The problem with Phil. 2:6, 7 (part 2)

  • 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!

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Harpagmos (Part 1)

Now notice how these two trinitarian Bibles have rendered another part of Phil. 2:6:

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-translated 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.

And the New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by trinitarians) gives us these meanings: “harpagmos; from [harpazo]; the act of seizing or the thing seized.” And, “harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away.” Notice that all meanings 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.

(Continued in Harpagmos part 2)
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Harpagmos (part 2)

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 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).

Many trinitarian translators, however, either make nonsense out of the meaning of Phil. 2:6 by actually using the proper meaning of “robbery” or “taken by force” without showing God’s clear superiority over Jesus which the context demands, or, instead, making sense of it by choosing a word that doesn’t have the proper meaning of “taking by force.”

For example, the King James Version (KJV) does use “robbery” (a nearly-accurate meaning for harpagmos) but obviously mangles the meaning of the rest of the statement so that it doesn’t even make proper sense: “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” This is a nonsensical statement even by itself. In context it is even more inappropriate!

Trinitarian scholar R. P. Martin, for example, believes the context (especially the obvious contrast of verses 6 and 7) clearly proves that harpagmos in verse 6 means Christ refused to seize equality with God. Emphasizing the fact that this is a contrast with verse 6, verse 7 begins with “but [alla].” In accord with this, he tells us,

“V[erse] 6b states what Christ might have done [or could have attempted to do], i.e. seized equality with God; v. 7 states what he chose to do, i.e. give himself.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3, p. 604.

The highly regarded (and trinitarian) The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, says:

“Although the Son of God in his pre-existent being was in the form [morphe - external appearance] of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal with God (Phil. 2:6). In his earthly existence he was obedient to God, even unto death on the cross (Phil. 2:8) .... After the completion of his work on earth he has indeed been raised to the right hand of God (Eph. 1:20; 1 Pet. 3:22) .... But he is still not made equal to God. Although completely co-ordinated with God, he remains subordinate to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28).” - p. 80, vol. 2. [Emphasis found in quotations is nearly always added by me, as it also is here.]

When even a number of the best trinitarian scholars are willing to admit the actual meaning of harpagmos [and morphe] at Phil. 2:6, it becomes necessary for honest-hearted, truth-seeking individuals to admit that Phil. 2:6 not only does not identify Jesus as God, but that it clearly shows Jesus is not God!
 
Last edited:

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Harpagmos (Part 1)

Now notice how these two trinitarian Bibles have rendered another part of Phil. 2:6:
GINOLJC, @tigger 2. I see no problem in Phil. 2:6, 7. let's look at the verse clearly. Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God".
#1. Thought G2233 ἡγέομαι hegeomai is a "VERB" and not a Noun, according to Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments
G2233 ἡγέομαι hegeomai (hee-ǰe'-o-mai) v.
1. to lead (with official authority).
2. (specially) to govern.
3. (figuratively, of the mind) to consider.
4. (militarily) to command (as a general of an army). Not used of the Redeemed of Christ.
[middle voice of a (presumed) strengthened form of G71]
KJV: account, (be) chief, count, esteem, governor, judge, have the rule over, suppose, think
Root(s): G71

so to think on something is a "thought", and as definition #3 states it's figuratively, hence subjective, abstract. so I see nothing wrong with the KJV translation here.

#2. robbery G725 ἁρπαγμός harpagmos (har-pag-mos') which is a "NOUN" and not a verb here.
G725 ἁρπαγμός harpagmos (har-pag-mos') n.
(properly, concrete) plunder.
[from G726]
KJV: robbery
Root(s): G726

here Robbery is a concrete, and not abstract, but objectively. here, being in concrete form, flesh and bone. there is nothing to "TAKE AWAY" from his being deity. because Plunder, when used as a noun means, anything taken by robbery, theft, or fraud. so as for God being in flesh it did not TAKE ANYTHING AWAY from him being deity. so again I see nothing wrong with the KJV translation here also.

so the two words you zero in on takes away nothing in the cited verses.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@tigger 2, now if you want to get at the truth of Phil. 2:6, 7, you might want to zero in on "form" and research out it's root. that will answer G2233 ἡγέομαι hegeomai, and G725 ἁρπαγμός harpagmos for you.
 

