John 1:1 - Jesus is the Father or he's not the one true God?

[stunnedbygrace]

Setting aside all the arguments made for Philippians, one thing it certainly does NOT say is, "who, being God, thought it not robbery to be God."

Reading into the text that which is clearly not their was a specialty of the Gnostics. The claim of many is that Non-trinitarians do not have the special anointing to see what's hidden in the scriptures, hence they don't see the trinity. Sure, they admit none of the terminology to support the trinity (essence, persons, trinity, et. al.) are not found in the scriptures, but the ideas are there to see for all who are initiated into the mysteries.

Once again, I’ll say to you, you do not have to believe or accept the doctrine of the trinity to believe Jesus was God and existed with God before the creation of the world and that everything we see was created by Him. A great many men I meet who have had it revealed to them that Jesus was God cannot grasp the doctrine because they think God and Gods Spirit are the same. They do not see God as Spirit and Gods Holy Spirit as another Spirit

 

[APAK]

The flesh always gives itself away.
You sound nothing like our Lord.

Yes, being vigilant and constantly exposing and weeding out the lies being planted in the garden of God's word can be offensive to many. It is however a necessary act at times if one loves this holy garden, to preserve it with only the truth.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Yes, being vigilant and constantly exposing and weeding out the lies being planted in the garden of God's word can be offensive to many. It is however a necessary act at times if one loves this holy garden, to preserve it with only the truth.

oh barf! I’m calling bull. It was a bad, fleshy post and you know it. Stop defending your flesh.

 

[APAK]

Setting aside all the arguments made for Philippians, one thing it certainly does NOT say is, "who, being God, thought it not robbery to be God."

Reading into the text that which is clearly not their was a specialty of the Gnostics. The claim of many is that Non-trinitarians do not have the special anointing to see what's hidden in the scriptures, hence they don't see the trinity. Sure, they admit none of the terminology to support the trinity (essence, persons, trinity, et. al.) are not found in the scriptures, but the ideas are there to see for all who are initiated into the mysteries.

Just a little rant.....
It's still amazing to me that Philippians 2:1-13 is about a believer having the servant mind of Christ, the son of man of human nature. And yet this context and theme is completely missed or dismissed by many and immediately replaced with a new fabricated theme, that Jesus is now God with a dual nature who dropped off his godlike nature, or emptied himself along the way somewhere, somehow, whilst keeping his human nature and becoming a humble human servant. Amazing indeed. And then how possibility can we NOW ever know how to possess the servant mind of God Almighty and Jesus at the same time?! This is never completely explained at all.

Jesus had/has the spirit of God his Father within him. Thus a morphe or form of God his Father he always carried and projected to the world. And he yielded his human will and became a lowly servant throughout his life. He learned this, and out of love for his Father. He allowed his Father's will to become dominant in his life. This is how we possess the mind of Yahshua. We love and have faith in the Father and become as Jesus, a lowly servant for the Father..........obedient to the point of death..

 

[stunnedbygrace]

that Jesus is now God with a dual nature who dropped off his godlike nature, or emptied himself along the way somewhere

And yet the very passage and translation you gave says “emptied Himself.”
Amazing…

 

[L.A.M.B.]

Gen.1:26 /27
Who is the " us" God speaks to in this verse about making man in " our" image ?
So God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE, in the image of God.............

1 Jn.5:7 ( context 5-8 )
For there ARE THREE that bear record in heaven, THE FATHER,THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: and these three are one.

Who then is Jesus ?
Jn.3:16 -21
Jesus was foretold in all the prophesies of the OT, of as the coming REDEEMER sent by God to save his creation. Jesus is the only begotten Son, of God. Does not begotten mean of his seed; God's seed ?
He is NOT a created being but is God from God. Therefore HE IS GOD !
Man can only birth man after his kind.

In verse 13, Jesus stated And NO MAN hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the SON OF MAN, which is in heaven.

