CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE
"trinity ...1. [cap.] Theol. The union of three persons or hypostases (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three persons or hypostases as to individuality. 2. Any symbol of the Trinity in art. 3. Any union of three in one; a triad; as the Hindu trinity, or Trimurti." - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co., 1961. (emphasis added by me.)
………………………………..
Athanasian Creed:
"And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other, none is greater or less than others; but the whole three persons are co- eternal together; and co-equal. So that in all things as is aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
"HE THEREFORE THAT WILL BE SAVED MUST THUS THINK OF THE TRINITY."
....................................................
"Trinity, the Most Holy
"The most sublime mystery of the Christian faith is this: 'God is absolutely one in nature and essence, and relatively three in Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who are really distinct from each other." - p. 584, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publishers, 1976.
........................................................
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
"1. The Term 'Trinity':
"The term "Trinity" is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence." - p. 3012, Vol. IV, Eerdmans, 1984.
………………………………....
Challenges from scripture itself:
(A) Please carefully and thoroughly search to find a vision, dream, or clear description in scripture wherein God is visibly shown as more than one person.
(This is really not that difficult. Either there is a vision, dream, description, etc. somewhere in scripture clearly visibly showing the one God as three persons or there isn't. Either way, it should not be difficult to ascertain and admit truthfully.)
………………………………............
(B) Please show where in scripture God is ever described using the word "three."
(Either God is described somewhere in scripture using the word "three" or its clear equivalent (just as He is clearly described with the word “one� or its equivalent - “alone,� “only,� etc. ), or He is not. Either way it should not be difficult to ascertain and admit truthfully.)
……………………………….............
(C) Please find clear, direct, undisputed statements (equivalent to “Jesus is the Christ� or "YHWH is God" which are found repeatedly in clear, undisputed scriptures) which declare:
“YHWH is the Son,� or “YHWH is the Firstborn,� or, “YHWH is the Messiah (or ‘Christ’),� or any other equally clear, undisputed statement that “Jesus is YHWH� (the only God according to scripture).
……………………………….................
Since the Father is clearly, directly, and indisputably called "God, the Father," many, many times, and the Son and Holy Spirit are said by trinitarians to be equally the one God (in ‘three distinct persons’):
(D) Please give equally clear, undisputed scriptures where Jesus is called "God, the Son," (equal to those which declare "God, the Father" – Ro. 15:6; 1 Cor. 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 11:31; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 4:6; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:2; etc.)
and,
………………………………....................
(E) Please give equally clear, undisputed scriptures (such as "God, the Father") where the Holy Spirit is called "God, the Holy Spirit."
......................................................................
(F) If Jesus and/or the first century Christians (considered a sect of Judaism at that time) truly believed that Jesus was God, How could they possibly be allowed to teach in the temple and synagogues as they were?
………………………………...................
(G) If John truly believed a stunning new essential ‘knowledge’ of God that Jesus is equally God, why would he summarize and conclude his Gospel with, “But these [the Gospel of John] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God…�
……………………………….................
(H) When the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were attempting to gather evidence to kill Jesus, why did they have to hire false witnesses? And why did these same priests and false witnesses never say that Jesus believed (or taught) that he was God? Instead the high priest finally said to Jesus: “Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.� - Matt. 26:59-63 NIV.
Obviously these officials had never heard anyone accuse Jesus or his followers of claiming that Jesus was God!
CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE
Moderator: Moderators
-
liamconnor
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3170
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm
Post #21
[Replying to post 16 by tigger2]
P.S. you seem to have gotten tripped over a linguistic problem with the titles God, and Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
I thought your main beef was with the H.S's claim to Divinity. But it seems you have difficulty with the whole thing.
It is true that the term God is often used as a shorthand for God the Father. In Pauline theology (which I have studied more than say, Johanine theology), the terms "Lord" and "God" are parceled out between Jesus and the father. The reason is that both terms appear in the LXX Shema of Deut 6:4, Judaism's most monotheistic formula. The Greek kurios replaces the Hebrew YHWH; while the Greek theos replace the Hebrew Elohim.
Paul is writing in Greek, and using the LXX. Jesus is given the title kurios (translating the Hebrew YHWH) while God the father is given the term theos (translating the Hebrew elohim).
hope that helps
Why? That sounds like a purely subjective requirement. In what other field would such a requirement be acknowledged?I believe any objective observer would admit that the answers to these simple scriptural challenges (A-H above) should be abundantly, clearly, indisputably available if the trinity (or ‘Jesus is God’) worshipers are correct.
P.S. you seem to have gotten tripped over a linguistic problem with the titles God, and Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
I thought your main beef was with the H.S's claim to Divinity. But it seems you have difficulty with the whole thing.
