There are good reasons to conclude that the "form of God" at Philippians 2:6 is referring to the exalted Christ. His exalted position of the risen Jesus contrasts with his state as a humble servant. The exalted Jesus is in the form of God and Paul's point is that he didn't get to this position by seizing it for himself but by humbling Himself to God.
Very interesting! This interpretation also exactly parallels the Messianic Servant passage in Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12, and there can be no doubt that the Apostle Paul, with his Hebraic background, had this particular passage in mind. A number of years ago a Jewish believer in Yeshua told me that the Philippians passage has nothing to do with an ontological concept, but rather is to be understood in terms of position and function, i.e. the contrast between servanthood and lordship, which exactly agrees with what you stated in this excellent video. I believe that this is not only an optional interpretation, but that it is the right one, especially in light of such passages as Psalm 110:1; Matt. 28:18; and Acts 2:36. I think most trinitarians never consider the fact that Jesus the Messiah was conceived (begotten) of the Holy Spirit, anointed with the Spirit, led of the Spirit, performed and fulfilled his public ministry (including his teaching and mighty works) in the power of the Spirit, went to the cross and died as a sacrifice for sin through the Spirit, was raised from the dead on the third day by the Spirit (GOD THE FATHER, via the Spirit, raising him up), and who in his exalted state is the baptizer with the Spirit, and the one who speaks to the churches by the Spirit. It is not too much to say that, in the Apostle Paul's mind anyway, the fulness (pleroma) of the Godhead that dwells bodily in Jesus (Colossians 2:9) is equivalent to the manifold fulness of the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2). The eternal God thus dwelt (tabernacled) in the historical Jesus of Nazareth, the promised Messiah and Savior of the world (John 1:14) --the center of all creation and its reason for being, in the eternal purpose of God (Col. 1:15-20). Neither trinitarianism, arianism, nor modalism fit the Biblical portrait of Christ. The Apostle Paul presents to us the true picture in the simple, yet profound, statement --"God was IN Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself" (2 Cor. 5:19). Thank you brother for this insightful video. God bless you and your teaching ministry.
This explanation makes perfect sense. The only reasonable way we could ever relate to Jesus in our humanity is if he was fully human himself before he was exalted. Otherwise, if one believes that Jesus was also fully God, everything Jesus said and did can be attributed to to his divinity, which would be expected because God can do anything. Believing that Jesus is God is demeaning to Jesus and everything he did and went through on this earth.
Brother Kel I thank God for giving you that revelation! I receive it and going to use it as part of my teaching! This is understanding is needed to the body of Christ! May God continue to use you! I have been blessed by Al your videos since zGod allowed me to connect with you ! Your teaching has verified what God has revealed to me on some topics and has taken me to a new level and revelation in his word ! I ask you to pray that the Father will give me a door of utterances to continue to share the revelation of Jesus Christ our Lord! Keep up the good work my brother and I bid you God’s speed! Your labour is not in vain!
agreed Kel--this is the Hebraic mind set--Paul is showing the reward for humility--Messiah now in formation with the Father--at His right hand--glorified
Excellent video in so many levels that I do not know where to begin to express my compliments. Great lesson on helping to understand the limitation and challenge in our interpretations of the Greek text to English. Then to show how various translations can lead to differing understanding of God and of Jesus. Further, thanks also for your in depth study of Philippians 2.
Greetings, brothers! "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. and being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death-even death on a cross." --- Philippians 2:5-8 I think that "WAS" is correct, because it is a reference to THE PAST, that is, the days of Christ's humility and obedience to God to the point of death on a cross, hence, IN THE DAYS OF HIS FLESH. I also think that there is a parallel being drawn concerning the first (protos) man, Adam, and the last (eschatos) Adam, Christ. The phrase "did not consider EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped" seems to be a reference to Adam and Eve in the garden, who were tempted by the serpent, saying "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and YOU WILL BE LIKE GOD, knowing good and evil.” "YOU WILL BE LIKE GOD" representing the temptation to EQUALITY WITH GOD. The text appears to be comparing and contrasting the MIND (ATTITUDE) of Adam and Eve to that of Christ, the former coveting equality with God, and Christ, instead assuming the FORM (ROLE) of a servant. Which would bring me to the conclusion that "FORM OF GOD" refers to Christ as "THE IMAGE OF GOD," again, for the purpose of comparing and contrasting Christ to Adam and Eve who were CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. However, the difference being that, Adam and Eve were CREATED, while Christ IS the image of God, which is to say that the Christ was NOT CREATED in God's image, but "EXISTS" in the very form of God. In other words, CHRIST IS THAT IMAGE INTO WHICH ADAM AND EVE WERE CREATED, thus, "let us create man in our image." Adam and Eve, therefore, were only copies of the true, the heavenly, who is Christ. "For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us" ---Hebrews 9:24 Unitl Christ be fully formed in you, -james
What I get out of this is that in trying to interpret the Greek we have to supply our own verbs....Kel's interpretation fits in with the rest of the context of the lesson in question so not only does it make sense, but it doesn't contradict any other scripture. Thank you for this enlightenment.
Thanx for your comment. Well, the English verb "was" in verse 5 doesn't really turn out to be a very big deal. I think what Paul really meant was not "which WAS also in Christ Jesus" but something more like "which also [is true concerning] Christ Jesus." The problem is that the word "was" in English translations acts like a trigger to your thoughts. But I think if verse 6 is properly understood, that becomes a moot point. What is more important is how we understand verse 6 in the context of verse 5. Because you can use a present participle ("being") while referring to a past event ("he did not consider" [while he was 'being' X]), most people typically understand Paul to be indicating Jesus was existing/being in the form of God in the past coincident with his "not considering." While you could speak this way in Greek, I am saying this understanding isn't necessarily so. Moreover, the typical understanding (that Paul is referring to Jesus in the form of God in the past) has Jesus simultaneously in the form of God and the form of a servant and these two forms happen to be coincidental with each other. I don't think that is very likely since it would be a bit like saying one is in the form of a King and a servant to the King at the same time. And to me, that is a bit like saying the light is switched on and off at the same time.
Right ... and I appreciate too your comment about what Paul is trying to teach the Philippians...if they were also having the same mindset of Christ, in modern interpretation the hearers of Paul's message would also be "equal to God." That also makes your timing of Jesus' possessing a form of God to be post resurrection more sensible.
Good video! here's my notes on that verse: who, beginning to exist, {and} submitted quietly under {Him}, {being} in {the} image of {an} Elohiym, didn't lead and command to seize plunder {for himself}, to be equal to an elohiym/Elohiym. Who, coming into existence, in visible form, {while still} remaining quietly under God in a relationship of rest, {he} did not lead and command with official authority by {using it to} seize plunder for himself, {or in order} to exist in a state that seems similar in comparative rank, virtue, particular power, acquirement; accomplishment and condition to {that of} a god. Who - 3739 hós; a relative pronoun meaning, ‘who, which, what, that.’ The relative pronoun agrees in gender with the antecedent; hence it means, “Who.” · being - 5225 hupárchoon; a present active participle; a verbal adjective showing action being accomplished by the subject of the verb; from NT:5259 (hupo; ‘beneath’ or ‘under’) and NT:756 (archomai; ‘to commence’ in order of time); literally, ‘to begin under (quietly)’; it means, “to come into existence” or “to exist.” · in - 1722 en; a primary preposition governing the dative; it means, “remaining in place.” Primarily, en denotes being in a fixed position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest. · the - 9999; the word does not appear in the Greek text. · form - 3444 morfeé; an anarthrous noun (omitting the definite article); it means, “shape.” Thayer’s says morfeé is, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.” · of God - 2316 Theoú; a masculine noun in the anarthrous construction; since there is no definite article included, it means either, “a deity (god)” or “supreme Divinity (God)”; figuratively, it means, “a magistrate (a principle director or ruler in authority).” · thought - 2233 heegeésato; in the aorist middle voice, representing non-continuous action by the subject (Jesus) whose actions pertain to himself; it means, “to lead, i.e. command (with official authority).” · it - 9999; the word does not appear in the Greek text. · not - 3756 ouch; it is a primary adverb that is used before a verb to render the verb and the proposition negative in respect to the subject; it means, “no or not.” · robbery - 725 harpagmón; from the root word ‘harpazo’ ( NT:726) meaning, ‘to seize upon with force.’ It is a noun in the anarthrous construction; therefore it means, “a thing seized; plunder; booty.” · to - 3588 tó; the definite article in the neuter it means, “to.” · be - 1511 eínai; in the present infinitive active; active is action is accomplished by the subject of the verb; the infinitive means the verb also acts as a noun; the present represents contemporaneous action, as opposed to action in the past or future; the word here means literally, “existing; having an existence; existing in a state.” · equal - 2470 ísa; it is a predicate adjectival noun in the anarthrous construction; in Greek ; being predicate means it makes an assertion about the subject; this means it is an adjective that also functions as a noun; ísa means, “seeming similar to in quality or quantity.” More correctly, James Strong’s use of the words, “quality” and “quantity” must be taken in context of the age in which they were used. Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “quality” as: virtue or particular power; acquirement; accomplishment; comparative rank; condition in relation to others; as people of every quality; superior rank; superiority of birth or station. Thus we conclude that ‘ísa’ in Philippians 2:6 means, “seeming similar in comparative rank, virtue, particular power, acquirement; accomplishment and condition.” · with God - 2316 Theoó; a masculine noun in the anarthrous construction; since there is no definite article included, it means either, “a deity (god)” or “supreme Divinity (God)”; figuratively, it means, “a magistrate (a principle director or ruler in authority); most likely from Hebrew Elohiym, meaning 'a very powerful authority', or in the case of the 'Creator Yah, 'the ultimate powerful Authority'
I am a really picky person and I don't like to feel like I am twisting verses to fit my Theology and this section of scripture was one of my problem areas, but I think this is really awesome it all lines up with what Paul is teaching and what Christ taught. Thank you very much for posting this. I'm going to go back and check who was the author that first presented this position. I'd be interested to know some of his other interpretations of other verses. Cool!
Compare Tobit 1:13 which supports the denotation "status" or "condition" for the word although I prefer to define it (in this context) as external form/shape or outward appearance.
Yes that is one good example. Since the 1950's there has been a slowly growing number of scholars who interpret this passage as referring to a social condition/status. Also to note is the cultural background of the Philippians being a Roman colony. Paul's vocabulary in verses 1 -11 indicates contrasts between a noble and humble status. In addition to Wuest's comments, see (online) Nebreda, Jowers and Hellerman for starters (and perhaps include Witherington). books.google.ca/books?id=pa-6ukdSOg4C&pg=PA295&lpg=PA295&dq=silva+social+philippians&source=bl&ots=_9857TlvlS&sig=szHJaECHg_naEoP6F-3EhDojXyk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IhA0VNW3OuHtigKo6oDYBw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=silva%20social%20philippians&f=false www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/49/49-4/JETS_49-4_739-766_Jowers.pdf www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/52/52-4/JETS%2052-4%20779-797%20Hellerman.pdf books.google.ca/books?id=ms8VAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=morphe+joseph+hellerman&source=bl&ots=yCu4r322Tq&sig=FQ2GoPHpxU255982i5LhRwoZ-NI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ahE0VN7PL82zogSWsIGICw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=morphe%20joseph%20hellerman&f=false
Hi Kel, thank you for another thoughtful and coherent teaching. How does one interpret and understand the phrase, "he did not consider it robbery to be equal with God....", in the context of this teaching? God bless
Hi Shane, Leave out the "it" in your translation and see how it changes the meaning (there is no Greek grammar reason to have the word "it"). The KJV translation implies something the Greek does not (i.e. the KJV implies that Jesus did in fact do some deliberating when the Greek text does not imply that). To say, "he did not consider it robbery" implies that he did in fact do some considering and his conclusion to the considering was that he didn't consider it robbery to be equal to God but in fact considered his decision to be appropriate. But the Greek doesn't lead to all that. The Greek only says he didn't consider this at all. In other words, it didn't enter his mind. In other words, Jesus never ever bothered to consider equality with God. Jesus ONLY considered servanthood. The word "robbery" is also a little too much for a translation of this Greek word and it sort of unnecessarily overloads the Greek word. You could use this word to refer to a robbery but it doesn't necessarily refer to a robbery. The Greek word refers to something you would claim for yourself, usurp, snatch, plunder, or seize for yourself but not necessarily "robbery." Jesus did not consider seizing upon equality with God. He did not do this; he did something else; he emptied himself; he humbled himself. Paul's point is that Jesus did not seek to exalt himself above others; he rather served others as higher than himself. Rather than exalting himself, he humbled himself and obediently served. God did the exalting. This is similar to the idea of justifying yourself rather than leaving that to God, "It is God who justifies."
"robbery to be equal with God" is a poor translation. Although Jesus is spoken of as the visible “form of God” (“the image of the invisible God” - Colossians 1:15), he “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” after. The words, “DID NOT REGARD EQUALITY WITH GOD A THING TO BE GRASPED,” prove that Philippians 2:6 is not speaking about an alleged Second Divine God Person up in heaven (prior to the incarnation), who would have already been completely “coequal” with God the Father in the first place. Since the text says, “did not regard equality with GOD,” and not, “did not regard equality with” God the Father, it is apparent that the person who did the regarding could not have been thinking as another coequal God Person beside God the Father. For a true God Person would not and could not have thought about being equal with another true God Person if He was already a true God Person to begin with. It is hard to imagine that a coequal and omnipresent God Person up in heaven (who would have already had all of the divine attributes of God), would have ever bothered to think about being equal with God, since He would have already been fully God in the first place. Therefore we must rightly divide the Word of truth in believing that the man “Christ Jesus” “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” after because he was a man on the earth. For an alleged pre-incarnate “coequal” God Christ Jesus would not have had any humanity, nor would he have been inferior to God in any way. Therefore a pre-incarnate Trinitarian God Person could not have been thinking about equality with God since He would have already been fully God from eternity past. Furthermore, if this passage of scripture is speaking about a literal pre-incarnational Christ Jesus up in heaven as an alleged second divine person called “God the Son,” then this passage should say something like this: “Who being in the form of God, He was equally God.” Instead, this passage of scripture states that Jesus “… did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped …” These words clearly prove that it was the “man Christ Jesus” who “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” rather than a supposed pre-incarnate invisible God Person. More FREE info at apostolicchristianfaith.com
Shane Walsh Your welcome! Kel is very knowledgeable in Greek so I am learning allot from his insight in the Word of God. It is always good to have an open heart and mind to learn from allot of different scholarly sources. Then you compare this knowledge with all of the scriptural data to see which ideas bring harmony to the totality of all the Biblical data. That is what I am doing. God Bless!
I agree with everything, just like Jesus cannot receive inheritance from himself he cannot exalt himself, he receives everything from the father, also the whole idea of Jesus sitting by the right side of the father makes little sense if Jesus is God, why on the right side? why aren't all three sitting on the same position, aren't they all equal? is the father higher than the son? why even tell us that at some point Jesus took a seat on God's right side, isn't obvious since Jesus God and always was on his right side? etc etc..
The form of God could not be a pre-incarnate form for the following reasons. Verse 6 - "Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped …” When did Jesus exist “in the form of God?” The word “form,” in the original Greek is “morphe,” which means “form” or “outward appearance.” Hence, this passage of scripture is not speaking about an unseen spiritual form existing with God prior to the incarnation, but rather, a physical and tangible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) that was made visible for us all to see after he was “made of a woman (Galatians 4:4 / Luke 1:35 / Hebrews 2:9 / Romans 1:3-4).” “When the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” Galatians 4:4 “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.” Luke 1:35 “Jesus was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death …” Hebrews 2:9 “Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead.” Whenever we properly exegete any text of scripture we always need to compare it with other passages of scripture to ensure that our interpretation harmonizes with all inspired scriptures - i.e. “tota scriptura.” When we compare Colossians 1:15 with Philippians 2:6, we find that Jesus is also spoken of as “The image of the invisible God.” When did Jesus exist in the form or image of the invisible God? After He was born at Bethlehem. For how could Jesus have existed in the form or image of the invisible God if that form or image was also invisible? If Philippians 2:6 is speaking about an invisible form or image of the invisible God, then Colossians 1:15 should read something like this, “Who is the invisible image of the invisible God …” Since an invisible image of the invisible God would not make any sense, we must rightly divine the Word of truth by believing that Jesus existed in the physical form or image of God while he was on earth. Although Jesus is spoken of as the visible “form of God” (“the image of the invisible God” - Colossians 1:15), he “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” after. The words, “DID NOT REGARD EQUALITY WITH GOD A THING TO BE GRASPED,” prove that Philippians 2:6 is not speaking about an alleged Second Divine God Person up in heaven (prior to the incarnation), who would have already been completely “coequal” with God the Father in the first place. Since the text says, “did not regard equality with GOD,” and not, “did not regard equality with” God the Father, it is apparent that the person who did the regarding could not have been thinking as another coequal God Person beside God the Father. For a true God Person could not have even had an option to think about being equal with another true God Person if He was already a true God Person to begin with. It is hard to imagine that a coequal and omnipresent God Person up in heaven (who would have already had all of the divine attributes of God), would have ever bothered to think about being equal with God, since He would have already been fully God in the first place. Therefore we must rightly divide the Word of truth in believing that the man “Christ Jesus” “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” after because he was a man on the earth. For an alleged pre-incarnate “coequal” God Christ Jesus would not have had any humanity, nor would he have been inferior to God in any way. Therefore a pre-incarnate Trinitarian God Person could not have been thinking about equality with God since He would have already been fully God from eternity past. Furthermore, if this passage of scripture is speaking about a literal pre-incarnational Christ Jesus up in heaven as an alleged second divine person called “God the Son,” then this passage should say something like this: “Who being in the form of God, He was equally God.” Instead, this passage of scripture states that Jesus “… did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped …” These words clearly prove that it was the “man Christ Jesus” who “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” rather than a supposed pre-incarnate invisible God Person. FREE BOOKS, ARTICLES, AND VIDEOS at apostolicchristianfaith.com
It also shows that Jesus was not obsessed in being or becoming God o a God. But Satan desires that? Interestingly, Satan and the demonic host tremble of knowing that Jesus is the Son of God! I thought Jesus mission was to reveal the Father, His God and to direct our worship to the Eternal One God(& not to himself)! He is our perfect example. We should not seek our glory. Instead, seek the glory of the Father, who would glorify us as He also glorified Jesus for his perfect servitude. Jesus is the Way, the Light, etc means that his testimony, his way of living is what we should seek to exemplify. Jesus asked that we believe the 'He was sent from God, the promised One, the Son of God'. Surprisingly, He never asked or hinted that we should believe that he is God! Instead, he has given us the assurance that He is a man like us. He hunger, he thirst, those in his days could touch him. Not see him as ghost walking on water. As a matter of fact, he was born to a woman, as an infant, grew up to adulthood.
