Some overlooked facts about the mistakes many make with Philippians 2:1-8.

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
Notice first that I have included the full context of this starting at verse 1 and I have done this to make it clear to everyone what Paul's intention was in writing what he did in verse 5-8.

So here is the first four verses of the text below.


Philippians 2:1-8 New King James Version

1 Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, 2 fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. 3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. 4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.



I would like you to notice first that the objective of Paul here is the mind set of the Philippian believers and that they do not do anything out of a selfish ambitious rivalry to be or appear better than another but instead that they be humble and likeminded and esteem and seek for others to be better superior to themselves.


Notice also, this really has nothing to do with the ontology of the Philippian believers, for he is not appealing to them on the basis of their actual ontology but rather their attitudes about their positions with God and their purpose of God in God's Kingdom and not to think of themselves as superior to others in his Kingdom.

No, but what Paul is appealing to them on the basis of, is what they saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears of the attitude within the man who was given the name and title of Jesus Christ and who actually lived among them for 3-1/2 years and having nothing to do with any thing prior to this.

Thus we go now to verse 5.

5 Let this attitude be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.


Notice again that Paul here is speaking of the attitude within the man who was already born and had lived among them and was given the name and title of Jesus Christ and not the attitude which was in the trinity or oneness idea of the Logos before and during its being made flesh and which the disciples would never have witnessed anyhow.

Now we will look again at verse 6-8.



6 who, being in the form of God (notice the form of God and not God himself), did not consider robbery to be God's equal, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.


I paraphrased the NKJV on this because to start with there is no Greek word "it" in the text at all and many of the other translations saying it like this "did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped" and which basically means the same thing as robbery.


I would also like to call to your attention that Paul didn't say "did not consider equality with the Father something to be grasped but rather he uses the word "God" and this makes all the difference in the world, for in saying this, he is very clearly revealing that Jesus wasn't God, for when one says that another is equal to another, it can never mean that they are the same person and being.

However if Paul had said "did not consider equality with the Father something to be grasped (seized upon or robbed), then the trins would have an argument being they claim that the Father and Son are equals as being God, but this is not what Paul says, but rather refers to Jesus taking no thought to be God's equal and which very clearly reveals that Jesus was not God himself.




As we have read the first 5 verses, it should stand out to us that Paul not speaking in regards to ontology but rather he is appealing to the Philippians believers not to be arrogant with their God given position nor to seek to rob another from their position either but instead to see others as better and more important than themselves and for all to have this same mind about it.




Now here it the bottom like on this, for Paul was not telling the Philippians that they should have the mind of Jesus to add another nature to their existing human nature, nor is he appealing to them to empty themselves of anything God originally created them to be in their actual ontology.

Rather he is appealing to them to have the same attitude of Jesus and not to glory or be arrogant if they are given a higher position in his Kingdom than another and also not to seek to rob from another what God has given to them either, but rather to be humble with what God has given each of them and just like Jesus was humble.
 
Last edited:

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
God's equal in the form of God.

Nobody is equal with God.

Nobody.
First off, Paul never said that Jesus was equal with God anyhow, but rather that he took no thought of a seizure to be equal with God instead, for the statement was in the negative.

Therefore, the very fact that Paul even used this Greek word "isa" translated equal in association with Jesus and God reveals that he didn't believe that Jesus was God himself, for otherwise he would have just stated that anyhow instead of saying that Jesus was in the form of God instead.



For when one says that someone is equal unto another, they are never saying by this that the one who is equal is the same exact being as the one they are equal unto.

Now, if Paul had said, "he (Jesus) considered not equality with the Father (instead of God) as something to be seized upon" then trins would have a valid argument that Paul was believing and teaching that Jesus is God and that God is a Trinity because trins believe the one God subsists of three equal persons as one being of God, but Paul didn't say this.


In case you aren't getting this yet, when considering the word God we are talking about the single being of God and not individual persons of God that are all equal as trins believe it.

So if Paul had used Father as either equal or not unto Jesus instead of the word God and God subsists of Father, Son and Holy Spirit who are all equal as God and like trins believe, then what Paul wrote would have worked for the trinity doctrine, but he used the word God instead and that doesn't work with the trinity doctrine at all period.
 
