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

[JustMe]

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.
(Php 2:9) Wherefore God highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name-
(Php 2:10) that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the earth,
(Php 2:11) and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The theme of Philippians 2 is “having the mind of Christ.” (Phil 2:5). Purpose and context of the passage: The hymn is not a creedal statement but an ethical exhortation (v.5): “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus.” Paul uses a well-known hymn to encourage humility and selflessness among the Philippians.

In verses 6-11, the testimony of Yeshua the Messiah is provided as the principal example of the humility and obedience we all should have. Also emphasized, is the reward that Yeshua received from selfless service and obedience (Phil 2:8-11). However, Phil 2:6-7 has been unfortunately and traditionally used as a proof text for advocates of the doctrine of incarnation. This is because verses 6-7 are typically translated with a traditional bias that prejudices the reader into reading incarnation into the passage. However, this passage does not teach that Yeshua was God and then became a man.

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.

Key points of interpretation include:

"Form of God" (μορφή θεοῦ): this refers to role, status, or authority, not ontological divinity. It reflects Yeshua's divine function after exaltation, not an inherent nature. And in contrast with "form of a servant" (μορφὴ δούλου), which denotes a role, not a change in essence.

"Did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped": This is seen as Yeshua refusing to exploit his divine privileges during his earthly ministry, not a denial of divinity. The humility is practical and relational, not ontological. And clearly, Paul is also stating here that Yeshua is not God as he never attempted to be equal (as robbery in some translations) as his own Father, who is the one God.

"Emptied himself" (ἐκένωσεν): This is Yehsua renouncing divine privileges to live as a human, not losing divine nature. This aligns with the idea that Yeshua was a man exalted by God, not a pre-existent deity.

Contrast with Adam: The passage draws a parallel between Adam, who sought to be like God (Gen 3:5), and Yeshua, who did not grasp at divine status, but humbled himself. This reversal of Adam’s pride is central to its understanding (of this passage).

Exaltation, Not Incarnation: The passage emphasizes that Yehsua was exalted by God due to his obedience, not that he descended from heaven. Acts 2:36 ("God has made him both Lord and Christ") is cited as the key moment of divine appointment, not a pre-existent state.

Tense and Grammar: The present tense of "being in the form of God" (hyparcho) is emphasized, suggesting the statement applies to Yeshua being the Messiah and after his resurrection, not before any incarnation. Also note that the word "though" is added in some translations and is seen as a biased interpolation that distorts the text.

Contrast with another common view: There is no pre-existent Messiah. Paul contrasts Yeshua's present exalted status ("form of God") with his past humble state ("form of a servant"), not a change in nature.


Quotes from Trinitarian Bible Scholars that no not favor an incarnation or pre-existence of Yeshua in this scripture passage, In fact if not believed as they do, a few warn of a gnostic interpretation of this passage:

James Dunn (Methodist NT Scholar) p115. Christology in the Making
“Moreover it can readily be seen that the outline of thought in the Philippian hymn fully matches the two-stage Christology evident elsewhere in first generation Christianity. – free acceptance of man’s lot followed out to death, and exaltation to the status of Lord over all.”

J A T Robinson (Anglican NT Scholar), p166 “The Human Face of God”
The picture is not of a celestial figure lowering himself to become a man, to be exalted still higher than he was before. Rather, it is that the entire fullness of God was enabled…to find embodiment in one who was completely one of us as any other descendant of Abraham.”

Jerome Murphy-O’Connor (Catholic NT Scholar)
“Inevitably, those who begin their exegesis of this hymn with the assumption that it concerns a pre-existent divine being tend towards a docetic (gnostic) interpretation of these lines.”

James P. Mackey (Catholic Theologian). p52 ” The Christian Experience of God as Trinity”
“The fact that in the context of the hymn in the actual epistle, there is no mention at all of this anonymous divine figure who becomes man…”

Karl-Josef Kuschel (German Theologian) p250 “Born Before All Time”
“From this fact that the Jewish rather than Hellenistic syncretism may be the key to understanding the Philippians hymn, present day exegetes have drawn the radically opposite conclusion that the Philippians hymn does not speak of the pre-existence of Christ at all.”

