Kenosis Heresy

[Yahweh will increase]

I never said it did. Read my earlier post to you. I said "existed" in the form of "God" indicated that Christ Jesus is God in the flesh. I never said that morphe means substance.

"existing in the form" means existing in a form you can visibly see and that form is Christ Jesus who is God existing as a man. Although I agree, Jesus was also anointed by God. He lived an exemplar life for us relying on the anointing of his God. If he lived a sinless life through his own divine attributes how could he be our example? He is showing us that a human can life a triumphant life through God even a life that is filled with hardships. This is why the doctrine of kenosis is important to me for Christology.

Did you not understand what I wrote in my post that you are responding to?
You asked : Secondly, when Paul said these words in Philippians 2:6, "who being in the form of God", was he speaking of Jesus before or after he was born a human being?
I responded: After.
I'm not a trinitarian. I'm not defending that doctrine. Therefore I wouldn't say that "God existed in the form of God" at least not in the way they use form of God to mean before the incarnation. It would not apply to what I believe. Debate it with them. It might not be what they would likely say either, at least some of them who equate God with nature and not person. They would probably explain that in further depth which is something I don't care to do.

I wonder, are you even aware of these words of Jesus below?


John 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they might know you (he is speaking to the Father), The Only True God and Jesus the Christ whom you have sent".

John 5:26, "For just as The Father has life in himself, so he has given unto the Son to have life in himself also"


John 6:57, "For just as The Living Father has sent me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats of me will live because of me".


Now notice especially in John 6:57 the words "just as and so", for what Jesus is actually saying here, is that just as he lives because of the Father in the same way, we will also live because of him and he told us that he received the life from the Father and not that he possessed this life as being God himself.

 

[TheLayman]

What is the "form of God"?

Philippians 2:5-6 (NKJV)
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God [did not consider God equality something to be held onto tightly],

Examples of the form of God:

Isaiah 6:1-5 (NKJV)
1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple.
2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
3 And one cried to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!"
4 And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke.
5 So I said: "Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, The LORD of hosts."

Daniel 7:9-10 (NKJV)
9 "I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, Its wheels a burning fire;
10 A fiery stream issued And came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated, And the books were opened.

Ezekiel 1:22-28 (NKJV)
22 The likeness of the firmament above the heads of the living creatures was like the color of an awesome crystal, stretched out over their heads.
23 And under the firmament their wings spread out straight, one toward another. Each one had two which covered one side, and each one had two which covered the other side of the body.
24 When they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of many waters, like the voice of the Almighty, a tumult like the noise of an army; and when they stood still, they let down their wings.
25 A voice came from above the firmament that was over their heads; whenever they stood, they let down their wings.
26 And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne was a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it.
27 Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around.
28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the brightness all around it. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. So when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard a voice of One speaking.

Then verse 7

Philippians 2:7 (NKJV)
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

See the form of God up above, that's how He exists "nevetheless" He made Himself of "no reputation" [the kenosis]. How did He accomplish this [verb]? The next two participles explain: "taking the form of a servant..." Please note that Jesus Himself took this form, it was not done to Him. Clearly the "form of a servant" is much different than the "form of God" described above. And also, "coming in the likeness of men." Actually "becoming" (middle voice, again Jesus acting upon Himself) a "human being." He became something new while continuing to be what He was (that's not commentary, that' what it says). But wait there's more:

Philippians 2:8 (NKJV)
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Note in verse 7 the words "form," "likeness," and verse 8 "appearance." And in becoming a servant human, appearing as man, He did not seek to be King but accepted death on a cross for us. So back to what Paul was saying in verses 3 and 4, "

Philippians 2:3-4 (NKJV)
3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.
4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.

Yeah, have the attitude that the Son of God, our Savior had. Hope that answers your question.

TheLayman

 

[Caroljeen]

So then are you saying that the words "who being in the form of God" as per Paul in Philippians 2:6 are referring to Jesus as having already become a human being then, is that what you are saying?

Yes.
I answered this in post 1036 to you. "the form of God" is the man Christ Jesus.

If that is what you are saying, then you have taken away the idea that Paul was ever saying that Jesus pre existed as God before becoming a man and you would be right in that, for Paul was never speaking of Jesus as anything other than a real human being as per his actual ontology but as per his position with God and his authority "mophe" from God totally unlike any other man.

That is how Jesus began "huparchon" from his birth but then when he later took the form of a servant by choice, he made himself like all other men even though he still had the position and authority that he was born to have and what the "form of God" refers to in Philippians 2:6

I disagree with your explanation.

As I said "existing" in the form of God, means Christ Jesus is God in a human form.
Hebrews 1 supports this.
NRSV Hebrews 1: 1 Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high...8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

I don't know what "huparchon" means. I need to see it in the greek or in the verse of scripture you are taking it from to look it up.

For this is not what trins believe about it, for they use this passage to mean that Paul in these words is referring to Jesus as the eternal existing God only and who then took upon him the form of a servant when he was born as a human being.

Civic even replied to one of my posts just recently and said that the word "morphe" or "form" as per Philippians 2:6 does not apply to man but rather to Jesus as God and this is what all of the trins believe that I have spoken to on this forum also.

Trins like this interpretation because they believe it proves Jesus pre existed as God before becoming a man but it cannot mean this, for that Greek word "huparchon" translated as "being or existing" never refers to anything eternal but only of things that have a beginning of existence or a beginning in a position or of things that people began to possess.