Last edited:

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
You know, something also dawned on my about this from the Spirit about an hour ago now.

For if Paul believed that Jesus was God, then he also would have believed that he had a powerhouse of an advantage over any of the Philippians as being God and not being able to disobey or sin or be arrogant and therefore Paul telling them to have the same attitude as Jesus who is God would make about as much sense as one putting a screen door on a submarine.

For what kind of example could Jesus possibly be to the Philippians who can sin and disobey if Jesus couldn't sin and disobey being God and man at the same time or if he had an advantage that no other man had?


Just think about that problem for awhile!!!!!
 

jamesh

Active member
Notice first that I have included the full context of this starting at verse 1 and I have done this to make it clear to everyone what Paul's intention was in writing what he did in verse 5-8.

So here is the first four verses of the text below.


Philippians 2:1-8 New King James Version

1 Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, 2 fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. 3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. 4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.



I would like you to notice first that the objective of Paul here is the mind set of the Philippian believers and that they do not do anything out of a selfish ambitious rivalry to be or appear better than another but instead that they be humble and likeminded and esteem and seek for others to be better superior to themselves.


Notice also, this really has nothing to do with the ontology of the Philippian believers, for he is not appealing to them on the basis of their actual ontology but rather their attitudes about their positions with God and their purpose of God in God's Kingdom and not to think of themselves as superior to others in his Kingdom.

No, but what Paul is appealing to them on the basis of, is what they saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears of the attitude within the man who was given the name and title of Jesus Christ and who actually lived among them for 3-1/2 years and having nothing to do with any thing prior to this.

Thus we go now to verse 5.

5 Let this attitude be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.


Notice again that Paul here is speaking of the attitude within the man who was already born and had lived among them and was given the name and title of Jesus Christ and not the attitude which was in the trinity or oneness idea of the Logos before and during its being made flesh and which the disciples would never have witnessed anyhow.

Now we will look again at verse 6-8.



6 who, being in the form of God (notice the form of God and not God himself), did not consider robbery to be God's equal, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.


I paraphrased the NKJV on this because to start with there is no Greek word "it" in the text at all and many of the other translations saying it like this "did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped" and which basically means the same thing as robbery.


I would also like to call to your attention that Paul didn't say "did not consider equality with the Father something to be grasped but rather he uses the word "God" and this makes all the difference in the world, for in saying this, he is very clearly revealing that Jesus wasn't God, for when one says that another is equal to another, it can never mean that they are the same person and being.

However if Paul had said "did not consider equality with the Father something to be grasped (seized upon or robbed), then the trins would have an argument being they claim that the Father and Son are equals as being God, but this is not what Paul says, but rather refers to Jesus taking no thought to be God's equal and which very clearly reveals that Jesus was not God himself.




As we have read the first 5 verses, it should stand out to us that Paul not speaking in regards to ontology but rather he is appealing to the Philippians believers not to be arrogant with their God given position nor to seek to rob another from their position either but instead to see others as better and more important than themselves and for all to have this same mind about it.




Now here it the bottom like on this, for Paul was not telling the Philippians that they should have the mind of Jesus to add another nature to their existing human nature, nor is he appealing to them to empty themselves of anything God originally created them to be in their actual ontology.

Rather he is appealing to them to have the same attitude of Jesus and not to glory or be arrogant if they are given a higher position in his Kingdom than another and also not to seek to rob from another what God has given to them either, but rather to be humble with what God has given each of them and just like Jesus was humble.
Actually I agree with most of what you stated but then as is your manner you blew it when you said the following from verse 6. "6 who, being in the form of God (notice the form of God and not God himself), specifically the words in parentheses.

Here's my question from vs7, "but emptied Himself, TAKING THE FORM OF A BOND-SERVANT, AND BEING MADE IN THE LIKENESS OF MEN." Vs8, AND BEING FOUND IN APPEARANCE AS A MAN."

Since you already believe that Jesus Christ is a man, why was it necessary for the Apostle Paul to explain to us that He took on another form, which is a man since he is already a man when He was born? The only thing that makes sense of what is being explained is the fact that Jesus Christ "always existed as God" (because that is what vs6 is teaching) and then is found in appearance as a man. And your worried about the little word "it?" :rolleyes:

The term "form" or "nature" (NIV), from the Greek morphe, refers to possessing the essential attributes which belong to the essence or nature (ousia) of God. Jesus could not have possessed the essential attributes of God, without being God. However, He did not hang onto what was rightfully His in the first place or all along.

