"The word was a god"?

[PinSeeker]

Wow! Taking logic on its head. "In the form of" is the clue it is NOT what it is in the form of.

No, not in the sense of it being like the thing or in the same shape as the thing ~ that needs some separate treatment ~ but not the thing itself. That's very much not the connotation of the Greek 'morphe.' By the way, that Greek word is where we get the English word 'metamorphosis,' which means to literally change into. The Greek 'morphe' is a philosophical term that means "the outward expression of an inner essence."

For instance, my savings jar is in the form of a pig. That is how you know it is not a pig. If it were a pig, one would clearly not use the words "In the form of."

So the same shape... LOL! Ah, so Jesus was the same shape as the Father... Who is spirit (John 4:24). Nice! Wow. No, unlike 'form' in English, 'morphe' does not mean 'shape.' See above.

PinSeeker: In saying He "did NOT count equality with God a thing to be grasped," Paul then clearly is saying He set aside equality with God for a time"

Reading your doctrine into verses where it is absent.

That's all you, my friend. Actually, what the Watchtower did was restructure Paul's words, there and make them something entirely other than what they are. You just went along for the ride, and are still on it.

...the Scriptural support for it is so weak.

Ah, well, you're welcome to you opinion, wrong as it may be. There is no Scriptural support for the Jehovah's Witness re-engineering of Philippians 2.

Do you notice the word NOT? What Jesus did NOT do? Here is another legitimate take on this verse. Jesus was humble and did not repeat the Original Sin of being a man seeking to grasp becoming a God. Jesus did NOT even seek equality with God...

Yeah I agree at least somewhat with this; He succeeded in correcting Adam's failure, obeying perfectly and thus redeeming those whom God calls, His elect, His Israel. This is why He is called the second (final) Adam. However... yes, He did not have to seek equality with God, because He already possessed it from all eternity, and will to all eternity. As He called on the Father near the end of His earthly ministry, "And now, Father, glorify Me in Your own presence with the glory that I had with You before the world existed." And the Father did that, raising Him up and exalting Him (Jesus) to His (the Father's) right hand.

But what the text says is that Jesus "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." Yet again, Paul's irrefutable implication is that Jesus was (and is, and always will be) equal with the Father, but did not use His equality with the Father to His own advantage or elevate Himself to a higher status than any man ~ even lowering Himself for the sake of man in complete humility and submission to the Father.

...who he says is greater than he is and knows more than he does.

In rank, not in personhood and nature and power and glory.

The Watchtower is so awesome. Oh, and Wrangler... such an appropriate moniker.

Grace and peace to you, Wrangler.

 

[Wrangler]

That's very much not the connotation of the Greek 'morphe.'

It's about logic of trinitarianism, not language usage.
X in the form of Y. X is not Y.
X is the son of Y. X is not Y.
X is of Y. X is not Y.

See the pattern?

 

[PinSeeker]

It's about logic of trinitarianism, not language usage.
X in the form of Y. X is not Y.
X is the son of Y. X is not Y.
X is of Y. X is not Y.

Pffft. See above.

See the pattern?

Well, your pattern of ignorance, yes. You're surely not alone, though...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Wrangler]

Paul's irrefutable implication is that Jesus was (and is, and always will be) equal with the Father, but did not use His equality with the Father

It's not Paul's implication as I showed but trinitarian's very refutable imposing their doctrine onto text.

Because trinitarianism is inherently contradictory, the contradictions necessarily mount the more they are applied. This leads to ever more mental gymnastics and appeals to mysticism and dualism. NOTE: Your post removes the inconvenient NOT, what Jesus did NOT do. But what Jesus DID DO contradicts your equality claim:

1. Jesus said God is greater than he.
2. Jesus said God knows more than he.
3. Jesus said he only says what God tells him to say.
4. Jesus died. God, who is eternal, raised him from the dead.

Son's are not equal to their Father's, which means there is no equality with God for Jesus to use.

 

[PinSeeker]

It's not Paul's implication...

It clearly and irrefutably is. But you're welcome to your opinion.

...as I showed but trinitarian's very refutable imposing their doctrine onto text.

According to the NWT, which is heretical in places, that passage in Philippians 2 being one of them.

Because trinitarianism is inherently contradictory, the contradictions necessarily mount the more they are applied. This leads to ever more mental gymnastics and appeals to mysticism and dualism. NOTE: Your post removes the inconvenient NOT, what Jesus did NOT do. But what Jesus DID DO contradicts your equality claim:

1. Jesus said God is greater than he.
2. Jesus said God knows more than he.
3. Jesus said he only says what God tells him to say.
4. Jesus died. God, who is eternal, raised him from the dead.