Yes, I understand, for the most part, what Trinitarians believe. I'm really not concerned with that in this thread nor whether they believe morphe applies to before or after the incarnation. I want to know what they believe about the kenosis theory. What does kenosis "emptying" mean to them. And if it's a limitation of the Son of God's divine attritibutes, how far does that limitation go. This is basically why I am in this thread. And that's why I didn't address Phil 2, it wasn't what I was interested in. And if Jesus is limiting his divine attributes, how do they explain the verses where Jesus grows in wisdom and has to be taught. I was drawn into this thread by the subject and Civic's explanation in the opening post. I'm not really interested in discussing the Biblical Unitarian view of this subject...sorry.

 

[TheLayman]

Trins like this interpretation because they believe it proves Jesus pre existed as God before becoming a man but it cannot mean this, for that Greek word "huparchon" translated as "being or existing" never refers to anything eternal but only of things that have a beginning of existence or a beginning in a position or of things that people began to possess.

I tell myself not to read these threads but I was looking at something for someone else when I saw this...I say to myself, "I don't care how ridiculous that is, let it go, let it go." But I couldn't let this slide...you or someone else just made up this circular drivel because it has nothing to do with grammar or the word itself. If I'm wrong on this point, which I'm not, back it up.

As for it being circular drivel you are someone else made up...the only time this word could be used of something "eternal" is when it is used of God because God is the only thing that is eternal. Anything else that it is used of is going to be temporal. Good grief, how can someone even make something like that up and expect others to believe it. I need to go back to not reading this stuff.

TheLayman

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Yes.
I answered this in post 1036 to you. "the form of God" is the man Christ Jesus.

I got that.

I disagree with your explanation.

As I said "existing" in the form of God, means Christ Jesus is God in a human form.
Hebrews 1 supports this.
NRSV Hebrews 1: 1 Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high...8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

The fact that you disagree with me, doesn't change the fact that because you believe that Paul is speaking of Jesus already having been born as a human being in Philippians 2 should remove any idea you have that Paul was speaking of Jesus as pre existed his birth as being God.

For as I said and will again, that Greek word "huparchon" always refers to things that have a beginning whether it be referring to living things or possessions or properties or positions, it is always referring to things non eternal and that have a beginning of existence.

As I also said, it is used of God but only twice and only regarding his position after he first created all things and those two passages are found in Acts 17:24 and 27.

You will also notice that Paul starts first by saying this "God who created all the world and all things within them" and then he says this "is "huparchon" Lord of Heaven and Earth" so let me stop here and ask you this, is heaven and earth eternal or did it have a beginning?

So if heaven and earth had a beginning, then so did God as being Lord over it.

So then we go to verse 27 where Paul states that "He (God) is not far from any of us" so did we always exist so that God would be eternally not far from any of us?


You see therefore, that even in the only two places where this word "huparchon" is used of God, it is being used to reveal position that he only began to have after he first created the world and all things within it and which is why Paul says this first before using this word for God.

I don't know what "huparchon" means. I need to see it in the greek or in the verse of scripture you are taking it from to look it up.

Yes but you especially need to see what it means in the 60 times it is used in the NT, for that is the best resource that you can look at to reveal what the word means and when you are doing this, I would suggest you ask this question concerning it's use in every passage it appears, does it refer to things that are eternal or to things that have a beginning.

Here is a link to the Online Bible Hub a trinitarian resource and if you look to the right it shows passage that this word appears in within the NT and if you scroll down to the bottom of the verses you will see how many verses it appears in and if you click on that, it will open another page with all the verse bar none.

This is called "an Englishman's Concordance" and it is one of the best Bible tools available to see what words mean that are used in the NT and especially when word are used as often as this one is in the NT.

Yes, I understand, for the most part, what Trinitarians believe. I'm really not concerned with that in this thread nor whether they believe morphe applies to before or after the incarnation. I want to know what they believe about the kenosis theory. What does kenosis "emptying" mean to them. And if it's a limitation of the Son of God's divine attritibutes, how far does that limitation go. This is basically why I am in this thread. And that's why I didn't address Phil 2, it wasn't what I was interested in. And if Jesus is limiting his divine attributes, how do they explain the verses where Jesus grows in wisdom and has to be taught. I was drawn into this thread by the subject and Civic's explanation in the opening post. I'm not really interested in discussing the Biblical Unitarian view of this subject...sorry.

To most of them "kenosis" means the same thing that it does with you, but you are wrong just like they are, for Paul said nothing about Jesus holding back from using any Divine Attributes in the text at all.

Therefore and as I have already said and will again, by Paul saying that Jesus was in the morphe of God, he was only expressing the fact that the Father God was dwelling within Jesus and therefore being manifested through Jesus in his behavior and authority and not that Jesus was God himself.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

I tell myself not to read these threads but I was looking at something for someone else when I saw this...I say to myself, "I don't care how ridiculous that is, let it go, let it go." But I couldn't let this slide...you or someone else just made up this circular drivel because it has nothing to do with grammar or the word itself. If I'm wrong on this point, which I'm not, back it up.

As for it being circular drivel you are someone else made up...the only time this word could be used of something "eternal" is when it is used of God because God is the only thing that is eternal. Anything else that it is used of is going to be temporal. Good grief, how can someone even make something like that up and expect others to believe it. I need to go back to not reading this stuff.

