The mediocrity of Unitarianism. Where are the "John the Beloveds" in Unitarianism?

[praise_yeshua]

nope He is equal in nature but has a different role than the Father. Just like my wife is EQUAL with me as a human but has a different role in the family.

next fallacy

Exactly. The very premise that Diety/Divinity can not possibly be Perfectly United is so silly. They all act as One. There is no division in Divinity.

The very thought of division destroys Divinity.

 

[civic]

Exactly. The very premise that Diety/Divinity can not possibly be Perfectly United is so silly. They all act as One. There is no division in Divinity.

The very thought of division destroys Divinity.

yes they divide the Father and the Son- its do obvious to everyone except themselves.

 

[DavidTree]

Matt 22:46- And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

And no man was able to answer him a word,.... They saw the dilemma they were reduced to, either to acknowledge the deity of the Messiah, or confess their ignorance; and neither of them they cared to do, and therefore judged it to be the wisest part to be silent.
Neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions: neither Pharisees nor Sadducees, for the same is observed by Luke 20:40 of the Sadducees particularly, and was true of all sorts, and every sect, of men among them: and thus our Lord was freed from a cavilling, captious, and troublesome generation of men, from this time forward, to the time of his sufferings, which was not very long after; for this was the third day before the passover, as appears from Matthew 26:1.gill

hope this helps !!!

Matthew 4:4

Every word that proceeds from the Mouth of God = HELPS us to SATISFY our hunger for TRUTH

HSH-BHEW , this will be my new license plate

Help
Satisfy
Hunger
Believe
His
Every
Word

 

[praise_yeshua]

Matt 22:46- And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

And no man was able to answer him a word,.... They saw the dilemma they were reduced to, either to acknowledge the deity of the Messiah, or confess their ignorance; and neither of them they cared to do, and therefore judged it to be the wisest part to be silent.
Neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions: neither Pharisees nor Sadducees, for the same is observed by Luke 20:40 of the Sadducees particularly, and was true of all sorts, and every sect, of men among them: and thus our Lord was freed from a cavilling, captious, and troublesome generation of men, from this time forward, to the time of his sufferings, which was not very long after; for this was the third day before the passover, as appears from Matthew 26:1.gill

hope this helps !!!

They were publicly shamed to such a degree.....they couldn't deny they were wrong.

Show me someone that denies Trinitarianism in Judaism and all you have to do is reference the words of Christ and how the Jews reacted to those words.

They were "cut to the heart".

 

[civic]

They were publicly shamed to such a degree.....they couldn't deny they were wrong.

Show me someone that denies Trinitarianism in Judaism and all you have to do is reference the words of Christ and how the Jews reacted to those words.

They were "cut to the heart".

spot on

 

[praise_yeshua]

Matthew 4:4

Every word that proceeds from the Mouth of God = HELPS us to SATISFY our hunger for TRUTH

HSH-BHEW , this will be my new license plate

Help
Satisfy
Hunger
Believe
His
Every
Word

The very reason we Hunger at all..... is to provide a "sense" of what it is like to depend upon Him. God designed these bodies we have to hunger so one day..... Jesus could "walk out on the scene" and "declare"....

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Oh the riches of His Grace and Benevolence of God. At every turn, we are forced to deal with the realty of such a Wonderous Savior and God as Jesus Christ.

 

[TomL]

As usual, you will ignore all the truth pushed in front of your eye balls. The Greek text refutes your propositions as well since the literal word order would instead render something like: "Who, existing in the form of God, not something to be grasped being considered was being equal with God.

Strong's	Greek	English	Morphology
3739 [e]	Ὃς hos	Who	RelPro-NMS
1722 [e]	ἐν en	in	Prep
3444 [e]	μορφῇ morphē	[the] form	N-DFS
2316 [e]	Θεοῦ Theou	of God	N-GMS
5225 [e]	ὑπάρχων hyparchōn	existing,	V-PPA-NMS
3756 [e]	οὐχ ouch	not	Adv
725 [e]	ἁρπαγμὸν harpagmon	something to be grasped	N-AMS
2233 [e]	ἡγήσατο hēgēsato	considered	V-AIM-3S
3588 [e]	τὸ to	-	Art-ANS
1510 [e]	εἶναι einai	to be	V-PNA
2470 [e]	ἴσα isa	equal	Adj-ANP
2316 [e]	Θεῷ, Theō	with God,	N-DMS

Lol

That does nothing at all to show the Word was an impersonal thing

further anyone knowledgeable of Greek know the Greek does not slavishly follow English word order

and there are no Greek bible translations supporting your understanding.

all you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance.

