Kenosis Heresy

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
Where does it say " and having authority just under that of God" in Phil 2:6 ?
What version is it?
Is it the YWI Bible 1.0
Where does Paul ever say anywhere in Philippians 2:6 that Jesus is God? Sorry but the words "form of God" mean "form of God" and not God and if Paul wanted to say that Jesus was God he wouldn't have used words like "huparchon" or "morphe" or "isa" but instead he would have made himself perfectly clear about it by saying it something like this below.

"Who although existing as the eternal Almighty God, he did not consider his being God a thing to hold on to, but instead he emptied himself and became a servant by becoming also a man"

Where does it actually say that God is a trinity, where does it say that Jesus is a hypostatic union of both God and man?

Wow how simple, but that is what happens when all you ever do is follow the doctrines and teaching of men!

Paul was so clearly and obviously contrasting the form of God as being the authority of Jesus with that of the form of a servant, that it would be amazing to me that you cannot see this except that you are being deceived by your false doctrines and which is why you refuse to acknowledge it.


Mark 4:38 Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”

39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

40 He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”

41 They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!”



NIV
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

The only way it can mean "nature" is in regards to characteristics and not regards to the actual ontology or substance as the nature, for the word "morphe" is not defined as referring to actual "ontology" and therefore the NIV is misleading in this passage.
New Living Translation
Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.

Worthless translation, for it never says he is God and you know it also.
English Standard Version
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Very close, for he was in the form but while being in the form of God, he never counted equality with God a thing to seize upon and unlike the Emperors of his day when having way less authority than that of the form of God, still let their authority go to their head and began viewing themselves as God's equal.
Berean Study Bible
Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

Berean Literal Bible
Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider to be equal with God something to be grasped,

King James Bible
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

New King James Version
who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

New American Standard Bible
who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

NASB 1995
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

NASB 1977
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Amplified Bible
who, although He existed in the form and unchanging essence of God [as One with Him, possessing the fullness of all the divine attributes—the entire nature of deity], did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped or asserted [as if He did not already possess it, or was afraid of losing it];

Christian Standard Bible
who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage.

American Standard Version
who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
He who, while he was in the form of God, did not esteem this as a prize, that he was the equal of God,

Contemporary English Version
Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

English Revised Version
who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God,
I am not going to cover all of these but many of some of them are really bad translations of this verse.

Once again, if Paul believe and wanted us to believe that Jesus was God, then he wouldn't have used the words "form of God" at all period, for not only was it unnecessary but also would have made what he was trying to say very confusing also and God is to smart to inspired Paul to do something like that.

Sorry but the words "form of God" mean exactly that, that Jesus was in the form of God and not that he himself was God.
 
Last edited:

Tanachreader

Well-known member
Where does Paul ever say anywhere in Philippians 2:6 that Jesus is God? Sorry but the words "form of God" mean "form of God" and not God and if Paul wanted to say that Jesus was God he wouldn't have used words like "huparchon" or "morphe" or "isa" but instead he would have made himself perfectly clear about it by saying it something like this below.

"Who although existing as the eternal Almighty God, he did not consider his being God a thing to hold on to, but instead he emptied himself and became a servant by becoming also a man"

Where does it actually say that God is a trinity, where does it say that Jesus is a hypostatic union of both God and man?

Wow how simple, but that is what happens when all you ever do is follow the doctrines and teaching of men!

Paul was so clearly and obviously contrasting the form of God as being the authority of Jesus with that of the form of a servant, that it would be amazing to me that you cannot see this except that you are being deceived by your false doctrines and which is why you refuse to acknowledge it.


Mark 4:38 Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”

39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

40 He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”

41 They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!”





The only way it can mean "nature" is in regards to characteristics and not regards to the actual ontology or substance as the nature, for the word "morphe" is not defined as referring to actual "ontology" and therefore the NIV is misleading in this passage.


Worthless translation, for it never says he is God and you know it also.


Very close, for he was in the form but while being in the form of God, he never counted equality with God a thing to seize upon and unlike the Emperors of his day when having way less authority than that of the form of God, still let their authority go to their head and began viewing themselves as God's equal.

I am not going to cover all of these but many of some of them are really bad translations of this verse.

