Jesus is God in the Flesh!!

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Didn't Matthew take Hosea 11:1 out of context in Matthew 2:15 when he referred to the son as Jesus in Matthew when the son referred to in Hosea was Israel?

In NT theology, Jesus is indeed the Son of God; and Matthew was right to take it out of its immediate context and did so under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

More important than immediate context, is topical context (1 Corinthians 2:13 (kjv)).

In 2 Corinthians 9:6, the immediate context is referring to financial sowing and reaping; but if you utilize the hermeneutical mandate of 1 Corinthians 2:13 and compare 2 Corinthians 9:6 to Luke 8:11, you will come up with a wonderful doctrine in application. You can also throw Ecclesiastes 11:6 into it and it is even better.

Don't get me wrong: immediate context is very important for the most part: it is just not essential to our understanding; as can be seen clearly in the case of Matthew 2:15 as it is quoted from Hosea 11:1.

We ought to take our personal reading seriously so that we can understand what the scripture is saying in its immediate context as we read through books of the Bible rather than playing Bible roullette in our Bible study time.

Then, when people apply verses in relation to their topical context (coming from other portions of the Bible) we can discern whether the understanding is accurate or inaccurate; because we have done our reading and know what the Bible is teaching in its immediate context.

Nevertheless, in some cases, it is clear that verses can stand on their own as bastions of spiritual truth and can be understood outside of their immediate context (as was the case with Matthew's quotation of Hosea 11:1).
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
From what I have read in the texts that you have posted on this christian site you don't seem to care what the scriptures say even though they are written in English.
And that, sir, is an accusation that is unfounded upon any evidence.
 

BARNEY BRIGHT

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,032
1,119
113
67
Thomaston Georgia
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Didn't Matthew take Hosea 11:1 out of context in Matthew 2:15 when he referred to the son as Jesus in Matthew when the son referred to in Hosea was Israel?

In NT theology, Jesus is indeed the Son of God; and Matthew was right to take it out of its immediate context and did so under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

More important than immediate context, is topical context (1 Corinthians 2:13 (kjv)).

In 2 Corinthians 9:6, the immediate context is referring to financial sowing and reaping; but if you utilize the hermeneutical mandate of 1 Corinthians 2:13 and compare 2 Corinthians 9:6 to Luke 8:11, you will come up with a wonderful doctrine in application. You can also throw Ecclesiastes 11:6 into it and it is even better.

Don't get me wrong: immediate context is very important for the most part: it is just not essential to our understanding; as can be seen clearly in the case of Matthew 2:15 as it is quoted from Hosea 11:1.

We ought to take our personal reading seriously so that we can understand what the scripture is saying in its immediate context as we read through books of the Bible rather than playing Bible roullette in our Bible study time.

Then, when people apply verses in relation to their topical context (coming from other portions of the Bible) we can discern whether the understanding is accurate or inaccurate; because we have done our reading and know what the Bible is teaching in its immediate context.

Nevertheless, in some cases, it is clear that verses can stand on their own as bastions of spiritual truth and can be understood outside of their immediate context (as was the case with Matthew's quotation of Hosea 11:1).


Some scholars accuse Matthew of taking Hosea’s words out of context, forcing them to predict an event that was future to the prophet, when Hosea himself was looking back to the exodus long before his time. What such critics do not see is the deeper matrix that links God’s protection of Israel, his adoptive son, at the exodus to his preservation of Jesus, the Father’s unique Son. Matthew’s point is that Jesus fulfills Israel’s early history because he is the true Israel, delivered from death as an infant, brought out of Egypt, and tested in the wilderness (and successfully passing the test that Israel had failed). By affirming that Hosea’s words are “fulfilled” in the young Jesus’ return from Egypt with his parents, Matthew does not claim that Hosea’s words fit Jesus instead of Israel, but rather that they fit Jesus because he himself is Israel’s fulfillment.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Some scholars accuse Matthew of taking Hosea’s words out of context, forcing them to predict an event that was future to the prophet, when Hosea himself was looking back to the exodus long before his time. What such critics do not see is the deeper matrix that links God’s protection of Israel, his adoptive son, at the exodus to his preservation of Jesus, the Father’s unique Son. Matthew’s point is that Jesus fulfills Israel’s early history because he is the true Israel, delivered from death as an infant, brought out of Egypt, and tested in the wilderness (and successfully passing the test that Israel had failed). By affirming that Hosea’s words are “fulfilled” in the young Jesus’ return from Egypt with his parents, Matthew does not claim that Hosea’s words fit Jesus instead of Israel, but rather that they fit Jesus because he himself is Israel’s fulfillment.
I'm sorry I don't see that.

