Jesus is not God (attending, doctrine, church, scriptures, bible)

[No*s]

[qutoe=linwood] 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Technically we`re all in the "form" or nature of God aren`t we?

It goes on....[/quote]

No, the word can only operate like that in the loosest sense, but it's used pretty strictly right next to it, where Jesus assumes the form of a slave. It is also coupled with the attribute of "equality with God." The whole passage only makes consistent sense when we attribute to Christ divinity. If we say that "form" ([i]morphi[/] in Greek) means simply "likeness" here, then we assert that Christ only became like a slave, but wasn't really one.

The only place where anything but total equivelence occurs is when it describes Christ in the "likeness" of men and in "appearance" as a man. In those instances, the passage is asserting that He is like us, even to where He can suffer and die, but when coupled with the divinity He has alongside, He is also not exactly like us.

I really don't see a consistent means of interpreting the passage without asserting the Deity of Christ, and certainly not one that would make any sense with the soteriology specified in v. 5, where people are to have Christ's mind in them (we find this doctrine present in a very literal fashion in the NT).

Originally Posted by linwood

I don`t know why God would highly exalt himself or give himself a name.

At best I`d say this chapter could go eiether way depending upon how you read it.

Earlier in the passage, it says that Christ had abased Himself and "emptied" Himself. Assuming the glory that He emptied Himself of is pretty much exalting Him from His other station. It is simple, and internally consistent in interpretation.

[Scuba Pete]

Linwood,

Go read CS Lewis' treatise on Phusis and Natura for a complete understanding of these words. We were created in the likeness of God, but by nature we are NOT God. Jesus did not feel a need to hold on to his Godliness (grasp it) because he was already God. No matter what "outward form" he could choose, he could never escape being God.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Linwood,

Go read CS Lewis' treatise on Phusis and Natura for a complete understanding of these words. We were created in the likeness of God, but by nature we are NOT God. Jesus did not feel a need to hold on to his Godliness (grasp it) because he was already God. No matter what "outward form" he could choose, he could never escape being God.

And I can't think of a single Christian author who would say of us that we have the morphi tou theou. It's too strong a phrase.

[linwood]

No*s said..
No, the word can only operate like that in the loosest sense, but it's used pretty strictly right next to it, where Jesus assumes the form of a slave.

I see that but it reads to me as if Jesus humbled himself before God by taking on a position that was beneath him.

It is also coupled with the attribute of "equality with God."

Yes and it tells all to strive for equality with God..not just that Jesus has reached it.
It says to think like Jesus and that Jesus thought it was not wrong for others to strive for equality with God.

The whole passage only makes consistent sense when we attribute to Christ divinity.

I don`t understand this comment No*s.
The passage makes perfect sense when one percieves jesus as nothing more than man.
Is there some other context outside of this chapter I should look at?


If we say that "form" ([i]morphi[/] in Greek) means simply "likeness" here, then we assert that Christ only became like a slave, but wasn't really one.

Yes, exactly.
He became a spiritual "slave" before God but wasn`t a slave in the physical sense .
In the physical sense he was a lord of men.
It is relative depending upon whether you are comparing him to men or God.

I am using this same argument for the verse directly previous...

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

The Greek word "morphe is also used here and I see no reason to give it a different meaning than it has here in the verse directly after.

In other words Jesus wasn`t literally God himself but is like him but not really him.


The only place where anything but total equivelence occurs is when it describes Christ in the "likeness" of men and in "appearance" as a man. In those instances, the passage is asserting that He is like us, even to where He can suffer and die, but when coupled with the divinity He has alongside, He is also not exactly like us.

I`m just not seeing this in the context of this chapter.
Why would I use a different meaning for Morphe in verse 7 than I would in verse 6?


I really don't see a consistent means of interpreting the passage without asserting the Deity of Christ, and certainly not one that would make any sense with the soteriology specified in v. 5, where people are to have Christ's mind in them (we find this doctrine present in a very literal fashion in the NT).

I still read the chapter perfectly consistently without assuming divinity for Jesus.
As far as salvation goes it is the teachings of Christ one must accpet, it is the fact that Jesus has the correct word and the only way if through him/his word.
the term "to have Christs mind" merely appears to me as synonymous with to "be of one mind" or to "think the same way".
2:2 even says..
"Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, [being] of one accord, of one mind.
I don`t see any literal mind taking here but an adoption of ideology.



Earlier in the passage, it says that Christ had abased Himself and "emptied" Himself. Assuming the glory that He emptied Himself of is pretty much exalting Him from His other station. It is simple, and internally consistent in interpretation.

Yes I see that but that station that he is exalted to is simply the point that he is above the others but not as God only as a teacher preacher, prophet.
He humbled himself before God and...
...became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Who did he become obedient to if he was God?

It still reads consitently without the divinity of Jesus.
Unless of course I am missing a context outside of this single chapter.

NetDoc said...
Go read CS Lewis' treatise on Phusis and Natura for a complete understanding of these words.