Mt.3:13-17
Here we see Matthew's record of Jesus's baptism by John, the forerunner of the Christ.
What then has been the record for 2,000 plus years is v.16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the SPIRIT of God descending like a dove , and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying,THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, in whom I am well pleased.
THREE DISTINCT PARTS OF THE " I AM" !

These three are of heaven ;we are of the earth, whereas God, the Father, God, the Son, and God the Holy Ghost being Spirit created in man 3 counterparts a body, a soul [ which belongs to God ] and a spirit of man.

If one CANNOT recognize God in ALL his fullness ,then you are NOT a child of God.
Spiritual must prove spiritual !

 

[L.A.M.B.]

I cannot make corn bread from biscuit mix !

 

[APAK]

And yet the very passage and translation you gave says “emptied Himself.”
Amazing…

Well I do not know what you might be amazed about here although this is what I continue to be amazed about SG.

We are speaking about Phil 2:7 in particular.

Now there are various translations and expressions used for verse 7 depending on the translation.

“But made himself of no reputation” (KJV), “but made himself nothing” (NIV), “but emptied himself” (NASB, RSV, NRSV, New American Bible).

The Greek transliterated word that is in question is 'kenos,' which literally means, “to empty.”

Knowing the context and theme of Paul's writing in Phil 2, one would normally consider that Jesus would be humbling himself as emptying himself over time to his Father's will. He learned to do this since a child. Not to strangely and seriously consider with a novel thought that Jesus had a dual nature and this 'kenos' word fitted in well for a Trinitarian cause and bias, in that he was losing/emptying his divine nature along the way and became a human servant. This is amazing indeed and forced into this scripture that Paul never considered or never suggested. He would be also amazed.

Even Paul uses more than the term 'kenos' (spendomai - pouring our as a blood sacrifice) later in verse 17 to say, he would also ‘pour himself out’ as a drink to give to others for their sacrifice to service and faith. This is what Paul mean, the author of Philippians, concerning emptying oneself as to become a servant and sacrifice to others to the point of shedding blood and death, as he became, as Christ did before him.

The expression of Jesus ‘poured himself out’ or ‘emptied himself’ means he left and yielded his own desires and will and gave all of himself, his mind, heart, and might to his Father, over time. To repeat myself for emphasis, even later in Paul’s writings, Verse 17, he said he would also ‘pour himself out’ as a drink to give to others for their sacrifice to service and faith. He was equating himself with what Christ did for his Father, as we should as believers. And Paul drew his thought of 'kenos' and spendomai from Isaiah 49:6; 53:12 and Barnabas in Acts 13:47 at least, for folks to capture his true meaning. It is absurd to think that Paul was thinking that Christ had a dual nature and he had to lose/empty his divine one to become a truly human humble servant. This is truly amazing in what folks will dream up SG.

A better translation with meaning of Verse 7-8: 'rather he constantly emptied himself by assuming the status of a human man servant and shown as an ordinary man humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, to his own death on the cross.'

 

[Rich R]

And, of course neither you, nor I, nor do the "Professional Theologians", have ANY REAL CONCEPT of the totality of God, or how He works. But that doesn't stop anybody from trying to apply their pathetically limited "Human wisdom" to reach "Precious conclusions", does it????

Who told you that? I'd do like the Bereans did in Acts 17 and search the scriptures to see if what they told you is true or not. For what it's worth, I can tell you that what they told you is absolutely false. According to the scriptures, you can learn even the deep things of God.

Eph 3:14-21,

14 For this reason I bow my knees to the Father,

15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named,

16 that according to the riches of his glory he would grant you to be strengthened with power in the inner self by means of his spirit

17 so that Christ would live in your hearts through trust; [and that you,] having been rooted and grounded in love,

18 are fully able to comprehend with all the holy ones what is the breadth and length and height and depth,

19 and thus to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you are filled with all the fullness of God.

20 Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work in us,

21 to him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.
​

1 Cor 2:9-16,

9 But as it is written, Things that no eye has seen, and no ear has heard, and [which] have not come up into the heart of man, God prepared those things for those who love him.

10 But God has revealed [them] to us through the spirit, for the spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.