Son's are not equal to their Father's, which means there is no equality with God for Jesus to use.

Yada yada. Such misdirection. But so be it.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[tigger 2]

Although it has been rejected by even many trinitarian Bible scholars, some others 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.

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 (see section on harpagmos above) 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).

 

[Wrangler]

It clearly and irrefutably is.

Since I refuted it, it cannot be irrefutable. @Aunty Jane brought up a brilliant point a while back. Did you ever notice that ALL verses that 'support' the trinity are by implication? Why is it that not one time, there is not an explicit verse to combat explicit verses like, "For us, there is one God the Father?"

You cannot refute the verses that undermine the trinity. So, you just ignore them and go on the attack AS IF that strengthens your case. It doesn't

According to the NWT

I never even heard of Watch tower until being on these boards.

 

[tigger 2]

isos does not mean “absolute equality of nature” - cf. Matt. 20:12; Luke 20:36 (esp. LB).

Even the noted trinitarian authority The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology admits that ison (and its related forms)

“indicates more strongly an external, objectively measurable and established likeness and correspondence” - p. 497, vol. 2.

A careful study of the NT uses of this word not only shows that it means an external likeness but that it may even be limited to a likeness of only one aspect of the original [MINOR 8 - “John 5:18 (‘Equal’: Ison)”].

Isos (isa, neut.) “ἴσος ... prob. from 1492 [eido] (through the idea of seeming); similar (in amount or kind)” - Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

So when one thing is described as isa [ison] with another thing, they are still two separate different things. One is merely like or similar to another in a certain aspect.

The trinitarian The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, vol. 2, p. 968, discussing isos, reveals:

“In Mt 20:12, ‘made them equal’ means ‘put them upon the same footing,’ i.e. regarded their brief service as though it were the very same as our long hours of toil. In Lk 20:36 the context restricts the equality to a particular relation.” - Eerdmans Publ., 1984 reprint.

In other words, ison at Matt. 20:12 makes the workers measurably “equal” to one another in only one external aspect: the amount of money they were to receive. They were really very unequal otherwise. Also in Luke 20:36, as the trinitarian reference quoted above tells us, those resurrected humans and God’s angels are not necessarily considered equal in essence in this scripture but in only one particular relation: they will not die again. (See Living Bible.)

And we see the same thing in the OT Septuagint:

“so thy quarrel and enmity shall not depart, but shall be to thee like [isos] death.” - Prov. 25:10, Septuagint Version, Zondervan Publ., 1970, p. 813.

“Quarrel” and “enmity” certainly are not absolutely equal to death (in spite of the fact that some could render this “shall be equal [isos] to death”)! The similarity of the single quality of permanence is the only thing being equated here. The “quarreling” and “enmity” are a never-ending condition, like death itself.

Furthermore, the fact that isa is neuter in this verse in Philippians means that Paul is not saying that Jesus is perfectly equal to God himself. You see, the word ‘God’ here is the masculine form of the word, and for the word ‘equal’ (whatever its intended meaning) to be applied wholly to the word ‘God’ itself it must be of the same gender (masculine in this case - isos).

Therefore, even if isa could mean absolute equality, only some thing (or things) about God are being considered - not God as a whole. Therefore, Jesus is refusing to seize some thing or things (authority, power, immortality, ...?) that are similar to God’s.

That is why 4th century trinitarians were forced to use a non-Biblical word instead of isos in an attempt to provide just such a meaning for their trinitarian creeds (see MINOR 8-9).

So if we translated this passage with the actual, full meaning of the word ison, the literal NT Greek - (“not taking by force [harpagmos] considered [hegeomai] the to be ‘equal’ [isa] with god [theo]”) - would be rendered: “did not even consider forcefully trying to become like God (even in any single aspect).”

 

[PinSeeker]

Since I refuted it, it cannot be irrefutable.

No, you just denied it. Which, yeah, anybody can still do.

@Aunty Jane[/USER] brought up a brilliant point a while back. Did you ever notice that ALL verses that 'support' the trinity are by implication?

Yes, and she was wrong about that. So it wasn't so brilliant...

You cannot refute the verses that undermine the trinity.

There are none.

I never even heard of Watch tower until being on these boards.

Okay. I mean, it matters not, but okay.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Although it has been rejected by even many trinitarian Bible scholars, some others 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 (trinitarians') forced interpretation of morphe at Phil. 2:6 they can say that Jesus had the “absolute essence” and “full nature” of God!

"Forced"... Not at all. But yes, we can say that Jesus had the “absolute essence” and “full nature” of God, because this is essentially exactly what Paul says in Colossians 1:19, that "...in (Christ) all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell." This is the same Paul who wrote to the Philippians that Christ was in the form of God.

