Non-Trinitarians, Please Answer This

  • 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!

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
5,732
2,136
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Greetings, brother.

I think John's reference was to those alive on earth, as opposed to those in Heaven and/or those taken up in spirit into Heaven or allowed to see into Heaven from the earth. Ezekiel had a very extensive vision of the throne room of God, so it would be a mistake to say no one has ever seen God in the absolute sense of the word. The meaning, rather, is that God the Father has never manifested Himself in full on the earth. But those in Heaven very well appear to be able to see the Lord Jesus Christ. Even Stephen was allowed to see the Son seated at the right hand of God just before he was stoned to death.

I appreciate the response, but I think you are spiritualizing too much in this instance.

God bless,
- H
Couple of things, the phrase "right hand" is a figure of speech referring to authority. To sit at the king's right hand is to be second in command. Second, Didn't Stephen and Ezekiel see visions? You think they witnessed actual events?
I want to take John seriously when he says that no one has seen God at any time. What they saw were theophanies, I think.
 

BeyondET

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2022
1,494
392
83
56
Hampton Roads
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This statement in scripture is perplexing, knowing the day or hour.

not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Couple of things, the phrase "right hand" is a figure of speech referring to authority. To sit at the king's right hand is to be second in command. Second, Didn't Stephen and Ezekiel see visions? You think they witnessed actual events?


Yes, I think their eyes were opened to see in the Spirit. You appear to spiritualizing not just one text but many of them, which I think is a mistake. Those who continue on that path can take it so far as to say that most of what is said in the Bible is merely a metaphor for various spiritual realities, and can thereby conform God-breathed scripture over into any religion they choose.
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Couple of things, the phrase "right hand" is a figure of speech referring to authority. To sit at the king's right hand is to be second in command. Second, Didn't Stephen and Ezekiel see visions? You think they witnessed actual events?
I want to take John seriously when he says that no one has seen God at any time. What they saw were theophanies, I think.

But let me ask you this while we are discussing it:

Jesus prophesied the following before His death and resurrection, saying, "You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62).

If these words are to be spiritualized to mean, "You will see me in a position of authority," then what are we to make of the rest of the sentence? Should it be spiritualized as well, or should it be interpreted as that those alive on earth when He comes will literally see Him coming on the clouds?
 

BeyondET

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2022
1,494
392
83
56
Hampton Roads
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This statement in scripture is perplexing, knowing the day or hour.

not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Hmm read some on it, seems the consensus points to verses below.

Philippians 2:6–8

6Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross.

Form of God seems basic enough, man was created in the image and likeness of God before He breathed life into man.
 
Last edited:

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hmm read some on it, seems the consensus points to verses below.

Philippians 2:6–8

6Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross.

Greetings, ET.

Don't think I am deliberately ignoring you, but we have been discussing verses throughout the Bible over the last year or so since non-Trinitarians began to dominate the forum, at least in numbers anyway. I've avoided discussing any but the passage specifically mentioned in the OP in this thread because I was more just looking for answers to that question in particular.

But my apologies for the lack of response. Maybe someone else will oblige you from the Trinitarian perspective.

God bless, and welcome to the forum.
Hidden in Him
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeyondET

BeyondET

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2022
1,494
392
83
56
Hampton Roads
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Greetings, ET.

Don't think I am deliberately ignoring you, but we have been discussing verses throughout the Bible over the last year or so since non-Trinitarians began to dominate the forum, at least in numbers anyway. I've avoided discussing any but the passage specifically mentioned in the OP in this thread because I was more just looking for answers to that question in particular.

But my apologies for the lack of response. Maybe someone else will oblige you from the Trinitarian perspective.

God bless, and welcome to the forum.
Hidden in Him
Thanks for the reply and the welcome, no problem I'm pretty new here I'm still getting to know where things are hehe,
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hidden In Him

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
917
407
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hmm read some on it, seems the consensus points to verses below.

Philippians 2:6–8

6Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross.

Form of God seems basic enough, man was created in the image and likeness of God before He breathed life into man.

Phil. 2:6 (“grasp,” “held onto”?)

Harpagmos

Now notice how these two very trinitarian Bibles have rendered it:

1. “He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, ἁρπαγμὸς] equality with God” - NEB.

2. “He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God” - TEV (and GNB).

We believe that the translations by the trinitarian NEB and TEV Bibles of this part of Phil. 2:6 must be the intended meaning of the original writer of this scripture because (in part, at least) of the obvious meaning of the New Testament (NT) Greek word harpagmos (ἁρπαγμὸς).