TheLayman

Sorry, but the Englishman's Concordance on the Bible Hub to the right of the definitions gives you all of the 60 verses where this word appears and what it is translated to mean in the NT and the word has built right into its meaning by the word "arche" that it only refers to things that have a beginning of existence and not to anything that exists eternally.

Here is the link, so have at it and try to prove me wrong on this, for never once is this word ever used to speak of things that are eternal period. https://biblehub.com/greek/5225.htm

So being you are saying I am wrong and made this up, it is up to you to show me how and why in any of those occurrences where this word appears in the NT that it is speaking of anything that didn't have a beginning whether it be of a persons possessions or his properties or positions like chief priest or positions of authority or whatever else it is used to be speaking of.

So the burden to prove me wrong lies upon you being it was you who want to challenge what I said it means, so prove it.

By the way, OS already posted the BDAG definitions of the word and although he said they refute this, there was nothing in anything they said that did at all.

In fact, I couldn't even see where the BDAG even touched upon this fact about this word but it is a fact that it never refers to things eternal but only of things that have a beginning period.

By the way it is used of God but only twice and in both passages it is referring to what God became only after he created the world and all things within them and Paul even starts with this in Acts 17:24 and the other verse is in verse 27, so let's look at them and I will show you what I am speaking of.

Acts 17:24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is "huparchon" the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.

Now then, suppose you tell me how that God could have eternally been Lord of Heaven and Earth when Heaven and Earth never existed eternally and only began to exist after God first created it and which incidentally Paul even says before he uses this word "huparchon"

The same thing can be seen in verse 27 also below.

27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is "huparchon" not far from any one of us.

Again, suppose you tell me, how God could have existed eternally as not far from any of us before he created us first.

Therefore we see here that even when used of God, it only refers to God in having a position that he began to have only after he first created all things and in both of these passages also and just like the word "huparchon" means.

By the way, why would Paul have used this word instead of "eimi" if he wanted us to know that Jesus was God and always existed as God before becoming a man, for the word "eimi" has no sense of a beginning of existence in its meaning at all but only the context would reveal this if it was used to mean this, but that is not the same with hupachon.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Philippians 2:5-6 (NKJV)
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God [did not consider God equality something to be held onto tightly],

Examples of the form of God:

Isaiah 6:1-5 (NKJV)
1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple.
2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
3 And one cried to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!"
4 And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke.
5 So I said: "Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, The LORD of hosts."

Daniel 7:9-10 (NKJV)
9 "I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, Its wheels a burning fire;
10 A fiery stream issued And came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated, And the books were opened.

Ezekiel 1:22-28 (NKJV)
22 The likeness of the firmament above the heads of the living creatures was like the color of an awesome crystal, stretched out over their heads.
23 And under the firmament their wings spread out straight, one toward another. Each one had two which covered one side, and each one had two which covered the other side of the body.
24 When they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of many waters, like the voice of the Almighty, a tumult like the noise of an army; and when they stood still, they let down their wings.
25 A voice came from above the firmament that was over their heads; whenever they stood, they let down their wings.
26 And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne was a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it.
27 Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around.
28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the brightness all around it. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. So when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard a voice of One speaking.

Then verse 7

Philippians 2:7 (NKJV)
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

See the form of God up above, that's how He exists "nevetheless" He made Himself of "no reputation" [the kenosis]. How did He accomplish this [verb]? The next two participles explain: "taking the form of a servant..." Please note that Jesus Himself took this form, it was not done to Him. Clearly the "form of a servant" is much different than the "form of God" described above. And also, "coming in the likeness of men." Actually "becoming" (middle voice, again Jesus acting upon Himself) a "human being." He became something new while continuing to be what He was (that's not commentary, that' what it says). But wait there's more:

Philippians 2:8 (NKJV)
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Note in verse 7 the words "form," "likeness," and verse 8 "appearance." And in becoming a servant human, appearing as man, He did not seek to be King but accepted death on a cross for us. So back to what Paul was saying in verses 3 and 4, "

Philippians 2:3-4 (NKJV)
3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.
4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.

Yeah, have the attitude that the Son of God, our Savior had. Hope that answers your question.

TheLayman

Sorry but the word "morphe" does not appear in any of those verses other than Philippians 2:6 and therefore your idea that they all reveal what is meant by the form or morphe of God is what you are fabricating from your own bias human reasoning and not from the word of God.

So being you claim to have this attitude that you believe Paul said was in Christ Jesus, have you succeeded yet in adding the nature of some other creature to your already existing nature of a human being and like you believe that Paul is saying of Jesus here then?

For neither the word "morphe" or any of its relatives used in the NT ever refers to the actual substance or ontology but only the characteristics of a substance or ontology instead and this is easily proven also by how this word and its relative words are used in the NT scriptures.

For instance the same Greek word is used in Mark 16:12 when Jesus appeared to be in another form "morphe".

Now then, it was the same substance and ontology of Jesus but only his outward appearance "morphe" was different to them being their eyes were withheld from recognizing him and as per what is also recorded in another gospel about it.

Then we have the Greek relative "morphosin" used in 2 Timothy 3:5 "having a form "morphe" (outward appearance or characteristics) of godliness but denying the power (actual substance) thereof".

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Yes.
I answered this in post 1036 to you. "the form of God" is the man Christ Jesus.

I disagree with your explanation.

