Is Jesus God?

[betsy123]

Greetings again betsy123,

I do not have the time (or patience) to address this subject of Philippians 2 in all its detail, partly because I am not 100% familiar with explaining every term. Also your response is difficult to respond to because of its many parts.

Philippians 2 is but one of many!

Of course it has many parts! They are inter-connected. They all come from various angles!
They all reinforce each other! Because it's the TRUTH!

That Jesus is also Yahweh, isn't false teaching. The Scriptures will, of course, prove that!

I will state only a few aspects.. I cannot accept that Jesus was two different beings or that he had two minds.
Jesus was a human, the Son of God before and during his ministry and he grew in wisdom from a child Luke 2:40,52. The status "the Son of God" describes both his humanity and his Divine attributes or potential which he inherited and developed. He is definitely not God (fully God the Son) AND Son of God (human) as you describe.

Whether you want to accept it or not, does not make any difference.
The validity of truth doesn't hang on what we choose to accept, or not.




John 10
27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

That You May Believe

30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book;
31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.



It is important to equally believe both:
Jesus is Yahweh (in human form), and Jesus is the Son of God (the human Messiah)!


We do know partly why it is important to believe both.
Because if you don't believe Jesus is Yahweh too, you get into conflict with the Bible (several conflicts have been given) - that you take away the credibility of Jesus and the Scriptures!

I was commenting on the NIV “very nature of a servant”. The contrast is with NIV “very nature of God” which is suggesting that Jesus was in heaven with Divine nature, or that is the impression that this biased NIV translation gives me. How would you explain “very nature of God”?

Corrections: It doesn't include the term "of."
It says, ....in very nature God!

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

6
Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=philippians 2&version=NIV


And if you check the footnote below - that small letter "a" - it explains, "in the form of."

Then why did they alter it to give such a biased newer translation?

I don't know the reason why they altered that - but I'm not using NIV alone.
I also gave NKJ.


Anyway - you criticised me for giving NIV version, so I ask you now -

why do you use the NIV 1984 edition?



If you don't think NIV to be credible - why do you still cling to its discarded version?

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps, they changed it because they want it
to be more accurate?

Jesus was made a little lower than the Angels Psalm 8:5-6,

You mean this?

Psalm 8
3
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
4
What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit[c] him?
5
For You have made him a little lower than [d]the angels,
And You have crowned him with glory and honor.


That doesn't refer to Christ! That refers to mankind (Adam)!
The "son of man" (small s), refers to a human (which is a son of a human).
Didn't God visit, interacted, and was mindful of the people after Adam?

The rest of these lines ring a bell?

6
You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,
7
All sheep and oxen—
Even the beasts of the field,
8
The birds of the air,
And the fish of the sea
That pass through the paths of the seas.

an allusion to and summary of Genesis 1:26-27.

You mean this?

Genesis 1
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over [a]all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”


Why didn't you include line 28?
It's part of it!
It provides the whole context that God was referring to humans!


Your argument is dead wrong!

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.


And, if you think "him" refers to Jesus......what on earth are you saying now about Jesus?
You saying....He's both male and female?

What kind of Bible are you using?

The contrast is between Jesus as a human when growing and making decisions, and with what Adam and Eve did in grasping equality. The whole of Philippians 2 has nothing to do with any supposed “incarnation”.

I'm not going to get into compartmentalizing and separately debating each like as if how you understand it makes it so.

After your big-time fiasco with Psalm 8, surely you don't expect me to even consider any of that, do you?



...anyway....

I've explained it to you near the end of post #377.
I even pointed out to you how this part.....


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.



.......had opened up another angle to support the point that Jesus is God Himself.

isn't that wild?
The Scriptures dumping all these evidences on you?
This evidence is something new to me too - I became aware of it only when
I read it and posted it above.


OPEN YOUR EYES.




If Jesus had to "become obedient" when He became human......that implies Jesus wasn't obedient before that!
Assuming He isn't Yahweh Himself, why wasn't He obedient to Yahweh before that?

