The Alpha and the Omega is the Almighty (Revelation 22:13)

[John Milton]

(1) The word is σχῆμα, not μορφή.

It still means "form".

(2) We have a different Greek construction here -- καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος (and in appearance have been found asa man).
Even if you wish to translate σχῆμα as "form," this clause is not saying "he was in the form of a man" but "in form having been found as a man." It is pointing out to the readers that he was seen as a man (i.e. someone who has to die, someone who has sinned), even though he was sinless. You should remember the following scriptures when reading this verse:



2 cor. 5:21



Romans 3:23



Ecc. 7:20

You've already said that you believe that the passage is saying that Jesus was a man. Why are you contradicting your own position?

 

[John Milton]

(1) The word is σχῆμα, not μορφή.

(2) We have a different Greek construction here -- καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος (and in appearance have been found as a man). Even if you wish to translate σχῆμα as "form," this clause is not saying "he was in the form of a man" but "in form having been found as a man." It is pointing out to the readers that he was seen as a man (i.e. someone who has to die, someone who has sinned), even though he was sinless. You should remember the following scriptures when reading this verse:



2 cor. 5:21



Romans 3:23



Ecc. 7:20

This didn't age well for you did it?

No, seems like you are projecting yet again. I'm not the one falsely declaring that Phil. 2:5-7 says Jesus was "in the form of a man."

 

[The Real John Milton]

It still means "form".

In English translation, it could mean that, but the Biblical Greek word here is σχῆμα, not μορφή . These are wo different words, so you cannot assume that σχῆμα and μορφή are interchangeable. The word where μορφὴν actually appears is asserting something totally different -- μορφὴν δούλου λαβών -- he took the form of a servant. But in Phil. 2:8 something else is being discussed : καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος means -- And in likeness having been found as a man,.....

You've already said that you believe that the passage is saying that Jesus was a man. Why are you contradicting your own position?

Phil. 2:6-8 is no where declaring Jesus a man, this truth is declared in other passages of scripture. Phil. 2:8 is saying rather that Jesus was likened as a man,.... ἄνθρωπος in Phil. 2:8 refers to a "fallen" man deserving of death. He was of course not that.

 

[John Milton]

In English translation, it could mean that, but the Biblical Greek word here is σχῆμα, not μορφή .

They both mean "form". The reason we render it that way in English is because that's what it means.

These are wo different words, so you cannot assume that σχῆμα and μορφή are interchangeable.

I never said they were, but they certainly are interchangeable in this context.

The word where μορφὴν actually appears is asserting something totally different -- μορφὴν δούλου λαβών -- he took the form of a servant. But in Phil. 2:8 something else is being discussed : καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος means -- And in likeness having been found as a man,.....

Lol. You are so ridiculous.

Phil. 2:6-8 is no where declaring Jesus a man, this truth is declared in other passages of scripture.

So, you're officially changing your position. Flip-flop, little fish.

Phil. 2:8 is saying rather that Jesus was likened as a man,.... ἄνθρωπος in Phil. 2:8 refers to a "fallen" man deserving of death. He was of course not that.

It says that Jesus was in the form of a man just as I have said all along.

 

[The Real John Milton]

They both mean "form". The reason we render it that way in English is because that's what it means.

I never said they were, but they certainly are interchangeable in this context.

Lol. You are so ridiculous.

So, you're officially changing your position. Flip-flop, little fish.

It says that Jesus was in the form of a man just as I have said all along.

I didn't see anything of substance here.

 

[John Milton]

I didn't see anything of substance here.

LOL

 

[The Real John Milton]

Psalm 82:7 came to my remembrance relative to Phil. 2:8

ὑμεῗς δὲ ὡς ἄνθρωποι ἀποθνῄσκετε καὶ ὡς εἷς τῶν ἀρχόντωνπίπτετε

These men will die as men. They were men, why does the Bible say they will die “as” men ? Sounds like a strange thing to say until we realize that “men” here denotes fallen humanity. The same type of language is used in Phil 2:8. Jesus was found in appearance as a (sinful) man worthy of death, even though he knew no sin. The adverb ὡς is important.

 

[cjab]

Psalm 82:7 came to my remembrance relative to Phil. 2:8



These men will die as men. They were men, why does the Bible say they will die “as” men ? Sounds like a strange thing to say until we realize that “men” here denotes fallen humanity. The same type of language is used in Phil 2:8. Jesus was found in appearance as a (sinful) man worthy of death, even though he knew no sin. The adverb ὡς is important.

You have a good point in respect of Phil 2:8, where the focus is on Jesus's unique status as "Son of God."