11 For who among people knows the [things] of a person, except the spirit of the person that is in him? Even so the [things] of God no one knows, except the Spirit of God.

12 Now we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit that is from God, so that we can know the things that were freely given to us by God.

13 And we speak about these things, not in words that man's wisdom teaches, but [words] that the spirit teaches, combining spiritual things with spiritual [words].​

14 But the worldly-minded person does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15 Now the spiritual person judges all things, but he himself is judged by no one.

16 For who has come to know the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.​

 

[Rich R]

Once again, I’ll say to you, you do not have to believe or accept the doctrine of the trinity to believe Jesus was God and existed with God before the creation of the world and that everything we see was created by Him. A great many men I meet who have had it revealed to them that Jesus was God cannot grasp the doctrine because they think God and Gods Spirit are the same. They do not see God as Spirit and Gods Holy Spirit as another Spirit

Here's what I said,

"Setting aside all the arguments made for Philippians, one thing it certainly does NOT say is, "who, being God, thought it not robbery to be God."

Reading into the text that which is clearly not their was a specialty of the Gnostics. The claim of many is that Non-trinitarians do not have the special anointing to see what's hidden in the scriptures, hence they don't see the trinity. Sure, they admit none of the terminology to support the trinity (essence, persons, trinity, et. al.) are not found in the scriptures, but the ideas are there to see for all who are initiated into the mysteries."
​

Can you be more specific? What is wrong about what I said? Does Philippians say, "who, being God, thought it not robbery to be God." or not. Do Trinitarians resort to mysteries or not? Do we find the words "trinity," "3 persons in one essence" in the scriptures or not?

We are talking about the scriptures, so wouldn't it be appropriate for you to use them to back your ideas?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Here's what I said,

"Setting aside all the arguments made for Philippians, one thing it certainly does NOT say is, "who, being God, thought it not robbery to be God."

Reading into the text that which is clearly not their was a specialty of the Gnostics. The claim of many is that Non-trinitarians do not have the special anointing to see what's hidden in the scriptures, hence they don't see the trinity. Sure, they admit none of the terminology to support the trinity (essence, persons, trinity, et. al.) are not found in the scriptures, but the ideas are there to see for all who are initiated into the mysteries."
​

Can you be more specific? What is wrong about what I said? Does Philippians say, "who, being God, thought it not robbery to be God." or not. Do Trinitarians resort to mysteries or not? Do we find the words "trinity," "3 persons in one essence" in the scriptures or not?

We are talking about the scriptures, so wouldn't it be appropriate for you to use them to back your ideas?

Ive done that many times in these forums. I’ve even posted some of the scriptures in this thread. The reply is that my Bible is so corrupted with mistranslations that it can’t be trusted and I must be guided into all truth through language studies because the Holy Spirit can’t guide me to all truth in an English translation.

But you still don’t understand that to believe Jesus wasGod in human form does not automatically equal trinitarian.

 

[Rich R]

Ive done that many times in these forums. I’ve even posted some of the scriptures in this thread. The reply is that my Bible is so corrupted with mistranslations that it can’t be trusted and I must be guided into all truth through language studies because the Holy Spirit can’t guide me to all truth in an English translation.

But you still don’t understand that to believe Jesus was God in human form does not automatically equal trinitarian.

I always understood that their are those who deny the Trinity but still claim Jesus to be God, but that's beside the point. I'm just pointing out that Philippians does not say, "Who being God, thought it not robbery to be God." I also said that those who do believe the trinity must resort to mysteries, since it can't be explained with logic.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I always understood that their are those who deny the Trinity but still claim Jesus to be God, but that's beside the point. I'm just pointing out that Philippians does not say, "Who being God, thought it not robbery to be God." I also said that those who do believe the trinity must resort to mysteries, since it can't be explained with logic.

Well then, let’s be consistent. It cannot be explained by logic how a donkey talked or how a woman who never had sex with any man became pregnant.

 

[PinSeeker]

I'm just pointing out that Philippians does not say, "Who being God, thought it not robbery to be God."

