The problem with Phil. 2:6, 7

[tigger 2]

Morphe - part one
Although it has been rejected by even many trinitarian Bible scholars, some others (including some on this forum, e.g., "The problem with the trinity") attempt to force an interpretation of morphe (μορφῇ) that includes the idea of “essence” or “nature.” They do this only at Phil. 2:6 (Jesus “was in the form [morphe] of God”) because the true meaning of morphe will not allow for the trinitarian interpretation that Jesus is God. But with their forced interpretation of morphe at Phil. 2:6 they can say that Jesus had the “absolute essence” and “full nature” of God!

As even many trinitarian Bible scholars admit:

“Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.

Thayer agrees that morphe is “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance” - Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 418, Baker Book House. [Also see Young’s Analytical Concordance]

Liddell and Scott’s An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, p. 519, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing, tells us that morphe can mean “form, fashion, appearance” but does not include a meaning for “nature” or “essence.” It also shows that if one truly intends the meaning of “being, essence, nature of a thing” it is defined by the Greek word ousia (p. 579) or phusis (p. 876) not morphe.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged in one volume), Eerdmans, 1985, says “In general morphe in all its nuances represents what may be seen by the senses and not what is mentally apprehended.” - p. 608. It also tells us that when “nature” is intended by Paul, he uses physis (phusis). E.g., Ro. 11:21, 24; Gal. 2:15;4:8. - p. 1286.

The highly-esteemed BAGD (and BDAG) also defines morphe as “form, outward appearance, shape.” - p. 530.

It’s easy to see why even many trinitarian scholars disagree with the forced “nature” interpretation of morphe when you look at all the scriptural uses of morphe (according to Young’s Analytical Concordance, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978 printing and A Concordance of the Septuagint, Zondervan Publishing House, 1979 printing): Mark 16:12; Phil. 2:6, 7 in the New Testament and in the Old Testament Greek Septuagint of Job 4:16 “there was no form [morphe] before my eyes;” Is. 44:13 “makes it as the form [morphe] of a man;” Dan. 4:33 “my natural form [morphe] returned to me;” 5:6, 9, 10 “the king’s countenance [morphe] changed;” 7:28 “[Daniel’s] countenance [morphe] was changed.” - The Septuagint Version, Greek and English, Zondervan, 1976 printing.

 

[tigger 2]

Morphe - part two

Morphe is found at Mark 16:12 which is part of the “Long Ending” for the Gospel of Mark. Many scholars do not consider this as inspired scripture, but, instead, a later addition by someone to Mark’s original inspired writing. However, even if this is the case, it is still an example of how morphe was used in those times since copies of the “Long Ending” were in existence at least as early as 165 A.D. (Justin Martyr).

So notice especially how the New American Bible (1970), the Living Bible, The New English Bible, the Douay version, the New Life Version, and the Easy-to-Read Version translate morphe at Mark 16:12:

“he was revealed to them completely changed in appearance [morphe]” - NAB.
“they didn’t recognize him at first because he had changed his appearance [morphe].” - LB.
“he appeared in a different guise [morphe]” - NEB.
“he appeared in another shape [morphe]” - Douay.
“he did not look like he had looked [morphe] before to these two people” - NLV.
“Jesus did not look the same” - ETRV.
Mark 16:12 - “He appeared in another form. Luke explains this by saying that their eyes were held. If their eyes were influenced, of course, optically speaking, Jesus would appear in another form.” - People’s New Testament Notes.

Later, Jesus showed himself to two of his followers while they were walking in the country, but he did not look the same as before. - NCV.


These trinitarian translations show the meaning of morphe to be that of “external appearance” not “essence” or “nature”!

The trinitarian Living Bible even renders morphe at Phil. 2:7 as “disguise”! And the 1969 French lectionary rendered morphe at Phil. 2:6 as image!

The further uses of morphe (μορφῇ, the very same form as used at Phil 2:6) by those first Christian writers to write after the NT itself was written (the Apostolic Fathers - about 90 A.D. to 150 A.D.) make a trinitarian rendering at Philippians 2:6 even more incredible:

“There was no form [μορφῇ] before my eyes, but I heard a breeze and a voice.” 1 Clem. 39:3, The Apostolic Fathers, Sparks, 1978, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publ.

