Phil 2 Must Exist To Be Able To Consider

[Towerwatchman]

Must exist to consider.

Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

Let’s pay close attention to “consider” in vs 6. Consider = think carefully about (something), typically before deciding. To have not considered equality with God something to be grasped, Jesus would to have considered it something to grasp also. What was Jesus thinking carefully about? To decide you need to have more than one option to decide on, therefore He decided between considering it something to be grasped, and not to be grasped. Therefore, to be able to consider between two options one would have to have cognitive ability to freely choose, otherwise known as free will. And if free will then a cognitive thinking, center of self-consciousness, separate from the One He is considering His equality with.

Same applies to vs 7

Note the opening to vs 7 “BUT” a conjunction = used to introduce something contrasting with what has already been mentioned.

The combination of chronological order with the use of the conjunction ‘but’, vs 7 introduces the choice Jesus made in contrast to what He was considering in vs 6.

Therefore, to be able to make a choice between two options one would have to have cognitive ability to freely weigh the options, otherwise known as free will. And if free will then a cognitive thinking, center of self-consciousness, separate from the One He is considering His equality with.

Conclusion. Jesus existed as a free willed, cognitive, center of self consciousness distinct from the Father and HS, before the incarnation or His birth.

 

[Andreas]

In Philippians 2, the Apostle Paul is giving us an example of humility and helping others by pointing to the example of Christ:

"Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus"

Having set forth Jesus as the example of true humility he goes on to describe his mind and actions.

"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross"

Though Jesus was God by nature he took on the form of a man who was a humble servant even to the point of death on the cross for our sake. Since Christ had such a servant mind set, then this sets forth the greatest example of humility. When he became man, he was still God yet limited himself and served us and didn't assert his authority as God to refrain from being a servant. Recall that Jesus taught his disciples servanthood by washing their feet at the last supper even though he was their master. He told them to do likewise (JOHN 13). So Paul was not teaching anything different here than what Jesus had already taught his disciples. Paul is reminding them of Christ's example to teach humility.


"Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

This is fulfillment of Isaiah 45:21-23

"Was it not I, the LORD?
And there is no other god besides me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none besides me.

“Turn to me and be saved,
all the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
By myself I have sworn;
from my mouth has gone out in righteousness
a word that shall not return:
‘To me every knee shall bow,
every tongue shall swear allegiance"

God was manifested in the flesh as a genuine man (2 Timothy 3:16), and after the resurrection the resurrected Christ was exalted to the highest place because the victorious Messiah is not just a man, but the LORD God himself as Isaiah describes in detail his identity. God declares himself as "me", "by myself", "I", not "we". A plurality of persons in the Godhead is excluded here.

 

[Towerwatchman]

In Philippians 2, the Apostle Paul is giving us an example of humility and helping others by pointing to the example of Christ:

"Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus"

Having set forth Jesus as the example of true humility he goes on to describe his mind and actions.

"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross"

Though Jesus was God by nature he took on the form of a man who was a humble servant even to the point of death on the cross for our sake. Since Christ had such a servant mind set, then this sets forth the greatest example of humility. When he became man, he was still God yet limited himself and served us and didn't assert his authority as God to refrain from being a servant. Recall that Jesus taught his disciples servanthood by washing their feet at the last supper even though he was their master. He told them to do likewise (JOHN 13). So Paul was not teaching anything different here than what Jesus had already taught his disciples. Paul is reminding them of Christ's example to teach humility.


"Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

This is fulfillment of Isaiah 45:21-23

"Was it not I, the LORD?
And there is no other god besides me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none besides me.

“Turn to me and be saved,
all the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
By myself I have sworn;
from my mouth has gone out in righteousness
a word that shall not return:
‘To me every knee shall bow,
every tongue shall swear allegiance"

God was manifested in the flesh as a genuine man (2 Timothy 3:16), and after the resurrection the resurrected Christ was exalted to the highest place because the victorious Messiah is not just a man, but the LORD God himself as Isaiah describes in detail his identity. God declares himself as "me", "by myself", "I", not "we". A plurality of persons in the Godhead is excluded here.

Thank you for sharing your commentary on the passage, but that did not address the topic. Yes or no, did Jesus exist as he cognitive free will center of self consciousness, apart from the father and the Holy Spirit prior to the incarnation or his birth?
According to Paul Jesus did.