This is worth a look. It's worth an infinite number of looks, really, but let's look at it:

"...though He was in the form of God... emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."
[Philippians 2:6-8]

First, let's look at these two phrases: a) "He was in the form of God" and b) "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form". This "in the form of God" and "found in human form" is clearly a simultaneous state. And we must be consistent with both; we cannot say that He was only like one (but not really that one), but was the other (as non-trinitarians do). So, for consistency's sake, we have to say that He was both or that He was neither. At the very least, it is ridiculous to think that Jesus was neither God nor man, and there is no dispute on that. If He was unequivocally one, ~ and he was unequivocally man; there is no dispute on that ~ then He must have also been unequivocally the other, God. And He was both; this is the only logical, non-self-contradictory way to see this.

Second, that He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself" insinuates unequivocally at least two things, first that even in His human form/state, He was ~ and still is, as Hebrews 13:8 is very clear in saying Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever ~ equal with God, but in His humbling of Himself did not regard Himself having this equality for a time, and thus "emptied Himself" in this way. This absolute humility that Christ displayed is the mind that is ours in Christ Jesus that we are to have among ourselves (verse 5). This is Paul's whole point here and His exhortation to us as Christians.

Finally, regarding the phrase "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped", 'grasped' is used here in the sense of 'employed,' or 'used,' or 'wielded,' rather than merely 'obtained,' as if He did not already possess this equality. Jesus calls on the Father in John 17:5 to "glorify (Him) in (the Father's) own presence with the glory that (He; Jesus) had with (Him; the Father) before the world existed." Though having this equality with the Father, He set it aside of His own accord for a time, for our sake, even "to the point of death, even death on a cross."

What Paul says here cannot be understood in any other way without being fatally inconsistent with the text, not only with Philippians, but with all Paul's letters, and with all Scripture itself, as Paul made a plethora of references to Scriptures in what we now know as the Old Testament (Moses and the Psalms and all the prophets), which, as we see in several places in the New Testament, even in quotes from Jesus Himself, is all about Jesus.

Glory be to God.

Grace and peace to all.

 

[Kermos]

Kermos, let me start by saying that I agree with your interpretation of "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" as a reference to one and the same person in Titus 2:13. So I hope you do not take it as a personal affront if I question one of your reasons -- the one I quote above.

Respectfully, "glory" would NOT need to be plural ("glories") in order to be attributed to two or more distinct persons, so the use of the singular δόξης is not a proof that "our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" must be referring to one and the same person. An example of the singular δόξα (nominative rather than genitive) attributed to more than one person may be found in Philippians 3:19. So what you say cannot linguistically happen, actually does happen.

I have other reasons to think that the phrase is referencing one and the same person. But I think it is important for you and I, in defending our interpretations of Scripture, not to overreach, lest our credibility be diminished.

[Not to get too deep into the weeds here, but I think your argument regarding the singular ἐλπίδα, "hope," as necessarily ascribed to a single person fails for a different reason: it is in the accusative case! Thus, it serves as an object of a different participle, so it is not using "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" as its referent at all.]

Please note that I wrote "hope" and "glory", not "hope" or "glory" (in the second paragraph that you quoted), so I intentionally bound "hope" and "glory" together as a unit.

My hope is in the great God Jesus Christ, even hoping in the King's glorious return - based upon the Christ's blessed promise. Christ is the source and target of hope. All glory to Christ, Hallelujah! My hope is in none other, and this is the Christian belief, and Paul declares such in Titus 2:13, so the grammar of the Greek is as I indicated.

Are you conveying that Christ in His glory is not the Christian's hope?

 

[tigger 2]

L3ast…. wrote, #366:

1 Jn.5:7 ( context 5-8 )
For there ARE THREE that bear record in heaven, THE FATHER,THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: and these three are one.

Who then is Jesus ?
Jn.3:16 -21
Jesus was foretold in all the prophesies of the OT, of as the coming REDEEMER sent by God to save his creation. Jesus is the only begotten Son, of God. Does not begotten mean of his seed; God's seed ?
He is NOT a created being but is God from God. Therefore HE IS GOD !
Man can only birth man after his kind.