(MLV2021) who, existing in the form of God, did not deem it a seizure to be equal to God,
(ACV) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God something to seize and hold.
(RHB18) who, being in the form of God, deemed it not seizure to be equal to God:
(2001) For, although he once existed in the same form as God, he didnt consider trying to make himself equal to God.
(AFV) Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
(AKJV-R) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(ABU_NT) who, being in the form of God, did not account it robbery to be equal with God;
(ARV 2005) who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(ASV-2014) who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(AUV) He existed in the form of God [i.e., He shared Godvery nature], but did not consider [remaining] equal with God something [to continue] to hold onto.
(ALT) who existing in the nature of God, did not consider being equal to God something to be held onto,
(Anderson) who, being in the form of God, did not think it an act of robbery to be equal with God;
(ANT) Who in form [of] god Becoming not plunder considers the+ to be [Things] Equal~ [to] god
(AOB) WHO, ALTHOUGH HE EXISTED IN THE FORM OF THEOS (The Alpha & Omega), DID NOT DECIDE THAT WHOLENESS WITH THEOS (The Alpha & Omega) WAS A THING TO BE HELD ONTO, (1Co_15:28)
(ASV) who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(BBE) To whom, though himself in the form of God, it did not seem that to take for oneself was to be like God;
(VW) who, being in the form of God, did not consider clinging, to be equal with God,
(Bishops) Who beyng in the fourme of God, thought it not robbery to be equall with God.
(CEV) Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God.
(CGV) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be robbed used to advantage
(CENT) who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(cjb) Though he was in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God something to be possessed by force.
(Complete Apostles' Bible) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
(CLV) Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God,
(CTBible) who being in the form of God did not think it robbery to be like God,
(Mace) who tho' he was the image of God, did not affect to appear with divine majesty, but divested himself thereof,
(Darby) who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God;
(Douay-Rheims) D:ModulesWho being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(DRB) Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(Diaglott-NT) who in a form of God being, not a usurpation meditated the to be like to God,
(EMTV) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
(JB2000) who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
(ERV) He was like God in every way, but he did not think that his being equal with God was something to use for his own benefit.
(ESV) who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(ESV+) R16who, though he was in R17the form of God, did not count equality with God R18a thing to be grasped,N1
(Etheridge) who, when he was in the form of Aloha, considered this not to be robbery, (this, namely,) that he was the co-equal of Aloha:
(ECB) who, being in the form of Elohim, deemed it not usurpation to be equal with Elohim:
(ERRB) Who, being in the form of God Elohim , thought deemed it not robbery usurpation to be equal with God Elohim :
(FAA) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God to be misappropriation,
(FBV) Though in his nature he was always God, he wasnconcerned to cling on to his equality with God.
(Geneva) Who being in ye forme of God, thought it no robberie to be equall with God:
(Noyes NT) who, being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to be on an equality with God,
(GNB) He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God.
(GDBY_NT) who, being in the form of God, thought it not usurpation to be equal with God,
(GSNT) Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God,

I could continue but the point is made

Stop dealing in things you know nothing about

Oh and actually deal with the text

 

[civic]

Lol

That does nothing at all to show the Word was an impersonal thing

further anyone knowledgeable of Greek know the Greek does not slavishly follow English word order

and there are no Greek bible translations supporting your understanding.

all you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance.