 

[Andreas]

Thank you for sharing your commentary on the passage, but that did not address the topic. Yes or no, did Jesus exist as he cognitive free will center of self consciousness, apart from the father and the Holy Spirit prior to the incarnation or his birth?
According to Paul Jesus did.

Where exactly did Paul say this? He actually taught the exact oppose and warned us of concepts like yours. See Colossians 2:8-9.

Are you inferring that Philippians 2:6 is a conversation between three persons in the Godhead? God the Son working things out with the two other persons and deciding to be the one to go down? That is a nonsensical, mythological view of God. The onus is really on you to show how Philippians 2 has three persons in the Godhead having conversations up in heaven.

“Turn to me and be saved,
all the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
By myself I have sworn;
from my mouth has gone out in righteousness
a word that shall not return:
‘To me every knee shall bow,
every tongue shall swear allegiance"

 

[Towerwatchman]

Where exactly did Paul say this? He actually taught the exact oppose and warned us of concepts like yours. See Colossians 2:8-9

Paul does not have to explicitly say X, we can conclude that easily from the text.

Are you inferring that Philippians 2:6 is a conversation between three persons in the Godhead? God the Son working things out with the two other persons and deciding to be the one to go down? That is a nonsensical, mythological view of God. The onus is really on you to show how Philippians 2 has three persons in the Godhead having conversations up in heave

I have never inferred such a thing. Ted herring fallacy.

“Turn to me and be saved,
all the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
By myself I have sworn;
from my mouth has gone out in righteousness
a word that shall not return:
‘To me every knee shall bow,
every tongue shall swear allegiance"

Agree
Suggest you address the op

 

[Andreas]

Paul does not have to explicitly say X, we can conclude that easily from the text.

I have never inferred such a thing. Ted herring fallacy.

Agree
Suggest you address the op

You agree? One of the fatal problems with Trinitarians is inconsistency. God says in Isaiah, which I quoted is, "I am God, and there is no other". This excludes a plurality of persons who go by the pronoun "I" or "me" because the "me" in this verse clearly states that there is no other "I am" who is God. This is elementary school reading comprehension. But you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want God to be three He's when it is convenient and then one "He" with none beside Him at other times. I'm glad you agree that there is one God and none beside Him, but if you want to be consistent don't bring in two more "he's" which Isaiah specifically excludes.


This is the nonsense part of Colossian 2:8 that Paul warned us about. It's like trying to reason with a radical lefty about the definition of a woman. All you have is empty nonsense.


You say Paul does not have to explicitly say x, we can conclude that easily from the text".

As I've said many times before Jesus is God and therefore had the ability to make a choice. What you also claim from this verse goes beyond that however, and you are saying that this verse says there are three persons in the Godhead and this verse doesn't even infer that. Where is the terms Father, Son, or Holy Spirit used in this verse?

 

[Towerwatchman]

You agree? One of the fatal problems with Trinitarians is inconsistency. God says in Isaiah, which I quoted is, "I am God, and there is no other". This excludes a plurality of persons who go by the pronoun "I" or "me" because the "me" in this verse clearly states that there is no other "I am" who is God. This is elementary school reading comprehension. But you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want God to be three He's when it is convenient and then one "He" with none beside Him at other times. I'm glad you agree that there is one God and none beside Him, but if you want to be consistent don't bring in two more "he's" which Isaiah specifically excludes.


This is the nonsense part of Colossian 2:8 that Paul warned us about. It's like trying to reason with a radical lefty about the definition of a woman. All you have is empty nonsense.


You say Paul does not have to explicitly say x, we can conclude that easily from the text".

As I've said many times before Jesus is God and therefore had the ability to make a choice. What you also claim from this verse goes beyond that however, and you are saying that this verse says there are three persons in the Godhead and this verse doesn't even infer that. Where is the terms Father, Son, or Holy Spirit used in this verse?

I’m not arguing that Jesus was able to make a choice, pay attention to the text, Paul states that Jesus considered his equality with God before the incarnation. Again to consider your equality with X, you have to be separate from what you are considering your equality with.

 

[Andreas]

I’m not arguing that Jesus was able to make a choice, pay attention to the text, Paul states that Jesus considered his equality with God before the incarnation. Again to consider your equality with X, you have to be separate from what you are considering your equality with.