….………………

“begotten”

The Hebrew word yalad means “to bear, bring forth, beget” but it can be used (as the equivalent English word also can) for “cause to be.” For example, when God says he “begot”/”fathered” (yalad) the nation of Israel (Deut. 32:6, 18), he clearly means that he caused it to be or created it as a nation. There is no implication that it was somehow begotten out of the very substance of his body. In like manner God calls the nation of Israel his son, his firstborn because it was the very first nation created by him and for him (cf. Ex. 4:22). Again, anything Jehovah creates may be said to be “begotten” by him and is his “offspring.”

“Is this the way you treat Jehovah? O foolish people, is not God your Father? Has he not created you?” - Deut. 32:6, Living Bible.

“You forsook the creator who begot [yalad] you and cared nothing for God who brought you to birth.” - Deut. 32:18, NEB.

In Ps. 90:2 we also see yalad used in the sense of created: “Before the mountains were born [yalad] or you brought forth the earth” - NIV, AT, JB, NJB, NAB (1991), NASB; “begotten” - NAB (1970); “were given birth” - MLB. Or, “Before the mountains were created, before the earth was formed.” - Living Bible, cf. TEV. So, the Hebrew word most often translated “begotten, brought forth” may also be understood (as in English) to mean created or produced. And whether or not God means that the earth (“mountains”) was literally “begotten” from his very own spirit body or created out of nothing really matters very little. The point is that at one time it did not exist and then was brought into existence by the Creator, God!
….……………………………..

1 John 5:7 (KJV)

Respected trinitarian scholar, minister (Trinity Church), Professor (University of Glasgow and Marburg University), author (The Daily Study Bible Series, etc.), and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay, states the following about this passage:

Note on 1 John 5:7

“In the Authorized Version [KJV] there is a verse which we have altogether omitted [in Barclay’s NT translation]. It reads, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.”

“The Revised Version omits this verse, and does not even mention it in the margin, and none of the newer translations includes it. It is quite certain that it does not belong to the original text.

“The facts are as follows. First, it does not occur in any Greek manuscript earlier than the 14th century. The great manuscripts belong to the 3rd and 4th centuries [most scholars date them to the 4th and 5th centuries], and it occurs in none of them. None of the great early fathers of the Church knew it. Jerome’s original version of the [Latin]Vulgate does not include it.” - pp. 110-111, The Letters of John and Jude, The Daily Study Bible Series, Revised Edition, The Westminster Press, 1976.

And respected (and highly trinitarian) New Testament Bible scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson writes:

“The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition.” - p. 240, Vol. VI, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.

The highly respected (and trinitarian) United Bible Societies has published a commentary on the New Testament text. It discusses 1 John 5:5-7 as follows:

“After μαρτυροῦντες [“bearing witness”] the Textus Receptus [Received Text] adds the following: ἓν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα. καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἐν εἰσι. (8) καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῇ γῆ. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.

“(A) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except four, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. These four manuscripts are ms. 61 [this is ms. 34 in the earlier numbering system used by Robertson above], a sixteenth century manuscript formerly at Oxford, now at Dublin; ms. 88, a twelfth century manuscript at Naples, which has the passage written in the margin by a modern hand; ms. 629 [ms. 162, Robertson], a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican; and ms. 635, an eleventh century manuscript which has the passage written in the margin by a seventeenth century hand.

“(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian [certainly at the Nicene Council of 325]). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

“(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A. D. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A. D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vercellensis [ninth century]).

“The earliest instance of the passage is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. ....

“(B) INTERNAL PROBABILITIES. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.

“(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.” - pp. 716-718, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.