It should also be noted that becoming a human, of course, necessitated that He lay aside the "PREROGATIVES" of deity, so it was a true self-emptying.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
Actually I agree with most of what you stated but then as is your manner you blew it when you said the following from verse 6. "6 who, being in the form of God (notice the form of God and not God himself), specifically the words in parentheses.

Here's my question from vs7, "but emptied Himself, TAKING THE FORM OF A BOND-SERVANT, AND BEING MADE IN THE LIKENESS OF MEN." Vs8, AND BEING FOUND IN APPEARANCE AS A MAN."

However, there is absolutely nothing in Philippians 2:5-8 where Paul says that Jesus became a man and being made in the likeness "homoiomai" or being found in appearance to be just like other men, doesn't mean that Jesus became a man but only that by taking the form of a bond servant, while existing in the form of God and which no other man was, Jesus made himself like other men.

For Paul never spoke of Jesus as being anything but a man in Philippians 2:5-8 in regards to his actual ontology but rather as a man in regards to his position and authority with God in the form of God and not like other men in this regards and that is why when he took the form of a servant and which is the opposite of the form of God, he became like all men by doing so.

That is what Paul is saying and not that Jesus was God who became also a man.

Form of God refers to the position and authority that Jesus had been given from God and it has nothing to do with his actual ontology.

Paul began speaking of Jesus as a man when he said "let his attitude be in you which was also in Christ Jesus" and therefore he never spoke of him as anything but a man, but as an unusual man being in the form of God and which means that he had authority just under that of God himself and which no other man had or will either.


Since you already believe that Jesus Christ is a man, why was it necessary for the Apostle Paul to explain to us that He took on another form, which is a man since he is already a man when He was born? The only thing that makes sense of what is being explained is the fact that Jesus Christ "always existed as God" (because that is what vs6 is teaching) and then is found in appearance as a man. And your worried about the little word "it?" :rolleyes:

The term "form" or "nature" (NIV), from the Greek morphe, refers to possessing the essential attributes which belong to the essence or nature (ousia) of God. Jesus could not have possessed the essential attributes of God, without being God. However, He did not hang onto what was rightfully His in the first place or all along.

It should also be noted that becoming a human, of course, necessitated that He lay aside the "PREROGATIVES" of deity, so it was a true self-emptying.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
You need to think about something else here also James, for if Paul believed and was telling the Philippians and us that Jesus was God almighty who became a man, then this would mean he had an advantage over the Philippians, for he couldn't do other than to be humble and obedient unto and unlike them.

For as James says and I will remind you, "God cannot be tempted with evil and neither does he tempt any man" and therefore unlike the Philippians, if Jesus was God, it would be a breeze for him to be humble and obedient and therefore what king of example for them would that be?

For if Paul believed this and was saying this in Philippians2, how could Jesus be to them a good example of what they should also be doing and being he would have a much greater advantage over them regarding this?

These are problems with your doctrines that you trins overlook, but the way you are interpreting this passages is about as ridiculous as one putting a screen door on a submarine for it doesn't work at all period.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
The form of God argument isn't really a very good argument for showing Jesus isn't God.
Why? Because we see the same word later on describing that Jesus was a servant...and used form of servant.

So, either Jesus was a servant, was God or Jesus wasn't a servant and wasn't God.

Jesus being God (2nd of the Trinity) ....Equal....took on the form of a servant and became subservant to God the Father. Christ Jesus didn't grasp on to His equality with the Father...He let go.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
The term "form" or "nature" (NIV), from the Greek morphe, refers to possessing the essential attributes which belong to the essence or nature (ousia) of God. Jesus could not have possessed the essential attributes of God, without being God. However, He did not hang onto what was rightfully His in the first place or all along.

The above is totally false, for I can prove by the root word and the other words from it that are used in the NT that "morphe" does not necessarily mean that the one in the form "morphe" actually possesses the inner essence himself.