Jesus is not Israel, no matter how you slice the cheese.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Addressing the OP only.
We agree that JESUS is God in the flesh. but can one explain that statement correctly? example, if Jesus is God in Flesh, (which he is), one need to explain Phil 2:7. for if God was Christ in the flesh, and he was G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō'), question, "who was running the universe, meaning upholding all things?". and if one say only the "son" was Christ, then you have a problem. for the bible said "God", whom many say is 3-in-one, (including the son), so if true then the Phil 2:7 block you. now if one say only the "son" was in Christ as a separate person, then you're saying that a piece of God, (1/3) is in Christ. well, God is not divided, nor a half of himself. and second, if a 1/3 was in Christ and one use the term Jesus is God, then God is one Person, THE "SON", in the flesh, now one have God in flesh. but many still say that the FATHER is God, (who is Spirit), either the FATHER, and the SON are the same person, or else one have two Gods. for if one have God who is Spirit, and a Seperate "person" in flesh who is God, then one again have two Gods.

and for the oneness BELIEVERS, if the one God is Christ in flesh, then they will have to explain Phil 2:7 being G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō').

now, something to think about. the spirit, that was in the body that is called christ, which is with the soul, MAKING ONE PERSON, and notice the small case "s" in spirit, if this is the son a seperate person and is G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō'), then the question, "how can the Son which have the same NATURE, be G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') and the Father is not, and yet both suppose to have the SAME NATURE AND EQUAL. ...... well?

PICJAG.
 

Joseph77

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2020
5,673
1,325
113
Tulsa, OK
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
QUOTE="GISMYS_7, post: 642077, member: 7501"]Jesus is God in the Flesh!!
1. John 10:30 The Father and I are one.

2. Philippians 2:5-6 You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.[/QUOTE

For Scripture Truth, Amen.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
QUOTE="GISMYS_7, post: 642077, member: 7501"]Jesus is God in the Flesh!!
1. John 10:30 The Father and I are one.

2. Philippians 2:5-6 You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.[/QUOTE

For Scripture Truth, Amen.

It's very difficult to find a translation of this verse which is not mistranslated to support the trinity (binity?).
This was the closest I could find:
"He existed [huparchon] in the form [morphe] of God, yet he gave no thought to seizing [harpagmos] equality with God as his supreme prize. -TPT.

My personal study: Examining the Trinity: PHIL 2:6
 

Joseph77

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2020
5,673
1,325
113
Tulsa, OK
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It's very difficult to find a translation of this verse which is not mistranslated to support the trinity (binity?).
This was the closest I could find:
"He existed [huparchon] in the form [morphe] of God, yet he gave no thought to seizing [harpagmos] equality with God as his supreme prize. -TPT.
You do not have to find a translation with any reference at all to trinity... just find an accurate translation from Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or /and even in English that is in Harmony Totally with all of the Creator's Word, Plan and Purpose in Christ Jesus and with no contradiction.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That Jesus was in the form (morphe) of God, Zodhiates, the expert on Greek who wrote a Lexicon, said that if someone is in the morphe of something then they are that something.

So, Jesus, being in the form (morphe) of God, was and is God (see also Psalms 90:2...for it is the nature of God that He is eternally God)
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States

Morphe (Form)


Although it has been rejected by even many trinitarian Bible scholars, some others attempt to force an interpretation of morphe (μορφῇ) that includes the idea of “essence” or “nature.” They do this only at Phil. 2:6 (Jesus “was in the form [morphe] of God”) because the true meaning of morphe will not allow for the trinitarian interpretation that Jesus is God. But with their forced interpretation of morphe at Phil. 2:6 they can say that Jesus had the “absolute essence” and “full nature” of God!

If anyone actually meant to say that someone is God, guess what they would say: "He is God!!" Imagine a person saying of his pet: "Rex has the essence of a dog."!!


As even many trinitarian Bible scholars admit:

Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.

