Did the Word remain as he was when he assumed a human nature?

Do you know how pronouns work?
Yes. A pronoun refers to a noun.
And YOU said…
he in this context is a pronoun referring to the Word
So can you tell us...
1) Do you agree with this statement?
Philippians 2:6-7 says he didn't grasp onto his equality as to remain as he was but emptied himself.
2) Do you agree with this statement?
Philippians 2:6-7 says the Word didn't grasp onto his equality as to remain as the Word was but emptied himself.

I'm done being insulted by you. I am no longer in kindergarten. Maybe you should stop treating people as if they failed kindergarten.
 
One Trinitarian says...

Grasp as in hold onto. Philippians 2:6-7 says he didn't grasp onto his equality as to remain as he was but emptied himself. You need to read the text as opposed to looking for excuses to ignore what the text says.

Another Trinitarian says...

Philippians 2.6-7 says neither of these things...the verb "grasp," appears nowhere in the text, nor does any verb resembling "grasp" appear in the text. The word "harpagmon" is a noun, not a verb. So, this is about the Son considered a *"thing" *(equality with God) it is not about the Son considering an "action."

1) Which Trinitarian is right?

And since Trinitarians insist...

You must state whether you are referring to Jesus The Son of God or Jesus The Son of Mary.

2) DId Jesus The Son of God consider the *"thing"* (equality with God)?

3) Did Jesus The Son of Mary consider the *"thing"* (equality with God)?
 
2) DId Jesus The Son of God consider the *"thing"* (equality with God)?

3) Did Jesus The Son of Mary consider the *"thing"* (equality with God)?
I did not finish that sentence very well...he did not consider equality with God...*"a THING to be grasped" *(harpagmon, it is all one word). That is why I said...the verb "grasp," appears nowhere in the text, nor does any verb resembling "grasp" appear in the text. The word "harpagmon" is a noun, not a verb. So, this is about the Son considered a *"thing" *(equality with God) it is not about the Son considering an "action." So the son did not consider "equality with God...*'harpagmon' [noun...one word] *a THING to be grasped." That's just objective fact.

TheLayman
 
Last edited:
One Trinitarian says...



Another Trinitarian says...



1) Which Trinitarian is right?

And since Trinitarians insist...



2) DId Jesus The Son of God consider the *"thing"* (equality with God)?

3) Did Jesus The Son of Mary consider the *"thing"* (equality with God)?
Jesus The Son of Mary did NOT exist UNTIL The Son of God became a man.
 
One Trinitarian says...



Another Trinitarian says...



1) Which Trinitarian is right?

And since Trinitarians insist...



2) DId Jesus The Son of God consider the *"thing"* (equality with God)?

3) Did Jesus The Son of Mary consider the *"thing"* (equality with God)?
Yah:

I confess I have not read your past conversations with DGB, but you seem to be trying to put what he said at odds with what I said (as usual) and I'm not seeing that in the two quotes you have juxtaposed. I see he said "Grasp as in hold onto." So he seems to be saying a thing "to grasp or hold onto." A rung on a ladder is "a thing to grasp or hold onto." Understand. Your family is probably "a thing to grasp or hold onto...at all cost." How about your position in life? The point is that these things are not verbs...likewise in Philippians 2.6 the Son is not considering an action, i.e to grasp, to cling, etc...it is saying that he did not consider his equality with God a thing, a thing...(not an action) to hold onto...BUT rather MADE HIMSELF OF NO REPUTATION...

That said, that passage is also clear he did not "give up" or "set aside" anything to become like a servant...it states exactly what he did.

TheLayman
 
That said, that passage is also clear he did not "give up" or "set aside" anything to become like a servant...it states exactly what he did.

So are you able to answer these two questions or not……..,,

2) DId Jesus The Son of God consider the *"thing"* (equality with God)?

3) Did Jesus The Son of Mary consider the *"thing"* (equality with God)?
 
So are you able to answer these two questions or not……..,,

2) DId Jesus The Son of God consider the *"thing"* (equality with God)?
Yes
3) Did Jesus The Son of Mary consider the *"thing"* (equality with God)?
I'm not sure I follow but since Jesus was not incarnated until after this, one could not consider Jesus the Son of Mary at the time of Phil 2.6. It is not until the events of Phil. 2.7 that Jesus becomes incarnate.

TheLayman
 
since Jesus was not incarnated until after this, one could not consider Jesus the Son of Mary at the time of Phil 2.6. It is not until the events of Phil. 2.7 that Jesus becomes incarnate.

Just to be clear, Philippians 2:6-7 says…

who, although existing in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a slave, by being made in the likeness of men.

And you believe “who” in that sentence refers to Jesus The Son of God (NOT to Jesus The Son of Mary”.

Does “Himself” in that sentence refer to “who” in that sentence?

In other words, does “Himself” refer to…
A) Jesus The Son of God (the referent of “who”)
B) Jesus The Son of Mary
 
Just to be clear, Philippians 2:6-7 says…

who, although existing in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a slave, by being made in the likeness of men.

And you believe “who” in that sentence refers to Jesus The Son of God (NOT to Jesus The Son of Mary”.

Does “Himself” in that sentence refer to “who” in that sentence?

In other words, does “Himself” refer to…
A) Jesus The Son of God (the referent of “who”)
B) Jesus The Son of Mary
I have to say, I don't like this "Jesus Son of God" and "Jesus Son of Mary" thing, I'm unclear as to exactly what is meant by it (I took a stab at what you meant in my last post). There is only one person who is the Son of God both preincarnate and incarnate, there is not one person who is the
Son of God and another who is the son of Mary. So that I don't step into a loaded question I will use those two terms in my responses as I'm assuming that's what is meant by "A" and "B" (if that's not what is meant I take issue with the initial premise of the question). So once again:

The "Who" in Phil 2:6 refers to the preincarnate Son of God "Who" in 2:7 is incarnated and becomes the incarnate Son of God.

TheLayman
 
The "Who" in Phil 2:6 refers to the preincarnate Son of God "Who" in 2:7 is incarnated and becomes the incarnate Son of God.

So…

Does “Himself” in Phil 2:7 refer to (A) the preincarnate Son of God or (B) the incarnate Son of God?

Phil 2:6-7… who, although existing in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a slave, by being made in the likeness of men.
 
So…

Does “Himself” in Phil 2:7 refer to (A) the preincarnate Son of God or (B) the incarnate Son of God?

Phil 2:6-7… who, although existing in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a slave, by being made in the likeness of men.
God grief man...why did you just ask me a question I already answered? The "Who" in 2:6 "made Himself of no reputation" How?

Philippians 2:7 (ESV)
7 ...by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

So the preincarnate Son of God Who did not consider equality with God A THING TO CLING TO, BUT RATHER (the preincarnate Son) made Himself of no reputation by becoming "taking the form of a servant and being born in the likeness of men" (i.e. by becoming the incarnate Son of God).

Philippians 2.6-7 show "the Son" going from preincarnate to incarnate. If this does not answer your question then I must not understand the question. The grammar here seems pretty straightforward, it isn't as if I'm offering up some wild theory.

TheLayman
 
Just to be clear, Philippians 2:6-7 says…

who, although existing in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a slave, by being made in the likeness of men.

And you believe “who” in that sentence refers to Jesus The Son of God (NOT to Jesus The Son of Mary”.

Does “Himself” in that sentence refer to “who” in that sentence?

In other words, does “Himself” refer to…
A) Jesus The Son of God (the referent of “who”)
B) Jesus The Son of Mary
Pre incarnate A)
Post incarnate A)+B).
 
Back
Top