true God as scripture says? Jesus defined God as a person named the Father and said he's the only true God. I doubt we will get on you record explicitly denying it, but it's clear that you've made every effort to argue to the contrary the trinitarian concept. Yes, there appears to be some hostility to scriptures here.
I don't have a beef with it. I have a beef with your conclusion that Jesus is not the one true God as well
You beg the question by your interpretation but note the verse does not say the father alone is the one true God
Runningman
Well-known member
The "form" of God in this context would be Jesus in the outward appearance of God. You have correctly noted elsewhere that God does not have an outward appearance, but God's invisible attributes can be seen by the things that people do without them visually or physically being God. For example, people can be like God in true righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:24) and possess the divine nature of God (2 Peter 1:4) without themselves being God. In turn, their form of God would not being God, but rather doing godly things. Thus, Jesus being in the form of God refers to his righteous and holy behavior.
Unitarians always read their heretical thoughts even into verses that do not even speak about Trinitarianism. They change the subject and context of the verse, disregard all surrounding verses, and imagine that words like "alone" are actually in the verse.Their English Comprehension is atrocious.
A study should be done about the reading level of heretics. I'm sure they will score a lot lower than believers.
civic
Well-known member
If you read the sequence the form of God precedes becoming the form of a servant. He was in the form of God prior to being in the form of a servant.
Philippians 2:5-8
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!
NIV
These translation capture the meaning of the text in its CONTEXT.
New International Version
rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
New Living Translation
Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form,
New King James Version
but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
King James Bible
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Thayers Greek Lexicon
namely, τοῦ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ or τῆς μορφῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ, i. e. he laid aside equality with or the form of God (said of Christ), Philippians 2:7
Strongs Lexicon
From kenos; to make empty, i.e. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify -- make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain.
Louw Nida Greek Lexicon
87.70 κενόωb: to completely remove or eliminate elements of high status or rank by eliminating all privileges or prerogatives associated with such status or rank.
What Paul makes very clear in this passage is that in addition to being God, He became man. The Incarnation was not a subtraction of His deity but an addition of humanity to His nature. This passage does not say Jesus gave up His deity but that He laid aside His rights as Deity, assuming the form of a servant in verse 7. The text says He was in the form of God or being in the very nature of God in 2:6. Just as He took upon Himself the "form of a servant" which is a servant by nature, so the "form of God" is God by nature. The word "being" from the phrase: being in the very form of God is a present active participle. This means "continued existence" as God. What Paul is actually saying here is Jesus has always been and still is in the "form of God". If you continue reading the passage Paul really drives this point home so that his readers have no doubt what he is trying to get across to the Philippians. Paul says that every knee will bow and will one day Confess Jesus is LORD. Paul takes the passage in Isaiah 45:23 which clearly refers to Yahweh a name used for God alone and says this of Jesus. The fulfillment of YHWH in Isaiah 45 is none other than Jesus who is God(Yahweh) in the flesh.
He self limited His divine prerogatives via the Incarnation as per Phil 2. In other words did not use them to His advantage but was in submission to the Father for 33 years to accomplish our salvation. All the FULLNESS of DEITY dwells in bodily form. Col 1:19;2:9. Jesus was and is fully God lacking nothing in His Deity.
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Even through Christ existed in the form of God He did not regard equality with God something that He needed to reach for or grasp. Why because it was already His and never gave that up for a millisecond.
Paul is using syllogisms from the text in Philippians 2.
Just as the term “form of God” in verse six does not mean “less than God” because of the phrase “equality with God" in the prior passage.
It goes to reason in the same way with the 2 phrases in the “form of a servant” and in the “likeness of man” in verse seven do not mean that Jesus was any “less than human,” but instead means He was the same or “equal with all humans.”
That is how the passage reads and how it is to be understood in its " CONTEXT ".
In Colossians 1:19 and Colossians 2:9 the Apostle Paul said, For in HIM (CHRIST) ALL of the “ fullness of deity dwells bodily. “Did Paul use the word fullness there to mean partially? NO as Jesus did not empty Himself of His Deity. Jesus Divinity is FULL, complete lacking in nothing. The ENTIRE Fullness of Deity dwells (is present) bodily in Jesus.
conclusion:When Jesus came to earth He laid aside or emptied Himself of something. There are many misconceptions at to what He set aside. It was not His Deity. Jesus could not empty Himself of His Deity - He could not stop being God. He was always God the Son. He could not exchange His Deity for His humanity. Neither did He set aside only some of His divine attributes and keep others. In addition, Jesus always knew He was God and possessed these divine attributes - He was not ignorant of who He was or what He could do. Moreover Jesus allowed the people to know that He had such powers. Neither did Jesus set aside the use of His relative attributes such as being all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere present. Those powers were always present with Him.When Jesus became a human being He divested Himself of certain rights as God the Son. This can be seen in three ways. First He restricted Himself to a human body with all its limitations. He gave up His position when He became a human being. Second He veiled or hid His glory from the people. Finally, He exercised His relative attributes only by the will of God the Father - never on His own initiative.
hope this helps !!!
