Thomas... My Lord and my God
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
Nobody said that Jesus is the Father. You are utterly clueless with your strawmen.
Only God can have the form of God. If you have seen a non-Deity take on the form of God then you are smoking some strong weed.
nowhere does scripture say you should misinterpret the Son of God to mean he is not of the essence of his Father.
Peterlag
Well-known member
Children take on the form of their parents. Any child knows that without having to smoke weed.Nobody said that Jesus is the Father. You are utterly clueless with your strawmen.
Only God can have the form of God. If you have seen a non-Deity take on the form of God then you are smoking some strong weed.
Peterlag
Well-known member
There's reasons why the Bible does not teach the trinity in one whole paragraph in a few different places or a whole chapter or two on it. There's reasons why there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. There's reasons why there was never a debate about the trinity in Scripture like we see with justification by works or who should be circumcised. Such an important subject matter like the trinity and the Bible is silent on all of it. And there's the spinning and twisting from the trinitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Trinitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would come to the earth as a man. Trinitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like trinity, deity, and incarnated. If any of this nonsense was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taught by someone somewhere. And it is not.
The reason that scripture is not more explicit about the Triune essence of God is that God makes blind those who wish to be blind to the truth. God allows Unitarians to make up their own guidelines how God should share about himself so that the Unitarians may fool themselves while lacking to fool Christians.
This means that Christ Jesus takes on the divinity of his Father. Creation was made as an example of this -- of seed bearing plants of the same type that gave the seed.
I said the form of God, not the form of a human. Do you understand the difference between God and human?
Peterlag
Well-known member
Jesus had the form of God in the same way I have the form of my father. It does not mean I was my father and it does not mean Jesus was God. The only thing trinitarians have is their own imagination, human reasoning, and picking one verse here, and another verse there, a hint here and a clue there and then they construct their "own God" which is the product of their own human reasoning process, speculations and assumptions. Nothing more. It's not the true and living God of the Bible, the God of Israel, the God of the Apostles, or the God of Jesus. The trinity is an IDOL made by man and that is the reason why they cannot present one single biblical verse that clearly teaches that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. The trinitarian God is a philosophical construct of their own minds that they literally built up like a Lego.
Huh? Only God can have the form of God. If you see ordinary people actually manifesting a form of God then you are definitely smoking some strong weed.
More baseless rantings from those who can't differentiate between the form of God and the form of a human.
Peterlag
Well-known member
Here's a bit more on Philippians 2:6
“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.
The Greek word morphē does not refer to the essential nature of Christ in that context 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.
“appearance of God.” This entry really concerns the entire passage of Philippians 2:6-8. One of the great purposes of Philippians is to encourage the Church to unity and humility, and in fact, unity can only be achieved through humility. (We see Paul’s plea for unity in Philippians 1:27 and 2:2, and see his plea for humility in Philippians 2:3). After telling people to be humble and to look out for other people’s interests, he gives the example of Jesus, saying, “Have this mindset in you that was also in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 2:5). Jesus was in the form of God, that is, as God’s Son he had divine position and authority, but he humbled himself and became a servant to others. Similarly, no matter what your position is in the Church, whether you are an apostle or have a leadership ministry, you are called to humble yourself and serve, not be served.
These verses have been used to support the Trinity, but they do not. Actually, they have caused division among Trinitarians. There are several arguments wrapped into these two verses, and we will deal with them point by point.
First, many Trinitarians assert that the word “form” which is the Greek word morphē, refers to Christ’s inner nature as God. This is so strongly asserted that in Philippians 2:6 the NIV has “being in very nature God.” The evidence does not support that morphē refers to an “inner essential nature” and we will give evidence that it refers to an outer form. Different lexicons have opposing viewpoints about the definition of morphē to such a degree that we can think of no other word defined by the lexicons in such contradictory ways. We will give definitions from lexicons that take both positions to show the differences between them.
Vine’s dictionary has under “form”: “properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual… it does not include in itself anything "accidental" or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation.” Using lexicons and dictionaries like Vine’s, Trinitarians boldly make the case that the “nature” underlying Jesus’ human body was God. Trinitarian scholars like Vine contrast morphē, which they assert refers to an “inner essential nature” with schema, (in Philippians 2:7, and translated “fashion”) which they assert refers to the outward appearance. We admit that there are many Trinitarian scholars who have written lexical entries or articles on the Greek word morphē and concluded that Christ must be God. A Trinitarian wanting to prove his point can quote from a number of them. However, we assert that these definitions are biased and erroneous. In addition, we could not find any non-Trinitarian scholars who agreed with the conclusion of the Trinitarian scholars, while many Trinitarian sources agree that morphē refers to the outward appearance and not an inner nature.
A study of other lexicons (many of them Trinitarian) gives a totally different picture than does Vine’s. E. W. Bullinger gives morphē a one-word definition “form.” The scholarly lexicon by Walter Bauer, translated and revised by Arndt and Gingrich, has under morphē, “form, outward appearance, shape.” Gerard Kittel, TDNT, has “form, external appearance.” Kittel also notes that morphē and schema are often interchangeable. Robert Thayer, in his well-respected lexicon, has under morphē “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.” Thayer says that the Greeks said that children reflect the appearance (morphē) of their parents, something easily noticed in every culture. Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make morphē refer to that which is intrinsic and essential, in contrast to that which is outward and accidental, but says “the distinction is rejected by many.”
The above evidence shows that scholars disagree about the use of the word morphē in Philippians. When scholars disagree, and especially when it is believed that the reason for the disagreement is due to bias over a doctrinal issue, it is absolutely essential to do as much original research as possible. The real definition of morphē should become apparent as we check the sources available at the time of the New Testament. After all, the word was a common one in the Greek world. We assert that a study of the actual evidence clearly reveals that morphē does not refer to Christ’s inner essential being, but rather to an outward appearance.
