The Trinity Discussion

[notbythesword]

There lies the problem. Jesus subjecting Himself, somehow makes Him ontologically inferior?

In Philippians 2 for example, prior to Paul speaking of Jesus “being born in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2.7, c.f. John 1.14), there was a voluntary act of self-emptying on behalf of Christ. If Christ was active in His own “kenosis” (which occurred prior to “being born in the likeness of men”) then this is a strong implication of preexistence. Paul elsewhere write, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8.9) which also assumes preexistence. A preexistence where Jesus is said to exist in the “form of God” (Philippians 2.6, c.f. John 1.1). That Jesus, who has “equality with God” (Philippians 2.6) would set aside His own divine prerogatives and enter into creation is the ultimate display of humility that Paul formerly mentions in Philippians 2.3-4. Jesus subjects Himself here, yet the text can still speak of Him as being equal to God.

I think one needs to understand that the equality that is spoken of throughout the NT is one of nature.

I believe in the preexistence of Christ too. Also in His divine nature. The equality spoken of in Philippians 2:6 has nothing to do with power though. It is speaking of the Greek word “morphe’ meaning “form”. There are two popular views on Philippians 2:6. One would be that Jesus existed in the same “form” (spiritual form) as God prior to His being sent into this world.

Another view is that Jesus was saying that He didn’t consider existing in the form of God as something to be grasped. This view has always been highly contested though. This is based upon how the Greek reads. Philippians 2:6 Interlinear: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God, Either way you look at it though, it mentions nothing of power. Simply form.

Jesus did empty Himself by taking on the “form” of a man, no longer in His divine nature. This does not prove equality at all though, as even an angel taking on the form of a man would have to empty oneself as well. We are said to be made a little lesser than the angels after all.

Again it is equal in “morphe” (form), not Power. Also you have to recognize that God is being contrasted here with Christ. This is clearly showing God to be a separate entity than Christ. “did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage” God is spoken of as a separate entity to Christ. I see this quite often in scripture though.

 

[Tommy379]

Now I'm reading people on this thread writing that Jesus has "co-equality" to God. I thought the arguement was that Jesus is God. I just wonder why, through out the new testament, it says Jesus is at the right hand of God? If Jesus is God, why would the bible make such a distinction? I've read the terms "trinity" "god head" and "God the Son" used in this thread, but I can't find those in the bible. Where do they come from?
Maybe the nature of God and Christ are not for us to understand.
This reminds me of Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein assumed the speed of light is a constant and never changes. Now, over a century later, everything we understand about gravity and time has to fit in Einstein's very small box. How many limits have we put on ourselves?
It is entirely possible, that the early church of the 4th century made some assumptions, such as: Christianity is a monotheistic religion, and only God can exhibit supernatural traits. Jesus said that if we had the faith of a mustard seed, we could tell a mountain to move. I can only conclude that supernatural powers are not exclusive to God.
If you look at the text in the bible, not knowing anything about Christianity, it would be very unlikely the reader would conclude Jesus and God are the same entity.

 

[AKAP]

I believe in the preexistence of Christ too. Also in His divine nature. The equality spoken of in Philippians 2:6 has nothing to do with power though. It is speaking of the Greek word “morphe’ meaning “form”. There are two popular views on Philippians 2:6. One would be that Jesus existed in the same “form” (spiritual form) as God prior to His being sent into this world.

Another view is that Jesus was saying that He didn’t consider existing in the form of God as something to be grasped. This view has always been highly contested though. This is based upon how the Greek reads. Philippians 2:6 Interlinear: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God, Either way you look at it though, it mentions nothing of power. Simply form.

Jesus did empty Himself by taking on the “form” of a man, no longer in His divine nature. This does not prove equality at all though, as even an angel taking on the form of a man would have to empty oneself as well. We are said to be made a little lesser than the angels after all.