Anton Vogtle (German Catholic NT Scholar) Freiburg exegete
“No pre-existence of Christ before the world with an independent significance can be recognized even in Phil. 2.”

Klaus Berger (German Catholic NT Scholar) Heidelberg exegete
“Philippians 2:6 is primarily concerned with making statements about high status and by no means necessarily concerned with pre-existence.”

Bas van Iersel (Dutch NT Scholar) p45. ‘Son of God in the New Testament’
“But of pre-existence and equality of being with God we cannot discover any trace in Paul’s letters”


Erroneous presumptions and misconceptions

Here is a list of common erroneous presumptions and inferences regarding Phil 2:5-7

The word “was” in reference to the mind of Christ biases the reader to suppose Paul is talking about a past time frame where Jesus had a certain mindset and into supposing that Christ had this mindset before he became human.

Presuming that Paul is talking about a pre-incarnate Son who “was” in the “form of God.”

Presuming that the term “form of God” means “God” and falling to see that it makes no sense to refer God as being in the form of God. It only makes sense to refer to someone else as being in the image of God or the form of God.

Presuming that Yeshua emptied himself of some of his divine prerogatives or his positional glory in heaven.

Presuming that not regard it to be a plunder to be equal to God is that Yeshua had no problem being equal with God. In context, this makes no sense whatsoever since Paul’s point is to show the Philippians how to humble themselves and serve as Yeshua served his God.

Taking Paul’s words to say that in verse 6, Yeshua did not regard “clinging to” equality with God. However, that would mean the incarnate Yeshua was not equal to God, which they deny.

Taking verse 6 to mean that Yeshua did not exploit, or take advantage of his equality with God. However, if Yeshua already had a harpagmos where then are the words in verse 6 which refer to exploiting it? harpagmos hardly means exploitation. It refers to something snatched/seized for one’s self, like plunder.

Presuming that “taking the form of a servant” means “adding a human nature” to himself. The words “becoming in the likeness of men,” or “coming to be in the likeness of men” qualify the expression “taking the form of a servant.” In context, the likeness of men is contrasted with the form of God. The Greek word here is saying that Yeshua came into his existence in the likeness of humans.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

"Emptied himself" (ἐκένωσεν): This is Yehsua renouncing divine privileges to live as a human, not losing divine nature. This aligns with the idea that Yeshua was a man exalted by God, not a pre-existent deity.

John says otherwise on two counts.

1. The deity of Jesus. Word was God in John 1 and became flesh and dwelt among us - Jesus.

2. The pre-existence of Jesus. John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

The rest of your attempt to reduce Jesus to that of a mere man and not God only shows that Jesus always gave the Father all glory, not that He was not God. He did announce that He was God to the Pharisees when He said, "before Abraham was, I AM." The Pharisees immediately recognized what you can't. That Jesus was claiming to be God by using the name of God. "I AM." Otherwise, why did the Pharisees pick up stones to stone Him?

 

[JustMe]

John says otherwise on two counts.

1. The deity of Jesus. Word was God in John 1 and became flesh and dwelt among us - Jesus.

2. The pre-existence of Jesus. John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

The rest of your attempt to reduce Jesus to that of a mere man and not God only shows that Jesus always gave the Father all glory, not that He was not God. He did announce that He was God to the Pharisees when He said, "before Abraham was, I AM." The Pharisees immediately recognized what you can't. That Jesus was claiming to be God by using the name of God. "I AM." Otherwise, why did the Pharisees pick up stones to stone Him?

Nowhere in the book of John or any other part of scripture is it stated that Yeshua is God. Instead, try to disprove my assertions and remarks on this topic of the original post or thread if you dare. Naturally, you cannot, so you resort to belittling and twisting my words. This amounts to saying nothing meaningful and only highlights your lack of knowledge on the subject.

You are also free to add words that alter and distort my post into a completely different meaning and wrongly conclude that I claimed Yeshua was merely a man. You said I tried to reduce Yeshua to a so-called mere man, not me—remember that in the future. From your extreme viewpoint, it might seem that way, but it is not the truth.