Once again, if Paul believe and wanted us to believe that Jesus was God, then he wouldn't have used the words "form of God" at all period, for not only was it unnecessary but also would have made what he was trying to say very confusing also and God is to smart to inspired Paul to do something like that.

Sorry but the words "form of God" mean exactly that, that Jesus was in the form of God and not that he himself was God.
Where does it say " and having authority just under that of God" in Phil 2:6 ?
What version is it?
Is it the YWI Bible 1.0
 

civic

Well-known member
Oh is it really civic, well, what about a man being created in the image of God?

For actually the words "form of God" and the words "image of God", both refer to characteristics of God's nature that can be manifested outwardly by behavior.
The form of God does not apply to man, only the image of God applies to man. Get your biblical facts straight for once.

next
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
The form of God does not apply to man, only the image of God applies to man. Get your biblical facts straight for once.

next
Chapter and verse please, where does the word of God actually say this?

For I am not interested with the word of Civic or trins on this but rather with the word of God alone.

Sorry, but it most certainly does apply to the man Jesus, for Paul even starts in verse 5 by referring to Jesus by his name and title given to him at his birth as a human being.

Furthermore, the Bible also clearly reveals that he had authority greater than that of any man and yet he did not use that authority to its full capacity and the people of Israel could also see this in him and that is why they wanted to take him by force and make him their King.

Furthermore, when they wanted to make him their King, Jesus refused and that is what the word "kenosis" is truly referring to and not that he refused to use his supposed attributes as God like you falsely believe.

Another example of the kenosis, is when he washed the disciples feet and said unto them, "you call me Lord and master and you are right, for that is what I am, and if I your Lord and master wash your feet, you ought also to wash one another's feet also" and thus "Let this attitude be in you which was also in Christ Jesus".

By the way, the name and title of Christ Jesus was not given unto the Logos before the Logos became flesh and Paul therefore starts every thing he says in Philippians 2:5-11 speaking of Jesus as already a human being and it was his attitude as a human being that Paul was saying that we are to have within us also.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
Where does it say " and having authority just under that of God" in Phil 2:6 ?
What version is it?
Is it the YWI Bible 1.0
Where does Paul ever say anywhere in Philippians 2:6 that Jesus is God? Sorry but the words "form of God" mean "form of God" and not God and if Paul wanted to say that Jesus was God he wouldn't have used words like "huparchon" or "morphe" or "isa" but instead he would have made himself perfectly clear about it by saying it something like this below.

"Who although existing as the eternal Almighty God, he did not consider his being God a thing to hold on to, but instead he emptied himself and became a servant by becoming also a man"

Where does it actually say that God is a trinity, where does it say that Jesus is a hypostatic union of both God and man?

Wow how simple, but that is what happens when all you ever do is follow the doctrines and teaching of men!

Paul was so clearly and obviously contrasting the form of God as being the authority of Jesus with that of the form of a servant, that it would be amazing to me that you cannot see this except that you are being deceived by your false doctrines and which is why you refuse to acknowledge it.


Mark 4:38 Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”

39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

40 He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”

41 They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!”





The only way it can mean "nature" is in regards to characteristics and not regards to the actual ontology or substance as the nature, for the word "morphe" is not defined as referring to actual "ontology" and therefore the NIV is misleading in this passage.


Worthless translation, for it never says he is God and you know it also.


Very close, for he was in the form but while being in the form of God, he never counted equality with God a thing to seize upon and unlike the Emperors of his day when having way less authority than that of the form of God, still let their authority go to their head and began viewing themselves as God's equal.

I am not going to cover all of these but many of some of them are really bad translations of this verse.

Once again, if Paul believe and wanted us to believe that Jesus was God, then he wouldn't have used the words "form of God" at all period, for not only was it unnecessary but also would have made what he was trying to say very confusing also and God is to smart to inspired Paul to do something like that.

Sorry but the words "form of God" mean exactly that, that Jesus was in the form of God and not that he himself was God.
 

Tanachreader

Well-known member
Where does Paul ever say anywhere in Philippians 2:6 that Jesus is God? Sorry but the words "form of God" mean "form of God" and not God and if Paul wanted to say that Jesus was God he wouldn't have used words like "huparchon" or "morphe" or "isa" but instead he would have made himself perfectly clear about it by saying it something like this below.