Thayer agrees that morphe is

“the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance” - Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 418, Baker Book House. [Also see Young’s Analytical Concordance]

Liddell and Scott’s An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, p. 519, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing, tells us that morphe can mean “form, fashion, appearance” but does not include a meaning for “nature” or “essence.” It also shows that if one truly intends the meaning of “being, essence, nature of a thing” it is defined by the Greek word ousia (p. 579) or phusis (p. 876) not morphe.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged in one volume), Eerdmans, 1985, says “In general morphe in all its nuances represents what may be seen by the senses and not what is mentally apprehended.” - p. 608. It also tells us that when “nature” is intended by Paul, he uses physis (phusis). E.g., Ro. 11:21, 24; Gal. 2:15;4:8. - p. 1286.

The highly-esteemed BAGD (and BDAG) also defines morphe as “form, outward appearance, shape.” - p. 530.

It’s easy to see why even many trinitarian scholars disagree with the forced “nature” interpretation of morphe when you look at all the scriptural uses of morphe (according to Young’s Analytical Concordance, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978 printing and A Concordance of the Septuagint, Zondervan Publishing House, 1979 printing): Mark 16:12; Phil. 2:6, 7 in the New Testament and in the Old Testament Greek Septuagint of Job 4:16 “there was no form [morphe] before my eyes;” Is. 44:13 “makes it [a piece of wood] as the form [morphe] of a man;” Dan. 4:33 “my natural form [morphe] returned to me;” 5:6, 9, 10 “the king’s countenance [morphe] changed;” 7:28 “[Daniel’s] countenance [morphe] was changed.” - The Septuagint Version, Greek and English, Zondervan, 1976 printing.

Morphe is found at Mark 16:12 which is part of the “Long Ending” for the Gospel of Mark. Many scholars do not consider this as inspired scripture, but, instead, a later addition by someone to Mark’s original inspired writing. However, even if this is the case, it is still an example of how morphe was used in those times since copies of the “Long Ending” were in existence at least as early as 165 A.D. (Justin Martyr).

So notice especially how the New American Bible (1970), the Living Bible, The New English Bible, the Douay version, the New Life Version, and the Easy-to-Read Version translate morphe at Mark 16:12:

“he was revealed to them completely changed in appearance [morphe]” - NAB.


“they didn’t recognize him at first because he had changed his appearance [morphe].” - LB.

“he appeared in a different guise [morphe]” - NEB.

“he appeared in another shape [morphe]” - Douay.

“he did not look like he had looked [morphe] before to these two people” - NLV.

“Jesus did not look the same” - ETRV.

Mark 16:12 - “He appeared in another form. Luke explains this by saying that their eyes were held. If their eyes were influenced, of course, optically speaking, Jesus would appear in another form.” - People’s New Testament Notes.

Later, Jesus showed himself to two of his followers while they were walking in the country, but he did not look the same as before. - NCV.


These trinitarian translations show the meaning of morphe to be that of “external appearance” not “essence” or “nature”!


The trinitarian Living Bible even renders morphe at Phil. 2:7 as “disguise”! And the 1969 French lectionary rendered morphe at Phil. 2:6 as image!

The further uses of morphe (μορφῇ, the very same form as used at Phil 2:6) by those first Christian writers to write after the NT itself was written (the Apostolic Fathers - about 90 A.D. to 150 A.D.) make a trinitarian rendering at Philippians 2:6 even more incredible:

“There was no form [μορφῇ] before my eyes, but I heard a breeze and a voice.” 1 Clem. 39:3, The Apostolic Fathers, Sparks, 1978, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publ.

Also notice how the first Christian writers after the Apostolic fathers understood the meaning of morphe at Phil 2:6 itself:

“... who being in the shape of God, thought it not an object of desire to be treated like God” - Christian letter from 177 A.D. sometimes ascribed to Irenaeus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), p. 784, vol. 8.


“... who being in the image of God, ‘thought it not ...’” - Tertullian, about 200 A.D., ANF, p. 549, vol. 3.

“...who being appointed in the figure of God ...” - Cyprian, about 250 A.D., ANF, p. 545, vol. 5.


We can see, then, that, with the originally-intended meaning of morphe, Paul is saying that before Jesus came to earth he had a form or an external appearance resembling that of God (as do the other heavenly spirit persons, the angels, also).


So one in the morphe of a slave is one who has the appearance of a slave (but is not in actuality - thus, “taking the disguise [morphe] of a slave” - Phil. 2:7, Living Bible.).