As I said "existing" in the form of God, means Christ Jesus is God in a human form.
Hebrews 1 supports this.
NRSV Hebrews 1: 1 Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high...8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

I don't know what "huparchon" means. I need to see it in the greek or in the verse of scripture you are taking it from to look it up.

Yes, I understand, for the most part, what Trinitarians believe. I'm really not concerned with that in this thread nor whether they believe morphe applies to before or after the incarnation. I want to know what they believe about the kenosis theory. What does kenosis "emptying" mean to them. And if it's a limitation of the Son of God's divine attritibutes, how far does that limitation go. This is basically why I am in this thread. And that's why I didn't address Phil 2, it wasn't what I was interested in. And if Jesus is limiting his divine attributes, how do they explain the verses where Jesus grows in wisdom and has to be taught. I was drawn into this thread by the subject and Civic's explanation in the opening post. I'm not really interested in discussing the Biblical Unitarian view of this subject...sorry.

Sorry but in my last post I meant to include the link to the Bible Hub online and didn't do it for some reason but here it is below.

Strong's Greek: 5225. ὑπάρχω (huparchó) -- 60 Occurrences

biblehub.com

This skips right to the 60 places that huparchon is used in the NT and reveals how it is used and what it is used to mean and nowhere in the 60 occurrences that it is used in the NT does it ever refer to anything eternal and which never have a beginning period.

 

[TheLayman]

Sorry, but the Englishman's Concordance on the Bible Hub to the right of the definitions gives you all of the 60 verses where this word appears and what it is translated to mean in the NT and the word has built right into its meaning by the word "arche" that it only refers to things that have a beginning of existence and not to anything that exists eternally.

Here is the link, so have at it and try to prove me wrong on this, for never once is this word ever used to speak of things that are eternal period. https://biblehub.com/greek/5225.htm

ROTFLOL! I'd say you must be kidding me...but you aren't. So according to you, because you found "arche" built right into it, this means that it refers only to things that have a beginning or existence. That's not how language, including Greek, works. Knowing the etymology of a word can help you, words you "find in a word" do not tell you its meaning. Case/tense/mood all matter in Greek as well. More importantly, no lexicon says what you have said, you will not find that in a definition anywhere including "the Englishman's concordance." So back to what I said, YOU MADE THIS UP...that was painfully obvious.

Oh, BTW, this is a present/active/participle in the nominative case...same as Acts 17:24

Acts 17:24 (ESV)
24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,

So being you are saying I am wrong and made this up, it is up to you to show me how and why in any of those occurrences where this word appears in the NT that it is speaking of anything that didn't have a beginning whether it be of a persons possessions or his properties or positions like chief priest or positions of authority or whatever else it is used to be speaking of.

That is all irrelevant. As I said previously, the only thing that is eternal is God, so what else could it possibly be used of that is eternal. Do you understand how circular and ridiculous your reasoning is or do you really not get it? I'm really am curious. What does go with the idea of this word is what something is to "begin with/originally." But again, depends on the context and and grammar. Here's the entry from BDAG if that helps you:

to be in a state or circumstance, be as a widely used substitute in H. Gk. for εἶναι, but in some of the foll. pass. the sense 'be inherently (so)' or 'be really' cannot be excluded (s. 1; cp. IG XIV, 2014, 3 ἄνθρωπος ὑπάρχων='being mortal') (B-D-F §414, 1; s. Rob. 1121) w. a predicate noun (OGI 383, 48 [I bc] ὅπως οὗτος... ὑπάρχῃ καθιδρυμένος; TestAbr A 4 p. 80, 26 [Stone p. 8] ἐνδοξότερος ὑπάρχει βασιλέων; ibid. B 2 p. 105, 9 [St. p. 58] ὑπῆρχεν... γηραλέος πάνυ τῇ ἰδέᾳ; JosAs 7:11 cod. A [p. 48, 12 Bat.] εἰ θυγάτηρ ὑμῶν ἐστι καὶ παρθένος ὑπάρχει...; SibOr 3, 267, fgm. 1, 28; Ar. 13, 6; Just., A I, 4, 1; Tat. 60, 2) οὗτος ἄρχων τῆς συναγωγῆς ὑπῆρχεν Lk 8:41. ἐγὼ λειτουργὸς ὑπάρχω τοῦ θεοῦ I am a minister of God GJs 23:1. Cp. Lk 9:48; Ac 7:55; 8:16; 16:3; 19:31 D (w. φίλος and dat., the standard form, s. ins Larfeld I 500); 36; 21:20; 1 Cor 7:26; 12:22; Js 2:15; 2 Pt 3:11; 1 Cl 19:3 and oft.; MPol 6:2. Very freq. in the ptc. w. a predicate noun who is, since he is, etc. (TestSim 4:4 ἐλεήμων ὑπάρχων; Just., A II, 2, 10; Tat. 2, 2; Mel., P. 54, 396) οἱ Φαρισαῖοι φιλάργυροι ὑπάρχοντες Lk 16:14. Cp. 11:13 (v.l. ὄντες); 23:50; Ac 2:30; 3:2; 16:20, 37; 17:24, 29; 22:3; 27:12; Ro 4:19; 1 Cor 11:7; 2 Cor 8:17; 12:16; Gal 1:14; 2:14; 2 Pt 2:19; 1 Cl 1:1; 11:1, 2; 25:2; B 5:10.—ὑπ. w. a prep.: ἐν (Jer 4:14; Philo, Leg. All. 1, 62; Jos., Ant. 7, 391; Just., D. 69, 7 ἐν λώβῃ τινὶ σώματος ὑπάρχων): οἱ ἐν ἱματισμῷ ἐνδόξῳ ὑπάρχοντες Lk 7:25; cp. 16:23; Ac 5:4; 14:9 D; Phil 2:6; 1 Cl 1:3; 32:2; 56:1. τοῦτο πρὸς τῆς ὑμετέρας σωτηρίας ὑπάρχει Ac 27:34 (s. πρός 1).—Schmidt, Syn. II 538-41. DELG s.v. ἄρχω p. 121. M-M. Sv.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.