I think what you are really getting at here is the fact that some of what Paul says can be interpreted in different ways, is because he is telling you his religious belief, period. I think he hijacked the Christian religion. I'm not saying he didn't see or hear something, what I am saying is I don't believe IT WAS JESUS! I'll take the words of Jesus over Paul anyday. And you can tell me till the end of time that they were talking about the end time. I'll say yes, they all thought the end was then too, didn't they! 1. Matthew 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 2. Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 3. Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 4. Mark 13:6 for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 5. Mark 13:21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not: 6. Luke 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them. Genes, I am telling you he was a genes! once in Luke, twice in Mark and three times in Matthew. THAT IS SAYING ADD ME UP, 1 2 3, add it up, 6 the number of man. I think I'll believe Jesus/Yeshua over Paul! I am just saying Everyone is trying so hard to see what each other want's to see in what Paul wrote, that alone should make you question Paul! And I just gave you the answer, believe what the anointed one told us! You are spending all that time on justifying Paul, time you're keeping yourself from knowing the truth!
You can't accept this interpretation without doing a great deal of damage to the scriptures. You insert the word "now" into the clause "being in the form of God" to (unnecessarily) explain the present tense, and then commit the logical fallacy of equivocation over its meaning. That is, having introduced "now" into the clause as a reference to "this present time", you then switch to an altogether different definition, "under these present circumstances" to continue your argument and make the scripture say something it simply does not say. You omit the contrasting terms with "FORM of God" such as Him being made into the "LIKENESS of men" and "being found in fashion AS a man" in your recapitulation below the video. "FORM" refers to the actual form or kind of something; "LIKENESS" is the RESEMBLANCE of something ELSE. Jesus was found in His outward appearance and manner of living "AS" (Gr. ὡς, "like") a man. How is it the He, "being in the form of God" was made into the "likeness" of men and was found in his external appearance and manner of living "like" a man, if He were in fact just a man? And what did He "empty" Himself of, if He was already a man, and already a servant? The present tense followed by conjunction with the aorist tenses indicates He took upon Himself the "form" of a servant "and" came in the "likeness" of men all while BEING in the form of God. As Paul writes, He "BEING in the form of God...TOOK UPON HIMSELF the form of a servant." "Took upon" is from the verb λαμβάνω, which means "to choose, to lay hold of, to take up". The self-abasement of Christ is integral to understanding the mindset of humility Paul speaks of. If Christ was a mere servant, how is it that He humbled Himself as a servant if a mere servant is His rightful estate? But if He, being in the form of God and being equal with God, humbled Himself and "became" obedient even unto death, great is the humility of our Lord as our example to follow. After having abased Himself, and submitted to death on the cross, God the Father exalted Him. Understanding of this scripture would go far in correcting the Unitarian misunderstanding of many scriptures regarding the Deity of Christ. But to "wrest" (2 Peter 3:16) means "to pull away by twisting or wringing", which is what you are doing throughout this video: pulling apart the scriptures and twisting them clause by clause. The truth of scripture will never be gotten though such a process.
+livealive - That is what he know how to do-all his videos are about twisting, attack every single verses in the bible where the apostles-prophets and where GOD HIMSELF CALLS JESUS GOD(HEBREWS 1) according to him-it means something else,it was added-scribal error-etc etc etc
Trinitarioans add the word WHILE, which is not there. Look, that's how they read it: "Jesus (while) being in the form of God..." ...but that might be wrong as The Trinity Delusion explains here. The word "being" means "now he is".
+DerKoenigFrank "Trinitarioans add the word WHILE, which is not there." Friend, please spend more time looking at the progression of the verse rather than listening to Greek arguments from those not qualified to make them and the straw man arguments they use to set them up. Everything that Trinity Delusion says in this argument reverses the order of vv. 6-8. Then in a paraphrased summary below the video he uses ellipses to hide those words that speak of Christ as becoming man . In the verse, it says that Jesus "BEING in the form of God...TOOK UPON HIMSELF the FORM of a servant, AND was made in the LIKENESS of men." What purpose does Paul have to say of a "mere man" (not my words, but Trinity Delusion's) that He was "made in the LIKENESS of men"? And how did he take upon HIMSELF the FORM of a servant, if a servant was His proper estate? And again, what reason would he have to reiterate a second time, "being found in fashion [i.e., external appearance and manner of living] LIKE a man", if He were a mere man? But as it is written, "and the Word was God . . . and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us".
C 19 You're right. The fact that (as he says) "no one seems to be considering" this alternate explanation is because it is the product of his own mind, and not something handed down by faithful men from the beginning.
"In the likeness of man... in human form" (Phil. 2:7) - F.F. Bruce has suggested that these terms "represent alternative Greek renderings of the Aramaic phrase kebar-'enash ("like a son of man") in Daniel 7:13" - F.F. Bruce, Paul And Jesus (London: S.P.C.K., 1977) p. 77. A real man.
My life is to worship God to humble myself before God. To seek 'His' well in my life, to seek the treasures in heaven and not the one's in the world. For they are a distracted form of worship of the Almighty God, Creator of Heaven and Earth. And, I do this by Jesus Christ by fallowing Him with my cross. For God Glory. Jesus is my way to the Father. When Christ Jesus .come's for His small flock may I, be lifted up to His Father By my Lord, my King, my Hop!
There are indeed difficulties with the text of Philippians 2:6-9, but none of them impact the truth of the preexistence of Christ. But more on that in a moment. You stated that a better translation of the relative clause in v. 6 would be “in the form of God being”, and then went on to say “presently.” Then you stated: _"You can use a present participle...when you’re talking about something in the past. So you could say…'have this attitude that was in Christ Jesus who being’... being is present... it’s just the way you have to speak… but because it is a present participle, maybe Paul is using it that way to refer specifically to the risen Christ.”_ I can answer that question immediately and definitively; *_No he is not._* The very notion is contradicted by the grammar of the text as I'll explain; You translate v. 5, along with the relative clause in v. 6, and then end the sentence as if the relative clause was functioning as the direct object of v. 5, and υπαρχων was functioning as a predicate nominative. You then proceed to argue that since “was” isn’t in the original, there’s no basis for understanding the action of the participle as occurring in the past. But all of this ignores the fact that the relative clause of v. 6 is functioning as the *_subject_*, not the *_object_* which is clearly indicated by the use of *’ὃς’* in v. 6. Being the subject of the sentence also renders it grammatically independent of v. 5. If the relative clause was functioning as the direct object of v. 5 as you suggest, then the relative pronoun would be *’ὃν.'* (See _Basics Of Biblical Greek_, William Mounce, p. 114). As a present adverbial participle, υπαρχων gets its time aspect from the main verb and is usually concurrent with, but sometimes antecedent to its action. (See _Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics,_ Daniel B. Wallace, p. 625). Since in this case the main verb is aorist (εκεωσεν), any possibility of the participle referring to the risen Christ is precluded. So your argument about _‘was_’ not being in the original is simply a red herring and entirely irrelevant to anything having to do with the participle. Since this is the case, your comparison of the tenses (‘is’ vs ‘was’) in the ESV and NASB etc is pointless. Having no grammatical foundation, your "exegesis" and "paraphrase" of the Carmen Christi is a grotesque perversion. (no offense, just stating the facts) By your videos, it would seem that you know more Greek than such a fundamental error like this would suggest. It only stands to reason then that you are purposely misrepresenting the Greek text in an effort to mislead people. On the other hand, if this video does accurately represent your knowledge of the Greek language, then you need to stop making videos and go back to your studies. You invited people to leave their critique in the comment section so that is what I've done. But I’m not simply putting this out there for anyone's consideration. I’m telling both you, and anyone reading this that what you’re saying in this video is impossible from the standpoint of proper grammar. But what about Christ's “existing in the form of God”? Was this _pre_ or _post_ incarnation? Fortunately the grammar is again decisive on that question. According to BDAG, when the word 'γινομαι’ is used with the preposition ‘εν’, it indicates either a change in nature, or change in state of being. *BDAG:* *5 to experience a change in nature and so indicate entry into a new condition,* _become someth._ *c* w. εν of a state of being Therefore, adhering to proper rules of Greek grammar, and with the support of NTG lexical scholarship, I'd like to offer my own paraphrase of Paul. And what he’s saying is this: “Although He existed in the form of God, He did not consider equality with God something to be held on to, but He emptied Himself by taking the form of a slave, _and entered into a new state of being, when He was made (or born) in the likeness of men._ Again, BDAG: "εν ομοιωματι ανθρωπων _be like human beings_ Phil 2: 7." If the birth of Christ introduced Him into a *_new_* state of being, then He logically had to have had a *_prior_* state of being. Thus, the preexistence of Christ is established. What I said with regard to the time aspect of the participle in v. 6 is not up for debate. But I AM willing to be corrected on my comments about Christ’s preexistence. All you have to do is demonstrate that I’ve either misrepresented BDAG in some way, or show where alternative scholarship has shown BDAG to be in error. If neither of these can be done, then you stand refuted, and you are strongly admonished to repent.
+II TheTrinitySolution II However, I would resist paraphrasing the text as "Although He existed in the form of God," because δούλου λαβών implies that He "took up" the form of a servant, not that He ever gave up the "form of God". (It seems to me that Paul is following the model of Isaiah 53, where κενόω stands for the Hebrew `arah (v.12)--to be "poured out" or "stripped bare"). A better paraphrase would maintain the present participle as the present tense in English, "Although existING in the form of God", indicating He remains God even in spite of His self-abasement as a servant. In the same way, Jesus says in the present indicative "Before Abraham was, I AM". The present is used to denote His eternal nature, having neither beginning of days nor end of life the only verb of existence that expresses such is "is" or "am". But again, I enjoyed your analysis.
QUESTION: I've heard "Morphe" can mean only PHYSICAL form. So the point may be Paul is saying for us to be like Christ was on earth. If you saw the physical man Jesus, you saw God, since Jesus, the man is the IMAGE OF GOD. Also, another question. JESUS did exalt and say he was GREATER than the PROPHETS, etc. He said he was GREATER than ABRAHAM. You said he NEVER exalted himself over others. He clearly did.
+nestosolo You need to read John 8:12-58 again to see why you are not hearing Jesus. "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me."
+The Trinity Delusion Is it not written, in the span of verses you reference, that Jesus says, "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go." (John 8:14) They asked Him, "art thou greater than our father Abraham," and "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" His implication in the statement, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, 'Before Abraham was, I AM'" is therefore quite clear. It is not glorying to speak the truth.
Thanks for this talk! There is a lot here it seems! I find the Concordant Version helpful.. "For let this disposition be in you, which (is) in Christ Jesus also, Who, (being) UNDER+ORIGINATE/exist in (the) form of God . Every Blessing
Hello Brother. I always enjoy your videos. I, too, have made a video on Phil 2. Philippians 2:6-8 I think morphe of God equals image of God. Paul is comparing/contrasting Adam and Christ. Verse 7 is the proof that Christ did not try to be equal with God in verse 6, right? So, when did Christ humble Himself and serve man in the likeness of man? I believe that shows that "morphe of God" is not speaking of the exalted Christ, which came AFTER the earthly ministry of Christ, but rather, the one that walked the earth spreading the gospel of the coming Kingdom of God. And yes, Christ never stopped being "in the image of God." He just never sought equality with God at any point. Well, that is my thoughts on this subject. May God bless us both with truth!!
+jhs4791 μορφή is the actual form or kind of something; an image is a likeness or representation; they are not interchangeable terms. Hence Jesus is found in the "likeness" of men and He is found in fashion "like" (ὡς) a man. The contrast in terms makes His Divine nature all the more clear. He, being God the Son, is indeed equal with God as John Himself states in John 5:18, and which is also reaffirmed in John 10:31-39. Why else would he be "like" a man in His outward appearance and manner of living, if He were indeed mere man? The passage is speaking of the pre-existence of Christ, as it is written He "took upon HIMSELF the form of a servant AND was made into the LIKENESS of men." Forgive the caps; not trying to shout. It is very clear Christ is existing in the form of God before these two acts, which converge in the incarnation.
livealive Incorrect. You are viewing it through your trinitarian colored glasses. Take them off!! What did Paul tell us to do before stating what Christ did??? He said Have this SAME mindset!!! Are you seriously telling me that Paul is telling us that we should have the mindset that we are God, but be humble and be like man?? Seriously?? That is the danger of pulling Scripture out of context! Christ, just like US, was made in the IMAGE of God, but HE...UNLIKE ADAM...did not strive to be equal with God (it doesn't say he did not strive to be like the Father...it says GOD, thus He is NOT God!!)! What was the devil's lie in the garden? Eat the fruit and you will be equal to God. What did Adam do? He ate the fruit; thus, he strived to be like God. Christ, being born in this same image, did not seek His own will, but rather, the will of God!! It really is that simple when you do not attempt to pervert Scripture!! Look, Christ always pointed to God. He gave credit to God. He claimed to be the Christ. He claimed to be the Son of God. He claimed to be the only way TO God. And yet, never ever ever, that means not even ONE time did he state, "I am God." If you love truth, this should concern you!! You have bought a lie from the devil. NOWHERE in Scripture does it tell us that God is triune or that Jesus is the Almighty God. That is a private interpretation and, our Bible says that Scripture is NOT of private interpretation. Again, this SHOULD concern you, IF you love the truth. It is not too late for you. One day, it will be too late. I'm not sure where your heart is. If you are truly open to and love the truth, please, rewatch my videos...reread the Scripture. I have made many videos using Scripture to explain trinitarian proof texts, as we should. I've pointed out that IN SCRIPTURE we do not have ONE apostle being killed for the blasphemy of saying that Jesus is God. Do you really think that they would record that they were imprisoned for saying that Jesus was resurrected, but those same people would just be ok with the apostles saying Jesus is God? Seriously?? That makes perfect sense to you?? The Sadducees said "stop telling people that Jesus was resurrected." You really believe that these same Sadducees would have a bigger problem with the apostles teaching that Jesus rose from the dead than they would Jesus being God Himself??? If that is your mindset, then I think I know where your heart is. Please, open your heart to God's truth!!!
+jhs4791 Friend, the mindset is one of humility, and you are trying to prove too much. It is the very same lesson Jesus Himself teaches His disciples in John 13:14ff, "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should live as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." Do then they each say, "I am master," and "I am Lord" because they wash each others' feet? Have you not read in Zechariah 2:8-10, how it is written, "For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath HE sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of HIS eye. For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent ME. Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD." How is it that the LORD speaks of Himself as sending Himself, speaking of Himself at one time as "I" and "me", but another as "he" and "him"? If the LORD of hosts sent the LORD, how is He yet the LORD, if He is sent by Him? But if you understood what it means, when it says of Christ, "I and my Father are one," and again, "BEING in the FORM of GOD...made HIMSELF of no reputation, and took upon HIMSELF the FORM of a SERVANT, and was made in the LIKENESS of men, and being FOUND in fashion AS {lit. "LIKE"} a man, he HUMBLED himself, and BECAME obedient unto death, even the death of the cross," you would understand. He progresses from the form of God to the form of a servant in the "likeness" of men. Thereafter, being seen in his outward appearance "as" (lit. "like") a man, he humbled himself and "became" obedient unto death. Therefore, having humbled Himself, He is exalted by God. (forgive the caps, I intend them for emphasis and not shouting) This is the same as kings of old did by casting their crowns before other kings. They, though being equal in stature, do not abandon their kingship but rather subject it to the authority of another. If the king, whom they casted down the crown before, places that crown again upon their head, they are now received as the subject of that king and exalted again according to his authority. This custom would have been well known to Paul, and was even played out in the affair between Rome and Armenia in the days of Nero while he was yet alive. Christ did not cling to being "equal" to God, but abased Himself as both man and servant, as though a son to a father and a servant to his God. He was born under the law, and subjected Himself to the law. When He claims Divinity, He does so by implication or reception, not overt declaration. Just as He never overtly declares, "I am Christ", but receives the claim, and does not deny the truth of it. Making such outright claims as "I am God" outright undermines the very purpose of His humble estate, to live as one of us and die for your sins; yet testifying of the truth of His nature through implication when relevant does not, for as He says, "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go." (John 8:14) As for the religious authorities, you ask if I really believe they had a bigger problem with the teaching of the resurrection than with Jesus being God. I say they would have wiped out, and sought to wipe out, Christianity by a variety of means. You speak of the Apostles, but not of our Lord. When Jesus says, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30), they pick up stones to stone Him saying, "thou, being a man, makest thyself God." (John 10:33) And earlier, when He also claimed God was his Father, they also sought to stone him because, according to John, He "said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18). Now John does not say, "they said he made himself equal," but that He did in fact make Himself equal. And again, when He says, "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58). What says it afterward? "Then took they up stones to cast at him". If you can show me to be in error through the scriptures, without wresting them, then I welcome truth. But if what you say is not in accord with what the scriptures say, then will you also the same?
