Trinity Diagnosis

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Interesting comments but nothing in your comment, or the commentary you copied and pasted, supports the theory that Jesus is both God and man. No doubt "Christ actively 'kenosed' Himself, no argument there. But that doesn't support the theory of Jesus being both God and man. Jesus has a God and He's not that God.

Php 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Php 2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

Per the scripture, He existed in the form of God, was equal to God (which isn't to be grasped), and was made in the likeness of men. For this reason, God highly exalted Him and gave Him a name. Someone exalted someone else. Someone game someone else a name. Per scripture, God exalted Jesus, God gave Jesus a name. This wasn't God interacting with Himself, exalting Himself and giving Himself a name above every name. God is God, Jesus is Jesus who isn't God.

No, the go-to scripture simply does not agree with the theory that Jesus is both God and man. Nothing in the passage suggests such a theory.

Willful ignorance is all your left with. You accept the "kenosis" of Christ yet deny there was anything to "empty" Himself of.

Willful ignorance is all there is.

Just like the claim that Jesus received authority AFTER He gave authority to the Disciples. So in your theory Jesus gave something He Himself did not have until later.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Alas, many cannot find the visible, viable and powerful Church of Jesus Christ in the 19th century. Or the 18th century. Or the 17th century. For many, they can only find the Church of the Living God after 1913.

argumentum e silentio.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is the logical fallacy of this post.

One would not expect to find volumes of evidence when Trinitarian's were married to the thrones of various nations for centuries (the Pope's and various European kingdoms). Anyone not towing the Trinitarian line were murdered. Then they would destroy any evidence of their existence.

And why not. They even made the Bible illegal...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Interesting comments but nothing in your comment, or the commentary you copied and pasted, supports the theory that Jesus is both God and man. .

I thought that was obvious to the reader and did not need comment. I addressed the Kenosis instead

Php 2:6 who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,

NET
11 sn The Greek term translated form indicates a correspondence with reality. Thus the meaning of this phrase is that Christ was truly God.

Vincents Word Studies
Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων)
Being. Not the simple είναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jam_2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character. Thus it is distinguished from σχῆμα fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. Μορφή form is identified with the essence of a person or thing: σχῆμα fashion is an accident which may change without affecting the form. For the manner in which this difference is developed in the kindred verbs, see on Mat_17:2.
As applied here to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself. We have no word which can convey this meaning, nor is it possible for us to formulate the reality. Form inevitably carries with it to us the idea of shape. It is conceivable that the essential personality of God may express itself in a mode apprehensible by the perception of pure spiritual intelligences; but the mode itself is neither apprehensible nor conceivable by human minds.
This mode of expression, this setting of the divine essence, is not identical with the essence itself, but is identified with it, as its natural and appropriate expression, answering to it in every particular. It is the perfect expression of a perfect essence. It is not something imposed from without, but something which proceeds from the very depth of the perfect being, and into which that being perfectly unfolds, as light from fire. To say, then, that Christ was in the form of God, is to say that He existed as essentially one with God. The expression of deity through human nature (Phi_2:7) thus has its background in the expression of deity as deity in the eternal ages of God's being. Whatever the mode of this expression, it marked the being of Christ in the eternity before creation. As the form of God was identified with the being of God, so Christ, being in the form of God, was identified with the being, nature, and personality of God.
This form, not being identical with the divine essence, but dependent upon it, and necessarily implying it, can be parted with or laid aside. Since Christ is one with God, and therefore pure being, absolute existence, He can exist without the form. This form of God Christ laid aside in His incarnation.

Php 2:7 but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature.


NET
13 tn Grk "by coming in the likeness of people."

sn The expression the likeness of men is similar to Paul's wording in Rom_8:3 ("in the likeness of sinful flesh"). The same word "likeness" is used in both passages. It implies that there is a form that does not necessarily correspond to reality. In Rom_8:3, the meaning is that Christ looked like sinful humanity. Here the meaning is similar: Jesus looked like other men (note anthrōpoi), but was in fact different from them in that he did not have a sin nature.