Again it is equal in “morphe” (form), not Power. Also you have to recognize that God is being contrasted here with Christ. This is clearly showing God to be a separate entity than Christ. “did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage” God is spoken of as a separate entity to Christ. I see this quite often in scripture though.

notbythesword: If not for the first sentence and if you meant the divinity of Christ on earth, and not since his resurrection, I agree with your portrayal of Phil 2:5-7,8.
I believe you could have gone a little farther though and have said the 'morphe' means the outer form or outer appearance (his demeanor, words and actions of Jesus that are observed) and not inner nature. Also, there is no scriptural support for a previous spiritual form of Jesus. This is just a theory. That is very important as well.
And Jesus who completely yielded his will to God's spirit did not take credit or try to rob his Father status, as he was God, nor his Father, as it was not his spirit working within him. Also the other version of this part of scripture that Jesus felt he was not robbing his Father's status to be considered equal with his, directly says he, Jesus was not God. He allowed God his Father to 'drive' his spirit to the cross.
And also you could have developed the point of Jesus 'emptying' himself to 'nothing,' completely yielding his will to allow God's spirit to dominate his own spirit and will. Of course this all began after Jesus was anointed right after his baptism....enough said

Thanks

Bless you

In Christ, Always

 

[Nehemiah6]

Now I'm reading people on this thread writing that Jesus has "co-equality" to God. I thought the arguement was that Jesus is God. I just wonder why, through out the new testament, it says Jesus is at the right hand of God? If Jesus is God, why would the bible make such a distinction?

Well it is really quite simple. God the Father is on His throne, and God the Son is seated at the right hand of the Father. This shows that the Son is distinct from the Father, yet God, since God the Father addresses God the Son as God (see Hebrews 1:8,9).

God the Holy Spirit is also present but generally not mentioned.

 

[notbythesword]

notbythesword: If not for the first sentence and if you meant the divinity of Christ on earth, and not since his resurrection, I agree with your portrayal of Phil 2:5-7,8.
I believe you could have gone a little farther though and have said the 'morphe' means the outer form or outer appearance (his demeanor, words and actions of Jesus that are observed) and not inner nature. Also, there is no scriptural support for a previous spiritual form of Jesus. This is just a theory. That is very important as well.
And Jesus who completely yielded his will to God's spirit did not take credit or try to rob his Father status, as he was God, nor his Father, as it was not his spirit working within him. Also the other version of this part of scripture that Jesus felt he was not robbing his Father's status to be considered equal with his, directly says he, Jesus was not God. He allowed God his Father to 'drive' his spirit to the cross.
And also you could have developed the point of Jesus 'emptying' himself to 'nothing,' completely yielding his will to allow God's spirit to dominate his own spirit and will. Of course this all began after Jesus was anointed right after his baptism....enough said

Thanks

Bless you

In Christ, Always

Yeah, I think we mainly differ on Christ’s preexistence. One verse that I can think of off the top of my head would be Luke 10:18 “He said to them, "I watched Satan fall from heaven like a lightning flash.”

Although I’m sure that you could make the argument that God revealed this to Him

 

[AKAP]

notbythesword: If not for the first sentence and if you meant the divinity of Christ on earth, and not since his resurrection, I agree with your portrayal of Phil 2:5-7,8.
I believe you could have gone a little farther though and have said the 'morphe' means the outer form or outer appearance (his demeanor, words and actions of Jesus that are observed) and not inner nature. Also, there is no scriptural support for a previous spiritual form of Jesus. This is just a theory. That is very important as well.
And Jesus who completely yielded his will to God's spirit did not take credit or try to rob his Father status, as he was God, nor his Father, as it was not his spirit working within him. Also the other version of this part of scripture that Jesus felt he was not robbing his Father's status to be considered equal with his, directly says he, Jesus was not God. He allowed God his Father to 'drive' his spirit to the cross.
And also you could have developed the point of Jesus 'emptying' himself to 'nothing,' completely yielding his will to allow God's spirit to dominate his own spirit and will. Of course this all began after Jesus was anointed right after his baptism....enough said

Thanks

Bless you

In Christ, Always

Made an oops while writing to quickly in the last reply..
And Jesus who completely yielded his will to God's spirit did not take credit or try to rob his Father status, as he was NOT God, nor his Father, as it was not his spirit working within him. Also the other version of this part of scripture that Jesus felt he was not robbing his Father's status to be considered equal with his, directly says he, Jesus was not God. He allowed God his Father to 'drive' his spirit to the cross.

 

[AKAP]

Yeah, I think we mainly differ on Christ’s preexistence. One verse that I can think of off the top of my head would be Luke 10:18 “He said to them, "I watched Satan fall from heaven like a lightning flash.”