“I want to show you what the holy Spirit, which spoke with you in the form [μορφῇ] of the Church, showed you” - Hermas, Sim. 9:1:1, Sparks.

Also notice how the first Christian writers after the Apostolic fathers understood the meaning of morphe at Phil 2:6 itself:

“... who being in the shape of God, thought it not an object of desire to be treated like God” - Christian letter from 177 A.D. sometimes ascribed to Irenaeus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), p. 784, vol. 8.

“... who being in the image of God, ‘thought it not ...’” - Tertullian, about 200 A.D., ANF, p. 549, vol. 3.

“...who being appointed in the figure of God ...” - Cyprian, about 250 A.D., ANF, p. 545, vol. 5.

We can see, then, that, with the originally-intended meaning of morphe, Paul is saying that before Jesus came to earth he had a form or an external appearance resembling that of God (as do the other heavenly spirit persons, the angels, also).

 

[oldhermit]

The root problem in trying to comprehend that which is not accessible to the mind of man is that of linguistic valence. Linguistic valence refers to the definitions that we attach to words in order to connect language to an idea. The problem that shows up in defining the nature of God is that we connect definitions to human language to help us create a picture of God.

 

[tigger 2]

Morphe - part 3

So one in the morphe of a slave is one who has the appearance of a slave (but may not be in actuality - thus, “taking the disguise [morphe] of a slave” - Phil. 2:7, Living Bible.).

This is the obvious meaning of “form” here and it is still used in this sense even today. As an example The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (TNIDONTT) says:
“According to Gen 18:1 ff., God appeared to Abraham in the form of three men.” - p. 706, vol. 1.

Although scripturally incorrect, some trinitarians today say that God was in the form of three men (or angels). Obviously they mean only that he appeared that way to men, but really was not what his outward appearance seemed: he was not actually three men!!).

Isaiah 44:13, for example, says in the Septuagint: “The artificer having chosen a piece of wood, marks it out with a rule, and fits it with glue, and makes it as the form [morphe] of a man” - Zondervan, 1976 printing.

Now a “Wooditarian” might well claim that the wood in this scripture ‘clearly has the full and complete essence, nature, etc. of Man,’ but no objective, reasonable person would accept his wishful interpretation! Instead an honest interpretation can only be that the artificer made the piece of wood to appear like a man.

The fact that it is in the form (morphe) of a man shows conclusively (as we should know anyway) that it is not a man! If the writer of this scripture had somehow intended to say that the artificer had indeed made the piece of wood into a real man, he would not have used morphe. He would have written that the artificer “makes it into a man.” And, of course, it is equally true that Paul would not have said Jesus was in the form (morphe) of God if he had meant that Jesus was God! The use of morphe there shows that Jesus was not God!

(This use of "morphe of God" is akin to the "image of God" usage. If someone is "the image of God," he cannot be God.)

Yes, the fact that some trinitarians insist that morphe can mean the very essence or nature of a thing does not make it so. We know that ‘essence,’ ‘nature,’ ‘essential nature,’ etc. were not intended here by Paul simply because of the way this word is always used in scripture. We know it also by the fact that there were words available to Paul which really did mean ‘essence’ or ‘nature.’

If Paul, or any other Bible writer, had ever wished to use a word indicating the nature, substance, or essence of something, he could have used phusis or, possibly, even ousia.

 

[DPMartin]

The fact that it is in the form (morphe) of a man shows conclusively (as we should know anyway) that it is not a man! If the writer of this scripture had somehow intended to say that the artificer had indeed made the piece of wood into a real man, he would not have used morphe. He would have written that the artificer “makes it into a man.” And, of course, it is equally true that Paul would not have said Jesus was in the form (morphe) of God if he had meant that Jesus was God! The use of morphe there shows that Jesus was not God!

(This use of "morphe of God" is akin to the "image of God" usage. If someone is "the image of God," he cannot be God.)

Yes, the fact that some trinitarians insist that morphe can mean the very essence or nature of a thing does not make it so. We know that ‘essence,’ ‘nature,’ ‘essential nature,’ etc. were not intended here by Paul simply because of the way this word is always used in scripture. We know it also by the fact that there were words available to Paul which really did mean ‘essence’ or ‘nature.’