The use of ὡς renders it ambiguous as to whether Jesus is truly anthropos in the sight of heaven. It is not automatically precluded, as in "Ὕπαγε ὡς ἐπίστευσας γενηθήτω" (Matt 8:13) "Go AS you have believed it" (Jesus to the Centurion), where the context is one of reward according to the measure of faith, where the underlying identification is exactly made out.

Yet constrast with "καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν" (Matt 7:29) "Not AS their scribes" where the context is strictly one of comparison and where the underlying identification is not made out.

So this introduces a question as to the context of Phil 2:8. σχῆμα means exterior shape. In biological composition then he was exactly that of a man, but in respect of his immaterial parts, he had come down from heaven, and so not a man. Both contexts apply simultaneously, depending on what aspect of Jesus is under consideration.

In the context of this discussion, and of Phil 2:8, does either context render him "God?" Not in the least: for axiomatically God is served whereas Jesus came to serve. Does this render him "a man"? Yes - Son of Man from the point of view of the world; but in the heavenly view he has a unique status - only begotten Son of God.

So the contrast is between Son of Man versus Son of God, with the focus being on the latter, and so on Jesus (the man) not being "God" himself (High Trinitarians who lord it over others are apt to substitute God the Son for son of God which is clearly wrong).

 

[The Real John Milton]

You have a good point in respect of Phil 2:8, where the focus is on Jesus's unique status as "Son of God."

The use of ὡς renders it ambiguous as to whether Jesus is truly anthropos in the sight of heaven. It is not automatically precluded, as in "Ὕπαγε ὡς ἐπίστευσας γενηθήτω" (Matt 8:13) "Go AS you have believed it" (Jesus to the Centurion), where the context is one of reward according to the measure of faith, where the underlying identification is exactly made out.

Yet constrast with "καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν" (Matt 7:29) "Not AS their scribes" where the context is strictly one of comparison and where the underlying identification is not made out.

So this introduces a question as to the context of Phil 2:8. σχῆμα means exterior shape. In biological composition then he was exactly that of a man, but in respect of his immaterial parts, he had come down from heaven, and so not a man. Both contexts apply simultaneously, depending on what aspect of Jesus is under consideration.

In the context of this discussion, and of Phil 2:8, does either context render him "God?" Not in the least: for axiomatically God is served whereas Jesus came to serve. Does this render him "a man"? Yes - Son of Man from the point of view of the world; but in the heavenly view he has a unique status - only begotten Son of God.

So the contrast is between Son of Man versus Son of God, with the focus being on the latter, and so on Jesus (the man) not being "God" himself (High Trinitarians who lord it over others are apt to substitute God the Son for son of God which is clearly wrong).

I don't think so, just as the use of ὡς in Psalm 82:7 does not render the "gods" ambiguous as to whether they are truly anthropos in the sight of heaven. I think you are adopting a post-biblical Hellenistic way of reading the NT here, instead of a Hebrew way of reading it. When the Hebrew says about a man "you will die like / as a man" or "you are born as a man under the sun" etc. he does not mean to say that such a one is more than human, but that he is merely one, someone born under the law, someone subject to death and decay, and subject to the curse of Adam and falling short of the image of God in which man was originally created.

 

[John Milton]

As I have said countless times, there is no contradiction in describing Jesus as "man" or "God", whether he exists on earth or in heaven. You two simply don't accept the truth. This latest display shows to what lengths you will go to discount the truth.

 

[cjab]

As I have said countless times, there is no contradiction in describing Jesus as "man" or "God", whether he exists on earth or in heaven. You two simply don't accept the truth. This latest display shows to what lengths you will go to discount the truth.

Complete bunkum. You have demonstrated nothing: I suggest you need to consult and quote your intellectual superiors if you are to demonstrate anything.

 

[John Milton]

Complete bunkum. You have demonstrated nothing: I suggest you need to consult and quote your intellectual superiors if you are to demonstrate anything.

Personal attacks are no substitute for arguments, cjab. You are tilting at windmills.

 

[cjab]

I don't think so, just as the use of ὡς in Psalm 82:7 does not render the "gods" ambiguous as to whether they are truly anthropos in the sight of heaven. I think you are adopting a post-biblical Hellenistic way of reading the NT here, instead of a Hebrew way of reading it. When the Hebrew says about a man "you will die like / as a man" or "you are born as a man under the sun" etc. he does not mean to say that such a one is more than human, but that he is merely one, someone born under the law, someone subject to death and decay, and subject to the curse of Adam and falling short of the image of God in which man was originally created.

I did not suggest that the context was ambiguous: rather the reverse. I suggested that the word ὡς itself is inherently ambiguous, such that its context must be identified for any extended meaning to be imputed. Thus Jesus's use of Matt 8:13 (supra) carries a contextualy extended meaning, unambiguously ("Go AS you have believed it").

