Says the one who doesn't know Greek. Besides, my argument isn't so simplistic as to base my entire argument on the definition of μορφῇ. It's a cumulative argument. Each point proving my case on it's own while reenforcing each other to make a stronger argument. μορφῇ does include in its semantic domain the definition of the essence or substance, especially when contrasted with σχῆμα (v8), and what else can it mean when it is connected to God. In form God means the outward expression of God, the invisible God. You can't make an idol, the everyday use of μορφῇ, of the invisible God. God, being simple, simply is. To have his form means that the one with his form must be fully God.You could play this figurative game if you were talking about a god like Zeus, but we are talking about the form of the God of Scripture. Among every expert in Greek, this is so obvious that the excuses of ignorant people like you are blown off without a second thought given how baseless and ignorant such excuses are.
Sorry but there is nothing in any of what Paul wrote in Philippians 2:5-11 to suggest anything like what you haver been falsely led to believe and teach about it and which makes you seriously responsible before God for it.
You put way to much credit upon academic knowledge but if one seeks and asks and waits upon God for answers to what the scriptures are truly teaching God himself will lead him to whatever source is needed to reveal the truth unto him but he has to diligently trust in God for this while keeping his own thoughts and ideas and also those of others out of the way.
Your way is putting faith in human nature and human effort and which creates pride and arrogance in those who pursue it, while the correct way is putting trust in God for his ability to reveal it and creates truly humility in those who pursue it being they realize that they couldn't have it unless he gives it unto them.
1 Corinthians 4:7 What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?
With respect to ἁρπαγμὸν, this word can be taken in only one of two ways: Jesus either thought it not wrong to actively seize equality with God or did not count equality with God a thing to be held onto. Every meaningful translation I know translates it in one of these two ways. Either way, equality with God is something your human cannot be said to have access to while the text says otherwise.
Nope, but rather "he did not count equality with God something to seized upon while being in the form of God and already having more authority than any other man.
Sorry but your bias trin scholars are wrong about what the word "harpagmos" reveals in this text, for it isn't referring to Jesus holding on to something he already possess like they are falsely teaching about it but it refers to seizing upon something that does not belong to him.
For many Emperors and Kings with way less authority than what Jesus had, let it go to their minds that they were like a god among men and this is what Paul is revealing, that although Jesus was in the form of God and having more authority from God than any other man, he still took no thought to rob God of his glory as being God himself like those other Emperors and kings did.
Lastly, v7 says ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπω νγενόμενος: in likeness/fashion of man was made/born. Any way you look at this phase, Jesus was not a man before this occurred.
Nope, again, you have not proven that the true Greek word for born was used in this text and in the likeness and fashion of man, only means in the likeness and fashion of man and not being made a man.
Again, this has to do with the fact that after Jesus as a man in the form of God took the form of a servant, he was made by this in the likeness and fashion of man, when regarding his unique authority from God, he wasn't like any of them in that regard.
Yeah, that's an argument. You don't know Greek. You don't know the cultural background or history of how these words were used in the first century. Declarations from a position of ignorance prove nothing but hardheadedness of the speaker.
Well then, you go on ahead and trust in your knowledge of Greek and or in those who know it and you are trusting and I will put my trust in God alone to led me into all truth by the Holy Sprit and like were are told in the scriptures that we must in order to truly know the truth and I will see you on the judgment day.
Philosophy: Plato and Aristotle. You can find all sorts of uses where μορφῇ is that which makes something what it is. You can find articles all over the internet, not related to this debate at all, discussing the use of μορφῇ in this way.
And that is why you were unable to present any of them here also.
For either you can't find any or you are taking them to mean what they don't mean and realizing that I will show you that they do not mean what you are saying they mean, one way or the other, your argument here is a worthless as a screen door on a submarine.
Nice job completely ignoring the problems with your excuse. Keep on repeating your narrative. That way you won't have to deal with the uncomfortable feeling of knowing your excuse doesn't hold muster.
Typical conniving here, for you continually accuse me of ignoring this or that and by doing so you are diverting from the fact that it is you in your trin bias false indoctrination who is unable to be honest with the facts of what is being stated in these texts.
Jesus was God and humbled himself to become man. That alone answers this entire response. If your attempt to critique my position doesn't take into consideration my actual position, then it is not but a straw man.
God Bless
So when Paul said "let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus", your human reasoning on this would suggest that he was telling us to become a totally different being than what we were originally like maybe a frog or leopard or something and which none of us can do
Sorry but what Paul is saying about Jesus in Philippians 2:5-8 has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus' essence or substance but rather his high and lofty position of authority from God being in the form of God as a man and therefore in this sense, unlike any other man.