Although I’m sure that you could make the argument that God revealed this to Him

notbythesword:
Luke 10:18 is easy to answer. Really Luke 10:17-20 should all be looked at for context purposes
Jesus was using a simile. Let me explain...
The 72 returned and were proud that they had power over the demons when they used Jesus' name.
Then Jesus responded to them and he was really meaning...see, the power of the adversary/'satan' was gone. It was like the power of lightning is completely lost from a storm when it dissipates into the ground. It is gone FOR GOOD. The adversary as lightning has only one time to be in 'glory' or power, then it is gone. Jesus was not seeing an evil being sometime in the past forced to the earth. That makes not sense. A poor support verse for the preexistence of Jesus.
Then Jesus being in the same mindset, said they had power to walk over snakes etc. as well. Then he reminded them that having this power was not as important as having their names in the book of life...

Bless you

In Christ, always

 

[notbythesword]

notbythesword:
Luke 10:18 is easy to answer. Really Luke 10:17-20 should all be looked at for context purposes
Jesus was using a simile. Let me explain...
The 72 returned and were proud that they had power over the demons when they used Jesus' name.
Then Jesus responded to them and he was really meaning...see, the power of the adversary/'satan' was gone. It was like the power of lightning is completely lost from a storm when it dissipates into the ground. It is gone FOR GOOD. The adversary as lightning has only one time to be in 'glory' or power, then it is gone. Jesus was not seeing an evil being sometime in the past forced to the earth. That makes not sense. A poor support verse for the preexistence of Jesus.
Then Jesus being in the same mindset, said they had power to walk over snakes etc. as well. Then he reminded them that having this power was not as important as having their names in the book of life...

Bless you

In Christ, always

I see it more as a literal event that took place. To me, I see that Jesus beheld this event. When examining it in the Greek, it appears to be a literal event that Jesus partook in.

Luke 10:18 Interlinear: and he said to them, 'I was beholding the Adversary, as lightning from the heaven having fallen;

 

[AKAP]

I see it more as a literal event that took place. To me, I see that Jesus beheld this event. When examining it in the Greek, it appears to be a literal event that Jesus partook in.

Luke 10:18 Interlinear: and he said to them, 'I was beholding the Adversary, as lightning from the heaven having fallen;

Good then..I would just consider the usage of the time frame of the 1st century folks....and not just the Greek literal rendition/translation/transliteration

In Christ, Always

 

[bluto]

Here is my original question to you akap. "Ok akap, here is my original question to you. Forget about Philippians 2 and just address the following question?

Well akap let me ask you a question regarding what you said here: "all wrong and then they were forced to make Jesus pre-existent and the creator and himself God to fit their initial axiom/premise." If Jesus Christ did not preexist His incarnation as a man then why is the Son of God identified or presented in Scripture as the Agent of creation at John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16,17, Hebrews 1:10 and Revelation 3:14 by not only the Apostles but by His own Father? Btw, welcome to the forums.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Bumped for akap. nt

 

[williamjordan]

I believe in the preexistence of Christ too. Also in His divine nature. The equality spoken of in Philippians 2:6 has nothing to do with power though. It is speaking of the Greek word “morphe’ meaning “form”. There are two popular views on Philippians 2:6. One would be that Jesus existed in the same “form” (spiritual form) as God prior to His being sent into this world.

Another view is that Jesus was saying that He didn’t consider existing in the form of God as something to be grasped. This view has always been highly contested though. This is based upon how the Greek reads. Philippians 2:6 Interlinear: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God, Either way you look at it though, it mentions nothing of power. Simply form.

Jesus did empty Himself by taking on the “form” of a man, no longer in His divine nature. This does not prove equality at all though, as even an angel taking on the form of a man would have to empty oneself as well. We are said to be made a little lesser than the angels after all.

Again it is equal in “morphe” (form), not Power. Also you have to recognize that God is being contrasted here with Christ. This is clearly showing God to be a separate entity than Christ. “did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage” God is spoken of as a separate entity to Christ. I see this quite often in scripture though.

First of all, I must apologize that I will lose some of you in this, because it is a bit technical.

Let me first address the objection, “God is being contrasted here with Christ. This is clearly showing God to be a separate entity than Christ.” Any Trinitarian would agree with you. This is something we affirm. We are after all Trinitarian, not Unitarian. How else could Jesus be equal to God if they weren't distinct? That's my first observation.

Second, the two views you mention understand the term “grasped” differently. On the one hand, Trinitarians understand “grasped” as “something held fast to,” “something clinged onto,” or “firmly held on to.” In this view, Jesus did not cling to what was already His, namely, equality with the Father. The alternate view you mention understands “grasped” to mean “grasp at,” or “seize.” In this view, Jesus did not attempt to seize equality.