I suggest you focus on the topic at hand and please comment on the original post or thread subject if you can, without wandering into a confusing maze of scripture that you also do not fully understand. This will not help you win any arguments, I’m afraid. It only shows how unprepared you are to engage in a serious Bible study on this subject and how little you know about this particular passage or topic.

First, show me your understanding of Philippians 2:1-11, and how your views align or differ, then perhaps I will listen and offer some thoughtful feedback.

 

[marks]

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.

That's exactly opposite the actual passage.

Philippians 2:6-8 KJV
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.

Clearly the form of God was prior to the form of a servant.

Of course, you are talking about someone named Yeshua, while the Bible teaches us of Jesus.

Jesus is the Word of God Who became flesh.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I suggest you focus on the topic at hand and please comment on the original post or thread subject if you can, without wandering into a confusing maze of scripture that you also do not fully understand. This will not help you win any arguments, I’m afraid. It only shows how unprepared you are to engage in a serious Bible study on this subject and how little you know about this particular passage or topic.

This kind of speech reveals you, not others. I've seeing a lot of this sort of thing from you. Do you realize how this is a big red flag?

 

[Lambano]

The theme of Philippians 2 is “having the mind of Christ.” (Phil 2:5). Purpose and context of the passage: The hymn is not a creedal statement but an ethical exhortation (v.5): “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus.” Paul uses a well-known hymn to encourage humility and selflessness among the Philippians.

Ah, but the hymn itself reflects what is apparently a well-known belief among Paul's target audience.

Tense and Grammar: The present tense of "being in the form of God" (hyparcho) is emphasized, suggesting the statement applies to Yeshua being the Messiah and after his resurrection, not before any incarnation.

The verb ὑπάρχων is the Present Active Participle of the verb "to begin". Thus, the sense of verse 6 is, "Who, beginning in the form of God did not consider equality with God a thing to be seized". "Beginning" logically implies that this precedes what follows, "taking the morphe of a servant and being made in the likeness of men. And dying on the cross.

"Form of God" (μορφή θεοῦ): this refers to role, status, or authority, not ontological divinity. It reflects Yeshua's divine function after exaltation, not an inherent nature.

"Morphe" (μορφή is a loaded word in Greek. Going back to Aristotle, a thing's "form" is its definition or essence. Contrast this with "schema" (outward appearance) or "eikon", an image (the iconic word used in the LXX to translate, "Let us make Man in our own image").

So, what could be a better example for the Philippians (and for us) of humility and self-abnegation than Christ beginning with the essence of God and taking on the essence of a servant and the likeness of humanity?

 

[JustMe]

That's exactly opposite the actual passage.

Philippians 2:6-8 KJV
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.

Clearly the form of God was prior to the form of a servant.

Of course, you are talking about someone named Yeshua, while the Bible teaches us of Jesus.

Jesus is the Word of God Who became flesh.

Much love!

I am uncertain about the point you are trying to convey here.

Without prematurely opening up too much discussion, and to avoid the tendency to criticize it and then stray onto an unnecessary path, I will simply respond to your statement regarding your perspective that there is a sequence of development in Yeshua's form or change of character.

"Clearly the form of God was prior to the form of a servant."

Technically, Yeshua first reflected the image of his Father, and then he was revealed as the humble servant who endured suffering... leading to the Cross.

Yeshua became the image of God, his Father, when he was anointed as the Messiah. He then carried his Father's word and was empowered by his Spirit. Knowing this image of his Father within him, Yeshua chose not to claim credit or use these powers for himself; instead, he became the servant of humanity and his God. The evil one tested his determination by tempting Yeshua to use his Father's power in the wilderness, but Yeshua immediately declined and even quoted his Father's word.

 

[JustMe]

Ah, but the hymn itself reflects what is apparently a well-known belief among Paul's target audience.


The verb ὑπάρχων is the Present Active Participle of the verb "to begin". Thus, the sense of verse 6 is, "Who, beginning in the form of God did not consider equality with God a thing to be seized". "Beginning" logically implies that this precedes what follows, "taking the morphe of a servant and being made in the likeness of men.



"Morphe" (μορφή is a loaded word in Greek. Going back to Aristotle, a thing's "form" is its definition or essence. Contrast this with "schema" (outward appearance) or "eikon", an image (the iconic word used in the LXX to translate, "Let us make Man in our own image").