For there are even many places in the scriptures where this word or cousins to it are used to speak of having the outward appearance or characteristics but is devoid of the actual essence and one such place is in 2 Timothy 3:5

2 Timothy 3:5 "having a form "morphosin" of piety but denying the power therefore" and which means they didn't have the essence of piety but only the outward form or "morphosin".

Furthermore, Jesus in John 14:10 told us that the reason why when we see him we see the Father also is because the Father is dwelling within him and doing the works that we see in Jesus and Peter in Acts 2:22 also confirms this fact as well.

John 14:10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.


Very clearly Jesus reveals in the above that the essence of the God (the Father) indeed dwelt within him but it wasn't his possession but rather the Fathers who Jesus very clearly also told us is "The Only True God" in John 17:3.

Then we have Peter's testimony on this also and which totally agrees with what Jesus said above

Acts 2:22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.



Therefore the essence of God was indeed within Jesus but Jesus told us it was the Father within him and not him as being God himself.
It should also be noted that becoming a human, of course, necessitated that He lay aside the "PREROGATIVES" of deity, so it was a true self-emptying.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
Sorry but Paul said no such thing as Jesus laying aside any so called "divine prerogatives of deity", for what he emptied himself of was the form of God and which referred to his superior position and thus by doing so, he put himself on the same level as any common man and that is what Paul was speaking of and not what you believe.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
The form of God argument isn't really a very good argument for showing Jesus isn't God.
Why? Because we see the same word later on describing that Jesus was a servant...and used form of servant.

So what?

For he was in the form of God and continued to be but he emptied himself of the form (appearance and charactistics) concerning his superior position with God by taking the form of a servant and by this he put himself on the level of all other men and made himself like them.
So, either Jesus was a servant, was God or Jesus wasn't a servant and wasn't God.

Sorry but if Paul wanted to say that Jesus was God who became a man, he wouldn't have used many of the words that he did use but would have just simply said that and something like this below.

"Who as The eternal God existing "eimi", did not consider his being God something to hold on to so tightly but instead he humbled himself and became a servant by becoming a man".

Notice how simple this would have been and with no extra and confusing words such as the Greek words for our English "form" and "equal" and with the word "eimi" instead of "huparchon" which always refers to things that have a beginning of existence whereas "eimi" doesn't.
Jesus being God (2nd of the Trinity) ....Equal....took on the form of a servant and became subservant to God the Father. Christ Jesus didn't grasp on to His equality with the Father...He let go.

That is another error, your idea that the word "equal" used here is revealing that Jesus was God's equal, and which wouldn't mean he was God anyhow, for the word never refers to the same person and being as the other who is his equal.

Now, if Paul had of said this instead, "considered not equality with the Father, something to seize upon", this would have worked with your idea, but not when the question is whether or not he was equal unto God, for if the Father and Son are both God, then the Son can be said to be equal unto the Father as God, but that doesn't work with the word God that Paul used.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
So what?

For he was in the form of God and continued to be but he emptied himself of the form (appearance and charactistics) concerning his superior position with God by taking the form of a servant and by this he put himself on the level of all other men and made himself like them.


Sorry but if Paul wanted to say that Jesus was God who became a man, he wouldn't have used many of the words that he did use but would have just simply said that and something like this below.

"Who as The eternal God existing "eimi", did not consider his being God something to hold on to so tightly but instead he humbled himself and became a servant by becoming a man".

Notice how simple this would have been and with no extra and confusing words such as the Greek words for our English "form" and "equal" and with the word "eimi" instead of "huparchon" which always refers to things that have a beginning of existence whereas "eimi" doesn't.


That is another error, your idea that the word "equal" used here is revealing that Jesus was God's equal, and which wouldn't mean he was God anyhow, for the word never refers to the same person and being as the other who is his equal.

Now, if Paul had of said this instead, "considered not equality with the Father, something to seize upon", this would have worked with your idea, but not when the question is whether or not he was equal unto God, for if the Father and Son are both God, then the Son can be said to be equal unto the Father as God, but that doesn't work with the word God that Paul used.
When the Word incarnated, the Word now named Jesus remained God.

Jesus being God (2nd of the Trinity) ....Equal....took on the form of a servant and became subservant to God the Father. Christ Jesus didn't grasp on to His equality with the Father...He let go.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
When the Word incarnated, the Word now named Jesus remained God.