The syntactical question of Philippians 2.6 hinges on whether we have here an idiomatic use of hegeomai (again, a verb which in this instance means to “think” or “consider”). By “idiomatic use” I mean a usage that conforms to what we find elsewhere regarding a particular use of hegeomai where it is used with a double accusative, as in this text. More specifically, the question here has to do with the meaning of hegeomai where one articulated (with the Greek article) accusative follows it and where one anarthrous (without the Greek article) accusative precedes it. Where we have such a double accusative construction used with hegeomai it appears that the accusative following the verb (hegeomai) always serves as the direct object of the verb and the accusative preceding hegeomai serves as the predicate accusative which, again, means that it describes the direct object.

The definite article to of to einai confirms that this second expression is closely connected with the first, for the function of the definite article here is designated to point back to something previously mentioned. Therefore one should expect that [to einai isa theoi (“the being equal with God”)] would refer epexegetically (explanatory) to the [en morphe theou huparchon (“existing in the form of God”)] that preceded it. This means then that “the being equal with God” is precisely another way of saying “in the form of God.” Or better still, whatever meaning one might put forth as a possible meaning for the expression [“in the form of God”] can only be properly understood in terms of [“equal to/like God”], and vice versa—[“the being equal to God”] can only be properly understood in terms of [“in the form of God/divine form”]. (Hawthorne, “In the Form of God and Equal with God,” page 104)​

Roy W. Hoover, “The Harpagmos Enigma: A Philological Solution,” Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971), pages 102-103, is the leading proponent of just such a view, and in support of his claim he refers to several similar texts. For example, Isidore of Pelusium (fourth century CE) writes, ei hermaion hegesato to einai ison (“If he considered being equal a treasure”). Here we have hegeomai used with a double accusative, where the articulated accusative following the verb (to einai ison) is the direct object and the anarthrous accusative preceding hegeomai is the predicate accusative that further describes “being equal” as “a treasure.” Another example of this construction is found in Diodorus Siculus (Library 15.4.3), “On arriving in Egypt he met the king and urged him to continue the war energetically and to consider the war against the Persians a common undertaking” (koinon hegeisthai ton pros tous Persas polemon). Here we have hegeomai followed by an articulated accusative ton pros tous persas polemon (“the war against the Persians”) serving as the direct object, with the anarthrous koinon (meaning, “common undertaking”) preceding hegeomai as the predicate accusative. Also, in the Letter of Aristeas 292.2 we find the same grammatical construction. R.J.H. Shutt translates this text as, “you consider injustice the greatest evil” (found in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha , vol. 2, James H. Charlesworth, ed. [New York: Doubleday, 1985], page 32). Here we have the same pattern of anarthrous predicate accusative (“greatest evil,” megiston kakon), verb (“consider,” hegeomai), and articulated accusative object (“injustice,” ten adikian). Still another instance of this idiom can be found in Josephus’ War of the Jews 2.581, where he writes, “to consider the harm of your friends as your own.” Here the anarthrous predicate accusative oikeion (“one’s own”) again precedes hegeomai (“to consider”), and hegeomai is also again followed by an articulated accusative object ten blaben (“the harm”).

Therefore, it seems to me that the anarthrous accusative-hegeomai-articular accusative construction always conforms to the previously described usage, namely, predicate accusative-hegeomai-direct object accusative.

 

[williamjordan]

I am convinced that the earliest Trinitarians of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP], 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] and 4[SUP]th[/SUP] centuries misinterpreted and got John 1:1-14 at least, all wrong and then they were forced to make Jesus pre-existent and the creator and himself God to fit their initial axiom/premise. They got the English translated term ’word’ all wrong. Over many hundred times in the NT the Greek word ‘logos’ is never translated as God. This was their deliberate error. The chaotic theory of the Trinity was born.

They mostly probably did this deliberately and under pressure from political forces of the time. Constantine was no Christian as I’ve read some of his history. He was a political leader first and wanted to control both Christians and pagans alike. The introduction of the Trinity concept and formula was his new 'Christian' law, creed and compromise.