So, what could be a better example for the Philippians (and for us) of humility and self-abnegation than Christ beginning with the essence of God and taking on the essence of a servant and the likeness of humanity?

Well 2 out of 3 is not bad.

I don't agree with your last statements, as they leap onto the page from really nowhere, without any solid basis. And you cannot made Yeshua God or pre-existing based on one Greek word you found that tends to conform to your belief either. You have to view the entire passage of scripture, its construction etc.

---------------------------------------------------------------
As you stated....

"Morphe" (μορφή is a loaded word in Greek. Going back to Aristotle, a thing's "form" is its definition or essence. Contrast this with "schema" (outward appearance) or "eikon", an image (the iconic word used in the LXX to translate, "Let us make Man in our own image").

So, what could be a better example for the Philippians (and for us) of humility and self-abnegation than Christ beginning with the essence of God and taking on the essence of a servant and the likeness of humanity?

-----------------------------
This image of God that his Son possessed is really his mental image for his Son, based on the Father's logos/word that he possessed and carried with him as the Messiah of God. There is no hint of him being the same essence as his father, who is God. That is a stretch.

Again, "Form of God" (morphe theou): morphe as the outward appearance, manifestation, or expression of God's authority, rather than an inner essential nature (ontology). Morphe is not the definition of essence as you want it to be.

You are most probably using the Vine dictionary/lexicon for your definition of morphe, the typical dictionary that supports and overshadows, biased towards your religious view of the entire passage of scripture. You have not much more support I'm afraid.

Here's more sources that follow the earliest definition of morphe, as the mosaic outer form definition, and never an inner nature.

In Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon, morphe is given a one-word definition, “form.” The scholarly lexicon by Walter Bauer, translated and revised by Arndt and Gingrich, has under morphe, “form, outward appearance, shape.” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, has “form, external appearance.” Kittel also notes that morphe and schema are often interchangeable. Robert Thayer, in his well-respected lexicon, has under morphe, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.” Thayer says that the Greeks said that children reflect the appearance (morphe) of their parents, something easily noticed in every culture.

Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make morphe refer to that which is intrinsic and essential, in contrast to that which is outward and accidental, but says, “the distinction is rejected by many.”

And as an added twist, or as the original view in Greek and its culture of morphe:

From secular writings we learn that the Greeks used morphe to describe when the gods changed their appearance. Kittel points out that in pagan mythology, the gods change their forms (morphe), and especially notes Aphrodite, Demeter and Dionysus as three who did. This is clearly a change of appearance, not nature. Josephus, a contemporary of the Apostles, used morphe to describe the shape of statues (Bauer’s Lexicon).

I do not think that Yeshua is a shape-shifter either as the one God, although it does sound like the common and current -ism religious belief system that you support.

 

[JustMe]

@Lambano ..just thought of other places in scripture where morphe is used:

The Gospel of Mark has a short reference to the well-known story in Luke 24:13-33 about Jesus appearing to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared “in a different form (morphe)” to these two men so that they did not recognize him (16:12). This is very clear. Jesus did not have a different “essential nature” when he appeared to the two disciples. He simply had a different outward appearance.

The Jews translating the Septuagint used morphe several times, and it always referred to the outward appearance. Job says, “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form (morphe) stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice (Job 4:15 and 16). There is no question here that morphe refers to the outward appearance. Isaiah has the word morphe in reference to man-made idols: “The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in the form (morphe) of man, of man in all his glory, that it may dwell in a shrine” (Isa. 44:13). It would be absurd to assert that morphe referred to “the essential nature” in this verse, as if a wooden carving could have the “essential nature” of man. The verse is clear: the idol has the “outward appearance” of a man. According to Daniel 3:19, after Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s image, he became enraged and “the form (morphe) of his countenance” changed. The NASB says, “his facial expression” changed. Nothing in his nature changed, but the people watching could see that his outward appearance changed.

Morphe has to mean outward appearance and in the case in question of Christ his mental outlook or image as his Father.