"Who although existing as the eternal Almighty God, he did not consider his being God a thing to hold on to, but instead he emptied himself and became a servant by becoming also a man"

Where does it actually say that God is a trinity, where does it say that Jesus is a hypostatic union of both God and man?

Wow how simple, but that is what happens when all you ever do is follow the doctrines and teaching of men!

Paul was so clearly and obviously contrasting the form of God as being the authority of Jesus with that of the form of a servant, that it would be amazing to me that you cannot see this except that you are being deceived by your false doctrines and which is why you refuse to acknowledge it.


Mark 4:38 Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”

39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

40 He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”

41 They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!”





The only way it can mean "nature" is in regards to characteristics and not regards to the actual ontology or substance as the nature, for the word "morphe" is not defined as referring to actual "ontology" and therefore the NIV is misleading in this passage.


Worthless translation, for it never says he is God and you know it also.


Very close, for he was in the form but while being in the form of God, he never counted equality with God a thing to seize upon and unlike the Emperors of his day when having way less authority than that of the form of God, still let their authority go to their head and began viewing themselves as God's equal.

I am not going to cover all of these but many of some of them are really bad translations of this verse.

Once again, if Paul believe and wanted us to believe that Jesus was God, then he wouldn't have used the words "form of God" at all period, for not only was it unnecessary but also would have made what he was trying to say very confusing also and God is to smart to inspired Paul to do something like that.

Sorry but the words "form of God" mean exactly that, that Jesus was in the form of God and not that he himself was God.
“being in the form of God,” describes our Lord’s essential, and therefore eternal, being in the true nature of God; while the “taking on Him the form of a servant” similarly refers to His voluntary assumption of the true nature of man.

Paul regarded the Redeemer as equal with God. If he was truly divine, then his consenting to become a man was the most remarkable of all possible acts of humiliation.

Being; i.e. subsisting, in opposition to taking or assuming, Philippians 2:7; and therefore doth firmly prove Christ pro-existing in another nature to his so doing, namely, his actual existing of himself in the same essence and glory he had from eternity with the Father, John 1:1,2 17:5 2 Corinthians 8:9 Revelation 1:4,8,11.
 

Caroljeen

Active member

Civic, Here is the first scripture--
How do you explain John 8:28 ...that I do nothing of myself but as my father hath taught me, I speak these things.
Why does Jesus have to be taught anything if he has access to his omniscience while incarnate?
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
“being in the form of God,” describes our Lord’s essential, and therefore eternal, being in the true nature of God; while the “taking on Him the form of a servant” similarly refers to His voluntary assumption of the true nature of man.

Paul regarded the Redeemer as equal with God. If he was truly divine, then his consenting to become a man was the most remarkable of all possible acts of humiliation.

Being; i.e. subsisting, in opposition to taking or assuming, Philippians 2:7; and therefore doth firmly prove Christ pro-existing in another nature to his so doing, namely, his actual existing of himself in the same essence and glory he had from eternity with the Father, John 1:1,2 17:5 2 Corinthians 8:9 Revelation 1:4,8,11.
ROFLOL, I will tell you what would be dumber than a box of rocks, it would be if Paul speaking of God would tell us that God existed in the form of God and which is really what you trins are trying to sell with your foolish interpretation of Philippians 2:6.

So let's get this straight then, are you saying that Paul was speaking of God, when he wrote these words "who existing in the form of God did not consider it robbery to be equal with God"?

So God was in the form of God, isn't that what you are actually saying dude:?

To say that God existed in the form of God and then became a man, is about as dumb as a box of rocks.

Only a complete moron would ever make such a ridiculous statement and that is why I know that Paul who was inspired by the genius of God didn't also?

Wake up for heaven sake!
 
Last edited:

Tanachreader

Well-known member
ROFLOL, I will tell you what would be dumber than a box of rocks, it would be if Paul speaking of God would tell us that God existed in the form of God and which is really what you trins are trying to sell with your foolish interpretation of Philippians 2:6.

So let's get this straight then, are you saying that Paul was speaking of God, when he wrote these words "who existing in the form of God did not consider it robbery to be equal with God"?

So God was in the form of God, isn't that what you are actually saying dude:?

To say that God existed in the form of God and then became a man, is about as dumb as a box of rocks.

Only a complete moron would ever make such a ridiculous statement and that is why I know that Paul who was inspired by the genius of God didn't also?