You're saying Jesus was separate from God Himself? What you are literally saying is that Jesus is a person in heaven equal to God but separate from God. Yikes. Again, you have a consistency problem. You are reading into this separate persons who are God, but then you have to be inconsistent because the verse simply says "God" and not "God the Father" or "God the Holy Ghost". So, your theory doesn't fit very well here.

Jesus is intrinsically God by his very nature (morphe). Though He was by very nature God, He didn't think that being the same as or identical (ISOS) to God should be something to be used to His advantage, but having become intrinsically a man and a servant, He didn't use his privileges as God to keep him from being a humble servant and ultimately giving his life on the cross for us. We should follow his example in humility.


The Greek ISOS means equal, equivalent, identical, same, like.

Jesus was God and He became a humble man and served even to his death on the cross. Reading into this three persons in the Godhead adds way too much extra-biblical "revelation" to Philippians 2. What else you got?

 

[Towerwatchman]

You're saying Jesus was separate from God Himself? What you are literally saying is that Jesus is a person in heaven equal to God but separate from God. Yikes. Again, you have a consistency problem. You are reading into this separate persons who are God, but then you have to be inconsistent because the verse simply says "God" and not "God the Father" or "God the Holy Ghost". So, your theory doesn't fit very well here

If I had a nickel for every time, I wrote something in error I would be rich. Jesus was considering his equality with God, and to consider equality with God, he would have to be separate from the father in the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is intrinsically God by his very nature (morphe). Though He was by very nature God, He didn't think that being the same as or identical (ISOS) to God should be something to be used to His advantage,

isos means equaling quality and quantity. Jesus equality was on par with God’s.

And if Jesus was in the form of God “morph” and took on the form of a man “morph”, and there’s nothing in the text that can be taken as figurative, just as Jesus was in the form of man we can conclude that Jesus was in the form of God.

but having become intrinsically a man and a servant, He didn't use his privileges as God to keep him from being a humble servant and ultimately giving his life on the cross for us. We should follow his example in humility.

I agree with Paul

Jesus was God and He became a humble man and served even to his death on the cross.

What you conveniently leave out is that Jesus did not exist prior to the incarnation, as a center of self consciousness.

Reading into this three persons in the Godhead adds way too much extra-biblical "revelation" to Philippians 2. What else you got?

Again, I am not arguing the Trinity, you keep posting a strawman fallacy.

 

[Towerwatchman]

You're saying Jesus was separate from God Himself? What you are literally saying is that Jesus is a person in heaven equal to God but separate from God. Yikes. Again, you have a consistency problem. You are reading into this separate persons who are God, but then you have to be inconsistent because the verse simply says "God" and not "God the Father" or "God the Holy Ghost". So, your theory doesn't fit very well here.

Jesus is intrinsically God by his very nature (morphe). Though He was by very nature God, He didn't think that being the same as or identical (ISOS) to God should be something to be used to His advantage, but having become intrinsically a man and a servant, He didn't use his privileges as God to keep him from being a humble servant and ultimately giving his life on the cross for us. We should follow his example in humility.


The Greek ISOS means equal, equivalent, identical, same, like.

Jesus was God and He became a humble man and served even to his death on the cross. Reading into this three persons in the Godhead adds way too much extra-biblical "revelation" to Philippians 2. What else you got?

Thank you for the thumbs up, I’m glad to see you’re in agreement

 

[Andreas]

If I had a nickel for every time, I wrote something in error I would be rich. Jesus was considering his equality with God, and to consider equality with God, he would have to be separate from the father in the Holy Spirit.

isos means equaling quality and quantity. Jesus equality was on par with God’s.

And if Jesus was in the form of God “morph” and took on the form of a man “morph”, and there’s nothing in the text that can be taken as figurative, just as Jesus was in the form of man we can conclude that Jesus was in the form of God.

I agree with Paul

What you conveniently leave out is that Jesus did not exist prior to the incarnation, as a center of self consciousness.

Again, I am not arguing the Trinity, you keep posting a strawman fallacy.

I'll stop calling you a Trinitarian then, and use a more accurate term Tri-theist.