KBCid

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2011
764
292
63
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
When even a number of the best trinitarian scholars are willing to admit the actual meaning of harpagmos [and morphe] at Phil. 2:6, it becomes necessary for honest-hearted, truth-seeking individuals to admit that Phil. 2:6 not only does not identify Jesus as God, but that it clearly shows Jesus is not God!

Indeed you are quite correct. The Son is not the Father nor is the Son part of some Trinitarian mystery. The Father or uncaused cause has always existed and the Son was the first born of the Father and as such the Son is an effect caused by the uncaused cause. For God has stated that it is not good to be alone and only one who has experienced being alone can utter such a statement.
Now there is one thing that all should understand, in Jewish culture the first born Son wields all the power of his Father since he would be the normal heir. Another thing to consider in this respect is that anything that comes from the Spirit of God is also considered a god which is why the Son can be considered a god and why any of us can be considered a god. The difference of course is that an image of God is not God in the true sense of its meaning.
It is nice to see that you have discerned to truth about the Father and the Son.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Richard_oti

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Indeed you are quite correct. The Son is not the Father nor is the Son part of some Trinitarian mystery. The Father or uncaused cause has always existed and the Son was the first born of the Father and as such the Son is an effect caused by the uncaused cause. For God has stated that it is not good to be alone and only one who has experienced being alone can utter such a statement.
Now there is one thing that all should understand, in Jewish culture the first born Son wields all the power of his Father since he would be the normal heir. Another thing to consider in this respect is that anything that comes from the Spirit of God is also considered a god which is why the Son can be considered a god and why any of us can be considered a god. The difference of course is that an image of God is not God in the true sense of its meaning.
It is nice to see that you have discerned to truth about the Father and the Son.
I would like to zero in on this part of your statement. "The Son is not the Father nor is the Son part of some Trinitarian mystery".
the Son is not the Father? question, "is the Son Saviour" yes or no.
 

KBCid

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2011
764
292
63
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I would like to zero in on this part of your statement. "The Son is not the Father nor is the Son part of some Trinitarian mystery".
the Son is not the Father? question, "is the Son Saviour" yes or no.
Here you go;
1 John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
show us how one can twist scripture to mean what is on the agenda today.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Here you go;
1 John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
show us how one can twist scripture to mean what is on the agenda today.
SAVIOUR? no twist, just the truth by scripture, Isaiah 35:4 "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you". now who came and SAVED us? GOD right, let's see who this saviour is. Isaiah 43:11 "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.". now there is only one SAVIOUR and it's the LORD (all caps). so KBCid are you saying that the LORD all caps is the son.... (smile). I'll be waiting for that answer.

Oh the beauty of "Diversified Oneness", it will kill you every time.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It's just amazing how people when confronted with the truth, they reject it. they see it written in plain English.... and in the bible for all to see. when confronted with the truth, the first reaction, oh you twisting the scriptures. or is it I'm just exposing your false beliefs by scripture.

but there is hope.... and it's in one word...... REPENT.

peace in Christ
 

KBCid

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2011
764
292
63
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
SAVIOUR? no twist, just the truth by scripture, Isaiah 35:4 "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you". now who came and SAVED us?
GOD right, let's see who this saviour is. Isaiah 43:11 "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.". now there is only one SAVIOUR and it's the LORD (all caps). so KBCid are you saying that the LORD all caps is the son.... (smile). I'll be waiting for that answer.
Oh the beauty of "Diversified Oneness", it will kill you every time.

The Father who sent his Son was also with him and in him as it is written;

John 8:28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.”

John 14:1“Don’t let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God, and trust also in me.

John 14:10...The words I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work through me.

John 14:24Anyone who doesn’t love me will not obey me. And remember, my words are not my own. What I am telling you is from the Father who sent me.

Jude 1:24 To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy 25to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

Both the Son and the Father who works through the Son were here on the earth to show men how they too could be saved. The Son who was our example has shown us that if we have the HS in us then we like He can overcome what the flesh alone could not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Richard_oti

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Father who sent his Son was also with him and in him as it is written;

John 8:28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.”

John 14:1“Don’t let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God, and trust also in me.

John 14:10...The words I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work through me.

John 14:24Anyone who doesn’t love me will not obey me. And remember, my words are not my own. What I am telling you is from the Father who sent me.