If Paul, or any other Bible writer, had ever wished to use a word indicating the nature, substance, or essence of something, he could have used phusis or, possibly, even ousia.

that all sound pretty good if you want to believe everything you've just said. but what does the Bible say? also is likeness a form of essence or nature? just what do you think Jesus is. the scriptures plainly state that:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

and in this understanding did Paul speak. Father Son and Holy Ghost is the God of Abraham (father) Isaac (son that was offered) and (presence or Spirit ) Jacob who was renamed Israel of which the Lord their God called them children of Israel hence the same as those who are born of the Holy Spirit (note the inclusion of the starting of twelve)

also there is God created who is the Creator and Judge (power) the presence of God who Jesus says is a Sprit and the same hovered over the waters and spoke. and then things where made but note also this was after heaven and earth were made and the God's Presence (Spirit ) became present in His creation then He spoke within the creation, and it heard and it did accordingly.

you are extracting one verse and then redefining its meaning according to your own views.

the theology of the "Trinity" many be bogus, or off skew, but the three are one and not one without the others is true. Jesus constantly said things like He was in the Father and the Father was in Him or "with" was used also if my memory serves.

and that horse dump posted here about we can't know the nature of God is one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on the potential believer in Christ. Jesus didn't come into the world so you can't know God.

your posting is intended to take out of context and redefine the meaning whether its you or your promoting of the same. its hose dump at best. the bible stipulates and continues to show that the Word of God, made flesh is of God therefore God.

the Power of God hence God is God, the Word of that same God is empowered by God hence God and the Presence of God (Holy Spirit) is most certainly God, because that which is in the Presence of God experiences Power of God and hears the Word of God. and One is not without the others and "the Lord is One"

thing is God made living creators with the same concept, the life of the living thing, the presence of the living thing in the place given it to live, and the expression of the living thing to communicate to other living things in the same place it is. if you notice animals always take notice of another living thing in its presence.

 

[tigger 2]

DPM answers:
"you are extracting one verse and then redefining its meaning according to your own views."

"your posting is intended to take out of context and redefine the meaning whether its you or your promoting of the same. its ho[r]se dump at best."
......................................

Apparently you did not even bother to read it. The meaning of morphe is not my "own views." I gave many quotes and references from respected trinitarian scholars (not my 'own views'). You did not!

Instead of addressing the meaning of morphe (which is what most of my posts above were about), apparently all you can do is quote John 1:1. If you wish to discuss the accuracy of the usual trinitarian translation of John 1:1c instead of posting "horse dump," let me know by starting a new discussion about it.

 

[Stranger]

tigger 2

What is your point? Are you arguing against the Trinity? Or are you arguing aginst Jesus being God? You wrote a lot, but didn't say much.

Stranger

 

[Dcopymope]

tigger 2

What is your point? Are you arguing against the Trinity? Or are you arguing aginst Jesus being God? You wrote a lot, but didn't say much.

Stranger

Yeah, a whole lot about nothing, as is typical from people on this forum.

 

[tigger 2]

"What is your point? Are you arguing against the Trinity? Or are you arguing aginst [sic] Jesus being God? You wrote a lot, but didn't say much."
...........................
I believe my very first paragraph made clear what my point was. I am quoting trinitarian NT scholars to show that the NT Greek word morphe is mistranslated as "essence," or "nature" at Phil, 2:6,7 in a number of Bibles. Instead it should be understood that Jesus was in an outward appearance (form) of God (or a god).

 

[Stranger]

"What is your point? Are you arguing against the Trinity? Or are you arguing aginst [sic] Jesus being God? You wrote a lot, but didn't say much."
...........................
I believe my very first paragraph made clear what my point was. I am quoting trinitarian NT scholars to show that the NT Greek word morphe is mistranslated as "essence," or "nature" at Phil, 2:6,7 in a number of Bibles. Instead it should be understood that Jesus was in an outward appearance (form) of God (or a god).

(Philippians 2:6-7) "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men."

