Have "you" made Jesus a Robber?

Nomad · Oct 26, 2011

Insight said:
What did he empty himself of and where did it go?

Can you proved the book, chapter and verse.

Thanks

The answer to your question is found in the text in question.

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

First we need to define the word "form" found in verses 6 & 7. It's a translation of the Greek word "morphe," meaning the "outward display of the inner reality or substance" (see J. White - The Forgotten Trinity; Robertson's Word Pictures; Vincent's Word Studies).

Verse 6 tells us that before the incarnation, Christ Jesus existed in the form (morphe) of God. Although this was the case, he didn't consider equality with God something to grasp or to hold. Here's where he "emptied" himself. Notice the adversative "but" that begins verse 7. It says, "BUT made himself nothing, (kenoo - to empty), taking the form (morphe) of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. In other words, although he was in the form (morphe) of God he laid aside equality with God to take the form (morphe) of a servant. He laid aside his divine glory and prerogatives to die on the cross for mankind. We get a glimpse of this in John 17 during Christ's high priestly prayer:

Joh 17:4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

Insight · Oct 26, 2011

Nicky said:
haha.. thats what I am asking you to answer.

Its been answered Nicky.

He humbled himself i.e in character, a servant in mind and body.

Now my question to is rather different.

If your Jesus is God...where did his power and strenght go? Chapter, book and verse pleaase.

Nomad said:
The answer to your question is found in the text in question.

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

First we need to define the word "form" found in verses 6 & 7. It's a translation of the Greek word "morphe," meaning the "outward display of the inner reality or substance" (see J. White - The Forgotten Trinity; Robertson's Word Pictures; Vincent's Word Studies).

Verse 6 tells us that before the incarnation, Christ Jesus existed in the form (morphe) of God. Although this was the case, he didn't consider equality with God something to grasp or to hold. Here's where he "emptied" himself. Notice the adversative "but" that begins verse 7. It says, "BUT made himself nothing, (kenoo - to empty), taking the form (morphe) of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. In other words, although he was in the form (morphe) of God he laid aside equality with God to take the form (morphe) of a servant. He laid aside his divine glory and prerogatives to die on the cross for mankind. We get a glimpse of this in John 17 during Christ's high priestly prayer:

Joh 17:4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

We shall get to this shortly.

I must make an observation concerning your approach Nomad.

I'll start by saying how disspaointed I am in your lack of honesty in this discussion. So far you have failed to agree that Paul is presenting Jesus as an example of humility for Christians to follow here in Philippians 2 and not deity.

This is the primary lesson and aim of the passage.

I will wait for you to acknowledge this before moving forward.

Insight

Nomad · Oct 26, 2011

Insight said:
I must make an observation concerning your approach Nomad.

I'll start by saying how disspaointed I am in your lack of honesty in this discussion. So far you have failed to agree that Paul is presenting Jesus as an example of humility for Christians to follow here in Philippians 2 and not deity.

This is the primary lesson and aim of the passage.

I will wait for you to acknowledge this before moving forward.

Insight

That may be the main point of Paul's comments, but that in no way detracts from the particulars of the example he used to make that point. If what I pointed out in my last post to you is not true, then Paul has no example and his "point" is meaningless. This just isn't the case though, as Paul used the greatest example of humility of all -- that of the incarnation.

Your feigned righteous indignation over my supposed "dishonesty" is laughable Insight. We both know that it's simply another excuse for holding onto your error.

Insight · Oct 26, 2011

Nomad said:
That may be the main point of Paul's comments, but that in no way detracts from the particulars of the example he used to make that point. If what I pointed out in my last post to you is not true, then Paul has no example and his "point" is meaningless. This just isn't the case though, as Paul used the greatest example of humility of all -- that of the incarnation.

Your feigned righteous indignation over my supposed "dishonesty" is laughable Insight. We both know that it's simply another excuse for holding onto your error.

No, it simply identifies your unyielding spirit to accept truth.

You appear to be unteachable.

Your acknowledgement of Phil 2 speaking to humility and not deity comes across strained and awkward.