Jesus being God (2nd of the Trinity) ....Equal....took on the form of a servant and became subservant to God the Father. Christ Jesus didn't grasp on to His equality with the Father...He let go.
Before we get into this, let's go back to the argument of the form of God verses the form of a servant.

Notice, Paul is not contrasting the form of God with the form of man, and neither is he contrasting God with man either, but rather the form of God with the form of a servant and these are opposites.

For what the form of God represents in this passage, is the position and authority that Jesus had over all men and which was just under that of God himself and therefore when Jesus took the form of a servant, this means that despite his being in the form of God as a man, he became like all common men.

By the way, the meaning of the word "huparchon" means to "begin under", look it up, for that is what the two root words put together to make the word "huparchon" by their definition mean.

So Jesus began his existence through his birth by Mary under God and in the form of God as a man and by the way, this is also what Psalm 8:5 also reveals as well.

For it actually reads "you made him a little lower than "elohim" and which is translated "lower than the angels" but it is not the word for angels "malek" that is used here but rather it is the word "elohim' and which is "God".

Now I will address your post above.


First it was the Logos that was incarnated and made flesh and not God himself and once again, if someone says "your wife is equal unto you", that would never mean that your wife was the same single being or person as yourself, for equal is never used that way.

So if the trinity is three persons who are all equally God, then if Paul had said "who did not consider equality with the Father something to seize upon" it would have agreed with your doctrine but that is not what he said.

For when he said, "who considered not equality with God a thing to seize upon" Paul by this revealed that he didn't believe Jesus was the same being or person as God but rather a separate being and person from God instead.

Actually, the word "equal" refers to a substitute for the original that comes up in some way to the same standard as the original.
 
Last edited:

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
So many mistakes. John tell us the Word was God.
Sorry but the Logos being God before it became flesh doesn't at all mean that it was still God when becoming flesh and John never said that God became flesh but rather he said that the Logos became flesh instead and it is your mistake that you falsely assume that because the Logos was God in the beginning, that it was God when it became flesh in Jesus Christ because John doesn't say this at all.


Now once again back to the word "isa" or the English "Equal", for the word "equal" means a substitute for another of the same value in some way.


For instance, four American quarters equal's a dollar bill, but the four quarters are not a dollar bill even though they have the same monetary value as the Dollar bill and are therefore equal unto the Dollar bill and which is a perfect example of what the word "equal" means and what it doesn't mean.

Here is another example with your false doctrine of the trinity, for you believe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equal but you do not believe that the Father is the same person as the Son or the Spirit and you do not believe that the Son is the same person as the Father and the Spirit and you do not believe that the Spirit is the same person as the Son or the Father but only that they are equally God.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
Sorry but the Logos being God before it became flesh doesn't at all mean that it was still God when becoming flesh and John never said that God became flesh but rather he said that the Logos became flesh instead and it is your mistake that you falsely assume that because the Logos was God in the beginning, that it was God when it became flesh in Jesus Christ because John doesn't say this at all.

John said the Word was God...a few verses later said the Word became flesh.

You can keep trying but you don't seem to have a way around it.
Now once again back to the word "isa" or the English "Equal", for the word "equal" means a substitute for another of the same value in some way.

Oh does it? That's a Splendid example. God is sugar.
For instance, four American quarters equal's a dollar bill, but the four quarters are not a dollar bill even though they have the same monetary value as the Dollar bill and are therefore equal unto the Dollar bill and which is a perfect example of what the word "equal" means and what it doesn't mean.
Like the dollar bill and 4 quarters....they both are 1 dollar. In this case the one dollar is identified 2 ways.
Kinda like the Trinity...1 God explained with 3 persons.
Here is another example with your false doctrine of the trinity, for you believe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equal but you do not believe that the Father is the same person as the Son or the Spirit and you do not believe that the Son is the same person as the Father and the Spirit and you do not believe that the Spirit is the same person as the Son or the Father but only that they are equally God.
3 persons the same in nature or essence.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
John said the Word was God...a few verses later said the Word became flesh.

However, he didn't say that God became flesh or that the word as God became flesh but you are reading that into it just because in the beginning the word was God but Hebrews 1:3 and that word "charakter" refers to a copy as per "the express image "charakter" of his person" and the Logos was what was copied into the human being Jesus Christ and not God himself.
You can keep trying but you don't seem to have a way around it.

I don't need a way around it because like I said and will again, John didn't say that God became flesh and he didn't say that the Logos as God became flesh either but only that Logos became flesh and that word "ginomai" also never refers to something being added to something else while still remaining distinct like trins try to say it does here.
Oh does it? That's a Splendid example. God is sugar.

Like the dollar bill and 4 quarters....they both are 1 dollar. In this case the one dollar is identified 2 ways.
Kinda like the Trinity...1 God explained with 3 persons.

3 persons the same in nature or essence.
Hey dude, would you ever say that The Father is equal unto God?

If you would you are quite simple for certain, for it would be redundant to say that and it would be also if Jesus was God, for saying Jesus is equal unto God would then be like saying that Jesus is equal unto himself or his own being and which is quite redundant and also quite stupid as well.

However that is what happens to the mind of those who have allowed themselves to be mesmerized and brainwashed by false doctrine for many years, they lose their ability to even have any God given common sense any longer.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
Before we get into this, let's go back to the argument of the form of God verses the form of a servant.

Notice, Paul is not contrasting the form of God with the form of man, and neither is he contrasting God with man either, but rather the form of God with the form of a servant and these are opposites.

For what the form of God represents in this passage, is the position and authority that Jesus had over all men and which was just under that of God himself and therefore when Jesus took the form of a servant, this means that despite his being in the form of God as a man, he became like all common men.

By the way, the meaning of the word "huparchon" means to "begin under", look it up, for that is what the two root words put together to make the word "huparchon" by their definition mean.

So Jesus began his existence through his birth by Mary under God and in the form of God as a man and by the way, this is also what Psalm 8:5 also reveals as well.

For it actually reads "you made him a little lower than "elohim" and which is translated "lower than the angels" but it is not the word for angels "malek" that is used here but rather it is the word "elohim' and which is "God".

Now I will address your post above.


First it was the Logos that was incarnated and made flesh and not God himself and once again, if someone says "your wife is equal unto you", that would never mean that your wife was the same single being or person as yourself, for equal is never used that way.

So if the trinity is three persons who are all equally God, then if Paul had said "who did not consider equality with the Father something to seize upon" it would have agreed with your doctrine but that is not what he said.

For when he said, "who considered not equality with God a thing to seize upon" Paul by this revealed that he didn't believe Jesus was the same being or person as God but rather a separate being and person from God instead.

Actually, the word "equal" refers to a substitute for the original that comes up in some way to the same standard as the original.
Jesus was born in the form of a MAN as all men are.
NO such thing as anyone born in the form of God.
And Paul did NOT say "seize upon".
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
By the way, the meaning of the word "huparchon" means to "begin under", look it up, for that is what the two root words put together to make the word "huparchon" by their definition mean.
Do you not realize how absurd this is? Does the English compound word "understand" mean to "stand under something"?
First it was the Logos that was incarnated and made flesh and not God himself and once again, if someone says "your wife is equal unto you", that would never mean that your wife was the same single being or person as yourself, for equal is never used that way.
Isa 46:5 To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?
Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
So if the trinity is three persons who are all equally God, then if Paul had said "who did not consider equality with the Father something to seize upon" it would have agreed with your doctrine but that is not what he said.
For when he said, "who considered not equality with God a thing to seize upon" Paul by this revealed that he didn't believe Jesus was the same being or person as God but rather a separate being and person from God instead.
.
There is NO verb "to seize" or "be seized." in Philp 2:6! This invalidates your entire post.
The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011.
In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:
When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”​
See full translators Link to: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
Do you not realize how absurd this is? Does the English compound word "understand" mean to "stand under something"?

Isa 46:5 To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?
Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

There is NO verb "to seize" or "be seized." in Philp 2:6! This invalidates your entire post.
The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011.​
In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:​
When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”​

See full translators Link to: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes
No matter what, the 60 times this word "huparchon" is used in the NT very clearly reveals that it always refers to things that have a beginning of existence and never to anything eternal, that is why the word is never used of God in a sentence like this "God who is "huparchon" Lord" period.

