"Consider" in Phil 2:6 proves the Deity of Jesus.

johnny guitar

Well-known member
He did have from the beginning in heaven. God as Spirit can't interact with the physical world. That's why there was The WORD with God and The WORD was God.

The OT fathers have seen God face to face with God. Yet God as Spirit, no one has seen nor can see.

The Son of God in NT is the same One Who appeared as The Messenger and spoke as The Father to Israel.

Read Gen 1:3 and see Apostle Paul's interpretation of the same in 2Cor 4:6.

He has been with the Body as the firstborn of old creation:

Col 1:15 who is the likeness of the invisible Elohim, the first-born of all creation.

He is now firstborn of new creation

Col 1:18 And He is the Head of the body, the assembly, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that He might become the One who is first in all.

That's why He refers Himself as the Son of Man.

Mary had nothing to do with the body of Christ as His body was prepared from heaven. That's He could be the Lamb without spot. His blood was God's own. He the bread that came down from heaven - the bread that we eat for eternal life.

He came in likeness of sinful flesh but not exactness. That's why He wasn't called The Son of Man by the virtue of His birth through Mary but He was called The Christ, The Son of the living God.

YHWH is a Man of war:

Exod 15: 3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

Isaiah 42:13 The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.

EZK 1:26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
The body of Jesus Christ was conceived of The Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary.
He had NO body prior to that time.
 

Anthony

Active member
The body of Jesus Christ was conceived of The Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary.
He had NO body prior to that time.
Just because you say so I can't sweep many scriptures under the carpet.

The body that was given to Him through Mary was mortal. I've always tested traditional teachings by the scriptures and there by got rid of those holy cows. I know for sure what John 1:1 means.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
I am pretty sure you believe this refers to the Word (Jesus’ divine nature) making a decision, and not his human nature (which does not exist at that moment).

Are you saying the divine nature of Jesus was deciding between being equal with God and not being equal with God?

If not, please fill in the blanks...


The Word was deciding between __________ and ________.

I believe believe the Word was deciding between remaining “in the form of God” (GOD in the universe as a human with a glorious body) and exchanging his glorious body for a mortal body to be “in the likeness of men” so he could make reconciliation for our sins.
The Son had NO body before becoming a Man.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
Just because you say so I can't sweep many scriptures under the carpet.

The body that was given to Him through Mary was mortal. I've always tested traditional teachings by the scriptures and there by got rid of those holy cows. I know for sure what John 1:1 means.
I too know what John 1:1 means; to wit The Son had NO body before becoming a Man.
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
The Son had NO body before becoming a Man.

You still have not answered my question...

Are you saying the divine nature of Jesus was deciding between being equal with God and not being equal with God?

If not, please fill in the blanks...

The Word was deciding between __________ and ________.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
You still have not answered my question...

Are you saying the divine nature of Jesus was deciding between being equal with God and not being equal with God?

If not, please fill in the blanks...

The Word was deciding between __________ and ________.
Neither. He did NOT consider His equality with God something to grasp.
BTW a PERSON, NOT a nature, did not consider. Persons consider, NOT natures.
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
BTW a PERSON, NOT a nature, did not consider. Persons consider, NOT natures.

Ok, I have reworded it for you.

Are you able to fill in the blanks?

Before adding a human nature to his divine nature, the second Person of the Trinity had to decide between __________ and ________.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
You still have not answered my question...

Are you saying the divine nature of Jesus was deciding between being equal with God and not being equal with God?

If not, please fill in the blanks...

The Word was deciding between __________ and ________.
Jesus Christ has ALWAYS been equal with God, hence NO such decision was necessary.
 

Kampioen

Member
Are you able to fill in the blanks?

The Word was deciding between __________ and ________.

I believe the Word was deciding between remaining “in the form of God” (GOD in the universe as a human with a glorious body) and exchanging his glorious body for a mortal body to be “in the likeness of men” so he could make reconciliation for our sins.
 

Kampioen

Member
Are you able to fill in the blanks?

The Word was deciding between __________ and ________.

I believe the Word was deciding between remaining “in the form of God” (GOD in the universe as a human with a glorious body) and exchanging his glorious body for a mortal body to be “in the likeness of men” so he could make reconciliation for our sins.
The Word was deciding between "the form of God" and "the form of a man".

However, I would say the form of God is His outside-of-creation glory reflected in His extravagant presence in creation as in the Old Testament, including with sporadic angelic/human form. Otherwise He couldn't say He was equal with God.

When He became a man, that glory became hidden and He took on the non-omniscient localized physical bodied minded form of a man ie the perspective of a man.

However He is still equal with God but the form of God ie extravagance is gone.
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
You still have not answered my question...
Are you saying the divine nature of Jesus was deciding between being equal with God and not being equal with God?
If not, please fill in the blanks...
The Word was deciding between __________ and ________.
Wrong!
The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011.
In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:
When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that​
the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”

See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes

Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108
Link to: Hoover Article



.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”

See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes

Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108
Link to: Hoover Article



.

It would be nice to actually see the evidence for this claim. Nobody seems to have it.
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage

I think you agree this choosing was done BEFORE the Word assumed human nature.

So you think the DIVINE NATURE of the Word chose not to use something in his possession.

Correct?

In other words, that verse is NOT saying THE MAN Christ Jesus was choosing not to use something in the possession of his HUMAN NATURE.
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
How about you point to the proof anywhere in this article which proves that harpagmos necessarily refers to something one already has.
Several places. I had to read through the article nobody handed it to me on a silver platter. The article is 25 pages long. Here are two brief quotes.
A short excerpt from the 25 page Harvard theological review article αρπαγμον /harpagmos, by Roy Hoover, referenced in the NIV.

O petros de arpagmon ton dia stavrou thanton epoieito dia tas soterious elpidas

(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)

Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias

(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)

Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.

What [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.

“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.

Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108


And OBTW I gave you the page number,.
 
Top