You know why Jesus became obedient when He became man?
Because, prior to that, there was no one else to be obedient to!
He and Yahweh are One!

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again betsy123,

After your big-time fiasco with Psalm 8, surely you don't expect me to even consider any of that, do you?

I found it difficult to follow most of your response. Concerning Psalm 8 have you considered the application of Psalm 8 to Jesus in Hebrews 2?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[betsy123]

Greetings again betsy123, I found it difficult to follow most of your response. Concerning Psalm 8 have you considered the application of Psalm 8 to Jesus in Hebrews 2?

Kind regards
Trevor

I asked, what Bible are you using?

Hebrews 2 knocks down your argument soundly!
It upholds mine!

Have you seen the same message given in Psalm 8 to Hebrews 2?
Lol. It's even more explicit!


Hebrews 2
Jesus Made Fully Human

5 It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.

6 But there is a place where someone has testified:

“What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
a son of man that you care for him?

7
You made them a little lower than the angels;
you crowned them with glory and honor

8
and put everything under their feet.”

In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.


THEM - refers to mankind!
It is mankind that's made a little lower than the angels!




9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.


Check out line 8 and 9.
There is a continuity between the two.

....we do not see everything subject to them. BUT we do see Jesus......




See this part below? This is the knock-out punch to your argument:

"....made lower than the angels for a little while....."

means,

while He was in human form! Like THEM!

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again betsy123,

I asked, what Bible are you using?

I use the KJV, then look at other translations. I assume you are using the NIV (recent version?).

Hebrews 2 knocks down your argument soundly! It upholds mine! Have you seen the same message given in Psalm 8 to Hebrews 2? Lol. It's even more explicit!
Hebrews 2 Jesus Made Fully Human

I agree that Jesus was made fully human. Btw this title is not part of the Bible, but the NIV addition.

THEM - refers to mankind! It is mankind that's made a little lower than the angels!

Again I am not sure what you are driving at in this Post also. I believe Jesus was and is human. He was lower than the angels during his ministry as he was mortal, that is subject to death. He has now been given immortality and exalted above the angels and is seated at the right hand of God Psalm 110:1.

NIV (recent version?) is one of only a few translations that has “them”. Most have “him”, for example KJV, ESV, NASB, RV, ASV, NET, NIV84, NKJV, HCSB, LEB, NAB, ISV, RSV, Darby, YLT. So it is Jesus throughout that is being spoken about, as mankind in general have not been crowned with glory and honour verse 7. Only Jesus has been crowned with glory and honour. Adam and mankind after him all failed and fell short of the glory of God Romans 3:23. I recommend to at least refer to other translations before building a case on your new NIV.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[betsy123]

Greetings again betsy123, I use the KJV, then look at other translations. I assume you are using the NIV (recent version?).

No....I actually don't use NIV (use it only for copy/pasting).
I read KJV Bible Study Book.

I agree that Jesus was made fully human. Btw this title is not part of the Bible, but the NIV addition.

Still.....the message isn't different.

Again I am not sure what you are driving at in this Post also. I believe Jesus was and is human. He was lower than the angels during his ministry as he was mortal, that is subject to death. He has now been given immortality and exalted above the angels and is seated at the right hand of God Psalm 110:1.

Prior to having become human - Jesus had always had immortality.
Of course, He became a mortal when He became human. He had to become human.




Hebrews 2 (KJV)
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.


Hebrews 2 (NKJ)
17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

NIV (recent version?) is one of only a few translations that has “them”. Most have “him”, for example KJV, ESV, NASB, RV, ASV, NET, NIV84, NKJV, HCSB, LEB, NAB, ISV, RSV, Darby, YLT. So it is Jesus throughout that is being spoken about, as mankind in general have not been crowned with glory and honour verse

It could still refer to man. Man was given honor and glory in Genesis 1, remember?
Man was made into the likeness of God. You were the one who brought up Genesis 1!