livealive You have typed so much it is hard to address all problems. I will do my best. Let's go.. John 13 is about humility, and Jesus makes the point that "I am lord and master and yet I still serve...you should do the same." That is a clear, easy to understand, teaching. And so, the apostles did follow this teaching and became servants. Reminder...not one went on to say "Jesus is the one and only Almighty God" that the Jews were taught about..just saying. NOW...Philippians is about humility; however...and this is an important however, we are told to have this very same mindset as Christ. Paul goes on to tell us Christ's mindset. It is not a general humbleness, but one in which we all may share. We are ALL made in the image of God, as was Christ. We can all make ourselves "gods" or we can humble ourselves and become servants. It is a daily choice!! What it does not say is that Jesus was God. It says He was in the "morphe" of God....same as saying "image of God." Now...an image is NOT the thing itself. Your reflection is NOT you. You never get confused and think "how am I in two places at once." NO...you understand that it is only a reflection. Christ DID reflect God...as WE TOO should!! We do not do it, but we are still called to be a reflection of God!! Furthermore, Philippians goes on to say that GOD...not "the Father"...very specific here...GOD highly exalted Christ BECAUSE of His sacrifice. Notice it doesn't say that "because He was God." It also says GOD "gave Him a name above all others." Now wait...IF Jesus is God then He already had a name "above all others." What? Also, every tongue is to confess Jesus as "lord" (a title of rulership..not a title of divinity) to whose glory? God!! If Jesus is God then it is to His own Glory!! If God is truly ONE, as HE claims, then you can not separate God into 3. Further, you need to show where this teaching of God being 3 is clear. God makes who He is clear! He doesn't shy away from what He has done, what He will do, or who He is!! What He doesn't do is tell us the very thing that trinitarians always tell us...that we must believe/accept that He is 3 in 1 in order to be Christians. In fact, He doesn't even ever tell us that He is 3 in 1. Moving on...Zechariah does say how God will be in the land...and He will. BUT...do you forget that God says what He will do and Cyrus goes on to do it? Does this mean that Cyrus is God incarnate? NO...and YOU know it!! However, we understand (should understand) that whatever happens, does so because God is the orchestrator. He takes the credit. So, when He says HE will do something and Cyrus does it...well...we can still say "God did it." God can say "I did it." If I do something because God leads me to do it, I can say "God did it." Am I calling myself God? NO...I am acknowledging that "ALL good things come FROM God!!" And...if JESUS does something that God says "I will do..." This in NO way means that Jesus is the Almighty God!! Again, if you want to say that because Jesus did/does something that God says that He Himself will do...then you MUST also say that Cyrus is God, too. Otherwise, you are selectively using Scripture to make your point!! That is called private interpretation..we are warned against that. Yes, Jesus says "I and the Father are one," BUT...He doesn't say "I and the Father are one God...one being." Does He? NO. Furthermore, He goes on to say that He wants us to be one with Them JUST LIKE They are. Is He saying He wants us to all be God? NOPE! You go on to talk about "the likeness of man." Are you truly insinuating that Jesus only appeared like a man, but really wasn't? That would be dangerous because Scripture states clearly that we must confess that Jesus was a man! Funny enough, Scripture never ever says that we are to confess that Jesus is God. Why would it not be just as important to confess that He is God as it is that He is man? Think about it!! Don't just believe something because someone tells you to believe it. Scripture clearly tells us that we are to confess that Jesus is a man..that God gave His only begotten (born) Son...and yet trinitarians change Scripture to say we must confess that Jesus is God and that God gave Himself. That REALLY should concern you!! Now getting back to "morphe" of God and "likeness of man" what was that truly about. Well, just like the first Adam, Jesus was sinless, the "morphe" of God; however, He took on sin (likeness of man) in order to pay the penalty for us all. It really is that simple. The first Adam was sinless and yet strived to be equal with God. The second Adam was sinless and yet humbled Himself before God's will. Remember, Jesus' will was "for this cup to pass from Him" however, He went on to say "not as I WILL...but as YOU WILL." This clearly can not be possible if Jesus is God! Also, let's not forget that GOD exalted Jesus. You can not exalt Jesus if He is God. God is already the highest. Scripture also states that in the end, after the millennium reign of Christ, Christ will turn everything over to God..so that GOD...may be all in all. What do you make of that? In the end does "god the son" get a demotion? He was God, humbled Himself, was beaten, tortured, and sacrificed His life, exalted to King (under God by the way), and then in the end...He turns everything over to the Father. Sounds exactly like a demotion to me...was God and now is not...all because of His sacrifice and devotion to God (Himself??). And, what about the 3rd member of the trinity? Where is the "god the spirit"? Remember, SCRIPTURE says that in the end Jesus turns everything over to the Father so that God may be all in all....NO 3rd member of the trinity there!! Going on...Jesus does overtly claim to be the Christ. That is who He is. There was a time that it needed to be claimed and it came when God wanted. After the commission to "go make disciples," there were plenty of claims to Jesus' identity as Christ. What is missing is this repeatedly claim of Christ being God!! That only came after the death of the apostles. Why do you think that is? As for Jesus saying "I am" and they picked up stones to stone Him. Are you unaware that Jesus during the same exact conversation with those Jews TWICE states "I am" and it is ONLY after the third time that they pick up stones to stone Him? The reason is NOT because He says "I am." It is because He states that He is "before" Abraham. Jews understand that is a claim to be "more important than"...just like when John the Baptizer says Jesus is the one that is "before him" even though He came after him!!! The problem really extends from a disregard for the Jewish people. Once the gentiles outnumbered the Jews and the true JEWISH early church fathers were dead, Christianity lost its foundation! Satan sent his ministers into the church. The apostles fought hard, but succumbed to death. After this, it was easy for the devil to corrupt the church...just mix lies with truth. That and a lack of "Jewish understanding" from the "gentile church," has made for a disaster. That is why you and the other trinitarians do not understand what it means to be "from heaven" or "before" someone. Do you not remember that Jesus is Jewish? He thought like a Jewish man. He learned about the very same God that the Jews learn about today...the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...the God that is ONE...the God that is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow!!! Scripture tells us exactly what the Jews were blinded to (by God) and do not understand. It's not the "nature of God" but rather that Jesus was the Christ...not that He was God!!! Scripture is clear here and never claims otherwise. This claim only comes from trinitarians!! All of this is true. It is not something that you will read and say "oh, I see." It has to come from God!! I truly pray that you are open to receiving truth. There is nothing I want more than for people to accept truth....not my truth or your truth.....or the truth of the supposed "early church" but rather the true early church as told about in Scripture!! The church that NEVER said we must believe that Jesus is God...the church that never said God is 3 in 1...the church that never said that Jesus was a god/man. What did this true church claim? Exactly what I believe!!! Jesus was a man...the Son of God...the Christ/Messiah that was promised to come...to be exactly like His brothers, the Jews...out of the line of David...that He being made perfect gave up this by taking on our sins and paying the penalty of death so that we may have eternal life....that it is because of this very reason that God exalted Him (not Himself) to rule over all EXCEPT God (as Scripture states)...He was MADE King and Lord BY God. None of this even suggests that Jesus IS God!! You yourself quoted that Jesus said that the one that was sent is not greater than the one that sent him!! That is exactly what trinitarianism does. It exalts Jesus over God. Just like Scripture says...it worships the Creation over the Creator!! God said this would happen.
I have actually entertained this interpretation before, yet it seems to strain the greek. υπαρχων is indeed present tense but its temporal aspect is tied and limited by the time aspect of the main verb ηγεομαι. Participles only relate temporality in relation of the main verbs absolute time. In order words, the particple does not say:" Christ Jesus who currently right now is in the form of God,". All it tells us is that Jesus was currently in the form of God while the "considering" (ηγεομαι) took place, which took place some time in the past. This would make it difficult to take the participle to be refering to the risen Lord and the main verb action to be speaking of the pre-resurrected Jesus.
That is what I was thinking, but you said it better. Because every effect has a cause, every choice is in the past once it is acted upon. In other words when Paul was writing, to him this was in the past, but not that long ago. Jesus, historically was first in the form of God, present tense, when He decided to humble himself -- present tense, but to Paul this was already in the past. Jesus, in the form of God being, DID NOT consider...... Jesus was in the form of God when he humbled himself, just like Adam was in the form of God when he usurped his rank and snatched at equality with YHVH. Because of this, Jesus is still in the form of God, but now with the exalted status of lord, sitting at the right hand of God. If at first he was God's agent of redemption, now he represents his character and nature fully, he is YHVH's right hand Man! Great points though on Hurpharchon being present tense. It points at the Man Jesus existing at the time of his humbling, and not PRE-existing at a time prior to incarnation. As Dunn rightly points out, this is about an action the historical Jesus did, not about a decision a pre-existent person made. Shalom
Hi Pär. Thank you for mentioning this matter since, if any objection is made, I would say it should be this one. While I completely agree that it is quite true that a present tense participle can be used within the context of a past time-frame (such as "Being a sinner, the Lord saved me"), it does not seem to me that this forms a rule. In other words, what could be the case is not necessarily the case. In other words, as you point out, if Paul was referring to the pre-cross Jesus, he COULD say, "who in the form of God being, he died for us." In such a case, the word "being" is present tense within the framework of a clearly established time-frame. It really just means Christ was presently doing this in the past. However, I don't think it is convincing to say this is necessarily the case. What if we said, "Now being free, I was enslaved in sin." The word "being" in this case is not referring to a past event. As far as I can see, a number of New Testament examples show us that Paul could be referring to the present time with the participle while referring to a past event with the main verb. Perhaps, I will need a Part II to this video. I see a similar situation at 2 Corinthians 8:9. This is often understood to mean, "Jesus who was first rich then became poor." I remain unconvinced this is Paul's intent. I think he really means, Jesus now being rich in his glorified state did impoverish himself so that we too can become rich (glorified) just as he did. This would be a similar sentiment to Philippians 2:5-11. It doesn't make any sense to me to have Paul saying Jesus was in the state of being rich while he was being impoverished. That would be a bit like saying the light switch is on and off at the same time. That being the case, now let us consider the similar situation at Philippians 2:5-6. Another point to be made concerning Philippians 2:5-7, which I failed to mention, is that the typical understanding does not really contrast form of God with form of a servant. The typical understanding has Jesus taking the form of a servant while simultaneously being in the form of God. Given Paul's overall intent here, that seems rather awkward to me and unlikely that Paul was suggesting the form of God and the form of a servant were coincidental. It seems to me that a Jew like Paul would not suppose that servanthood is coincidental to being in the form of God. Rather, it seems more likely that to have the form of God would imply the Lordship of being served. If that is the case, Jesus either had one or the other at any given time.
Greetings Kel and thank you for the response. Since I am typing using my cellphone, my response will not be as thorough. I'm not sure my answer even touches upon the issue you raised but I will give it a shot and then ponder the whole thing some more. The example you gave has not convinced me fully yet. "Now being free, I was enslaved in sin." The participle, although being in the present tense, would still be refering to and being dependent upon a past event, i.e when you were enslaved to sin. To illustrate I present you with a crappy narrative: "They had just removed my shakels, but alas, I was still trapped inside the prison located under RUclips's headcourters. Now, being free, I was enslaved in sin". The "being free" does not present (pun) absolute time but only in relation to the past verb "enslaved". To quote Wallace: "The time of the participle's verbal nature requires careful consideration. Generally speaking, the tenses behave just as they do in the indicative. The only difference is that now the point of reference is the controlling verb, not the speaker. Thus, time in participles is relative (or dependent), while in the indicative it is absolute (or independent). GGBB, 614. Now, had we used an indicative form in the narrative it could be pointing to a time beyond and indepent of the enslavement event spoken of in the text: "They had just removed my shakels but alas I was still trapped inside the prison located under RUclips's headcourters. Now I am free, but I was enslaved in sin (back then)". Making the time of υπαρχων absolute lends itself to the same problems as with James White's erroneous claim that this word implies an eternal on-going existence without a starting point in time (may he forgive me if I misrepresent his views) I'm with you though that Christ could not both be in the form of God and in the form of servant, at least not in this context.
I do wonder, however, if I am being hypocritical to consider myself to be in the form of a Scandinavian while simultaneously being in the form of a Canadian. :) White's claim is just silly but not uncommon. If that were true, we have all kinds of eternal on-going existences in Scripture which are absurd. This is similar to the imperfect verb claim made by Trinitarians at John 1:1. I think a Part II will be required here. I have not yet made a written list of the evidence which has (almost) convinced me otherwise. I think that will provide a better basis for debating these possibilities. We do need to be as critical as possible.
Blasphemy!!! Unless if you consider being in the form of a Scandinavian to be implying Lordship over your "Canadianhood". If so you are stuck within a paradox (which is as incoherent as this reasoning) but at least then you are not blaspheming... Wait... What!?
I think it might have something to do with Adam and Eve and the lie Satan told them about being equal to God if they ate the fruit. It hurts my brain to think about this verse too long.
The whole discourse of Philippians2:6-11 with Christ being in the morphe of God. Is that if you read as his now present exalted state. One would have to ask what is it that he embodied beforehand and did not consider his equality. For the humbling comes after the statement of him being morphed and emptying himself! Remember Yeshua prayed and said in St.John, "Father glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world was. The beforehand transitioning in using morphe seems to that which is already present with the Father. Paul then lets us know that his past form of the prerogative of glory, majesty was emptied. Also, we would have to look at how is that he did not regard equality if it is in the present tense as being a glorified state. Surely after he' rose he did change back to a glorified expression. We know from the sentence structure the present tense aspect would make a steady flow of thought. Because Jesus humbled himself as to take the incarnation. That is the form of the servant. If it is the present tense of the glorified state then it would be saying that Christ is now humbling himself in the same present tense. But we know that he has already been exhausted to a glorified position and state! Yeshua claimed this title in Revelations I am the Aleph and the Tav!
"One would have to ask what is it that he embodied beforehand and did not consider his equality." The text is stating he did not consider taking this exalted position for himself but rather humbled himself. "Paul then lets us know that his past form of the prerogative of glory, majesty was emptied." He said no such thing. You are imagining this notion into the text.
@@TheTrinityDelusion On the contrary, I believe sir. You see where it states Although being in the form of God and his equality with the Father (God); "he did not consider a thing to be held onto! Then also that he emptied himself This means within his nature (Yeshua) was already in this state of being as the glorified Son. Colossians 1:16 states all things were made through him and without him nothing that is made was made. Also coralates at John 1:1-3. Colossians tells us also that all that is made is for him and by him! So then Hebrews also speaks of this that he was formerly in a glorified state and position! Philippians 2:7 " but emptied himself taking the form of a servant. Here again in order to empty himself he previously would've had to have something to let go of! This his taking the form of a servant shows us that he was previously in a higher state. From the first phrase morphe of God to being made in the likeness of man! Many scriptures remind us of this glorified status and position. Such as Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, Hebrews 5:2 He can deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray since he is subject to weakness. Philippians 3:21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body. Here just from these scripture verses we see that the human flesh is considered by two definitions. Lowly and weakness. The lowly refers to the status of the condition and the weakness it frailty being contaminated by original sin. Yeshua prayed thus;" And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began" at John 17:5. Hebrews 2:10 For it was fitting for Him, for who are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. This glory Yeshua states is that also of his position with the Father his glory and divine prerogative. By becoming man through the incarnation and hypostatic-union he was mad subject to weakness and became dependent on the Holy Spirt and father. Yeshua alluded to this juxtaposition numerous times Such as when he stated to the Pharisees and Sadducees. That before Abraham was "I am" Ego Emi. Greek form of Yahweh. and the narrator John clearly states why religious leaders wanted to stone him. And that is because him being perceived as only a man was making himself equal with and God. John just doesn't tell us why the Jewish leader wanted to kill him for that saying but he firms that is exactly what Jesus was doing. As John is the one giving the account of the event. St.John 5:18 For this reason, they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. Hebrews 1:7-8 reminds us that to none of the angels has God ever said at any time today you are my Son, not has he said I will be to him a father. Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son, he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom. There are in the Old Testament examples of the use of Elohim which diminish the difficulty of its application to an earthly king (such as Psalm 82:1; Psalm 95:3; 1Samuel 28:13; Exodus 7:1); but it must still be acknowledged that the passage stands alone. This difficulty, however, relates only to the primary application. As the higher and true reference of the words became revealed, all earthly limitations disappeared; the Christian readers of the Psalm recognized in the Messiah of whom it speaks a King who is God. So from the scriptures, we can see Christ's position is higher than angels. As he exited with the preeminence over things existing and created. We see that he requested of the Father restoration of his former "Glory" and majesty which he relinquished by taking the form of man. This his position as the son is equality with the Father making him God! Thus his humbled form removed from outward appearance of glory and majesty. The past tense of Philippians 2:7 confirms this view as from scripture what he came into be and previously had before manifesting in the flesh. He stripped Himself of His expression of deity, but not His possession of deity. He restricted the outward manifestation of His deity. In His incarnation, He clothed Himself with humanity. He was like a king temporarily clothing himself in the garb of a peasant while remaining king, even though it was not apparent. From his, before his birth, the prophecy is given by the angel Gabriel. That his name shall be called Immanuel; "meaning God with us" we know this isn't the name Christ was called but he was named Yeshua meaning God is salvation. So then the name or rather in the context meant is a title a literal calling of the one. That is God with us! Furthermore, the crowd during his triumphal entry on Palm Sunday shouted hosanna praise was only given to God! Aleph and the Tav!
If in fact Phillipians 2:6 is referring to his exalted state. This means that Yeshau is risen and has a Glorified body, form, shape from being transformed of the lowly humanity. If this is the case then shouldn't the Greek term "Eidos" have been used; Which refers to the direct shape and form of the thing instead of "Morphe' " nature or essence? I conclude that the traditional view of Yeshua being in the Morphe' of God is relative to his former pre-existence with God the one he asks for glory with the Father to be restored in st. John 17:5.
Okay lets say Jesus is God, Thus God became Flesh, God sent himself in the flesh. Bible Scripture says God is with us, And God Died for our sins. God shed his blood for us. Perhaps , God is with us means that Jesus is a perfect reflection of His God so much that he apply and contain all his Qualities , mimic him so perfectly that he was in a since God with us, because who sees Jesus have seen the Father . Our Heavenly Father rejects the Trinity by his Inspired Word the Bible which reveals that God never dies ! , or will never die, shall not die. Which Bible Translation Version do you prefer. When the Inspired Holy Bible from God which states: there is no way he can die, which was stated before God's Son Jesus Christ Death. Would only means that : God never dies for our sins . or that God will never die for our sins, or that God shall not die for our sins. Because God did not die for our sins, but only his son died for our sins which means that Jesus is not God as in result of proof from this scripture. Habakkuk 1:12 . Seeing is Believing the Inspired Holy Bible is Gods Light. Deny his Word the Bible, then you deny light. Which will make you not see because everything is black and dark. Habakkuk 1:12= LORD, you are the one who lives forever ! You are my holy God who never dies! ]- Easy to Read Version ERV Habakkuk 1:12= LORD, haven't you existed forever ? You are my holy God. you will never die. ]- New International Reader's Version NIRV Habakkuk 1:12= Are you not from of old, O LORD my God, my Holy One ? You shall not die ]- New Revised Standard Version NRSV. Unlike Fleshy Sinful Humans who says one thing that they promise maybe come true actually most the time never does. So humans words half the time means nothing Psalm 146:3= Don’t look to men for help; their greatest leaders fail; ]- The Living Bible TLB . However our Heavenly Father actions never changes that is once he put his foot down by it , which means he cannot go back on his inspired word the bible ISAIAH 55:11= So my word that goes out of my mouth will be, it will not return to me without results, But it will certainly accomplish whatever is my delight And it will have sure success in what I send it to do] So when God says all scriptures is inspired by him 2-( Timothy 3:16 ) that means each book of the bible each chapter and each verse have a purpose for his will . Satan is trying very hard to pollute God's word the bible. So Satan use anyone who is in the darkness by any means to add words and take away words from his Holy Writings that does not belong there which completely changes the true meanings of his Bible to False Meanings. A example of this is in Habakkuk 1:12 in which most bibles give a false statement which is ( “Let us not die.”) This rendering does not make no since in context with the other verses before it and make no since in context within the same verse of Hab 1:12 The translation of ( You do not die ) adheres closely to the original manuscripts. If anyone looks up Hab 1:12 in a Hebrew language written Bible the Translation of ( You do not die) will most likely be there. The Sopherim (Jewish scribes) changed this text long ago because they felt the original passage showed irreverence toward God. With few exceptions, most Bible translations make no adjustments to correct this scribal emendation. but a hand full of some restored the original text. But don't take my word for it. Do research dig deep in Gods word like hidden treasure and don't give up, for you will find the very knowledge of God and know how to fear him by turning away from bad. Do research in Scriptures that looks odd or that doesn't add up, Learn and find there true translation. Find true sources that are not corrupted that is reliable. Because 1-John 4:1 brings out this = Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.] Here Is my Contact Information the.maze.community@gmail.com
Would "form of God" be like "created in the image of God"? Example. "This pot is the same as the potter." no this pot is not the "same" as the potter, it is created and formed by the potter. In the likeness of that potter. Yes! but to be the same as the potter is to be that potter. No! Image/form= likeness of potter(God), not the potter(God) but a reflection(image/similitude,likeness) of the potter. Formed of God. and if we read on.... But made himself of *no* reputation(,humble,selfless,meek), and took upon him the form of a servant(following the laws of God -vessel of Gods will-holy spirit-grace of God-justified), and was made in the likeness of men(flesh/under the law unto death): Could be a metaphor for giving up the graven images of men(Statehood/person-persona meaning mask) for the true Laws of God. Servant of the true Sovereign Law(Gods will be done on earth as it is in heaven) Put to death in a civil sense, released from bondage......freedom! The book of the Law?