Wake up for heaven sake!
We are speaking of the Son of God, Jesus.
A moron and a rock could understand so you rate yourself to high.

"being in the form of God,” describes our Lord’s essential, and therefore eternal, being in the true nature of God; while the “taking on Him the form of a servant” similarly refers to His voluntary assumption of the true nature of man.

Paul regarded the Redeemer as equal with God. If he was truly divine, then his consenting to become a man was the most remarkable of all possible acts of humiliation.

Being; i.e. subsisting, in opposition to taking or assuming, Philippians 2:7; and therefore doth firmly prove Christ pro-existing in another nature to his so doing, namely, his actual existing of himself in the same essence and glory he had from eternity with the Father, John 1:1,2 17:5 2 Corinthians 8:9 Revelation 1:4,8,11.
 

Caroljeen

Active member
That might sound good to you, for it did to me for the thirty plus years of my conversion when I was a trin also but it is false doctrine nevertheless.

As far as your passages above, you actually chose some of the weakest to try and prove your position through, first off, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in Romans 5:18-19 that reveals that Jesus was God or even had to be either.

For Paul is comparing the one man Adam with the one man Jesus Christ and he says over and over again in different words, that just as it was by one man who sinned and brought death on his offspring, so it is by the righteousness of the one man Jesus Christ that all men through faith become righteous and obtain eternal life

Concerning Hebrews 2:14-17, this is not saying that he made the choice to became a human being however and that cannot be proven either, it only means that because we are human Jesus had to be a human being and one by the Bible definition also and by the way, this means he couldn't also be God like you are falsely believing about him.

Concerning Hebrew 10:3-5 neither does this mean that Jesus was God either, but his point was that God sent him into the world as a true human being and with a human body that was prepared to become the sacrifice for sins and that the bulls and goats could never be.

Concerning Hebrews 9:12-14 I don't suppose you payed much attention to the word "through the eternal Spirit" and it was the Spirit that was the anointing upon and within Christ that prepared him to become the sacrifice for sins and that is what this is talking about and when you see the words "Spirit of Christ" it is referring to the Spirit by which he was anointed and not his own human spirit.


Now concerning Romans 10:23, there is no Romans 10:23, for Romans 10 only goes up to verse 21.



No, but beside this, Philippians 2:6 never even says that Jesus was equal unto God but rather that being in the form of God and having authority just under that of God, he never took a thought for a robbery to make himself equal unto God.

If you are wondering what that means, just look at the Emperors of Rome that Paul was subject to living at that time and how with much less authority than Jesus had, it went to their heads and therefore they began to think of themselves as equal unto God and that is the temptation of men when they receive authority and Jesus had way more authority than any of them combined.


No but instead you want to be left in your comfort zone and undisturbed like I did also until God finally got me to be honest with the many contradictions there are in the scriptures against the doctrines of the Trinity and Jesus as being God.

Oh for certain I was truly saved all the while I believed in these doctrines and I am thankful unto God that at least for the most part the gospel message itself is still pretty much like it was in the early church with only a few false ideas added to it.

But all of the churches bar none, are all in the apostasy that Paul and John and Jude and Peter warned was entering into the churches even back then and the root of it is the false doctrine that Yahweh God is a trinity and that Jesus is also Yahweh God.

By the way, I don't guess you know this, but God himself called his own human representatives by his own title of god or "elohim" and he did this in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9 and also in Psalm 45:6-7 and also in Psalm 82 and which Jesus quoted from in John 10. when he was falsely accused of making himself equal unto God only because he called God his Father.

He also did this in Isaiah 9:6 as well but these are titles of representation and they were never intended to mean that those who were given these titles were or would be Yahweh God and that is why the Jews never saw them to mean this either.
I used the Romans passage (you could start at vs 15 for more complete context) because it speaks to the necessity of one man, Jesus Christ, being necessary for our salvation. I read it in the KJV. Its supporting my assertion that a sinless man was needed as our sacrifice and Jesus fullfilled the requirements.
Hebrews 2:
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

This speaks to Jesus as "for whom are all things and by whom are all things, unless you think "for it became him" is referring to God but I think the whole passage speaks of Jesus and by saying "by whom are all things" it is assigning Creator status to him. It also tells us that our Creatorhad to become a partaker of flesh and blood and die that he would destroy the devil and deliver us from bondage to him.