We cannot morph (see what I did there) the understanding of "the form of" ('morphe') into the Jehovah's Witness "understanding" of it, that Christ somehow had "a form or an external appearance..."

~ or shape... LOL!... the Father is Spirit and has no "shape" ~​

"...resembling that of God... as do the other heavenly spirit persons, the angels, also", and not cause those two statements of Paul's to contradict each other. Such would and does constitute egregious error, as well as the fact that it would require total ignorance to do so.

"Scholars..." <snicker>

Grace and peace to you both.

 

[Wrangler]

Since I refuted it, it cannot be irrefutable.

No, you just denied it.

No. I refuted the claim of equality in no less than 5 ways.

It's not Paul's implication as I showed but trinitarian's very refutable imposing their doctrine onto text.

Because trinitarianism is inherently contradictory, the contradictions necessarily mount the more they are applied. This leads to ever more mental gymnastics and appeals to mysticism and dualism. NOTE: Your post removes the inconvenient NOT, what Jesus did NOT do. But what Jesus DID DO contradicts your equality claim:

1. Jesus said God is greater than he.
2. Jesus said God knows more than he.
3. Jesus said he only says what God tells him to say.
4. Jesus died. God, who is eternal, raised him from the dead.

Son's are not equal to their Father's, which means there is no equality with God for Jesus to use.

 

[Wrangler]

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).

It is the many posts like this that show even in the most extreme reach for Biblical 'support' the trinity doctrine fundamentally breaks down.

 

[Wrangler]

No, you just denied it. Which, yeah, anybody can still do.

Wait for it ...

....

Yes, and she was wrong about that. So it wasn't so brilliant...

Guilty you are of what you accuse others of doing. You just denied @Aunty Jane's brilliant point without refuting it.

 

[Wrangler]

You cannot refute the verses that undermine the trinity.

There are none.

Interesting thought. What statement, what set of words could one construct that WOULD qualify as undermining the trinity?

You aren't seeking proof of the trinity in your corn flakes or ink blots, are you?

 

[Aunty Jane]

Reading your doctrine into verses where it is absent. You have to do this because the Scriptural support for it is so weak.

It doesn’t seem to matter that there is not a single direct quote from either God or his son that they are one and the same “God” along with the holy spirit......not one. It’s an assumption based on ambiguous verses grafted on to fit a false doctrine (which was introduced so long ago that no one really knows where it came from, or that it breaks the first Commandment).

Why do they support it so vehemently? Because it became the very foundation of their faith, adopted along with other false doctrines when the “weeds” of Jesus' parable took over “the world” as he had foretold. The sower of these weeds was “the devil”, and they sprouted “while men were sleeping”. (Matthew 13:24-30; Matthew 13:36-43)

Examining that parable more closely is an interesting exercise. It explains exactly what we see happened in the dark past of the Christian Faith after the close of the first century.....before then, the apostles were still leading the church. By the 4th century the rot really set in when Roman Catholicism became the state religion of the Roman Empire....and the rest as they say, is history. The centuries passed and the masses were fed all manner of false doctrines and no one knew by then what real Christianity was. They were forbidden to read the Bible.

The Reformation broke the power of the Roman church, but instead of getting rid of all the false doctrines, her daughters carried their 'mother's' dirty laundry over into the many denominations that surfaced .....the core of those doctrines remains to this day....the trinity, immortality of the soul and eternal suffering in a fiery hell....NONE of which find their origins in scripture.
There are others, such as infant baptism and full immersion baptism, whether prayers were to be said by rote, parroted off from memory rather than from the heart. Was there formality, liturgy or ritual in first century Christianity? Was there even a "clergy" class who wore distinctive garments and elevated themselves above the congregation with high sounding titles and positions of power? Were there any who officiated as "priests" back then?

Just as the Jewish faith was hijacked by corrupt men, so history would repeat. Time is always used by God’s enemy to gradually lead mankind into ruin....but he can only do so with willing compliance. There has never been a shortage of people willing to deviate from the truth for their own reasons. There is a “blindness” that Paul spoke of...in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, clearly in evidence.

So why do they cling so tenaciously to their cherished doctrines? Imagine having to admit that the very foundation of your faith is a lie....and then you begin to discover that so many other doctrines are also false.....people are then left with two choices...either embrace the truth and leave Christendom, thus facing ostracism.....or stay with the comfortable old ‘slippers’ and justify continuing to wear them, despite their dilapidated state.

Change is hard....not everyone can make such a huge adjustment.....but realizing that clinging to the old when you cannot support your beliefs is foolish as Jesus demonstrates in his prophesy concerning the final judgment of this current world system, where he said....

“Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’’ (Matthew 7:21-23 - NLT)

They will be clueless right up until the judgment.....we can’t change their minds....this is the time for separating the "sheep from the goats"....so every one of us is telling Jesus who we really are right now.....we cannot fool him.

 

[Wrangler]

The Reformation broke the power of the Roman church, but instead of getting rid of all the false doctrines, her daughters carried their 'mother's' dirty laundry over into the many denominations that surfaced .....the core of those doctrines remains to this day....the trinity, immortality of the soul and eternal suffering in a fiery hell

All 3 of these came up today in various threads. They invoked the same debate tactic for all 3, mock those who disagree.

 

[Aunty Jane]

All 3 of these came up today in various threads. They invoked the same debate tactic for all 3, mock those who disagree.

None of these doctrines originated from the Bible.....all they need to do is check with every false religion they can think of....Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Islam or any of their derivatives.....all have the same teachings...in one form or the other......so does Christendom.

Even if they vary slightly from one another....there is a place of eternal bliss contrasted with a place of eternal suffering, usually in flames that never go out. Is the God of love supposed to be represented in this picture?

The teaching of multiplicities of gods also permeates almost all false religion...especially trinities....

These have existed since the time of ancient Babylon...

Of course these beliefs could not exists if there was no immortal soul.

Yet I cannot find a single clear teaching of any of them in the Bible.....what I find is in fact, the exact opposite.

 

[face2face]

Can you PM me a copy of this with better clarity? I cant make out the fuzzy text!
Thanks

 

[face2face]

It's not Paul's implication as I showed but trinitarian's very refutable imposing their doctrine onto text.

Because trinitarianism is inherently contradictory, the contradictions necessarily mount the more they are applied. This leads to ever more mental gymnastics and appeals to mysticism and dualism. NOTE: Your post removes the inconvenient NOT, what Jesus did NOT do. But what Jesus DID DO contradicts your equality claim:

1. Jesus said God is greater than he.
2. Jesus said God knows more than he.
3. Jesus said he only says what God tells him to say.
4. Jesus died. God, who is eternal, raised him from the dead.

Son's are not equal to their Father's, which means there is no equality with God for Jesus to use.

1 Corinthians 11:19 applies.

There is a tendency to become apathetic toward these differences, the longer one contends against them...which is a real danger for the disciple. Paul’s example in dealing with “heresies” is exemplary. It was Jesus's example from which he learned to resist those who import foreign ideas onto the text and the more we Scripturally fight these “heresies” the more we grow to be more like the Master. It is this thinking about how to behave that causes us to grow to be more like the Lord.

I hate the doctrine of the Trinity because if you follow the damage on the text, it removes a person atonement, which ultimately leaves them in their sins. That is why we must fight and wrestle against such forces, if we are save one from death.

Keep up the good fight!

F2F

Note: we must always remember the divisions are in place for the end times!

 

[Wrangler]

All 3 of these (the trinity, immortality of the soul and eternal suffering in a fiery hell) came up today in various threads. They invoked the same debate tactic for all 3, mock those who disagree.

None of these doctrines originated from the Bible

Putting aside the debate of what doctrines the Bible 'supports,' my focus was on the mocking Spirit of the debator.

Given any controversial statement of significance, it deserves careful consideration. Be it that 9/11 Tower 7 was an inside job, there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq or the 2020 Presidential election was stolen and so forth. Being an educated citizenry, we ought to expect one another and ourselves to dispassionately consider the arguments for and against the premise. Furthermore, we ought to be able to admit the relative strength and weakness of these arguments. Finally, we have to tolerate doubt!

That is to say, as sophisticated 21st century humans, we ought to be mature enough to recognize the need to come to a conclusion, while not needing to castigate all evidence in support of the alternative conclusion. It is OK to have a 60-40 split or even 80-20 split. Perhaps I should add a 3rd split. One for Pro. One for Con. Another for doubt, the flip side of faith.

For instance trinitarians can and do point to a couple of verses were God uses a plural pronoun. While, I agree this does not offset the 5,000 times God is referred to using a singular pronoun, it does not have to be castigated or explained. Again, I'm using this as an example. If pursued, it may be explainable but my point is effectively functioning in an environment of doubt is also OK. Indeed, most of the time, effectively functioning in an environment of doubt is part of the human condition. This doubt allows faith to flourish. We are called to have faith, not to be know-it-alls.

What I've seen in my life is the polarization of human judgment. This is happening on all topics. It shows the dumbing down of America. People are too confident in their conclusions. Too quick to dismiss those who weigh the available evidence differently. And ultimately, denigrate image bearers of God by resorting to mockery. Let's pray. And let's pray for our (intellectual, theological, political) enemies.