There could be some doubt about the meaning of the word harpagmos if we looked only at the NT Greek Scriptures (since harpagmos occurs only at Phil. 2:6 in the entire New Testament). We would then only have the meaning of the source words for harpagmos to determine its intended meaning.

Even so, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (by trinitarian writer and trinitarian publisher) tells us that harpagmos means “plunder” and that it comes from the source word harpazo which means: “to seize ... catch away, pluck, take (by force).” - #725 & 726, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing.

“725 harpagmós – to seize, especially by an open display of force. See 726 (harpazō).” - HELPS Word-studies, copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.

And the New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by trinitarians) tells us: “harpagmos; from [harpazo]; the act of seizing or the thing seized.” And, “harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away.” Notice that all have to do with taking something away by force. - # 725 & #726, Holman Bible Publ., 1981.

In fact, the trinitarian The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III, tells us:

“We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’ [as preferred in many trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6]. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize’, ‘snatch violently’. Thus, it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [‘snatch violently’] into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”

Even the very trinitarian NT Greek expert, W. E. Vine, had to admit that harpagmos is “akin to harpazo, to seize, carry off by force.” - p. 887, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

And the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the majority of Bible scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course)

“have taken harpagmos to mean a thing plundered or seized..., and so spoil, booty or a prize of war.” - p. 604, vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.

The key to both these words (harpagmos and its source word, harpazo) is: taking something away from someone by force and against his will. And if we should find a euphemism such as “prize” used in a trinitarian Bible for harpagmos, it has to be understood only in the same sense as a pirate ship forcibly seizing another ship as its “prize”!

We can easily see this “taken by force” meaning in all the uses of harpazo (the source word for harpagmos) in the New Testament. But since harpagmos itself is used only at Phil. 2:6 in the NT, Bible scholars must go to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (which is frequently quoted in the NT), the Septuagint.

In the Septuagint harpagmos (in its forms of harpagma[2,3] and harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan’s A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing. And in every case its meaning is the taking of something away from someone by force. Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan: Lev. 6:4 “plunder;” Job 29:17 “spoil” (a “prize” taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) “robberies;” Is. 42:22 “prey;” Is. 61:8 “robberies;” Ezek. 18:7 “plunder;” Ezek. 18:12 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:16 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:18 “plunder;” Ezek. 19:3 “prey;” Ezek. 19:6 “take prey;” Ezek. 22:25 “seizing prey;” Ezek. 22:27 “get dishonest gain” (through the use of “harpazo” or “force”); Ezek. 22:29 “robbery;” Ezek. 33:15 “has robbed;” and Malachi 1:13 “torn victims” (compare ASV).

So, in spite of some trinitarians’ reasonings and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Phil. 2:6 (“grasp,” “held onto”?)

Harpagmos

Now notice how these two very trinitarian Bibles have rendered it:

1. “He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, ἁρπαγμὸς] equality with God” - NEB.

2. “He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God” - TEV (and GNB).

We believe that the translations by the trinitarian NEB and TEV Bibles of this part of Phil. 2:6 must be the intended meaning of the original writer of this scripture because (in part, at least) of the obvious meaning of the New Testament (NT) Greek word harpagmos (ἁρπαγμὸς).

There could be some doubt about the meaning of the word harpagmos if we looked only at the NT Greek Scriptures (since harpagmos occurs only at Phil. 2:6 in the entire New Testament). We would then only have the meaning of the source words for harpagmos to determine its intended meaning.

Even so, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (by trinitarian writer and trinitarian publisher) tells us that harpagmos means “plunder” and that it comes from the source word harpazo which means: “to seize ... catch away, pluck, take (by force).” - #725 & 726, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing.

“725 harpagmós – to seize, especially by an open display of force. See 726 (harpazō).” - HELPS Word-studies, copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.

And the New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by trinitarians) tells us: “harpagmos; from [harpazo]; the act of seizing or the thing seized.” And, “harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away.” Notice that all have to do with taking something away by force. - # 725 & #726, Holman Bible Publ., 1981.

In fact, the trinitarian The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III, tells us:

“We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’ [as preferred in many trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6]. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize’, ‘snatch violently’. Thus, it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [‘snatch violently’] into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”

Even the very trinitarian NT Greek expert, W. E. Vine, had to admit that harpagmos is “akin to harpazo, to seize, carry off by force.” - p. 887, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

And the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the majority of Bible scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course)

“have taken harpagmos to mean a thing plundered or seized..., and so spoil, booty or a prize of war.” - p. 604, vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.