You are still not really getting it. Since Jesus is God, as I've said, he had to exist prior to the incarnation. Not as a man, but as God. How could he not exist if he was God? God is eternal and no one can ever become God, so since Jesus is God, the First and Last, the everlasting Father, then he existed. Period. Full Stop.

The discussion needs to move forward as to whether this passage teaches three God persons, or simply God who became man. Philippians 2:6 simply says "God", so I'm going to stay with the plain scripture.

 

[Towerwatchman]

I'll stop calling you a Trinitarian then, and use a more accurate term Tri-theist.

You are still not really getting it. Since Jesus is God, as I've said, he had to exist prior to the incarnation. Not as a man, but as God. How could he not exist if he was God? God is eternal and no one can ever become God, so since Jesus is God, the First and Last, the everlasting Father, then he existed. Period. Full Stop.

The discussion needs to move forward as to whether this passage teaches three God persons, or simply God who became man. Philippians 2:6 simply says "God", so I'm going to stay with the plain scripture.

You keep skirting the issue and avoiding the pitfall in your theology. You conveniently argued that Jesus existed as God before the incarnation, and skirt the issue at hand.
Let me reword it so it’ll be nice and clear.
Did Jesus exist as a cognitive Freewill center of self consciousness apart from the father and the Holy Spirit, who also possess their cognitive free will center of self consciousness?

 

[Andreas]

You keep skirting the issue and avoiding the pitfall in your theology. You conveniently argued that Jesus existed as God before the incarnation, and skirt the issue at hand.
Let me reword it so it’ll be nice and clear.
Did Jesus exist as a cognitive Freewill center of self consciousness apart from the father and the Holy Spirit, who also possess their cognitive free will center of self consciousness?

It is not a "convenient" answer, but the biblical one that you don't want to accept. You are inferring from Philippians 2 through the perspective of tri-theism. But, the passage can simply be understood as I've explained and that harmonizes with the rest of the Bible. God knows Himself as a singular "I AM". God says "I am the LORD and there is no God beside me". That shows clearly that God is a singular self-consciousness. God doesn't have three separate centers of consciousness. Isaiah 45 clearly helps us understand the context of Philippians 2 further by the one God calling Himself the only one, the savior, and the one to whom every knee shall bow and tongue confess.

All distinctions in the Bible between the Son and God relate to his genuine humanity. There is simply no need to infer three persons in the Godhead by bringing in your extra-biblical revelation. If Paul wanted to teach a Trinity he would have said something like "God the Son was in the form of God, but he thought it not robbery to be equal to God the Father, so he humbled himself...". That's what you want it to say, but it doesn't. You have special knowledge of what Paul really meant to say. But, it not only fails to harmonize perfectly with the passage, but it utterly contradicts explanatory passages like Isaiah 45.

So answer where in the text of Philippians 2:6 does it say that Jesus has his own self-consciousness separate from God the Father? One consciousness, who is God, is sufficient. As in all your scriptures like JOHN 1:1 you always have to add text like "God the Father" and do a switch-a-roo on the definition of God, to try to support your narrative. If the Apostles meant a Tri-theism, don't you think they would just clearly say it instead of something different?

 

[Towerwatchman]

It is not a "convenient" answer, but the biblical one that you don't want to accept. You are inferring from Philippians 2 through the perspective of tri-theism. But, the passage can simply be understood as I've explained and that harmonizes with the rest of the Bible. God knows Himself as a singular "I AM". God says "I am the LORD and there is no God beside me". That shows clearly that God is self-consciousness, but only of Himself. God doesn't have three separate centers of consciousness. Isaiah 45 clearly helps us understand the context of Philippians 2 further by the one God calling Himself the only one, the savior, and the one to whom every knee shall bow and tongue confess.

All distinctions in the Bible between the Son and God all relate to his genuine humanity. There is simply no need to infer three persons in the Godhead by bringing in your extra-biblical revelation. If Paul wanted to teach a Trinity he would have said something like "God the Son was in the form of God, but he thought it not robbery to be equal to God the Father, so he humbled himself...". That's what you want it to say, but it doesn't. You have special knowledge of what Paul really meant to say. But, it not only fails to harmonize perfectly with the passage, but it utterly contradicts explanatory passages like Isaiah 45.

So answer where in the text of Philippians 2:6 does it say that Jesus has his own self-consciousness separate from God the Father? One consciousness, who is God, is sufficient. As in all your scriptures like JOHN 1:1 you always have to add text like "God the Father", to try to support your narrative. If the Apostles meant a Trinity, don't you think they would just clearly say it instead of something different?

Let me sum this up the best I can.
God who is the only existing center of self-consciousness considered His equality with Himself before making the decision not to display His deity which He
Let this mind be in you which was also in GOD, 6 who, being in the form of GOD, did not consider it [b]robbery to be equal with HIMSELF , 7 but [c]made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men... Therefore God also has highly exalted HIMSELF and given HIMSELF the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus [WHICH IS REALLY GOD INCOGNITO] every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [WHICH IS REALLY GOD INCOGNITO] is Lord, to the glory [HIMSELF].

Really?


The center of self consciousness includes the idea of mind, will and desire.
So when Jesus was praying to the Father, it was really God was talking to Himself.
Or when Jesus said you will not mine, it was a lie, since there is only one will.

 

[Andreas]

Let me sum this up the best I can.
God who is the only existing center of self-consciousness considered His equality with Himself before making the decision not to display His deity which He
Let this mind be in you which was also in GOD, 6 who, being in the form of GOD, did not consider it [b]robbery to be equal with HIMSELF , 7 but [c]made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men... Therefore God also has highly exalted HIMSELF and given HIMSELF the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus [WHICH IS REALLY GOD INCOGNITO] every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [WHICH IS REALLY GOD INCOGNITO] is Lord, to the glory [HIMSELF].

Really?


The center of self consciousness includes the idea of mind, will and desire.
So when Jesus was praying to the Father, it was really God was talking to Himself.
Or when Jesus said you will not mine, it was a lie, since there is only one will.

Let this mind be in you which was in the MESSIAH Jesus. He is not talking about a 2nd person in the Godhead, but the reference here is referring to his role as Messiah which refers to his earthly ministry in the flesh. His taking on the form of man and dying on the cross is the main point of humility in Philippians 2. I do see how you could see verse 6 as two, but it really doesn't fit the tri-theistic or trinitarian way either. You are reading more in verse 6 than what is there. Also, note that it really isn't strictly chronological since the "no reputation", "bondservant, "coming in likeness" are actually out of order chronologically.

I said many times before, I would have to repeat the fact that the distinction between Father and Son is due to his genuine humanity. You've been robbed of foundational truth according to the Apostle in Colossians 2:8-9, so this tends to just fly right past you. This is why I'll be patient and keep trying to get through to you. When God became man, this man whom God became (the Son of God) viewed himself and his surroundings like a genuine man. The Son prayed and communicated with God because he was a real man. The incarnation does not mean that God operated a puppet like human body, it meant He became one of us. It was not a metamorphosis, or a transformation but incarnation. God who is omnipotent and everywhere present (Psalm 139) continued to exist in this way while He also was incarnate. Because you've been robbed of foundational truths, you've been dupped by the philosophy of this world by pigeonholing your concept of the Godhead into human like categories of "persons". But these earthly concepts fail.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Let this mind be in you which was in the MESSIAH Jesus. He is not talking about a 2nd person in the Godhead, but the reference here is referring to his role as Messiah which refers to his earthly ministry in the flesh.

I said many times before, I would have to repeat the fact that the distinction between Father and Son is due to his genuine humanity. You've been robbed of foundational truth according to the Apostle in Colossians 2:8-9, so this tends to just fly right past you. This is why I'll be patient and keep trying to get through to you. When God became man, this man whom God became (the Son of God) viewed himself and his surroundings like a genuine man. The Son prayed and communicated with God because he was a real man. The incarnation does not mean that God operated a puppet like human body, it meant He became one of us. It was not a metamorphosis, or a transformation but incarnation. God who is omnipotent and everywhere present (Psalm 139) continued to exist in this way while He also was incarnate. Because you've been robbed of foundational truths, you've been dupped by the philosophy of this world by pigeonholing your concept of the Godhead into human like categories of "persons". But these earthly concepts fail.

It’s a nice story but not supported by scripture. And especially not supported by Paul in Philippines 2.
Instead of continually posting ad, hominem fallacies, why not try dealing with the OP.
Personal attacks of the last position ignorance takes when it cannot deal with the subject matter. And how shallow, a mile wide in an inch deep is your theology that one word “consider” blows it out or water?