While I have found a recent appreciation for the prose and writing style of Lewis his habit for inventing a premise in order to base a conclusion leaves me less than impressed with his logic.
I will have a look at it NetDoc

However if this is all going to deteriorate into a discussion of the concept of the Trinity (and it looks like it is)I`m not sure I want to go there again.
My head is still healing from the last time.

[Scott1]

Just a few things to think about:

Christ’s divinity is shown over and over again in the New Testament. For example, in John 5:18 we are told that Jesus’ opponents sought to kill him because he "called God his Father, making himself equal with God."

In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am"—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God—"I Am" (Ex. 3:14). His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59).

In John 20:28, Thomas falls at Jesus’ feet, exclaiming, "My Lord and my God!" (Greek: Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou—literally, "The Lord of me and the God of me!")

Also significant are passages that apply the title "the First and the Last" to Jesus. This is one of the Old Testament titles of Yahweh: "Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god’" (Is. 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12).

This title is directly applied to Jesus three times in the book of Revelation: "When I saw him [Christ], I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the First and the Last’" (Rev. 1:17). "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life’" (Rev. 2:8). "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end" (Rev. 22:12–13).

This last quote is especially significant since it applies to Jesus the parallel title "the Alpha and the Omega," which Revelation earlier applied to the Lord God: "‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8).

Peace,
Scott

[No*s]

Originally Posted by linwood

No*s said..
No, the word can only operate like that in the loosest sense, but it's used pretty strictly right next to it, where Jesus assumes the form of a slave.

I see that but it reads to me as if Jesus humbled himself before God by taking on a position that was beneath him.

It wasn't God that beat Him and killed Him, nor any of the other things. It was men, so I think the more natural remains that the humiliation was before us. That would only make sense if Jesus was a sacrifice to God.

Originally Posted by linwood

It is also coupled with the attribute of "equality with God."

Yes and it tells all to strive for equality with God..not just that Jesus has reached it.
It says to think like Jesus and that Jesus thought it was not wrong for others to strive for equality with God.

You are very, very close to what I think St. Paul is saying. There was a saying in the Early Church that went something like this: "God became man so that man might become God." That particular form of it's from the fourth century, but it predates that by a good bit . I just like that form. While it wasn't "equality with God" that we get, the salvation Paul has in mind is that we basically become extensions of the life, mind, and nature of God: subsidiaries, if you will, or from the Gospel of John where Jesus prayed that we "may be one even as You [God] and I are one."

So, in that sense, the sentiment you expressed is almost exactly what I see.

Originally Posted by linwood

The whole passage only makes consistent sense when we attribute to Christ divinity.

I don`t understand this comment No*s.
The passage makes perfect sense when one percieves jesus as nothing more than man.
Is there some other context outside of this chapter I should look at?

Well, "the whole passage" referred to what I quoted. In context, it is designed to explain how Christ is magnified in a human body, how He can enable unity of Christians, and how He "works" in people to do His pleasure (this word is always mistranslated; it should be "energize," which is actually the Greek word itself with the same meaning in English as in Greek). I'll post more details on the context if you want it, but that can get lengthy .

Originally Posted by linwood

If we say that "form" ([i]morphi[/] in Greek) means simply "likeness" here, then we assert that Christ only became like a slave, but wasn't really one.

Yes, exactly.
He became a spiritual "slave" before God but wasn`t a slave in the physical sense .
In the physical sense he was a lord of men.
It is relative depending upon whether you are comparing him to men or God.

He became a slave to men, and the powers of the world (sin, death, and corruption). I don't see, though, how you get the idea that he became a slave to God, though. He becomes obedient (went without defending Himself) to His death. It is "become" obedient, not "is" obedient. It's a change of state from one to the other. Who He became a slave and obedient to wasn't God.

We have at the beginning a commission to have Christ's mind within, then an assertion of how He has the form (morphi) of God. It then proceeds to explain that He has an equality with God, He either doesn't consider wrong to have (robbery), He doesn't fight to keep (something to be grasped), or He doesn't feel should be exploited. In no case can the meaning of the word be used to say that He somehow wasn't equal with God.

Then, He empties Himself, and He becomes a slave. At that point, the language transitions from "God" to "men." He becomes obedient, and He dies. Humanity is the only third party mentioned in this phase, and when that is done, it transitions to God again. Unless Jesus was a sacrifice to God, it really doesn't make any theological sense for the "obedience" and "slave" phrases to apply to His relation to God. In fact, it would affirm that Jesus was God as well. He assumed the form of a servant, and He became obedient unto death. The contrast in positions would mean that the author thought He wasn't a slave of God before, which would also make Him God.

Originally Posted by linwood

I am using this same argument for the verse directly previous...

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

The Greek word "morphe is also used here and I see no reason to give it a different meaning than it has here in the verse directly after.

In other words Jesus wasn`t literally God himself but is like him but not really him.

