Who is the boss?

Truther

Member
Yes, and it says nothing whatsoever about the ontological status of the persons listed. Why are you making such irrelevant points?


Yes, God the Father. And? If you were being intellectually serious, you would have been interacting with the fact that Trinitarians generally read God as in reference to God the Father. So for the Trinitarian, the statement
"the head of Christ is God" means the 1st persons of the Trinity is the head of the 2nd person of the Trinity. No problems here; such has always been a part of Trinitarian theology. So, do you have a meaningful critique, or are you going to continue to express your ignorace and hubris?

God Bless
Does the verse say "the head of Christ is GOD", or, "the head of God is God", or "the head of God the son's flesh is the Spirit"?
 
Does the verse say "the head of Christ is GOD", or, "the head of God is God", or "the head of God the son's flesh is the Spirit"?
A truly closed minded response. The verse says "the head of Christ is God", aka the person of God the Father is the head of the person of Christ. Whether you are Trinitarian, Arian, or whatever you are, everyone interprets this verse the same way: one is head of another. The verse perfectly corresponds with Trinitarianism given that one person is the head of another.

God Bless

PS: the head of the Son is not the Spirit.
PPS: We don't need every verse to positively teach Jesus is God for that to be a biblical truth. Therefore, that the verse doesn't refer to Christ as God is utterly irrelevant to the fact that Jesus is both God and Man.
 

Truther

Member
Baptist, have you ever considered that the individual man, the begotten son of God, the last Adam that admittedly has a God in heaven right now, has a God as his head?

Have you ever considered that this man refrained from sinning to earn his headship over the man and the woman?
 
Baptist, have you ever considered that the individual man, the begotten son of God, the last Adam that admittedly has a God in heaven right now, has a God as his head?
Yes, that perfectly coincides with the Trinitarian understanding of the incarnation of the Son in the flesh.
Have you ever considered that this man refrained from sinning to earn his headship over the man and the woman?
Scripture doesn't say this. Scripture says: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 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: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phil 2:5-11

Christ being in the form of God already had headship over man and woman before refraining from sin. And, Jesus' proclaimed Lordship in Phil 2 was in his response to humiliation and death, not his refraining from sin. Perhaps, you should base your Theology on Scripture as opposed to your human understandings.

Truther, have you ever considered the possibility that that individual man was God before becoming flesh as Scripture states? Have you ever considered the possibility that that individual man literally shared glory with the Father before the world was as Scripture states? For some reason, you reject the truth tough in these passages: John 1:1-18, and John 17:1-5.

God Bless
 

Truther

Member
Yes, that perfectly coincides with the Trinitarian understanding of the incarnation of the Son in the flesh.

Scripture doesn't say this. Scripture says: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 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: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phil 2:5-11

Christ being in the form of God already had headship over man and woman before refraining from sin. And, Jesus' proclaimed Lordship in Phil 2 was in his response to humiliation and death, not his refraining from sin. Perhaps, you should base your Theology on Scripture as opposed to your human understandings.

Truther, have you ever considered the possibility that that individual man was God before becoming flesh as Scripture states? Have you ever considered the possibility that that individual man literally shared glory with the Father before the world was as Scripture states? For some reason, you reject the truth tough in these passages: John 1:1-18, and John 17:1-5.

God Bless
God was in the form of God, God humbled Himself to devils, etc, or....


An individual man that God created in His image humbled himself to devils etc...?


Your, "God humbled Himself to devils" doctrine is a jab in almighty God's eye.
 
God was in the form of God, God humbled Himself to devils, etc, or....
If you were serious at all, you won't embarrass yourself like this. The text literally says Jesus has God's form, and you somehow think it's legitimate to employ your equivocation of the statement "Jesus is God" as to ignore what Scripture is actually saying.
An individual man that God created in His image humbled himself to devils etc...?
The verse says noting about devils. Good luck finding truth while reading into Scripture falsehood.
Your, "God humbled Himself to devils" doctrine is a jab in almighty God's eye.
Grasping at straws.