And from the Complete Word Dictionary

(E) With a prep. and its case as predicate. En <G1722>, in, with the dat. where hupárchei then implies a being, remaining, living in any state or place. En with a dat. of condition (Luke 7:25; 16:23; Acts 5:4; Phil. 2:6). En with the dat. of place (Acts 10:12; Phil. 3:20). Prós <G4314>, toward, with the gen. (Acts 27:34).

Deriv.: proúpárchō <G4391>, to exist before; húparxis <G5223>, being, existence.

Complete Word Study Dictionary, The - New Testament.

So the burden to prove me wrong lies upon you being it was you who want to challenge what I said it means, so prove it.

Well no, that's not how it works. When you make an unsupported assertion it is yours to prove. That said, I already did prove it, i.e. you made it up and you can quote nothing that supports your nonsense. See what I said? It is very simple. My assertion: You made it up. My proof: You have nothing to support such a claim other than your own assertion.

By the way, OS already posted the BDAG definitions of the word and although he said they refute this, there was nothing in anything they said that did at all.

In fact, I couldn't even see where the BDAG even touched upon this fact about this word but it is a fact that it never refers to things eternal but only of things that have a beginning period.

Which proves you have no understanding of what you are reading, I also quoted it above. But this explain a great deal.

By the way it is used of God but only twice and in both passages it is referring to what God became only after he created the world and all things within them and Paul even starts with this in Acts 17:24 and the other verse is in verse 27, so let's look at them and I will show you what I am speaking of.

Acts 17:24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is "huparchon" the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.

Now then, suppose you tell me how that God could have eternally been Lord of Heaven and Earth when Heaven and Earth never existed eternally and only began to exist after God first created it and which incidentally Paul even says before he uses this word "huparchon"

"God existing" has nothing to do with the heaven and earth being created. "Huparchon" does not modify heaven and earth, it modifies God.

The same thing can be seen in verse 27 also below.

27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is "huparchon" not far from any one of us.

Again, suppose you tell me, how God could have existed eternally as not far from any of us before he created us first.

"though HE EXISTS not from from any one of us..." Once again, "huparchon" refers to the existence of God, not to "any one of us." You are posting passages that completely blow up your own argument...do you understand this or are you somehow capable of rationalizing this believing it is proving your nonsense?

Therefore we see here that even when used of God, it only refers to God in having a position that he began to have only after he first created all things and in both of these passages also and just like the word "huparchon" means.

By the way, why would Paul have used this word instead of "eimi" if he wanted us to know that Jesus was God and always existed as God before becoming a man, for the word "eimi" has no sense of a beginning of existence in its meaning at all but only the context would reveal this if it was used to mean this, but that is not the same with hupachon.

SMH...just utter nonsense, you have no idea what you are talking about. This is why I stopped posting, I have no idea why I am once again engaging in this exercise of futility.

TheLayman

 

[TheLayman]

Sorry but the word "morphe" does not appear in any of those verses other than Philippians 2:6 and therefore your idea that they all reveal what is meant by the form or morphe of God is what you are fabricating from your own bias human reasoning and not from the word of God.

So being you claim to have this attitude that you believe Paul said was in Christ Jesus, have you succeeded yet in adding the nature of some other creature to your already existing nature of a human being and like you believe that Paul is saying of Jesus here then?

For neither the word "morphe" or any of its relatives used in the NT ever refers to the actual substance or ontology but only the characteristics of a substance or ontology instead and this is easily proven also by how this word and its relative words are used in the NT scriptures.

For instance the same Greek word is used in Mark 16:12 when Jesus appeared to be in another form "morphe".

Now then, it was the same substance and ontology of Jesus but only his outward appearance "morphe" was different to them being their eyes were withheld from recognizing him and as per what is also recorded in another gospel about it.

Then we have the Greek relative "morphosin" used in 2 Timothy 3:5 "having a form "morphe" (outward appearance or characteristics) of godliness but denying the power (actual substance) thereof".

This is what happens when someone reads to argue rather than understand...in fact, a perfect example. Up above you responded to my response to carol wherein she asked what the morphe/form of God is and I responded by quoting passages from Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel. You made the ridiculous argument that the greek word morphe did not occur in the OT passages (which is not what Carol asked me). You then point out morphe speaking of the outward appearance here, completely missing the point regarding the "outward appearance" of God in the passages I just mentioned.

Next, in Philippians it says the Jesus "existed in the morphe of God." Look again, existed, and as I said elsewhere, there is only one possible way to exist in the form of God, and that is to be God. In Mark 16:12, Jesus appears/manifests "phaneroo" in a different form/morphe. Do I really need to explain the difference in "appear" and "exist" to you, or can you figure that out on your own?