It apears your mind cannot bend with the Word; but rather you bend the Word to suit your mind…a common trait in Trinitarian theology.

You and I know the Trinity cannot be expressed in New Testament terms, but is a result of speculation and designed through centuries of schooled men (like you) who used Greek and Roman metaphysics rather than bending their minds to the Word. Leave your creeds and return to the Word of God...you might be surprised!

The forcing of these false teachings into the Word are now manifesting itself in your language.

Truth again:

Phil 2 – humility of a Son being made of sin’s flesh and blood, like you and I, who did not grasp at something that was his but yielded in humility to his Father.

John 8 – Is Jesus asserting his pre-eminence as Son of God and not the silent Trinitarian term “God the Son”

Leave it with you Nomad.

Insight

Nicky_uk · Oct 27, 2011

Insight said:
Its been answered Nicky.

He humbled himself i.e in character, a servant in mind and body.

Humbling oneself does not mean emptying oneself. Paul certainly is talking about humility, but Paul is showing how Christ humbled Himself to be made in human likeness. He didn't empty Himself of humility, so there must have been something else He emptied Himself of which expressed His humility. What did He empty Himself of to become a 'servant'?

Paul said that Christ didn't consider Himself robbed of whatever it was He gave up... Paul uses the words 'equality with God'...so surely Paul is saying that Christ did not consider it robbery to give up His equality with God? Does that not itself show Christs deity?

Insight · Oct 27, 2011

As you correctly state Phil 2:7 reveals Jesus "emptied [Gr kenosis] himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men (flesh and blood), and by sharing in human nature (condemned)."

You are prudent to ask such a question in light of the apparent problems this verse has caused Trinitarian's worldwide.

The question the Trinitarian must answer is exactly what did Jesus "empty" himself of? And how do you prove such a theory?

Would you be surprised to know that most TB cannot agree on this question?

Actually, if I began a thread "What did Jesus empty himself of" can you imagine the diverse reply’s?

Personally, I believe the verse implies something totally different, whereby Paul is teaching us the perfection of character (form of a servant) reflecting his Father likeness while never grasping at equality - unlike that of the first Adam.

Insight

Nomad · Oct 27, 2011

Insight said:
Your acknowledgement of Phil 2 speaking to humility and not deity comes across strained and awkward.

I never said any such thing. I acknowledged both, not either or. You are the third person on this board to put words in my mouth that I never uttered. This is becoming quite an annoying epidemic. Either some of you are deficient in reading comprehension or you're horribly dishonest, I have no idea which it is.

Insight · Oct 27, 2011

Nomad said:
I never said any such thing. I acknowledged both, not either or. You are the third person on this board to put words in my mouth that I never uttered. This is becoming quite an annoying epidemic. Either some of you are deficient in reading comprehension or you're horribly dishonest, I have no idea which it is.

Well no man can tame the tongue...though we try!

I believe you stated this in post 23.

That may be the main point of Paul's comments...

Like I said it appears awkward.

Then you went on to say this.

Paul used the greatest example of humility of all -- that of the incarnation

What a leap Nomad, from humility, speaking to character all the way to incarnation being a god - man.

Insight

Nomad · Oct 27, 2011

Insight said:
I believe you stated this in post 23.

No, I didn't. If you still want to be contentious, then show me.

Insight said:
What a leap Nomad, from humility, speaking to character all the way to incarnation being a god - man.

Like I said, the incarnation, that is, God becoming man, is the greatest example of humility there is. God laying aside his divine glory and rights to become a servant is the penultimate example of humility. No, I'm sorry Insight, but there's no "leap" to be found here.

Insight · Oct 27, 2011

Nomad said:
No, I didn't. If you still want to be contentious, then show me.

Nomad, you dont have to agree the admission was awkward.

Its an observation.,,thats all.

Like I said, the incarnation, that is, God becoming man, is the greatest example of humility there is. God laying aside his divine glory and rights to become a servant is the penultimate example of humility. No, I'm sorry Insight, but there's no "leap" to be found here.