But is there is another context, the Matt 7:29 context, where the intention is limited to the use ὡς as a comparator, and where there in no extended meaning imputed.

 

[cjab]

Personal attacks are no substitute for arguments, cjab. You are tilting at windmills.

You are the one constantly exalting yourself over others, and boasting of your superiority. If you had any humility, you would ask us whether you had demonstrated it. Frankly, I don't credit you as a reliable teacher of theology or Koine Greek.

 

[John Milton]

You are the one constantly exalting yourself over others, and boasting of your superiority.

This is happening in your imagination. You feel like I am doing so because you recognize the superiority of my arguments, even if you don’t admit it.

If you had any humility, you would ask us whether you had demonstrated it. Frankly, I don't credit you as a reliable teacher of theology or Koine Greek.

You guys have consistently demonstrated that you know next to nothing of language or theology. Why do you imagine your opinions of me on these matters would carry any weight?

 

[cjab]

This is happening in your imagination. You feel like I am doing so because you recognize the superiority of my arguments, even if you don’t admit it.

The above comment demostrates that you are truly deranged. Your arguments are superficial and inconsistent and 99% about denigrating others and self-exaltation. Such a policy may work in your own social circle (whatever that is - you have never disclosed it) but it doesn't work here. You seem to spend all day in front of your computer: that alone is deeply suspicious.

You guys have consistently demonstrated that you know next to nothing of language or theology. Why do you imagine your opinions of me on these matters would carry any weight?

This comment likewise.

I regard you as extremely dangerous because of your propensity to slander others, which is your habit. You have consistently demonstrated little or no knowledge of Christ's teachings, and on that basis I reject your absurd claims to supremacy.

 

[John Milton]

The above comment demostrates that you are truly deranged. Your arguments are superficial and inconsistent and 99% about denigrating others and self-exaltation. Such a policy may work in your own social circle (whatever that is - you have never disclosed it) but it doesn't work here. You seem to spend all day in front of your computer: that alone is deeply suspicious.

Your perception does not match reality. I give facts and support them with evidence. You clearly don't know what that looks like.

I regard you as extremely dangerous because of your propensity to slander others, which is your habit.

Where's your example of this?

You have consistently demonstrated little or no knowledge of Christ's teachings, and on that basis I reject your absurd claims to supremacy.

I'm not the one using euphemistic profanity and lying about what others have said.

 

[cjab]

. You were clearly making a distinction about the meaning of one versus the other.

I clearly was not.

I have no reading comprehension issues. Here is what you said in full:

I underlined the relevant parts for you. You said "they all have different connotations." What I said is in line with your remarks. Based on what you said, you should've agreed. .

Why should I have agreed? As Jn 4:24 and Jn 1:1c are identically structured in terms of articles, subject and predicates, and nouns being both subject and predicate, these verses do not have different connotations. That's why I chose them. I referred to the difference in connotations as between different constructions. These verses have the same construction in every sense. How could it be mistaken other than that you chose to pretend that I didn't know what I was talking about. That is a highly objectionable habit.

I said:

How could I be understood as meaning "the two phrases couldn't mean the same thing?"

You said:
See above. [I've ruled that out for the reasons given above. Only different constructions engender different connotations].

You further said:
There is also the fact that you stated that even though both the phrases use the same construction and have words referring to "constitution or essence," you denied that the logos could be called "God".

Obviously you see wrongly see "God" as an appellative for the Logos, which is not established by an anarthrous predicate.

Further, I said:

Moreover, as I have shown, there is nothing in Jn 1:1c that establishes "God" as an identity for the Word from the anarthrous PN construction.

You said:
"It refers to an "essence" as I just pointed out."

Conclusion: this is evidence that you are confusing (the essence of) "God" with the identity of the Word. (In fact on a seperate point, there may be a case for saying that the "Logos" name, as distinct from the name of Jesus, is identified with exclusively with a heavenly instantiation.)

But even if you were to resile from this obvious identity/essence confusion, as shown above, and say what that you meant is that Jesus's identity doesn't ever change, because the essence of the Word/Jesus is "God" and "God" doesn't change, such an interpretation is logically wrong from Jn 1:1c, just because "theos" is anarthrous, and so not grammatically the instrinsic essence of the Logos as an overall concept (perhaps as a heavenly concept - see my point supra. This truth is seen by men on earth being cast as Elohim ("You are gods" - anarthrous elohim - Ps 82:6), but they still die none the less).

The Logos was divested of God's "essence" (I would use properties as a less ambiguous word) to become Jesus. Your new point, that the identity of Jesus/Logos doesn't change as between the Logos and Jesus, comes from the logos/Jesus being identified as a distinctive entity, which is acknowledged by Jn 1:1a&b and by Jn 1:14.

