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

[Fred J]

Now try & convince those who claim Christ was created & or is the archangel Micheal

Christ is indeed 'created' as scripture quotes simply put into perspective and wisdom from above is need to grasp it in faith.

Archangel Michael, Christ is not, because getting to Daniel being the Word then, He was restricted or delayed by angels who guarded nations.

But Archangel Michael, General of GOD's army in Heaven, came to the Word's rescue, giving Him a safe passage to get to Daniel.

Remember?

 

[rvmb]

Christ is indeed 'created' as scripture quotes simply put into perspective and wisdom from above is need to grasp it in faith.

Archangel Michael, Christ is not, because getting to Daniel being the Word then, He was restricted or delayed by angels who guarded nations.

But Archangel Michael, General of GOD's army in Heaven, came to the Word's rescue, giving Him a safe passage to get to Daniel.

Remember?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>"came to the Word's rescue"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Christ is indeed 'created'""
List the verses please :)

 

[Fred J]

Wow, you've lit up the switchboard with other successive posts that I most probably will not get to right now.. You don't get extra credit for volume or quantity only in truth and quality..

Let me just address your initial post- one post at a time might be more prudent. I did not look at verses 10-12 as this speaks solely of the Father God as this is part of a poem to praise and glorify him and his work you know. I believe you wanted to understand the Father's view of his Son in this post.

People can 'twist' and 'turn' calling em' poem and so, but least ye 'shortsighted' perceive, there's prophecy within that 'shall come to pass'.

The same you've not read all my replies and even got to them and responding, the same fruit of yours never read and understand the Holy Bible in context yet responding and 'exposed' by your fruit.

I believe we require the perspective of a mature adult rather than that of a child. Similar to a child, individuals can easily insert irrelevant words or new ideas that disrupt the sacred words of God.

That's what you're doing like others 'little child' yourself.

Hebrews 1 : 1-9 meaning... what does it convey?

Definitely not your 'twist' & 'turn' version as 'blind guides' leading the 'blind'.

Same like Jesus mention about the disobedient Israelites, for they'll see and see but unable to see, hear and hear but unable to hear.

Same as the modern day Rabbi Tovia Singer who's another disobedient 'blind guide', who testified that Isaiah ch. 53
refers not to Jesus or the Messiah, but Israel.

Jesus Himself didn't bother to take time and disciple Nicodemus about just one subject, born again, because it would be absurd to force a blind man to see.

The same you need to receive John 3:3&5, if not you'll be unable to 'see' nor 'enter' the Kingdom of GOD, as just how your fruit show at present.

 

[Fred J]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>"came to the Word's rescue"

Read for yourself in the book of Daniel, who came to the rescue for the someone like a son of man.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Christ is indeed 'created'""

Colossians 1:
15. Who is the image of the invisible GOD, the firstborn of every creature:

Christ is 'listed' in the category of creature or creation, and do the math that He is referred to as the 'firstborn'.

 

[rvmb]

Read for yourself in the book of Daniel, who came to the rescue for the someone like a son of man.

Colossians 1:
15. Who is the image of the invisible GOD, the firstborn of every creature:

Christ is 'listed' in the category of creature or creation, and do the math that He is referred to as the 'firstborn'.

Where does it say CREATED ??
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
So the Word made the Word ?
FuJer can't help himself :)
Where are the verses that confirm your claims :-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"came to the Word's rescue"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Christ is indeed 'created'""

 

[Fred J]

Read for yourself in the book of Daniel, who came to the rescue for the someone like a son of man.

Colossians 1:
15. Who is the image of the invisible GOD, the firstborn of every creature:

Christ is 'listed' in the category of creature or creation, and do the math that He is referred to as the 'firstborn'.

What do you furthermore understand about Christ is the only begotten of the FATHER?

Meaning, Christ came from the FATHER, apparently made or created by GOD the FATHER HIMSELF.

While every single creature or creation to positions and powers in Heaven or on earth was created by Christ, apparently begotten of the Son.

Especially, man made in the image of the FATHER and Son, John 1:9-11, came to the world He made, the world knew Him not.( world meaning, the people of non-Jewish descend)

Came unto His own, and His own received Him not. (meaning, people of Jewish descend).

It's not like GOD had a wife and Christ is HIS 'firstborn', but rather scripturally in context, Christ is the 'firstborn' of every creature or creation.