Not only is the bold text an unfounded leap your very language has no place at all in the Scriptures.

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Take a hard look and show where Paul mentions "incarnate" and "God becoming man" and makes no mention whatsoever to setting aside his "divine glory."

How can I hold a meaningful conversation with you when your language is foreign to that of the Bible?

Seriously Nomad it's like

Stay within the Word of God and please dont defend the creeds of your church fathers. If you want to study the Trinity I am more than willing to start a thread on the Council of Nice and Platonic Influence.

Let me know.

Insight

Nomad · Oct 27, 2011

Insight said:
Take a hard look and show where Paul mentions "incarnate" and "God becoming man" and makes no mention whatsoever to setting aside his "divine glory."

Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

The word "incarnation" isn't there, but the concept certainly is. If that's not enough for you then observe:

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

There's the definition of "incarntion." Then, in the same Gospel of John we have the following statement by Jesus:

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

This answers your objection to whether or not Christ set aside his divine glory. There it is in black and white.

Nicky_uk · Oct 27, 2011

Insight said:
Personally, I believe the verse implies something totally different, whereby Paul is teaching us the perfection of character (form of a servant) reflecting his Father likeness while never grasping at equality - unlike that of the first Adam.

Insight

I too believe Paul is teaching perfection of character, but he is doing so by using Christ as his example.

I don't think Paul was saying Christ didn't consider it necessary to grasp at being equal with God since he already said Christ was equal in nature. 'who, although He existed in the form of God'. (Form meaning true and exact nature). We already know from John 1:1 that the Word was God in the beginning, so if we believe that, then we should have no problems believing that Paul here is describing Jesus being in very nature God, but humbled Himself to take on the mind of a servant.

To me, it's like saying, a General in the army took on the role of a Private. He never ceased to be a General, but he gave up his position and privileges for the sake of helping those who needed him...it was necessary for him to do so. So it would have meant that he would not be saluted or sit at the top table of a mess do or be allowed in the sergeants mess since he emptied himself of his rank.

Jesus who is King, humbled Himself to become a servant.

Insight · Oct 27, 2011

Nicky said:
I too believe Paul is teaching perfection of character, but he is doing so by using Christ as his example.

I certainly appreciate your honest acknowledgment of the true context of Phil 2.

So why deviate by forcing deity when this was not Paul’s original intent?

I don't think Paul was saying Christ didn't consider it necessary to grasp at being equal with God since he already said Christ was equal in nature. 'who, although He existed in the form of God'.

(Form meaning true and exact nature).

He is where many Trinitarians go astray.

The NET actually replaces to AV with a more accurate interpretation.

AV "thought it not robbery to be equal with God"

NET "did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped."

Of course the correct understanding of this passage then places greater restriction on your Trinitarian approach to “form of God”.

Robbery as defined by Liddell Scott

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da(rpagmo%2Fs

Therefore,

Phil 2:6NET is not saying that Jesus already possessed equality with God, but that Jesus did not possess equality with Him, and made no attempt to grasp at it. Once again you fail to appreciate the Adamic echoes to which Paul is teaching.

Insight

Vengle · Oct 27, 2011

OK,

I happen to agree with Insight.

And I wish you could see that he is not speaking an emotional pet belief agenda.

He is speaking in accord with correct understanding of that Koine Greek grammar.

Insight · Oct 27, 2011

Phil 2:6NET

It appears the Trinitarian endeavors to wrest the word “morphē“ to suggest actual divine nature. However, this produces a conflict with the latter part of the verse, where Paul is teaching Jesus did not possess equality with God but rather Jesus accepted his human nature though being one in mind with the Father acknowledging to claim such authority would be to steel, seize upon or clutched at his Glory and dominion.

A disciplined Bible Student Paul is speaking to the theme of Genesis Chapter 3 contrasting the First Adam with Jesus Christ.

In terms of Son-ship Adam came first as per Luke 3:38 however he choose not to remain a servant but desire anther way grasping at equality he submitting to his nature giving over to its lust he way enticed and sinned.