Later, the holders of the Trinity theory even added in or modified text to a few NT verses in an attempt to force the Trinity into the Holy Scriptures and therefore show it was biblical. Yet it was never so. The text they added/ modified were in verses Matthew 28:19; 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16
In the first:
They say this is proof that Jesus is God along with the Spirit. These words were added in the first translation of the Bible from Greek into Latin in the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] Century AD
St. Jerome or Eusebium considered the ‘Father of Church History’ wrote about this passage of scripture before it was formally first translated and handwritten into Latin. He did not have the Trinity formula in it.
He wrote “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.” (Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2 and also in Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8).
Now when we read of the either the water or spirit baptism performed in other parts of scripture, we find that it reads like Eusebium’s version. How could the apostles and disciples get it so wrong that they always baptized in Jesus’ name only (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). And why wouldn’t they just baptize just in Jesus’ name? Jesus was the perfect sacrifice and savior for mankind. It even makes logical sense. And why would the impersonal roles of God as the Father and Jesus as the son and God’s spirit be relevant in mimicking and having faith in what Jesus did at baptism and on the cross with his death. God did not die on the cross, the human called Jesus did. God’s spirit did not die on the cross either. Even if this portion of scripture of the Trinity formula was true it still does not say these titles or roles formed one God.

In the second verse:
1 John 5:7-8 1 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (KJV)
This translation was not found in any Greek manuscript until the 11[SUP]th[/SUP] century AD. Now the original Greek version that was translated in Latin then eventually to Old then modern English read like this:
“For there are three that bear record (witness/testify), the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”
The modified or revised version of the passage was a deliberate attempt to show there were a God trinity and a Triune God in scripture, but also to show that the word was the son of God and he existed at the beginning of time, and tie this to John 1:1-2 and 14. So really their interpretation of John 1:1-2 is based on nothing but the empty spaces between the heads.

In the third verse: 1 Timothy 3:16 – “Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, (and) was taken up in glory.” (NIV)
Now there are some Greek manuscripts that read, “God appeared in the flesh.” Some English versions used these manuscripts for their source including these corrupt versions: King James Bible, Darby Bible Translation, Webster’s Bible Translation, World English Bible, and Young’s Literal Translation. This corrupt text in manuscripts did not appear until after the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] century AD.
This Greek verse was intentionally altered by scribes in favor of the Trinity theory. Fortunately, most English versions ignored this forged Greek text and stayed with the earlier versions.
They had ‘He,’ ’Who’ or ‘which’ instead of the word ‘God’ (Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–1892)).

“By common confession great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Beheld by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory” (NASB)
Now this part of scripture actually negates any Trinity or Triune God concept. It describes the life and events of Jesus as a man then later was glorified by God.

Now there is much more to tell, and even the dozen or verses you have cited can easily be debunked that the Trinity or Jesus is and was never God. You have misread them, like many have done and biased them to an impossible, non-Biblical slant. I just do not have the time in this setting to go over every one of them. Maybe one at a time over a period of many days or weeks.

There's a lot here to comment on. But I do wish to say that in regards to this post, I find the following problems.

You object to the Trinitarian baptismal formula found in Matthew 28.19, suggesting that it is a forgery. However, there is a major issue with this. Not a single Greek, Latin, Slovanic, Etheopian, Armenian, Georgian, or Coptic manuscript reads, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in my name,” rather, favor the inclusion of the Trinitarian formula. Many figures of the early church cite the passage as well. This wide geographic attestation goes against the proposal that Constantine interjected the wording of Matthew 28.19 into the NT. How? Because by the time Constantine allegedly introduced the wording, the Trinitarian baptismal formula was already attested in all parts of the world. It's also worth mentioning, that even if we were to consider Eusebius' witness, there are numerous accounts where he includes the Trinitarian formula in his writings. The reading you espouse has extremely weak attestation (being only one witness, and that, a product of the 4th c.), and could have originated during Eusebius' time. There is no evidence of it being any earlier. Additionally, though the mss which feature Trinitarian formula were primarily compiled during the early 4th c. (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus), because they have been found to agree very closely with even earlier papyri which are dated to the beginning of the 3rd century, this demonstrates by recourse to a postulated earlier exemplar from which they descend. “In English,” so-to-speak, this means that these mss are representative of an even earlier archetype. To quote Darrell Bock (italics mine),

“There are thousands of differences between them. Their common ancestor must be quite ancient since they are relatively closely related to each other yet there are numerous and substantial differences. This suggests that there were several intermediary ancestors between the common archetype and these two majuscule documents. This is similar, to some degree, to relatives at a family reunion. Some members may be tall, thin, blue-eyed, blond, while others are short, thick-boned, brown-eyed, with black hair. Others are in between. Those who look substantially like each other could be more closely related. Following this analogy, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are virtually distant cousins whose common ancestor must go back several generation. Indeed, when they agree, their common reading usually is from the early second century.”

