Yes, He posts a lot without ever addressing the point I have been raising
Thomas... My Lord and my God
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
Peterlag
Well-known member
Now Tom you can't say anymore that I'm avoiding Philippians 2:6 since I just provided a good page and a half in detail concerning the verse. What you should be saying is I'm avoiding your beliefs concerning Philippians 2:6.
That is a good attempt to promote an alternative idea on the word "form." It ultimately fails, especially when Peterlag overlooks that Christ must not initially be human since verse 7 says he takes on the likeness of man. I showed earlier that the mythological gods took on different forms. Paul can use terms culturally familiar to the gentiles so they can comprehend what he is showing about Christ's incarnation. Peterlag has much work to do to sufficiently erase the testimony of the divinity of Christ in the Godhead.
The point
It shows pre-existence
You are not dealing with that just because you can post something which speaks of some aspect of Phil 2:6ff
You remain having avoided the point
Peterlag
Well-known member
There is no point I avoided. Philippians 2:6 does not say Jesus is God. To suggest otherwise is not the point of the Scripture, but rather is just your point, which has nothing to do with the Bible.
101G
Well-known member
Peterlag
Well-known member
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.
There you go once again
In every single post I speak of pre-existence and in every single reply you do not address it.
It is the most obvious avoidance.
Why not say that Jesus had two arms and two legs? It is the same explanation in answering why Paul does not say that Jesus is God incarnate. In both these scenarios, Paul does not need to repeat what is obvious, unless Paul were anticipating Unitarians getting confused about all this.
It would be senseless for Paul to write that Jesus just changed what he looked like -- maybe from gray hair to brown hair. What we have is that he was not in the likeness of man but then became in the likeness of man. He did not lose his divine nature but rather added human form and qualities. Such change makes more sense than when Peterlag says Jesus gave up being the image of God so that he could then show himself as the image of God.
Peterlag makes a fallacious argument about the definitions being erroneous. Indeed, the definitions are based on the context of usage and therefore a concept of various shades of meaning have to be reconciled with the passage itself. We see that Jesus was not in the likeness of man (phil 2:7) but became in the likeness of man.
The error of your initial framework is the faulty assumption that Jesus changed his nature of divinity within the biblical understanding of the Triune Godhead. That is either confusion on your part or a strawman argument. Even in your path of interpretation, the change of Christ in the incarnation is a change of appearance -- from invisible divinity into the appearance in the likeness of man (Phil 2:7). In this last point, the analysis fits as an explanation when the Greco-Roman cultural concepts.
This point is quite weak. Why would Christ Jesus give up sharing the image of God while a human in order to share the image of God among the people? This is pure contradiction within your interpretation.
If you are limited to confusing and self-contradictory explanations of the text, your argument will remain insufficient.
Last edited:
Peterlag
Well-known member
There is no pre-existence of Jesus Christ until he was born. You're like a man that says there's men from Mars on the earth. And I say there is not. And you say I'm avoiding the issue.
did you say Jesus only pre-exists after he is born? I guess that makes as much sense as anything Peterlag has proposed.
If it's common for you to see anyone in the external form of God, other than God, then you are smoking a very strong weed.
Peterlag
Well-known member
This one was in the external form of God... Jesus who is the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now resurrected Lord Christ to the Christian who sits at the right hand of God as second in command and is the head of the Church that is called the body of Christ.
There you go ignoring Phil 2:6 again
Philippians 2:6–8 (NASB95) — 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. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
How did he regard anything if he did not exist?
How could a non existent thing empty himself?
The bible shows he existed in the form of God before becoming a man
How long will you ignore this?
Last edited:
Every lifeform possesses its own unique external form. That proves that only God possesses an external form of God.
MTMattie
Well-known member
I could care in the lkeast what Phillipians 2:6 is talking about.
You keep saying that Jesus is not God and it is not in the Bible.
Poppycock.
Ignoring all translations that say ho, existing in the form of God,... that you cannot uinderstand....
New Living Translation
Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.
Contemporary English Version
Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God.
Do not discount....
3. John 10:30
“I and My Father are one.”In this verse, Jesus declares, “I and the Father are one,” affirming His divine unity with God the Father. He claims equality with God, expressing the inseparable union between Himself and the Father.
Do not call God, the heavenly Father a liar
6. Hebrews 1:8
“But to the Son He says: ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.'”This verse quotes from Psalm 45:6, addressing the Son as “O God,” affirming His divine nature and eternal reign. It declares the Son’s sovereignty and everlasting authority, emphasizing His divine status and preeminence.
Significance
Studying Hebrews 1:8 reinforces the biblical teaching on the deity of Jesus Christ. It provides clear evidence from the Old Testament that the Son is addressed as God, affirming His equality with the Father. Understanding this verse deepens our understanding of Jesus’s divine identity and reinforces our confidence in His eternal reign as Lord and King.7. Titus 2:13
“looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,”In this verse, believers are encouraged to eagerly await the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. It identifies Jesus Christ as both “our great God” and “Savior,” affirming His divine nature and role in redemption.