If I understand your argument aright, morphi is used in exactly the same fashion in vv. 6 & 7. He did have the form of God, and He did assume the form of a slave, and went without question when the Roman authorities took Him.

Originally Posted by linwood

The only place where anything but total equivelence occurs is when it describes Christ in the "likeness" of men and in "appearance" as a man. In those instances, the passage is asserting that He is like us, even to where He can suffer and die, but when coupled with the divinity He has alongside, He is also not exactly like us.

I`m just not seeing this in the context of this chapter.
Why would I use a different meaning for Morphe in verse 7 than I would in verse 6?

Lets put this another way, but similar and start in v 7 and work back. Jesus assumes the form (morphi) of a slave/servant (doulos denotes both your run of the mill slave and a servant). This role is what the Apostle Paul is using to admonish the Christians to emulate.

Now, we work back and find that this status is a result of Christ emptying Himself. We work back a little further to find a reference to what He emptied Himself of, and we find a phrase claiming that He didn't count equality with God something to exploit/keep a hold of/some kind of spoils that it would be robbery for Him to have. When we work back once more, we find the same word, morphi used in the same kind of construct (a participle, and this with yparkho which doubles to mean both "to be" and "to possess").

Now, if we asserted that Jesus literally was in the form of a slave/servant (doulos), then the same definition for morphi would apply here without a contextual reason for it not to. Further, what did He divest Himself of to become a slave? There is no candidate but the "form of God" in the context, which "equality with God" would specify further.

Originally Posted by linwood

I really don't see a consistent means of interpreting the passage without asserting the Deity of Christ, and certainly not one that would make any sense with the soteriology specified in v. 5, where people are to have Christ's mind in them (we find this doctrine present in a very literal fashion in the NT).

I still read the chapter perfectly consistently without assuming divinity for Jesus.
As far as salvation goes it is the teachings of Christ one must accpet, it is the fact that Jesus has the correct word and the only way if through him/his word.
the term "to have Christs mind" merely appears to me as synonymous with to "be of one mind" or to "think the same way".
2:2 even says..
"Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, [being] of one accord, of one mind.
I don`t see any literal mind taking here but an adoption of ideology.

And I can point to 2.13, immediately following this passage where Paul asserts that Christ "works in you." How is Christ actively working in us if it simply referred to an adoption of ideology? That's something I don't see. I see Paul using this passage not just as an example, but as the cause of Christian unity. It's something he can assume, and isn't mounting an extensive argument for the divinity of Christ.

Originally Posted by linwood

Yes I see that but that station that he is exalted to is simply the point that he is above the others but not as God only as a teacher preacher, prophet.
He humbled himself before God and...
...became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Who did he become obedient to if he was God?

He became obedient to men, death, corruption, and the like. Jesus didn't exactly rebel when the authorities came to take Him away, for instance. He obeyed them.

Originally Posted by linwood

It still reads consitently with the divinity of Jesus.
Unless of course I am missing a context outside of this single chapter.

I still don't think so.

From the passage, or what we know about the life of Christ, answer these, and the problem will be made manifest:

What do you see the meaning of the phrase "He did not consider equality with God something to be exploited?" There is no reference here to the act of doing seizing, but the item that would be seized.

If Christ didn't empty Himself of the equality with God, or the form of God, but something else, do you have any indication what Paul would be referring to?

If Jesus wasn't in "the form of God," but something else what would the phrase mean? How would the phrase "receiving the form of a servant" play into it?

I don't think these questions can be answered consistently in the context. Each one works into the other. Without Jesus possessing the form of God and having equality with God, those verses don't make much sense. They make no reference to the act of robbery or exploitation, simply the prize that would be under dispute. Without that, we don't know what He emptied Himself of. If He really wasn't in the form of God, then the same word woudln't be used differently on "servant," which would rob it of all its power even for adoption of ideology: Jesus didn't really "receive the form of a servant" anymore than He was in "the form of God." It cannot be emulated.

Sorry for the lengthy response .

[john313]

Originally Posted by andy

Many years I did not believe in God and had no religion. It was not until I met my wife I seen the light. You see my wife was a Born again Christian and to get on her good side I attended her Church when we first met. I started to read the Bible on my own and I was caught up in the word. When I read the Bible I did not even hear or think Jesus was ever God. It was not until I started attending Church on a regular basis the concept of a Trinity.

Jesus is not God. That is why Muslims reject the teachings of Paul of Tarsus. He was the one that taught that Jesus was God. Jesus did not teach it, nor did any prophet ever. The trinity is also a myth that was started by Paul. In Islam, Paul is referred to as an antichrist, Buloos ad-dajaal. He came to deceive and misguide.
You should study Islam as well as the bible. Stop by the Islam threads and ask questions if you have any .

[Steve]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Just a few things to think about:

Christ’s divinity is shown over and over again in the New Testament. For example, in John 5:18 we are told that Jesus’ opponents sought to kill him because he "called God his Father, making himself equal with God."

In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am"—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God—"I Am" (Ex. 3:14). His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59).