A Godhead Question

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

God furnished the sperma and Mary furnished the egg like every other conception. The Holy Ghost deposited the seed and Mary concieved. God was His Father, the Eternal Spirit.

Finally someone answered my question with the only logical answer possible.
Thanks Bro. Steve. The male chromosome came from the same source as Adam's came, God.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Anyways, Prax, I think the humbling Paul speaks of in verse 7 and verse 8 are both referring to the man, Jesus Christ, incarnate not preexistent. I'm not sure how you would explain 'took on the form of a servant'. Do you think Jesus did this before He became man? and why? Having said all that I do believe God willingly and lovingly condescended to becoming like us for a number of reasons the least not being to redeem us from our sins and give us eternal life. I just don't believe these verses are teaching that.

.

Verse 8 is speaking of Jesus being a human, since it says
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Verse 7 is referring to the incarnation. Thus it is not pre nor post. As I said before. It's event, state of mind and being, not chronological. He emptied Himself AND took the form of a servent...same event

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Finally someone answered my question with the only logical answer possible.
Thanks Bro. Steve. The male chromosome came from the same source as Adam's came, God.

I answered that several posts before Brother Steve did

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Verse 8 is speaking of Jesus being a human, since it says
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Verse 7 is referring to the incarnation. Thus it is not pre nor post. As I said before. It's event, state of mind and being, not chronological. He emptied Himself AND took the form of a servent...same event

Phi 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Phi 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phi 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:
Phi 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Are you saying in verse 7, God emptied himself and God took on the form of a servant then was made in the likeness of men or incarnated? What do you think form of a servant means? Is it an attitude? an outward appearance? And if form of a servant is an attitude, how do you interpret form of God?

In verse 6, why would someone in the form of God, if it is referring to nature, not consider it robbery to be equal with God? Someone who is God does not consider it robbery to be equal with God. The second half of the sentence makes no sense. It does make sense if Jesus as a man[image of God] doesn't consider it robbery to be equal with God.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Are you saying in verse 7, God emptied himself and God took on the form of a servant then was made in the likeness of men or incarnated? What do you think form of a servant means? Is it an attitude? an outward appearance? And if form of a servant is an attitude, how do you interpret form of God?

vs 7 speaks of the incarnation. What happened. He emptied Himself.

Form is from Morphe, same word used in verse 6

In verse 6, why would someone in the form of God, if it is referring to nature, not consider it robbery to be equal with God?

Again, you are looking as if this is a chronological order of things and not rather a simple statement of fact. He (Jesus) has always been God. He (Jesus) did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. Stop looking at this as a chronological order of events and look at it as a statement of fact. He has always been God (this one who was also a man). He, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

vs 7 speaks of the incarnation. What happened. He emptied Himself.

Form is from Morphe, same word used in verse 6


Again, you are looking as if this is a chronological order of things and not rather a simple statement of fact. He (Jesus) has always been God. He (Jesus) did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. Stop looking at this as a chronological order of events and look at it as a statement of fact. He has always been God (this one who was also a man). He, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.

Phi 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Phi 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phi 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:
Phi 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

I'm not looking at these verses chronologically.

vs 5: Christ Jesus is a man or postincarnate. Paul wants the saints to be like Christ. He is our example as a man, not as God. We in no way will succeed in overcoming sin and the flesh if we have to be like God, but we can become like Christ because He can help us in our temptations since He was tempted like us, lived in flesh like us, learned obedience like us, and was in all things made like unto us. Jesus Christ, the man, is who we are to be like.

vs 6: What do you think this verse means? What is meant by form? How was Jesus in the form of God? How can you say "He has always been God" from this verse? and who is meant by God? I've already explained what I think it is saying.

vs 7: How do you find the incarnation in this verse? Do you think God before becoming a man, emptied himself (of what) and became like a slave (attitude)?