14 tn Grk "and by being found in form as a man." The versification of Phi_1:7 and Phi_1:8 (so also NRSV) is according to the versification in the NA27 and UBS4 editions of the Greek text. Some translations, however, break the verses in front of this phrase (NKJV, NASB, NIV, NLT). The same material has been translated in each case; the only difference is the versification of that material.

sn By sharing in human nature. This last line of Phi_1:7 (line d) stands in tension with the previous line, line c ("by looking like other men"). Both lines have a word indicating form or likeness. Line c, as noted above, implies that Christ only appeared to be like other people. Line d, however, uses a different term that implies a correspondence between form and reality. Further, line c uses the plural "men" while line d uses the singular "man." The theological point being made is that Christ looked just like other men, but he was not like other men (in that he was not sinful), though he was fully human.

Vincents Word Studies
Was made in the likeness of men (ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος)
Lit., becoming in, etc. Notice the choice of the verb, not was, but became: entered into a new state. Likeness. The word does not imply the reality of our Lord's humanity, μορφή form implied the reality of His deity. That fact is stated in the form of a servant. Neither is εἰκών image employed, which, for our purposes, implies substantially the same as μορφή. See on Col_1:15. As form of a servant exhibits the inmost reality of Christ's condition as a servant - that He became really and essentially the servant of men (Luk_22:27) - so likeness of men expresses the fact that His mode of manifestation resembled what men are. This leaves room for the assumption of another side of His nature - the divine - in the likeness of which He did not appear. As He appealed to men, He was like themselves, with a real likeness; but this likeness to men did not express His whole self. The totality of His being could not appear to men, for that involved the form of God. Hence the apostle views Him solely as He could appear to men. All that was possible was a real and complete likeness to humanity. What He was essentially and eternally could not enter into His human mode of existence. Humanly He was like men, but regarded with reference to His whole self, He was not identical with man, because there was an element of His personality which did not dwell in them - equality with God. Hence the statement of His human manifestation is necessarily limited by this fact, and is confined to likeness and does not extend to identity. “To affirm likeness is at once to assert similarity and to deny sameness” (Dickson). See on Rom_8:3.

There now I also covered Jesus being both God and man

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Per the scripture, He existed in the form of God, was equal to God (which isn't to be grasped), and was made in the likeness of men. For this reason, God highly exalted Him and gave Him a name. Someone exalted someone else. Someone game someone else a name. Per scripture, God exalted Jesus, God gave Jesus a name. This wasn't God interacting with Himself, exalting Himself and giving Himself a name above every name. God is God, Jesus is Jesus who isn't God.

No, the go-to scripture simply does not agree with the theory that Jesus is both God and man. Nothing in the passage suggests such a theory.

It's funny, the answer was right before your eyes and you ignored it.

Yes he existed in the form of God. And yes he did not consider being equal with God something to grasp or hold onto BUT what? Instead He "emptied Himself and took the form of a servant and became human"

His existence in form was God. His existence as a servant was human and it was THEN that God exalted Him.

In Oneness God became one of us while continuing to exist as God was before becoming like one of us...Father and Son

Father is as God was before becoming like one of us
Son is as God is after becoming like one of us.

Slice it however you want, even you read that He existed (before taking the form of a human) as God

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by houston

I'm not from Gilroy.

Gilroy is the center, where you are from is one of the hairy outer parts of the pit

[houston]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Gilroy is the center, where you are from is one of the hairy outer parts of the pit

Oh well. I'm not in that area. I'll never go back. Weddings. Funerals. Nothing.

[rdp]

[QUOTE=seekerman;1209658]No, if Jesus already at authority He wouldn't need to be given it. At some point in time someone gave Jesus authority. The scripture again...

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

Likewise, Jesus gave authority to the Apostles, who didn't have authority before it was given to them. There is a giver and there is a receiver with both Jesus and the Apostles.



Nope, God in Him did not mean that He was God, it means that God was in Him. He was the express image of God. He manifested God. But He wasn't God, He was the Son of God, the Christ, the Lamb of God.