Vines dictionary says of 'form', "Morphe denotes the special or characteristic form or feature of a person or thing; it is used with particular significance in the N.T., only of Christ, in Phil. 2:6,7, in the phrases 'being in the form of God', and 'taking the form of a servant.' An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: 'morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists...Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ...For the interpretation of 'the form of God' it is sufficient to say that (1) it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them, since they could have no actual existence without it; and (2) that it does not include in itself anything 'accidental' or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty, which may at one time be attached to the 'form,' at another separated from it...."

Seems Vines disagrees with you.

Stranger

 

[DPMartin]

DPM answers:
"you are extracting one verse and then redefining its meaning according to your own views."

"your posting is intended to take out of context and redefine the meaning whether its you or your promoting of the same. its ho[r]se dump at best."
......................................

Apparently you did not even bother to read it. The meaning of morphe is not my "own views." I gave many quotes and references from respected trinitarian scholars (not my 'own views'). You did not!

Instead of addressing the meaning of morphe (which is what most of my posts above were about), apparently all you can do is quote John 1:1. If you wish to discuss the accuracy of the usual trinitarian translation of John 1:1c instead of posting "horse dump," let me know by starting a new discussion about it.

if you read my post you would know I never addressed morphe mention it in my posting. you should follow your own advise first before remarking.


I'm not going to quote the whole bible that shows the trinity of which shows your OP's are bogus. there's no need go farther with it. what you are posting is out side of the scope of the context by which Paul spoke. therefore you are taking Paul's statement out of context. what Paul said isn't contrary to the rest of scripture as you imply.

so actually there is any more to say or discuss.

 

[epostle1]

Nature and Person

A helpful distinction to make when evaluating the doctrine of the Trinity is to understand the difference between nature and person. The nature of something corresponds to the questions “What is it?” Person, on the other hand, answers the question, “Who is it?” In the world, everything has a nature, that is, it is something, though only rational creatures also have personhood. So, in the example of a human person:

Nature: What Are You? >>> I am a human being.

Person: Who Are You? >>> I am Bob Smith.

We can see that the terms “human being” and “Bob Smith” have a close relation; without doubt, Bob Smith is a human being, and he could not be otherwise. But to be a human being is not the same thing as to be Bob Smith.

If we relate this to the Trinity, we see that the nature of God (what He is) is Divinity, or the Divine Nature.; i.e., God. God’s nature is God, or as He said to Moses, “I am that I am.” But who God is corresponds to the question of personhood. And in the case of God, He is three divine Persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. So, in the Trinity:

Nature: What is God? >>> God is God; He possesses a single Divine Nature

Person: Who is God? >>> God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three divine Persons

Nature is what something is. Thus, when we come to speak of the nature of God, we are attempting to say just what, exactly, God is.

It is very difficult to say with precision what the nature or essence of God consists of, since He is absolutely unique and by definition beyond our ability to fully comprehend by reason alone.
Introduction to Trinitarian Theology

 

[GodsGrace]

Nature and Person

A helpful distinction to make when evaluating the doctrine of the Trinity is to understand the difference between nature and person. The nature of something corresponds to the questions “What is it?” Person, on the other hand, answers the question, “Who is it?” In the world, everything has a nature, that is, it is something, though only rational creatures also have personhood. So, in the example of a human person:

Nature: What Are You? >>> I am a human being.

Person: Who Are You? >>> I am Bob Smith.

We can see that the terms “human being” and “Bob Smith” have a close relation; without doubt, Bob Smith is a human being, and he could not be otherwise. But to be a human being is not the same thing as to be Bob Smith.

If we relate this to the Trinity, we see that the nature of God (what He is) is Divinity, or the Divine Nature.; i.e., God. God’s nature is God, or as He said to Moses, “I am that I am.” But who God is corresponds to the question of personhood. And in the case of God, He is three divine Persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. So, in the Trinity:

Nature: What is God? >>> God is God; He possesses a single Divine Nature

Person: Who is God? >>> God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three divine Persons

Nature is what something is. Thus, when we come to speak of the nature of God, we are attempting to say just what, exactly, God is.

It is very difficult to say with precision what the nature or essence of God consists of, since He is absolutely unique and by definition beyond our ability to fully comprehend by reason alone.
Introduction to Trinitarian Theology

Perfect, of course.
I'd like to add that there is also an ORDER.
Father
Son
Holy Spirit

This would answer all the problems of Jesus praying to the Father when He was on earth.