Genesis 1
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”


1 Cor 11
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.


But that honor and glory is nowhere like what is given to Jesus Christ.
However, line 7 of Hebrews 2 does indeed pertains to Jesus Christ - due to the footnote "d."
Scroll down again - it's the same as footnote "f."

Both indicate " or for a little while."




Hebrews 2 (NKJ)

6 But one testified in a certain place, saying:

“What is man that You are mindful of him,
Or the son of man that You take care of him?

7
You have made him [d]a little lower than the angels;
You have crowned him with glory and honor,
And set him over the works of Your hands.

8 You have put all things in subjection under his feet.”

For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him.

9 But we see Jesus, who was made [f]a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews 2&version=NKJV


It's actually the same as NIV. Scroll down and check out the footnote "f."

f: Hebrews 2:9 Or for a little while

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again betsy123,

No....I actually don't use NIV (use it only for copy/pasting). I read KJV Bible Study Book.

But you were quoting the NIV and emphasising the NIV “them” when your KJV Bible was saying “him”. The KJV is correct and your quotation of the NIV is wrong.

Still.....the message isn't different.

Whether it is right or wrong, you were quoting it as if it was part of the Bible, rather than a heading added by a translator, who judging by other aspects may be a biased heading/summary.

Prior to having become human Jesus had always had immortality. Of course, He became a mortal when He became human. He had to become human.

Then he was not immortal beforehand. By very definition an immortal being cannot become mortal. And a being cannot be mortal and immortal at the same time. Trinitarians will tell you that this is actually the case, but it is a mystery, or that he was mortal but the Divine part was immortal, possibly his immortal soul. I believe that man is mortal and Jesus was dead for three days.

It could still refer to man. Man was given honor and glory in Genesis 1, remember?
Man was made into the likeness of God. You were the one who brought up Genesis 1!
But that honor and glory is nowhere like what is given to Jesus Christ.

Psalm 8 uses the framework of the Genesis creation to speak of the new creation in Jesus. Hebrews 2 is speaking about Jesus “him”, not the Genesis creation “them NIV”, because it is speaking about “the World to Come” Hebrews 2:5.

However, line 7 of Hebrews 2 does indeed pertains to Jesus Christ - due to the footnote "d." Scroll down again - it's the same as footnote "f." Both indicate " or for a little while."

I accept “a little lower” because Psalm 8:5 is using the framework of Genesis 1:26-27 and this is speaking of status rather than time. Do Trinitarians accept that during his ministry that Jesus was lower in status than the angels, seeing that they claim that Jesus was still a God-man?.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[betsy123]

Greetings again betsy123, But you were quoting the NIV and emphasising the NIV “them” when your KJV Bible was saying “him”. The KJV is correct and your quotation of the NIV is wrong.
Whether it is right or wrong, you were quoting it as if it was part of the Bible, rather than a heading added by a translator, who judging by other aspects may be a biased heading/summary.

Yes, I would take the KJV as the correct one (since I only use the NIV for copy-paste).
But, the gist of the message is still the same.

Here is a more articulate explanation about that:

Psalm 8:5 is a prophecy about Jesus Christ. As the psalmist reflects on the glory of the Lord, his mind turns to the greatness of God’s creation.
He also begins to think about man and asks this question in Psalm 8:4: “What is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?” (ESV).
Then verse 5 reads, “Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor” (ESV). (In the Hebrew text, “heavenly beings” is Elohim, a common name for God; the Septuagint has the word angelos, which means “angel.”)
Psalm 8:6 continues, “You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet” (ESV). The psalmist understood from Genesis 1:26–28 that God gave mankind the authority to rule over the created world.

The title “son of man” could refer to Adam as the head of the human race. Being created with a human body and given this authority, Adam was made “a little lower” than the angels, yet he was crowned with glory and honor because he was made in the image of God.

In Hebrews 2:6–8 the writer quotes Psalm 8:5 and then comments on the totality of creation’s subjection to the “son of man”: “In putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control” (ESV). Then the author of Hebrews identifies the “son of man” as Jesus Christ: “But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone” (verse 9, ESV).