 

[Andreas]

It’s a nice story but not supported by scripture. And especially not supported by Paul in Philippines 2.
Instead of continually posting ad, hominem fallacies, why not try dealing with the OP.
Personal attacks of the last position ignorance takes when it cannot deal with the subject matter. And how shallow, a mile wide in an inch deep is your theology that one word “consider” blows it out or water?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about personal attacks. Are you following the radical left's view that disagreement is equal to personal attack? If so, you are going to have a miserable life.

It's the greatest story ever told that God would become one of us for our salvation. Why don't you consider Christ's humanity as an important element to understanding Philippians 2? Why not allow Isaiah 45 to inform you as to how God is expressed as Savior?

 

[Towerwatchman]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about personal attacks. Are you following the radical left's view that disagreement is equal to personal attack? If so, you are going to have a miserable life.

Your post
Because you've been robbed of foundational truths, you've been dupped by the philosophy of this world by pigeonholing your concept of the Godhead into human like categories of "persons". But these earthly concepts fail.
You've been robbed of foundational truth according to the Apostle in Colossians 2:8-9,

Because you've been robbed of foundational truths, you've been dupped by the philosophy of this world by pigeonholing your concept of the Godhead into human like categories of "persons". But these earthly concepts fail.

You get the right to make such comments after you’ve proven your theology, correct. Until then stick to the subject matter.

It's the greatest story ever told that God would become one of us for our salvation. Why don't you consider Christ's humanity as an important element to understanding Philippians 2? Why not allow Isaiah 45 to inform you as to how God is expressed as Savior?

More red herrings and Strawmen
Why is that?
Could it be you can’t answer the OP, without stepping into the theological pitfall, your religious worldview has.

 

[Andreas]

Your post
Because you've been robbed of foundational truths, you've been dupped by the philosophy of this world by pigeonholing your concept of the Godhead into human like categories of "persons". But these earthly concepts fail.
You've been robbed of foundational truth according to the Apostle in Colossians 2:8-9,

Because you've been robbed of foundational truths, you've been dupped by the philosophy of this world by pigeonholing your concept of the Godhead into human like categories of "persons". But these earthly concepts fail.

You get the right to make such comments after you’ve proven your theology, correct. Until then stick to the subject matter.

More red herrings and Strawmen
Why is that?
Could it be you can’t answer the OP, without stepping into the theological pitfall, your religious worldview has.

Saying these things is part of the point because you're locked into a certain way of thinking about God that forbids anything outside it. As Colossians 2:8 says, you are using earthly elements combined with empty philosophy to understand God.

You are humanizing the Godhead, while ignoring the genuine humanity of Christ. It's upside down.

As far as explanations, please reread my commentary more closely and you'll find the answer.

 

[Andreas]

Your post
Because you've been robbed of foundational truths, you've been dupped by the philosophy of this world by pigeonholing your concept of the Godhead into human like categories of "persons". But these earthly concepts fail.
You've been robbed of foundational truth according to the Apostle in Colossians 2:8-9,

Because you've been robbed of foundational truths, you've been dupped by the philosophy of this world by pigeonholing your concept of the Godhead into human like categories of "persons". But these earthly concepts fail.

You get the right to make such comments after you’ve proven your theology, correct. Until then stick to the subject matter.

More red herrings and Strawmen
Why is that?
Could it be you can’t answer the OP, without stepping into the theological pitfall, your religious worldview has.

Reading Philippians 2:6 to support your three persons theory also fails because at the most it presents only two persons. So, not only does the text not say "God the Father" as you assert it means, but it completely leaves out the 3rd person. This is odd if Paul is teaching three persons in the Godhead. This is another problem with your theory.

But, aside from that, the text of Philippians 2:6 could be understood as not even talking about a pre-incarnate state specifically. Rather Jesus retained his "very nature" as God but he also took on the very nature of a "servant" (Phil. 2:7). See Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary page 268.

In other words, it is talking about the state of mind of Christ, especially in his incarnate state. The verses that follow are not in a literal chronological order other than his cross and exaltation at the end. Again, the authentic humanity of Christ is in view here. That the man whom God became had a human mind that could voluntarily choose to humble himself is probably what is in view by Paul here since we as humans can follow his example.