​

 

[notbythesword]

First of all, I must apologize that I will lose some of you in this, because it is a bit technical.

Let me first address the objection, “God is being contrasted here with Christ. This is clearly showing God to be a separate entity than Christ.” Any Trinitarian would agree with you. This is something we affirm. We are after all Trinitarian, not Unitarian. How else could Jesus be equal to God if they weren't distinct? That's my first observation.

Second, the two views you mention understand the term “grasped” differently. On the one hand, Trinitarians understand “grasped” as “something held fast to,” “something clinged onto,” or “firmly held on to.” In this view, Jesus did not cling to what was already His, namely, equality with the Father. The alternate view you mention understands “grasped” to mean “grasp at,” or “seize.” In this view, Jesus did not attempt to seize equality.

The syntactical question of Philippians 2.6 hinges on whether we have here an idiomatic use of hegeomai (again, a verb which in this instance means to “think” or “consider”). By “idiomatic use” I mean a usage that conforms to what we find elsewhere regarding a particular use of hegeomai where it is used with a double accusative, as in this text. More specifically, the question here has to do with the meaning of hegeomai where one articulated (with the Greek article) accusative follows it and where one anarthrous (without the Greek article) accusative precedes it. Where we have such a double accusative construction used with hegeomai it appears that the accusative following the verb (hegeomai) always serves as the direct object of the verb and the accusative preceding hegeomai serves as the predicate accusative which, again, means that it describes the direct object.

The definite article to of to einai confirms that this second expression is closely connected with the first, for the function of the definite article here is designated to point back to something previously mentioned. Therefore one should expect that [to einai isa theoi (“the being equal with God”)] would refer epexegetically (explanatory) to the [en morphe theou huparchon (“existing in the form of God”)] that preceded it. This means then that “the being equal with God” is precisely another way of saying “in the form of God.” Or better still, whatever meaning one might put forth as a possible meaning for the expression [“in the form of God”] can only be properly understood in terms of [“equal to/like God”], and vice versa—[“the being equal to God”] can only be properly understood in terms of [“in the form of God/divine form”]. (Hawthorne, “In the Form of God and Equal with God,” page 104)​

Roy W. Hoover, “The Harpagmos Enigma: A Philological Solution,” Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971), pages 102-103, is the leading proponent of just such a view, and in support of his claim he refers to several similar texts. For example, Isidore of Pelusium (fourth century CE) writes, ei hermaion hegesato to einai ison (“If he considered being equal a treasure”). Here we have hegeomai used with a double accusative, where the articulated accusative following the verb (to einai ison) is the direct object and the anarthrous accusative preceding hegeomai is the predicate accusative that further describes “being equal” as “a treasure.” Another example of this construction is found in Diodorus Siculus (Library 15.4.3), “On arriving in Egypt he met the king and urged him to continue the war energetically and to consider the war against the Persians a common undertaking” (koinon hegeisthai ton pros tous Persas polemon). Here we have hegeomai followed by an articulated accusative ton pros tous persas polemon (“the war against the Persians”) serving as the direct object, with the anarthrous koinon (meaning, “common undertaking”) preceding hegeomai as the predicate accusative. Also, in the Letter of Aristeas 292.2 we find the same grammatical construction. R.J.H. Shutt translates this text as, “you consider injustice the greatest evil” (found in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha , vol. 2, James H. Charlesworth, ed. [New York: Doubleday, 1985], page 32). Here we have the same pattern of anarthrous predicate accusative (“greatest evil,” megiston kakon), verb (“consider,” hegeomai), and articulated accusative object (“injustice,” ten adikian). Still another instance of this idiom can be found in Josephus’ War of the Jews 2.581, where he writes, “to consider the harm of your friends as your own.” Here the anarthrous predicate accusative oikeion (“one’s own”) again precedes hegeomai (“to consider”), and hegeomai is also again followed by an articulated accusative object ten blaben (“the harm”).

Therefore, it seems to me that the anarthrous accusative-hegeomai-articular accusative construction always conforms to the previously described usage, namely, predicate accusative-hegeomai-direct object accusative.