How was Jesus different than the first Adam?

Having a human mother and heavenly Father certainly reveals him as the Son of Man and the Son of God but never as Trinitarians suggest “God the Son”.

Such phrases as those stated below cannot be found in the Scriptures of Truth concerning Jesus.

"We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons; nor dividing the substance.”

The bold text cannot be located anywhere in the Word – which drives my point to Nomad home even further. Nomad can speak at the Word from an intellectual lofty view, reasoning upon Egyptian, Greek and Roman Philosophy forcing such terminologies that do not fit…though he will try to make them fit in vain are his efforts.

Conclusion:

We could type 1000’s upon 1000’s of words in debating this subject only to find the Bible has clearly stated in divine terms the relationship between Father and Son.

Jesus was a chosen Servant / Son of Yahweh as per the following Scriptures.

Matthew 12:18; Luke 22:27; John 13:3,4,5; Acts 3:13; Acts 4:2, 30; Romans 15:8

Insight

Insight · Oct 27, 2011

My apologies for some very bad spelling errors.

A disciplined Bible Student (would know) Paul is speaking to the theme of Genesis Chapter 3 contrasting the First Adam with Jesus Christ (last Adam).

In terms of Son-ship Adam came first as per Luke 3:38 however, he choose not to remain a servant, but desire another way by grasping at divine equality, he submitted to the lusts in his nature, giving over to its desires he sinned.

(Note: While the second Adam was born into a condemn family line (Rom 1:3) he did that which Adam could not do - accepted servitude under the Might Hand of Yahweh - - to the death Phil 2:8)

Thanks

Insight

Nicky_uk · Oct 28, 2011

Insight said:
I certainly appreciate your honest acknowledgment of the true context of Phil 2.

So why deviate by forcing deity when this was not Paul’s original intent?

How can I force deity when Christ is already divine? It is because of who Christ is that shows the fulness of His humility. That is what Paul is expressing, he isn't speaking to a people who do not know Christ, but know Him.

I agree with you on the lesson Paul is teaching, but I cannot come into line with you when it comes to how Paul is using Christ as his example.

Insight said:
He is where many Trinitarians go astray.

Why do you keep referring to Trinitarians, are we talking about scripture, or Trinitarians?

Insight said:
The NET actually replaces to AV with a more accurate interpretation.

AV "thought it not robbery to be equal with God"

NET "did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped."

Of course the correct understanding of this passage then places greater restriction on your Trinitarian approach to “form of God”.

I am not looking at this from a 'Trinitarian' approach, I am looking from a Biblical approach. I could say you were looking from a Jehovahs Witness approach, but since you say you are a Christian, I have no right to say that.

How English Bibles want to render the text doesn't make any difference to the Greek.

Paul said Christ existed in the form of God. You want to try and make form mean something other than nature or appearance, then I certainly cannot stop you, but I stick to what Paul said: Christ existed in the nature, appearance and character of God, and took on the nature, appearance and character of man.

Interesting how no one has a problem with Christ taking on the form of man but tries to make the form of God mean something else.

Insight · Oct 28, 2011

Nicky,

If you hold the Trinitarian belief which it appears you do, you must know through history Bible teaching on the Godhead has been degenerating from its original monotheism to the many diverse forms of polytheism.

If you hold onto such teachings they have not come from the Bible, but creeds of men, designed and formulated within their imagination.

Let me show you a striking example:

Bible teaching on the Godhead:

"For there is ONE GOD and ONE mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus" - 1 Tim. 2:5

Trinitarians teaching on the Godhead:

"But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, so is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.

Bible teaching on the Godhead:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” - 1 Peter 1:3

Trinitarians teaching on the Godhead:

“So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.

Bible teaching on the Godhead:

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” – 1 Co 11:3

Trinitarians teaching on the Godhead:

"So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods: but one God.

I was unable to place Bible quotes alongside the Trinitarian beliefs as their terminology is not found in the Bible.

Having shown you this I put a challenge to you, if you are willing.