(MLV2021) who, existing in the form of God, did not deem it a seizure to be equal to God,
(ACV) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God something to seize and hold.
(RHB18) who, being in the form of God, deemed it not seizure to be equal to God:
(2001) For, although he once existed in the same form as God, he didnt consider trying to make himself equal to God.
(AFV) Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
(AKJV-R) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(ABU_NT) who, being in the form of God, did not account it robbery to be equal with God;
(ARV 2005) who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(ASV-2014) who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(AUV) He existed in the form of God [i.e., He shared Godvery nature], but did not consider [remaining] equal with God something [to continue] to hold onto.
(ALT) who existing in the nature of God, did not consider being equal to God something to be held onto,
(Anderson) who, being in the form of God, did not think it an act of robbery to be equal with God;
(ANT) Who in form [of] god Becoming not plunder considers the+ to be [Things] Equal~ [to] god
(AOB) WHO, ALTHOUGH HE EXISTED IN THE FORM OF THEOS (The Alpha & Omega), DID NOT DECIDE THAT WHOLENESS WITH THEOS (The Alpha & Omega) WAS A THING TO BE HELD ONTO, (1Co_15:28)
(ASV) who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(BBE) To whom, though himself in the form of God, it did not seem that to take for oneself was to be like God;
(VW) who, being in the form of God, did not consider clinging, to be equal with God,
(Bishops) Who beyng in the fourme of God, thought it not robbery to be equall with God.
(CEV) Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God.
(CGV) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be robbed used to advantage
(CENT) who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(cjb) Though he was in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God something to be possessed by force.
(Complete Apostles' Bible) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
(CLV) Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God,
(CTBible) who being in the form of God did not think it robbery to be like God,
(Mace) who tho' he was the image of God, did not affect to appear with divine majesty, but divested himself thereof,
(Darby) who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God;
(Douay-Rheims) D:ModulesWho being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(DRB) Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(Diaglott-NT) who in a form of God being, not a usurpation meditated the to be like to God,
(EMTV) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
(JB2000) who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
(ERV) He was like God in every way, but he did not think that his being equal with God was something to use for his own benefit.
(ESV) who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(ESV+) R16who, though he was in R17the form of God, did not count equality with God R18a thing to be grasped,N1
(Etheridge) who, when he was in the form of Aloha, considered this not to be robbery, (this, namely,) that he was the co-equal of Aloha:
(ECB) who, being in the form of Elohim, deemed it not usurpation to be equal with Elohim:
(ERRB) Who, being in the form of God Elohim , thought deemed it not robbery usurpation to be equal with God Elohim :
(FAA) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God to be misappropriation,
(FBV) Though in his nature he was always God, he wasnconcerned to cling on to his equality with God.
(Geneva) Who being in ye forme of God, thought it no robberie to be equall with God:
(Noyes NT) who, being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to be on an equality with God,
(GNB) He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God.
(GDBY_NT) who, being in the form of God, thought it not usurpation to be equal with God,
(GSNT) Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God,

I could continue but the point is made

Stop dealing in things you know nothing about

Oh and actually deal with the text

ditto

 

[TomL]

ditto

There seems to be no extremes which will not be adopted by him to deny the evidence

 

[praise_yeshua]

There seems to be no extremes which will not be adopted by him to deny the evidence

You can google most anything and find someone that disagrees with you. My bet this is exactly what he/she is doing.

He doesn't know enough to really vet what he is pasting.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

WHERE R U Pancho???

Before we can even begin to love the FATHER we must First embrace and follow two commandments.
What are the two commandments?_____________________________________________________________________________.

IF you truly love the Lord Jesus Christ, complete the question above according to the Passage of Scripture above - John 14:19-21

Good morning, DavidTree.


Thanks for asking about the two commandments. Here they are, as pronounced by Jesus:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself". On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. (Mat 22:37-39)

 

[DavidTree]

Good morning, DavidTree.


Thanks for asking about the two commandments. Here they are, as pronounced by Jesus:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself". On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. (Mat 22:37-39)

EXCELLENT = let us place Matt 22:37-39 in our hearts Today!!!

Now please reference the words of Christ in John 14:19-21

What are the two commandments given to us in John 14:19-21 that we must embrace whereby we prove that we love God.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You don't believe Muslim needs to be rescued. Just like you don't believe Cornelius needed to even know about Christ.

I believe all men and women need to be rescued, whatever their religion.
We are all sinners, we all need God's grace.

Why are you being so dishonest in this? Be true to what you believe. You're "playing" all sides.

I'm not being dishonest. I'm not playing sides. I'm speaking my mind.
If you have any question on whatever I posted, please ask the question.

There is a distinct "side" within Christianity. The side is "named" by the word itself.

That's your perspective. Mine is different.
To me, the two sides are those described in Matthew 25: 31-46.
Those two sides define the relationship we have with The Christ. Either we feed, dress, protect and help the Christ in each of our brothers and sisters, or we are indifferent to Him.

You're not really a Christian.

I'm a Baha'i, my friend. We baha'is believe that Jesus was a Manifestation of God. We uphold his teachings.

you're currently are not a follower of Jesus Christ.

Nobody should accuse anyone from not being a follower of Jesus Christ, as we don't know the private life and intimate relationship that each one has with God. It is not up to us to make that kind of judgement.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I am a better person since denying myself and turned to God who I believe gave me to His Son Jesus for cleansing. Isn't that the whole purpose of the Gospel of Christ, to change men for the good?

Yes, my brother. That is the whole purpose of the Gospel of Christ.
God bless you.

 

[DavidTree]

Good morning, DavidTree.


