-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Z
Have the same attitude that Christ had, who, even though he was of the same outward appearance as God (power, wisdom, sinlessness, etc)
Christ was the perfect image of the invisible God. He is the outward appearance of God.
did not consider grasping for equality with God (compare to Adam, who wanted to "be like God")
Actually, it should be rendered "did not consider His equality with God something to be used for His own advantage."
Even if you render it grasping (as the ESV does), it still could have the same meaning - He did not consider His authoritative equality with God something to be "grasped at" or "held onto" (after which He emptied himself of His divine authority, which He regained after the Resurrection)
but made himself nothing, taking on the outward appearance of a servant, making himself in human likeness,[/B]
This is the part that many Unitarians skip over. Why? Because it says He "made himself nothing." In of itself, the statement, although very humble in nature, doesn't have much impact. What does on the reader, though, is the next statement: "...taking on the outward appearance of a servant, making himself in human likeness.
So I would suspect that you at least believe Jesus to have existed before the world was created (at least), correct?
making himself in human likeness, and being found in form of man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross.
(by the way, I don't believe the Greek implies that he made himself in human likeness, but if you would fully agree with your rendering than I would as well, for it lends even more to my position)
So, either Christ (at least) existed before the world was created, or Paul was the worst NT writer. Why? Because saying that Jesus was "found in human likeness" would be redundant in comparison to the previous statement ("...taking the outward appearance of a servant...").
He took on a new, human nature, willingly, voluntarily (so he did act according to his own will, contrary to your statement a few posts above)
He did this to die for us, willingly in agreement with the Father before He came into the world, so that we could be saved from the world, because of his humility. (cf. Hebrews 12:1-3)
For this reason God highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above ever name.
And I don't need to add anything on to this.
(I believe I could say that He was "given back" the authority which He once had before, but now in a different way, as the Messiah, as a human)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Jesus was exercising God's power and authority and although he had never sinned, Jesus was not so conceited that he wanted to claim equality with God. Rather, in spite of this power and authority, he humbled himself and became the servant of (sinful) humankind and was obedient to God even to the point of death. For his perfect obedience God exalted him.
This would be a very convincing paraphrase of it, if it weren't for the fact that there's the implication that He existed in some other form (the form of God) before He took on the form of man (which is exactly what the text states)
Now you tell me- If God exalts him for his obedience and it is from God that he receives the name, is he truly God's equal?
Yes. Otherwise, He couldn't be called humble, could He, if He had given himself that name?
I believe He did have that name before coming into the world, but "emptied himself" of that name, took on human flesh, being found in the likeness of man, and was later exalted back to the position He once had (except this time it's different, due to His human nature).
Grace and Love
Christ was the perfect image of the invisible God. He is the outward appearance of God.
did not consider grasping for equality with God (compare to Adam, who wanted to "be like God")
Actually, it should be rendered "did not consider His equality with God something to be used for His own advantage."
Even if you render it grasping (as the ESV does), it still could have the same meaning - He did not consider His authoritative equality with God something to be "grasped at" or "held onto" (after which He emptied himself of His divine authority, which He regained after the Resurrection)
but made himself nothing, taking on the outward appearance of a servant, making himself in human likeness,[/B]
This is the part that many Unitarians skip over. Why? Because it says He "made himself nothing." In of itself, the statement, although very humble in nature, doesn't have much impact. What does on the reader, though, is the next statement: "...taking on the outward appearance of a servant, making himself in human likeness.
So I would suspect that you at least believe Jesus to have existed before the world was created (at least), correct?
making himself in human likeness, and being found in form of man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross.
(by the way, I don't believe the Greek implies that he made himself in human likeness, but if you would fully agree with your rendering than I would as well, for it lends even more to my position)
So, either Christ (at least) existed before the world was created, or Paul was the worst NT writer. Why? Because saying that Jesus was "found in human likeness" would be redundant in comparison to the previous statement ("...taking the outward appearance of a servant...").
He took on a new, human nature, willingly, voluntarily (so he did act according to his own will, contrary to your statement a few posts above)
He did this to die for us, willingly in agreement with the Father before He came into the world, so that we could be saved from the world, because of his humility. (cf. Hebrews 12:1-3)
For this reason God highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above ever name.
And I don't need to add anything on to this.
(I believe I could say that He was "given back" the authority which He once had before, but now in a different way, as the Messiah, as a human)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Jesus was exercising God's power and authority and although he had never sinned, Jesus was not so conceited that he wanted to claim equality with God. Rather, in spite of this power and authority, he humbled himself and became the servant of (sinful) humankind and was obedient to God even to the point of death. For his perfect obedience God exalted him.