This is also why it is even only used of God twice out of those 60 times and both times it is referring to a position that he existed as only after he first created the world and everything in it, including heaven and earth and man upon it and only after this, he is "huparchon" Lord of heaven and earth as per Acts 17:24 and he is "huparchon" not far from any of us as per Acts 17:27.

Do you think that I didn't know that the word "harpagmon" was a noun?

LOL, for that is why many of the translations use more words to express this fact like this from the NASB "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, for the wording brings it back around as a noun even though the verb form "grasped" or "harpagmon" is used.

I personally like to put it like this "did not consider a robbery or heist to be made equal unto God"


As far as the rest of your rubbish, I have already gone around with you about it and therefore you are wasting your time bring it up again, for the word still means the same thing no matter how your big shot know it all know nothing spiritually bankrupted and biased scholars try to twist it and force it to mean what they want it to.

The word changing from a verb to a noun doesn't change the over all meaning of the word like you are trying to do with it and furthermore, the way the word is used in the scriptures is the best reference to determine what it means in the Bible.


You are an educated religious bully OS, so go and find someone else who can be intimidated by your worthless academic learning, for you are wasting your time with this guy, for I don't get intimidated that easily by the kind of hot air that you are blowing out.
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
No matter what, the 60 times this word "huparchon" is used in the NT very clearly reveals that it always refers to things that have a beginning of existence and never to anything eternal, that is why the word is never used of God in a sentence like this "God who is "huparchon" Lord" period.
You keep posting that as if Moses himself carried it down from Mt Sinai. Quote me one scholar, two or more would be better, who agree with your argument. I won't hold my breath I have been studying scripture for almost 6 decades and I have never heard that before I read right here. If your argument was true I should have seen it somewhere.
This is also why it is even only used of God twice out of those 60 times and both times it is referring to a position that he existed as only after he first created the world and everything in it, including heaven and earth and man upon it and only after this, he is "huparchon" Lord of heaven and earth as per Acts 17:24 and he is "huparchon" not far from any of us as per Acts 17:27.
Do you think that I didn't know that the word "harpagmon" was a noun?
LOL, for that is why many of the translations use more words to express this fact like this from the NASB "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, for the wording brings it back around as a noun even though the verb form "grasped" or "harpagmon" is used.
I personally like to put it like this "did not consider a robbery or heist to be made equal unto God"
I'm pretty sure I linked to a 25 page Harvard paper where, AFIK, the first ever in-depth study of the word Harpagmon. This was made possible by an extensive Greek database TLG
The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae® (TLG®) is a research program at the University of California, Irvine. Founded in 1972 the TLG has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek from Homer to the fall of Byzantium in AD 1453.
As far as the rest of your rubbish, I have already gone around with you about it and therefore you are wasting your time bring it up again, for the word still means the same thing no matter how your big shot know it all know nothing spiritually bankrupted and biased scholars try to twist it and force it to mean what they want it to.
And you will always be wrong because you refuse to examine anything but "sources" which support your assumptions/presuppositions. You could do the same studies I do but you are apparently terrified that you are very likely wrong.
The word changing from a verb to a noun doesn't change the over all meaning of the word like you are trying to do with it and furthermore, the way the word is used in the scriptures is the best reference to determine what it means in the Bible.
How absurd. You and other folks in your boat change the noun "Harpagmos" to a verb. The only verb is "consider" and it doesn't modify 'harpagmon" which actually means "something already possessed which may be used to one's advantage." The verb "considered" modifies "the being equal with God."
You are an educated religious bully OS, so go and find someone else who can be intimidated by your worthless academic learning, for you are wasting your time with this guy, for I don't get intimidated that easily by the kind of hot air that you are blowing out.
I consider that a compliment. I am just as convinced that my more than half century of study has informed me to a point you won't attain for at least 20-30 years if ever.
Link to the NIV foot notes which mentions the scholarship behind their translation of Philp 2:6
See full NIV translators notes. Link: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes
Link to the study of Harpagmos.
Link to: Hoover Article
I pity people who think they can sit down and somehow the the spirit is going to reveal all truth to them. e.g. JW, LDS, WWCG, OP, UPCI, INC, etc.
 
Top