Thanks for asking about the two commandments. Here they are, as pronounced by Jesus:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself". On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. (Mat 22:37-39)

Post 252 UPdated for our love for God

 

[DavidTree]

I am a better person since denying myself and turned to God who I believe gave me to His Son Jesus for cleansing. Isn't that the whole purpose of the Gospel of Christ, to change men for the good? You know I never said "Jesus made me just like Him". What I said, and you know I said, is that the purpose of the Holy Scriptures in the first place, The purpose of the Gospel of Christ in the first place, is to show us in the Way that we should go, and lead us to be a better man, a perfect man in God's Eyes, "like Jesus".

2 Tim. 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

But like Jesus said, only those who are "Doers" of His Sayings will stand, will endure, and really Love Him.

So you preach that I cannot please God. That I don't Love Jesus. That I don't obey Him. And then you claim all men are on this same level as you. Then you try to drag me down to your level, in the same way the mainstream preachers of Jesus Time tried to drag HIM down to their level. I don't think you know this or would want this, but the very definition of "deceived" is to believe what is not true.

But the Church of God, the Body of Christ is not now, nor has ever been at this level you claim you and all men are in. They are a separate people. Purchased by God with the Blood of His Son. We are told not to be like the "many" who call Jesus Lord, Lord, but don't obey Him. Jesus said of those hypocrites who attend their manmade shrines of worship and praise Him with their lips, "Be ye not therefore like unto them". All men are not on the same level.

So PY, you are simply wrong and in need of correction. All men have sinned, but all men are not at the same level. To preach such foolishness, is to preach that the Spirit of God which was in Christ Jesus is powerless against your flesh. Instead of justifying yourself and defending your every word, please consider the following. And remember, God even used an *** once to correct a man He Loved. Don't judge me, engage with me.

Tell me, Was Paul speaking about the Church of God, the Body of Christ in Romans 3, or those who "professed to know God but by their works denied him?

Rom. 3: 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

This is the level you are dragging me and others down to, saying all men are on this same level with you. But "ALL" men are not on this level. These are men "who work iniquity". Who have the Oracles of God but don't believe them. These are men who slander Paul and the Body of Christ with baseless accusations, "Whose damnation is just". These are men who "profess to know God" but by their works deny Him.

All men have sinned, this is true. But all men's throat is not an open sepulchre. After all, "God is in the Generation of the righteous", and Jesus is their refuge. So again, you preach to the world that "all men are at the same level", and you work to drag me down to your level. But when I actually consider what is written, I find your religious philosophy in this matter a falsehood. There are Faithful men who call Jesus Lord, and there are men who call Jesus Lord, Lord who are not Faithful. I simply believe we should, with all our heart, might and strength, "RISE" to the level of Jesus and the examples of Faithful men HE gave us. Knowing that if His Father's Spirit is in us, we can be One with Jesus and His Father, even as Jesus was One with His Father.

Heb. 12: 1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about "with so great a cloud of witnesses", let us lay aside every weight, "and the sin which doth so easily beset us", and let us run with patience "the race that is set before us", 2 Looking unto Jesus the "author and finisher" of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down "at the right hand of the throne of God".

You are not the only one who doubts or refuses to believe in the ability of Jesus to lead those who His Father gives to Him out of sin, and into Righteousness.

But I do believe Him and Love Him will all my heart. So I won't be dragged down by you to your level. But I would invite you to Press for the Prize of the "HIGH" Calling of God that was in the Jesus "of the Bible". Use HIS Words to "lift people up" unto righteousness and true Holiness, not drag them down.

Awesome post

Can you and @Pancho Frijoles examine Post 252 and answer a very simple question - thank you

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Awesome post

Can you and @Pancho Frijoles examine Post 252 and answer a very simple question - thank you

Hi DavidTree

Although I do not read any explicit commandments in that passage, I believe that if we love Jesus we will be loved by The Father.

 

[Runningman]

Lol

That does nothing at all to show the Word was an impersonal thing

further anyone knowledgeable of Greek know the Greek does not slavishly follow English word order

and there are no Greek bible translations supporting your understanding.

all you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance.