This would be a very convincing paraphrase of it, if it weren't for the fact that there's the implication that He existed in some other form (the form of God) before He took on the form of man (which is exactly what the text states)
Now you tell me- If God exalts him for his obedience and it is from God that he receives the name, is he truly God's equal?
Yes. Otherwise, He couldn't be called humble, could He, if He had given himself that name?
I believe He did have that name before coming into the world, but "emptied himself" of that name, took on human flesh, being found in the likeness of man, and was later exalted back to the position He once had (except this time it's different, due to His human nature).
Grace and Love
Z
No...I'm posing a challenge to whoever would deny the deity of Christ, that Christ has the nature of God.
But, maybe God led you here to post this.
"...since God is a supernatural being it would be impossible to disprove his existance."
...I think you mean it would be impossible to prove His existence, if you're coming from the presupposition that God does not exist...but maybe I'm mistaken.
Grace and Love
But, maybe God led you here to post this.
"...since God is a supernatural being it would be impossible to disprove his existance."
...I think you mean it would be impossible to prove His existence, if you're coming from the presupposition that God does not exist...but maybe I'm mistaken.
Grace and Love
Have the same attitude that Christ had, who, even though he was of the same outward appearance as God (power, wisdom, sinlessness, etc)
Christ was the perfect image of the invisible God. He is the outward appearance of God.
We'd have to agree on what "outward appearance of God" refers to to get anywhere with this conversation. Since God has no body I would think it has to refer to the evidence of His nature, such as miracles, wisdom, holiness.
did not consider grasping for equality with God (compare to Adam, who wanted to "be like God")
Actually, it should be rendered "did not consider His equality with God something to be used for His own advantage."
Even if you render it grasping (as the ESV does), it still could have the same meaning - He did not consider His authoritative equality with God something to be "grasped at" or "held onto" (after which He emptied himself of His divine authority, which He regained after the Resurrection) The Greek word literally means an eager grasping. Your translation has the problem of translating a noun (eager grasping) as a verb, when it is actually neither a verb nor a participle and therefore does not allow for the translation you subscribe to. Besides that, your translation adds a whole lot of words and ideas that simply are not present in the Greek.
but made himself nothing, taking on the outward appearance of a servant, making himself in human likeness,[/b]
This is the part that many Unitarians skip over. Why? Because it says He "made himself nothing." In of itself, the statement, although very humble in nature, doesn't have much impact. What does on the reader, though, is the next statement: "...taking on the outward appearance of a servant, making himself in human likeness. If the outer appearance of God is power, authority, wisdom, and so forth, the likeness of man is the absence of that power and authority. During his last day of life Jesus did not exercise any of the power entrusted to him by God, thus making himself in human likeness.
So I would suspect that you at least believe Jesus to have existed before the world was created (at least), correct? No, Jesus did not exist until his conception/birth.
making himself in human likeness, and being found in form of man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross.
(by the way, I don't believe the Greek implies that he made himself in human likeness, but if you would fully agree with your rendering than I would as well, for it lends even more to my position) Not made in the sense of created.
So, either Christ (at least) existed before the world was created, or Paul was the worst NT writer. Why? Because saying that Jesus was "found in human likeness" would be redundant in comparison to the previous statement ("...taking the outward appearance of a servant...").
Let's talk about whether Paul is redundant:
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God. For just as we share abundantly in the sufferings of Christ, so also our comfort abounds through Christ. If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer. And our hope for you is firm, because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort.
The fact that the statement would be redundant does not mean we should try to make it mean something different.
He took on a new, human nature, willingly, voluntarily (so he did act according to his own will, contrary to your statement a few posts above)
The passage doesn't SAY Jesus took on a new, human, nature. And I never said he didn't act according to his own will, I said he sometimes willed differently than God did, but he obeyed God in those times.
He did this to die for us, willingly in agreement with the Father before He came into the world, so that we could be saved from the world, because of his humility. (cf. Hebrews 12:1-3)
For this reason God highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above ever name.
And I don't need to add anything on to this.
(I believe I could say that He was "given back" the authority which He once had before, but now in a different way, as the Messiah, as a human)
You can say that he was given back the authority, but the passage doesn't say this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Jesus was exercising God's power and authority and although he had never sinned, Jesus was not so conceited that he wanted to claim equality with God. Rather, in spite of this power and authority, he humbled himself and became the servant of (sinful) humankind and was obedient to God even to the point of death. For his perfect obedience God exalted him.
This would be a very convincing paraphrase of it, if it weren't for the fact that there's the implication that He existed in some other form (the form of God) before He took on the form of man (which is exactly what the text states) The word translated form is morphe which always means outward appearance. If Paul wanted to say form in the sense that you are saying it he would have used schemati here as he does in verse 8 (found in schemati of man)
Now you tell me- If God exalts him for his obedience and it is from God that he receives the name, is he truly God's equal?