Hebrews 10: 3-5 was used to support my assertion that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins, but Jesus came into the world to be our sacrifice as a sinless human. Why do you think every passage I posted has something to do with the diety of Christ.

Hebrews 9:12-14 I was mainly showing it was the blood of Christ that saved us. But as for "through the eternal Spirit", I agree with you. The Holy
Spirit helped him through that ordeal. When I see "Spirit of Christ", I take that as literally meaning Christ's own personal spirit.

As for the meaning of the "Spirit of Christ" I'll let you ponder this passage in Romans 8
Romans 8: 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you,
the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

I meant Romans 6:23. I didn't mention Philippians 2.

As for proofs that Jesus is God, the first scripture I would send you to would be John 1:1-14. The second place I would send you are to the references about Jesus in the NT that quote OT scriptures which refer to YHWH. The logical conclusion is that Jesus in YHWH.
1. Isa 45:22-34 and Rom 14:10-12, Phil 2:9-11 2. Romans 10:13, Joel 2:32, 3. Isa 40:3, Matt 3:3
I know one trinitarian converted to unitarian who had difficulty with Heb 1:8 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Anyways, I'll know better than to interact with you unless I have lots of time. :)
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
Where does Paul ever say anywhere in Philippians 2:6 that Jesus is God? Sorry but the words "form of God" mean "form of God" and not God and if Paul wanted to say that Jesus was God he wouldn't have used words like "huparchon" or "morphe" or "isa" but instead he would have made himself perfectly clear about it by saying it something like this below.

"Who although existing as the eternal Almighty God, he did not consider his being God a thing to hold on to, but instead he emptied himself and became a servant by becoming also a man"

Where does it actually say that God is a trinity, where does it say that Jesus is a hypostatic union of both God and man?

Wow how simple, but that is what happens when all you ever do is follow the doctrines and teaching of men!

Paul was so clearly and obviously contrasting the form of God as being the authority of Jesus with that of the form of a servant, that it would be amazing to me that you cannot see this except that you are being deceived by your false doctrines and which is why you refuse to acknowledge it.


Mark 4:38 Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”

39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

40 He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”

41 They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!”





The only way it can mean "nature" is in regards to characteristics and not regards to the actual ontology or substance as the nature, for the word "morphe" is not defined as referring to actual "ontology" and therefore the NIV is misleading in this passage.


Worthless translation, for it never says he is God and you know it also.


Very close, for he was in the form but while being in the form of God, he never counted equality with God a thing to seize upon and unlike the Emperors of his day when having way less authority than that of the form of God, still let their authority go to their head and began viewing themselves as God's equal.

I am not going to cover all of these but many of some of them are really bad translations of this verse.

Once again, if Paul believe and wanted us to believe that Jesus was God, then he wouldn't have used the words "form of God" at all period, for not only was it unnecessary but also would have made what he was trying to say very confusing also and God is to smart to inspired Paul to do something like that.

Sorry but the words "form of God" mean exactly that, that Jesus was in the form of God and not that he himself was God.
ONLY God is in the FORM of God.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
Oh is it really civic, well, what about a man being created in the image of God?

For actually the words "form of God" and the words "image of God", both refer to characteristics of God's nature that can be manifested outwardly by behavior.
Form of God and image of God are NOT the same meaning.
Jesus Christ ALONE is the ONLY man who was in the form of God prior to becoming a MAN.
 

Anthony

Active member
Form of God and image of God are NOT the same meaning.
Jesus Christ ALONE is the ONLY man who was in the form of God prior to becoming a MAN.
I think most of the people don't understand that YHWH is in the form of Man. Check your OT Bible. God as Spirit has no form, no mouth, no voice and dwells in unapproachable Light Whom no one has seen nor can see.

Yet people in OT have seen God/YHWH in Man's form. Man's form is the image of the invisible God - the firstborn. It's quite obvious that Yeshua is the same YHWH for a little while came in mortal flesh as salvation of sinful mankind who also are offsprings of God (Acts 17:29). But they must be conformed to the image of The Son of God. It's through the humility of God/Son of Man that those who are saved (blessed are the meek.....) will be lifted up to glory above the Angels.
 

cjab

Well-known member
And what does that have to with the price of tea in China ( His Deity ) ???
Have you ever come across a human being who is also deity with full deific attributes?