I would like you to present polytheism using only Bible verses (non-scripturual terminology

). To make this equitable; I will also provide quotes to prove monotheism.

I will be interested to see how many verses are presented.

Insight

p.s I am not a JW.

Nicky_uk · Oct 28, 2011

I'm not going to try and present to you Polytheism since I do not believe in many gods, but One God.

The concept of God being three in one is not something I have come to from reading creeds or church history or early church Fathers, but from reading scripture.

If the Word who WAS GOD in the beginning is not God who became flesh, then John 1:1 is incorrect.

God spoke the world into existence by His Word, if the Word is not Jesus who became flesh, then John 1:3 is incorrect.

If Jesus is not God, then Jesus had no right to forgive sins, no right to accept worship and must be a liar for calling Himself Savior since only God is our savior. Therefore, Jesus must have been a false prophet and no peace with God exists and Christs death and resurrection is meaningless and so is the Bible. By denying Christs divinity, you are denying His work on the cross. Even Peter knew Jesus was God and Saviour 2 Peter 1:1 - was Peter deceived or polytheistic? Was Thomas? John 20:28

I may not fully understand everything in scripture, but that doesn't give me a right to deny it either.

Many cults who deny the divinity of Christ always use Christ in human form to prove their theory.. ie, how can Jesus be God since God doesn't sleep, or God doesn't get tired, or hungry, didn't act on His own authority, submitted to the Father, called God His God etc etc etc, but for those who do believe in Christs deity look beyond Christ in the flesh and look at who scripture says He was is in the beginning and who He is now and who He will be. Christ in the flesh is the core message of the gospel, take away who Christ is, then what do we have left of the gospel? Or infact, what gospel are we preaching? Who is Gods only Son.. who was He, who is He now and who is He to come?

Re 1:8 I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Kyrios ho theos

Nicky_uk · Oct 28, 2011

Insight said:
Having shown you this I put a challenge to you, if you are willing.

I would like you to present polytheism using only Bible verses (non-scripturual terminology

I will be interested to see how many verses are presented.

This isn't polytheism since we are talking about One God, not many Gods, but here are some verses which reveal Christs nature and how Jesus and God are one.. you asked for scriptures only:

God calls Jesus God Hebrews 1:8
John calls Jesus the true God 1 John 5:20
Jeremiah calls Jesus, Lord our righteousness Jeremiah 23:6
God and Jesus Shepherd Ps 23:1, John 10:14
Jesus is the Holy One Isaiah 10:20, Psalm 16:10, Acts 2:27, 3:14
Jesus, the first and last Isaiah 44:6, 48:12 - Revelation 1:17, 22:13
Jesus is the light Psalm 27:1, John 8:12
Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath Ex 16:23, 29 - Leviticus 19:3, Matt 12:8
Jesus is savior Isaiah 43:11, Acts 4:12, Titus 2:13
Pierced Zech 12:10, John 19:37
Jesus is called Mighty God Isaiah 10:21, 9:6
Lord of Lords Deut 10:17, Rev 17:14
Alpha and Omega Rev 1:8, Rev 22:13

Christ is eternal Micah 5:2, Isaiah 9:6
Omnipresent Matt 18:20, 28:20
Christ in creation John 1:3, Col 1:16, 17
His word stands Matt 24:35, Isaiah 40:8
Christ taught worship God only - Matt 4:10...yet received worship Himself Matt 14:33, 28:9, John 9:38, - Men refused worship Acts 10:25-26.. so did Angels Rev 22:8-9, but Jesus is to be worshipped Hebrews 1:6
Jesus can be prayed to John 14:13-14, Acts 7:59-60, 1 John 5:13-15

If you cannot see Christs divinity in those scriptures, then you will never see it unless the Lord God reveals it to you personally by revelation through the Holy Spirit.

Have "you" made Jesus a Robber?

Post Tenebras Lux

New Member

Post Tenebras Lux

New Member

New Member

New Member

Post Tenebras Lux

New Member

Post Tenebras Lux

New Member

Post Tenebras Lux

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads