Kenosis Heresy

But that all started with him revealing that Abraham received a vision from God of Jesus coming to Israel and rejoiced over it and was glad when he saw it and upon this, the Jews looking to find something to accuse him by answered him saying "you are not yet 50 years old and you have seen Abraham"?

So Jesus was speaking of God's vision of him that Abraham saw and not that Abraham ever met Jesus or Jesus ever met Abraham and that vision of God that Abraham saw was the first vision that God ever had before creating anything that he created and therefore in his plan and vision, Jesus was standing before them in the first person present tense before Abraham was in his time.

By this Jesus was revealing that he was firstborn with God in the same way that this same word "firstborn" is used many times to refer to the one who is firstborn in God's vision and purpose in creation and having absolutely nothing to do with who is actually born first in the order of created time and such was the case with Jacob and Esau also.


Therefore because it is clearly taught in the scriptures, you are without excuse for not accepting it.


By the way and once again, if you read the context, shortly before he said this, he also told them that they were not able to understand what he was saying and therefore don't give me the bit that they understood him perfectly because in saying that you are making Jesus a liar and like you will become if you say that they did understand him.
Calmet's note on this passage:-"I am from all eternity. I have existed before all ages. You consider in me only the person who speaks to you, and who has appeared to you within a particular time. But besides this human nature, which ye think ye know, there is in me a Divine and eternal nature. Both, united, subsist together in my person. Abraham knew how to distinguish them. He adored me as his God; and desired me as his Saviour. He has seen me in my eternity, and he predicted my coming into the world."
 
NVM

Are you aware that some passages in the OT can have present and future meanings?

Why would Paul relate this verse from Isa 45 to Jesus? God gave Jesus his own name, YHWH. Jesus means YHWH savior. In Isaiah YHWH said every knee with bow to Him. In Philippians every knee with bow to Jesus and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (or YHWH). I almost didn't give an explanation. *sigh

Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father. NRSV
I'm done. I feel like we are talking past each other. I am genuinely trying to answer your questions. I can't spend anymore time doing this with you.
 
Calmet's note on this passage:-"I am from all eternity. ….. But besides this human nature, which ye think ye know, there is in me a Divine and eternal nature. Both, united, subsist together in my person. Abraham knew how to distinguish them. He adored me as his God; and desired me as his Saviour. He has seen me in my eternity, and he predicted my coming into the world."

He got all that from John 8:58? Reminds me of 2 Thes 2:11. …Nice fairy tale…
 
Calmet's note on this passage:-"I am from all eternity. I have existed before all ages. You consider in me only the person who speaks to you, and who has appeared to you within a particular time. But besides this human nature, which ye think ye know, there is in me a Divine and eternal nature. Both, united, subsist together in my person. Abraham knew how to distinguish them. He adored me as his God; and desired me as his Saviour. He has seen me in my eternity, and he predicted my coming into the world."
I am not interested in notes from another man but only in what the Bible reveals and even if Jesus pre existed his birth as a man he couldn't be God.

But while you are wanting to war over this, maybe you would like to explain why if Jesus always existed as Yahweh God, that Paul in Philippians 2:9 would say that because of his obedience God has given him a name above all others and as though if he were Yahweh God and Paul believed this, he wouldn't have always had a name above all others?

I find this verse to be a real problem for you trins and oneness, for you don't have an answer for it and you know it also.
 
NVM

Are you aware that some passages in the OT can have present and future meanings?

Why would Paul relate this verse from Isa 45 to Jesus? God gave Jesus his own name, YHWH. Jesus means YHWH savior. In Isaiah YHWH said every knee with bow to Him. In Philippians every knee with bow to Jesus and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (or YHWH). I almost didn't give an explanation. *sigh

Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father. NRSV
That is very weak and quite worthless also, for I have already explained to you that they bow to Yahweh by bowing to Jesus and just like they also bowed to Yahweh by bowing to Cyrus and which if you bothered to examine the context of Isaiah 45, you should have seen this in it.

Do you mean to tell me that you don't see how absolutely ridiculous your words are in the bold red above.

For if Jesus was always Yahweh God, then why would the Father given him his own name?

That makes absolutely no sense at all and especially when you believe that Jesus pre existed his birth as Yahweh or YHWH to begin with.

The fact is, that what Paul says in Philippians 2:9-11 does not fit with your doctrine at all because it is obvious that this name above every other name that Jesus received from God was something he never had before but was a reward for his obedience unto death.


You need to face up to it, you are being hoodwinked by your cult that you belong to and just like I was also for better than 30 years as a trinity and I was born again also and never had to be born again over either, and that is because in my salvation, neither the trinity or Jesus as being God were even thought of when God opened my eyes to the scriptures and to his love, grace and mercy.

For those doctrines weren't on my mind at all when I was saved but only that God so loved me that he sent Jesus to the cross to die for my sins and that I couldn't be saved by any human works of my own at all but only by his grace through faith and even the faith is given in order for us to believe and as per Ephesians 2:8-10.
 
I'm done. I feel like we are talking past each other. I am genuinely trying to answer your questions. I can't spend anymore time doing this with you.
You need to admit that you simply don't have answers for the problems that you have with your doctrine and that I have revealed from the scriptures but I see you as having the same problem as what Jesus told the Jews that they had also in John 8 below


27 They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. 28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.


43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!


Notice, this was said by Jesus before he said in verse 58, "before Abraham was I am" and yet trins and ones will argue that when the Jews picked up stones to kill him that this proves that they understood perfectly what Jesus meant by what he said.

However not according to Jesus in verse 27 and 43-45 they didn't and the reason he gives for why they couldn't understand him, was because they were listening to the lies of their real father the Devil and who was a liar and a murderer from the very beginning.

I would however warn you, that you need to get these issues resolved with God and quickly also, for I believe we are right on the verge of the end of the age and especially if your churches go out and vote for that evil lying autocrat Donald J. Trump again in three years.

For I am beginning to believe that this might very well be the very things that brings the final judgment of God down upon them and as seen in Revelation 17 and 18, so if I were you, I would give that some serious thought.
 
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
I think I forgot to respond to your second question. If they are reality, then the form of God in the OT is changeable and the aspects of an image of a man is odd if representing a trinity.
 
That is very weak and quite worthless also, for I have already explained to you that they bow to Yahweh by bowing to Jesus and just like they also bowed to Yahweh by bowing to Cyrus and which if you bothered to examine the context of Isaiah 45, you should have seen this in it.

Do you mean to tell me that you don't see how absolutely ridiculous your words are in the bold red above.

For if Jesus was always Yahweh God, then why would the Father given him his own name?

That makes absolutely no sense at all and especially when you believe that Jesus pre existed his birth as Yahweh or YHWH to begin with.

The fact is, that what Paul says in Philippians 2:9-11 does not fit with your doctrine at all because it is obvious that this name above every other name that Jesus received from God was something he never had before but was a reward for his obedience unto death.


You need to face up to it, you are being hoodwinked by your cult that you belong to and just like I was also for better than 30 years as a trinity and I was born again also and never had to be born again over either, and that is because in my salvation, neither the trinity or Jesus as being God were even thought of when God opened my eyes to the scriptures and to his love, grace and mercy.

For those doctrines weren't on my mind at all when I was saved but only that God so loved me that he sent Jesus to the cross to die for my sins and that I couldn't be saved by any human works of my own at all but only by his grace through faith and even the faith is given in order for us to believe and as per Ephesians 2:8-10.
The name above EVERY name so that ALL creation will fall on it's knees in stupendous worship of Jesus Christ.
 
Who said anything about some things only, I meant all things because it was only because God saw Christ as if he had already come and was hanging on that cross having died for sin, that God created anything at all that he created and that is what John means in John 1:3.
That does not account for all things being created "through Christ" but only "because of Christ."
What you fail to understand like most on this forum, is that God's foreknowledge is as real to him as if it already happened in created time and the reason why, is because whatever he foreknows, is going to happen in created time and nothing will hinder it either.
I understand your position only too well, but I reject it as unsustainable. What you don't seem to realize is that Christ said he was "the faithful and true witness, the beginning of (i.e. originator of) the creation of God," which you are perverting to say that Christ was "foreknown" before the creation of God.

To my mind, you are perverting scripture in misappropriating the foreknowledge doctrine.

Therefore God saw Jesus having already comer and having died on the cross for sin in his foreknowledge and that is the only basis for his creating anything at all that he created.

For in God's righteousness, he had to prepare the remedy for sin before he created the world that also in his foreknowledge he knew would be corrupted by sin and that is why John says "and without him (Jesus having died in Gods' foreknowledge of it) nothing was created that was created.
Again, this doesn't explain why God could refer to the Words by "in the beginning was the Word" in Jn 1:1. By your account, John should have said "in the beginning was the foreknowledge of the Word."

Moreover it is clear that the word of God came to the prophets long before Christ came, such that the "Word being the light of mankind" in Jn 1:3 could have no application to anyone before Christ. It would only have a partial application.
 
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)

Okay, you can call them Christophanies (which is odd for a Oneness...BUT I don't want to bunny trail this...Oneness in general say many things that seem to be at odds with their stated core beliefs). So these "Christophanies" have a morphe...and it is worth noting that Isaiah says, "For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts." Daniel says, "I watched until...the Ancient of Days was seated." Ezekiel says, "This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord." This last one is especially noteworthy as orthodox Trinitarians would tell you that Philippians 2:6-7 explains how the Son was able to appear to us without His glory...because human nature/beings do not inherently possess divine glory. I know you do not accept this so there is no point in us going back and forth on this for fifty posts.

I will point out that many people in the Bible say they say God, including some I just quoted. In fact, Hebrews 11 says this about Moses:

Hebrews 11:27 (NIV2011)
27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible.

The NASB translates it this way:

Hebrews 11:27 (NASB77)
27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen.

We all know the story of Moses and I just wanted to point out that the word "invisible" that you see in the NT can actually mean simply "unseen" as in "hidden." At any rate, whatever these appearances are they are "visually striking and incredible" to the one seeing (unless of course you don't think these have anything to do with God at all). And I so think you may be confusing morphe with eidos, or homoiōm, or schema. It is generally accepted that "morphe" generally has, shall we say, a "deeper" meaning. In Jn 5.37, Jesus tells them they have never seen the Father's "shape/eidos," He doesn't say "the Father doesn't have a shape to be seen." Notwithstanding, here in Phil 2.6-7 the "morphe of God" is to be contrasted with "the morphe of a servant/slave." Not the morphe of a "human" (though it goes on to point out that He accomplished taking the morphe of a slave by beginning to exist in the "likeness/homoiom" of human beings). This is the contrast made here. Again, if you disagree then we will leave it at that, I will pursue this no further.

I was curious about something you said, not really a point of contention. You said you got your above quote from Bible.org...where at Bible.org. The only thing I could find in googling this, i.e. Bible.org morphe of God was this:

"Before His Incarnation Jesus Christ was ''in the form of God'' (vs. 6). From the beginning He had the nature of God, He existed (or subsisted) as God, and that essential Deity which He once was could never cease to be. If He seems Divine, it is only because He is Divine. He is God."

If you want to look that up it is in an article titled "Why God became man" and this is under a section discussing Phil. 2 no less. Anyway, just curious as I wanted to read that quote of yours in context and see who wrote it.
Can you explain where you got "becoming" and "human being" in verse 7?

Sure, pick your translation, here's the NKJV. And I wish all the questions were this easy, but surely you could have looked at an interlinear yourself.

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

So the word you see as "coming" is also translated "born," and "being made," and so on. Here is the word:

gínomai; (strongs 1096) fut. genésomai, 2d aor. egenómēn, perf. part. gegenēménos, 2d perf. gégona, 2d pluperf. egegónein, aor. pass. egenéthēn for egenómēn. This verb is mid. deponent intrans. primarily meaning to begin to be, that is, to come into existence or into any state; and in the aor. and 2d perf. to have come into existence or simply to be. Thus egenómēn, egenéthēn, and gégona serve likewise as the past tenses of to be
Complete Word Study Dictionary, The - New Testament.

In Phil 2.7 this is a verbal participle/aor/mid/nom. So I made it a participle in the middle voice "beginning to exist." In addition, Jesus is the doer as the participles explain how he accomplishes the verb ekenosen (which is active).

The second word you ask about is "men" which is:

ánthrōpos; gen. anthrópou, masc., fem. noun. Man, a generic name in distinction from gods and the animals. In the NT, used to make the distinction between sinful man, whose conduct, way, or nature is opposed to God, male or husband.

(I) A man or woman, an individual of the human race, a person.

Complete Word Study Dictionary, The - New Testament.

I will not argue this either, it is a straightforward fact. If you don't accept it...then you don't.
A wonderful thing for sure!

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

Good, because I have spent more time here than I ever intended to.

TheLayman
 
That does not account for all things being created "through Christ" but only "because of Christ."

Of course it does, for it was created through Jesus' actions in his obedient life, death for sin and God's raising him from the dead and this works for God because God's foreknowledge of it was as real to God as if it happened in actual created time.

This is why Paul said the following words about Abraham and God Romans 4:17 below, for with God his foreknowledge is just as real with him as when it happens and the reason is, because what he foreknows is what he planned to be and what he planned to be will always happen.

17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Genesis 17:5 No longer will you be called Abram (singular); your name will be Abraham (plural), for I have made you a father of many nations.


Notice, God told Abraham that he had already made him a Father of many nations, when Abraham didn't yet have even one single descendant or son and in fact he changed his name from Abram which is in the singular to Abraham which is the plural form of Abram.


This is also one of the reasons why he knows the end from the beginning and he even tells us this in Isaiah 46:9-10 below.


Isaiah 46:9-10

9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;

I am God, and there is no other;

I am God, and there is none like me.

10 I make known the end from the beginning,

from ancient times, what is still to come.

I say, ‘My purpose will stand,

and I will do all that I please.’



You are wanting to make the words "through and in" as in "all things were created through and in Him (Jesus)" to mean that he had to be there and have a hands on part in the creation and that is not what they mean or what they have to mean either.


I understand your position only too well, but I reject it as unsustainable. What you don't seem to realize is that Christ said he was "the faithful and true witness, the beginning of (i.e. originator of) the creation of God," which you are perverting to say that Christ was "foreknown" before the creation of God.

You need to stop attempting to understand God's infinite words with your finite human wisdom and reasoning processes, for this is the very reason why the trinitarians are also confused about God's word, for this isn't the way that God in his word told us we are to learn the truth
To my mind, you are perverting scripture in misappropriating the foreknowledge doctrine.

That is the problem however, you are going by your own mind instead of the mind that was in Christ Jesus from God by his Spirit that dwelt within Jesus and as Paul states in the passage below.

1 Corinthians 2:13-16

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 have the mind of Christ.

Again, this doesn't explain why God could refer to the Words by "in the beginning was the Word" in Jn 1:1. By your account, John should have said "in the beginning was the foreknowledge of the Word."

I am sorry but this has to be understood by the actual definition of what word "Logos" itself reveals, for the definition is what reveals in what sense the Logos was God without the definite article and it wasn't referring to an actual living person or being until the Logos was made flesh in Jesus Christ.

The Logos as defined, refers to God in his mind and thinking and therefore when John said "and the Logos was "pros" "towards" God, John is expressing the fact that God was thinking towards himself and in his foreknowledge concerning his plan (logos) to send Christ Jesus in the future and in order to justify his creating all things knowing in advance that sin would enter in and distort what he created.
Moreover it is clear that the word of God came to the prophets long before Christ came, such that the "Word being the light of mankind" in Jn 1:3 could have no application to anyone before Christ. It would only have a partial application.
And you believe that when it says the word came to the prophets, that it was an extra living person and being that The God sent to them?

You need to get free of the doctrines and teachings of other men, for the whole bunch of them are in apostasy from the truth and actually the Bible revealed that the true church will be only a small remnants of what appears to be the church to the world and he wasn't speaking of the Jehovah's Witnesses when he said this either, for they are part of the problem and not the solution.
 
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,



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.





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.



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


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



"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?



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
While you think that your fleshy academic knowledge gives you all the answers, how about you explaining then why Paul would say the following of Jesus if before and also while becoming a man he always existed as Yahweh God and as being Yahweh God also always having a name above every other?

Philippians 2:9-11

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place

and gave him the name that is above every name,

10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father.

First off, why does Paul say that God exalted Jesus?

Now then, it is quite obvious that this name that was above every other name was something that Jesus never had before and this is just another reason why what Paul said in Philippians 2:5-11 cannot work with your false doctrine about it.

You trins and oneness are totally and willingly ignorant of the context and first application of the prophecy given in Isaiah 45 and which first applied to Cyrus who God made Lord over the people, that they might bow unto him in submission and by doing so also bow to Yahweh and to the glory of Yahweh as well and being Yahweh called him and sent him to be Lord of he people like he did Jesus also.

This is why you have totally perverted what Paul was revealing about this passage of Philippians 2:5-11

 
Okay, you can call them Christophanies (which is odd for a Oneness...BUT I don't want to bunny trail this...Oneness in general say many things that seem to be at odds with their stated core beliefs). So these "Christophanies" have a morphe...and it is worth noting that Isaiah says, "For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts." Daniel says, "I watched until...the Ancient of Days was seated." Ezekiel says, "This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord." This last one is especially noteworthy as orthodox Trinitarians would tell you that Philippians 2:6-7 explains how the Son was able to appear to us without His glory...because human nature/beings do not inherently possess divine glory. I know you do not accept this so there is no point in us going back and forth on this for fifty posts.

I will point out that many people in the Bible say they say God, including some I just quoted. In fact, Hebrews 11 says this about Moses:

Hebrews 11:27 (NIV2011)
27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible.

The NASB translates it this way:

Hebrews 11:27 (NASB77)
27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen.

We all know the story of Moses and I just wanted to point out that the word "invisible" that you see in the NT can actually mean simply "unseen" as in "hidden." At any rate, whatever these appearances are they are "visually striking and incredible" to the one seeing (unless of course you don't think these have anything to do with God at all). And I so think you may be confusing morphe with eidos, or homoiōm, or schema. It is generally accepted that "morphe" generally has, shall we say, a "deeper" meaning. In Jn 5.37, Jesus tells them they have never seen the Father's "shape/eidos," He doesn't say "the Father doesn't have a shape to be seen." Notwithstanding, here in Phil 2.6-7 the "morphe of God" is to be contrasted with "the morphe of a servant/slave." Not the morphe of a "human" (though it goes on to point out that He accomplished taking the morphe of a slave by beginning to exist in the "likeness/homoiom" of human beings). This is the contrast made here. Again, if you disagree then we will leave it at that, I will pursue this no further.

I was curious about something you said, not really a point of contention. You said you got your above quote from Bible.org...where at Bible.org. The only thing I could find in googling this, i.e. Bible.org morphe of God was this:

"Before His Incarnation Jesus Christ was ''in the form of God'' (vs. 6). From the beginning He had the nature of God, He existed (or subsisted) as God, and that essential Deity which He once was could never cease to be. If He seems Divine, it is only because He is Divine. He is God."

If you want to look that up it is in an article titled "Why God became man" and this is under a section discussing Phil. 2 no less. Anyway, just curious as I wanted to read that quote of yours in context and see who wrote it.


Sure, pick your translation, here's the NKJV. And I wish all the questions were this easy, but surely you could have looked at an interlinear yourself.

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

So the word you see as "coming" is also translated "born," and "being made," and so on. Here is the word:

gínomai; (strongs 1096) fut. genésomai, 2d aor. egenómēn, perf. part. gegenēménos, 2d perf. gégona, 2d pluperf. egegónein, aor. pass. egenéthēn for egenómēn. This verb is mid. deponent intrans. primarily meaning to begin to be, that is, to come into existence or into any state; and in the aor. and 2d perf. to have come into existence or simply to be. Thus egenómēn, egenéthēn, and gégona serve likewise as the past tenses of to be
Complete Word Study Dictionary, The - New Testament.

In Phil 2.7 this is a verbal participle/aor/mid/nom. So I made it a participle in the middle voice "beginning to exist." In addition, Jesus is the doer as the participles explain how he accomplishes the verb ekenosen (which is active).

The second word you ask about is "men" which is:

ánthrōpos; gen. anthrópou, masc., fem. noun. Man, a generic name in distinction from gods and the animals. In the NT, used to make the distinction between sinful man, whose conduct, way, or nature is opposed to God, male or husband.

(I) A man or woman, an individual of the human race, a person.

Complete Word Study Dictionary, The - New Testament.

I will not argue this either, it is a straightforward fact. If you don't accept it...then you don't.


Good, because I have spent more time here than I ever intended to.

TheLayman
There is a big, big difference from taking the form of a servant and becoming a man and there is also a big, big difference between "ginomai" becoming like "homoiomai" men and becoming "ginomai" a man and Paul never at all tells us that Jesus became a man but only that he became like men.

The reason why, is because he was never speaking of Jesus as anything other than a real man in regards to his actual ontology to begin with and that is why he starts everything he says by referring to the man who at his birth into existence "huparchon". was given the name and title of Jesus Christ.

However, although Jesus was a real man in regards to his actual ontology, he was not like all other men in being born in the form of God and therefore when he afterward took the form of a servant, by doing this he became "ginomai" like "homoiomai" other men and which was the point that Paul was making.

For Jesus emptied himself of himself in order that the Father who was dwelling within him (see John 14:10) would be made manifest without being obscured through Jesus' humanity. and this is what he is asking the Philippians to follow in their attitude also.

Examples of his becoming a servant while being a King is seen in the gospels when the people recognized his great authority (form of God) and would have taken him by force to make him their King and he would not allow them but withdrew himself from them.

However the best example I believe, was on the night of his arrest when he washed the feet of his disciples and said unto them, "you call me Lord and Master and you are right, for that is what I am, and if I being your Lord and Master wash your feet (become your servant), then you ought also to do the same with one another".

Right there you have what Paul was wanting from the Philippians "Let this mind be in you which was also in (the man with the name and title) Christ Jesus" and it is just that simple, but you have made of it a rocket science with all of your non Biblical rubbish that you have added to it's meaning.
 
Last edited:
I was curious about something you said, not really a point of contention. You said you got your above quote from Bible.org...where at Bible.org. The only thing I could find in googling this, i.e. Bible.org morphe of God was this:

"Before His Incarnation Jesus Christ was ''in the form of God'' (vs. 6). From the beginning He had the nature of God, He existed (or subsisted) as God, and that essential Deity which He once was could never cease to be. If He seems Divine, it is only because He is Divine. He is God."

If you want to look that up it is in an article titled "Why God became man" and this is under a section discussing Phil. 2 no less. Anyway, just curious as I wanted to read that quote of yours in context and see who wrote it.
I'll take you through the clicks --2 ways to do it - Bible.org>>Net Bible>>the left side of the page, choose the translation, the book of the bible and the chapter, on the right side click on Greek (It defaults to the study notes); if you don't read Greek, hover over the word you want to know about on the left hand side and it will highlight on the corresponding word on the Greek side as well as give you the lexicon definitions. I think the quote came from the note section which I presume was done by the authors of the NET bible. I believe Daniel Wallace has a lead role in the writing of the NET bible.

Or you can go the Net Bible first.

It has tons of articles to read. I can see how you could have spent some time there.
I'll get back to responding to the rest of your post later. Busy early part of the day for me.
 
Last edited:
I'll take you through the clicks --2 ways to do it - Bible.org>>Net Bible>>the left side of the page, choose the translation, the book of the bible and the chapter, on the right side click on Greek (It defaults to the study notes); if you don't read Greek, hover over the word you want to know about on the left hand side and it will highlight on the corresponding word on the Greek side as well as give you the lexicon definitions. I think the quote came from the note section which I presume was done by the authors of the NET bible. I believe Daniel Wallace has a lead role in the writing of the NET bible.

Or you can go the Net Bible first.

It has tons of articles to read. I can see how you could have spent some time there.
I'll get back to responding to the rest of your post later. Busy early part of the day for me.
Yeah, I know where it's at but I couldn't find your quote anywhere. You can participate in this thread but I simply don't have time for these chase your tail conversations (and I say that generally speaking, that isn't directed at you).

TheLayman
 
Yeah, I know where it's at but I couldn't find your quote anywhere. You can participate in this thread but I simply don't have time for these chase your tail conversations (and I say that generally speaking, that isn't directed at you).

TheLayman
I'll be more specific next time. I should have said the Net Bible on the Bible.org site. Sorry, I don't want to waste anyone's time, especially my own.
 
Back
Top