God Bless
 

Truther

Member
If you were serious at all, you won't embarrass yourself like this. The text literally says Jesus has God's form, and you somehow think it's legitimate to employ your equivocation of the statement "Jesus is God" as to ignore what Scripture is actually saying.

The verse says noting about devils. Good luck finding truth while reading into Scripture falsehood.

Grasping at straws.


God Bless
The "form of God" is AKA "human form".

The rest of the passage confirms it.

And you thought the Divine Spirit that is omnipresent has a form of some type.....
 
The "form of God" is AKA "human form".

A truly baseless assertion. Everything about the Greek, everything about the context, screams that "form of God" means Jesus has God's form, aka nature. Nature is exactly what morphe means in this grammatical context.

The rest of the passage confirms it.

Another baseless assertion. The fact that the very next phrase says "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" means that Jesus before making himself of no reputation had equality with God. He literally didn't think his equality, his form, was robbery.
And you thought the Divine Spirit that is omnipresent has a form of some type.....

And, you think form can only apply to the physical which is another baseless assumption. The Divine Spirit is obviously omnipresent and your excuses for your position are laughable.

God Bless
 

Truther

Member
A truly baseless assertion. Everything about the Greek, everything about the context, screams that "form of God" means Jesus has God's form, aka nature. Nature is exactly what morphe means in this grammatical context.



Another baseless assertion. The fact that the very next phrase says
"thought it not robbery to be equal with God" means that Jesus before making himself of no reputation had equality with God. He literally didn't think his equality, his form, was robbery.


And, you think form can only apply to the physical which is another baseless assumption. The Divine Spirit is obviously omnipresent and your excuses for your position are laughable.


God Bless
The KJV wording was wrong?

Who is this "Greek" feller you quote that corrected it?
 
The KJV wording was wrong?

Who is this "Greek" feller you quote that corrected it?
Nope, you are just that bad at reading KJV English. Every single Greek Translator of the KJV understood the Greek of Philippians 2 to mean Jesus was God by nature. You biases simply blind you to what the KJV says.

God Bless
 

Truther

Member
Nope, you are just that bad at reading KJV English. Every single Greek Translator of the KJV understood the Greek of Philippians 2 to mean Jesus was God by nature. You biases simply blind you to what the KJV says.

God Bless
You met those translators? They gave you their personal notes? Can you send me their notes?
 

Truther

Member
Nope, but I can read what they wrote: their translational notes, their commentaries, and their theologies. All of them were throughly Trinitarian.

God Bless
Funny though, not a one of them said anything about God having a human nature.

Modernists got that from some other source.
 
Funny though, not a one of them said anything about God having a human nature.

Modernists got that from some other source.
They did; you simply haven't read anything they wrote about why they translated the way the translated. It's simply absurd to pretend a bunch of Anglican divines from the early 17th century would understand Philippians 2:6 as teaching anything less than that Jesus was God by nature. Your anachronistic understanding of history, especially of the KJV, is amazingly absurd. They would have literally executed you for your understanding of Philippians 2, yet you claim they would have agreed with you? Come on man. Mind you, I would also be imprisoned and may have been executed for my denial of baby baptism, but at least, I'm not silly enough to deny that they were men of their time.

God Bless
 

Truther

Member
They did; you simply haven't read anything they wrote about why they translated the way the translated. It's simply absurd to pretend a bunch of Anglican divines from the early 17th century would understand Philippians 2:6 as teaching anything less than that Jesus was God by nature. Your anachronistic understanding of history, especially of the KJV, is amazingly absurd. They would have literally executed you for your understanding of Philippians 2, yet you claim they would have agreed with you? Come on man. Mind you, I would also be imprisoned and may have been executed for my denial of baby baptism, but at least, I'm not silly enough to deny that they were men of their time.

God Bless
Phil 2 says God has a human nature?

I trow not!

Fact is, it it speaking of a man thinking it not robbery to be equal with God, not God's "human nature', thinking it not robbery to be equal with Himself.

And it certainly DOES NOT say God humbled Himself to wicked devils and humans, but an individual of a man did.
 
Phil 2 says God has a human nature?

Only if you errantly equivocate God, aka God the Father, with Jesus.

I trow not!
Fact is, it it speaking of a man thinking it not robbery to be equal with God, not God's "human nature', thinking it not robbery to be equal with Himself.

Seriously, one thinking it not robbery to be equal with God while not being God is called blasphemy. One thinking it not robbery to be equal with God and not sinning means he is equal with God.

And it certainly DOES NOT say God humbled Himself to wicked devils and humans, but an individual of a man did.

1. The text does not mention devils.
2. God the Father doesn't humble himself. Stop equivocating. God the Son humbled himself to God the Father as to become man and die for our sins.
When are you going to realize that Trinitarians are not Oneness, nor Tritheists?


God Bless
 

Truther

Member
Only if you errantly equivocate God, aka God the Father, with Jesus.



Seriously, one thinking it not robbery to be equal with God while not being God is called blasphemy. One thinking it not robbery to be equal with God and not sinning means he is equal with God.



1. The text does not mention devils.
2. God the Father doesn't humble himself. Stop equivocating. God the Son humbled himself to God the Father as to become man and die for our sins.
When are you going to realize that Trinitarians are not Oneness, nor Tritheists?


God Bless
You are the first trinitarian that said Jesus is not God that I ever met.

Now what is it,....he is or is not God.

Maybe a hologram of the 2nd person?
 
You are the first trinitarian that said Jesus is not God that I ever met.
Now what is it,....he is or is not God.
Maybe a hologram of the 2nd person?

In reality, you haven't been listening. Jesus is God in that he is the second person in the Trinity. Jesus is not God in that he is not the person of God the Father. If you can't bother to keep this obvious distinction straight, how can you ever make a meaningful critique of Trinitarianism?

God Bless
 

Truther

Member
In reality, you haven't been listening. Jesus is God in that he is the second person in the Trinity. Jesus is not God in that he is not the person of God the Father. If you can't bother to keep this obvious distinction straight, how can you ever make a meaningful critique of Trinitarianism?

God Bless
LOL
 

Anthony

Member
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.


It looks like to me God and Christ are not co-equal after all.

More like there is one God who is the boss over an individual man.

Just like Christ is our Lord and God, God is his(Jesus') Lord and God.
That's because you really don't understand why there must be The Son of God's manifestation.

In real understanding of God's covenant with Israel as an whole is the firstborn son of God.

The Son Who represented Israel definitely has to have God over Him just as Israel has God over them.

Then you must understand historical Israel from OT perspective - how they were divided into two separate kingdoms and the northern kingdom was dispersed and sent out with the certificate of divorced and how in New Covenant they were being reunited with Judah.

The Law was the schoolmaster to bring them to Christ - as the bridegroom. YHWH under the Torah of divorce can't marry again with Israel as an whole but manifest in flesh and die to the Torah He made and marry again in resurrection. Such a concept is not understood in Christendom and thus they have all varied and flawed theologies in which you are part of:

Rom 7: 1:
1 Or do you not know, brothers – for I speak to those knowing the Torah – that the Torah rules over a man as long as he lives?

2 For the married woman has been bound by Torah to the living husband, but if the husband dies, she is released from the Torah concerning her husband.

3 So then, while her husband lives, she shall be called an adulteress if she becomes another man’s. But if her husband dies, she is free from that part of the Torah, so that she is not an adulteress, having become another man’s.
4 So my brothers, you also were put to death to the Torah through the body of Messiah, for you to become another’s, the One who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to Elohim.

That's the main purpose of having the Law of Divorce and remarriage in OT.

Paul wasn't writing to the modern day so called Christians but was writing to the Jews who knew the Torah.

If we are to be accepted we must be grafted among them and not as a separate church which is lawlessness.
 
Top