The Bible speaks of evil men who have a “form” (morphosis) of godliness (2 Tim. 3:5). Their inner nature was evil, but they had an outward appearance of being godly. On the Mount of Transfiguration, Christ was “transformed” (metamorphoomai) before the apostles (Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:2). They did not see Christ get a new nature, rather they saw his outward form profoundly change.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Nowhere in the book of John or any other part of scripture is it stated that Yeshua is God. Instead, try to disprove my assertions and remarks on this topic of the original post or thread if you dare. Naturally, you cannot, so you resort to belittling and twisting my words. This amounts to saying nothing meaningful and only highlights your lack of knowledge on the subject.

You are also free to add words that alter and distort my post into a completely different meaning and wrongly conclude that I claimed Yeshua was merely a man. You said I tried to reduce Yeshua to a so-called mere man, not me—remember that in the future. From your extreme viewpoint, it might seem that way, but it is not the truth.

I suggest you focus on the topic at hand and please comment on the original post or thread subject if you can, without wandering into a confusing maze of scripture that you also do not fully understand. This will not help you win any arguments, I’m afraid. It only shows how unprepared you are to engage in a serious Bible study on this subject and how little you know about this particular passage or topic.

First, show me your understanding of Philippians 2:1-11, and how your views align or differ, then perhaps I will listen and offer some thoughtful feedback.

Here is your verse. Do you obey your verses? Phil. 2:9-11?
9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Do your knees bow to the name of Jesus in whatever language it appears?

Mankind was created in the likeness of our triune God. Do you know what triune means? It means one God with three parts to Him, just like you and me. When you can understand 1 Thess. 5:23 "...whole spirit, soul and body" as meaning one person, you might be able to breakthrough and understand how Jesus, His Spirit and the Father are one God.

Jesus is the body that has a brain. And in that brain lives a mind. Which is greater? The brain or the mind in it? The mind of course. That is why Jesus glorifies the Mind who is the Father. And that is the explanation of your verse. It doesn't mean that the body is not part of that one person in whom lives the mind. And that is why Jesus is God and embodies the whole Godhead. The soul is not in the mind, but in the heart or conscience. The mind controls both the soul and the body.

I questioned your words that Jesus is not a pre-existent deity. And you side-stepped these proof verses.

1. The deity of Jesus. Word was God in John 1 and became flesh and dwelt among us - Jesus.

2. The pre-existence of Jesus. John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
Jesuse did announce that He was God to the Pharisees when He said, "before Abraham was, I AM." The Pharisees immediately recognized what you can't. That Jesus was claiming to be God by using the name of God. "I AM." Otherwise, why did the Pharisees pick up stones to stone Him?

I don't want to fight with you. I'm not a Trinitarian. I'm a Triunitarian.

You said no where does the Bible show that Jesus was "a pre-existent deity." I showed you two out of many scriptures that plainly show exactly that, and you said I twisted your words. How? Do you actually believe Jesus was pre-existent and God, and I twisted your words to say what? Did I mistake you and you DO believe in the pre-existence and deity of Jesus? If not, then I did not twist anything.

 

[ProDeo]

Nowhere in the book of John or any other part of scripture is it stated that Yeshua is God. Instead, try to disprove my assertions and remarks on this topic of the original post or thread if you dare. Naturally, you cannot, so you resort to belittling and twisting my words. This amounts to saying nothing meaningful and only highlights your lack of knowledge on the subject.

@1stCenturyLady was exactly right, using Scripture.

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

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

The Lord Jesus (the Son of Man) preexisted with the Father before the world existed, period.

Anything else is denial.

 

[JustMe]

Here is your verse. Do you obey your verses? Phil. 2:9-11?
9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Do your knees bow to the name of Jesus in whatever language it appears?

Mankind was created in the likeness of our triune God. Do you know what triune means? It means one God with three parts to Him, just like you and me. When you can understand 1 Thess. 5:23 "...whole spirit, soul and body" as meaning one person, you might be able to breakthrough and understand how Jesus, His Spirit and the Father are one God.

Jesus is the body that has a brain. And in that brain lives a mind. Which is greater? The brain or the mind in it? The mind of course. That is why Jesus glorifies the Mind who is the Father. And that is the explanation of your verse. It doesn't mean that the body is not part of that one person in whom lives the mind. And that is why Jesus is God and embodies the whole Godhead. The soul is not in the mind, but in the heart or conscience. The mind controls both the soul and the body.

