A Form of godliness

[face2face]

"For to us a child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over His kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore." (Isaiah 9:6-7)​

This is cherry picking in my opinion. Does mighty God imply very God? It's no different than the angel who bore the divine name (Yahweh) before the children of Israel. No case here!

Did you want to deal with the future tense of that prophecy? Might be a little uncomfortable?

Here I can assist...use Isaiah 22:21-24 or read the Father and Son relationship in Isaiah 11...see 1 Corinthians 4:14-15 and 1 Thessalonians 2:11

F2F

 

[face2face]

@everyone here...

You must take care when dealing with the Isaiah prophecies as any language which speaks to Christ inheriting children as per Hebrews 2:13 must be explained with this condition:

God (One true) gives His Son delegated authority and power for a limited time. Failure to understand this will result in the type of false understandings we are seeing in this tread.

"For he {God} has put all things under his {Jesus'} feet. But when he says, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him {God} that put all things under him {Jesus}, that God may be all in all."

1 Corinthians 15:27-28.

Since the Son is to be subject unto the Father, then he is clearly not "co-equal" with the Father, and by implication not a person within the Godhead.

So ultimately this end time of God being "all and in all" succeeds the Isaiah passages.

F2F

 

[Rich R]

@everyone here...

You must take care when dealing with the Isaiah prophecies as any language which speaks to Christ inheriting children as per Hebrews 2:13 must be explained with this condition:

God (One true) gives His Son delegated authority and power for a limited time. Failure to understand this will result in the type of false understandings we are seeing in this tread.

"For he {God} has put all things under his {Jesus'} feet. But when he says, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him {God} that put all things under him {Jesus}, that God may be all in all."

1 Corinthians 15:27-28.

Since the Son is to be subject unto the Father, then he is clearly not "co-equal" with the Father, and by implication not a person within the Godhead.

So ultimately this end time of God being "all and in all" succeeds the Isaiah passages.

F2F

Gen 4:20-21,

20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and [of such as have] cattle.

21 And his brother's name [was] Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
​

Gen 17:4,

As for me, behold, my covenant [is] with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.​

These are a few examples of how the word "father" is used in a figurative sense. Even to this day we sometimes see the word "father" used in a figurative way to indicate the person who started a movement or something new.

Col 3:10,

And have put on the new [man], which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
​

Jesus started something new. Hence, he is indeed the father of Christianity.

 

[Earburner]

2 Tim 3:5,

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
​

Clearly the folks Paul is talking about are not actually godly at all. Note verses 1-4 make that clear. However it is equally clear they have a "form" of godliness. Apparently someone being in the "form" of something else does not make that person to actually be that something.

Phil 2:6,

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

What is it that makes this verse's usage of "form" any different? Why is it that here one person, i.e., Jesus, being in the "form" of someone else, i.e., God, make Jesus to actually be God?

​

It's sad that you don't include the context scripture in reference of 2 Timothy 3:5.
If you did, you would immediately understand how it is that people will have a form of godliness.
[1] This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
[2] For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
[3] Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
[4] Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
[5] Having a form [an appearance] of godliness, but DENYING the power [origin/authority of godliness] thereof: from such turn away.
Romans 8:8-9

 

[Rich R]

It's sad that you don't include the context scripture in reference of 2 Timothy 3:5.
If you did, you would immediately understand how it is that people will have a form of godliness.
[1] This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
[2] For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
[3] Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
[4] Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
[5] Having a form [an appearance] of godliness, but DENYING the power [origin/authority of godliness] thereof: from such turn away.
Romans 8:8-9

Well, this isn't the best venue for an extensive exposition of the scriptures. You wisely took the time to look at the context. Anybody could easily do the same for themselves.

The main point was what the word "form" means. It means an outward appearance and I think 2 Tim 3:5 was sufficient to bring that out. There is no reason to think "form" meant anything different when used in Phil 2:6 & 7, or Mark 16:12 where Jesus is said to have changed "form" when he appeared to some of his disciples who didn't realize it was him. Whether in the form of God, a servant, or some other form, it's still the same Jesus on the inside. Being in the "form" of something does not actually make it to be that something.

 

[PinSeeker]

The main point was what the word "form" means. It means an outward appearance...