Applying Psalm 8:5 to Jesus Christ, the writer of Hebrews applies the title “son of man” to Jesus.
This stresses the humanity of Christ and his tie to the first Adam and sets Him apart as the greatest example of man.

Jesus Christ is really the Second Adam, the new Adam, who has come to deal directly with what the first Adam brought upon mankind and could never defeat, namely death (see 1 Corinthians 15:45). The Gospel of Luke’s theme is that Jesus is the Son of man (see Luke 19:10); Jesus is the Second Adam come to deliver mankind from death, through His cross, burial, and empty tomb.

https://www.gotquestions.org/little-lower-angels.html

Then he was not immortal beforehand.

Of course He was immortal before He became human. He became immortal again!

The author of Hebrews points out that Jesus’ humble state was but temporary: “for a little while” He was made lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:7).

https://www.gotquestions.org/little-lower-angels.html


Did you check out the footnote on the NKJ, as I pointed out to you? For Hebrews 2:7 and 9?

By very definition an immortal being cannot become mortal.

That's an eye-roller for a response!
Who sez that God's omnipotence has any limitations?
To be omnipotent is to have UNLIMITED power!

By the very definition of death - a person cannot come back to life!
Didn't Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead?
Didn't Jesus come back from the dead?

Nothing is impossible with God!

And a being cannot be mortal and immortal at the same time.

Trinitarians will tell you that this is actually the case, but it is a mystery, or that he was mortal but the Divine part was immortal, possibly his immortal soul. I believe that man is mortal and Jesus was dead for three days.

I'm not saying He was mortal and immortal at the same time!
Lol. As a human - He was a mortal! Didn't He die on the cross?

He had to be a mortal, because He had to suffer and die for us!

He came back to being immortal again when He rose from the dead!

Do Trinitarians accept that during his ministry that Jesus was lower in status than the angels,

Jesus as man did not lose His deity!

He was lower in status than angels in this context:

Jesus “made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant” when He took on human flesh (Philippians 2:7).

The Lawgiver placed Himself in subjection to the Law (Galatians 4:4).

He who was rich became poor for our sakes (2 Corinthians 8:9). “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28).

Jesus never ceased to be God; He simply showed the meekness and condescension of God. After the Incarnation, He was the God-man.

https://www.gotquestions.org/little-lower-angels.html

.....seeing that they claim that Jesus was still a God-man?.

What is the hypostatic union?

The hypostatic union is the term used to describe how God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature, yet remained fully God at the same time. Jesus always had been God (John 8:58, 10:30), but at the incarnation Jesus became a human being (John 1:14). The addition of the human nature to the divine nature is Jesus, the God-man. This is the hypostatic union, Jesus Christ, one Person, fully God and fully man.

Jesus' two natures, human and divine, are inseparable. Jesus will forever be the God-man, fully God and fully human, two distinct natures in one Person. Jesus' humanity and divinity are not mixed, but are united without loss of separate identity. Jesus sometimes operated with the limitations of humanity (John 4:6, 19:28) and other times in the power of His deity (John 11:43; Matthew 14:18-21). In both, Jesus' actions were from His one Person. Jesus had two natures, but only one personality.

The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine we are incapable of fully understanding. It is impossible for us to fully understand how God works. We, as human beings with finite minds, should not expect to totally comprehend an infinite God. Jesus is God’s Son in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). But that does not mean Jesus did not exist before He was conceived. Jesus has always existed (John 8:58, 10:30). When Jesus was conceived, He became a human being in addition to being God (John 1:1, 14).

https://www.gotquestions.org/hypostatic-union.html




You can try to pick and choose your argument in a desperate attempt to bolster the false teaching that you're adhering to......

.....but, everything goes right back to your big dilemma:

if Jesus is not God Himself, then Jesus and the Bible lose their credibility.