I questioned your words that Jesus is not a pre-existent deity. And you side-stepped these proof verses.

1. The deity of Jesus. Word was God in John 1 and became flesh and dwelt among us - Jesus.

2. The pre-existence of Jesus. John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
Jesuse did announce that He was God to the Pharisees when He said, "before Abraham was, I AM." The Pharisees immediately recognized what you can't. That Jesus was claiming to be God by using the name of God. "I AM." Otherwise, why did the Pharisees pick up stones to stone Him?

I don't want to fight with you. I'm not a Trinitarian. I'm a Triunitarian.

You said no where does the Bible show that Jesus was "a pre-existent deity." I showed you two out of many scriptures that plainly show exactly that, and you said I twisted your words. How? Do you actually believe Jesus was pre-existent and God, and I twisted your words to say what? Did I mistake you and you DO believe in the pre-existence and deity of Jesus? If not, then I did not twist anything.

Look, there's no intent on 'fighting' here, although your view and of others, is the most common, and it will get into a shouting match if you allow it. I do not want that at all. I want to stick to the subject at hand and not entertain completely different subjects ands contexts as you have done so into the mix. I did not side step those two other verses you brought into the discussion at all. I chose to not go there for good reason. Logically and orderly, each scripture passage must be understood separately first, then if there are commonalities with other similar passages then I think it is then the appropriate time to discuss them collectively. This has not happened and will not happen because far too many people are very impatient to get their 'knocks in' first for some reason, and it causes confusion to the current discussion by dropping in list of other not directly related verses.

The twisting of scripture was to do with your own one assumption caused by your own bias for your own belief system. Like when you referred to my view as reducing Yeshua to a mere man without the knowledge and basis for it. And this type of 'false' claim is drawn ultimately from altering the intended meaning of certain scripture in the process, if you did not realize it. Maybe you can now recognize I do not support a mere common man in my discussion of him.

Note, if you want to start a discussion and by-pass this current one then let me know by opening up with say John 1 and your understanding of what John has to say about Christ, the light for man or mankind.

 

[JustMe]

@1stCenturyLady was exactly right, using Scripture.

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

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

The Lord Jesus (the Son of Man) preexisted with the Father before the world existed, period.

Anything else is denial.

And can do you really understand every one of these one-verse explanations supporting your religious views of the Son of God, and also his God?

 

[ProDeo]

And can do you really understand every one of these one-verse explanations supporting your religious views of the Son of God, and also his God?

What a weak answer.

The Godhead is all over the NT and OT.

Yahweh
Isa 41:4 Who has performed and done this, calling the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
Isa 48:12 “Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last.

Jesus
Rev 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last,
Rev 2:8 “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.
Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

Do you think a mere human can identify himself to Yahweh ?

Do you think a mere human can pay the price for the sins of the whole world ?

God fixed the problem of sin Himself, not a mere human.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Look, there's no intent on 'fighting' here, although your view and of others, is the most common, and it will get into a shouting match if you allow it. I do not want that at all. I want to stick to the subject at hand and not entertain completely different subjects ands contexts as you have done so into the mix. I did not side step those two other verses you brought into the discussion at all. I chose to not go there for good reason. Logically and orderly, each scripture passage must be understood separately first, then if there are commonalities with other similar passages then I think it is then the appropriate time to discuss them collectively. This has not happened and will not happen because far too many people are very impatient to get their 'knocks in' first for some reason, and it causes confusion to the current discussion by dropping in list of other not directly related verses.

The twisting of scripture was to do with your own one assumption caused by your own bias for your own belief system. Like when you referred to my view as reducing Yeshua to a mere man without the knowledge and basis for it. And this type of 'false' claim is drawn ultimately from altering the intended meaning of certain scripture in the process, if you did not realize it. Maybe you can now recognize I do not support a mere common man in my discussion of him.

Note, if you want to start a discussion and by-pass this current one then let me know by opening up with say John 1 and your understanding of what John has to say about Christ, the light for man or mankind.