The exalted Jesus didn't empty anything. He's saying because Jesus emptied himself by being a slave he was rewarded by being exalted. Jesus a man obeyed God to the point of death, and God rewarded Jesus to eternal life and gave all authority to him.
The context of that whole passage is about MINDSET, nothing else. Paul is explaining what MINDSET Christians must have and our mindset should be the same as Jesus'. Jesus is the example for us! That example would not work for us if he truly was God and became a servant, because we simply are not Gods. Trinitarians do make the word of God meaningless by their doctrines.
Being in the nature of God thought it not a thing to be seized to be equal with God. The word "form" means nature. The word "robbery" means a thing to be seized. Just my thoughts.🤔
Paul got Direct revelation from Jesus an if he said jESUS was god in bodily form -then YOU have a big problem. Paul also adds that JESUS thought it not something to be grasped at being EQUAL to his father. which again clearly states BOTH MUST BE GOD. with CONTEXT.
Greetings in Christ! Since my last comment a few days ago, I have had a complete change of heart and mind regarding my initial comment. Athough there are some elements concerning the ministry of the Holy Spirit in relation to Christ that I still hold to, I want both you, and all who read this, to disregard my first comment completely, and I sincerely apologize for sounding fickle in this matter. I have come under the conviction that I was in error, and that the Trinitarian doctrine is true, i.e. as stated concisely in Webster"s Dictionary -- "THE UNION OF FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST IN ONE GODHEAD". I have returned to my Lutheran roots, and cannot, without grave conviction, drift from the true and proper Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Here I stand and will remain. So help me God. Amen.
you're discussing the sex of angels, when you should see the veracity of the name will be Jesus or Immanuel? What is the real name of the son of man, one that all scriptures speak? is Jesus or Immanuel? Why the real name of the son of man, was unduly amended by the Church to Jesus, in the new testament? - That Deception and strong Delusions will be with all of you that wishing to continue in darkness-
TheTrinityDelusion I see and feel that you did not understand me, I have to stop using parables for you to understand me. Stop talking about the accessory and talk of the essential and use your precious time you have left to enlighten those who walk in darkness by deception of lies promoted by religions and rulers of this planet....
***** Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them (Matthew 13/13 -13/17)
***** Friend, good morning. what you're saying makes no sense. By your way to see if the name of the Son of Man does not matter, then the word of God also does not matter. You know the one who can save mankind from sin and take to the father, the Creator, to have eternal life, is the son of man, Immanuel, the big AM. If you do not know his name, or is mistaken with another false and pagan name, how you can get to the son of man, or have their protection? you know nothing of spirituality, nor knows how things work. When you call or glorifies a pagan or false name, like Jesus, you're offending the son of man. I know it offends a lot, the son of the man as the father offends. Because then you show ingratitude and disrespect for him who suffered for you, and the only one who can save you. The same I say in relation to all human. Those who do not know the son, will not be saved, because it is taken from the book of life of the son of man. I do not belong to any sect, cult or religion. I'm against all this. . I just follow the word and commandments of God, and I like to share it with those who walk in darkness, so that I can save them, That's the big difference between me and you. God gives eyes, ears and mouth to those who can not see, hear and speak. God gives heart to everyone to be able to feel. Because those who are blind, deaf or dumb, they can see , hear and feel better, than you who have eyes, ears and mouth. because their hearts are pure and true, and so they can respect the word of God, that's the big difference between them and you.... My friend, for the next time, you respect more the son of man. Because what you say, think or do to the son of man, you're doing the father, "God" the Creator of all that exists, has existed and will exist, nothing exists beyond him, son, holy spirit (which are all the same entity) and all that is created by him »»The difference between a good "Christian", and a poor Christian is: The good Christian, reads, understands and keep the word of God, and so he is not deceived by the precepts and teachings of man. - While, the poor or bad "Christian", reads and forgets the word of God, and so he is deceived by the precepts and teachings of man These people forgot the true and living Word of God. With Blindness and deafness Those people that wanted wait by The "Savior" or "Salvation", They rejected the "God with Us" ( the visible God - Immanuel = I'm manuel= I AM Manuel) that is the one who can do the "Salvation" , he is the great "I AM", the "Savior" who can redeemer the man from sin and give eternal Life.!!!..... "...and SHALL call his NAME Immanuel" (Isaiah 7/14) The church completely misrepresented the truth, and the vast majority of Christians do not even understand the Truth and continues to follow the teachings of the church The church, transformed an existing adjective in a sentence of the scriptures in one own name..... For example: I am a civil engineer and architect, most of my friends of the work call me engineer or architect, but my name is not an engineer or architect, but yes, I´m Manuel I am lovable, friendly, obedient, respectful .... but my name is not lovable or friendly, obedient, respectful .... but yes, A.M. (which are the initials of my name António Manuel) Engineers and architects, there are many, are just the titles, what differentiates me from others is my name and my qualities or defects. Another example: If I'm during a meeting of engineers, and if you want speak with me, because you want and need my help, instead of calling out by my name, you calls by the word "Engineer", which of us will answer? - In this case all the engineers present, will look or reply to you. But if this meeting of engineers, there is a man who is only secretary, but his name is "Engineer". - when you calls by the word "Engineer", this man who is only secretary, but his name is Engineer, he will talk and reply to you,and I as well as all other engineers we will not reply to you... Now, if that secretary is evil, false and greedy, what you will receive or hear of this secretary that his name is Engineer? Will you be helped by this man secretary? --> But if you call my name, "A.M", or "Manuel", in this case you will talk with me because you called me by my name. And in this case you will not be mistaken as example above... You, the true follower of the true son of man, understand my message in these previous exemples? you understand the importance of the true name? "..If the sheep does not know his good shepherd, she will surely be deceived by the evil that awaits her carefully and do everything to steal the sheep in the herd of the good shepherd,," -> Read these scriptures and understand: But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another "Savior, messiah", whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11/3 -2 Corinthians 11/4) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Colossians 2/8) Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; (1 Timothy 4/1 -.1 Timothy 4/2 ) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition (religious leader Pope); Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord Immanuel (prophesied long before he was born, and was given by the father, creator, and mentioned in the holy scriptures in Isaiah, 7/14) shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. ->And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: (2 Thessalonians 2/3 - 2/13) Is true, that the son of man, know that the vast majority of the Christian are mistaken when they calls her name, they calls jesus instead of Immanuel or A.M. But all know that the son of man is defender of the pure word of God, he likes that word may be fulfilled... so everyone should call Immanuel or the great A.M. The son of man, Immanuel, the great A.M., from the beginning knew this would happen, so he made reference in the scriptures, particularly in Matthew and John, using parables and messages to all his sheep, but you can check this in other scriptures using a criterion confirmation about the contradictions mentioned a few simple lines. For this you must have your heart completely clean, and think like a child who asks his father why this? or why that? .... you will discover many things that have been hidden by the church, and it will set you free ... and you will give value to those who really deserve it, ie will love the true son of the man who was prophesied from the beginning, and that his name was always the same since the beginning of time, until the end of time.... "...and SHALL call his NAME Immanuel" (Isaiah 7/14) »»Everyone must remember what the son of man said, Immanuel (I´m manuel =I Am Manuel): " I am the way and the truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Best Regards from Portugal ღ˚ •。* With Love ˚ ˚¸✰˚* ˚ ✰˚★Ω ∞ "A.M.", (which are the initials of my name António Manuel)
- All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. (Matthew 11/27) - And Immanuel came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (Matthew 28/18) "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." Isa. 5/20 -Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand (Matthew 15/7- 15/10) -Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Matthew 7/15) .Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (Mat.7/20 - 7/24 ) - Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matthew 23/27- 23/28) Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch (Matthew 15/12 -15/14) - Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10/34) - His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: (Matthew 25/26 ) When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses. (Matthew 8/16 -8/17) - And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. (Matthew 12/27 -12/28) - He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. (Mat 12/30) - And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (Mat 12/32) - But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Mat 12/36-12/37) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5/17 -5/18) - Who has ears let him hear.!!!.... - Who has eyes let him see!!!.... - Who has heart let him feel !!!.... - Who has mouth let him speak !!!.... - who has the holy spirit let him understand !!!....... I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars--I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. (Revelation 3:9) - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16/28) - For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. (Mat 18/11) - Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 10/32) "...and SHALL call his NAME Immanuel" (Isaiah 7/14) »»Everyone must remember what the son of man said, Immanuel (I´m manuel =I Am Manuel): " I am the way and the truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
read ISAIAH 1 PLEASE. AN we see that GOD the creator is speaking an calls himself the creator. now keep reading an he states that The leading israelites and pharasees most of them rejected JESUS-who is called the HOLY ONE . Now jump to chapert 43 still in isaiah an we have GOD saying he is the HOLY ONE an that he takes away sin an IS the only SAVIOR. now go to JOHN 1 4-14 AND HERE we have GOD THE FATHER calling jesus SAVIOR of all mankind. !!! Again jesus and the Father have an intimacy found nowhere but scripture.THats why Jesus can say if you have seen me -you have seen the fathers and NOW YOU know HIM. John 14-7. revelations 3-21 jesus says i sit in my fathers THRONE. Creatures all worship the LAMB as well as the FATHER-who is spirit. THE invisble GOD in unapprachable LIGHT is seen expressly in JESUS the GOD_MAN!!
People explain Paul in a none scholarly level- Kel you are one of those people because you like us are no scholar-you are a x Jehovah witness.stop doin textual criticism- only scholars are qualified to do that.
The Problem you are having is due to a different belief, A Unitarian who have no concept of the pre-existing Messiah as the incarnate WORD and the Christian belief which transpire from the belief that Jesus was the WORD who became Flesh. So in your concept you cannot grasp what Paul is trying to say, you cannot grasp what John is saying the WORD become flesh. Because they are all Christian writers which you are always trying to misquote and misinterpret to suit your own belief. The WORD who is in the FORM of GOD, emptied himself and become a bond servant (a man) These is through the incarnation of the WORD to become the Messiah who is in the FORM of a man and was born to a virgin. NOW I SUGGEST YOU PUT YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION TO YOUR OWN UNITARIAN BIBLE BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US CHRISTIANS SINCE YOU HAVE BEEN CREATING YOUR OWN SELF RELIGION.
TheTrinityDelusion (YOU SAID) Telling yourself what you want to hear will not make it the truth. (ME) But Historical facts shows that I have the truth and you don't
Wisdom Historical facts? Ah yes, Calvin burned Servetus at the stake for not believing the Trinity. The Anglican church burned John Biddle at the stake for not believing the Trinity. The Catholic church killed and tortured only God knows how many Christians since the 4th century for not believing the Trinity. Yes, historical facts prove Trinitarians to be following the doctrine of Christ which said "kill everyone who doesn't believe the Trinity." Wait...Jesus never said that, did he? Even if the interpretation in the video isn't right, the other unitarian interpretation would be. The Trinitarian/Arian interpretation is absurd. You cannot set aside godhood, and Trinitarians can't even keep this straight anyway. They say he set aside his godhood, then they claim that when he did miracles on earth he did that by his innate godhood (which they just had him set aside) and so doing they make Philippians 2 into a sham, a phony fake show. The standard unitarian interpretation makes much more sense than that: Form (morphe) means an outward appearance, not an inward nature, first of all. And I think its obvious here its an outward appearance in action rather than looks. He was in the form of God in the sense that he had the power to heal the sick, give sight to the blind, and raise the dead during his ministry, for God had given him such power (John 5:19-30 "....By myself I can do nothing.") And so rather than using this power from God to a selfish advantage he (as Peter says in Acts 2) "went about doing good," or in other words took on the form of a servant. Form here contextually means something like function. He functioned like God in the sense that because God gave him power to raise the dead and so on he could look like he is God (this is why Trinitarians get confused and think the miracles prove he is God despite Jesus saying plainly in John 5:19-30 that this power is not innate to his person but something GIVEN to him by God). I haven't been able to find Martin Luther's comments on Philippians 2 yet but on youtube I saw a debate between Anthony Buzzard and James White, and Buzzard said this was Martin Luther's interpretation, and James White agreed that Martin Luther indeed interpreted it this way but of course said Martin Luther just didn't "get it." In any case, I think this unitarian interpretation is solid, and if Martin Luther even agreed with it, what are you going to say against it? The Pope of Protestantism agrees, so not much you can do. [Edit, I have apparently found Martin Luther's comments now, and he is trying to hold both interpretations together, which makes for some good entertainment in showing how silly Trinitarians can get: www.lectionarycentral.com/palm/LutherEpistle.html.]
David Brainerd Hmmm. You says since 4th century I doubt that my friend, Calvin was a reformist who lived in the 15th century and so as Servetus, during the 4th century St. Augustine was arrested and was eaten by lions which means during this time, Christian are still being persecuted, it was only in the 8th century when the Church become a State-church meaning they become a church with military under Charlemane, so Your History seems to be off. Trinitarians is not a church but a doctrine within the Christian church, you cannot separate the two, Christian from the very beginning believe in Jesus Christ as a God, and in order for us to believe that, we should believe in the Trinity for it explain how Jesus is a God you cannot make an assumption of a separate entity of what you called Trinitarian as to the Christian for they always go together, Even there was a schism in the Church between the Western and the Eastern Orthodox, both of them still holds the Trinitarian doctrine, Even when the reformist went schism and separate itself with Christianity, they too still holds the Trinitarian doctrine as what protestant is right now. The only people who does not believe in the Trinity is the Heretic, such as Arians and the modalism, gnostic and ebionites and the Judaized. All this are all outside of Christianity belief, they do not believed Jesus is a God and I believed you are one of those people too. (YOU SAID)The standard unitarian interpretation makes much more sense than that: Form (morphe) means an outward appearance, not an inward nature, first of all. And I think its obvious here its an outward appearance in action rather than looks. He was in the form of God in the sense that he had the power to heal the sick, give sight to the blind, and raise the dead during his ministry, for God had given him such power (ME)This is where Heretic are making serious mistakes about Jesus Christ, for they are so confused with Jesus Christ deity, Look at the scripture, Paul is referring to the FORM of GOD in his deity before he became a man, and look at what you are trying to say, you are referring to the FORM of GOD during the time when Jesus was in the FORM of a MAN. HE WAS A GOD AND THEN HE BECAME A MAN, TWO DIFFERENT TIME LINE HERE. When he was in the form of a man, he was definitely like us, he can die, he can get hungry, he does not know everything unless it was reveal to him by the Holy spirit or his Father in Heaven, Jesus have to be a man in all sense, and being a man as his status surely is no greater than the God above, But Heretic could not understand this and they mix up Jesus deity of the Form of God to his time as being a man. They keep saying, you see he does not know anything, you see the Father is greater than him. Why do you equate his being a man to God? is something so ridiculous. I am a Trinitarian and I can tell you that Jesus Miracles and healing of the sick and everything that he had done while on Earth is due to God the Father and the Holy spirit, This is where the Unity of the Trinity are working all together in the Salvation of Man. This is the very reason why Paul says that in him on Colosians 2:9 - For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, because the very presence of God is in Jesus. FORM of a God, What a God is, his very Form, his very nature, is everything about being a God. I myself is in the form of a Man, My father who begat me is exactly of the same form as I am.If God is a Spirit, then that is also what the FORM of a God is too, it is everything about being a God. and only exclusively of the very being of a God. and that is exactly what Paul is trying to say who Jesus was before he became in the FORM of a MAN. Obviously you are going to have a hard time with these concept of Jesus being in the form of God, For your belief does not hold that idea, for to you Jesus is just a mere man but not a God that is why you are so confused when Paul and John talk about Jesus side of being a God.
Wisdom The Council of Nicea was an imperial council and it invented the Trinity. Any bishop who did not subscribe was deposed by Imperial order, and there were exiles associated with rejecting the Trinity as well. Not to mention that groups that didn't join up with the official Roman Catholic church and embrace its Trinity had their property seized by the army and handed over to the Roman Catholic church. Donatus was the bishop of such a church when the army came busting in to take the property away and massacred the people. Don't give me this crap that the merger of the Romish Church and the Empire didn't happen until the 8th century. And Augustine was not eaten by lions; you made that up. Augustine was not martyred; rather he martyred many Donatists. Augustine dies from an illness. Also, there was in fact a famous unitarian or modalist, can't remember which, who was either burned at the stake or beheaded, between Nicea and Constantinople I, or after Constantinople I before Calcedon, I can't remember. I'm trying to find who it was and when exactly. This stuff is generally hidden from view because of how it shows the true nature of Trinitarianism, so it may take me a while to find who this guy was again.
similar to god ... what do you know about jesus that is similar to god is your answer ... equal to god is similar to god ... G2470 ἴσος isos (iy'-sos) adj. similar (in amount and kind). form of god ... 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 See also: G3445, G3446, G4832 G4832 συμμορφός summorphos (sïm-mor-fos') adj. 1. jointly formed. 2. (figuratively) similar
There are good reasons to conclude that the "form of God" at Philippians 2:6 is referring to the exalted Christ. His exalted position of the risen Jesus contrasts with his state as a humble servant. The exalted Jesus is in the form of God and Paul's point is that he didn't get to this position by seizing it for himself but by humbling Himself to God.
Very interesting! This interpretation also exactly parallels the Messianic Servant passage in Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12, and there can be no doubt that the Apostle Paul, with his Hebraic background, had this particular passage in mind. A number of years ago a Jewish believer in Yeshua told me that the Philippians passage has nothing to do with an ontological concept, but rather is to be understood in terms of position and function, i.e. the contrast between servanthood and lordship, which exactly agrees with what you stated in this excellent video. I believe that this is not only an optional interpretation, but that it is the right one, especially in light of such passages as Psalm 110:1; Matt. 28:18; and Acts 2:36. I think most trinitarians never consider the fact that Jesus the Messiah was conceived (begotten) of the Holy Spirit, anointed with the Spirit, led of the Spirit, performed and fulfilled his public ministry (including his teaching and mighty works) in the power of the Spirit, went to the cross and died as a sacrifice for sin through the Spirit, was raised from the dead on the third day by the Spirit (GOD THE FATHER, via the Spirit, raising him up), and who in his exalted state is the baptizer with the Spirit, and the one who speaks to the churches by the Spirit. It is not too much to say that, in the Apostle Paul's mind anyway, the fulness (pleroma) of the Godhead that dwells bodily in Jesus (Colossians 2:9) is equivalent to the manifold fulness of the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2). The eternal God thus dwelt (tabernacled) in the historical Jesus of Nazareth, the promised Messiah and Savior of the world (John 1:14) --the center of all creation and its reason for being, in the eternal purpose of God (Col. 1:15-20). Neither trinitarianism, arianism, nor modalism fit the Biblical portrait of Christ. The Apostle Paul presents to us the true picture in the simple, yet profound, statement --"God was IN Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself" (2 Cor. 5:19). Thank you brother for this insightful video. God bless you and your teaching ministry.