Yes I have: Zeus and Hermes, when they visited the earth. Hercules, son of Jupiter.

Your Trinitarian Christ perfectly resembles a pagan god. Wonder where you got it from?

This is starting to verge on the dumb n dumber with your replies.
So you're telling the whole word that you regard the bible as "dumb." May be it's why we should be concerned with what you and your buddies teach.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
We are speaking of the Son of God, Jesus.
A moron and a rock could understand so you rate yourself to high.

"being in the form of God,” describes our Lord’s essential, and therefore eternal, being in the true nature of God; while the “taking on Him the form of a servant” similarly refers to His voluntary assumption of the true nature of man.

Paul regarded the Redeemer as equal with God. If he was truly divine, then his consenting to become a man was the most remarkable of all possible acts of humiliation.

Being; i.e. subsisting, in opposition to taking or assuming, Philippians 2:7; and therefore doth firmly prove Christ pro-existing in another nature to his so doing, namely, his actual existing of himself in the same essence and glory he had from eternity with the Father, John 1:1,2 17:5 2 Corinthians 8:9 Revelation 1:4,8,11.
Was the Son of God God dude, before becoming a man?

Then what you are saying is that Paul in Philippians 2:6 is saying that God existed in the form of God or in other words, that God existed in his own form, and which still is dumber than a box of rocks.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
I used the Romans passage (you could start at vs 15 for more complete context) because it speaks to the necessity of one man, Jesus Christ, being necessary for our salvation. I read it in the KJV. Its supporting my assertion that a sinless man was needed as our sacrifice and Jesus fullfilled the requirements.
Hebrews 2:
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Sorry but the fact that Paul said that Jesus had to be a man in order to redeem men, in no way reveals that he had to be also God to do this and that was my point and still is.

In fact, in 1 John 4:1-4, John says that the spirits must confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and he means flesh in how the Bible defines flesh also and there is no such flesh as being both God and flesh and he went on to say that if they don't, they are of the spirit of antichrist.

The reason why, is because it had to be flesh the same as Adam and his descendants and by the way, the word "sarx" doesn't only refer to the body but it refers to the whole human nature and there is no such thing as a human nature that is a hybrid of both God and human nature.

Hebrews 2:10 is referring to Jesus' choice to suffer like those who is was sent to save in order that he might make himself completely the same as them, it isn't speaking of him making a choice to be born a human being.

For because Jesus had no sin and never sinned, there was no cause for him to be punished with suffering like with Adam and his descendants who sinned and brought this upon themselves as a result.

Therefore with Jesus it was a choice that he made in order to be like the ones he came to save and that is what the verse is speaking of and not that he existed as God and then chose to be human.

Concerning Hebrews 2:16, you need to look that verse up in the Bible Hub interlinear, for it doesn't say what you think it says, but rather it says something like this below.

For concerning what verse 15 states and following after it, truly he doesn't help angels but rather the seed of Abraham.

So nothing in the above proves that Jesus was God or had to be either.
This speaks to Jesus as "for whom are all things and by whom are all things, unless you think "for it became him" is referring to God but I think the whole passage speaks of Jesus and by saying "by whom are all things" it is assigning Creator status to him. It also tells us that our Creatorhad to become a partaker of flesh and blood and die that he would destroy the devil and deliver us from bondage to him.
Again, Hebrews 2:10 is referring to Jesus' choice to suffer like those who is was sent to save in order that he might make himself completely the same as them, it isn't speaking of him making a choice to be born a human being.

He didn't sin and therefore he didn't have to suffer like all those who did either, but it was a choice he made after he was born in order to be completely like those whom he came to save.

For because Jesus had no sin and never sinned, there was no cause for him to be punished with suffering for it and like with Adam and his descendants who sinned and brought this upon themselves as a result.

Therefore with Jesus it was a choice that he made in order to be like the ones he came to save and that is what the verse is speaking of and not that he existed as God and then chose to be human.
Hebrews 10: 3-5 was used to support my assertion that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins, but Jesus came into the world to be our sacrifice as a sinless human. Why do you think every passage I posted has something to do with the diety of Christ.