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.
Other uses of morphē in the Bible support the position that morphē refers to outward appearance. The Gospel of Mark has a short reference to the well-known story in Luke 24:13-33 about Jesus appearing to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared “in a different form (morphē)” to these two men so that they did not recognize him (Mark 16:12). Although that section of Mark was likely not original, it shows that the people of the time used the word morphē to refer to a person’s outward appearance. It is clear that Jesus did not have a different “essential nature” when he appeared to the two disciples, he simply had a different outward appearance.
More evidence for the word morphē referring to the outward appearance can be gleaned from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament from about 250 BC. It was written because of the large number of Greek-speaking Jews in Israel and the surrounding countries (a result of Alexander the Great’s conquest of Egypt in 332 BC and his gaining control over the territory of Israel). By around 250 BC, so many Jews spoke Greek that a Greek translation of the Old Testament was made, which today is called the Septuagint. The Septuagint greatly influenced the Jews during the New Testament times. Some of the quotations from the Old Testament that appear in the New Testament are actually from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew text. Furthermore, there were many Greek-speaking Jews in the first-century Church. In fact, the first recorded congregational conflict occurred when Hebrew-speaking Jews showed prejudice against the Greek-speaking Jews (Acts 6:1).
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” (Isaiah 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.
There is still more evidence. Morphē is the root word of some other New Testament words and is also used in compound words. These add further support to the idea that morphē refers to an appearance or outward manifestation. The Bible speaks of evil men who have a “form” (morphosis) of godliness (2 Timothy 3:5). Their inner nature was evil, but they had an outward appearance of being godly. On the Mount of Transfiguration, Christ was “transformed” (metamorphoomai) before the apostles (Matthew 17:2; Mark 9:2). They did not see Christ get a new nature, rather they saw his outward form profoundly change.
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.
Another point we should make is that it has been suggested that since the phrase morphē theou (μορφῇ θεοῦ), traditionally “form of God” is parallel with the phrase in Philippians 2:7, morphēdoulou (μορφὴν δούλου), “form of a servant” that the translation “form of a god” is better than “form of God.” However, it seems more likely that “form of God” is correct since that phrase is governed by the preposition en (“in”) which means the noun Theos does not need to have a definite article before it to be “God” and that is especially true in light of the fact that the second Theos in Philippians 2:6 clearly refers to God and not “a god.” We would say “a servant” because the noun is singular, but “God” is singular by nature whereas saying “a God” or “a god” actually confuses the translation. Also, saying “the form of a god” would miss the point of the verse, because it is not saying that Jesus was “a god” so he did not grasp at equality with God, rather it is saying that he was in outward form God (his actions, his authority, as explained above) yet he did not grasp at equality with God, his Father.
There is another aspect of this verse that solidifies the Biblical Unitarian understanding even more. Recently, Skip Moen, a Trinitarian, has pointed out that the “not” in Philippians 2:6 does not go with the verb hēgeomai ἡγέομαι; “think, consider, deem, reckon” even though almost all English versions have it that way, but rather it goes with the noun harpagmos. That means the verse does not read, “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped at” (NIV84), but rather should read “considered equality with God not something to be grasped at.” Translated that way, it clarifies that it is not as if Jesus simply did not consider equality with God, but that he considered it and thought that it was not something to be grasped at. In that light, as Moen writes, “the implication is that Yeshua saw equality with God as something unattainable.” Moen goes on: “It means that this verse does not say that Yeshua gave up equality with God voluntarily because it did not serve the purposes of the Messiah. It says that Yeshua never aspired to be equal with God because equality with God is not possible.” In that light, we can clearly see the contrast between Satan and Christ (or Adam and Christ) because while Satan and Adam were blinded by pride and desire and wanted to be like God, Christ remained humble and retained the clear knowledge that being equal with God was completely unattainable, and was content to fulfill the purpose that God had for him, and joyfully did the will of God.
Since humans can only perceive God's outward appearance then I have no problem with form meaning the outward form of God. Therefore, since only God can have the (external) form of God then that proves that Jesus is God. If you see ordinary people actually manifesting an external form of God then you are definitely smoking some strong weed.
Note: Next time you dump data on me, I will only read your first 2 paragraphs and dump the rest in the nearest trash can.
Peterlag
Well-known member
Well, you said I was not giving enough data on Philippians 2:6. Nobody has the form of God that you're pushing because God is spirit. You can't see Him.
When did I ever say that? I just said and keep saying that only God can possess the external (and internal) form of God. And that clearly proves that Jesus is God.
Sounds like you never read about the OT Theophanies and Christ's Transfiguration. Read up on them and then we can discuss them.
Last edited:
Peterlag
Well-known member
Christ was never transfigured in the Old Testament so there's nothing there to read. Jesus was born in the Gospels. Here's less on Philippians 2:6...
Philippians 2:6 goes on to say that Christ “considered being equal with God not something to be grasped at.” 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.
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?
no one needs to tell people what they already know. I do not get how you miss that. The other aspect is your do not consider the balance of Jesus' humanity with his divinity. You may have heard of the Son and the Father, the latter more often represented by the designation "God" -- but maybe not something you learned. It is not humbling oneself to be a man but only live as a man, so you miss the lesson here, which might be obvious from your persistence rejection of the message.
dwight92070
Well-known member
I hate to break it to you, but if you were actually a Bible scholar, you would know this verse:
1 Corinthians 15:45 - " ... The last Adam (Jesus) became a life-giving SPIRIT."
So you can remove your "Bible Scholar" hat and come back down to our level now.
Similar threads