TheLayman

 

[Caroljeen]

Philippians 2:5-6 (NKJV)
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God [did not consider God equality something to be held onto tightly],

Examples of the form of God:

Isaiah 6:1-5 (NKJV)
1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple.
2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
3 And one cried to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!"
4 And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke.
5 So I said: "Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, The LORD of hosts."

Daniel 7:9-10 (NKJV)
9 "I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, Its wheels a burning fire;
10 A fiery stream issued And came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated, And the books were opened.

Ezekiel 1:22-28 (NKJV)
22 The likeness of the firmament above the heads of the living creatures was like the color of an awesome crystal, stretched out over their heads.
23 And under the firmament their wings spread out straight, one toward another. Each one had two which covered one side, and each one had two which covered the other side of the body.
24 When they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of many waters, like the voice of the Almighty, a tumult like the noise of an army; and when they stood still, they let down their wings.
25 A voice came from above the firmament that was over their heads; whenever they stood, they let down their wings.
26 And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne was a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it.
27 Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around.
28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the brightness all around it. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. So when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard a voice of One speaking.

Are these examples or reality or theophanies or Christophanies?

 

[TheLayman]

Are these examples or reality or theophanies or Christophanies?

I would say they exhibit the "morphe of God" which is how Phil 2 says Jesus existed preincarnate. Would it matter whether they were reality or theophanies or Christophanies as it regards understanding Phil 2? If so, break it down for me and tell me how so.

TheLayman

 

[Yahweh will increase]

ROTFLOL! I'd say you must be kidding me...but you aren't. So according to you, because you found "arche" built right into it, this means that it refers only to things that have a beginning or existence. That's not how language, including Greek, works. Knowing the etymology of a word can help you, words you "find in a word" do not tell you its meaning. Case/tense/mood all matter in Greek as well. More importantly, no lexicon says what you have said, you will not find that in a definition anywhere including "the Englishman's concordance." So back to what I said, YOU MADE THIS UP...that was painfully obvious.

ROFLOL right back at you, for all of those Lexicons are bias resources and they all want to be accepted as legitimate by the others also and therefore their eyes are blind to not all but to many facts about the words that they define and therefore they still can be somewhat useful if one doesn't put too much weight upon their definitions.

The best resource for what words mean is in how they are used and what they are used to mean in the NT and that is, if they are used enough times and "huparchon" is and that is much better than any bias Lexicon that you can bring into the picture also.

By the way, I have looked at the Lexicons on this word and they show nothing whatsoever that would reveal that this word can refer to things that are eternal in nature.

Oh, BTW, this is a present/active/participle in the nominative case...same as Acts 17:24

Acts 17:24 (ESV)
24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,

ROFLOL once again, for it still reveals that he had to created heaven and earth before he became Lord of it and to think it can mean other than this is just plain stupidity.

That is all irrelevant. As I said previously, the only thing that is eternal is God, so what else could it possibly be used of that is eternal. Do you understand how circular and ridiculous your reasoning is or do you really not get it? I'm really am curious. What does go with the idea of this word is what something is to "begin with/originally." But again, depends on the context and and grammar. Here's the entry from BDAG if that helps you:

No it isn't but I am sure it is foolishness to someone like you who attempts to understand Spiritual matter by your natural human wisdom and reasoning processes and also through your worldly academic learning processes, instead of by the discernment that come from God by the Spirit and like Paul reveals we are suppose to in 1 Corinthians 2:13-16.

to be in a state or circumstance, be as a widely used substitute in H. Gk. for εἶναι, but in some of the foll. pass. the sense 'be inherently (so)' or 'be really' cannot be excluded (s. 1; cp. IG XIV, 2014, 3 ἄνθρωπος ὑπάρχων='being mortal') (B-D-F §414, 1; s. Rob. 1121) w. a predicate noun (OGI 383, 48 [I bc] ὅπως οὗτος... ὑπάρχῃ καθιδρυμένος; TestAbr A 4 p. 80, 26 [Stone p. 8] ἐνδοξότερος ὑπάρχει βασιλέων; ibid. B 2 p. 105, 9 [St. p. 58] ὑπῆρχεν... γηραλέος πάνυ τῇ ἰδέᾳ; JosAs 7:11 cod. A [p. 48, 12 Bat.] εἰ θυγάτηρ ὑμῶν ἐστι καὶ παρθένος ὑπάρχει...; SibOr 3, 267, fgm. 1, 28; Ar. 13, 6; Just., A I, 4, 1; Tat. 60, 2) οὗτος ἄρχων τῆς συναγωγῆς ὑπῆρχεν Lk 8:41. ἐγὼ λειτουργὸς ὑπάρχω τοῦ θεοῦ I am a minister of God GJs 23:1. Cp. Lk 9:48; Ac 7:55; 8:16; 16:3; 19:31 D (w. φίλος and dat., the standard form, s. ins Larfeld I 500); 36; 21:20; 1 Cor 7:26; 12:22; Js 2:15; 2 Pt 3:11; 1 Cl 19:3 and oft.; MPol 6:2. Very freq. in the ptc. w. a predicate noun who is, since he is, etc. (TestSim 4:4 ἐλεήμων ὑπάρχων; Just., A II, 2, 10; Tat. 2, 2; Mel., P. 54, 396) οἱ Φαρισαῖοι φιλάργυροι ὑπάρχοντες Lk 16:14. Cp. 11:13 (v.l. ὄντες); 23:50; Ac 2:30; 3:2; 16:20, 37; 17:24, 29; 22:3; 27:12; Ro 4:19; 1 Cor 11:7; 2 Cor 8:17; 12:16; Gal 1:14; 2:14; 2 Pt 2:19; 1 Cl 1:1; 11:1, 2; 25:2; B 5:10.—ὑπ. w. a prep.: ἐν (Jer 4:14; Philo, Leg. All. 1, 62; Jos., Ant. 7, 391; Just., D. 69, 7 ἐν λώβῃ τινὶ σώματος ὑπάρχων): οἱ ἐν ἱματισμῷ ἐνδόξῳ ὑπάρχοντες Lk 7:25; cp. 16:23; Ac 5:4; 14:9 D; Phil 2:6; 1 Cl 1:3; 32:2; 56:1. τοῦτο πρὸς τῆς ὑμετέρας σωτηρίας ὑπάρχει Ac 27:34 (s. πρός 1).—Schmidt, Syn. II 538-41. DELG s.v. ἄρχω p. 121. M-M. Sv.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.