 

[101G]

Morphe - part two

Morphe is found at Mark 16:12 which is part of the “Long Ending” for the Gospel of Mark. Many scholars do not consider this as inspired scripture, but, instead, a later addition by someone to Mark’s original inspired writing. However, even if this is the case, it is still an example of how morphe was used in those times since copies of the “Long Ending” were in existence at least as early as 165 A.D. (Justin Martyr).

So notice especially how the New American Bible (1970), the Living Bible, The New English Bible, the Douay version, the New Life Version, and the Easy-to-Read Version translate morphe at Mark 16:12:

“he was revealed to them completely changed in appearance [morphe]” - NAB.
“they didn’t recognize him at first because he had changed his appearance [morphe].” - LB.
“he appeared in a different guise [morphe]” - NEB.
“he appeared in another shape [morphe]” - Douay.
“he did not look like he had looked [morphe] before to these two people” - NLV.
“Jesus did not look the same” - ETRV.
Mark 16:12 - “He appeared in another form. Luke explains this by saying that their eyes were held. If their eyes were influenced, of course, optically speaking, Jesus would appear in another form.” - People’s New Testament Notes.

Later, Jesus showed himself to two of his followers while they were walking in the country, but he did not look the same as before. - NCV.


These trinitarian translations show the meaning of morphe to be that of “external appearance” not “essence” or “nature”!

The trinitarian Living Bible even renders morphe at Phil. 2:7 as “disguise”! And the 1969 French lectionary rendered morphe at Phil. 2:6 as image!

The further uses of morphe (μορφῇ, the very same form as used at Phil 2:6) by those first Christian writers to write after the NT itself was written (the Apostolic Fathers - about 90 A.D. to 150 A.D.) make a trinitarian rendering at Philippians 2:6 even more incredible:

“There was no form [μορφῇ] before my eyes, but I heard a breeze and a voice.” 1 Clem. 39:3, The Apostolic Fathers, Sparks, 1978, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publ.

“I want to show you what the holy Spirit, which spoke with you in the form [μορφῇ] of the Church, showed you” - Hermas, Sim. 9:1:1, Sparks.

Also notice how the first Christian writers after the Apostolic fathers understood the meaning of morphe at Phil 2:6 itself:

“... who being in the shape of God, thought it not an object of desire to be treated like God” - Christian letter from 177 A.D. sometimes ascribed to Irenaeus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), p. 784, vol. 8.

“... who being in the image of God, ‘thought it not ...’” - Tertullian, about 200 A.D., ANF, p. 549, vol. 3.

“...who being appointed in the figure of God ...” - Cyprian, about 250 A.D., ANF, p. 545, vol. 5.

We can see, then, that, with the originally-intended meaning of morphe, Paul is saying that before Jesus came to earth he had a form or an external appearance resembling that of God (as do the other heavenly spirit persons, the angels, also).

GINOLJC to all. @tigger 2. the word "Form"/G3444 μορφή morphe, do not connote only to an outward appearance OF a nature, Physically, but also to a nature spiritually itself. case in point, what is the form of God, (outwardly) "WHO IS A SPIRIT". he don't have one as is. he, as Spirit have no "OUTWARD APPEARANCE". so the "form" of God here is a nature, not an appearance of a nature only. according to Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments, FORM/G3444 μορφή morphe means:
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
{perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)}
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313
See also: G3445, G3446, G4832

Looking at definition #2 above, (intrinsically) fundamental nature, intrinsically means in an essential or natural way. but the question in Phil. 2:6 is asking, what kind of fundamental nature do the Lord Jesus have to the Spirit/God? good question, the answer is in the root of "Form"/G3444 μορφή morphe, which is G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) which is a NOUN also, which describe the meaning of the fundamental nature of the PERSON. let's see what G3313 μέρος meros means: first, Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries
1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something). 2. Division. 3. Share.
another word for "portion" is SHARE. keep this word in mind, because our Lord was equally.
since God is not divided, so being the share of God is correct. but let's go on.

Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament
G3313 μέρος meros: 1. a part, share, portion. 3. A class or category.
Definition #3 is very important, and definition #1 is confirmed. but let's look at #3.

all these definitions of the root word of "FORM", we can now see what kind of fundamental nature the Lord Jesus have. from our definitions above our Lord Jesus have the "SHARED" nature of God. (take note, not "a" shared nature, but "the" shared nature). do this mean that there are two Gods?. no, it mean "ANOTHER" of the same nature, meaning the SAME PERSON only shared. well do this support the trinity of "father" person one, and "son" person two. NO, and again I say NO. the SHARED PERSON is the same PERSON only "NUMERICALLY DIFFERENT" in NATURE, not in PERSONS. can we back this up? yes, there is a Greek word that describes this "NUMERICALLY DIFFERENCE" in NATURE. it is the Greek word, ,G243 ALLOS. and it mean this. Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort. now we need to look up what "sort" means. it means 1. a particular kind, species, variety, class, or group, distinguished by a common character or nature. 2. character, quality, or nature. there it is, this is what distinguish the Lord Jesus, is he is in the GOD "Class", or "Group" and that distinction is in NATURE as the word sort describe. simply meaning as G243 allos states, "ANOTHER" of oneself in flesh and bone, hence the correctness of Phil 2:6 & 7.

Now going back to our definition above, the Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon state that G3313 μέρος meros is, define as #3. A class or category and G243 ALLOS states the same. and as a "NUMERICALLY DIFFERENCE" of oneself this confirm the "Father" as one PERSON, and the "Son" as the SAME ONE PERSON, only "NUMERICALLY SHARED". meaning that the "Son" is the Father dwelling in "ANOTHER" form, which is flesh and blood. this is backed up in Isaiah 9:6. for the son who was born is the "EVERLASTING FATHER".

In conclusion. Phil 2:6 & 7 is describing the "SHARING" of the fundamental nature of our God in flesh and bone. simply put, our Lord Jesus is God in flesh as the "ANOTHER" of himself. question, do this conflict with Isaiah 40:25 which states, "To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One". or Isaiah 46:5 "To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?". because, Philippians 2:6 states, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God". so if the Lord Jesus is "EQUAL" with God, do this mean that he is "ANOTHER" God as the trinity say in "PERSON(S)". NO, and I again so NO. because, G3313 μέρος meros the root of "Form" tells us exactly what kind of nature he have, "THE SHARED" nature. and the share is the "SAME" because, the share of something is the exact same as the source. not a duplicate, nor a copy, but the SAME. so the Lord Jesus have the same nature, because he is the same PERSON, only "NUMERICALLY" SHARED in nature. so Philippians 2:6 is correct. only needed to be understood.

Hoped this helped. if not, read this post again for clarity. all of my work can be reproduce. I have given reference, just do the research for yourself.

 

[Johann]

“he was revealed to them completely changed in appearance [morphe]” - NAB.

(en heterāi morphēi)

ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ...who says anything re "essence" in this verse?

 

[Behold]

Apparently you did not even bother to read it. The meaning of morphe is not my "own views." I gave many quotes and references from respected trinitarian scholars (not my 'own views'). You did not!
.

Reader...

You dont need scholarship to prove to you that Jesus is God.
You just need to believe your Bible.

John 1:10 says that Jesus made the World.

Genesis says that God "Spoke" creation into Existance.

John 1 says that Jesus is the WORD.

Now, connect the dots.. "Spoke"..."Word"...."Creation"..

God "Spoke"...
Jesus is the Pre-Incarnate "WORD"
John 1 Says that The Word, IS/Was God
John 1:10 says that Jesus CREATED the WORLD
Colossians 1:16 says that Jesus (The Word) created everything.

Then John 1 says that "the WORD (Jesus) was made FLESH, and dwelt among us.
Then, 1 Timothy 3:16 says that GOD was manifested in the Flesh, exactly as John 1:14 teaches.

Really, you just have to desperately want to not believe in the Deity of Christ, to not recognize the Truth.

Imagine the darkened mind and desperation related to saying... "well, the Bible teached the Deity of Christ, but a lot of Scholars dont like that, and say so....so, i'll go with Scholarship, as who can trust that bible""...." ""even the Scholars say you can't trust it" "and need to read that original Greek".

(There is no Original Greek text) (Scholars Lied again).