Notice the comments concerning this disputed passage found in the respected trinitarian reference work, The Expositor's Greek Testament:

It says in a note for 1 John 5:7 (as found in the Received Text and the KJV):

"A Latin interpolation, certainly spurious. (I) Found in no Gk. MS. [Greek Manuscript] except two late minuscules - 162 (Vatican), 15th c., the Lat. Vg. [Latin Vulgate] Version with a Gk. text adapted thereto; 34 (Trin. Coll., Dublin), 16th c. (2) Quoted by none of the Gk Fathers. Had they known it, they would have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian [325 A.D.]). (3) Found in none of the early versions - in Vg. but not as it [originally] left the hands of St. Jerome." - p. 195, Vol. 5, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

The following modern trinitarian Bibles do not include the spurious words found in the KJV at 1 Jn 5:7: Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; American Standard Version; New International Version; New American Standard Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; New American Bible (1970 and 1991 editions); Jerusalem Bible; New Jerusalem Bible; Modern Language Bible; Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version; An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed); and translations by Moffatt; C. B. Williams; William Beck; Phillips; Rotherham; Lamsa; Byington; Barclay; etc.

1 John 5:7 as found in KJV is spurious and no part of the inspired original writer’s writings!

 

[Rich R]

Well then, let’s be consistent. It cannot be explained by logic how a donkey talked or how a woman who never had sex with any man became pregnant.

Well, there are not hundreds of verses that preclude the donkey from talking, nor a virgin birth. The trinity is another story.

 

[Rich R]

This is worth a look. It's worth an infinite number of looks, really, but let's look at it:

"...though He was in the form of God... emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."
[Philippians 2:6-8]

First, let's look at these two phrases: a) "He was in the form of God" and b) "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form". This "in the form of God" and "found in human form" is clearly a simultaneous state. And we must be consistent with both; we cannot say that He was only like one (but not really that one), but was the other (as non-trinitarians do). So, for consistency's sake, we have to say that He was both or that He was neither. At the very least, it is ridiculous to think that Jesus was neither God nor man, and there is no dispute on that. If He was unequivocally one, ~ and he was unequivocally man; there is no dispute on that ~ then He must have also been unequivocally the other, God. And He was both; this is the only logical, non-self-contradictory way to see this.

Second, that He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself" insinuates unequivocally at least two things, first that even in His human form/state, He was ~ and still is, as Hebrews 13:8 is very clear in saying Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever ~ equal with God, but in His humbling of Himself did not regard Himself having this equality for a time, and thus "emptied Himself" in this way. This absolute humility that Christ displayed is the mind that is ours in Christ Jesus that we are to have among ourselves (verse 5). This is Paul's whole point here and His exhortation to us as Christians.

Finally, regarding the phrase "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped", 'grasped' is used here in the sense of 'employed,' or 'used,' or 'wielded,' rather than merely 'obtained,' as if He did not already possess this equality. Jesus calls on the Father in John 17:5 to "glorify (Him) in (the Father's) own presence with the glory that (He; Jesus) had with (Him; the Father) before the world existed." Though having this equality with the Father, He set it aside of His own accord for a time, for our sake, even "to the point of death, even death on a cross."

What Paul says here cannot be understood in any other way without being fatally inconsistent with the text, not only with Philippians, but with all Paul's letters, and with all Scripture itself, as Paul made a plethora of references to Scriptures in what we now know as the Old Testament (Moses and the Psalms and all the prophets), which, as we see in several places in the New Testament, even in quotes from Jesus Himself, is all about Jesus.

Glory be to God.

Grace and peace to all.

Whatever you think Jesus thought about his relationship with God, we are to think thing the same (verse 5). If Jesus thought he was God, then so should we?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

You’re going about it the wrong way. I was just in another thread where a mans reaction to a verse not fitting his eschatological framework was exactly the same as your reaction - to announce that “the whole world” was a mistranslation in every single translation.

It’s going the wrong way to insist if a verse doesn’t fit your framework then it has to be mistranslated. That’s the opposite of the renewing of your mind.

Don’t worry, I know you won’t agree.

 

[APAK]

He was ~ and still is, as Hebrews 13:8 is very clear in saying Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever ~ equal with God, but in His humbling of Himself did not regard Himself having this equality for a time, and thus "emptied Himself" in this way.