Did you have any opinions of your own, or are you just going to copy and paste other peoples work like you just did? This is the book you are copying from. Starts on page 4. http://www.elihubooks.com/data/lampstand/000/000/001/PHP_2_Revised.pdf

No need to use other peoples work and then act like you’re the smartest guy in the room, saying things like “I will lose some of you in this, because it is a bit technical”. C’mon man. I’m going to sleep.

 

[williamjordan]

Did you have any opinions of your own, or are you just going to copy and paste other peoples work like you just did? This is the book you are copying from. Starts on page 4. http://www.elihubooks.com/data/lampstand/000/000/001/PHP_2_Revised.pdf

No need to use other peoples work and then act like you’re the smartest guy in the room, saying things like “I will lose some of you in this, because it is a bit technical”. C’mon man. I’m going to sleep.

Actually, I worked with Gregg on this. The link you provided is an expanded edition of what was originally written. In fact, my name is mentioned in the original article. He is a former Jehovah's Witness. He and I are actually very close.

 

[williamjordan]

Did you have any opinions of your own, or are you just going to copy and paste other peoples work like you just did? This is the book you are copying from. Starts on page 4. http://www.elihubooks.com/data/lampstand/000/000/001/PHP_2_Revised.pdf

No need to use other peoples work and then act like you’re the smartest guy in the room, saying things like “I will lose some of you in this, because it is a bit technical”. C’mon man. I’m going to sleep.

In fact, there were three of us that worked on a series of articles together. Gregg S., David Barron, and myself. Gregg is has authored some writings, but the PDF's on his sites are either contributed works, or works that he has partnered with. Other works can be seen on forananswer.com, which I have also contributed to. Not that I'm a "scholar," I am not. But I am very familiar with the issues, because this is an area I have studied in detail. In fact, it's just about all I read and write about.

 

[Dagallen]

Your understanding of the word "made" does not mean what you think it means. Let me give you an example of what I mean by quoting Acts 2:36, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that GOD HAS MADE HIM/JESUS CHRIST BOTH LORD AND CHRIST--THIS jESUS WHOM YOU CRUCIFIED."

So looking at the context you will or you should notice that the resurrection of Jesus Christ "declared/established/revealed" that Jesus Christ was both Lord and Messiah. His resurrection proved who He was. And to back this up you have the Apostle Paul saying the following at Romans 1:4, "who was DECLARED the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord."

So now let's go to Hebrews 1:4. Jesus Christ is so much bette than any of the angels because of who He is according to Hebrews 1:1-13. He's the creator (vs10). He has the same exact nature as His Father according to vs3. And like I said the Father identrifies His Son as God at Hebrews 1:8, plus the fact that the angels are to worship Jesus Christ. If Jesus was a mere man the angels cannot worship Him.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Revelation 3:12 I will write upon him the name of my God ( clearly Jesus has a God ) I will write upon him my new name. ( Clearly Jesus is saying that he would obtained a new name ) Hebrews 1:4 Being made so much better than the Angels, as he has by his inheritance obtained a more excellent name. ( The question becomes what was his new name and why was he given a new name ? ) Jesus had to learn obedience unto God and by doing so, he was given a new name, the following is another part of the answer to what his new name would be. John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name. ( Jesus through learning obedience unto his Father was given the same name as his Father, as Jesus himself is clearly not the Father himself but Jesus obtained his Father's name, was sent by his Father in his Father's name, now go back to Hebrews 1:8-9 the word God is a title, it's not the name of a person but a title of a position of power that was given. If anyone wants to understand Hebrews 1:8-9 then one would have to go back to early history, what name did God the Father have in early history ? Yeshua ! Hebrews 1:8-9 is Yeshua the Father speaking to Yeshua the son, Jesus therefore came in his Father's name as written, later in history for the sake of understanding, Yeshua the son was called Yeshuwah, the wah is where the word was comes from, meaning Yeshua the savior who was sent not Yeshua the Father who was sent, after Jesus was given his Father's name, then both have the same name but are not the same person, as Jesus clearly says that his Father is his God and Lord. Now look at John 14:24 He that loves me not, keepth not my saying and the word which you hear is not mine ( who's words did he speak ? ) But the Father which sent me. ( He spoke his Father's words not his own words. )

 

[AKAP]

Bumped for akap. nt

bluto: I find you correspondence quite condescending and presumptuous. Did you not read my last text to you? You already seem to have a habit of not listening to people. Let me explain it for you.