It is true that the term God is often used as a shorthand for God the Father. In Pauline theology (which I have studied more than say, Johanine theology), the terms "Lord" and "God" are parceled out between Jesus and the father. The reason is that both terms appear in the LXX Shema of Deut 6:4, Judaism's most monotheistic formula. The Greek kurios replaces the Hebrew YHWH; while the Greek theos replace the Hebrew Elohim.
Paul is writing in Greek, and using the LXX. Jesus is given the title kurios (translating the Hebrew YHWH) while God the father is given the term theos (translating the Hebrew elohim).
hope that helps
-
Elijah John
- Savant
- Posts: 12235
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
- Location: New England
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Post #22
So you're saying Paul is calling Jesus "YHVH"? I don't think so. In spite of Paul's extremely high Christology, he always saves the designation of God for the Father alone.liamconnor wrote: The Greek kurios replaces the Hebrew YHWH; while the Greek theos replace the Hebrew Elohim.
Paul is writing in Greek, and using the LXX. Jesus is given the title kurios (translating the Hebrew YHWH) while God the father is given the term theos (translating the Hebrew elohim).
hope that helps
YHVH is the name of God, not the name of the Messiah.
I'm no expert on Hebrew or Greek, but it seems the way Paul uses "Lord" when referring to Jesus would correlate more to "Adonai", "my lord", as in "master" and not "YHVH, LORD" God.
YHVH is always a reference to God, the Father, not the Messiah, the Son.
You seem to be making a bold claim here, that Paul is calling Jesus the "Great I AM" (YHVH) the way that the Evangelist John seems to have done.
My theological positions:
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
Re: CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE
Post #23[Replying to Pierac]
Bjs posted
Who though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.* NAB Phil 2:6
That is quite different than what you are implying.
Bjs posted
RESPONSE: Aren’t you quoting only half the statement?Philippians 2:6 says of Jesus, “Who, being in very nature God…�
Who though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.* NAB Phil 2:6
That is quite different than what you are implying.
Re: CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE
Post #24[Replying to post 23 by polonius.advice]
Trinitarians like to translate the Greek word harpagmos as "clung to" or "grasped," etc.
In reality it means something taken from another by force. Or the act of taking something from another by force.
Harpagmos (“take by force� in NT Greek)
At least these two trinitarian-translated Bibles use harpagmos at Phil 2:6 correctly:
1. "He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, ��παγμὸς] equality with God" - NEB.
2. "He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God" - TEV (and GNB).
It is significant that they speak of “equality with God� not “equality with the Father� in these two trinitarian Bibles. With their wordings of this verse one cannot even say that Jesus was equally God, although, somehow, subordinate to the Father, as some trinitarians attempt.
The trinitarian The Expositor's Greek Testament, 1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III, tells us:
"We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of `holding in possession,' `retaining' [or ‘grasping’ as preferred in many trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6]. It seems invariably to mean `seize', `snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [`snatch violently'] into one which is totally different, `hold fast.' "
Even the very trinitarian NT Greek expert, W. E. Vine, had to admit that harpagmos is "akin to harpazo, to seize, carry off by force." - p. 887, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
And the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the majority of Bible scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course)
"have taken harpagmos to mean a thing plundered or seized..., and so spoil, booty or a prize of war." - p. 604, vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.
The key to both these words (harpagmos and its source word, harpazo) is: taking something away from someone by force and against his will. And if we should find a euphemism such as "prize" used in a trinitarian Bible for harpagmos, it has to be understood only in the same sense as a pirate ship forcibly seizing another ship as its "prize"!
This word alone, when translated correctly, shows that Paul did not believe that Jesus was equally God!
Who though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.* NAB Phil 2:6
Trinitarians like to translate the Greek word harpagmos as "clung to" or "grasped," etc.
In reality it means something taken from another by force. Or the act of taking something from another by force.
Harpagmos (“take by force� in NT Greek)
At least these two trinitarian-translated Bibles use harpagmos at Phil 2:6 correctly:
1. "He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, ��παγμὸς] equality with God" - NEB.
2. "He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God" - TEV (and GNB).
It is significant that they speak of “equality with God� not “equality with the Father� in these two trinitarian Bibles. With their wordings of this verse one cannot even say that Jesus was equally God, although, somehow, subordinate to the Father, as some trinitarians attempt.
The trinitarian The Expositor's Greek Testament, 1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III, tells us:
"We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of `holding in possession,' `retaining' [or ‘grasping’ as preferred in many trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6]. It seems invariably to mean `seize', `snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [`snatch violently'] into one which is totally different, `hold fast.' "
Even the very trinitarian NT Greek expert, W. E. Vine, had to admit that harpagmos is "akin to harpazo, to seize, carry off by force." - p. 887, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
And the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the majority of Bible scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course)
"have taken harpagmos to mean a thing plundered or seized..., and so spoil, booty or a prize of war." - p. 604, vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.