PS, I just want to provide you with more information concerning Hebrews 13:8. You may have its understanding all wrong. Take it for what you think it's worth...

I created a little commentary for you on the subject:

Hebrews 13: Verses 7-9
(Heb 13:7) Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.
(Heb 13:8) Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
(Heb 13:9) Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them. (ESV)

These verses are focused on the reliability of the gospel and words and doctrine of Christ that they never change. Verse 8 is not about a pre-existence, existence or the future existence of Jesus/Yahshua. It is about his teaching that never changes over time. We are to remember his words and not to be derailed by false witnesses and teachers.

He and his profile, his relationship with his Father and thus his teachings never changes, then, today and tomorrow. Verse 7 warned us to imitate the leaders, verse 9 says don't go following other way out and strange doctrines that is not Jesus or not about the real Jesus and his teachings.

Although some people try to use this verse as if it says Jesus Christ has existed from eternity past, the very wording shows clearly that is not the case.

A study of the word 'Yesterday' in Scripture is in order. It shows that it refers to something that happened only a short time before. It would create new grammatic limit beyond its intended use, beyond acceptable limits to try to make this verse say that Christ has always existed. It would be far-fetched. illogical and unreasonable.


The word transliterated from the Greek is 'echthes' (or 'chthes'), and it appears only three times in the New Testament: John 4:52, Acts 7:28, and Hebrews 13:8. In the first two occurrences, the word is clearly used to mean, the day before today:

John 4:52 (NASB) So he inquired of them the hour when he began to get better. Then they said to him, “Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.”

Acts 7:28-29 (NASB) ‘You do not mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday, do you?’ 29 “At this remark, Moses fled and became an alien in the land of Midian, where he became the father of two sons.

Strong’s Concordance defines 'echthes' as: yesterday; by extension in time past or hitherto (until now).

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines it as: of time just past.

The Complete Word Dictionary of the New Testament says 'echthes' is an adverb of time; yesterday; also refers to past or former time.

The word 'echthes' is used twice in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT. In both places, it is used to signify a non-specific length of time in the past that could still be recalled by those in the present (generation):

Genesis 31:2 (NASB) Jacob saw the attitude of Laban, and behold, it was not friendly toward him as formerly.

2 Samuel 3:17 (NASB) Now Abner had consultation with the elders of Israel, saying, “In times past you were seeking for David to be king over you.” (emphasis added)

Based on its usage in the New Testament and the Septuagint, yesterday ('echthes') is never used to denote time before time or time long ago. Again, to then say that 'Yesterday' in Hebrews 13:8 refers to Jesus’ supposed eternality would be very inconsistent with its definition and scriptural usage.

John Calvin, although a Trinitarian, understood that the text under review was not a proof for Jesus’ theoretical pre-existence. Rather, the reformer understood it to refer to the knowledge of Christ: He said....

'It hence appears that the Apostle is not speaking of the eternal existence of Christ, but of that knowledge of him which was possessed by the godly in all ages, and was the perpetual foundation of the Church. '

Thomas Constable, in his expository notes of the Bible, offered his understanding of the text of Hebrews 13:8:

Jesus Christ is the content of the message that the leaders had preached to these hearers (see Hebrews 13:7). That message and its hero is what this writer had urged his readers not to abandon. The leaders had preached the Word of God to these readers, and that preaching culminated in Jesus Christ.

It is about the truth of Jesus's doctrines that never changes over time and spoke of them. Don't go following after strange doctrines and gods like a pre-existent or incarnated Yashua. It never happened.
------------
The first word in verse 7. ‘remember’ gives us the connection with the word ‘yesterday’ used in verse 8. The word ‘remember’ is linked to the word yesterday! Remember the past when the gospel was preached to you…

This sets the time of what ‘yesterday’ means. Yesterday is the time when Jesus came to deliver the gospel of God to men. This gospel concerning Jesus as our Lord and Savior has not changed since that time, today and into the next age(s), because Jesus has not changed over time.

Great Day, ;)