Because you believe he is God and then you believe he emptied himself of being God and which it is impossible for God to do, for it would mean a change in his nature and God is God and always will remain God.
Hebrews 9:12-14 I was mainly showing it was the blood of Christ that saved us. But as for "through the eternal Spirit", I agree with you. The Holy
Spirit helped him through that ordeal. When I see "Spirit of Christ", I take that as literally meaning Christ's own personal spirit.

Well then, do you do this also when you hear the words "the Spirit of the Prophets"?

You are reading that into it but everything that Jesus was, and even regarding his personality was from God's Holy Spirit and it was God in him that made him attractive to his disciples, for Jesus emptied himself of himself so that the Father who was dwelling within him alone could be made manifest through him.

Read John 14:10 first and then read it in context with John 14:6-10 and you should see that this is even what he said in that text.
As for the meaning of the "Spirit of Christ" I'll let you ponder this passage in Romans 8
Romans 8: 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The Spirit of God was also the Spirit through which Jesus was made the Christ and that is what it means and not that the Spirit of his anointing was his own spirit in regards to his actual ontology or being. This is easily proven also by Jesus' words concerning his sending the Holy Spirit in the passages below.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

Notice Jesus' words in the bold red, for if Jesus was literally going to dwell within each believers personally by his own spirit in regards to his actual ontology, then why would he need to send the Spirit of God to communicate what he would say to his disciples, for that is exactly what he says he will do in this passage?

For if Jesus was literally dwelling within each believer, he could speak for himself and wouldn't have needed the Spirit of God to do this for him.

By the way, God is only one Spirit and if there were three spirits then you would have three gods and not only one.






 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
The form of God does not apply to man, only the image of God applies to man. Get your biblical facts straight for once.

next
So then if the form of God does not apply to man and you believe Jesus was a God man, then the words "form of God" would have to apply to God in your reasoning on this right?

Therefore what Paul is saying would be this then, "that God was in the form of God and then became also a man" and do you not see how absolutely ridiculous that is Civic?

For you are saying then that Paul was telling us that God was in his own form as God and then also took the form of a servant by becoming a human being.

And you told Wilcox that my interpretation is "utterly ridiculous" when you believe that Paul was telling us that God was in his own form of God?????


ROFLOL!
 

Caroljeen

Active member
Because you believe he is God and then you believe he emptied himself of being God and which it is impossible for God to do, for it would mean a change in his nature and God is God and always will remain God.


Well then, do you do this also when you hear the words "the Spirit of the Prophets"?

You are reading that into it but everything that Jesus was, and even regarding his personality was from God's Holy Spirit and it was God in him that made him attractive to his disciples, for Jesus emptied himself of himself so that the Father who was dwelling within him alone could be made manifest through him.

Read John 14:10 first and then read it in context with John 14:6-10 and you should see that this is even what he said in that text.


The Spirit of God was also the Spirit through which Jesus was made the Christ and that is what it means and not that the Spirit of his anointing was his own spirit in regards to his actual ontology or being. This is easily proven also by Jesus' words concerning his sending the Holy Spirit in the passages below.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

Notice Jesus' words in the bold red, for if Jesus was literally going to dwell within each believers personally by his own spirit in regards to his actual ontology, then why would he need to send the Spirit of God to communicate what he would say to his disciples, for that is exactly what he says he will do in this passage?

For if Jesus was literally dwelling within each believer, he could speak for himself and wouldn't have needed the Spirit of God to do this for him.

By the way, God is only one Spirit and if there were three spirits then you would have three gods and not only one.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
I used the Romans passage (you could start at vs 15 for more complete context) because it speaks to the necessity of one man, Jesus Christ, being necessary for our salvation. I read it in the KJV. Its supporting my assertion that a sinless man was needed as our sacrifice and Jesus fullfilled the requirements.
Hebrews 2:
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
In case you didn't understand what I was saying about Hebrews 2:16 in the above, the nature that the writer of Hebrews is speaking of that Jesus took upon himself was the nature of suffering and death and of which he wouldn't have had to suffer being he was without sin himself but he chose to do in order to relate to us and also to purchase our redemption.

For the reason why we all suffer and die is because even though God has removed the sin within our hearts through the cross, sin still dwells within in our natural man and therefore we suffer and die but Jesus didn't have to because he never sinned.

This is also why in John 10:17-18 he said that no man could take his life from him but that he laid it down of his own will.
 
Top