 

[7djengo7]

By very definition an immortal being cannot become mortal.

I had thought that, by definition, an immortal being cannot die. But, here, you come along and tell us, instead, that, by definition, an immortal being cannot become mortal.

Would you say that to die is the same thing as to become mortal?

In a graveyard, when you see two dates (say, 1 JAN 1900 - 31 DEC 2000) engraved on a headstone, would you say that that latter date marks the day on which the interred decedent died, or, instead, would you say that that latter date marks the day on which the interred decedent became mortal?

Eschatologically speaking, would you say that, eventually, all mortal beings ever to be born, shall have died? Would you say that, by definition, a mortal being cannot fail to, at some point, die?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 7djengo7,

I am not surprised that you could not resist the temptation to discuss a particular word, but I am a bit reticent to discuss with you based upon your responses on the other thread, and your latest response there is typical. I decided to not respond on the other thread as I considered that “oatmeal” was doing a reasonable job, and I felt a bit relaxed that he was receiving most of the flack instead. What I was going to respond to is your comment: “God the Father is the First Person of the Triune YHWH.” Without getting involved, I would refer you to Psalm 110:1 where Yahweh is the One God, God the Father and He speaks to David’s Lord, revealed in the NT as the Son of God.

I had thought that, by definition, an immortal being cannot die. But, here, you come along and tell us, instead, that, by definition, an immortal being cannot become mortal. Would you say that to die is the same thing as to become mortal?
In a graveyard, when you see two dates (say, 1 JAN 1900 - 31 DEC 2000) engraved on a headstone, would you say that that latter date marks the day on which the interred decedent died, or, instead, would you say that that latter date marks the day on which the interred decedent became mortal?
Eschatologically speaking, would you say that, eventually, all mortal beings ever to be born, shall have died? Would you say that, by definition, a mortal being cannot fail to, at some point, die?

Again I do not want to get involved in your treatment of words. I have many resources including many English Dictionaries and Bible reference books, but I did not look up the various views or range of meaning for the word “mortal”. As a result of some discussion within my fellowship, I use the word “mortal” to represent the idea that after Adam’s sin Adam and his descendants became mortal, subject to death. You may have a different view of the word "mortal" and enjoy talking about related concepts such as graves and when and if all will die.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[7djengo7]

As a result of some discussion within my fellowship, I use the word “mortal” to represent the idea that after Adam’s sin Adam and his descendants became mortal, subject to death.

For Adam to have become mortal is for Adam to have been, previously, not mortal--immortal. You have just admitted that Adam, who was "immortal beforehand", "became mortal". You have, thus, starkly contradicted what you had claimed, earlier:

Then he was not immortal beforehand. By very definition an immortal being cannot become mortal.

If you thought that "by very definition an immortal being cannot become mortal", then you'd deny that Adam could/did become mortal. Instead, you admit that Adam could have gone, and did go from being immortal to being mortal; and yet, because of your cherished unitarianism, and your hatred of Christ, you deny that Christ could have gone/did go from being immortal to being mortal.

Your glaring inconsistencies amaze me!

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again betsy123,

Yes, I would take the KJV as the correct one (since I only use the NIV for copy-paste). But, the gist of the message is still the same.

I suggest that the NIV gives a different story to the KJV.

Here is a more articulate explanation about that:

It gives much the same view as the NIV. I believe that Psalm 8 uses the framework and language of the Eden Creation to speak concerning Jesus and the New Creation. “Son of Man” is literally “Son of Adam” and therefore is not speaking of Adam as the article suggests and needs to in effect alter "Son of Adam" to fit the NIV view.

By the very definition of death - a person cannot come back to life! Didn't Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead? Didn't Jesus come back from the dead?

I believe in the resurrection of the dead by the power of God.

I'm not saying He was mortal and immortal at the same time! Lol. As a human - He was a mortal! Didn't He die on the cross? He had to be a mortal, because He had to suffer and die for us! He came back to being immortal again when He rose from the dead! Jesus as man did not lose His deity! After the Incarnation, He was the God-man.

This appears to be contradictory as “Deity” is immortal and man is mortal and Jesus was one person.

if Jesus is not God Himself, then Jesus and the Bible lose their credibility.

One of your favourite statements, but such a concept as the Trinity is not credible.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 7djengo7,

For Adam to have become mortal is for Adam to have been, previously, not mortal--immortal. You have just admitted that Adam, who was "immortal beforehand", "became mortal". You have, thus, starkly contradicted what you had claimed, earlier: !

Why I mentioned the discussion within my fellowship, is that there have been many opinions discussed and I was giving what I understand to be the Bible view. I should imagine that there is a wide range of views on this. To briefly explain, I understand that Adam and Eve were created with the potential of being changed to immortality if they after a period of trial and maturity were given or partook of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden and eat and live for ever. They were under probation and under Law regarding the tree of knowledge of good and evil. As a result of eating this fruit they were sentenced to return to the dust Genesis 3:19. Thus before the transgression they were neither mortal (subject to death) nor immortal (in the sense that they would never die).

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[NWL]

Did you fail to see the preceding lines in Phil 2?


Phil 2
5 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!


Lol.
If Jesus is in very nature, God - and He is EQUAL with God - who else can He be?

You ignore my question, answer it instead of creating a strawman argument. Again, to who's glory is it to that we bend the knee to Jesus according to Phil 2:8-11, the Fathers or Jesus?

Jesus being in the form of God is not a statement that Jesus is God or part of the Godhead, the Greek word for "Form" which is "morphe" has the definition pertaining to bodily composition and appearance:

Strong's Concordance
morphé: form, shape
Original Word: μορφή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: morphé
Phonetic Spelling: (mor-fay')
Definition: form, shape
Usage: form, shape, outward appearance.

When it states Jesus was in the "form of God" this is simply a statement saying Jesus had the same type of body as God. God's bodily form is a spirit form (See John 4:24, "God is a Spirit"), thus the scripture is making the point that Jesus existed in the same form as God, i.e a spirit form, he however gave up this type of form (spirit form) and took on the form of a human and became flesh. Again this is not proof that Jesus was God or part of a Godhead.

(Phil 2:6) "..who, although he was existing in God’s form/morphe,gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form/morphe and became human.."

You also failed to answer the two below questions I asked you, please do not respond to this post if you do not intend to address the issues/points I raise.

If we worship the Father through Jesus who is receiving that worship ultimately, Jesus or the Father?

If a human was not sacrificed what was, God? You've already implied it was God that was sacrificed so answer me this, how can God die? And don't you dare say it was Jesus humanity that died since again you've already denied the fact that "God sacrificed a human", so deal with the problem you've created.

 

[betsy123]

You ignore my question, answer it instead of creating a strawman argument. Again, to who's glory is it to that we bend the knee to Jesus according to Phil 2:8-11, the Fathers or Jesus?

One of your favourite statements, but such a concept as the Trinity is not credible.

You both pick and choose, and keep ignoring the heart of the matter.

You can't sweep your dilemma under the rug.



Many titles that are God's have been bestowed on Jesus, and vice versa.

God has made many definitive declarations.
As an example: God does not share His glory with anyone!

Jesus had made so many claims about Himself.
He even let Thomas believe that He (Jesus), is God!

Refer to this compilation of Biblical evidence:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?133025-JESUS-IS-GOD-HIMSELF




Let's cut to the chase. You both say nothing new.
In the end, you'll have to face this truth:


If Jesus is not God Himself - then, what you believe in (Jesus and the Bible), has no credibility.

Why?

Because, the Bible that you depict is full of contradictions, making Jesus and God both inconsistent....and therefore, both, unreliable.


Your belief undermines the very credibility of the Scriptures - therefore.....

..........what you believe cannot have come from God.


You believe in a false teaching.

 

[NWL]

You both pick and choose, and keep ignoring the heart of the matter.