Significance
Studying Titus 2:13 underscores the deity of Jesus Christ and His central role in the Christian faith. It affirms that Jesus is not only our Savior but also our great God, emphasizing His divine authority and majesty.This verse instills hope and anticipation in believers as we await the glorious return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Understanding Titus 2:13 deepens our devotion to Jesus and reinforces our confidence in His promise to return and establish His eternal kingdom.
8. Isaiah 9:6
“For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”Isaiah 9:6 prophesies about the birth of a child who will hold the government upon his shoulders. The verse describes the child with several divine titles: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace. This prophecy points to the Messiah, Jesus Christ, and highlights His divine nature and role as the Savior of humanity.
Significance
Studying Isaiah 9:6 reveals the Messianic prophecy fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It emphasizes Jesus’s deity and His attributes as the source of wisdom, strength, eternal life, and peace.Understanding this verse deepens our appreciation for the significance of Jesus’s birth and His mission to reconcile humanity to God. It strengthens our faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah and encourages us to rely on Him as our Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace.
9. Matthew 1:23
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”Matthew 1:23 quotes the prophecy from Isaiah 7:14, affirming that the virgin will conceive and bear a son, who will be called Immanuel, meaning “God with us.” This verse highlights the miraculous nature of Jesus’s birth and emphasizes His divine identity as God incarnate.
Significance
Studying Matthew 1:23 underscores the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ and His unique role as God dwelling among humanity.It affirms Jesus’s deity and His intimate presence with His people. Understanding this verse deepens our understanding of the Incarnation—the central mystery of the Christian faith—and reinforces our confidence in Jesus as the promised Messiah who brings salvation and reconciliation.
It also reminds us of the profound truth that God is not distant or unreachable but intimately present with us through Jesus Christ, our Immanuel.
10. Romans 9:5
“of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.”Romans 9:5 declares that Christ is God over all, forever praised. This concise statement affirms the deity of Jesus Christ, emphasizing His eternal nature, authority, and sovereignty over all creation.
Significance
Studying Romans 9:5 reinforces the biblical teaching on the divinity of Jesus Christ. It provides a clear declaration of Jesus’s deity, underscoring His equality with God the Father and the Holy Spirit.Understanding this verse deepens our faith in Jesus as the divine Son of God and reinforces our worship and praise of Him as the one true God. It also strengthens our confidence in His power to save and reign over all creation for eternity.
Conclusion
The Bible unequivocally proclaims the divinity of Jesus Christ through various passages that highlight His eternal existence, divine attributes, and unique relationship with God the Father.
101G
Well-known member
GINOLJC, to all.
well here is the answer and the KJV Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" this verse, yes indeed, destroys the trinity. but for you.... notice "form of God" and "equal with"
1. "form of God", the Lord Jesus the Christ is the NATURE of, of, of, God, which is Spirit, supportive scripture. John 4:24 "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." now that answer your question, for the "Form" of Jesus is Spirit, and that's Spirit with the capital "S". because "Form" here is the NATURE of Jesus in flesh. the Greek word used here is G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n. AND NOT G4976 σχῆμα schema (schee'-ma) n. which is external condition, or the OUTWARD FORM.
"form":
G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313
so, the internal condition of the Christ is "Spirit", and the verse states, this internal nature of the Christ... is "equal with" God, who is Spirit. but notice, the verse states "equal with" God and not Equal to God which would indicate a separate and distinct person, and the trinity would be correct. but it do not . but it do say, "equal with" God, which indicate the same one person that is as said , "Equally Shared" in flesh and blood. for the definition of G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') states, [perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]. so, the we need to see what that means, which will give us the correct answer to the Lord Jesus NATURE. and here it is.
G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n.
1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something). BINGO, there is our answer. the term "portion" here is synonyms with "SHARE". one can find this at WORD HIPPO https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/portion.html
and here it is under "A part of a whole" when used as a noun, part, section, segment, fragment, piece, bit, chunk, wedge, hunk, lump, partition, slice, parcel, slab, tranche, wodge, aliquot, division, member, subdivision, cut, component, subsection, bite, scrap, share, chip, passage, sample, sliver. THERE IT IS ...... share. the Lord Jesus the Christ is the "EQUAL SHARE" OF God himself in flesh just as Isaiah 63:5 clearly states, "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me." KNOWING THIS..... it eliminates the trinity doctrine, any unitarian doctrine, any oneness doctrine, (taught by the upic), and some others, and it eliminates any JW, Mormon, any Messianic jews, or Muslem doctrine out there.
only "Diversity" or "Diversified Oneness" is the correct doctrine. hear ye, Isaiah 28:9 "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts." Isaiah 28:10 "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:"
so, the in summary: God is the EQUAL SHARE of himself in flesh with blood that ..... "WAS" ..... to come in "TIME", "PLACE", "ORDER", and "RANK"
and this order of equally share is clearly seen as the FIRST and the LAST..... using the term "WITH". listen and learn. in Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." the LORD is the First .... right .... and WITH the last, now this. Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." and the term "ALSO" means, in addition; too. .......
Hello...... and the Lord Jesus is the .... FIRST and the LAST..... BINGO, the same one person, just as Philippians 2:6 clearly states, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"This is just too easy.