John Sund, God bless you and your teaching also.
This explanation makes perfect sense. The only reasonable way we could ever relate to Jesus in our humanity is if he was fully human himself before he was exalted. Otherwise, if one believes that Jesus was also fully God, everything Jesus said and did can be attributed to to his divinity, which would be expected because God can do anything. Believing that Jesus is God is demeaning to Jesus and everything he did and went through on this earth.
Brother Kel I thank God for giving you that revelation! I receive it and going to use it as part of my teaching! This is understanding is needed to the body of Christ! May God continue to use you! I have been blessed by Al your videos since zGod allowed me to connect with you ! Your teaching has verified what God has revealed to me on some topics and has taken me to a new level and revelation in his word ! I ask you to pray that the Father will give me a door of utterances to continue to share the revelation of Jesus Christ our Lord! Keep up the good work my brother and I bid you God’s speed! Your labour is not in vain!
agreed Kel--this is the Hebraic mind set--Paul is showing the reward for humility--Messiah now in formation with the Father--at His right hand--glorified
Excellent video in so many levels that I do not know where to begin to express my compliments. Great lesson on helping to understand the limitation and challenge in our interpretations of the Greek text to English. Then to show how various translations can lead to differing understanding of God and of Jesus. Further, thanks also for your in depth study of Philippians 2.
Greetings, brothers!
"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. and being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death-even death on a cross." --- Philippians 2:5-8
I think that "WAS" is correct, because it is a reference to THE PAST, that is, the days of Christ's humility and obedience to God to the point of death on a cross, hence, IN THE DAYS OF HIS FLESH.
I also think that there is a parallel being drawn concerning the first (protos) man, Adam, and the last (eschatos) Adam, Christ. The phrase "did not consider EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped" seems to be a reference to Adam and Eve in the garden, who were tempted by the serpent, saying "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and YOU WILL BE LIKE GOD, knowing good and evil.” "YOU WILL BE LIKE GOD" representing the temptation to EQUALITY WITH GOD. The text appears to be comparing and contrasting the MIND (ATTITUDE) of Adam and Eve to that of Christ, the former coveting equality with God, and Christ, instead assuming the FORM (ROLE) of a servant. Which would bring me to the conclusion that "FORM OF GOD" refers to Christ as "THE IMAGE OF GOD," again, for the purpose of comparing and contrasting Christ to Adam and Eve who were CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. However, the difference being that, Adam and Eve were CREATED, while Christ IS the image of God, which is to say that the Christ was NOT CREATED in God's image, but "EXISTS" in the very form of God. In other words, CHRIST IS THAT IMAGE INTO WHICH ADAM AND EVE WERE CREATED, thus, "let us create man in our image." Adam and Eve, therefore, were only copies of the true, the heavenly, who is Christ.
"For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us" ---Hebrews 9:24
Unitl Christ be fully formed in you,
-james
What I get out of this is that in trying to interpret the Greek we have to supply our own verbs....Kel's interpretation fits in with the rest of the context of the lesson in question so not only does it make sense, but it doesn't contradict any other scripture. Thank you for this enlightenment.
Thanx for your comment. Well, the English verb "was" in verse 5 doesn't really turn out to be a very big deal. I think what Paul really meant was not "which WAS also in Christ Jesus" but something more like "which also [is true concerning] Christ Jesus." The problem is that the word "was" in English translations acts like a trigger to your thoughts. But I think if verse 6 is properly understood, that becomes a moot point.
What is more important is how we understand verse 6 in the context of verse 5. Because you can use a present participle ("being") while referring to a past event ("he did not consider" [while he was 'being' X]), most people typically understand Paul to be indicating Jesus was existing/being in the form of God in the past coincident with his "not considering." While you could speak this way in Greek, I am saying this understanding isn't necessarily so. Moreover, the typical understanding (that Paul is referring to Jesus in the form of God in the past) has Jesus simultaneously in the form of God and the form of a servant and these two forms happen to be coincidental with each other. I don't think that is very likely since it would be a bit like saying one is in the form of a King and a servant to the King at the same time. And to me, that is a bit like saying the light is switched on and off at the same time.
Right ... and I appreciate too your comment about what Paul is trying to teach the Philippians...if they were also having the same mindset of Christ, in modern interpretation the hearers of Paul's message would also be "equal to God." That also makes your timing of Jesus' possessing a form of God to be post resurrection more sensible.
Very good point. That had not yet occurred to me.
Good video! here's my notes on that verse:
who, beginning to exist, {and} submitted quietly under {Him},
{being} in {the} image of {an} Elohiym,
didn't lead and command to seize plunder {for himself},
to be equal to an elohiym/Elohiym.
Who, coming into existence, in visible form, {while still} remaining quietly under God in a relationship of rest, {he} did not lead and command with official authority by {using it to} seize plunder for himself, {or in order} to exist in a state that seems similar in comparative rank, virtue, particular power, acquirement; accomplishment and condition to {that of} a god.
Who - 3739 hós; a relative pronoun meaning, ‘who, which, what, that.’ The relative pronoun agrees in gender with the antecedent; hence it means, “Who.”
· being - 5225 hupárchoon; a present active participle; a verbal adjective showing action being accomplished by the subject of the verb; from NT:5259 (hupo; ‘beneath’ or ‘under’) and NT:756 (archomai; ‘to commence’ in order of time); literally, ‘to begin under (quietly)’; it means, “to come into existence” or “to exist.”
· in - 1722 en; a primary preposition governing the dative; it means, “remaining in place.” Primarily, en denotes being in a fixed position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest.
· the - 9999; the word does not appear in the Greek text.
· form - 3444 morfeé; an anarthrous noun (omitting the definite article); it means, “shape.” Thayer’s says morfeé is, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.”
· of God - 2316 Theoú; a masculine noun in the anarthrous construction; since there is no definite article included, it means either, “a deity (god)” or “supreme Divinity (God)”; figuratively, it means, “a magistrate (a principle director or ruler in authority).”
· thought - 2233 heegeésato; in the aorist middle voice, representing non-continuous action by the subject (Jesus) whose actions pertain to himself; it means, “to lead, i.e. command (with official authority).”
· it - 9999; the word does not appear in the Greek text.
· not - 3756 ouch; it is a primary adverb that is used before a verb to render the verb and the proposition negative in respect to the subject; it means, “no or not.”
· robbery - 725 harpagmón; from the root word ‘harpazo’ ( NT:726) meaning, ‘to seize upon with force.’ It is a noun in the anarthrous construction; therefore it means, “a thing seized; plunder; booty.”
· to - 3588 tó; the definite article in the neuter it means, “to.”
· be - 1511 eínai; in the present infinitive active; active is action is accomplished by the subject of the verb; the infinitive means the verb also acts as a noun; the present represents contemporaneous action, as opposed to action in the past or future; the word here means literally, “existing; having an existence; existing in a state.”
· equal - 2470 ísa; it is a predicate adjectival noun in the anarthrous construction; in Greek ; being predicate means it makes an assertion about the subject; this means it is an adjective that also functions as a noun; ísa means, “seeming similar to in quality or quantity.” More correctly, James Strong’s use of the words, “quality” and “quantity” must be taken in context of the age in which they were used. Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “quality” as: virtue or particular power; acquirement; accomplishment; comparative rank; condition in relation to others; as people of every quality; superior rank; superiority of birth or station. Thus we conclude that ‘ísa’ in Philippians 2:6 means, “seeming similar in comparative rank, virtue, particular power, acquirement; accomplishment and condition.”
· with God - 2316 Theoó; a masculine noun in the anarthrous construction; since there is no definite article included, it means either, “a deity (god)” or “supreme Divinity (God)”; figuratively, it means, “a magistrate (a principle director or ruler in authority); most likely from Hebrew Elohiym, meaning 'a very powerful authority', or in the case of the 'Creator Yah, 'the ultimate powerful Authority'
I am a really picky person and I don't like to feel like I am twisting verses to fit my Theology and this section of scripture was one of my problem areas, but I think this is really awesome it all lines up with what Paul is teaching and what Christ taught. Thank you very much for posting this. I'm going to go back and check who was the author that first presented this position. I'd be interested to know some of his other interpretations of other verses. Cool!
Test Paul.
Compare Tobit 1:13 which supports the denotation "status" or "condition" for the word although I prefer to define it (in this context) as external form/shape or outward appearance.
Yes that is one good example. Since the 1950's there has been a slowly growing number of scholars who interpret this passage as referring to a social condition/status. Also to note is the cultural background of the Philippians being a Roman colony. Paul's vocabulary in verses 1 -11 indicates contrasts between a noble and humble status. In addition to Wuest's comments, see (online) Nebreda, Jowers and Hellerman for starters (and perhaps include Witherington).
books.google.ca/books?id=pa-6ukdSOg4C&pg=PA295&lpg=PA295&dq=silva+social+philippians&source=bl&ots=_9857TlvlS&sig=szHJaECHg_naEoP6F-3EhDojXyk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IhA0VNW3OuHtigKo6oDYBw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=silva%20social%20philippians&f=false
www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/49/49-4/JETS_49-4_739-766_Jowers.pdf
www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/52/52-4/JETS%2052-4%20779-797%20Hellerman.pdf
books.google.ca/books?id=ms8VAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=morphe+joseph+hellerman&source=bl&ots=yCu4r322Tq&sig=FQ2GoPHpxU255982i5LhRwoZ-NI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ahE0VN7PL82zogSWsIGICw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=morphe%20joseph%20hellerman&f=false
Test Paul.
Christian apologists don’t often display great humility when tearing each other apart over the meaning of Philippians 2:6-8, ironically.
Robert Recchia That’s a fact. God forbid someone has a slight disagreement then comes the name calling heretic etc.
Test Paul.
Hi Kel, thank you for another thoughtful and coherent teaching. How does one interpret and understand the phrase, "he did not consider it robbery to be equal with God....", in the context of this teaching? God bless
Hi Shane,
Leave out the "it" in your translation and see how it changes the meaning (there is no Greek grammar reason to have the word "it"). The KJV translation implies something the Greek does not (i.e. the KJV implies that Jesus did in fact do some deliberating when the Greek text does not imply that). To say, "he did not consider it robbery" implies that he did in fact do some considering and his conclusion to the considering was that he didn't consider it robbery to be equal to God but in fact considered his decision to be appropriate. But the Greek doesn't lead to all that. The Greek only says he didn't consider this at all. In other words, it didn't enter his mind. In other words, Jesus never ever bothered to consider equality with God. Jesus ONLY considered servanthood.
The word "robbery" is also a little too much for a translation of this Greek word and it sort of unnecessarily overloads the Greek word. You could use this word to refer to a robbery but it doesn't necessarily refer to a robbery. The Greek word refers to something you would claim for yourself, usurp, snatch, plunder, or seize for yourself but not necessarily "robbery." Jesus did not consider seizing upon equality with God. He did not do this; he did something else; he emptied himself; he humbled himself. Paul's point is that Jesus did not seek to exalt himself above others; he rather served others as higher than himself. Rather than exalting himself, he humbled himself and obediently served. God did the exalting. This is similar to the idea of justifying yourself rather than leaving that to God, "It is God who justifies."
"robbery to be equal with God" is a poor translation. Although Jesus is spoken of as the visible “form of God” (“the image of the invisible God” - Colossians 1:15), he “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” after. The words, “DID NOT REGARD EQUALITY WITH GOD A THING TO BE GRASPED,” prove that Philippians 2:6 is not speaking about an alleged Second Divine God Person up in heaven (prior to the incarnation), who would have already been completely “coequal” with God the Father in the first place. Since the text says, “did not regard equality with GOD,” and not, “did not regard equality with” God the Father, it is apparent that the person who did the regarding could not have been thinking as another coequal God Person beside God the Father. For a true God Person would not and could not have thought about being equal with another true God Person if He was already a true God Person to begin with.
It is hard to imagine that a coequal and omnipresent God Person up in heaven (who would have already had all of the divine attributes of God), would have ever bothered to think about being equal with God, since He would have already been fully God in the first place. Therefore we must rightly divide the Word of truth in believing that the man “Christ Jesus” “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” after because he was a man on the earth. For an alleged pre-incarnate “coequal” God Christ Jesus would not have had any humanity, nor would he have been inferior to God in any way. Therefore a pre-incarnate Trinitarian God Person could not have been thinking about equality with God since He would have already been fully God from eternity past.
Furthermore, if this passage of scripture is speaking about a literal pre-incarnational Christ Jesus up in heaven as an alleged second divine person called “God the Son,” then this passage should say something like this: “Who being in the form of God, He was equally God.” Instead, this passage of scripture states that Jesus “… did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped …” These words clearly prove that it was the “man Christ Jesus” who “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” rather than a supposed pre-incarnate invisible God Person. More FREE info at apostolicchristianfaith.com
ritchiesteven Ritchie Steven, I have not understood this way of debunking the Trinitarian claim. Thank you for the insights shared.
Shane Walsh Your welcome! Kel is very knowledgeable in Greek so I am learning allot from his insight in the Word of God. It is always good to have an open heart and mind to learn from allot of different scholarly sources. Then you compare this knowledge with all of the scriptural data to see which ideas bring harmony to the totality of all the Biblical data. That is what I am doing. God Bless!
Test Paul.
I agree with everything, just like Jesus cannot receive inheritance from himself he cannot exalt himself, he receives everything from the father, also the whole idea of Jesus sitting by the right side of the father makes little sense if Jesus is God, why on the right side? why aren't all three sitting on the same position, aren't they all equal? is the father higher than the son? why even tell us that at some point Jesus took a seat on God's right side, isn't obvious since Jesus God and always was on his right side? etc etc..
The form of God could not be a pre-incarnate form for the following reasons. Verse 6 - "Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped …”
When did Jesus exist “in the form of God?” The word “form,” in the original Greek is “morphe,” which means “form” or “outward appearance.” Hence, this passage of scripture is not speaking about an unseen spiritual form existing with God prior to the incarnation, but rather, a physical and tangible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) that was made visible for us all to see after he was “made of a woman (Galatians 4:4 / Luke 1:35 / Hebrews 2:9 / Romans 1:3-4).”
“When the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” Galatians 4:4
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.” Luke 1:35
“Jesus was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death …” Hebrews 2:9
“Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead.”
Whenever we properly exegete any text of scripture we always need to compare it with other passages of scripture to ensure that our interpretation harmonizes with all inspired scriptures - i.e. “tota scriptura.” When we compare Colossians 1:15 with Philippians 2:6, we find that Jesus is also spoken of as “The image of the invisible God.” When did Jesus exist in the form or image of the invisible God? After He was born at Bethlehem. For how could Jesus have existed in the form or image of the invisible God if that form or image was also invisible? If Philippians 2:6 is speaking about an invisible form or image of the invisible God, then Colossians 1:15 should read something like this, “Who is the invisible image of the invisible God …” Since an invisible image of the invisible God would not make any sense, we must rightly divine the Word of truth by believing that Jesus existed in the physical form or image of God while he was on earth.
Although Jesus is spoken of as the visible “form of God” (“the image of the invisible God” - Colossians 1:15), he “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” after. The words, “DID NOT REGARD EQUALITY WITH GOD A THING TO BE GRASPED,” prove that Philippians 2:6 is not speaking about an alleged Second Divine God Person up in heaven (prior to the incarnation), who would have already been completely “coequal” with God the Father in the first place. Since the text says, “did not regard equality with GOD,” and not, “did not regard equality with” God the Father, it is apparent that the person who did the regarding could not have been thinking as another coequal God Person beside God the Father. For a true God Person could not have even had an option to think about being equal with another true God Person if He was already a true God Person to begin with.
It is hard to imagine that a coequal and omnipresent God Person up in heaven (who would have already had all of the divine attributes of God), would have ever bothered to think about being equal with God, since He would have already been fully God in the first place. Therefore we must rightly divide the Word of truth in believing that the man “Christ Jesus” “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” after because he was a man on the earth. For an alleged pre-incarnate “coequal” God Christ Jesus would not have had any humanity, nor would he have been inferior to God in any way. Therefore a pre-incarnate Trinitarian God Person could not have been thinking about equality with God since He would have already been fully God from eternity past.
Furthermore, if this passage of scripture is speaking about a literal pre-incarnational Christ Jesus up in heaven as an alleged second divine person called “God the Son,” then this passage should say something like this: “Who being in the form of God, He was equally God.” Instead, this passage of scripture states that Jesus “… did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped …” These words clearly prove that it was the “man Christ Jesus” who “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” rather than a supposed pre-incarnate invisible God Person.
FREE BOOKS, ARTICLES, AND VIDEOS at apostolicchristianfaith.com
It also shows that Jesus was not obsessed in being or becoming God o a God. But Satan desires that? Interestingly, Satan and the demonic host tremble of knowing that Jesus is the Son of God!
I thought Jesus mission was to reveal the Father, His God and to direct our worship to the Eternal One God(& not to himself)!
He is our perfect example. We should not seek our glory.
Instead, seek the glory of the Father, who would glorify us as He also glorified Jesus for his perfect servitude.
Jesus is the Way, the Light, etc means that his testimony, his way of living is what we should seek to exemplify.
Jesus asked that we believe the 'He was sent from God, the promised One, the Son of God'.
Surprisingly, He never asked or hinted that we should believe that he is God!
Instead, he has given us the assurance that He is a man like us. He hunger, he thirst, those in his days could touch him. Not see him as ghost walking on water.
As a matter of fact, he was born to a woman, as an infant, grew up to adulthood.
It’s only considered “rubbish” to anyone who presupposes the Son’s literal preexistence.
I think what you are really getting at here is the fact that some of what Paul says can be interpreted in different ways, is because he is telling you his religious belief, period.
I think he hijacked the Christian religion. I'm not saying he didn't see or hear something, what I am saying is I don't believe IT WAS JESUS! I'll take the words of Jesus over Paul anyday.
And you can tell me till the end of time that they were talking about the end time. I'll say yes, they all thought the end was then too, didn't they!
1. Matthew 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
2. Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
3. Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
4. Mark 13:6 for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
5. Mark 13:21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:
6. Luke 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
Genes, I am telling you he was a genes! once in Luke, twice in Mark and three times in Matthew. THAT IS SAYING ADD ME UP, 1 2 3, add it up, 6 the number of man.
I think I'll believe Jesus/Yeshua over Paul!
I am just saying
Everyone is trying so hard to see what each other want's to see in what Paul wrote, that alone should make you question Paul!
And I just gave you the answer, believe what the anointed one told us!
You are spending all that time on justifying Paul, time you're keeping yourself from knowing the truth!