You can't sweep your dilemma under the rug.



Many titles that are God's have been bestowed on Jesus, and vice versa.

God has made many definitive declarations.
As an example: God does not share His glory with anyone!

Jesus had made so many claims about Himself.
He even let Thomas believe that He (Jesus), is God!

Refer to this compilation of Biblical evidence:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?133025-JESUS-IS-GOD-HIMSELF




Let's cut to the chase. You both say nothing new.
In the end, you'll have to face this truth:


If Jesus is not God Himself - then, what you believe in (Jesus and the Bible), has no credibility.

Why?

Because, they're full of contradictions, they are inconsistent....and therefore, unreliable.


Your belief undermines the very credibility of the Scriptures - therefore, it cannot have come from God.


You believe in a false teaching.

How can you say I pick and choose, what am I picking and choosing, all I'm doing is asking simple questions. YOU are the one who is literally picking and choosing since you pick and choose what questions to reply to -despite no actually answering them- whereas I do not. Claiming I'm picking and choosing isn't evidence I'm picking and choosing.

You say I believe in a false teaching yet you cannot answer my question, one must ask why, why can't you answer my questions, why is it every-time I ask them all you can do is change the subject to something else.

Explain what matter I keep ignoring and explain how anything you have said has anything to do with my questions I asked.

Here the the questions you are incapable of answering again:

Again, to who's glory is it to that we bend the knee to Jesus according to Phil 2:8-11, the Fathers or Jesus?

If we worship the Father through Jesus who is receiving that worship ultimately, Jesus or the Father?

If a human was not sacrificed what was, God? You've already implied it was God that was sacrificed so answer me this, how can God die? And don't you dare say it was Jesus humanity that died since again you've already denied the fact that "God sacrificed a human", so deal with the problem you've created.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again betsy123,

You both pick and choose, and keep ignoring the heart of the matter. You can't sweep your dilemma under the rug.

This is a brief response to indicate that I have received your comment, but that it appears that you have disengaged in the discussion. I appreciate your time and effort. I have a different perspective to NWL and also you on Philippians 2, and this is part of the problem when discussing on these forums.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[betsy123]

How can you say I pick and choose, what am I picking and choosing, all I'm doing is asking simple questions. YOU are the one who is literally picking and choosing since you pick and choose what questions to reply to -despite no actually answering them- whereas I do not. Claiming I'm picking and choosing isn't evidence I'm picking and choosing.

You say I believe in a false teaching yet you cannot answer my question, one must ask why, why can't you answer my questions, why is it every-time I ask them all you can do is change the subject to something else.

Explain what matter I keep ignoring and explain how anything you have said has anything to do with my questions I asked.

Here the the questions you are incapable of answering again:

Again, to who's glory is it to that we bend the knee to Jesus according to Phil 2:8-11, the Fathers or Jesus?

If we worship the Father through Jesus who is receiving that worship ultimately, Jesus or the Father?

If a human was not sacrificed what was, God? You've already implied it was God that was sacrificed so answer me this, how can God die? And don't you dare say it was Jesus humanity that died since again you've already denied the fact that "God sacrificed a human", so deal with the problem you've created.

Greetings again betsy123, This is a brief response to indicate that I have received your comment, but that it appears that you have disengaged in the discussion. I appreciate your time and effort. I have a different perspective to NWL and also you on Philippians 2, and this is part of the problem when discussing on these forums.

Kind regards
Trevor

No Trevor, I didn't dis-engage. In fact, I'm very much engaged.
What I did is show you why what you adhere to is, false teaching.
But it seems....you're now running away from it.

You and NWL may have different perspective - but my answer applies to you both!

You both are side-stepping the glaring fact.

Well, here's the thing....it's not going to go away.



You can't sweep your dilemma under the rug.
You can't pretend it doesn't exist.



Many titles that are God's have been bestowed on Jesus, and vice versa.

God has made many definitive declarations.
As an example: God does not share His glory with anyone!