Period

 

[Fred J]

Where does it say CREATED ??
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
So the Word made the Word ?
FuJer can't help himself :)
Where are the verses that confirm your claims :-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"came to the Word's rescue"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Christ is indeed 'created'""

Am not here to wrestle with you, either you get it or you don't, and no need to challenge like a kid or bully who's better.

The person who does such thing are either 'empty' or 'blind' or 'insecure', and just vocal to get attention, no thank you.

 

[rvmb]

Am not here to wrestle with you, either you get it or you don't, and no need to challenge like a kid or bully who's better.

The person who does such thing are either 'empty' or 'blind' or 'insecure', and just vocal to get attention, no thank you.

Apparently you are here simply to make claims that you cannot support with Scripture.

 

[Fred J]

Where does it say CREATED ??
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
So the Word made the Word ?
FuJer can't help himself :)
Where are the verses that confirm your claims :-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"came to the Word's rescue"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Christ is indeed 'created'""

Folly!

Use a 'spectacle' shortsighted, for GOD the FATHER first made the Word and Him only period

If you're unable to perceive, no need to respond on it, that is if you're wise.

 

[rvmb]

Folly!

Use a 'spectacle' shortsighted, for GOD the FATHER first made the Word and Him only period

If you're unable to perceive, no need to respond on it, that is if you're wise.

Request is for verses, not folly
Where are the verses that confirm your claims :-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"came to the Word's rescue"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Christ is indeed 'created'""

 

[Fred J]

Apparently you are here simply to make claims that you cannot support with Scripture.

Ha, ha, ha, apparently it's absurd to force a blind man or an hypocrite to see.

You yourself have not quoted scripture to refute my claim, who apparently says one thing and does another.

 

[rvmb]

Ha, ha, ha, apparently it's absurd to force a blind man or an hypocrite to see.

You yourself have not quoted scripture to refute my claim, who apparently says one thing and does another.

Still no verses, no surprise
Where are the verses that confirm your claims :-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"came to the Word's rescue"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Christ is indeed 'created'""

 

[Fred J]

Still no verses, no surprise
Where are the verses that confirm your claims :-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"came to the Word's rescue"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Christ is indeed 'created'""

Blind!

 

[Fred J]

"Sayonara little rvmb!"

 

[rvmb]

Blind!

Where are the verses that confirm your claims :-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"came to the Word's rescue"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Christ is indeed 'created'""

 

[Stumpmaster]

(Php 2:6) Who, though being in the mental image of God

Theological Assessment:

Which Bible version inserts the word “mental” in Philippians 2:6?​

No published Bible translation—major, minor, historical, or modern—uses the word “mental” in Philippians 2:6.
None.

The wording you saw:

“Who, though being in the mental image of God…”

is not from any recognized Bible version. It is a paraphrase created by the forum author on the page you’re reading. christianityboard.com

How we know this from the page​

The page shows the author rewriting several verses in Philippians 2 with added interpretive words:

• “mental image of God” (v.6)
• “mental attitude of a servant” (v.7)

These are not translation choices found in any Bible. They are interpretive insertions meant to support the author’s argument that morphē (“form”) refers to mindset or outward expression rather than divine nature. The author even says the traditional translations are biased and that his paraphrase reflects what he believes Paul meant. christianityboard.com

What real translations say instead​

Here are the standard renderings:

Translation	Philippians 2:6
KJV	“Who, being in the form of God…”
ESV	“Who, though he was in the form of God…”
NIV	“Who, being in very nature God…”
NASB	“Who, although He existed in the form of God…”
CSB	“Who, existing in the form of God…”

None use “mental,” “mental image,” or anything similar.

Why the author added “mental”​

From the page’s argument:

• The author believes morphē means outward expression or mindset, not divine essence.
• To reinforce that interpretation, he inserts “mental” into the paraphrase.
• This is part of his broader claim that Philippians 2:6–11 is about Jesus’ humility during his earthly life, not pre‑existence or incarnation. christianityboard.com

So the word “mental” is the author’s interpretive gloss, not a translation.

In summary​

No Bible version inserts “mental” in Philippians 2:6.
The wording comes from the forum author’s personal paraphrase, created to support his interpretation of the passage.

If you want, I can also:

• Show how different translations handle morphē
• Explain why some translations say “form” and others say “nature”
• Compare the author’s paraphrase with literal Greek structure

 

[rvmb]

"Sayonara little rvmb!"

Here are 2 of your current claims :-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"came to the Word's rescue"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Christ is indeed 'created'""
List the verses you used to come to the above conclusions

 

[Fred J]

Read for yourself in the book of Daniel, who came to the rescue for the someone like a son of man.