Phil. 2 tells us that Christ is God and man.

Philippians 2 has 30 verses. Would you point out where the chapter tells us that Christ is God and man?



There is no scripture supporting your statement that 'as God he set aside all His divine prerogatives and lived the life of a man'. If you have it, please post it. If this is the passage you're attempting to use to support your view, it doesn't work.

Php 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Php 2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,



'My Christ' is the Son of God, sent by His Father and God (who incidentally is the same Father and God of Mary), is the Lamb of God, the Son of David, the perfect high priest and now sits with His Father and God in His Father and God's throne.

He's not God.

Let's review the Carmen Christie together shall we?

τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὁ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος• καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωποςἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ.

Your first error above is that you started the hymn too late, in v. 6, when the relative pronoun translated "Who" (Nominative Masc. Sing.) modifies the noun "Christ Jesus" in v. 5. So, you can't begin in mid-stream & reach a solid conclusion.

"Christ Jesus" was the name given to the historical Messiah, God enfleshed for the redemption of mankind. This explains why we do not find this Name in the OT (strange for a "Co-Eternal" person so-named?). This is who is in view in v. 6 as demonstrated by the lead pronoun "Who."

Next, the present active participle translated "being" (huparchon) is mentioned no less than 60 times in the NT & not one-single time does it denote "Pre-Existence" (G-5225). Lexicographers inform us that this word denotes "to begin below; to come into existence" (e.g., Thayer p. 638, etc.). Did the "Eternal-Son" "come into existence?" Hmmm.

Since participles do not inherently posses "time," they must necessarily derive their time-tense from the main verb...In this case "regard" (NASB) or "thought" (KJV). You can think of participles (usually suffixed in "-ing") as folks who are always asking others what time it is. This is how the GK. participle works, it has to ask the main verb what time it is & coincide itself with that time.

Dr. Daniel Wallace's GGBB, p. 625: "The present participle is normally contemporaneous in time to the action of the main verb."

So, what is the "time of the action of the main verb," translated "did not consider" (NIV)? This verb is an Aorist aspect-Indicative Mood, which "indicates simple past time" (Wallace, GGBB, pp. 542 & 555).

Hence, the participle "being" "is normally contemporaneous in time to the action of the main verb"....being "simple past time" in this case. This is not the "eternal world," but rather "simple past-time" to the date of Paul's writing (i.e., the "time" of the Messiah's earthly humiliation).

Next, the noun translated "form" (μορφῇ) virtually always defines as "outward appearance; bodily form" (e.g., BAGD p. 528; Thayer p. 418).

Moulton & Milligan's Greek Testament; p. 417: "Morfay/Form always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it." Again, the grammar here reflects the earthly humiliation of Christ...Not the "Pre-Existent" world.

The verb translated "mind" (φρονεῖτε; G-5426) in v. 5 always refers to a human mind in the Pauline corpus. If you take the time to look up each instance, you will find that in no place does this verb refer to divinity, but always the a genuine human "attitude"....Which was exactly the subject Paul was addressing in the Philippian believers.

The same "mind" or "attitude" that was to be found in the human believers was the same "mind" or "attitude" that was found in their template...The Man, Christ Jesus. Clearly Paul was not exhorting the Philippians to imitate what God did in heaven!?

Dr. R. P. Martin's (Cambridge Proffes.) exhaustive "Carmen Christie" concluded on this wise: "There is nothing grammatically that prevents one from taking the position that the hymn describes Christ’s abasement on Earth. Nor is there anything of necessity in the construction of the strophes that demands a pre-incarnate Son."

The text is exhorting the church to look to Christ who, though He was God enfleshed, yet He forfeited His divine privileges...opting instead to assume the posterior of a servant. In sum, Paul is telling the church not to cling to their "rights," but rather to act in a way as to prefer the well-being of others.

The text knows nothing of a "2nd of 3 divine members in the Trinity" & I have no idea why Trinitarians appeal to this verse. If you respond to this, pls. offer exegetical-textual interaction as opposed to the Red-Herrings we've grown accustomed to.

Shalom!