Dont follow them.
Believe the word of God.

 

[Johann]

GINOLJC to all. @tigger 2. the word "Form"/G3444 μορφή morphe, do not connote only to an outward appearance OF a nature, Physically, but also to a nature spiritually itself. case in point, what is the form of God, (outwardly) "WHO IS A SPIRIT". he don't have one as is. he, as Spirit have no "OUTWARD APPEARANCE". so the "form" of God here is a nature, not an appearance of a nature only. according to Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments, FORM/G3444 μορφή morphe means:
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
{perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)}
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313
See also: G3445, G3446, G4832

Looking at definition #2 above, (intrinsically) fundamental nature, intrinsically means in an essential or natural way. but the question in Phil. 2:6 is asking, what kind of fundamental nature do the Lord Jesus have to the Spirit/God? good question, the answer is in the root of "Form"/G3444 μορφή morphe, which is G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) which is a NOUN also, which describe the meaning of the fundamental nature of the PERSON. let's see what G3313 μέρος meros means: first, Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries
1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something). 2. Division. 3. Share.
another word for "portion" is SHARE. keep this word in mind, because our Lord was equally.
since God is not divided, so being the share of God is correct. but let's go on.

Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament
G3313 μέρος meros: 1. a part, share, portion. 3. A class or category.
Definition #3 is very important, and definition #1 is confirmed. but let's look at #3.

all these definitions of the root word of "FORM", we can now see what kind of fundamental nature the Lord Jesus have. from our definitions above our Lord Jesus have the "SHARED" nature of God. (take note, not "a" shared nature, but "the" shared nature). do this mean that there are two Gods?. no, it mean "ANOTHER" of the same nature, meaning the SAME PERSON only shared. well do this support the trinity of "father" person one, and "son" person two. NO, and again I say NO. the SHARED PERSON is the same PERSON only "NUMERICALLY DIFFERENT" in NATURE, not in PERSONS. can we back this up? yes, there is a Greek word that describes this "NUMERICALLY DIFFERENCE" in NATURE. it is the Greek word, ,G243 ALLOS. and it mean this. Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort. now we need to look up what "sort" means. it means 1. a particular kind, species, variety, class, or group, distinguished by a common character or nature. 2. character, quality, or nature. there it is, this is what distinguish the Lord Jesus, is he is in the GOD "Class", or "Group" and that distinction is in NATURE as the word sort describe. simply meaning as G243 allos states, "ANOTHER" of oneself in flesh and bone, hence the correctness of Phil 2:6 & 7.

Now going back to our definition above, the Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon state that G3313 μέρος meros is, define as #3. A class or category and G243 ALLOS states the same. and as a "NUMERICALLY DIFFERENCE" of oneself this confirm the "Father" as one PERSON, and the "Son" as the SAME ONE PERSON, only "NUMERICALLY SHARED". meaning that the "Son" is the Father dwelling in "ANOTHER" form, which is flesh and blood. this is backed up in Isaiah 9:6. for the son who was born is the "EVERLASTING FATHER".

In conclusion. Phil 2:6 & 7 is describing the "SHARING" of the fundamental nature of our God in flesh and bone. simply put, our Lord Jesus is God in flesh as the "ANOTHER" of himself. question, do this conflict with Isaiah 40:25 which states, "To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One". or Isaiah 46:5 "To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?". because, Philippians 2:6 states, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God". so if the Lord Jesus is "EQUAL" with God, do this mean that he is "ANOTHER" God as the trinity say in "PERSON(S)". NO, and I again so NO. because, G3313 μέρος meros the root of "Form" tells us exactly what kind of nature he have, "THE SHARED" nature. and the share is the "SAME" because, the share of something is the exact same as the source. not a duplicate, nor a copy, but the SAME. so the Lord Jesus have the same nature, because he is the same PERSON, only "NUMERICALLY" SHARED in nature. so Philippians 2:6 is correct. only needed to be understood.

Hoped this helped. if not, read this post again for clarity. all of my work can be reproduce. I have given reference, just do the research for yourself.

Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character. Thus it is distinguished from σχῆμα fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. Μορφή form is identified with the essence of a person or thing: σχῆμα fashion is an accident which may change without affecting the form. For the manner in which this difference is developed in the kindred verbs, see on Mat_17:2.
As applied here to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself. We have no word which can convey this meaning, nor is it possible for us to formulate the reality. Form inevitably carries with it to us the idea of shape. It is conceivable that the essential personality of God may express itself in a mode apprehensible by the perception of pure spiritual intelligences; but the mode itself is neither apprehensible nor conceivable by human minds.
This mode of expression, this setting of the divine essence, is not identical with the essence itself, but is identified with it, as its natural and appropriate expression, answering to it in every particular. It is the perfect expression of a perfect essence. It is not something imposed from without, but something which proceeds from the very depth of the perfect being, and into which that being perfectly unfolds, as light from fire. To say, then, that Christ was in the form of God, is to say that He existed as essentially one with God. The expression of deity through human nature (Php_2:7) thus has its background in the expression of deity as deity in the eternal ages of God's being. Whatever the mode of this expression, it marked the being of Christ in the eternity before creation. As the form of God was identified with the being of God, so Christ, being in the form of God, was identified with the being, nature, and personality of God.
This form, not being identical with the divine essence, but dependent upon it, and necessarily implying it, can be parted with or laid aside. Since Christ is one with God, and therefore pure being, absolute existence, He can exist without the form. This form of God Christ laid aside in His incarnation.
Vincent word studies.

 

[Johann]

Reader...

You dont need scholarship to prove to you that Jesus is God.
You just need to believe your Bible.

John 1:10 says that Jesus made the World.

Genesis says that God "Spoke" creation into Existance.

John 1 says that Jesus is the WORD.

Now, connect the dots.. "Spoke"..."Word"...."Creation"..

God "Spoke"...
Jesus is the Pre-Incarnate "WORD"
John 1 Says that The Word, IS/Was God
John 1:10 says that Jesus CREATED the WORLD
Colossians 1:16 says that Jesus (The Word) created everything.

Then John 1 says that "the WORD (Jesus) was made FLESH, and dwelt among us.
Then, 1 Timothy 3:16 says that GOD was manifested in the Flesh, exactly as John 1:14 teaches.

Really, you just have to desperately want to not believe in the Deity of Christ, to not recognize the Truth.

Imagine the darkened mind and desperation related to saying... "well, the Bible teached the Deity of Christ, but a lot of Scholars dont like that, and say so....so, i'll go with Scholarship, as who can trust that bible""...." ""even the Scholars say you can't trust it" "and need to read that original Greek".

(There is no Original Greek text) (Scholars Lied again).

Dont follow them.
Believe the word of God.

Well said, with the correct and powerful scripture references.
Full of dunamis and kratos

The doctrine of the gospel pierced the hearts of its hearers, "bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." Isa_50:4, Isa_61:1-3; Psa_45:5; Jer_1:18, Jer_15:19-20

 

[DJT_47]

In general terms, there is no problem with any scripture, only man's inability to understand or accept that which was written. The problem is with man.

 

[GodsGrace]

Reader...

You dont need scholarship to prove to you that Jesus is God.
You just need to believe your Bible.

John 1:10 says that Jesus made the World.

Genesis says that God "Spoke" creation into Existance.

John 1 says that Jesus is the WORD.

Now, connect the dots.. "Spoke"..."Word"...."Creation"..

God "Spoke"...
Jesus is the Pre-Incarnate "WORD"
John 1 Says that The Word, IS/Was God
John 1:10 says that Jesus CREATED the WORLD
Colossians 1:16 says that Jesus (The Word) created everything.

Then John 1 says that "the WORD (Jesus) was made FLESH, and dwelt among us.
Then, 1 Timothy 3:16 says that GOD was manifested in the Flesh, exactly as John 1:14 teaches.

Really, you just have to desperately want to not believe in the Deity of Christ, to not recognize the Truth.

Imagine the darkened mind and desperation related to saying... "well, the Bible teached the Deity of Christ, but a lot of Scholars dont like that, and say so....so, i'll go with Scholarship, as who can trust that bible""...." ""even the Scholars say you can't trust it" "and need to read that original Greek".

(There is no Original Greek text) (Scholars Lied again).

Dont follow them.
Believe the word of God.

In what language were the original letters written?