It can, but it can mean something very different depending on the context in which it is used. It does mean "outward appearance" in 2 Timothy 3:5, which, again, is speaking of a quality, godliness, and is thus abstract in concept. But it is quite different in Philippians 2:5-7, clearly concrete in nature; Jesus was/is both in the form of God and the form of man at the same time ~ "though He was in the form of God... He took the form of a servant and found in human form." And yet again, the Greek word for 'form' is completely different in 2 Timothy (morphōsis) than it is in Philippians 2 (morphe'). They are from the same root, but he former is a quality, and the latter is the actual thing itself; it is a philosophical term that means "the outward expression of an inner essence/being," and for Jesus, that is true regarding His being both God and man.

Such obstinance. Deny as you will. But so be it; it is what it is.

Being in the "form" of something does not actually make it to be that something.

Not always, but in Philippians 2, it does. As I said above, one cannot have the outward appearance of two things ~ people ~ simultaneously. But yet Jesus was in the form (morphe') of God and in the form (morphe') of man simultaneously, as Paul very clearly says.

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

 

[Earburner]

Well, this isn't the best venue for an extensive exposition of the scriptures. You wisely took the time to look at the context. Anybody could easily do the same for themselves.

The main point was what the word "form" means. It means an outward appearance and I think 2 Tim 3:5 was sufficient to bring that out. There is no reason to think "form" meant anything different when used in Phil 2:6 & 7, or Mark 16:12 where Jesus is said to have changed "form" when he appeared to some of his disciples who didn't realize it was him. Whether in the form of God, a servant, or some other form, it's still the same Jesus on the inside. Being in the "form" of something does not actually make it to be that something.

The context of 2 Timothy 3:5 is very important.
TRUE godliness, has it's origin in God Himself.
Therefore any other form of godliness apart from His, is CORRUPTION.
The only way to receive His Godliness is through the indwelling Holy Spirit of Jesus and God the Father. They TOGETHER are Godliness. John 14:23, John 3:3-8, Revelation 3:20, Romans 8:8-9.

 

[marks]

Not always, but in Philippians 2, it does. As I said above, one cannot have the outward appearance of two things ~ people ~ simultaneously. But yet Jesus was in the form (morphe') of God and in the form (morphe') of man simultaneously, as Paul very clearly says.

This to me is the heart of the matter. Human reasoning can't comprehend this. But the Bible says what it says, and unless you are willing to ignore or change something it says, that is in fact what it says. Many change the meanings of words, make long and convoluted arguments, and at the end of it all, either you accept the plain sayings of plainly stated Scriptures, or you do not.

Much love!

 

[Rich R]

It can, but it can mean something very different depending on the context in which it is used. It does mean "outward appearance" in 2 Timothy 3:5, which, again, is speaking of a quality, godliness, and is thus abstract in concept. But it is quite different in Philippians 2:5-7, clearly concrete in nature; Jesus was/is both in the form of God and the form of man at the same time ~ "though He was in the form of God... He took the form of a servant and found in human form." And yet again, the Greek word for 'form' is completely different in 2 Timothy (morphōsis) than it is in Philippians 2 (morphe'). They are from the same root, but he former is a quality, and the latter is the actual thing itself; it is a philosophical term that means "the outward expression of an inner essence/being," and for Jesus, that is true regarding His being both God and man.

Such obstinance. Deny as you will. But so be it; it is what it is.


Not always, but in Philippians 2, it does. As I said above, one cannot have the outward appearance of two things ~ people ~ simultaneously. But yet Jesus was in the form (morphe') of God and in the form (morphe') of man simultaneously, as Paul very clearly says.

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

I must say, you have a very unique view of things. :)

I know you want to make Jesus God and that is the reason you say "morphe" in Phil 2:5-7 is concrete in nature. There is no other justification for doing that. The doctrine proceeds the scriptures. The scriptures must fit the doctrine. Sorry, but that is backwards.

The Greek words are not completely different. They are all from the same root. You should really study this stuff before making pronouncements. I have and I've never read anything like what you are saying.

If I deny anything, I am in good company. I'm not saying anything other than what Biblical scholars, including trinitarian scholars, say. Poo-poo scholarship all you want, an academic approach is much better than an emotional, "I want it to be this way...blah, blah" approach.