Presuming that “taking the form of a servant” means “adding a human nature” to himself. The words “becoming in the likeness of men,” or “coming to be in the likeness of men” qualify the expression “taking the form of a servant.” In context, the likeness of men is contrasted with the form of God. The Greek word here is saying that Yeshua came into his existence in the likeness of humans.

"Came into his existence" shows you do not know of His pre-existence.

You seem to believe Jesus was never with the Father before the world began contrary to Scripture.

 

[marks]

I am uncertain about the point you are trying to convey here.

Without prematurely opening up too much discussion, and to avoid the tendency to criticize it and then stray onto an unnecessary path, I will simply respond to your statement regarding your perspective that there is a sequence of development in Yeshua's form or change of character.

"Clearly the form of God was prior to the form of a servant."

Technically, Yeshua first reflected the image of his Father, and then he was revealed as the humble servant who endured suffering... leading to the Cross.

Yeshua became the image of God, his Father, when he was anointed as the Messiah. He then carried his Father's word and was empowered by his Spirit. Knowing this image of his Father within him, Yeshua chose not to claim credit or use these powers for himself; instead, he became the servant of humanity and his God. The evil one tested his determination by tempting Yeshua to use his Father's power in the wilderness, but Yeshua immediately declined and even quoted his Father's word.

He had already been found in the form of a man, therefore, once again, your proposed chronology doesn't fit.

God took on the form of a man, this is the clear teaching in this passage.

Paul continued:

Philippians 2:9-11 KJV
9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11) And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

In which He tells us just as Isaiah did, that at the Name of Jesus, who is also YHWH, everyone will bow. If Paul were not making this association, his writing would have been considered blaphemy. Isaiah prophesied all will bow to YHWH, and Paul tells us it will be Jesus to whom all will bow.

Much love!

 

[JustMe]

@1stCenturyLady was exactly right, using Scripture.

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

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

The Lord Jesus (the Son of Man) preexisted with the Father before the world existed, period.

Anything else is denial.

Let me answer your post in full as you obviously do not understand the scripture you listed, when I get around to it, soon. I hope you might ponder on it and consider its value.

 

[JustMe]

"Came into his existence" shows you do not know of His pre-existence.

You seem to believe Jesus was never with the Father before the world began contrary to Scripture.

Can you explain the last sentence with some scripture. thanks

 

[JustMe]

He had already been found in the form of a man, therefore, once again, your proposed chronology doesn't fit.

God took on the form of a man, this is the clear teaching in this passage.

Paul continued:

Philippians 2:9-11 KJV
9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11) And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

In which He tells us just as Isaiah did, that at the Name of Jesus, who is also YHWH, everyone will bow. If Paul were not making this association, his writing would have been considered blaphemy. Isaiah prophesied all will bow to YHWH, and Paul tells us it will be Jesus to whom all will bow.

Much love!

You said, "God took on the form of a man, this is the clear teaching in this passage." In your dreams. Scripture never speaks of this. Show this scripture or it's passage else stop saying it in as its not true?

Yes, God, Yeshua's Father did indeed exalt him, above all creation, for what his Son accomplished, and his name shall be praise in adoration, and it was entirely for the glory of his Father, not his Son as as read carefully ALL of verses 9-11

And no, Yeshua is not YHWH either, as it should be obvious by now, as you have tried to squeeze that false claim in. Yes, Yeshua is lord of course and is not God.

Again, if you missed the point Paul was clearly making....Yeshua, exalted and praised from/in all creation and designated and called lord (not LORD or YHWH) for the glory of God or YHWH (verse 11), his Father, NOT for the glory of his Son. I hope you get that point. It's so important to clear this up and get all our facts straight on such a topic.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Can you explain the last sentence with some scripture. thanks

This is a repeat of post #10, but I'll expound.

2. The pre-existence of Jesus. John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.


Then in John 1 if shows that it was Jesus who took part with the Father to create everything.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Do you comprehend that Jesus is the Word, and the Word was God?

How about "I AM"?

Jesus announced that He was God to the Pharisees when He said, "before Abraham was, I AM." The Pharisees immediately recognized what you can't. That Jesus was claiming to be God by using the name of God. "I AM." Otherwise, why did the Pharisees pick up stones to stone Him?

Exodus 3:

13 Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?”

14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” 15 Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’