101G.
Peterlag
Well-known member
What you guys do often is start out with a lie and then build on that. I think that's called building on a straw man. And I see that in your first statement where you make the jump from God who is spirit to Jesus who is spirit. There's no verse that says Jesus is a spirit or the form of a spirit. You make this jump from the understanding of your own mind and not what is written.GINOLJC, to all.
well here is the answer and the KJV Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" this verse, yes indeed, destroys the trinity. but for you.... notice "form of God" and "equal with"
1. "form of God", the Lord Jesus the Christ is the NATURE of, of, of, God, which is Spirit, supportive scripture. John 4:24 "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." now that answer your question, for the "Form" of Jesus is Spirit, and that's Spirit with the capital "S". because "Form" here is the NATURE of Jesus in flesh. the Greek word used here is G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n. AND NOT G4976 σχῆμα schema (schee'-ma) n. which is external condition, or the OUTWARD FORM.
"form":
G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313
so, the internal condition of the Christ is "Spirit", and the verse states, this internal nature of the Christ... is "equal with" God, who is Spirit. but notice, the verse states "equal with" God and not Equal to God which would indicate a separate and distinct person, and the trinity would be correct. but it do not . but it do say, "equal with" God, which indicate the same one person that is as said , "Equally Shared" in flesh and blood. for the definition of G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') states, [perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]. so, the we need to see what that means, which will give us the correct answer to the Lord Jesus NATURE. and here it is.
G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n.
1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something). BINGO, there is our answer. the term "portion" here is synonyms with "SHARE". one can find this at WORD HIPPO https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/portion.html
and here it is under "A part of a whole" when used as a noun, part, section, segment, fragment, piece, bit, chunk, wedge, hunk, lump, partition, slice, parcel, slab, tranche, wodge, aliquot, division, member, subdivision, cut, component, subsection, bite, scrap, share, chip, passage, sample, sliver. THERE IT IS ...... share. the Lord Jesus the Christ is the "EQUAL SHARE" OF God himself in flesh just as Isaiah 63:5 clearly states, "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me." KNOWING THIS..... it eliminates the trinity doctrine, any unitarian doctrine, any oneness doctrine, (taught by the upic), and some others, and it eliminates any JW, Mormon, any Messianic jews, or Muslem doctrine out there.
only "Diversity" or "Diversified Oneness" is the correct doctrine. hear ye, Isaiah 28:9 "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts." Isaiah 28:10 "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:"
so, the in summary: God is the EQUAL SHARE of himself in flesh with blood that ..... "WAS" ..... to come in "TIME", "PLACE", "ORDER", and "RANK"
and this order of equally share is clearly seen as the FIRST and the LAST..... using the term "WITH". listen and learn. in Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." the LORD is the First .... right .... and WITH the last, now this. Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." and the term "ALSO" means, in addition; too. .......
This is just too easy.
101G.
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. now that answer your question, for the "Form" of Jesus is Spirit..."
Peterlag
Well-known member
To keep it short I will comment on only one verse that you quoted which is...
Isaiah 9:6
“a child will be born.” The Hebrew text reads “a child has been born... a son has been given.” The Hebrew verb about being born is a perfect passive and is most literally translated “has been born.” Although some scholars say this prophecy is about Hezekiah, and in fact it may reflect upon him in part, the prophecy is more completely about the Messiah. It's common in the Hebrew idiom to write about something that will happen in the future as if it had happened in the past, and this is referred to by many scholars as the idiom of the “prophetic perfect.” Also, the prophetic perfect occurs very often in prophecy, especially in Isaiah.
“The Mighty God is an Extraordinary Advisor” The phrase is usually translated as “Mighty God, Wonderful Counselor” in most English Bibles. However, a better way to understand it is as a theophoric name given to the Messiah which describes God, not the Messiah. It's noteworthy that if Isaiah 9:6 was a proof that Jesus is God, nothing is said about it in the New Testament.
“Mighty God/Warrior God” el gibbor is the same name attributed to Yahweh (the true God) subsequently in Isaiah 10:21, as well as in all the other biblical occurrences Deuteronomy 10:17; Jeremiah 32:18). So, in the other places where this same phrase is used in the singular, it's referring to Yahweh, not to anyone else. So, in every occurrence of el gibbor, it refers to God the Father—Yahweh. This provides strong evidence that el gibbor in Isaiah 9:6 likely also refers to Yahweh.
Although some Trinitarians attempt to see this text as teaching the Messiah’s Deity, many do not consider that the text taken consistently in their framework would actually be calling the child “The Everlasting Father.” That would then make Jesus the “Everlasting Father” which would be Modalism, where God is strictly a unitary being who exists at different times in different modes (i.e., the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son). The Athanasian Creed, which is considered as orthodox today states that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” but if Isaiah 9:6 says the Son is the Father, then it would be doing that and not teaching the modern definition of the Trinity.
Peterlag
Well-known member
The Scripture does not say "its own unique form." It says "form." I'm in the form of my father. I'm not in the unique form of my father.
Similar threads