Test Paul.
I think the chiastic structure supports this interpretation. Waiting for your second video on this!
That's really what got me considering this (whether such a structure is really there, or not, is another matter).
You can't accept this interpretation without doing a great deal of damage to the scriptures. You insert the word "now" into the clause "being in the form of God" to (unnecessarily) explain the present tense, and then commit the logical fallacy of equivocation over its meaning. That is, having introduced "now" into the clause as a reference to "this present time", you then switch to an altogether different definition, "under these present circumstances" to continue your argument and make the scripture say something it simply does not say.
You omit the contrasting terms with "FORM of God" such as Him being made into the "LIKENESS of men" and "being found in fashion AS a man" in your recapitulation below the video. "FORM" refers to the actual form or kind of something; "LIKENESS" is the RESEMBLANCE of something ELSE. Jesus was found in His outward appearance and manner of living "AS" (Gr. ὡς, "like") a man. How is it the He, "being in the form of God" was made into the "likeness" of men and was found in his external appearance and manner of living "like" a man, if He were in fact just a man? And what did He "empty" Himself of, if He was already a man, and already a servant?
The present tense followed by conjunction with the aorist tenses indicates He took upon Himself the "form" of a servant "and" came in the "likeness" of men all while BEING in the form of God. As Paul writes, He "BEING in the form of God...TOOK UPON HIMSELF the form of a servant." "Took upon" is from the verb λαμβάνω, which means "to choose, to lay hold of, to take up". The self-abasement of Christ is integral to understanding the mindset of humility Paul speaks of. If Christ was a mere servant, how is it that He humbled Himself as a servant if a mere servant is His rightful estate? But if He, being in the form of God and being equal with God, humbled Himself and "became" obedient even unto death, great is the humility of our Lord as our example to follow. After having abased Himself, and submitted to death on the cross, God the Father exalted Him.
Understanding of this scripture would go far in correcting the Unitarian misunderstanding of many scriptures regarding the Deity of Christ. But to "wrest" (2 Peter 3:16) means "to pull away by twisting or wringing", which is what you are doing throughout this video: pulling apart the scriptures and twisting them clause by clause. The truth of scripture will never be gotten though such a process.
+livealive - That is what he know how to do-all his videos are about twisting, attack every single verses in the bible where the apostles-prophets and where GOD HIMSELF CALLS JESUS GOD(HEBREWS 1) according to him-it means something else,it was added-scribal error-etc etc etc
Trinitarioans add the word WHILE, which is not there. Look, that's how they read it: "Jesus (while) being in the form of God..." ...but that might be wrong as The Trinity Delusion explains here. The word "being" means "now he is".
+DerKoenigFrank "Trinitarioans add the word WHILE, which is not there." Friend, please spend more time looking at the progression of the verse rather than listening to Greek arguments from those not qualified to make them and the straw man arguments they use to set them up. Everything that Trinity Delusion says in this argument reverses the order of vv. 6-8. Then in a paraphrased summary below the video he uses ellipses to hide those words that speak of Christ as becoming man .
In the verse, it says that Jesus "BEING in the form of God...TOOK UPON HIMSELF the FORM of a servant, AND was made in the LIKENESS of men." What purpose does Paul have to say of a "mere man" (not my words, but Trinity Delusion's) that He was "made in the LIKENESS of men"? And how did he take upon HIMSELF the FORM of a servant, if a servant was His proper estate? And again, what reason would he have to reiterate a second time, "being found in fashion [i.e., external appearance and manner of living] LIKE a man", if He were a mere man? But as it is written, "and the Word was God . . . and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us".
C 19 You're right. The fact that (as he says) "no one seems to be considering" this alternate explanation is because it is the product of his own mind, and not something handed down by faithful men from the beginning.
JESUS is My LORD & My GOD
You are falsehood. His videos are not twisting but you are in s false tradition.
"In the likeness of man... in human form" (Phil. 2:7) - F.F. Bruce has suggested that these terms "represent alternative Greek renderings of the Aramaic phrase kebar-'enash ("like a son of man") in Daniel 7:13" - F.F. Bruce, Paul And Jesus (London: S.P.C.K., 1977) p. 77.
A real man.
Interesting.
Test Paul.
My life is to worship God to humble myself before God. To seek 'His' well in my life, to seek the treasures in heaven and not the one's in the world. For they are a distracted form of worship of the Almighty God, Creator of Heaven and Earth. And, I do this by Jesus Christ by fallowing Him with my cross. For God Glory. Jesus is my way to the Father. When Christ Jesus .come's for His small flock may I, be lifted up to His Father By my Lord, my King, my Hop!
There are indeed difficulties with the text of Philippians 2:6-9, but none of them impact the truth of the preexistence of Christ. But more on that in a moment.
You stated that a better translation of the relative clause in v. 6 would be “in the form of God being”, and then went on to say “presently.” Then you stated:
_"You can use a present participle...when you’re talking about something in the past. So you could say…'have this attitude that was in Christ Jesus who being’... being is present... it’s just the way you have to speak… but because it is a present participle, maybe Paul is using it that way to refer specifically to the risen Christ.”_
I can answer that question immediately and definitively; *_No he is not._* The very notion is contradicted by the grammar of the text as I'll explain;
You translate v. 5, along with the relative clause in v. 6, and then end the sentence as if the relative clause was functioning as the direct object of v. 5, and υπαρχων was functioning as a predicate nominative. You then proceed to argue that since “was” isn’t in the original, there’s no basis for understanding the action of the participle as occurring in the past. But all of this ignores the fact that the relative clause of v. 6 is functioning as the *_subject_*, not the *_object_* which is clearly indicated by the use of *’ὃς’* in v. 6. Being the subject of the sentence also renders it grammatically independent of v. 5. If the relative clause was functioning as the direct object of v. 5 as you suggest, then the relative pronoun would be *’ὃν.'* (See _Basics Of Biblical Greek_, William Mounce, p. 114). As a present adverbial participle, υπαρχων gets its time aspect from the main verb and is usually concurrent with, but sometimes antecedent to its action. (See _Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics,_ Daniel B. Wallace, p. 625). Since in this case the main verb is aorist (εκεωσεν), any possibility of the participle referring to the risen Christ is precluded. So your argument about _‘was_’ not being in the original is simply a red herring and entirely irrelevant to anything having to do with the participle. Since this is the case, your comparison of the tenses (‘is’ vs ‘was’) in the ESV and NASB etc is pointless. Having no grammatical foundation, your "exegesis" and "paraphrase" of the Carmen Christi is a grotesque perversion. (no offense, just stating the facts)
By your videos, it would seem that you know more Greek than such a fundamental error like this would suggest. It only stands to reason then that you are purposely misrepresenting the Greek text in an effort to mislead people. On the other hand, if this video does accurately represent your knowledge of the Greek language, then you need to stop making videos and go back to your studies.
You invited people to leave their critique in the comment section so that is what I've done. But I’m not simply putting this out there for anyone's consideration. I’m telling both you, and anyone reading this that what you’re saying in this video is impossible from the standpoint of proper grammar.
But what about Christ's “existing in the form of God”? Was this _pre_ or _post_ incarnation? Fortunately the grammar is again decisive on that question. According to BDAG, when the word 'γινομαι’ is used with the preposition ‘εν’, it indicates either a change in nature, or change in state of being.
*BDAG:*
*5 to experience a change in nature and so indicate entry into a new condition,* _become someth._
*c* w. εν of a state of being
Therefore, adhering to proper rules of Greek grammar, and with the support of NTG lexical scholarship, I'd like to offer my own paraphrase of Paul. And what he’s saying is this:
“Although He existed in the form of God, He did not consider equality with God something to be held on to, but He emptied Himself by taking the form of a slave, _and entered into a new state of being, when He was made (or born) in the likeness of men._
Again, BDAG:
"εν ομοιωματι ανθρωπων _be like human beings_ Phil 2: 7."
If the birth of Christ introduced Him into a *_new_* state of being, then He logically had to have had a *_prior_* state of being. Thus, the preexistence of Christ is established.
What I said with regard to the time aspect of the participle in v. 6 is not up for debate. But I AM willing to be corrected on my comments about Christ’s preexistence. All you have to do is demonstrate that I’ve either misrepresented BDAG in some way, or show where alternative scholarship has shown BDAG to be in error. If neither of these can be done, then you stand refuted, and you are strongly admonished to repent.
+II TheTrinitySolution II
Well said!
+II TheTrinitySolution II However, I would resist paraphrasing the text as "Although He existed in the form of God," because δούλου λαβών implies that He "took up" the form of a servant, not that He ever gave up the "form of God". (It seems to me that Paul is following the model of Isaiah 53, where κενόω stands for the Hebrew `arah (v.12)--to be "poured out" or "stripped bare"). A better paraphrase would maintain the present participle as the present tense in English, "Although existING in the form of God", indicating He remains God even in spite of His self-abasement as a servant. In the same way, Jesus says in the present indicative "Before Abraham was, I AM". The present is used to denote His eternal nature, having neither beginning of days nor end of life the only verb of existence that expresses such is "is" or "am". But again, I enjoyed your analysis.
Test Paul.
Side note, the main verb is not kenoo, but hegeomai, but both are aorist so same point I suppose
QUESTION: I've heard "Morphe" can mean only PHYSICAL form. So the point may be Paul is saying for us to be like Christ was on earth. If you saw the physical man Jesus, you saw God, since Jesus, the man is the IMAGE OF GOD. Also, another question. JESUS did exalt and say he was GREATER than the PROPHETS, etc. He said he was GREATER than ABRAHAM. You said he NEVER exalted himself over others. He clearly did.
+nestosolo You need to read John 8:12-58 again to see why you are not hearing Jesus. "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me."
+The Trinity Delusion Is it not written, in the span of verses you reference, that Jesus says, "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go." (John 8:14) They asked Him, "art thou greater than our father Abraham," and "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" His implication in the statement, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, 'Before Abraham was, I AM'" is therefore quite clear. It is not glorying to speak the truth.
Thanks for this talk! There is a lot here it seems! I find the Concordant Version helpful.. "For let this disposition be in you, which (is) in Christ Jesus also, Who, (being) UNDER+ORIGINATE/exist in (the) form of God . Every Blessing
Interesting. Will check it out, thanks.
Hello Brother. I always enjoy your videos. I, too, have made a video on Phil 2.
Philippians 2:6-8
I think morphe of God equals image of God. Paul is comparing/contrasting Adam and Christ.
Verse 7 is the proof that Christ did not try to be equal with God in verse 6, right? So, when did Christ humble Himself and serve man in the likeness of man? I believe that shows that "morphe of God" is not speaking of the exalted Christ, which came AFTER the earthly ministry of Christ, but rather, the one that walked the earth spreading the gospel of the coming Kingdom of God. And yes, Christ never stopped being "in the image of God." He just never sought equality with God at any point.
Well, that is my thoughts on this subject. May God bless us both with truth!!
+jhs4791 μορφή is the actual form or kind of something; an image is a likeness or representation; they are not interchangeable terms. Hence Jesus is found in the "likeness" of men and He is found in fashion "like" (ὡς) a man. The contrast in terms makes His Divine nature all the more clear. He, being God the Son, is indeed equal with God as John Himself states in John 5:18, and which is also reaffirmed in John 10:31-39. Why else would he be "like" a man in His outward appearance and manner of living, if He were indeed mere man? The passage is speaking of the pre-existence of Christ, as it is written He "took upon HIMSELF the form of a servant AND was made into the LIKENESS of men." Forgive the caps; not trying to shout. It is very clear Christ is existing in the form of God before these two acts, which converge in the incarnation.
livealive
Incorrect. You are viewing it through your trinitarian colored glasses. Take them off!! What did Paul tell us to do before stating what Christ did??? He said Have this SAME mindset!!! Are you seriously telling me that Paul is telling us that we should have the mindset that we are God, but be humble and be like man?? Seriously?? That is the danger of pulling Scripture out of context! Christ, just like US, was made in the IMAGE of God, but HE...UNLIKE ADAM...did not strive to be equal with God (it doesn't say he did not strive to be like the Father...it says GOD, thus He is NOT God!!)! What was the devil's lie in the garden? Eat the fruit and you will be equal to God. What did Adam do? He ate the fruit; thus, he strived to be like God. Christ, being born in this same image, did not seek His own will, but rather, the will of God!! It really is that simple when you do not attempt to pervert Scripture!!
Look, Christ always pointed to God. He gave credit to God. He claimed to be the Christ. He claimed to be the Son of God. He claimed to be the only way TO God. And yet, never ever ever, that means not even ONE time did he state, "I am God." If you love truth, this should concern you!! You have bought a lie from the devil. NOWHERE in Scripture does it tell us that God is triune or that Jesus is the Almighty God. That is a private interpretation and, our Bible says that Scripture is NOT of private interpretation. Again, this SHOULD concern you, IF you love the truth. It is not too late for you. One day, it will be too late. I'm not sure where your heart is. If you are truly open to and love the truth, please, rewatch my videos...reread the Scripture. I have made many videos using Scripture to explain trinitarian proof texts, as we should. I've pointed out that IN SCRIPTURE we do not have ONE apostle being killed for the blasphemy of saying that Jesus is God. Do you really think that they would record that they were imprisoned for saying that Jesus was resurrected, but those same people would just be ok with the apostles saying Jesus is God? Seriously?? That makes perfect sense to you?? The Sadducees said "stop telling people that Jesus was resurrected." You really believe that these same Sadducees would have a bigger problem with the apostles teaching that Jesus rose from the dead than they would Jesus being God Himself??? If that is your mindset, then I think I know where your heart is. Please, open your heart to God's truth!!!
+jhs4791 Friend, the mindset is one of humility, and you are trying to prove too much. It is the very same lesson Jesus Himself teaches His disciples in John 13:14ff, "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should live as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." Do then they each say, "I am master," and "I am Lord" because they wash each others' feet?
Have you not read in Zechariah 2:8-10, how it is written, "For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath HE sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of HIS eye. For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent ME. Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD." How is it that the LORD speaks of Himself as sending Himself, speaking of Himself at one time as "I" and "me", but another as "he" and "him"? If the LORD of hosts sent the LORD, how is He yet the LORD, if He is sent by Him?
But if you understood what it means, when it says of Christ, "I and my Father are one," and again, "BEING in the FORM of GOD...made HIMSELF of no reputation, and took upon HIMSELF the FORM of a SERVANT, and was made in the LIKENESS of men, and being FOUND in fashion AS {lit. "LIKE"} a man, he HUMBLED himself, and BECAME obedient unto death, even the death of the cross," you would understand. He progresses from the form of God to the form of a servant in the "likeness" of men. Thereafter, being seen in his outward appearance "as" (lit. "like") a man, he humbled himself and "became" obedient unto death. Therefore, having humbled Himself, He is exalted by God. (forgive the caps, I intend them for emphasis and not shouting)
This is the same as kings of old did by casting their crowns before other kings. They, though being equal in stature, do not abandon their kingship but rather subject it to the authority of another. If the king, whom they casted down the crown before, places that crown again upon their head, they are now received as the subject of that king and exalted again according to his authority. This custom would have been well known to Paul, and was even played out in the affair between Rome and Armenia in the days of Nero while he was yet alive.
Christ did not cling to being "equal" to God, but abased Himself as both man and servant, as though a son to a father and a servant to his God. He was born under the law, and subjected Himself to the law. When He claims Divinity, He does so by implication or reception, not overt declaration. Just as He never overtly declares, "I am Christ", but receives the claim, and does not deny the truth of it. Making such outright claims as "I am God" outright undermines the very purpose of His humble estate, to live as one of us and die for your sins; yet testifying of the truth of His nature through implication when relevant does not, for as He says, "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go." (John 8:14)
As for the religious authorities, you ask if I really believe they had a bigger problem with the teaching of the resurrection than with Jesus being God. I say they would have wiped out, and sought to wipe out, Christianity by a variety of means. You speak of the Apostles, but not of our Lord. When Jesus says, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30), they pick up stones to stone Him saying, "thou, being a man, makest thyself God." (John 10:33) And earlier, when He also claimed God was his Father, they also sought to stone him because, according to John, He "said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18). Now John does not say, "they said he made himself equal," but that He did in fact make Himself equal. And again, when He says, "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58). What says it afterward? "Then took they up stones to cast at him".
If you can show me to be in error through the scriptures, without wresting them, then I welcome truth. But if what you say is not in accord with what the scriptures say, then will you also the same?
livealive
You have typed so much it is hard to address all problems. I will do my best. Let's go..
John 13 is about humility, and Jesus makes the point that "I am lord and master and yet I still serve...you should do the same." That is a clear, easy to understand, teaching. And so, the apostles did follow this teaching and became servants. Reminder...not one went on to say "Jesus is the one and only Almighty God" that the Jews were taught about..just saying. NOW...Philippians is about humility; however...and this is an important however, we are told to have this very same mindset as Christ. Paul goes on to tell us Christ's mindset. It is not a general humbleness, but one in which we all may share. We are ALL made in the image of God, as was Christ. We can all make ourselves "gods" or we can humble ourselves and become servants. It is a daily choice!! What it does not say is that Jesus was God. It says He was in the "morphe" of God....same as saying "image of God." Now...an image is NOT the thing itself. Your reflection is NOT you. You never get confused and think "how am I in two places at once." NO...you understand that it is only a reflection. Christ DID reflect God...as WE TOO should!! We do not do it, but we are still called to be a reflection of God!! Furthermore, Philippians goes on to say that GOD...not "the Father"...very specific here...GOD highly exalted Christ BECAUSE of His sacrifice. Notice it doesn't say that "because He was God." It also says GOD "gave Him a name above all others." Now wait...IF Jesus is God then He already had a name "above all others." What? Also, every tongue is to confess Jesus as "lord" (a title of rulership..not a title of divinity) to whose glory? God!! If Jesus is God then it is to His own Glory!! If God is truly ONE, as HE claims, then you can not separate God into 3. Further, you need to show where this teaching of God being 3 is clear. God makes who He is clear! He doesn't shy away from what He has done, what He will do, or who He is!! What He doesn't do is tell us the very thing that trinitarians always tell us...that we must believe/accept that He is 3 in 1 in order to be Christians. In fact, He doesn't even ever tell us that He is 3 in 1.
Moving on...Zechariah does say how God will be in the land...and He will. BUT...do you forget that God says what He will do and Cyrus goes on to do it? Does this mean that Cyrus is God incarnate? NO...and YOU know it!! However, we understand (should understand) that whatever happens, does so because God is the orchestrator. He takes the credit. So, when He says HE will do something and Cyrus does it...well...we can still say "God did it." God can say "I did it." If I do something because God leads me to do it, I can say "God did it." Am I calling myself God? NO...I am acknowledging that "ALL good things come FROM God!!" And...if JESUS does something that God says "I will do..." This in NO way means that Jesus is the Almighty God!! Again, if you want to say that because Jesus did/does something that God says that He Himself will do...then you MUST also say that Cyrus is God, too. Otherwise, you are selectively using Scripture to make your point!! That is called private interpretation..we are warned against that.