And from the Complete Word Dictionary

(E) With a prep. and its case as predicate. En <G1722>, in, with the dat. where hupárchei then implies a being, remaining, living in any state or place. En with a dat. of condition (Luke 7:25; 16:23; Acts 5:4; Phil. 2:6). En with the dat. of place (Acts 10:12; Phil. 3:20). Prós <G4314>, toward, with the gen. (Acts 27:34).

Where are you getting from any of those definitions that "huparchon" can mean an eternal existence, for none of the above says any such thing at all period?

Deriv.: proúpárchō <G4391>, to exist before; húparxis <G5223>, being, existence.

Of course it means he existed before in regards to this passage, for he was born first in the form of God before he then took the form of a servant to become like other mean while having authority in the form of God unlike any other man ever had or ever will have.

But existing before, doesn't mean eternal existence, not in your life.

Complete Word Study Dictionary, The - New Testament.





Well no, that's not how it works. When you make an unsupported assertion it is yours to prove. That said, I already did prove it, i.e. you made it up and you can quote nothing that supports your nonsense. See what I said? It is very simple. My assertion: You made it up. My proof: You have nothing to support such a claim other than your own assertion.

When are you academically educated ignorant, going to get it through your heads that you are not the Lord of how it all works and neither is your academic methods of learning the scriptures either.

What a joke, you proved nothing but only to yourself and those who follow the same in your bias ignorant imaginations

 

[Our Lord's God]

What is the "form of God"?

It refers to the majesty of his glorified and exalted state having been resurrected and sat down at the right hand of God
in contrast to his humble state of obedience unto death.

 

[Caroljeen]

Philippians 2:5-6 (NKJV)
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God [did not consider God equality something to be held onto tightly],

Then verse 7

Philippians 2:7 (NKJV)
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

See the form of God up above, that's how He exists "nevetheless" He made Himself of "no reputation" [the kenosis]. How did He accomplish this [verb]? The next two participles explain: "taking the form of a servant..." Please note that Jesus Himself took this form, it was not done to Him. Clearly the "form of a servant" is much different than the "form of God" described above. And also, "coming in the likeness of men."

BTW- the OT verses you quoted, I think are Christophanies because God is an invisible Spirit and no one has ever seen God. John 4:24, 1 John 4:12
vs 6 who (referring Christ Jesus), being in the form of God, (Morphe-1) the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision 2) external appearance. This is from Bible.org. The 'form of God' would be the man, Christ Jesus. He is a visible form that can be seen. Heb 1 speaks of the Son as being the express image of God.
...taking the form of a bondservant (this is the type of man Christ Jesus came as even a slave when he took on the likeness of men)

Actually "becoming" (middle voice, again Jesus acting upon Himself) a "human being." He became something new while continuing to be what He was (that's not commentary, that' what it says).

Can you explain where you got "becoming" and "human being" in verse 7?

But wait there's more:
Philippians 2:8 (NKJV)
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Note in verse 7 the words "form," "likeness," and verse 8 "appearance." And in becoming a servant human, appearing as man, He did not seek to be King but accepted death on a cross for us. So back to what Paul was saying in verses 3 and 4, "

A wonderful thing for sure!

Philippians 2:3-4 (NKJV)
3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.
4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.

Yeah, have the attitude that the Son of God, our Savior had. Hope that answers your question.

Amen! and yes, thank you. It answered my question and more!

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Which proves you have no understanding of what you are reading, I also quoted it above. But this explain a great deal.

Sorry but you cannot make this judgment of me, and for the simple reason that unlike you, I don't attempt to understand Spiritual words by my carnal human wisdom reasoning and nor by academic education processes and as if it was a rocket science instead of the Spirit inspired word of God that it truly is.

1 Corinthians 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.



14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.



15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments,



16 for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we (we who are truly led and taught by the Spirit) have the mind of Christ.







1 Corinthians 3:1 Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans?


If you want proof of just how worldly those who believe like you are, look no further than what goes on every day on this forum, for the divisions that you have among you, make the church of Corinth pale in comparison.


For many many years ago now, your church fell away from the truth that was once and for all delivered to the saints in the written scriptures and this happened because you began to replace receiving the truth from the scripture by the Spirit with your attempt to receive it instead by your own human wit and worldly education processes.