 

[marks]

is much better than an emotional, "I want it to be this way...blah, blah" approach.

This kind of statement doesn't awe me as an "academic approach", just sayin'.

Much love!

 

[Rich R]

The context of 2 Timothy 3:5 is very important.
TRUE godliness, has it's origin in God Himself.
Therefore any other form of godliness apart from His, is CORRUPTION.
The only way to receive His Godliness is through the indwelling Holy Spirit of Jesus and God the Father. They TOGETHER are Godliness. John 14:23, John 3:3-8, Revelation 3:20, Romans 8:8-9.

Very true!

While I don't think anything you say is particularly wrong, you might want to do a word study of "godliness." It is used about 15 times I think.

Strong's Concordance:

G2150 εὐσέβεια eusebeia (ef-se'-ɓei-a) n.

1. well-reverence.
2. devout reverence in attitude, conduct, and deed.
3. (specially) the gospel plan.
​

Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament:

εὐ-σέβεια, -ας, ἡ
(< εὐσεβής, q.v.),
[in LXX: Pro 1:7, Isa 33:6 (H3374), Pro 13:11 (aliter in Heb.), Isa 11:2 (H3068 H3374), 1Es 1:23, Wis 10:12, Sir 49:3, and very freq. in 4Mac;]
1. piety, reverence (towards parents and others).
2. piety towards God, godliness: Act 3:12, 1Ti 2:2; 1Ti 4:7-8; 1Ti 6:5-6; 1Ti 6:11, 2Pe 1:3; 2Pe 1:6-7,; τὸ τῆς εὐ. μυστήριον, 1Ti 3:16; ἡ κατ᾿ εὐ. διδασκαλία, 1Ti 6:3; ἡ ἀλήθεια ἡ κατ᾿ εὐ., Tit 1:1; μόρφωσις εὐσεβείας, 2Ti 3:5; pl. (v. Bl., § 32, 6; Mayor on Jas 2:1), 2Pe 3:11 (on the use of εὐ. and cognates in Past. Epp., v. CGT, on 1Ti 2:2; cf. also Cremer, 524).†​

 

[amigo de christo]

This to me is the heart of the matter. Human reasoning can't comprehend this. But the Bible says what it says, and unless you are willing to ignore or change something it says, that is in fact what it says. Many change the meanings of words, make long and convoluted arguments, and at the end of it all, either you accept the plain sayings of plainly stated Scriptures, or you do not.

Much love!

WE BELIEVE what is written . ITS that SIMPLE . NOW let all that draws breath praise the glorious LORD .
THEY can keep all their strifes over words and etc . The lambs simply believe and do the things of the LORD .
They act like somehow the apostels wrote in some kind of code to the churches that only some wise scholar could intrepret .
THEY make the bible hard to grasp by twisting things unto their own destruction . I SAY , READ IT and LOVE IT . its that simple .
THE LORD is with the lambs . AND IN HE WE HAVE ALL HOPE . YES WEDO . SO HANDS UP , ITS LORD PRAISING TIME .

 

[Rich R]

Not always, but in Philippians 2, it does. As I said above, one cannot have the outward appearance of two things ~ people ~ simultaneously. But yet Jesus was in the form (morphe') of God and in the form (morphe') of man simultaneously, as Paul very clearly says.

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

But one can have the essential nature of God and a servant at the same time?

God is spirit (John 4:24). Jesus is flesh (Luk 24:39). The two don't mix (John 3:6).

Having God's spirit in Jesus did not make him God any more than Christ in us (Col 1:27) makes us Christ. It's still little 'ol me. I just happen to have the power of God dwelling within through holy spirit, the gift I got when I was born again. I'm not unique in that regard. It's true for all Christians.

 

[Rich R]

WE BELIEVE what is written . ITS that SIMPLE . NOW let all that draws breath praise the glorious LORD .
THEY can keep all their strifes over words and etc . The lambs simply believe and do the things of the LORD .
They act like somehow the apostels wrote in some kind of code to the churches that only some wise scholar could intrepret .
THEY make the bible hard to grasp by twisting things unto their own destruction . I SAY , READ IT and LOVE IT . its that simple .
THE LORD is with the lambs . AND IN HE WE HAVE ALL HOPE . YES WEDO . SO HANDS UP , ITS LORD PRAISING TIME .