Jesus had made so many claims about Himself.
He even let Thomas believe that He (Jesus), is God!

Refer to this compilation of Biblical evidence:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?133025-JESUS-IS-GOD-HIMSELF




Let's cut to the chase. You both say nothing new.
In the end, you'll have to face this truth:


If Jesus is not God Himself - then, what you believe in (Jesus and the Bible), has no credibility.

Why?

Because, the Bible that you depict is full of contradictions, making Jesus and God both inconsistent....and therefore, both, unreliable.


Your belief undermines the very credibility of the Scriptures - therefore.....

..........what you believe cannot have come from God.


You believe in a false teaching.

 

[NWL]

No Trevor, I didn't dis-engage. In fact, I'm very much engaged.
What I did is show you why what you adhere to is, false teaching.
But it seems....you're now running away from it.

You and NWL may have different perspective - but my answer applies to you both!

You both are side-stepping the glaring fact.

Well, here's the thing....it's not going to go away.



You can't sweep your dilemma under the rug.
You can't pretend it doesn't exist.



Many titles that are God's have been bestowed on Jesus, and vice versa.

God has made many definitive declarations.
As an example: God does not share His glory with anyone!

Jesus had made so many claims about Himself.
He even let Thomas believe that He (Jesus), is God!

Refer to this compilation of Biblical evidence:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?133025-JESUS-IS-GOD-HIMSELF




Let's cut to the chase. You both say nothing new.
In the end, you'll have to face this truth:


If Jesus is not God Himself - then, what you believe in (Jesus and the Bible), has no credibility.

Why?

Because, the Bible that you depict is full of contradictions, making Jesus and God both inconsistent....and therefore, both, unreliable.


Your belief undermines the very credibility of the Scriptures - therefore.....

..........what you believe cannot have come from God.


You believe in a false teaching.

Again explain what I'm sidestepping by answering the questions below, what does YHWH the Father not sharing his glory have anything to do with the questions I asked, if you can't explain the reason why then you have no reason NOT to answer the questions.

Again explain and answer, here they are again.

Again, to who's glory is it to that we bend the knee to Jesus according to Phil 2:8-11, the Fathers or Jesus?

If we worship the Father through Jesus who is receiving that worship ultimately, Jesus or the Father?

If a human was not sacrificed [upon Jesus death] what was, God? You've already implied it was God that was sacrificed so answer me this, how can God die? And don't you even think to say it was Jesus humanity that died since you've already denied the fact that "God sacrificed a human", so deal with the problem you've created.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again betsy123,

No Trevor, I didn't dis-engage.

This is a brief response to indicate that I have received your comments. I have disengaged unless something substantial or interesting is raised to discuss, rather than the present impasse.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[betsy123]

Again explain what I'm sidestepping by answering the questions below, what does YHWH the Father not sharing his glory have anything to do with the questions I asked, if you can't explain the reason why then you have no reason NOT to answer the questions.

Again explain and answer, here they are again.

Again, to who's glory is it to that we bend the knee to Jesus according to Phil 2:8-11, the Fathers or Jesus?

If we worship the Father through Jesus who is receiving that worship ultimately, Jesus or the Father?

If a human was not sacrificed [upon Jesus death] what was, God? You've already implied it was God that was sacrificed so answer me this, how can God die? And don't you even think to say it was Jesus humanity that died since you've already denied the fact that "God sacrificed a human", so deal with the problem you've created.

You're missing the point. You're still giving me all these bits and pieces!
Read below. And also #401.

Greetings again betsy123, This is a brief response to indicate that I have received your comments. I have disengaged unless something substantial or interesting is raised to discuss, rather than the present impasse.

Kind regards
Trevor

Of course, you'll disengage.
I sort of expected that, unless you keep trying to side-step, or ignore it.


What's thrown at you, is one of - if not the most substantial argument there is on this issue!


Who can argue with the logical explanation that to say Jesus is not God Himself,
is false teaching?

How can God/Jesus teach something that knocks down His own credibility?