Yes, Jesus says "I and the Father are one," BUT...He doesn't say "I and the Father are one God...one being." Does He? NO. Furthermore, He goes on to say that He wants us to be one with Them JUST LIKE They are. Is He saying He wants us to all be God? NOPE! You go on to talk about "the likeness of man." Are you truly insinuating that Jesus only appeared like a man, but really wasn't? That would be dangerous because Scripture states clearly that we must confess that Jesus was a man! Funny enough, Scripture never ever says that we are to confess that Jesus is God. Why would it not be just as important to confess that He is God as it is that He is man? Think about it!! Don't just believe something because someone tells you to believe it. Scripture clearly tells us that we are to confess that Jesus is a man..that God gave His only begotten (born) Son...and yet trinitarians change Scripture to say we must confess that Jesus is God and that God gave Himself. That REALLY should concern you!! Now getting back to "morphe" of God and "likeness of man" what was that truly about. Well, just like the first Adam, Jesus was sinless, the "morphe" of God; however, He took on sin (likeness of man) in order to pay the penalty for us all. It really is that simple. The first Adam was sinless and yet strived to be equal with God. The second Adam was sinless and yet humbled Himself before God's will. Remember, Jesus' will was "for this cup to pass from Him" however, He went on to say "not as I WILL...but as YOU WILL." This clearly can not be possible if Jesus is God! Also, let's not forget that GOD exalted Jesus. You can not exalt Jesus if He is God. God is already the highest. Scripture also states that in the end, after the millennium reign of Christ, Christ will turn everything over to God..so that GOD...may be all in all. What do you make of that? In the end does "god the son" get a demotion? He was God, humbled Himself, was beaten, tortured, and sacrificed His life, exalted to King (under God by the way), and then in the end...He turns everything over to the Father. Sounds exactly like a demotion to me...was God and now is not...all because of His sacrifice and devotion to God (Himself??). And, what about the 3rd member of the trinity? Where is the "god the spirit"? Remember, SCRIPTURE says that in the end Jesus turns everything over to the Father so that God may be all in all....NO 3rd member of the trinity there!!
Going on...Jesus does overtly claim to be the Christ. That is who He is. There was a time that it needed to be claimed and it came when God wanted. After the commission to "go make disciples," there were plenty of claims to Jesus' identity as Christ. What is missing is this repeatedly claim of Christ being God!! That only came after the death of the apostles. Why do you think that is? As for Jesus saying "I am" and they picked up stones to stone Him. Are you unaware that Jesus during the same exact conversation with those Jews TWICE states "I am" and it is ONLY after the third time that they pick up stones to stone Him? The reason is NOT because He says "I am." It is because He states that He is "before" Abraham. Jews understand that is a claim to be "more important than"...just like when John the Baptizer says Jesus is the one that is "before him" even though He came after him!!! The problem really extends from a disregard for the Jewish people. Once the gentiles outnumbered the Jews and the true JEWISH early church fathers were dead, Christianity lost its foundation! Satan sent his ministers into the church. The apostles fought hard, but succumbed to death. After this, it was easy for the devil to corrupt the church...just mix lies with truth. That and a lack of "Jewish understanding" from the "gentile church," has made for a disaster. That is why you and the other trinitarians do not understand what it means to be "from heaven" or "before" someone. Do you not remember that Jesus is Jewish? He thought like a Jewish man. He learned about the very same God that the Jews learn about today...the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...the God that is ONE...the God that is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow!!! Scripture tells us exactly what the Jews were blinded to (by God) and do not understand. It's not the "nature of God" but rather that Jesus was the Christ...not that He was God!!! Scripture is clear here and never claims otherwise. This claim only comes from trinitarians!!
All of this is true. It is not something that you will read and say "oh, I see." It has to come from God!! I truly pray that you are open to receiving truth. There is nothing I want more than for people to accept truth....not my truth or your truth.....or the truth of the supposed "early church" but rather the true early church as told about in Scripture!! The church that NEVER said we must believe that Jesus is God...the church that never said God is 3 in 1...the church that never said that Jesus was a god/man. What did this true church claim? Exactly what I believe!!! Jesus was a man...the Son of God...the Christ/Messiah that was promised to come...to be exactly like His brothers, the Jews...out of the line of David...that He being made perfect gave up this by taking on our sins and paying the penalty of death so that we may have eternal life....that it is because of this very reason that God exalted Him (not Himself) to rule over all EXCEPT God (as Scripture states)...He was MADE King and Lord BY God. None of this even suggests that Jesus IS God!! You yourself quoted that Jesus said that the one that was sent is not greater than the one that sent him!! That is exactly what trinitarianism does. It exalts Jesus over God. Just like Scripture says...it worships the Creation over the Creator!! God said this would happen.
Excellent!
I have actually entertained this interpretation before, yet it seems to strain the greek. υπαρχων is indeed present tense but its temporal aspect is tied and limited by the time aspect of the main verb ηγεομαι. Participles only relate temporality in relation of the main verbs absolute time. In order words, the particple does not say:" Christ Jesus who currently right now is in the form of God,". All it tells us is that Jesus was currently in the form of God while the "considering" (ηγεομαι) took place, which took place some time in the past. This would make it difficult to take the participle to be refering to the risen Lord and the main verb action to be speaking of the pre-resurrected Jesus.
That is what I was thinking, but you said it better. Because every effect has a cause, every choice is in the past once it is acted upon. In other words when Paul was writing, to him this was in the past, but not that long ago. Jesus, historically was first in the form of God, present tense, when He decided to humble himself -- present tense, but to Paul this was already in the past. Jesus, in the form of God being, DID NOT consider...... Jesus was in the form of God when he humbled himself, just like Adam was in the form of God when he usurped his rank and snatched at equality with YHVH.
Because of this, Jesus is still in the form of God, but now with the exalted status of lord, sitting at the right hand of God. If at first he was God's agent of redemption, now he represents his character and nature fully, he is YHVH's right hand Man!
Great points though on Hurpharchon being present tense. It points at the Man Jesus existing at the time of his humbling, and not PRE-existing at a time prior to incarnation. As Dunn rightly points out, this is about an action the historical Jesus did, not about a decision a pre-existent person made.
Shalom
Hi Pär. Thank you for mentioning this matter since, if any objection is made, I would say it should be this one. While I completely agree that it is quite true that a present tense participle can be used within the context of a past time-frame (such as "Being a sinner, the Lord saved me"), it does not seem to me that this forms a rule. In other words, what could be the case is not necessarily the case. In other words, as you point out, if Paul was referring to the pre-cross Jesus, he COULD say, "who in the form of God being, he died for us." In such a case, the word "being" is present tense within the framework of a clearly established time-frame. It really just means Christ was presently doing this in the past. However, I don't think it is convincing to say this is necessarily the case. What if we said, "Now being free, I was enslaved in sin." The word "being" in this case is not referring to a past event. As far as I can see, a number of New Testament examples show us that Paul could be referring to the present time with the participle while referring to a past event with the main verb. Perhaps, I will need a Part II to this video.
I see a similar situation at 2 Corinthians 8:9. This is often understood to mean, "Jesus who was first rich then became poor." I remain unconvinced this is Paul's intent. I think he really means, Jesus now being rich in his glorified state did impoverish himself so that we too can become rich (glorified) just as he did. This would be a similar sentiment to Philippians 2:5-11. It doesn't make any sense to me to have Paul saying Jesus was in the state of being rich while he was being impoverished. That would be a bit like saying the light switch is on and off at the same time. That being the case, now let us consider the similar situation at Philippians 2:5-6.
Another point to be made concerning Philippians 2:5-7, which I failed to mention, is that the typical understanding does not really contrast form of God with form of a servant. The typical understanding has Jesus taking the form of a servant while simultaneously being in the form of God. Given Paul's overall intent here, that seems rather awkward to me and unlikely that Paul was suggesting the form of God and the form of a servant were coincidental. It seems to me that a Jew like Paul would not suppose that servanthood is coincidental to being in the form of God. Rather, it seems more likely that to have the form of God would imply the Lordship of being served. If that is the case, Jesus either had one or the other at any given time.
Greetings Kel and thank you for the response. Since I am typing using my cellphone, my response will not be as thorough. I'm not sure my answer even touches upon the issue you raised but I will give it a shot and then ponder the whole thing some more.
The example you gave has not convinced me fully yet. "Now being free, I was enslaved in sin." The participle, although being in the present tense, would still be refering to and being dependent upon a past event, i.e when you were enslaved to sin. To illustrate I present you with a crappy narrative: "They had just removed my shakels, but alas, I was still trapped inside the prison located under RUclips's headcourters. Now, being free, I was enslaved in sin". The "being free" does not present (pun) absolute time but only in relation to the past verb "enslaved". To quote Wallace: "The time of the participle's verbal nature requires careful consideration. Generally speaking, the tenses behave just as they do in the indicative. The only difference is that now the point of reference is the controlling verb, not the speaker. Thus, time in participles is relative (or dependent), while in the indicative it is absolute (or independent). GGBB, 614.
Now, had we used an indicative form in the narrative it could be pointing to a time beyond and indepent of the enslavement event spoken of in the text: "They had just removed my shakels but alas I was still trapped inside the prison located under RUclips's headcourters. Now I am free, but I was enslaved in sin (back then)".
Making the time of υπαρχων absolute lends itself to the same problems as with James White's erroneous claim that this word implies an eternal on-going existence without a starting point in time (may he forgive me if I misrepresent his views)
I'm with you though that Christ could not both be in the form of God and in the form of servant, at least not in this context.
I do wonder, however, if I am being hypocritical to consider myself to be in the form of a Scandinavian while simultaneously being in the form of a Canadian. :)
White's claim is just silly but not uncommon. If that were true, we have all kinds of eternal on-going existences in Scripture which are absurd. This is similar to the imperfect verb claim made by Trinitarians at John 1:1.
I think a Part II will be required here. I have not yet made a written list of the evidence which has (almost) convinced me otherwise. I think that will provide a better basis for debating these possibilities. We do need to be as critical as possible.
Blasphemy!!! Unless if you consider being in the form of a Scandinavian to be implying Lordship over your "Canadianhood". If so you are stuck within a paradox (which is as incoherent as this reasoning) but at least then you are not blaspheming...
Wait... What!?
I think it might have something to do with Adam and Eve and the lie Satan told them about being equal to God if they ate the fruit.
It hurts my brain to think about this verse too long.
It's the most debated New Testament verse among NT scholars. It hurts their brain too.
Test Paul.
Jesus has said "If I exalted myself I know where I came from.and where I am going" Does that not mean Jesus was exalting himself
Except Jesus never said anything like that.
Thank you!
The whole discourse of Philippians2:6-11 with Christ being in the morphe of God. Is that if you read as his now present exalted state. One would have to ask what is it that he embodied beforehand and did not consider his equality. For the humbling comes after the statement of him being morphed and emptying himself! Remember Yeshua prayed and said in St.John, "Father glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world was. The beforehand transitioning in using morphe seems to that which is already present with the Father. Paul then lets us know that his past form of the prerogative of glory, majesty was emptied. Also, we would have to look at how is that he did not regard equality if it is in the present tense as being a glorified state. Surely after he' rose he did change back to a glorified expression. We know from the sentence structure the present tense aspect would make a steady flow of thought. Because Jesus humbled himself as to take the incarnation. That is the form of the servant. If it is the present tense of the glorified state then it would be saying that Christ is now humbling himself in the same present tense. But we know that he has already been exhausted to a glorified position and state!
Yeshua claimed this title in Revelations
I am the Aleph and the Tav!
"One would have to ask what is it that he embodied beforehand and did not consider his equality."
The text is stating he did not consider taking this exalted position for himself but rather humbled himself.
"Paul then lets us know that his past form of the prerogative of glory, majesty was emptied."
He said no such thing. You are imagining this notion into the text.
@@TheTrinityDelusion
On the contrary, I believe sir. You see where it states Although being in the form of God and his equality with the Father (God); "he did not consider a thing to be held onto! Then also that he emptied himself
This means within his nature (Yeshua) was already in this state of being as the glorified Son. Colossians 1:16 states all things were made through him and without him nothing that is made was made. Also coralates at John 1:1-3. Colossians tells us also that all that is made is for him and by him! So then Hebrews also speaks of this that he was formerly in a glorified state and position!
Philippians 2:7 " but emptied himself taking the form of a servant.
Here again in order to empty himself he previously would've had to have something to let go of! This his taking the form of a servant shows us that he was previously in a higher state. From the first phrase morphe of God to being made in the likeness of man! Many scriptures remind us of this glorified status and position. Such as
Romans 8:3
For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,
Hebrews 5:2
He can deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray since he is subject to weakness.
Philippians 3:21
who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.
Here just from these scripture verses we see that the human flesh is considered by two definitions. Lowly and weakness. The lowly refers to the status of the condition and the weakness it frailty being contaminated by original sin.
Yeshua prayed thus;" And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began" at John 17:5.
Hebrews 2:10
For it was fitting for Him, for who are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.
This glory Yeshua states is that also of his position with the Father his glory and divine prerogative. By becoming man through the incarnation and hypostatic-union he was mad subject to weakness and became dependent on the Holy Spirt and father. Yeshua alluded to this juxtaposition numerous times
Such as when he stated to the Pharisees and Sadducees. That before Abraham was "I am" Ego Emi. Greek form of Yahweh. and the narrator John clearly states why religious leaders wanted to stone him. And that is because him being perceived as only a man was making himself equal with and God. John just doesn't tell us why the Jewish leader wanted to kill him for that saying but he firms that is exactly what Jesus was doing. As John is the one giving the account of the event.
St.John 5:18
For this reason, they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Hebrews 1:7-8
reminds us that to none of the angels has God ever said at any time today you are my Son, not has he said I will be to him a father.
Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son, he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.
There are in the Old Testament examples of the use of Elohim which diminish the difficulty of its application to an earthly king (such as Psalm 82:1; Psalm 95:3; 1Samuel 28:13; Exodus 7:1); but it must still be acknowledged that the passage stands alone. This difficulty, however, relates only to the primary application. As the higher and true reference of the words became revealed, all earthly limitations disappeared; the Christian readers of the Psalm recognized in the Messiah of whom it speaks a King who is God.
So from the scriptures, we can see Christ's position is higher than angels. As he exited with the preeminence over things existing and created. We see that he requested of the Father restoration of his former "Glory" and majesty which he relinquished by taking the form of man. This his position as the son is equality with the Father making him God!
Thus his humbled form removed from outward appearance of glory and majesty.
The past tense of Philippians 2:7 confirms this view as from scripture what he came into be and previously had before manifesting in the flesh.
He stripped Himself of His expression of deity, but not His possession of deity. He restricted the outward manifestation of His deity. In His incarnation, He clothed Himself with humanity. He was like a king temporarily clothing himself in the garb of a peasant while remaining king, even though it was not apparent.
From his, before his birth, the prophecy is given by the angel Gabriel. That his name shall be called Immanuel; "meaning God with us" we know this isn't the name Christ was called but he was named Yeshua meaning God is salvation. So then the name or rather in the context meant is a title a literal calling of the one. That is God with us! Furthermore, the crowd during his triumphal entry on Palm Sunday shouted hosanna praise was only given to God!
Aleph and the Tav!
If in fact Phillipians 2:6 is referring to his exalted state. This means that Yeshau is risen and has a Glorified body, form, shape from being transformed of the lowly humanity. If this is the case then shouldn't the Greek term "Eidos" have been used; Which refers to the direct shape and form of the thing instead of "Morphe' " nature or essence?
I conclude that the traditional view of Yeshua being in the Morphe' of God is relative to his former pre-existence with God the one he asks for glory with the Father to be restored in st. John 17:5.
Okay lets say Jesus is God, Thus God became Flesh, God sent himself in the flesh. Bible Scripture says God is with us, And God Died for our sins. God shed his blood for us. Perhaps , God is with us means that Jesus is a perfect reflection of His God so much that he apply and contain all his Qualities , mimic him so perfectly that he was in a since God with us, because who sees Jesus have seen the Father . Our Heavenly Father rejects the Trinity by his Inspired Word the Bible which reveals that God never dies ! , or will never die, shall not die. Which Bible Translation Version do you prefer. When the Inspired Holy Bible from God which states: there is no way he can die, which was stated before God's Son Jesus Christ Death. Would only means that : God never dies for our sins . or that God will never die for our sins, or that God shall not die for our sins. Because God did not die for our sins, but only his son died for our sins which means that Jesus is not God as in result of proof from this scripture. Habakkuk 1:12 . Seeing is Believing the Inspired Holy Bible is Gods Light. Deny his Word the Bible, then you deny light. Which will make you not see because everything is black and dark. Habakkuk 1:12= LORD, you are the one who lives forever ! You are my holy God who never dies! ]- Easy to Read Version ERV Habakkuk 1:12= LORD, haven't you existed forever ? You are my holy God. you will never die. ]- New International Reader's Version NIRV Habakkuk 1:12= Are you not from of old, O LORD my God, my Holy One ? You shall not die ]- New Revised Standard Version NRSV. Unlike Fleshy Sinful Humans who says one thing that they promise maybe come true actually most the time never does. So humans words half the time means nothing Psalm 146:3= Don’t look to men for help; their greatest leaders fail; ]- The Living Bible TLB . However our Heavenly Father actions never changes that is once he put his foot down by it , which means he cannot go back on his inspired word the bible ISAIAH 55:11= So my word that goes out of my mouth will be, it will not return to me without results, But it will certainly accomplish whatever is my delight And it will have sure success in what I send it to do] So when God says all scriptures is inspired by him 2-( Timothy 3:16 ) that means each book of the bible each chapter and each verse have a purpose for his will . Satan is trying very hard to pollute God's word the bible. So Satan use anyone who is in the darkness by any means to add words and take away words from his Holy Writings that does not belong there which completely changes the true meanings of his Bible to False Meanings. A example of this is in Habakkuk 1:12 in which most bibles give a false statement which is ( “Let us not die.”) This rendering does not make no since in context with the other verses before it and make no since in context within the same verse of Hab 1:12 The translation of ( You do not die ) adheres closely to the original manuscripts. If anyone looks up Hab 1:12 in a Hebrew language written Bible the Translation of ( You do not die) will most likely be there. The Sopherim (Jewish scribes) changed this text long ago because they felt the original passage showed irreverence toward God. With few exceptions, most Bible translations make no adjustments to correct this scribal emendation. but a hand full of some restored the original text. But don't take my word for it. Do research dig deep in Gods word like hidden treasure and don't give up, for you will find the very knowledge of God and know how to fear him by turning away from bad. Do research in Scriptures that looks odd or that doesn't add up, Learn and find there true translation. Find true sources that are not corrupted that is reliable. Because 1-John 4:1 brings out this = Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.] Here Is my Contact Information the.maze.community@gmail.com
Test Paul.
Is the uploader of this video born again of the Spirit?
Beautiful!
Would "form of God" be like "created in the image of God"?
Example.