Exactly! I forget where, but the Bible says something like, "even a fool need not err therein."

 

[PinSeeker]

I must say, you have a very unique view of things. :)

It's obvious that that's true from where you stand... :)

I know you want to make Jesus God...

What I want is irrelevant. It is what it is. The grass withers, and the flower fades, but the Word of our God endures forever.

...the reason you say "morphe" in Phil 2:5-7 is concrete in nature...

Is because it is.

The doctrine proceeds the scriptures. The scriptures must fit the doctrine.

No, the language is the language, and what it says is what it says. God said what He said, and meant what He meant. It is what it is. I think you mean "precedes." Nothing precedes the Word of God... except the one from Whom it proceeds... having been with Him from all eternity.

The Greek words are not completely different. They are all from the same root. You should really study this stuff before making pronouncements.

Rich, I was very clear, my friend, that the two very different words do have the same root. But still, they are different words, related, certainly, but denoting different things. There are more examples of that than we could get through in a month of Sundays. :)

I have and I've never read anything like what you are saying.

I'm sure that's true. :)

If I deny anything, I am in good company.

You certainly do have... company... :) But I wouldn't call it good... :) But that means nothing.

I'm not saying anything other than what Biblical scholars, including trinitarian scholars, say.

What some "Biblical scholars"... and maybe some "trinitarian scholars"... say. But I would have my doubts about any of those scholars being trinitarians. A trinitarian scholar who doesn't believe in the triune Jehovah? Wouldn't that make them non-trinitarian scholars, Rich? Or maybe... non-trinitarian trinitarian scholars? :) Scholar or no, some are wrong, and some are right. So it goes. But, as Paul says in Romans 9, "(God) has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Romans 9:18). And again, that applies to scholars...

Poo-poo scholarship all you want...

Nobody's doing any such thing, Rich.

...an academic approach is much better...

And I say an approach informed by the Holy Spirit is better than mere academic, even as well and good as it is. Even so, even academics disagree, and do suggest that my approach is any less academic than yours ~ or that the academic approach of the scholars whose approach I would agree with is less academic than that of the scholars whom you would agree with ~ is very disingenuous, Rich. Quite disingenuous indeed.

...than an emotional, "I want it to be this way...blah, blah" approach.

Mischaracterize me all you want, Rich. It bothers me not. It is what it is.

But one can have the essential nature of God and a servant at the same time?

In the case, of Jesus, yes. That's exactly what Paul says in Philippians 2. It is what it is.

God is spirit (John 4:24). Jesus is flesh (Luk 24:39). The two don't mix (John 3:6).

So now you're ascribing sin to Jesus. I mean, you've really been doing that all along. But that's what you're doing. And also, you're disqualifying Jesus as Mediator between the Father and man, and denying that He and the Father are one, and a whole host of other things. But the first is the main thing, really. As Isaiah says, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet..." I know you're intentions are otherwise, but you know what they say about intentions...

Having God's spirit in Jesus did not make him God any more than Christ in us (Col 1:27) makes us Christ.

No, but that's beside the point, Rich, and I think you know that. Rather, it's totally avoiding the point, which you unitarians are so, so, good at. So be it.

I just happen to have the power of God dwelling within through holy spirit, the gift I got when I was born again.

I hope you have been born of the Spirit; I have been. Like I said, I think it's possible. With God, all things are possible.

Round and round we go... :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Rich R]

So now you're ascribing sin to Jesus. I mean, you've really been doing that all along. But that's what you're doing. And also, you're disqualifying Jesus as Mediator between the Father and man, and denying that He and the Father are one, and a whole host of other things. But the first is the main thing, really. As Isaiah says, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet..." I know you're intentions are otherwise, but you know what they say about intentions...

"God is spirit (John 4:24). Jesus is flesh (Luk 24:39). The two don't mix (John 3:6)."

These are the verses I quoted. How does that ascribe sin to Jesus? And if it does, it's not me. God authored those verses.

Does John 4:24 not say God is spirit?
Does Luk 24:39 not say Jesus is flesh? (not to mention John 1:14)
Does John 3:6 not say flesh and spirit are diametrically opposed?