All one needs to do to see where this began is to read some of what you would like to call "The Early Church Fathers", for their writings are full of their theorizing and philosophizing with the scriptures and it has never changed and it wont either, for it will continue right up until Jesus returns and totally destroys that apostate cult for ever.

"God existing" has nothing to do with the heaven and earth being created. "Huparchon" does not modify heaven and earth, it modifies God.

ROFLOL!!!!! Boy you are wearing your ignorance right on your sleeve with that bunch of nonsense.

Oh I beg to differ with you on that, for if all Paul said was that God was Lord period, and without qualifying over what by adding Heaven and earth that had a beginning, then I would have no argument.







However, once he makes it clear that God is Lord of ---------- heaven and earth, he is speaking of a position that God only began to have after he first created the world and everything in it and which is obviously why Paul used "huparchon" here to start with being he stated with that statement first in this passage.

"though HE EXISTS not from from any one of us..." Once again, "huparchon" refers to the existence of God, not to "any one of us." You are posting passages that completely blow up your own argument...do you understand this or are you somehow capable of rationalizing this believing it is proving your nonsense?

More ignorance.

Nope, for if all Paul said, was that God exists Period and without qualifying his meaning as God's being not far from any of us who were created first, you would have a cogent argument here but that isn't the case and deep in your guts you know it isn't also.

SMH...just utter nonsense, you have no idea what you are talking about. This is why I stopped posting, I have no idea why I am once again engaging in this exercise of futility.

TheLayman

That is exactly what your reply amounts to "utter bias Nonsense" but it is not surprising to me either, for you are out of line with the way that Jesus and his inspired writer Paul revealed how we are supposed to go about obtaining the truth from the scriptures, for you are operating by the flesh and not by the Spirit.

 

[Caroljeen]

I would say they exhibit the "morphe of God" which is how Phil 2 says Jesus existed preincarnate. Would it matter whether they were reality or theophanies or Christophanies as it regards understanding Phil 2? If so, break it down for me and tell me how so.

TheLayman

So you would say those scriptures depict a reality of the form of God and not a theophany/christophany.

Theophanies/Christophanies are temporary manifestations. I don't believe this his how God really exists. The only "form" God has truly had is Christ Jesus and is the only form of God we will see in eternity. God is an invisible Spirit. No man has seen him. I'm not even sure if the created angels could see God except as those types of theophanies.

 

[Caroljeen]

So you would say those scriptures depict a reality of the form of God and not a theophany/christophany.
Theophanies/Christophanies are temporary manifestations. I don't believe this his how God really exists. The only "form" God has truly had is Christ Jesus and is the only form of God we will see in eternity. God is an invisible Spirit. No man has seen him. I'm not even sure if the created angels could see God except as those types of theophanies.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

This is what happens when someone reads to argue rather than understand...in fact, a perfect example. Up above you responded to my response to carol wherein she asked what the morphe/form of God is and I responded by quoting passages from Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel. You made the ridiculous argument that the greek word morphe did not occur in the OT passages (which is not what Carol asked me). You then point out morphe speaking of the outward appearance here, completely missing the point regarding the "outward appearance" of God in the passages I just mentioned.

Oh but my purpose was not to understand what you were saying anyhow but you were incorrect on your idea anyhow and a good example was your idea that Isaiah 6:1-5 is Jesus in his supposed pre existing form of God, and you get this false idea from your misinterpretation of John 12 when he speaks of Isaiah seeing the glory of the suffering messiah and quotes Isaiah 53 as what he is speaking of.


My purpose was in making the point that the word "morphe" does not mean what many trins believe it does as "the essential nature" of whatever it is being applied to and Jesus actually revealed for us why when we see him we also see the Father and he never said it was because he was also God and shared his "essential nature".

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know[a] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.


The answer to every why when they saw Jesus they saw the Father was revealed by him in the bold red above and it also reveals whose words Jesus was speaking in verse 9 when he answered Philip and said, "Don't you know me Philip, even after I have been among you for such a long time".

They were the words of the Father himself who was dwelling within Jesus and revealing himself through Jesus, and this is also what Paul meant by saying that Jesus existed in the form of God and not because he was himself God like you falsely believe.
\

Next, in Philippians it says the Jesus "existed in the morphe of God." Look again, existed, and as I said elsewhere, there is only one possible way to exist in the form of God, and that is to be God. In Mark 16:12, Jesus appears/manifests "phaneroo" in a different form/morphe. Do I really need to explain the difference in "appear" and "exist" to you, or can you figure that out on your own?

TheLayman

That is bunk and it is much the same as saying that there is only one way for a man to exist in the image of God also and it is also by being God

Again, that word existed is "huparchon" and it never refers to things that exist eternally, whether possessions or properties or offices of positions or positions of authority or whatever else it is used for, it never refers to things that don't have a beginning.

Indeed it can mean "existed before" but you also need to remember that everything Paul is saying here is past tense of Jesus' resurrection and all that Paul is saying here is that Jesus existed in one form before he took another and not that he existed from eternity like you falsely want to make his words mean.

Jesus existed from birth in the form of God before choosing to take the form of a servant in order to be like all men and to be able to relate to their sufferings in this life and Hebrews brings this to light also.

 

[Caroljeen]

Oh but my purpose was not to understand what you were saying anyhow

What? That's interesting. I thought the whole purpose of these forums was to bring understanding. Hmmm, why would anyone want to discuss anything with you?