"This pot is the same as the potter."
no this pot is not the "same" as the potter, it is created and formed by the potter.
In the likeness of that potter. Yes! but to be the same as the potter is to be that potter. No!
Image/form= likeness of potter(God), not the potter(God) but a reflection(image/similitude,likeness) of the potter.
Formed of God.
and if we read on....
But made himself of *no* reputation(,humble,selfless,meek), and took upon him the form of a servant(following the laws of God -vessel of Gods will-holy spirit-grace of God-justified), and was made in the likeness of men(flesh/under the law unto death):
Could be a metaphor for giving up the graven images of men(Statehood/person-persona meaning mask) for the true Laws of God.
Servant of the true Sovereign Law(Gods will be done on earth as it is in heaven)
Put to death in a civil sense, released from bondage......freedom!
The book of the Law?
C 19
Do you have a contradictory view?
Please share!
I agree words don't have meaning.
Great add-vice. haha
I think you mean well.
I would suggest you read John Locke.
Test Paul.
What did exalted Jesus empty? Why did exalted Jesus took the form of man?
The exalted Jesus didn't empty anything. He's saying because Jesus emptied himself by being a slave he was rewarded by being exalted. Jesus a man obeyed God to the point of death, and God rewarded Jesus to eternal life and gave all authority to him.
who NOW--EXACTLY
You make an interesting case.
The context of that whole passage is about MINDSET, nothing else. Paul is explaining what MINDSET Christians must have and our mindset should be the same as Jesus'. Jesus is the example for us! That example would not work for us if he truly was God and became a servant, because we simply are not Gods. Trinitarians do make the word of God meaningless by their doctrines.
Being in the nature of God thought it not a thing to be seized to be equal with God.
The word "form" means nature. The word "robbery"
means a thing to be seized.
Just my thoughts.🤔
"The word "form" means nature. "
Myth.
Paul got Direct revelation from Jesus an if he said jESUS was god in bodily form -then YOU have a big problem. Paul also adds that JESUS thought it not something to be grasped at being EQUAL to his father. which again clearly states BOTH MUST BE GOD. with CONTEXT.
Exodus 20 1 3. Test Paul.
@@brenosantana1458 you seem to like saying test Paul. Is there a reason for that
@@AstariahJW For people to test him.
Its important.
@@AstariahJW He is not a true apostle.
@@brenosantana1458 all the apostles are true
Greetings in Christ! Since my last comment a few days ago, I have had a complete change of heart and mind regarding my initial comment. Athough there are some elements concerning the ministry of the Holy Spirit in relation to Christ that I still hold to, I want both you, and all who read this, to disregard my first comment completely, and I sincerely apologize for sounding fickle in this matter. I have come under the conviction that I was in error, and that the Trinitarian doctrine is true, i.e. as stated concisely in Webster"s Dictionary -- "THE UNION OF FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST IN ONE GODHEAD". I have returned to my Lutheran roots, and cannot, without grave conviction, drift from the true and proper Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Here I stand and will remain. So help me God. Amen.
Interesting reverse of course. What position do you hold to now?
you're discussing the sex of angels, when you should see the veracity of the name will be Jesus or Immanuel?
What is the real name of the son of man, one that all scriptures speak? is Jesus or Immanuel?
Why the real name of the son of man, was unduly amended by the Church to Jesus, in the new testament?
- That Deception and strong Delusions will be with all of you that wishing to continue in darkness-
Get a grip on yourself. No angels were mentioned (or harmed) in the making of this video.
TheTrinityDelusion I see and feel that you did not understand me, I have to stop using parables for you to understand me.
Stop talking about the accessory and talk of the essential and use your precious time you have left to enlighten those who walk in darkness by deception of lies promoted by religions and rulers of this planet....
***** Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear
For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them
(Matthew 13/13 -13/17)
***** Friend, good morning.
what you're saying makes no sense.
By your way to see if the name of the Son of Man does not matter, then the word of God also does not matter.
You know the one who can save mankind from sin and take to the father, the Creator, to have eternal life, is the son of man, Immanuel, the big AM.
If you do not know his name, or is mistaken with another false and pagan name, how you can get to the son of man, or have their protection?
you know nothing of spirituality, nor knows how things work.
When you call or glorifies a pagan or false name, like Jesus, you're offending the son of man. I know it offends a lot, the son of the man as the father offends. Because then you show ingratitude and disrespect for him who suffered for you, and the only one who can save you. The same I say in relation to all human. Those who do not know the son, will not be saved, because it is taken from the book of life of the son of man.
I do not belong to any sect, cult or religion. I'm against all this. . I just follow the word and commandments of God, and I like to share it with those who walk in darkness, so that I can save them, That's the big difference between me and you.
God gives eyes, ears and mouth to those who can not see, hear and speak.
God gives heart to everyone to be able to feel.
Because those who are blind, deaf or dumb, they can see , hear and feel better, than you who have eyes, ears and mouth. because their hearts are pure and true, and so they can respect the word of God, that's the big difference between them and you....
My friend, for the next time, you respect more the son of man. Because what you say, think or do to the son of man, you're doing the father, "God" the Creator of all that exists, has existed and will exist, nothing exists beyond him, son, holy spirit (which are all the same entity) and all that is created by him
»»The difference between a good "Christian", and a poor Christian is:
The good Christian, reads, understands and keep the word of God, and so he is not deceived by the precepts and teachings of man.
- While, the poor or bad "Christian", reads and forgets the word of God, and so he is deceived by the precepts and teachings of man
These people forgot the true and living Word of God.
With Blindness and deafness Those people that wanted wait by The "Savior" or "Salvation", They rejected the "God with Us" ( the visible God - Immanuel = I'm manuel= I AM Manuel) that is the one who can do the "Salvation" , he is the great "I AM", the "Savior" who can redeemer the man from sin and give eternal Life.!!!.....
"...and SHALL call his NAME Immanuel" (Isaiah 7/14)
The church completely misrepresented the truth, and the vast majority of Christians do not even understand the Truth and continues to follow the teachings of the church
The church, transformed an existing adjective in a sentence of the scriptures in one own name.....
For example:
I am a civil engineer and architect, most of my friends of the work call me engineer or architect, but my name is not an engineer or architect, but yes, I´m Manuel
I am lovable, friendly, obedient, respectful .... but my name is not lovable or friendly, obedient, respectful .... but yes, A.M. (which are the initials of my name António Manuel)
Engineers and architects, there are many, are just the titles, what differentiates me from others is my name and my qualities or defects.
Another example:
If I'm during a meeting of engineers, and if you want speak with me, because you want and need my help, instead of calling out by my name, you calls by the word "Engineer", which of us will answer?
- In this case all the engineers present, will look or reply to you.
But if this meeting of engineers, there is a man who is only secretary, but his name is "Engineer".
- when you calls by the word "Engineer", this man who is only secretary, but his name is Engineer, he will talk and reply to you,and I as well as all other engineers we will not reply to you...
Now, if that secretary is evil, false and greedy, what you will receive or hear of this secretary that his name is Engineer? Will you be helped by this man secretary?
--> But if you call my name, "A.M", or "Manuel", in this case you will talk with me because you called me by my name. And in this case you will not be mistaken as example above...
You, the true follower of the true son of man, understand my message in these previous exemples? you understand the importance of the true name?
"..If the sheep does not know his good shepherd, she will surely be deceived by the evil that awaits her carefully and do everything to steal the sheep in the herd of the good shepherd,,"
-> Read these scriptures and understand:
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another "Savior, messiah", whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11/3 -2 Corinthians 11/4)
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Colossians 2/8)
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; (1 Timothy 4/1 -.1 Timothy 4/2 )
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition (religious leader Pope); Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord Immanuel (prophesied long before he was born, and was given by the father, creator, and mentioned in the holy scriptures in Isaiah, 7/14) shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
->And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: (2 Thessalonians 2/3 - 2/13)
Is true, that the son of man, know that the vast majority of the Christian are mistaken when they calls her name, they calls jesus instead of Immanuel or A.M.
But all know that the son of man is defender of the pure word of God, he likes that word may be fulfilled... so everyone should call Immanuel or the great A.M.
The son of man, Immanuel, the great A.M., from the beginning knew this would happen, so he made reference in the scriptures, particularly in Matthew and John, using parables and messages to all his sheep, but you can check this in other scriptures using a criterion confirmation about the contradictions mentioned a few simple lines. For this you must have your heart completely clean, and think like a child who asks his father why this? or why that? .... you will discover many things that have been hidden by the church, and it will set you free ... and you will give value to those who really deserve it, ie will love the true son of the man who was prophesied from the beginning, and that his name was always the same since the beginning of time, until the end of time....
"...and SHALL call his NAME Immanuel" (Isaiah 7/14)
»»Everyone must remember what the son of man said, Immanuel (I´m manuel =I Am Manuel):
" I am the way and the truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Best Regards from Portugal
ღ˚ •。* With Love ˚ ˚¸✰˚* ˚ ✰˚★Ω ∞
"A.M.",
(which are the initials of my name António Manuel)
- All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. (Matthew 11/27)
- And Immanuel came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (Matthew 28/18)
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." Isa. 5/20
-Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand (Matthew 15/7- 15/10)
-Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Matthew 7/15)
.Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (Mat.7/20 - 7/24 )
- Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matthew 23/27- 23/28)
Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch (Matthew 15/12 -15/14)
- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10/34)
- His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: (Matthew 25/26 )
When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses. (Matthew 8/16 -8/17)
- And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. (Matthew 12/27 -12/28)
- He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. (Mat 12/30)
- And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (Mat 12/32)
- But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Mat 12/36-12/37)
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5/17 -5/18)
- Who has ears let him hear.!!!....
- Who has eyes let him see!!!....
- Who has heart let him feel !!!....
- Who has mouth let him speak !!!....
- who has the holy spirit let him understand !!!.......
I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars--I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. (Revelation 3:9)
- Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16/28)
- For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. (Mat 18/11)
- Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 10/32)
"...and SHALL call his NAME Immanuel" (Isaiah 7/14)
»»Everyone must remember what the son of man said, Immanuel (I´m manuel =I Am Manuel):
" I am the way and the truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
JESUS was in the FORM of GOD---- was-when ? before HE took human FORM/became human-done.stop fooling people with your word games kel.
Exodus 20 1 3. Test Paul.
Test Paul.
read ISAIAH 1 PLEASE. AN we see that GOD the creator is speaking an calls himself the creator. now keep reading an he states that The leading israelites and pharasees most of them rejected JESUS-who is called the HOLY ONE . Now jump to chapert 43 still in isaiah an we have GOD saying he is the HOLY ONE an that he takes away sin an IS the only SAVIOR. now go to JOHN 1 4-14 AND HERE we have GOD THE FATHER calling jesus SAVIOR of all mankind. !!! Again jesus and the Father have an intimacy found nowhere but scripture.THats why Jesus can say if you have seen me -you have seen the fathers and NOW YOU know HIM. John 14-7. revelations 3-21 jesus says i sit in my fathers THRONE. Creatures all worship the LAMB as well as the FATHER-who is spirit. THE invisble GOD in unapprachable LIGHT is seen expressly in JESUS the GOD_MAN!!
John 17 3.
Did you mention Isaiah 1 4?
People explain Paul in a none scholarly level- Kel you are one of those people because you like us are no scholar-you are a x Jehovah witness.stop doin textual criticism- only scholars are qualified to do that.
The Problem you are having is due to a different belief, A Unitarian who have no concept of the pre-existing Messiah as the incarnate WORD and the Christian belief which transpire from the belief that Jesus was the WORD who became Flesh.
So in your concept you cannot grasp what Paul is trying to say, you cannot grasp what John is saying the WORD become flesh. Because they are all Christian writers which you are always trying to misquote and misinterpret to suit your own belief.
The WORD who is in the FORM of GOD, emptied himself and become a bond servant (a man) These is through the incarnation of the WORD to become the Messiah who is in the FORM of a man and was born to a virgin.
NOW I SUGGEST YOU PUT YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION TO YOUR OWN UNITARIAN BIBLE BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US CHRISTIANS SINCE YOU HAVE BEEN CREATING YOUR OWN SELF RELIGION.
Telling yourself what you want to hear will not make it the truth.
TheTrinityDelusion
(YOU SAID)
Telling yourself what you want to hear will not make it the truth.
(ME)
But Historical facts shows that I have the truth and you don't
Wisdom Historical facts? Ah yes, Calvin burned Servetus at the stake for not believing the Trinity. The Anglican church burned John Biddle at the stake for not believing the Trinity. The Catholic church killed and tortured only God knows how many Christians since the 4th century for not believing the Trinity. Yes, historical facts prove Trinitarians to be following the doctrine of Christ which said "kill everyone who doesn't believe the Trinity." Wait...Jesus never said that, did he?
Even if the interpretation in the video isn't right, the other unitarian interpretation would be. The Trinitarian/Arian interpretation is absurd. You cannot set aside godhood, and Trinitarians can't even keep this straight anyway. They say he set aside his godhood, then they claim that when he did miracles on earth he did that by his innate godhood (which they just had him set aside) and so doing they make Philippians 2 into a sham, a phony fake show.
The standard unitarian interpretation makes much more sense than that: Form (morphe) means an outward appearance, not an inward nature, first of all. And I think its obvious here its an outward appearance in action rather than looks. He was in the form of God in the sense that he had the power to heal the sick, give sight to the blind, and raise the dead during his ministry, for God had given him such power (John 5:19-30 "....By myself I can do nothing.") And so rather than using this power from God to a selfish advantage he (as Peter says in Acts 2) "went about doing good," or in other words took on the form of a servant. Form here contextually means something like function. He functioned like God in the sense that because God gave him power to raise the dead and so on he could look like he is God (this is why Trinitarians get confused and think the miracles prove he is God despite Jesus saying plainly in John 5:19-30 that this power is not innate to his person but something GIVEN to him by God). I haven't been able to find Martin Luther's comments on Philippians 2 yet but on youtube I saw a debate between Anthony Buzzard and James White, and Buzzard said this was Martin Luther's interpretation, and James White agreed that Martin Luther indeed interpreted it this way but of course said Martin Luther just didn't "get it." In any case, I think this unitarian interpretation is solid, and if Martin Luther even agreed with it, what are you going to say against it? The Pope of Protestantism agrees, so not much you can do. [Edit, I have apparently found Martin Luther's comments now, and he is trying to hold both interpretations together, which makes for some good entertainment in showing how silly Trinitarians can get: www.lectionarycentral.com/palm/LutherEpistle.html.]
David Brainerd Hmmm. You says since 4th century I doubt that my friend, Calvin was a reformist who lived in the 15th century and so as Servetus, during the 4th century St. Augustine was arrested and was eaten by lions which means during this time, Christian are still being persecuted, it was only in the 8th century when the Church become a State-church meaning they become a church with military under Charlemane, so Your History seems to be off. Trinitarians is not a church but a doctrine within the Christian church, you cannot separate the two, Christian from the very beginning believe in Jesus Christ as a God, and in order for us to believe that, we should believe in the Trinity for it explain how Jesus is a God you cannot make an assumption of a separate entity of what you called Trinitarian as to the Christian for they always go together, Even there was a schism in the Church between the Western and the Eastern Orthodox, both of them still holds the Trinitarian doctrine, Even when the reformist went schism and separate itself with Christianity, they too still holds the Trinitarian doctrine as what protestant is right now. The only people who does not believe in the Trinity is the Heretic, such as Arians and the modalism, gnostic and ebionites and the Judaized. All this are all outside of Christianity belief, they do not believed Jesus is a God and I believed you are one of those people too.
(YOU SAID)The standard unitarian interpretation makes much more sense than that: Form (morphe) means an outward appearance, not an inward nature, first of all. And I think its obvious here its an outward appearance in action rather than looks. He was in the form of God in the sense that he had the power to heal the sick, give sight to the blind, and raise the dead during his ministry, for God had given him such power
(ME)This is where Heretic are making serious mistakes about Jesus Christ, for they are so confused with Jesus Christ deity, Look at the scripture, Paul is referring to the FORM of GOD in his deity before he became a man, and look at what you are trying to say, you are referring to the FORM of GOD during the time when Jesus was in the FORM of a MAN. HE WAS A GOD AND THEN HE BECAME A MAN, TWO DIFFERENT TIME LINE HERE.
When he was in the form of a man, he was definitely like us, he can die, he can get hungry, he does not know everything unless it was reveal to him by the Holy spirit or his Father in Heaven, Jesus have to be a man in all sense, and being a man as his status surely is no greater than the God above, But Heretic could not understand this and they mix up Jesus deity of the Form of God to his time as being a man. They keep saying, you see he does not know anything, you see the Father is greater than him. Why do you equate his being a man to God? is something so ridiculous. I am a Trinitarian and I can tell you that Jesus Miracles and healing of the sick and everything that he had done while on Earth is due to God the Father and the Holy spirit, This is where the Unity of the Trinity are working all together in the Salvation of Man. This is the very reason why Paul says that in him on Colosians 2:9 - For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, because the very presence of God is in Jesus.
FORM of a God, What a God is, his very Form, his very nature, is everything about being a God. I myself is in the form of a Man, My father who begat me is exactly of the same form as I am.If God is a Spirit, then that is also what the FORM of a God is too, it is everything about being a God. and only exclusively of the very being of a God. and that is exactly what Paul is trying to say who Jesus was before he became in the FORM of a MAN.
Obviously you are going to have a hard time with these concept of Jesus being in the form of God, For your belief does not hold that idea, for to you Jesus is just a mere man but not a God that is why you are so confused when Paul and John talk about Jesus side of being a God.
Wisdom The Council of Nicea was an imperial council and it invented the Trinity. Any bishop who did not subscribe was deposed by Imperial order, and there were exiles associated with rejecting the Trinity as well. Not to mention that groups that didn't join up with the official Roman Catholic church and embrace its Trinity had their property seized by the army and handed over to the Roman Catholic church. Donatus was the bishop of such a church when the army came busting in to take the property away and massacred the people. Don't give me this crap that the merger of the Romish Church and the Empire didn't happen until the 8th century. And Augustine was not eaten by lions; you made that up. Augustine was not martyred; rather he martyred many Donatists. Augustine dies from an illness. Also, there was in fact a famous unitarian or modalist, can't remember which, who was either burned at the stake or beheaded, between Nicea and Constantinople I, or after Constantinople I before Calcedon, I can't remember. I'm trying to find who it was and when exactly. This stuff is generally hidden from view because of how it shows the true nature of Trinitarianism, so it may take me a while to find who this guy was again.
20 fools agree with him so far.
JESUS is My LORD & My GOD
It is the opposite. Fool, is you.
Well say
similar to god ... what do you know about jesus that is similar to god is your answer ... equal to god is similar to god ...
G2470 ἴσος isos (iy'-sos) adj.
similar (in amount and kind).
form of god ... 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
See also: G3445, G3446, G4832
G4832 συμμορφός summorphos (sïm-mor-fos') adj.
1. jointly formed.
2. (figuratively) similar