Jude 1:24 To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy 25to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

Both the Son and the Father who works through the Son were here on the earth to show men how they too could be saved. The Son who was our example has shown us that if we have the HS in us then we like He can overcome what the flesh alone could not.
you avoided my question. one verse, Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace". is the Son the "EVERLASTING FATHER". yes or no.

then we can understand John 8:28 , John 14:1, John 14:10, and John 14:24. now KBCid, don't go on a tangent, just answer the question. according to Isaiah 9:6 is the Son (JESUS) the Father, the Everlasting Father, yes or no. and this will put an end to your nonsense. I'll be waiting for that answer.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
SAVIOUR? no twist, just the truth by scripture, Isaiah 35:4 "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you". now who came and SAVED us? GOD right, let's see who this saviour is. Isaiah 43:11 "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.". now there is only one SAVIOUR and it's the LORD (all caps). so KBCid are you saying that the LORD all caps is the son.... (smile). I'll be waiting for that answer.

Oh the beauty of "Diversified Oneness", it will kill you every time.
................................................
"I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no savior [yasha]." - Is. 43:11, ASV.

But is “saviour” (yasha in Hebrew, soter in NT Greek) really an exclusive title for Jehovah, or can it properly be applied to other individuals?

If Jehovah is insisting that no one but himself is ever to be called “saviour,” then He and His inspired Bible writers would never call anyone else by that exclusive title.

But, when we read that Othniel (Judges 3:9) and Ehud (Judges 3:15) are both called “saviour,” should we really believe they are both Jehovah because “besides [Jehovah] there is no saviour”? If so, we have a new “trinity”: The Father, Ehud, and Othniel!!

(The very same Hebrew word translated “saviour” at Is. 43:11 is translated “deliverer” in judges 3:9 and 3:15, KJV - compare ASV above)

The popular trinitarian study Bible NIVSB says in its introduction to the book of Judges:

“Title - The title ['Judges'] describes the leaders Israel had from the time of the elders who outlived Joshua until the time of the monarchy. Their principal purpose is best expressed in 2:16: ‘Then the LORD [Jehovah] raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of ... raiders.’ Since it was God who permitted the oppression and raised up deliverers [saviors], he himself was Israel’s ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior].”

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology also tells us: “Because God is the initiator [source] of salvation, both he and Christ are called soter, saviour ...” - p. 78, Vol. 2, Zondervan, 1986.

And the Dictionary of the Bible tells us: “That God (or the Father) saves is basic in the NT…. Even more frequently is it affirmed that salvation comes through Jesus Christ….” - p. 762, John L. McKenzie, S.J., Macmillan Publ. Co., 1965. [emphasis added]

It should be clear that, as Ehud, Othniel, and others were saviors because Jehovah was providing salvation through them, so Jesus, in a much larger sense, is also savior because Jehovah (“the only God”) has provided salvation through him! - Compare 1 Thess. 5:9; 1 Peter 2:2 (modern translations); Rev. 7:10.

There have been many saviors or deliverers (yasha – Hebrew, and soter – NT Greek) found in scripture who saved others through appointment by or commandment of God. But there is only one most high source of salvation (or only one savior or deliverer [yasha/soter] in the highest sense of the word) – Jehovah, the Father.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
................................................
"I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no savior [yasha]." - Is. 43:11, ASV.

But is “saviour” (yasha in Hebrew, soter in NT Greek) really an exclusive title for Jehovah, or can it properly be applied to other individuals?

If Jehovah is insisting that no one but himself is ever to be called “saviour,” then He and His inspired Bible writers would never call anyone else by that exclusive title.

But, when we read that Othniel (Judges 3:9) and Ehud (Judges 3:15) are both called “saviour,” should we really believe they are both Jehovah because “besides [Jehovah] there is no saviour”? If so, we have a new “trinity”: The Father, Ehud, and Othniel!!

(The very same Hebrew word translated “saviour” at Is. 43:11 is translated “deliverer” in judges 3:9 and 3:15, KJV - compare ASV above)

The popular trinitarian study Bible NIVSB says in its introduction to the book of Judges:

“Title - The title ['Judges'] describes the leaders Israel had from the time of the elders who outlived Joshua until the time of the monarchy. Their principal purpose is best expressed in 2:16: ‘Then the LORD [Jehovah] raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of ... raiders.’ Since it was God who permitted the oppression and raised up deliverers [saviors], he himself was Israel’s ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior].”

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology also tells us: “Because God is the initiator [source] of salvation, both he and Christ are called soter, saviour ...” - p. 78, Vol. 2, Zondervan, 1986.