You have defined this posed question of yours deceitfully. It has an embedded thought of yours that you say is mine, as I read it in your question. It is a phrase you have used after the word ‘preexist.’ That is strike one!

Also, I already gave ‘full’ account of one of your areas of scripture stated in your question. Why have you not responded to it? If you are really interested in what I have to say you would have done so. That is strike 2!

Peace…out brother

In Christ, Always

 

[bluto]

bluto: I find you correspondence quite condescending and presumptuous. Did you not read my last text to you? You already seem to have a habit of not listening to people. Let me explain it for you.

You have defined this posed question of yours deceitfully. It has an embedded thought of yours that you say is mine, as I read it in your question. It is a phrase you have used after the word ‘preexist.’ That is strike one!

Also, I already gave ‘full’ account of one of your areas of scripture stated in your question. Why have you not responded to it? If you are really interested in what I have to say you would have done so. That is strike 2!

Peace…out brother

In Christ, Always

Oh please akap, I didn't know you were a mind reader that you can read whether or not my heart is "condescending and presumptious? Your in the big leagues now and not messing around with little kids. I initially ask you one simple question (more than once now) and you never did address it, why? Instead you bring up "excuses" by claiming I'm asking to many questions.

This in spite of the fact that I specfically said, "let's just deal with the original question I ask you in the first and then I will be happy to deal with Philippians 2:3-9. It is you who came here and declared publicly that Jesus Christ is not God. If you believe this then it is up to you to prove you position. Anyone can claim a position but you have to prove your position.

Then I show up with a legitimate question that challenges your position and what do you do? You tell me I'm not listening, I'm presumptious, condescending, deceitful and you don't like how I used the word, "preexist?" Oh and btw, you also orginally that nobody understands John 1:1-2. I then said ok, let's throw out John 1:1-2 and please deal with the other verses I quoted, which you never did.

So for about the fourth time I will ask you and I won't even use the word "preexist." Why is Jesus Christ presented as the agent of creation at Colossians 1:16,17, Hebrews 1:10 and Revelation 3:14 by the Apostles and by His own Father? What excuse are you going to come up with now, it's strike three and I'm out?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[bluto]

Revelation 3:12 I will write upon him the name of my God ( clearly Jesus has a God ) I will write upon him my new name. ( Clearly Jesus is saying that he would obtained a new name ) Hebrews 1:4 Being made so much better than the Angels, as he has by his inheritance obtained a more excellent name. ( The question becomes what was his new name and why was he given a new name ? ) Jesus had to learn obedience unto God and by doing so, he was given a new name, the following is another part of the answer to what his new name would be. John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name. ( Jesus through learning obedience unto his Father was given the same name as his Father, as Jesus himself is clearly not the Father himself but Jesus obtained his Father's name, was sent by his Father in his Father's name, now go back to Hebrews 1:8-9 the word God is a title, it's not the name of a person but a title of a position of power that was given. If anyone wants to understand Hebrews 1:8-9 then one would have to go back to early history, what name did God the Father have in early history ? Yeshua ! Hebrews 1:8-9 is Yeshua the Father speaking to Yeshua the son, Jesus therefore came in his Father's name as written, later in history for the sake of understanding, Yeshua the son was called Yeshuwah, the wah is where the word was comes from, meaning Yeshua the savior who was sent not Yeshua the Father who was sent, after Jesus was given his Father's name, then both have the same name but are not the same person, as Jesus clearly says that his Father is his God and Lord. Now look at John 14:24 He that loves me not, keepth not my saying and the word which you hear is not mine ( who's words did he speak ? ) But the Father which sent me. ( He spoke his Father's words not his own words. )

Of course Jesus Christ is not God the Father and they are distict persons. And of course Jesus was "sent" by God the Father and under the Father's authority. You yourself just said Jesus was "sent" which means He had to preexist to be sent. Look at Isaiah 9:6, "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given." This does not mean the Son is a created being. Please read John 3:34, John 3:37 etc. The Son came down from heaven and of course He was under the authority of the Father because the Son was functioning as a human being according to Philippians 2.

Not only that but you seem to be stuck on the Hebrew verses and your avoiding the other verses I presented that the Apostles identified Jesus Christ as God. Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1 and others. I'll be back.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[ThePen]

Straight to the point! No ifs, ands or buts. I like it. Thanks