Colossians 1:
15. Who is the image of the invisible GOD, the firstborn of every creature:

Christ is 'listed' in the category of creature or creation, and do the math that He is referred to as the 'firstborn'.

Readers,

Beware of ignorant 'trolls', when scripture and explanation already given in my replies.

 

[Fred J]

What do you furthermore understand about Christ is the only begotten of the FATHER?

Meaning, Christ came from the FATHER, apparently made or created by GOD the FATHER HIMSELF.

While every single creature or creation to positions and powers in Heaven or on earth was created by Christ, apparently begotten of the Son.

Especially, man made in the image of the FATHER and Son, John 1:9-11, came to the world He made, the world knew Him not.( world meaning, the people of non-Jewish descend)

Came unto His own, and His own received Him not. (meaning, people of Jewish descend).

It's not like GOD had a wife and Christ is HIS 'firstborn', but rather scripturally in context, Christ is the 'firstborn' of every creature or creation.

Period

Readers,

As you can furthermore see and read for yourself, and agree or disagree, and witness 'trolls' respond with a different agenda.

 

[JustMe]

Theological Assessment:

Which Bible version inserts the word “mental” in Philippians 2:6?​

No published Bible translation—major, minor, historical, or modern—uses the word “mental” in Philippians 2:6.
None.

The wording you saw:



is not from any recognized Bible version. It is a paraphrase created by the forum author on the page you’re reading. christianityboard.com

How we know this from the page​

The page shows the author rewriting several verses in Philippians 2 with added interpretive words:

• “mental image of God” (v.6)
• “mental attitude of a servant” (v.7)

These are not translation choices found in any Bible. They are interpretive insertions meant to support the author’s argument that morphē (“form”) refers to mindset or outward expression rather than divine nature. The author even says the traditional translations are biased and that his paraphrase reflects what he believes Paul meant. christianityboard.com

What real translations say instead​

Here are the standard renderings:

Translation	Philippians 2:6
KJV	“Who, being in the form of God…”
ESV	“Who, though he was in the form of God…”
NIV	“Who, being in very nature God…”
NASB	“Who, although He existed in the form of God…”
CSB	“Who, existing in the form of God…”

None use “mental,” “mental image,” or anything similar.

Why the author added “mental”​

From the page’s argument:

• The author believes morphē means outward expression or mindset, not divine essence.
• To reinforce that interpretation, he inserts “mental” into the paraphrase.
• This is part of his broader claim that Philippians 2:6–11 is about Jesus’ humility during his earthly life, not pre‑existence or incarnation. christianityboard.com

So the word “mental” is the author’s interpretive gloss, not a translation.

In summary​

No Bible version inserts “mental” in Philippians 2:6.
The wording comes from the forum author’s personal paraphrase, created to support his interpretation of the passage.

If you want, I can also:

• Show how different translations handle morphē
• Explain why some translations say “form” and others say “nature”
• Compare the author’s paraphrase with literal Greek structure

I think you are overreacting to this issue by using phrases like "No Bible version inserts 'mental' in Philippians 2:6." You seem to have missed the main point or argument here. Take a moment to calm down and focus on understanding the text’s meaning instead of jumping on what might seem like a humorous moment. Please show a bit more maturity.

This version, the NEV Bible, is an interpretive translation that seeks to convey meaning in scripture rather than strictly adhering to a precise Greek text translation that might obscure the message. Its purpose is to highlight that Yeshua’s mind was aligned with his Father’s in purpose and determination, supporting the plan for our salvation. The overall message of Philippians, as Paul presents it, is for us to adopt the mindset of the Messiah, right? This mindset includes humility, servanthood, and obedience, as Yeshua exemplified in his life.

I wouldn’t bother comparing other translations to disprove this interpretation because it aligns with Paul’s theme in the text. If you miss this, then the real issue is your failure to grasp the truth in the verse you singled out for criticism, overlooking the essential meaning. Don’t you want to understand scripture better instead of remaining closed off and holding onto a cryptic view that only fuels controversy and speculation?

Additionally, the term ‘morphe’ here does not mean inner essence or nature. That extreme interpretation makes the passage very difficult to understand, if not impossible. It seems you’re comfortable with a flawed translation that maintains deliberate ambiguity, just so you can claim without solid evidence that this word supports Yeshua being a god-man once again. Meanwhile, you avoid confronting the truth that Yeshua is truly the Son of God and the Messiah, which is significant in itself.