Runningman
Well-known member
So you do reject Jesus' words on the only true God. He was pretty clear about that only word there in John 17:3.
To believe otherwise would be to simply reject what he said.
MTMattie
Well-known member
Serious question(s) for all non-Trin believers.
Who is Jesus?
Where did Jesus come from?
How did Jesus come into being?
Why did Jesus come into being?
Why was Jesus given the power to forgive sins?
Why did Jesus say "“Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.?"
What was the importance of the Holy Spirit?
Do you think that at one time the Holy Spirit could have been one of the Arch Angels?
Who is Jesus?
Where did Jesus come from?
How did Jesus come into being?
Why did Jesus come into being?
Why was Jesus given the power to forgive sins?
Why did Jesus say "“Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.?"
What was the importance of the Holy Spirit?
Do you think that at one time the Holy Spirit could have been one of the Arch Angels?
MTMattie
Well-known member
John 17:3 needs to be read in context to fully appreciate what Jesus was saying in that prayer. The contrast is not between the Father and the Son but between the Father and the world’s false gods and idols. Jesus is conversing with the Father who is in heaven while Jesus is on earth. Jesus’ statement that the Father is the only true God should not be seen as contradictory or inconsistent with the whole of the Bible, which supports the fact Jesus Christ is God.
Runningman
Well-known member
There is no mention or context concerning other gods and even if there was, it would still be saying that the Father is the only true God. That means the Son is not the only true God, or anyone else for that matter. Taking into account the others verses that refer to the True God, such as Jeremiah 10:10, John 17:3, 1 Thessalonians 1:9,10, and 1 John 5:20 as the Father then the evidence is that Jesus Christ is not God. This is also highly suggested by the semantics. For example, the "the" definite article before "true God" refers to exclusivity and, therefore, it's inferred that any other would not be a true god and is therefore a false god.
So your argument reads like you are saying it's possible to infer the Father is not the only true God but rather that Jesus is also God. So we would have to throw out the word "only" for your interpretation to make sense. There is a red hot contradiction in your interpretation.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
You're calling me a fool. You're just word parsing. I don't use the word fool when dealing with Christian theology. You're less a man than you think you are.
You are parroting one another because you came from the same source. You pasted those words from the source you're parroting.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I don't have the same responses. Quote me and then find the "Bible College" source I got it from. You're deflecting.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
There is no connection to Jesus Christ if there isn't an very real and powerfully emotional connection to Him. It is what drives me even when I fail. This connection is beyond reason. Beyond entirely understanding. It is what drove John the Beloved. It is what drove great men to successfully sharing Jesus Christ with humanity. The Gospel must be lived. You can't have this connection you're referencing and belittle Christ as an idol.
That is why I often do not argue the issue the way others do. I did such as a young man. I found it empty and absent any real "connection" with God.
Jesus Christ is real to me. I'm emotionally connected to Him. I praise Him because He is worthy. There is none good and worthy but God.
Peterlag
Well-known member
It really doesn't matter what Bible college we went to or who said it first or who wrote it first. The truth is there is no trinity. A study of the history of the Christian Church shows a definite development in the doctrine of the Trinity over the centuries. For example, the early form of the Apostles Creed (believed to date back to shortly after the time of the apostles themselves) does not mention the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ. The Nicene Creed that was written in 325 AD and modified later added the material about Jesus Christ being “eternally begotten” and the "true God” and about the Holy Spirit being “Lord.” But it was the Athanasian Creed that was most likely composed in the latter part of the 4th century or possibly even as early as the 5th century that was the first creed to explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
You know you're just parroting what you've been told. It is not your own. You have no passion for it except to destroy Christ as an idol.
You're deflecting again.
Peterlag
Well-known member
Only a fool would say I can't say 2 plus 2 is 4 because someone else already said it and so I really don't know it because I got it from someone else. You post what you have learned from others and for some reason it's okay when you do it, but not okay when I do it. That is talking like a fool. I call it like it is. You attack me personally by saying I'm not the man I think I am and I can't think for myself. But when I tell you that you are talking like a fool. Well, then only I'm the bad guy. Not you. You attack me personally because you can't win on the topic.
Peterlag
Well-known member
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Sure. I have learned things from others. However, I have learned things myself. Much more so than I have ever learned from others.
It is the duty of man to seek God. There comes a time when you can't live of the work of others. You haven't gotten there. You're parroting word for word.