And the Dictionary of the Bible tells us: “That God (or the Father) saves is basic in the NT…. Even more frequently is it affirmed that salvation comes through Jesus Christ….” - p. 762, John L. McKenzie, S.J., Macmillan Publ. Co., 1965. [emphasis added]

It should be clear that, as Ehud, Othniel, and others were saviors because Jehovah was providing salvation through them, so Jesus, in a much larger sense, is also savior because Jehovah (“the only God”) has provided salvation through him! - Compare 1 Thess. 5:9; 1 Peter 2:2 (modern translations); Rev. 7:10.

There have been many saviors or deliverers (yasha – Hebrew, and soter – NT Greek) found in scripture who saved others through appointment by or commandment of God. But there is only one most high source of salvation (or only one savior or deliverer [yasha/soter] in the highest sense of the word) – Jehovah, the Father.
I Love this, how Ignorant can one be. did all those saviours you listed delivered Israel from physical bondage or Spiritual bondage. see that's one of the problem the Jews had with the Lord Jesus. they thought he was going to come in on a white horse and deliver them from Roman rule. (physically) ......... tigger 2, even in physical deliverance no mere man without God can deliver. see your mistake now. no man can fight a spirit..... LOL. my God. get that Unitarians Doctrine out of your head. see, I have heard that doctrine and corrected them on that. boy oh boy. oh well everyone have to learn

NEXT.
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,744
5,599
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@tigger 2 What then is your take on "Immanuel?"

Matthew 1:23
Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@tigger 2 What then is your take on "Immanuel?"

Matthew 1:23
Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

Personal names in scripture which include more than one word most often have 'small' words added in translation. These include words such as 'is,' 'to,' 'of,' 'the,' etc. For example, Elijah means 'God Jah' (Jehovah). However most Hebrew scholars will add to it and render it in English 'God is Jehovah.'
Abijah ('Father Jah') is translated as 'The Father is Jehovah' or 'My Father is Jehovah.'

Emmanuel (or Immanuel) may mean 'With Us God' or 'With us is God.' There are not many Bible translations which are not translated and published by trinitarians. So, it is natural that most of them would choose 'With Us God' (or 'God With Us'). But, nevertheless, there are a number of them which actually use 'God is With Us.' The reason may be that "God is with us" was a common term among Jews. It simply means that God is helping them in some way.

Bible names that included 'God' or 'Jah' were never meant to apply to the person himself, but were most often praises to God. That would also be a reason why a number of trinitarian scholars actually preferred 'God is With Us' as the proper translation for Emmanuel.

Matt. 1:21, "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means "God is with us." - NRSV.
 
Last edited:

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,744
5,599
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Personal names in scripture which include more than one word most often have 'small' words added in translation. These include words such as 'is,' 'to,' 'of,' 'the,' etc. For example, Elijah means 'God Jah' (Jehovah). However most Hebrew scholars will add to it and render it in English 'God is Jehovah.'
Abijah ('Father Jah') is translated as 'The Father is Jehovah' or 'My Father is Jehovah.'

Emmanuel (or Immanuel) may mean 'With Us God' or 'With us is God.' There are not many Bible translations which are not translated and published by trinitarians. So, it is natural that most of them would choose 'With Us God' (or 'God With Us'). But, nevertheless, there are a number of them which actually use 'God is With Us.' The reason may be that "God is with us" was a common term among Jews. It simply means that God is helping them in some way.

Bible names that included 'God' or 'Jah' were never meant to apply to the person himself, but were most often praises to God. That would also be a reason why a number of trinitarian scholars actually preferred 'God is With Us' as the proper translation for Emmanuel.

Matt. 1:21, "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means "God is with us." - NRSV.
And what of your take on "I and the Father are One?"
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi, Scott. I'm giving you a link to my blog. It will take you to my study of John 10:30 ("One"). And if you have questions about my personal studies of other trinity 'proofs,' you will find them listed on the right-hand column of the blog page. There is also a verse and subject search feature for some 'proof' studies which are not listed in the right-hand column.
Examining the Trinity: ONE - John 10:30
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is no problem with (Phil. 2:6-7). It becomes a problem for those who reject the Trinity. Rather it becomes a problem with those who do not believe Jesus is God.

That Jesus is God in the flesh, does not rise or fall with (Phil. 2:6-7).

Stranger