Yes. Otherwise, He couldn't be called humble, could He, if He had given himself that name?
After his obedient death he could be called humble even if he exalted himself and took for himself the name. The point is that God was in a position of authority over Jesus since he confered on Jesus the exaltation and the name.
I believe He did have that name before coming into the world, but "emptied himself" of that name, took on human flesh, being found in the likeness of man, and was later exalted back to the position He once had (except this time it's different, due to His human nature).
Again, you can believe what you want, but scripture doesn't say that.
Christ was the perfect image of the invisible God. He is the outward appearance of God.
We'd have to agree on what "outward appearance of God" refers to to get anywhere with this conversation. Since God has no body I would think it has to refer to the evidence of His nature, such as miracles, wisdom, holiness.
did not consider grasping for equality with God (compare to Adam, who wanted to "be like God")
Actually, it should be rendered "did not consider His equality with God something to be used for His own advantage."
Even if you render it grasping (as the ESV does), it still could have the same meaning - He did not consider His authoritative equality with God something to be "grasped at" or "held onto" (after which He emptied himself of His divine authority, which He regained after the Resurrection) The Greek word literally means an eager grasping. Your translation has the problem of translating a noun (eager grasping) as a verb, when it is actually neither a verb nor a participle and therefore does not allow for the translation you subscribe to. Besides that, your translation adds a whole lot of words and ideas that simply are not present in the Greek.
but made himself nothing, taking on the outward appearance of a servant, making himself in human likeness,[/b]
This is the part that many Unitarians skip over. Why? Because it says He "made himself nothing." In of itself, the statement, although very humble in nature, doesn't have much impact. What does on the reader, though, is the next statement: "...taking on the outward appearance of a servant, making himself in human likeness. If the outer appearance of God is power, authority, wisdom, and so forth, the likeness of man is the absence of that power and authority. During his last day of life Jesus did not exercise any of the power entrusted to him by God, thus making himself in human likeness.
So I would suspect that you at least believe Jesus to have existed before the world was created (at least), correct? No, Jesus did not exist until his conception/birth.
making himself in human likeness, and being found in form of man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross.
(by the way, I don't believe the Greek implies that he made himself in human likeness, but if you would fully agree with your rendering than I would as well, for it lends even more to my position) Not made in the sense of created.
So, either Christ (at least) existed before the world was created, or Paul was the worst NT writer. Why? Because saying that Jesus was "found in human likeness" would be redundant in comparison to the previous statement ("...taking the outward appearance of a servant...").
Let's talk about whether Paul is redundant:
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God. For just as we share abundantly in the sufferings of Christ, so also our comfort abounds through Christ. If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer. And our hope for you is firm, because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort.
The fact that the statement would be redundant does not mean we should try to make it mean something different.
He took on a new, human nature, willingly, voluntarily (so he did act according to his own will, contrary to your statement a few posts above)
The passage doesn't SAY Jesus took on a new, human, nature. And I never said he didn't act according to his own will, I said he sometimes willed differently than God did, but he obeyed God in those times.
He did this to die for us, willingly in agreement with the Father before He came into the world, so that we could be saved from the world, because of his humility. (cf. Hebrews 12:1-3)
For this reason God highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above ever name.
And I don't need to add anything on to this.
(I believe I could say that He was "given back" the authority which He once had before, but now in a different way, as the Messiah, as a human)
You can say that he was given back the authority, but the passage doesn't say this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Jesus was exercising God's power and authority and although he had never sinned, Jesus was not so conceited that he wanted to claim equality with God. Rather, in spite of this power and authority, he humbled himself and became the servant of (sinful) humankind and was obedient to God even to the point of death. For his perfect obedience God exalted him.
This would be a very convincing paraphrase of it, if it weren't for the fact that there's the implication that He existed in some other form (the form of God) before He took on the form of man (which is exactly what the text states) The word translated form is morphe which always means outward appearance. If Paul wanted to say form in the sense that you are saying it he would have used schemati here as he does in verse 8 (found in schemati of man)
Now you tell me- If God exalts him for his obedience and it is from God that he receives the name, is he truly God's equal?
Yes. Otherwise, He couldn't be called humble, could He, if He had given himself that name?
After his obedient death he could be called humble even if he exalted himself and took for himself the name. The point is that God was in a position of authority over Jesus since he confered on Jesus the exaltation and the name.
I believe He did have that name before coming into the world, but "emptied himself" of that name, took on human flesh, being found in the likeness of man, and was later exalted back to the position He once had (except this time it's different, due to His human nature).
Again, you can believe what you want, but scripture doesn't say that.