I guess we are going round and round. I keep thinking with each post that you will relent and believe everything I say...just kidding! :)

 

[face2face]

But one can have the essential nature of God and a servant at the same time?

God is spirit (John 4:24). Jesus is flesh (Luk 24:39). The two don't mix (John 3:6).

Having God's spirit in Jesus did not make him God any more than Christ in us (Col 1:27) makes us Christ. It's still little 'ol me. I just happen to have the power of God dwelling within through holy spirit, the gift I got when I was born again. I'm not unique in that regard. It's true for all Christians.

It's because of this dilemma for the Christian they invented the Hypostatic union.

They believe Jesus had two natures. One as a man, Christ could represent man and die as a man; as God the death of Christ could have infinite value “sufficient to provide redemption for the sins of the world.” They also believe the eternal priesthood of Christ is based on the hypostatic union. “By incarnation He (God) became Man and hence could act as a human Priest. As God, His priesthood could be everlasting after the order of Melchizedek, and He properly could be a Mediator between God and man.”

It's just utter garbage! Christian's have swallowed this pill and have been choking on it from the time of the creeds!

If they only looked into Paul's writings on the nature of Christ they would see in every way he was condemned and existed in a body of death!

Boy the reality when they learn their entire foundation is sand will be a sad day for many.

F2F

 

[Wrangler]

What some "Biblical scholars"... and maybe some "trinitarian scholars"... say. But I would have my doubts about any of those scholars being trinitarians. A trinitarian scholar who doesn't believe in the triune Jehovah?

Playing the fool eh? A trinitarian scholar who may admit that not all the trinitarian claims are valid. See the difference?

 

[Wrangler]

Rich, I was very clear, my friend, that the two very different words do have the same root. But still, they are different words, related, certainly, but denoting different things.

How coy.

Run
Running
Ran
​

Are they really VERY different words denoting different things? Seems more like form variants are denoting THE VERY SAME THING in different tenses.

I guess it goes to show mystical dualists will sacrifice anything intellectually to support their dogma.

 

[Earburner]

Very true!

While I don't think anything you say is particularly wrong, you might want to do a word study of "godliness." It is used about 15 times I think.

Strong's Concordance:

G2150 εὐσέβεια eusebeia (ef-se'-ɓei-a) n.

1. well-reverence.
2. devout reverence in attitude, conduct, and deed.
3. (specially) the gospel plan.
​

Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament:

εὐ-σέβεια, -ας, ἡ
(< εὐσεβής, q.v.),
[in LXX: Pro 1:7, Isa 33:6 (H3374), Pro 13:11 (aliter in Heb.), Isa 11:2 (H3068 H3374), 1Es 1:23, Wis 10:12, Sir 49:3, and very freq. in 4Mac;]
1. piety, reverence (towards parents and others).
2. piety towards God, godliness: Act 3:12, 1Ti 2:2; 1Ti 4:7-8; 1Ti 6:5-6; 1Ti 6:11, 2Pe 1:3; 2Pe 1:6-7,; τὸ τῆς εὐ. μυστήριον, 1Ti 3:16; ἡ κατ᾿ εὐ. διδασκαλία, 1Ti 6:3; ἡ ἀλήθεια ἡ κατ᾿ εὐ., Tit 1:1; μόρφωσις εὐσεβείας, 2Ti 3:5; pl. (v. Bl., § 32, 6; Mayor on Jas 2:1), 2Pe 3:11 (on the use of εὐ. and cognates in Past. Epp., v. CGT, on 1Ti 2:2; cf. also Cremer, 524).†​

Maybe if you compare the following two verses, you will get a better understanding of who the origin is for God's godliness:
KJV 2 Timothy 3[5] Having a form of godliness, but denying the POWER thereof: from such turn away.
1 Corinthians 2[5] That your faith should not stand in [be supported by] the wisdom [scholarly learning] of men, but [rather] in the POWER of God.

The power of God:
John 1[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God.
[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth [God's wisdom].

The origin of the wisdom/power of God, that was made flesh:
Proverbs 8:22-31.

Are you born again by the Spirit of God the Father and Jesus, His only begotten Son, who was "brought forth FROM Everlasting"?
Romans 8:9