The key to both these words (harpagmos and its source word, harpazo) is: taking something away from someone by force and against his will. And if we should find a euphemism such as “prize” used in a trinitarian Bible for harpagmos, it has to be understood only in the same sense as a pirate ship forcibly seizing another ship as its “prize”!

We can easily see this “taken by force” meaning in all the uses of harpazo (the source word for harpagmos) in the New Testament. But since harpagmos itself is used only at Phil. 2:6 in the NT, Bible scholars must go to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (which is frequently quoted in the NT), the Septuagint.

In the Septuagint harpagmos (in its forms of harpagma[2,3] and harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan’s A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing. And in every case its meaning is the taking of something away from someone by force. Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan: Lev. 6:4 “plunder;” Job 29:17 “spoil” (a “prize” taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) “robberies;” Is. 42:22 “prey;” Is. 61:8 “robberies;” Ezek. 18:7 “plunder;” Ezek. 18:12 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:16 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:18 “plunder;” Ezek. 19:3 “prey;” Ezek. 19:6 “take prey;” Ezek. 22:25 “seizing prey;” Ezek. 22:27 “get dishonest gain” (through the use of “harpazo” or “force”); Ezek. 22:29 “robbery;” Ezek. 33:15 “has robbed;” and Malachi 1:13 “torn victims” (compare ASV).

So, in spite of some trinitarians’ reasonings and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).

Out of curiosity, Tigger (i.e. for future reference again), how do you interpret the phrase, "Who existing in the form of God"?

God bless, and thanks again for the responses
- H
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
917
407
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I believe that it may apply to his being a spirit person as are all those in heaven. Perhaps it is no more significant than being in the image of God.
 

BeyondET

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2022
1,494
392
83
56
Hampton Roads
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Phil. 2:6 (“grasp,” “held onto”?)

Harpagmos

Now notice how these two very trinitarian Bibles have rendered it:

1. “He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, ἁρπαγμὸς] equality with God” - NEB.

2. “He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God” - TEV (and GNB).

We believe that the translations by the trinitarian NEB and TEV Bibles of this part of Phil. 2:6 must be the intended meaning of the original writer of this scripture because (in part, at least) of the obvious meaning of the New Testament (NT) Greek word harpagmos (ἁρπαγμὸς).

There could be some doubt about the meaning of the word harpagmos if we looked only at the NT Greek Scriptures (since harpagmos occurs only at Phil. 2:6 in the entire New Testament). We would then only have the meaning of the source words for harpagmos to determine its intended meaning.

Even so, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (by trinitarian writer and trinitarian publisher) tells us that harpagmos means “plunder” and that it comes from the source word harpazo which means: “to seize ... catch away, pluck, take (by force).” - #725 & 726, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing.

“725 harpagmós – to seize, especially by an open display of force. See 726 (harpazō).” - HELPS Word-studies, copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.

And the New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by trinitarians) tells us: “harpagmos; from [harpazo]; the act of seizing or the thing seized.” And, “harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away.” Notice that all have to do with taking something away by force. - # 725 & #726, Holman Bible Publ., 1981.

In fact, the trinitarian The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III, tells us:

“We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’ [as preferred in many trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6]. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize’, ‘snatch violently’. Thus, it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [‘snatch violently’] into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”

Even the very trinitarian NT Greek expert, W. E. Vine, had to admit that harpagmos is “akin to harpazo, to seize, carry off by force.” - p. 887, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

And the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the majority of Bible scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course)

“have taken harpagmos to mean a thing plundered or seized..., and so spoil, booty or a prize of war.” - p. 604, vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.

The key to both these words (harpagmos and its source word, harpazo) is: taking something away from someone by force and against his will. And if we should find a euphemism such as “prize” used in a trinitarian Bible for harpagmos, it has to be understood only in the same sense as a pirate ship forcibly seizing another ship as its “prize”!

We can easily see this “taken by force” meaning in all the uses of harpazo (the source word for harpagmos) in the New Testament. But since harpagmos itself is used only at Phil. 2:6 in the NT, Bible scholars must go to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (which is frequently quoted in the NT), the Septuagint.

In the Septuagint harpagmos (in its forms of harpagma[2,3] and harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan’s A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing. And in every case its meaning is the taking of something away from someone by force. Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan: Lev. 6:4 “plunder;” Job 29:17 “spoil” (a “prize” taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) “robberies;” Is. 42:22 “prey;” Is. 61:8 “robberies;” Ezek. 18:7 “plunder;” Ezek. 18:12 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:16 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:18 “plunder;” Ezek. 19:3 “prey;” Ezek. 19:6 “take prey;” Ezek. 22:25 “seizing prey;” Ezek. 22:27 “get dishonest gain” (through the use of “harpazo” or “force”); Ezek. 22:29 “robbery;” Ezek. 33:15 “has robbed;” and Malachi 1:13 “torn victims” (compare ASV).

So, in spite of some trinitarians’ reasonings and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).
Interesting write thks, got me thinking on the story about the strongman and plundering,

The following verse pretty much says since He didn't want to grasp, He emptied himself what's your thoughts on that? whats it meaning in the original language
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
917
407
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Interesting write thks, got me thinking on the story about the strongman and plundering,

The following verse pretty much says since He didn't want to grasp, He emptied himself what's your thoughts on that? whats it meaning in the original language
..............................
He didn't attempt to seize. I believe that he gave up (emptied himself of) his authority in heaven and his spirit form and became a mere human on earth. Remember this is supposed to be the great example of humility. He wouldn't consider himself as equal to God if he were being humble.

Examining the Trinity: PHIL 2:6
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mr E

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
9,183
9,898
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Phil 2:6a..

So Christ was in the 'form' or of the mosaic or external appearance as God, the Father, by demonstrating it by his mannerisms and actions and voice. He was the emissary of his Father. And scripture completely supports this role of Christ.

"who being in the form of God did not consider equality something to be grasped" for him to take advantage of in anyway.

How could he or would he as the humble servant of his Father! Paul is pointing this out to make clear he was a faithful servant and loved his Father and that it would even have been impossible to do as Jesus was not divine, and just a man, a human person, of his divine God, his Father.

So as Paul said, Christ also never tried to grasp the idea that he was ever equal with God, his Father, even though he allowed his Father to use him and be his spokesman as his Son.
 

Aunty Jane

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2021
5,273
2,353
113
Sydney
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I assumed the entire community knew I'm Trinitarian, including yourself since we've had discussions on this before. So I assumed it was understood the OP was directed at non-Trinitarians by a Trinitarian hoping to get their answers to the specific question posed.
You got very comprehensive answers and still pretend that no one told you.......good grief!

Is it that no one told you what you wanted to hear? :confused:
 

L.A.M.B.

Well-Known Member
Mar 22, 2022
4,383
5,794
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
By this you are arguing that God has placed King David on His throne - the throne of Almighty God - in Heaven? That is what the passage in Revelation 22 is discussing.


As for the rest of your response, APAK, it kinda reads like a combination of supposition and double talk, and I'm just being honest here. I realize you probably copied and pasted, but as a response to my OP you are repeating the supposition several times that the Lamb is not God, and then coupling it with admissions that the Lamb sits on the throne of the Father.

I don't find much substance to your argument.




APAK has started it's own argument on its own thread..............lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hidden In Him

Aunty Jane

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2021
5,273
2,353
113
Sydney
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I got weak answers, Jane. Did you wish to add another, or merely insist I stop thinking for myself and accept them.
Weak? I thought the evidence was pretty impressive TBH....just obviously not what you wanted...
There’s “thinking for yourself” and “imposing your thoughts on others” as if only your thoughts are valid.

The readers here will make up their own minds about how appropriate the replies were. That ‘s what is important.....no?
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Weak? I thought the evidence was pretty impressive TBH....just obviously not what you wanted...
There’s “thinking for yourself” and “imposing your thoughts on others” as if only your thoughts are valid.

The readers here will make up their own minds about how appropriate the replies were. That ‘s what is important.....no?

I posted the OP to ask a question, FOR MYSELF.

Anything else, Jane?
 

BeyondET

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2022
1,494
392
83
56
Hampton Roads
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
..............................
He didn't attempt to seize. I believe that he gave up (emptied himself of) his authority in heaven and his spirit form and became a mere human on earth. Remember this is supposed to be the great example of humility. He wouldn't consider himself as equal to God if he were being humble.

Examining the Trinity: PHIL 2:6

I can see that, excuse me I might have conveyed that improper, though not sure on the no spirit because a human needs some life maybe just a soul with no knowledge, I've thinking on emptying of all knowledge of good and evil, and from birth to the baptism learned what that was yet chose good. quite the feat,

Adam gain knowledge pretty quickly thus corrupt the flesh. but man was in the image and likeness before the breath of life and the tree feast. Possibly a startover totally unknowledgeable sort of. Sorry if this is off topic the OP.