What was Jesus’ form before?

Yahchristian

Well-known member
That's not how definitions work. You need the definition to understand the verse, you don't get the definition from the verse, unless the verse says "a form is such and such."

The Greek word “morphe” is defined as “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision”.

Philippians 2:6-7... Who, being in the morphe of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the morphe of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Now, would you change your original answers to the questions...

1. What was Jesus' morphe when he wrestled Jacob?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a glorious body.

2. What was Jesus' morphe when he was crucified?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a mortal body.

3. What is Jesus' morphe now?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a glorious body.

And...

1. What was Jesus' form in 20 BC?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a glorious body.

2. What was Jesus' form in AD 20?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a mortal body.

3. What is Jesus' form in AD 40?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a glorious body.
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
1. What was Jesus' form in 20 BC?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a glorious body.

2. What was Jesus' form in AD 20?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a mortal body.

3. What is Jesus' form in AD 40?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a glorious body.
1. The form of God.

2. A MAN.

3. A glorified MAN AND The form of God.

Just to clarify...

Did you intentionally leave off “AND The form of God” from your second answer?
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
NO. Jesus walked this earth during His period of humiliation in the form of a Man ONLY.

My question was...

Did you intentionally leave off “AND The form of God” from your second answer?


I think you meant to say...

YES, I intentionally left off “AND The form of God” because Jesus walked this earth during His period of humiliation in the form of a Man ONLY.


Correct?
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
Jesus walked this earth during His period of humiliation in the form of a Man ONLY.

Just to clarify your Trinitarian view...

Is this statement true?

While Jesus walked this earth, the second Person of the Trinity only had ONE nature.

That seems to be what you are saying, and some Trinitarians do believe that. I was just not aware you were one of them.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
Just to clarify your Trinitarian view...

Is this statement true?

While Jesus walked this earth, the second Person of the Trinity only had ONE nature.

That seems to be what you are saying, and some Trinitarians do believe that. I was just not aware you were one of them.
The Son of God has ONE nature: Divine
Jesus Christ has TWO: Divine and Human.
 

aeg4971

Active member
Just to clarify our views...

1. What was Jesus' form when he wrestled Jacob?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a glorious body.

2. What was Jesus' form when he was crucified?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a mortal body.

3. What is Jesus' form now?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a glorious body.

Philippians 3:21 NLT... He will take our weak mortal bodies and change them into glorious bodies like his own, using the same power with which he will bring everything under his control.


Here is an overview of what I believe...

(Note: I agree with the view of Melito, Bishop of Sardis around AD 160-180. The following is how I word it.)

For this creation, GOD (the only one who transcends all creations) determined to create a universe with a kingdom of redeemed humans for his glory where he would reign as a human himself. The Scriptures describe how GOD would accomplish his plan. In an instant, eternal GOD (called God the Father) created the supernatural and spacetime of this universe and also became immanent in the universe as spirit (called the Spirit of God) and as a human with a glorious body (called the Son of God). God the Father then created all things within the universe by the power of the Spirit of God commanded by the Son of God (whose name is Jesus). But whereas GOD created a spirit and soul for each of us, GOD himself became the spirit and soul of Jesus. At his conception, Jesus' glorious body was changed to a mortal body to be made like us so he could make reconciliation for our sins. At his resurrection, Jesus' mortal body was changed back to a glorious body and he will also give each of his elect a glorious body when he returns to reign in his kingdom forever.

You agree with Bishop of Sardis from AD 160 - 180 AD whereas orthodox Judeo Christology and Trine theology in part, is constructed from the Bishop Theophilus of Antioch 180 AD; who says," God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him", which is of itself and by itself " Form and Image". Therefore every answer written in this thread , including yours, is a determinate manner of the Logos Himself.

Jesus the only begotten Son is the one and the same consubstantial Word Himself proceeding ;and contemplating our navels over the determination of this form or that form, does not, and would not change this Biblical, Christological, Scriptural, and Theological fact.

Clearly we just love going through the motions of straw and fallacious arguments . I wonder when it will get old. We paly too much.




....... Alan
 
Last edited:

Yahchristian

Well-known member
Clearly we just love going through the motions of straw and fallacious arguments . I wonder when it will get old. We paly too much.

When Trinitarians cannot answer questions they like to cry “Straw!”

But I posted a question from a TRINITARIAN in the OP.

The TRINITARIAN’s question was...

What was Jesus’ form before?

I simply expanded their question to three different time periods.

So are you able to answer the questions or not?

1. What was Jesus' form in 20 BC?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a glorious body.

2. What was Jesus' form in AD 20?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a mortal body.

3. What is Jesus' form in AD 40?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a glorious body.
 

civic

Well-known member
Philippians 2:6-7... Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Based on the definition of the word “form” in those verses, would you change your original answers to the questions...
All you do is ask questions and cannot exegete a passage but instead use the method known as eisegesis. Below is how one exegetes Philippians 2:5-8.

Phil 2:5-8
In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
NIV

These translation capture the meaning of the text in its CONTEXT.