(MLV2021) who, existing in the form of God, did not deem it a seizure to be equal to God,
(ACV) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God something to seize and hold.
(RHB18) who, being in the form of God, deemed it not seizure to be equal to God:
(2001) For, although he once existed in the same form as God, he didnt consider trying to make himself equal to God.
(AFV) Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
(AKJV-R) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(ABU_NT) who, being in the form of God, did not account it robbery to be equal with God;
(ARV 2005) who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(ASV-2014) who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(AUV) He existed in the form of God [i.e., He shared Godvery nature], but did not consider [remaining] equal with God something [to continue] to hold onto.
(ALT) who existing in the nature of God, did not consider being equal to God something to be held onto,
(Anderson) who, being in the form of God, did not think it an act of robbery to be equal with God;
(ANT) Who in form [of] god Becoming not plunder considers the+ to be [Things] Equal~ [to] god
(AOB) WHO, ALTHOUGH HE EXISTED IN THE FORM OF THEOS (The Alpha & Omega), DID NOT DECIDE THAT WHOLENESS WITH THEOS (The Alpha & Omega) WAS A THING TO BE HELD ONTO, (1Co_15:28)
(ASV) who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(BBE) To whom, though himself in the form of God, it did not seem that to take for oneself was to be like God;
(VW) who, being in the form of God, did not consider clinging, to be equal with God,
(Bishops) Who beyng in the fourme of God, thought it not robbery to be equall with God.
(CEV) Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God.
(CGV) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be robbed used to advantage
(CENT) who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(cjb) Though he was in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God something to be possessed by force.
(Complete Apostles' Bible) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
(CLV) Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God,
(CTBible) who being in the form of God did not think it robbery to be like God,
(Mace) who tho' he was the image of God, did not affect to appear with divine majesty, but divested himself thereof,
(Darby) who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God;
(Douay-Rheims) D:ModulesWho being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(DRB) Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(Diaglott-NT) who in a form of God being, not a usurpation meditated the to be like to God,
(EMTV) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
(JB2000) who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
(ERV) He was like God in every way, but he did not think that his being equal with God was something to use for his own benefit.
(ESV) who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(ESV+) R16who, though he was in R17the form of God, did not count equality with God R18a thing to be grasped,N1
(Etheridge) who, when he was in the form of Aloha, considered this not to be robbery, (this, namely,) that he was the co-equal of Aloha:
(ECB) who, being in the form of Elohim, deemed it not usurpation to be equal with Elohim:
(ERRB) Who, being in the form of God Elohim , thought deemed it not robbery usurpation to be equal with God Elohim :
(FAA) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God to be misappropriation,
(FBV) Though in his nature he was always God, he wasnconcerned to cling on to his equality with God.
(Geneva) Who being in ye forme of God, thought it no robberie to be equall with God:
(Noyes NT) who, being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to be on an equality with God,
(GNB) He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God.
(GDBY_NT) who, being in the form of God, thought it not usurpation to be equal with God,
(GSNT) Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God,

I could continue but the point is made

Stop dealing in things you know nothing about

Oh and actually deal with the text

That explains your atheistic attitude toward the Scripture. When it doesn't say what you want it to say, you just switch some words around until you get the desired translation. Yes, English can absolutely follow the Greek word order and Philippians 2:6 is one such example in which it can. Following the word order, it actually says Jesus isn't equal with God. That's funny since all over the Bible Jesus is not equal with God.

So it would literally translate as "Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider it a thing to be seized to be equal to God."

In other words, Jesus did not consider himself equal with God. Jesus even said so in some of the below verses.

​

John 14:28: "The Father is greater than I."​

​

Mark 10:18: "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."​

​

John 5:19: "The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing."​

​

1 Corinthians 15:27-28: "For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that 'everything' has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."​

 

[DavidTree]

Hi DavidTree

Although I do not read any explicit commandments in that passage, I believe that if we love Jesus we will be loved by The Father.

Do you not SEE the commandment in John 14:19-21 ???
That is STRANGE for someone who desires to love God.

"He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me.
And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

Do you desire the Lord to manifest Himself to you???

If that is your true desire, you must keep the First Commandment, which is the to love the Lord thy Elohim(Plural).

SEE = the First Commandment is directly to the Lord Jesus Christ First = "he who loves ME/JESUS will be(CONDITIONAL) loved by My FATHER

John 14:19-21 is the SAME TRUTH of Matthew 22:37-40

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Do you not SEE the commandment in John 14:19-21 ???
That is STRANGE for someone who desires to love God.

"He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me.
And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

Do you desire the Lord to manifest Himself to you???

If that is your true desire, you must keep the First Commandment, which is the to love the Lord thy Elohim(Plural).

SEE = the First Commandment is directly to the Lord Jesus Christ First = "he who loves ME/JESUS will be(CONDITIONAL) loved by My FATHER

John 14:19-21 is the SAME TRUTH of Matthew 22:37-40

Thanks for the insight, DavidTree.
May our love for God increase every day.