Morphe means the visual form or shape of a thing. It does not mean anything more.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is one Lord in holy scripture (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6). And this Lord is clearly the Father (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21). However, no one can say that Jesus is the Lord except by the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 12:3); even the Spirit of truth. And Jesus is the Lord (1 Corinthians 8:6).

Now that there is one Lord, the Father; and that the Spirit of truth leads a man to say that Jesus is the Lord, ought to tell you something. Think about how all of this applies together. There is one Lord, that is the key.

So, if the Father and the Son be separate individuals, which one of them is the Lord?

Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21

1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 12:3.

Both?

There is one Lord; how can that be?
 

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
It's very difficult to find a translation of this verse which is not mistranslated to support the trinity (binity?).
This was the closest I could find:
"He existed [huparchon] in the form [morphe] of God, yet he gave no thought to seizing [harpagmos] equality with God as his supreme prize. -TPT.

My personal study: Examining the Trinity: PHIL 2:6
@tigger 2

Clearly you did not see in scriptures who Jesus truly is, that He is God (Jehovah/Yahweh).

Whose way do you say was John the baptist sent to prepare? Was it not Christ's? Was it not God's (Jehovah/Yahweh)?

Scriptures speak of the King of kings (NOT Kings of kings). Scriptures also speak of Lord of lords (NOT Lords of lords). Who do you see in scriptures who the King of kings is and who the Lord of Lords is? Is it not God?

Tong
R0921
 
Last edited:

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
Addressing the OP only.
We agree that JESUS is God in the flesh. but can one explain that statement correctly? example, if Jesus is God in Flesh, (which he is), one need to explain Phil 2:7. for if God was Christ in the flesh, and he was G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō'), question, "who was running the universe, meaning upholding all things?". and if one say only the "son" was Christ, then you have a problem. for the bible said "God", whom many say is 3-in-one, (including the son), so if true then the Phil 2:7 block you. now if one say only the "son" was in Christ as a separate person, then you're saying that a piece of God, (1/3) is in Christ. well, God is not divided, nor a half of himself. and second, if a 1/3 was in Christ and one use the term Jesus is God, then God is one Person, THE "SON", in the flesh, now one have God in flesh. but many still say that the FATHER is God, (who is Spirit), either the FATHER, and the SON are the same person, or else one have two Gods. for if one have God who is Spirit, and a Seperate "person" in flesh who is God, then one again have two Gods.

and for the oneness BELIEVERS, if the one God is Christ in flesh, then they will have to explain Phil 2:7 being G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō').

now, something to think about. the spirit, that was in the body that is called christ, which is with the soul, MAKING ONE PERSON, and notice the small case "s" in spirit, if this is the son a seperate person and is G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō'), then the question, "how can the Son which have the same NATURE, be G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') and the Father is not, and yet both suppose to have the SAME NATURE AND EQUAL. ...... well?

PICJAG.
If one tries to understand the nature of God by human wisdom or reasoning, I would say that would be a futile exercise. It's kind of trying to understand a miracle such as water turning into wine. When scriptures said that water turned to wine, the Christian don't have a problem believing it without much question. It's because the Christian have faith, that scriptures is God's words and is true. Why then if Jesus is revealed by scriptures to be God in the flesh, why not believe it in the same way as with the miracle wine? Why suddenly lose faith and question the truthfulness of the matter, and fall back, appealing to human wisdom and reasoning as though suddenly human wisdom and reasoning is what determines the truth?

Tong
R0922
 

janc

Member
Jul 8, 2020
89
23
8
Naples
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
He is the only begotten Son of God in whom the Spirit of God was. People must consider that God has begotten a real son.
The Spirit of God was in him and spoke to us, and men have seen the mind of God through the words that the Spirit spoke to men in the Son. By seen, therefore, is meant the personality of God, no one has seen God's personality, but because he was in the Son, we have seen and recognized his personality through his words. Therefore it is also said that the Word became flesh. By Word is meant speech. No one knows my personality unless I speak and share with him who I am. By speaking I show my spirit.
So the word of God is not a person, but the expression of the spirit, which comes out of the spirit by speaking.

Is he God or not?
Yes, but he is the Son of God. He is in the form of God because he is the Son of God, but he is under the Father because he is the Son. Is the Son equal to the Father? Or is a woman equal to a man? No, as the Son is under the Father, and the woman under the man, so is the Son of God under God.
 
Last edited: