The interpretation of Phil 2: 1 -11 - in proper context and theme

[ProDeo]

Not all is possible with God depending on the subject! This may come as a shock to you and many people. There is one inner-personal area that God cannot do or perform and it's discussed in scripture, and many breeze by it. And one of them is to become a man, to become one of his creatures or creations. That would permanently compromise who and what God is, his very identity!

God's nature and identity are unchangeable and eternal, meaning He cannot compromise His own divine essence or become a created being. He is called the Father and the creator for a reason. Scripture affirms that God does not change—James 1:17 states there is "no variableness nor shadow of turning" in Him. This immutability means our one supreme God cannot act contrary to His nature, such as lying (Hebrews 6:18) or abandoning His love and justice. And he cannot suddenly become evil...

While "all things are possible with God" (Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27), this refers to His power to fulfill His eternal purposes, not to act and create that would contradict His unchanging character like somehow transforming himself into a man.

What if you are wrong?

And you did not answer my question, hence I repeat :

Mary pregnant from the Holy Spirit, quoting you: also an impossible idea in itself ?

 

[Marvelloustime]

Well , dont just hug me to hell .
IF you know what iam , and what you beleive i am is con trary to GOD
expose it . dont jus say you know who i am by now .
Dont leave me in e rror and just hug and get along like this church age IS SO KEEN on doing .
SO if you see d eadly error and my so ul is in danger of hells great fires
SHOW SOME LOVE and correct me .
Go ahead , i am all ears and eyes . IF i am in such danger
perhaps even an anti christ as some have said , or perhaps a son of satan
Or etc , YOU NEEDS TO SHOW ME THE ERROR . go on now , DONT just hug and get along and let a soul perish .
CAUSE bleieve me , I WILL DO ALL to help anyone I SEE IN ERROR .
ITS WHY I keep telling you , DONT CONTRADICT WHAT IS WRITTEN . THE WORD WAS GOD . YOU CANNOT LIE
and say otherwise . NOW if you cant comprehend this , HEY ITS OKAY . JUST DONT LIE .

@amigo de christo

 

[Behold]

Yeshua was thus not pre-existent as God

Yeshua was pre-incarnate as God......, and He claimed to be so, when He told the Jews.....>"before Abraham was born, I AM".

See that "I Am"?

Notice that Jesus told us that "I AM... from above and you are from below"...

Above = Heaven
Below, = Earth

Also........"I AM".... is God's name for Himself, and Jesus claimed the same.
You will recall that Moses asked God....>>"what is your name", and God said......"I AM that I AM"...and Jesus claimed the same title for Himself.

Notice also this verse in Genesis..

"Let US..............make man.........in OUR Image".

See the "US, and OUR"?

That is not God and angels.....or God and the heavenly host...........that is GOD and Pre-incarnate JESUS, who is the WORD, and John explains this as... """" and the Word WAS God""".
And HE still is... and He's coming back very soon for His BRIDE.

A.) This is why a REAL Bible will teach in : 1 Tim 3:16 """GOD was manifested in the Flesh". and... "the WORD became flesh and dwelt among us". John 1:14

 

[Lambano]

Yeshua’s life and death remain the ultimate model of humility and obedience, proving that true power is found in surrender to his Father, the will of his God.!

C'mon; nobody wants to talk about humility and self-abnegation.

 

[Taken]

The Mental and heartfelt giving and loving attitude of Christ to be Our Example - one mind

(Php 2:1) Therefore, if there is any encouragement in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tender mercies and compassions,
(Php 2:2) make my joy full by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
(Php 2:3) Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself;
(Php 2:4) each of you not looking to his own things, but each of you to the things of others.
(Php 2:5) Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.
(Php 2:6) Who, though being in the mental image of God, did not consider grasping at being equal with God,
(Php 2:7) but poured himself out, taking the mental attitude of a servant, and was the made just the same as all ordinary men.
(Php 2:8) And being perceived as a normal man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

[5] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
[6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
[7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
[8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

. However, this passage does not teach that Yeshua was God and then became a man.

Broadly Disagree.

Jesus knew His equality to God.
Jesus WAS IN God, came forth out from God, yet Remained IN God, was / Is God.

The interpretation of Philippians 2:6–11,it's a passage about Yeshua's exaltation and humility during his earthly life, not his preexistence as God. The phrase "being in the form of God" refers to Yeshua’s Messianic and then post-resurrection status, not an eternal divine nature.

Broadly Disagree.
Jesus took upon Himself, the FORM…outer BODILY SHAPE / APPEARANCE “AS” an Earthly man…. TO BE VISIBLE to Earthly men.

His INVISIBLE, internal SOUL and SPIRIT, was NOT made Changed….
NOR was HIS SUPREME ALMIGHTY POWER immediately Revealed.

Heb 10:
For When…?
…entering the Earth
What was prepared…?
…a Body, that looked LIKE earthly men
Body For?
…To take upon Himself
What was NOT MADE changed…or sacrificed?
…His invisible internal Soul and Spirit.

Heb. 10:
[5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Jesus “taking upon Himself A Body (FORM)in the LIKENESS “AS” an earthly human man…(that God PREPARED)…
Did NOT MAKE Jesus an earthly human man.
His Own body remained Invisible, under the Earthly body (Form) He took upon Himself.

Key points of interpretation include:

"Form of God" (μορφή θεοῦ): this refers to role, status, or authority, not ontological divinity.

Disagree.

"Did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped":

Disagree.

This is seen as Yeshua refusing to exploit his divine privileges during his earthly ministry,

Disagree / nonsense.

That Form…Body, God Prepared, Had a Highly “Specifically Designed”, Holy Mission to Accomplish.

No human, (not the men who tried to secretly stone Jesus to death in an alley…. OR the Romans who beat Him, Brutally Ripping open His skin with whips and steel claws…) Could Kill Him …
AS God had Planned His Death to be a MAJOR, Widely Witnessed Event… to be talked about, Spread About the World, and Discussed for Centuries and Remembered for all time.

John 5:
[18] Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Further…that Prepared and Purposed Form / Body, God Prepared….was Prepared and Purposed for God Himself.

Eph 1:
[8] Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
[9] Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:



Ya…No on your presented Conclusion.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Justified]

I have to raise a very large flag here....:God becoming one of his creatures".... is not at all what God can do or does I'm afraid.

Where is your evidence that God cannot be both truly human and truly God? Until you provide evidence, that’s merely your opinion you’re reading into the text.

God is one eternal being, distinct from creation,

Of course. I’ve never said anything different.

and that his Yeshua the Messiah, while exalted by God, remains a created human being—born of Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit. Yeshua was thus not pre-existent as God but was appointed and empowered by God to fulfill a unique role as the Messiah and divine agent.

No. There is ample evidence that the Son is just as eternal as the Father, being equal in deity.

It emphasizes that God’s nature is unchanging

Of course. Again, I’ve never said otherwise.

and that divine titles, functions, and attributes are not transferred or shared with finite beings in a way that compromises His oneness.

And, yet, we see divine titles of God applied to Jesus—“King of kings;” Lord of lords;” “the Alpha and the Omega;” “the beginning and the end.”

As such, worship of Yeshua is seen as proper only because of God’s sovereign exaltation, not because Jesus is co-eternal or co-equal with the Father.

No, it is precisely the latter.

Key Points:

• God is one: God is a single, indivisible being.

You have to clarify what you mean. I, too, agree that God is a single, indivisible being.

• Jesus is human: Jesus is viewed as a man, born of Mary, and not a pre-existing divine person.

John 1:1-18, 20:28, Rom. 9:5, 1 Cor. 8:6, Phil. 2:6-8, Col. 1:16-17, Heb. 1:2,10-12, and many other passages disagree. He is truly and fully human; on that we agree. But all the preceding passages and others show that he is also truly and fully God.

• Exaltation, not somehow a transformation from the one God into a man: Yeshua was exalted by God after his life and resurrection, receiving divine authority and honor, but not becoming God.

Of course. I fully agree.

• Worship is based on divine appointment: Worship of Yeshua is justified not because he is God, but because God has commanded it and elevated him to a position of supreme authority.

And, yet, throughout the Bible we are told worship of anyone or anything but God is idolatry, even in Rev. 19:10 and 22:9. Jesus is worshipped precisely because he is God incarnate.

This understanding avoids the theological tension of God “becoming” a creature, incompatible with the biblical witness to God’s eternal, uncreated nature.

And yet you have not only given no proof of such, you have avoided all plain reasoning and Scriptural evidence to the contrary.

 

[Justified]

As John Bunyan writes The Pilgrim’s Progress, "Then I saw that there was a way to hell, even from the gates of heaven, as well as from the City of Destruction."

I would reflect on these words if I were you - and heed its warning. Less pride and more humility would serve you well.

I'm truly glad I do not drink the Kool aide

Perhaps take your own advice. Just a thought.

 

[Lambano]

Where is your evidence that God cannot be both truly human and truly God?

When we're talking about "the nature of God", we're basically trying to put words to a concept for which we have no words.

 

[Justified]

When we're talking about "the nature of God", we're basically trying to put words to a concept for which we have no words.

Except that God has given us some words. A truth claim was made and evidence needs to be provided.

 

[Lambano]

Except that God has given us some words. A truth claim was made and evidence needs to be provided.

What is God's "nature"? The theologians usually mention the ominous omnis: Omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent... Throw in holy, eternal, transcendent yet immanent,...

Do we really know what we're talking about?

 

[Lambano]

I have to raise a very large flag here....:God becoming one of his creatures".... is not at all what God can do or does I'm afraid.

When you start telling God what He can't do, this is where He (metaphorically) turns to the Holy Spirit and says, "Here, hold my beer..."

 

[Justified]

What is God's "nature"? The theologians usually mention the ominous omnis: Omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent... Throw in holy, eternal, transcendent yet immanent,...

Do we really know what we're talking about?

We certainly have some ideas, because God has told us much about himself, even if we can’t fully comprehend. Why else would God tell us certain things about himself?

 

[Fred J]

Nowhere in the book of John or any other part of scripture is it stated that Yeshua is God.

Are you sure?

What if i give you the scripture that reads Jesus is indeed God and Lord of Heaven and earth?

And you will be surprised who declared it in the presence of witnesses.

Will you stop your lack of knowledge of the scripture 'folly'?

 

[JustMe]

Where is your evidence that God cannot be both truly human and truly God? Until you provide evidence, that’s merely your opinion you’re reading into the text.


Of course. I’ve never said anything different.


No. There is ample evidence that the Son is just as eternal as the Father, being equal in deity.


Of course. Again, I’ve never said otherwise.


And, yet, we see divine titles of God applied to Jesus—“King of kings;” Lord of lords;” “the Alpha and the Omega;” “the beginning and the end.”


No, it is precisely the latter.


You have to clarify what you mean. I, too, agree that God is a single, indivisible being.


John 1:1-18, 20:28, Rom. 9:5, 1 Cor. 8:6, Phil. 2:6-8, Col. 1:16-17, Heb. 1:2,10-12, and many other passages disagree. He is truly and fully human; on that we agree. But all the preceding passages and others show that he is also truly and fully God.


Of course. I fully agree.


And, yet, throughout the Bible we are told worship of anyone or anything but God is idolatry, even in Rev. 19:10 and 22:9. Jesus is worshipped precisely because he is God incarnate.


And yet you have not only given no proof of such, you have avoided all plain reasoning and Scriptural evidence to the contrary.

Same back to you. Although the proponderous of scripture evidence suggests he is only human and not divine. So. where is your evidence that God is both truly human and truly God? Until you provide evidence, that’s merely your opinion you’re truly reading into the text...Eh?

 

[JustMe]

When you start telling God what He can't do, this is where He (metaphorically) turns to the Holy Spirit and says, "Here, hold my beer..."

Not really, as I already qualified the area that God cannot deny and do, that would compromise who he truly is.

 

[JustMe]

Are you sure?

What if i give you the scripture that reads Jesus is indeed God and Lord of Heaven and earth?

And you will be surprised who declared it in the presence of witnesses.

Will you stop your lack of knowledge of the scripture 'folly'?

Go for it, as I'll entertain you.

 

[JustMe]

Does anyone here besides me, believe that Yeshua did not have two wills, only one human will? This lends more support to the real meaning in this thread's passage of scripture of human servanthood and learning obedience, not of an artificial human construct or as a charade for our entertainment where the joke is on us.

 

[Justified]

Same back to you.

This seems to be one of your bad habits to avoid addressing arguments, likely those that you can't deal with. It would be great if you would engage in rational discussion, as Christians should be doing.

Although the proponderous of scripture evidence suggests he is only human and not divine. So. where is your evidence that God is both truly human and truly God? Until you provide evidence, that’s merely your opinion you’re truly reading into the text...Eh?

I gave some evidence in the post which you just avoided addressing. The Son is eternal and Jesus, the Son incarnate, is both truly and fully human and truly and fully deity.

Again, you made the truth claim that "Where is your evidence that God cannot be both truly human and truly God?

 

[JustMe]

This seems to be one of your bad habits to avoid addressing arguments, likely those that you can't deal with. It would be great if you would engage in rational discussion, as Christians should be doing.


I gave some evidence in the post which you just avoided addressing. The Son is eternal and Jesus, the Son incarnate, is both truly and fully human and truly and fully deity.

Again, you made the truth claim that "Where is your evidence that God cannot be both truly human and truly God?

Justified:
To be completely honest with you, despite your strong efforts to persuade, there can be no productive discussion or Bible study with you based on the few posts I've read from you over the past week. Your arguments are filled with extreme bias and incorrect interpretations of scripture, and your sources that support your modern version of Christianity, which did not exist in the 1st century AD,- completely nonexistent. You repeatedly build your case on shaky assumptions that lead to even larger assumptions, constructing a foundation for your concept called incarnation, which then branches into other imagined ideas like hypostasis and more.

Moreover, your primary goal in using and interpreting scripture here is to make sure it always supports, agrees with, and aligns with this imagined concept of incarnation, which is not found or conveyed in scripture. As a result, your scriptural support is deliberately misapplied, misinterpreted, biased, and even forced to uphold this imaginative theory of a god-man for the Son of God, regardless of whether it is true or false. You are deeply committed to this idea as the core of your spiritual form of Christianity, which is/was foreign to Yeshua and the apostles.

Therefore, we cannot have a genuine and open exchange of ideas about the nature of God and His Son through this thread’s attempt to discuss it, as with Paul’s appeal to the Philippians to have the mind of the Son of God, and not of His God, which would be impossible for any human to achieve.

The term "incarnation" does not appear in the Bible, and key passages often cited to support it (such as John 1:14, "the Word became flesh") are misunderstood. For example, this verse refers to God’s mind being implanted into His Son as part of His plan or purpose (the Logos). His God is revealed applying this Logos, shown through his Son, Yeshua, not as a pre-existent divine being taking on human form, which is impossible.

No biblical verse states that Yeshua pre-existed His conception or birth; the Gospels present Yeshua as a human being whose life began when God (his Spirit) impregnated Mary. The Greek word genesis (meaning "beginning") in Matthew 1:18 suggests the start of Jesus’ life, not a pre-existing divine entity incarnating.

Additionally, the doctrine of the Incarnation was developed centuries after the New Testament, formalized at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, influenced by philosophical and cultural ideas—such as Gnosticism and pagan mythology—rather than being directly derived from Scripture.

Therefore, the absence of the term and clear doctrine of incarnation in the Bible, combined with the telling historical development of the concept centuries later, supports the view that Yeshua was a divinely chosen, sinless man, not a pre-existent God becoming flesh.

 

[Justified]

@JustMe ,

A quick correction to my previous post. I thought I had already posted the correction, but apparently I didn't. What I meant to say in the last sentence was:

Again, you made the truth claim that '"God becoming one of his creatures".... is not at all what God can do or does I'm afraid.'

Justified:
To be completely honest with you, despite your strong efforts to persuade, there can be no productive discussion or Bible study with you based on the few posts I've read from you over the past week. Your arguments are filled with extreme bias and incorrect interpretations of scripture,

Arguments such as these go without saying and are not at all helpful, as they can be said about anyone we disagree with. These facts remain:

1. You have given no evidence for your claim that God cannot become a human.
2. "My" interpretations, which generally align with historic, orthodox Christianity, are based on plain readings of Scripture, such as in regard to the passage in question.
3. If you're going to go against historic, orthodox Christian belief, then you had better have ample solid evidence and sound reasoning to support your beliefs, which you do not have.
4. Your interpretations require ignoring the plain use of language, reinterpreting the passages to mean something other than what they plainly mean.
5. You are continually ignoring the arguments in my posts, which suggests you have no answers. If you don't understand them, just ask.

and your sources that support your modern version of Christianity, which did not exist in the 1st century AD,- completely nonexistent.

First, what do you mean by "your modern version of Christianity"? Second, what part of my supposed modern version of Christianity "did not exist in the 1st century AD" and was "completely nonexistent"?

Once again, you're making claims with no evidence. That is not conducive to good and productive discussion.

You repeatedly build your case on shaky assumptions that lead to even larger assumptions, constructing a foundation for your concept called incarnation, which then branches into other imagined ideas like hypostasis and more.

You have yet to prove both that I am making mere assumptions and that those "assumptions" are wrong. You have also yet to support your own assumptions, including, '"God becoming one of his creatures".... is not at all what God can do or does I'm afraid.'

Moreover, your primary goal in using and interpreting scripture here is to make sure it always supports, agrees with, and aligns with this imagined concept of incarnation, which is not found or conveyed in scripture.

Not at all. I am letting Scripture speak for itself, from those things which it plainly says, without reinterpreting those things by reading my own beliefs into them.

As a result, your scriptural support is deliberately misapplied, misinterpreted, biased, and even forced to uphold this imaginative theory of a god-man for the Son of God, regardless of whether it is true or false. You are deeply committed to this idea as the core of your spiritual form of Christianity, which is/was foreign to Yeshua and the apostles.

That Jesus is also truly God is absolutely at the centre of my beliefs, as it is for every Christian. You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary, apart from "evidence" that is based on poor reasoning and poor exegesis.

If Jesus isn't also truly God, then there is no salvation. At best, if he was merely human, either he could have died only for his own sin, or he could have died for the sins of those alive at the time, but only for a limited time. There is nothing in the entirety of Scripture that a creature can die for the sins of all people for all times. Such a Jesus is not the Jesus revealed in Scripture.

Therefore, we cannot have a genuine and open exchange of ideas about the nature of God and His Son through this thread’s attempt to discuss it, as with Paul’s appeal to the Philippians to have the mind of the Son of God, and not of His God, which would be impossible for any human to achieve.

It's like you're not actually reading anything I'm writing. That, or you read my posts the same as with Scripture and read into them things I am not saying. I fully agree that we are to have the mind of Christ, which is that of humility. That is obviously Paul's entire point in the passage in question.

However, in making his point, Paul uses the strongest possible example--that of the Son of God taking on human flesh (also John 1:14) and becoming like one of his creatures. Again, there is no possible greater example of humility that could even be conceived, hence why Paul appeals to it.

The term "incarnation" does not appear in the Bible,

Which is not at all relevant. Theologians often use non-biblical words to describe ideas found in the Bible, some of which you use, like "ontological."

and key passages often cited to support it (such as John 1:14, "the Word became flesh") are misunderstood. For example, this verse refers to God’s mind being implanted into His Son as part of His plan or purpose (the Logos).

No. There is no reference anywhere in Scripture that "God's mind" was "being implanted into His Son as part of His plan or purpose." There is also no reference in the Bible to the Logos being merely God's plan or purpose.

To suggest such is to ignore John's language and grammar in John 1:1, where the Logos was in an interpersonal relationship with God and was God in nature. How is it possible to say that a "plan or purpose" can be in an interpersonal relationship with another, namely, God? How is it possible that a "plan or purpose" can also be said to be God in nature?

His God is revealed applying this Logos, shown through his Son, Yeshua, not as a pre-existent divine being taking on human form, which is impossible.

John, Paul, Peter, the writer of Hebrews, etc., all disagree with you.

No biblical verse states that Yeshua pre-existed His conception or birth; the Gospels present Yeshua as a human being whose life began when God (his Spirit) impregnated Mary. The Greek word genesis (meaning "beginning") in Matthew 1:18 suggests the start of Jesus’ life, not a pre-existing divine entity incarnating.

This has nothing to do with anything I have said. See, you're once again reading things into what I've said, just as you do with Scripture. For your sake, you need to stop doing that.

Additionally, the doctrine of the Incarnation was developed centuries after the New Testament, formalized at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, influenced by philosophical and cultural ideas—such as Gnosticism and pagan mythology—rather than being directly derived from Scripture.

That Jesus was considered fully God in addition to being fully human, is found in writings in the second century, which should be no surprise given what Jesus and the Apostles taught. That, perhaps, a formal doctrine wasn't laid out until much later, much like the doctrine of the Trinity, is not at all relevant as to whether or not they are true and biblical. To say otherwise is fallacious reasoning.

Therefore, the absence of the term and clear doctrine of incarnation in the Bible,

Again, that the word "incarnation" doesn't appear in the Bible is not at all relevant. The doctrine is very clearly in the Bible; that is the reason it exists at all.

combined with the telling historical development of the concept centuries later, supports the view that Yeshua was a divinely chosen, sinless man, not a pre-existent God becoming flesh.

Of course he wasn't a "pre-existent God." That is a straw man based on complete misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. There is only one God, of which the Son, the Logos, is one member.

Any idea of God that is not Trinitarian is deficient and cannot be the God of the Bible.