Thus you confound Jn 1:1a&b and John 1:14 with Jn 1:1c, whilst freely distributing insults liberally to conceal the undeniable fact that you cannot coherently articulate what you're talking about. So you do have reading and comprehension issues, and problems with theology.

 

[John Milton]

I clearly was not.

If what you say is true, then you should be able to affirm that "the Word" is "God" just as you affirm that "God" is "spirit". Is this what you intended to say all along? What I suspect will happen is that you cannot do so because you constantly conflate "God" with "the Father".

Why should I have agreed? As Jn 4:24 and Jn 1:1c are identically structured in terms of articles, subject and predicates, and nouns being both subject and predicate, these verses do not have different connotations.

The fact is that is not what you said as I demonstrated in what I quoted from you above. Did you misspeak?

That's why I chose them. I referred to the difference in connotations as between different constructions. These verses have the same construction in every sense. How could it be mistaken other than that you chose to pretend that I didn't know what I was talking about. That is a highly objectionable habit.

If what I said isn't correct, then you should be able to affirm that "the word" is "God" just as the "God" is "spirit".

[I've ruled that out for the reasons given above. Only different constructions engender different connotations].

I'm awaiting further clarification from your loose remarks, then.

You further said:
There is also the fact that you stated that even though both the phrases use the same construction and have words referring to "constitution or essence," you denied that the logos could be called "God".

Obviously you see wrongly see "God" as an appellative for the Logos, which is not established by an anarthrous predicate.

I just told you plainly that "God" refers to the word's essence, as has been my position all along.

Further, I said:

You said:
"It refers to an "essence" as I just pointed out."

Conclusion: this is evidence that you are confusing (the essence of) "God" with the identity of the Word. (In fact on a seperate point, there may be a case for saying that the "Logos" name, as distinct from the name of Jesus, is identified with exclusively with a heavenly instantiation.)

No. I am not confusing the essence of God with the identity of the word. I have said that both "the Father" and the word are "God". That describe the essence that is common to both of them.

But even if you were to resile from this obvious identity/essence confusion, as shown above,

You mean the misunderstanding and misstating of my position that you showed above.

and say what that you meant is that Jesus's identity doesn't ever change, because the essence of the Word/Jesus is "God" and "God" doesn't change, such an interpretation is logically wrong from Jn 1:1c,

Jesus's essence is "God" and that does not necessarily change despite his incarnation per Php. 2 as you and TRJM have come to realize too late in another thread (at least I think it's another thread).

just because "theos" is anarthrous, and so not grammatically the instrinsic essence of the Logos as an overall concept

First of all, whether or not "theos" is anarthrous has nothing to do with anything. Secondly, you are now denying that "God' is a term that refers to essence. This would put you at odds, as I believe I have already pointed out, with the remarks from Caragounis.

(perhaps as a heavenly concept - see my point supra.

I debunked this above. It's cute that you don't address it and continue to make the false statement.

This truth is seen by men on earth being cast as Elohim ("You are gods" - anarthrous elohim - Ps 82:6), but they still die none the less).

This has nothing to do with anything. As you yourself would have to admit if you consistently applied your distinction between earthly and heavenly realms. Your inconsistency on this matter is undeniable.

The Logos was divested of God's "essence" (I would use properties as a less ambiguous word) to become Jesus.

Then you should admit that he had the same essence as God before his incarnation and per John 17 after his incarnation.

Your new point, that the identity of Jesus/Logos doesn't change as between the Logos and Jesus, comes from the logos/Jesus being identified as a distinctive entity, which is acknowledged by Jn 1:1a&b and by Jn 1:14.

It's not a new point, it comes from the fact that one's identity is independent of their form.

Thus you confound Jn 1:1a&b and John 1:14 with Jn 1:1c, whilst freely distributing insults liberally to conceal the undeniable fact that you cannot coherently articulate what you're talking about. So you do have reading and comprehension issues, and problems with theology.

I've not insulted you, cjab, despite how deserving you are of it. You are the one who is doing all of the insulting, as is evident even now.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I did not suggest that the context was ambiguous: rather the reverse. I suggested that the word ὡς itself is inherently ambiguous, such that its context must be identified for any extended meaning to be imputed. Thus Jesus's use of Matt 8:13 (supra) carries a contextualy extended meaning, unambiguously ("Go AS you have believed it").

But is there is another context, the Matt 7:29 context, where the intention is limited to the use ὡς as a comparator, and where there in no extended meaning imputed.

I agree.

FWIW “John Milton” was being dishonest yet again, when he tried to suggest that the bible says “ Jesus was in the form of a man.” The bible no where says such a thing. Certainly not Phil 2:8 where even if we use “form” for σχήματι the clause asserts that Jesus was “in form having been found as a man.”