[JN Anderson]

Besides ignoring the force of the syntax of these verses, as well as many other texts we could corroborate, I am not sure if this has been mentioned but Philippians 2:10 is actually a paraphrase of Isa 45:23, in the LXX, which was in use during the earthly ministry of Christ. Paul is actually quoting Isaiah 45:23, where we see Jehovah speaking, and then applies it to the Lord Jesus Christ

(Philippians 2:5-8 KJV)
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [It was not robbery because it was His to have, He was God.] But made himself of no reputation, [Humbled Himself, He did not empty deity because he was “in the form of God”] and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion [Grk. schema an external condition] as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Alternate VersionPhilippians 2:5-6 NASB)
[Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, (because he already had it, no need to grasp) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Isaiah prophesied: I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me [Who is the me here?]every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (Isaiah 45:23 KJV)

[sola gratia]

true - trinitarians and oneness both believe Jesus is God.... Neither deny his diety

[Truly Blessed]

When all is said and done, I guess the main point of Paul's teaching here is the real nugget, "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus;" (Phil.2:5) The thought just struck me that this may mean that we as the children of God need to become like Jesus and instead of reveling in who we are as "sons of God" humbly serve the sinner by identifying his need and meeting him on a very human level at the point of his need, as Jesus did.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

Most modern trinitarians will not use the language of 'divine intermediary being' however it is found in some trinitarian scholars. It is expressly used by James Dunn in his Christology in the Making which by the way provides a good solid exegesis of Adam Christology in the New Testament.

By this term I mean a divine (as opposed to human) being or sentient entity which functions as an intermediary between the Divine Reality and mankind. Essentially the function of the Logos in trinitarian thought.

Eliseus, Is this what you mean by divine intermediary? I found this post at CARM written by a new member of this forum.

There are three main areas of study which deal with this theological evolution:

1)- the transition of ancient Judaism (as found in the OT) to 2nd temple Judaism;

2)- Hellenized Judaism

3)- Hellenized Christianity

The OT describes God in both transcendent and immanent terms. God is before and apart from Creation and time (transcendent), and also immanent- active and present within Creation and time. The Jews recognized that although YHWH was the God of the Universe, He was specifically their God, because His presence (kabod) dwelt in their midst, and His holy temple dwelt in their capital- Jerusalem.

When Judah was carried away into exile, they began to think of God as less immanent, and more transcendent. Not only had YHWH forsaken His chosen people, but some were saying He had forsaken the earth entirely (Ezek 8:12; 9:9).

Their time in exile did grant them a greater reverence for God. Because of this, they increasingly wanted to avoid the anthropomorphisms of the OT when speaking of God. This is where the rise in intermediary theology occurred. Obviously they had to explain scriptural accounts of God's intervention in the affairs of man, but didn't want to ascribe this activity directly to a lofty God. So, instead of saying the LORD did thus and so, or spoke this and that, they would substitute "the Word of the LORD" did thus and so, etc. The Aramaic translations (Targums) introduced the term "Memra" (Aramaic for Word) as the buffer between a transcendent God and a physical universe. They took Ps 33:6 and Is 55:10-11 literally, and interpreted the Word (Memra) to be a divine intermediary for God. Basically, they treated it as a semi-autonomous, personified attribute of God.

At the same time, other Jewish writings (Apocryphal) saw an emphasis placed on the Wisdom of God, as in Proverbs 8. Wisdom (Sophia) was personified as a divine intermediary, along with the Word.

In the Diaspora, these ideas met with Greek philosophical ideas of a transcendent God, and their own intermediaries, such as the Logos (Greek for Word) and beings such as Plato's Demiurge. These ideas re-enforced their own, and in Hellenized Alexandria, individuals such as Philo (a Hellenized Jewish philosopher, contemporary with Jesus and Paul) synthesized these ideas in his interpretations of the OT. He believed the Logos of the Greeks was found in the Jewish scriptures, and was God's intermediary. He called the Logos the first begotten of God, the eldest son of God, and the Second God (Deuteros Theos).