Part of the problem that we have in this conversation is that we are using very different exegesis, particularly when it comes to how we define "context".
The recipients of Paul's letter to the Philippians likely had no written gospel, but if they did have one it was definitely not one of the four we have now (all were written after Paul's lifetime). It is possible but entirely unproven that they even had any of Paul's other letters. Certainly they had learned from the apostle himself, and so their understanding of this letter would come far more naturally than ours ever could.
I take context to mean the rest of this letter first and foremost. If something within this letter is difficult to understand, the next level of context is the rest of Paul's letters, since he is most likely to express similar thoughts with similar terminology and idioms. The next level of context is writings that were contemporary in Paul's own time, meaning possibly the epistle of James and extra-biblical Christian sources, if they contain topically related material. After this the final level of context is the rest of the NT, which may provide deeper or broader understanding of general themes, but which should not be used in a proof-text manner of pasting a verse here and a verse there together to form a doctrine.
Until we have some sort of agreement as to what qualifies as context it will be hard to have this conversation. You keep quoting John, which was written at least 10 and probably closer to 30 years after Paul's death, and as much as 50 years after Philippians was written. I'm less interested in what the NT has to say about the divinity of Christ than I am what Paul, Peter, James, and the evangelists each have to say when speaking for themselves. If you have a hard time with this just remember that it was probably 150 or later before many of the books of our NT were being gathered into a single codex or library, so their theology had to be done without the convienence of cross-referencing.
The recipients of Paul's letter to the Philippians likely had no written gospel, but if they did have one it was definitely not one of the four we have now (all were written after Paul's lifetime). It is possible but entirely unproven that they even had any of Paul's other letters. Certainly they had learned from the apostle himself, and so their understanding of this letter would come far more naturally than ours ever could.
I take context to mean the rest of this letter first and foremost. If something within this letter is difficult to understand, the next level of context is the rest of Paul's letters, since he is most likely to express similar thoughts with similar terminology and idioms. The next level of context is writings that were contemporary in Paul's own time, meaning possibly the epistle of James and extra-biblical Christian sources, if they contain topically related material. After this the final level of context is the rest of the NT, which may provide deeper or broader understanding of general themes, but which should not be used in a proof-text manner of pasting a verse here and a verse there together to form a doctrine.
Until we have some sort of agreement as to what qualifies as context it will be hard to have this conversation. You keep quoting John, which was written at least 10 and probably closer to 30 years after Paul's death, and as much as 50 years after Philippians was written. I'm less interested in what the NT has to say about the divinity of Christ than I am what Paul, Peter, James, and the evangelists each have to say when speaking for themselves. If you have a hard time with this just remember that it was probably 150 or later before many of the books of our NT were being gathered into a single codex or library, so their theology had to be done without the convienence of cross-referencing.
Z
Do you believe that the Bible is inspired Scripture?
Also, I only quoted John once I believe...so I'm not constantly quoting it here and there. In fact, my references were to the OT (Psalms) and to other letters by Paul (Colossians).
If you want to look at other writers, than that's fine. I truly do believe that Scripture is in unity by the Holy Spirit (not that you don't), but I'll go on to other authors.
I'm not going to barrage you with a bunch of texts, so let's just start from one from 1 Peter.
Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. (1 Peter 1:10-11)
This seems to indicate that the Spirit of Christ was with the early prophets, before He even came in human flesh.
What is your take on this, or what's your viewpoint?
Also, I only quoted John once I believe...so I'm not constantly quoting it here and there. In fact, my references were to the OT (Psalms) and to other letters by Paul (Colossians).
If you want to look at other writers, than that's fine. I truly do believe that Scripture is in unity by the Holy Spirit (not that you don't), but I'll go on to other authors.
I'm not going to barrage you with a bunch of texts, so let's just start from one from 1 Peter.
Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. (1 Peter 1:10-11)
This seems to indicate that the Spirit of Christ was with the early prophets, before He even came in human flesh.
What is your take on this, or what's your viewpoint?
Last edited:
A
translation: I don't like what certain books says so I'm going to pick and chose scripture and build in my mind a stronghold that allows me to be comfortable with my own version of God so that I can worship my idol in peace. why don't you join me in disregarding scripture because it doesn't fit my perceptions of truth? oh just ignore the pesky scriptures like this one.....
2 Timothy 3:16-17
New King James Version (NKJV).
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
.
sssss.... Did God really Say that? surely you won't died.....szzsssss.......
sorry you were saying? I can't hear past the cymbals clanging...
2 Timothy 3:16-17
New King James Version (NKJV).
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
.
sssss.... Did God really Say that? surely you won't died.....szzsssss.......
sorry you were saying? I can't hear past the cymbals clanging...