New International Version
rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

New Living Translation
Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form,

New King James Version
but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

King James Bible
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:


Thayers Greek Lexicon
namely, τοῦ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ or τῆς μορφῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ, i. e. he laid aside equality with or the form of God (said of Christ), Philippians 2:7

Strongs Lexicon
From kenos; to make empty, i.e. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify -- make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain.

Louw Nida Greek Lexicon
87.70
κενόωb: to completely remove or eliminate elements of high status or rank by eliminating all privileges or prerogatives associated with such status or rank.

What Paul makes very clear in this passage is that in addition to being God, He became man. The Incarnation was not a subtraction of His deity but an addition of humanity to His nature. This passage does not say Jesus gave up His deity but that He laid aside His rights as Deity, assuming the form of a servant in verse 7. The text says He was in the form of God or being in the very nature of God in 2:6. Just as He took upon Himself the "form of a servant" which is a servant by nature, so the "form of God" is God by nature. The word "being" from the phrase: being in the very form of God is a present active participle. This means "continued existence" as God. What Paul is actually saying here is Jesus has always been and still is in the "form of God". If you continue reading the passage Paul really drives this point home so that his readers have no doubt what he is trying to get across to the Philippians. Paul says that every knee will bow and will one day Confess Jesus is LORD. Paul takes the passage in Isaiah 45:23 which clearly refers to Yahweh a name used for God alone and says this of Jesus. The fulfillment of YHWH in Isaiah 45 is none other than Jesus who is God(Yahweh) in the flesh.

He self limited His divine prerogatives via the Incarnation as per Phil 2. In other words did not use them to His advantage but was in submission to the Father for 33 years to accomplish our salvation. All the FULLNESS of DEITY dwells in bodily form. Col 1:19;2:9. Jesus was and is fully God lacking nothing in His Deity.

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Even through Christ existed in the form of God He did not regard equality with God something that He needed to reach for or grasp. Why because it was already His and never gave that up for a millisecond.

Paul is using syllogisms from the text in Philippians 2.

Just as the term “form of God” in verse six does not mean “less than God” because of the phrase “equality with God" in the prior passage.

It goes to reason in the same way with the 2 phrases in the “form of a servant” and in the “likeness of man” in verse seven do not mean that Jesus was any “less than human,” but instead means He was the same or “equal with all humans.”

That is how the passage reads and how it is to be understood in its " CONTEXT ".

In Colossians 1:19 and Colossians 2:9 the Apostle Paul said, For in HIM (CHRIST) ALL of the “ fullness of deity dwells bodily. “Did Paul use the word fullness there to mean partially? NO as Jesus did not empty Himself of His Deity. Jesus Divinity is FULL, complete lacking in nothing. The ENTIRE Fullness of Deity dwells (is present) bodily in Jesus.

This is how one exegetes the passage rather than using eisegesis- reading ones own thoughts and ideas into the text.

hope this helps !!!
 

aeg4971

Active member
When Trinitarians cannot answer questions they like to cry “Straw!”

But I posted a question from a TRINITARIAN in the OP.

The TRINITARIAN’s question was...

What was Jesus’ form before?

I simply expanded their question to three different time periods.

So are you able to answer the questions or not?

1. What was Jesus' form in 20 BC?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a glorious body.

2. What was Jesus' form in AD 20?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a mortal body.

3. What is Jesus' form in AD 40?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a glorious body.

The Form of God at every turn on account of only God can be His own form ,clearly represented by divers things. Therefore whatever form Jesus is in , is by itself and of itself the Form of God . As in the person of the Son.

What question have I not answered? You don't get to choose the manner in which I answer is what you meant to say.

........Alan
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
The Form of God at every turn on account of only God can be His own form ,clearly represented by divers things. Therefore whatever form Jesus is in , is by itself and of itself the Form of God . As in the person of the Son.

What question have I not answered? You don't get to choose the manner in which I answer is what you meant to say.

........Alan

Since you have not specified different forms...

You believe Jesus was in the same form in AD 40 that he was in AD 20, which was the same form he was in 20 BC.

Correct?
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
That's not how definitions work. You need the definition to understand the verse, you don't get the definition from the verse, unless the verse says "a form is such and such."
That is incorrect. A word can be clearly defined without using the word "define,""definition" etc. I learned to speak German when I was 12. Five years later I was stationed in Germany I was having a conversation with someone who used a word I did not understand "beinaeh." That person explained it this way. "Es ist noch nicht elf uhr aber beinaeh elf uhr. "It is not yet eleven o'clock but beinaeh eleven o'clock." I understood that the word "beinaeh" means "almost" although the person did not use the word define or definition.
My wife is Korean naturalized more than 50 years ago and sometimes I have tell her the meaning of an English word. Today we were having a discussion with a contractor who mentioned the word "prophet," which she did not understand so using a translator on my phone I told her, but I never used the word "define" or "definition." Here is an example from the N.T.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have aionios life.​
Some folks argue that aionios never means "eternal." But in this verse Jesus clearly tells us meaning of, or IOW defines the word "aionios'" as parallel to "shall not perish."
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
The Greek word “morphe” is defined as “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision”.
Philippians 2:6-7... Who, being in the morphe of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the morphe of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
"Morphe" in Philp 2:6 is a noun. In Rom 12:2 Paul used μεταμορφουσθε the verb form of morphe.
Romans 12:2
2 And be not fashioned according to this world: but be ye transformed [μεταμορφουσθε] by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.​
Was Paul telling the Philippian church to put up a false front and only pretend to be changed or was he telling them to literally, actually be changed?
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
That is incorrect. A word can be clearly defined without using the word "define,""definition" etc. I learned to speak German when I was 12. Five years later I was stationed in Germany I was having a conversation with someone who used a word I did not understand "beinaeh." That person explained it this way. "Es ist noch nicht elf uhr aber beinaeh elf uhr. "It is not yet eleven o'clock but beinaeh eleven o'clock." I understood that the word "beinaeh" means "almost" although the person did not use the word define or definition.
My wife is Korean naturalized more than 50 years ago and sometimes I have tell her the meaning of an English word. Today we were having a discussion with a contractor who mentioned the word "prophet," which she did not understand so using a translator on my phone I told her, but I never used the word "define" or "definition." Here is an example from the N.T.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have aionios life.
Some folks argue that aionios never means "eternal." But in this verse Jesus clearly tells us meaning of, or IOW defines the word "aionios'" as parallel to "shall not perish."

Context is one way to help determine meaning, but it's definitely not the only way. I've deduced meanings that fit the context but were actually incorrect. By looking up definitions we are getting a more well rounded range of how a word has been used. For example what if "beinaeh" actually has two different definitions depending on how it's used. You're going to be forcing the wrong definition into it just based on one example you received. I think you're missing some things here.
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
Context is one way to help determine meaning, but it's definitely not the only way. I've deduced meanings that fit the context but were actually incorrect. By looking up definitions we are getting a more well rounded range of how a word has been used. For example what if "beinaeh" actually has two different definitions depending on how it's used. You're going to be forcing the wrong definition into it just based on one example you received. I think you're missing some things here.
Could be. I don't claim anywhere close to perfection but but I have been doing that in German since '58 and Korean since '76 and haven't made any major mistakes that I know of.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
When Trinitarians cannot answer questions they like to cry “Straw!”

But I posted a question from a TRINITARIAN in the OP.

The TRINITARIAN’s question was...

What was Jesus’ form before?

I simply expanded their question to three different time periods.

So are you able to answer the questions or not?

1. What was Jesus' form in 20 BC?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a glorious body.

2. What was Jesus' form in AD 20?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a mortal body.

3. What is Jesus' form in AD 40?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a glorious body.
Jesus Christ had NO body prior to His birth as a MAN.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
My question was...

Did you intentionally leave off “AND The form of God” from your second answer?


I think you meant to say...

YES, I intentionally left off “AND The form of God” because Jesus walked this earth during His period of humiliation in the form of a Man ONLY.


Correct?
Correct. He was in the FORM of a Man ONLY.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Just to clarify our views...

1. What was Jesus' form when he wrestled Jacob?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a glorious body.

Wherever did you get the notion Jesus, descendant of Jacob, wrestled with his ancestor Jacob?

2. What was Jesus' form when he was crucified?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a mortal body.

3. What is Jesus' form now?
I say... GOD manifest as a man with a glorious body.

Philippians 3:21 NLT... He will take our weak mortal bodies and change them into glorious bodies like his own, using the same power with which he will bring everything under his control.


Here is an overview of what I believe...

(Note: I agree with the view of Melito, Bishop of Sardis around AD 160-180. The following is how I word it.)

For this creation, GOD (the only one who transcends all creations) determined to create a universe with a kingdom of redeemed humans for his glory where he would reign as a human himself. The Scriptures describe how GOD would accomplish his plan. In an instant, eternal GOD (called God the Father) created the supernatural and spacetime of this universe and also became immanent in the universe as spirit (called the Spirit of God) and as a human with a glorious body (called the Son of God). God the Father then created all things within the universe by the power of the Spirit of God commanded by the Son of God (whose name is Jesus). But whereas GOD created a spirit and soul for each of us, GOD himself became the spirit and soul of Jesus. At his conception, Jesus' glorious body was changed to a mortal body to be made like us so he could make reconciliation for our sins. At his resurrection, Jesus' mortal body was changed back to a glorious body and he will also give each of his elect a glorious body when he returns to reign in his kingdom forever.
 

aeg4971

Active member
Since you have not specified different forms...

You believe Jesus was in the same form in AD 40 that he was in AD 20, which was the same form he was in 20 BC.

Correct?
I believe Jesus Form of God is in the person of the Son whether spirit/divine nature or flesh. Still the consubstantial Word and only begotten Son.

........ Alan
 
Top