The key to both these words (harpagmos and its source word, harpazo) is: taking something away from someone by force and against his will. And if we should find a euphemism such as "prize" used in a trinitarian Bible for harpagmos, it has to be understood only in the same sense as a pirate ship forcibly seizing another ship as its "prize"!
This word alone, when translated correctly, shows that Paul did not believe that Jesus was equally God!
Re: CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE
Post #25tigger2 wrote: [Replying to post 10 by Pierac]
BJS wrote:
Philippians 2:6 says of Jesus, “Who, being in very nature God…�
That is a mistranslation by Trinitarian translators. The word being translated is the NT Greek word morphe which means "form" "the external appearance."
Strong's Concordance:
morphé: form, shape
Original Word: μο�φή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: morphé
Phonetic Spelling: (mor-fay')
Short Definition: form, shape, outward appearance
Definition: form, shape, outward appearance.
Morphe
Although it has been rejected by even many trinitarian Bible scholars, some others attempt to force an interpretation of morphe (μο�φῇ) that includes the idea of "essence" or "nature." They do this only at Phil. 2:6 (Jesus "was in the form [morphe] of God") because the true meaning of morphe will not allow for the trinitarian interpretation that Jesus is God. But with their forced interpretation of morphe at Phil. 2:6 they can say that Jesus had the "absolute essence" and "full nature" of God!
However, as even many trinitarian Bible scholars admit:
"Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance." - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.
Thayer agrees that morphe is
"the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance" - Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 418, Baker Book House. [Also see Young's Analytical Concordance (also compare the closely-related morphosis) and Liddell and Scott's An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, p. 519, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing.]
It's easy to see why even many trinitarian scholars disagree with the forced "nature" interpretation of morphe when you look at all the scriptural uses of morphe (according to Young's Analytical Concordance, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978 printing and A Concordance of the Septuagint, Zondervan Publishing House, 1979 printing): Mark 16:12; Phil. 2:6, 7 in the New Testament and in the Old Testament Greek Septuagint of Job 4:16 "there was no form [morphe] before my eyes;" Is. 44:13 "makes it as the form [morphe] of a man;" Dan. 4:33 "my natural form [morphe] returned to me;" 5:6, 9, 10 "the king's countenance [morphe] changed;" 7:28 "[Daniel's] countenance [morphe] was changed." - The Septuagint Version, Greek and English, Zondervan, 1976 printing.
Morphe is found at Mark 16:12 which is part of the "Long Ending" for the Gospel of Mark. Many scholars do not consider this as inspired scripture, but, instead, a later addition by someone to Mark's original inspired writing. However, even if this is the case, it is still an example of how morphe was used in those times since copies of the "Long Ending" were in existence at least as early as 165 A.D. (Justin Martyr).
So notice especially how the New American Bible (1970), the Living Bible, The New English Bible, the Douay version, the New Life Version, and the Easy-to-Read Version translate morphe at Mark 16:12:
"he was revealed to them completely changed in appearance [morphe]" - NAB.
"they didn't recognize him at first because he had changed his appearance [morphe]." - LB.
"he appeared in a different guise [morphe]" - NEB.
"he appeared in another shape [morphe]" - Douay.
"he did not look like he had looked [morphe] before to these two people" - NLV.
"Jesus did not look the same" - ETRV.
Mark 16:12 - "He appeared in another form. Luke explains this by saying that their eyes were held. If their eyes were influenced, of course, optically speaking, Jesus would appear in another form." - People's New Testament Notes.
These trinitarian translations show the meaning of morphe to be that of "external appearance" not "essence" or "nature"!
So, what do you think? Is anyone actually going to respond to the actual questions in the OP?
Your getting way to deep... You just need to ask if any one that is quoting Philippians 2:6 in favor of the trinity the following question.... Are you supporting or believe in the Kenotic Doctrine? Nuf said! By definition you can't support/believe in the Kenotic Doctrine and still claim to be a Trinitarian... thus Philippians 2:6 is irrelevant to the conversation by definition alone!
Your welcome...
Paul
-
liamconnor
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3170
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm
Post #26
[Replying to post 22 by Elijah John]
Yes, Paul has in mind the name YHWH for Jesus. The term YHWH in the LXX is Kurios, which means Lord. The term Elohim/God in the LXX is rendered theos, God. When Paul is talking about the Father, he uses "theos/God". When Paul is talking about Jesus, he uses kurios/Lord.
I will start a new thread on Christology soon; but it will be rather long and exegetical and will take me some time to compile.
So you're saying Paul is calling Jesus "YHVH"? I don't think so. In spite of Paul's extremely high Christology, he always saves the designation of God for the Father alone.
YHVH is the name of God, not the name of the Messiah.
Yes, Paul has in mind the name YHWH for Jesus. The term YHWH in the LXX is Kurios, which means Lord. The term Elohim/God in the LXX is rendered theos, God. When Paul is talking about the Father, he uses "theos/God". When Paul is talking about Jesus, he uses kurios/Lord.
That is the claim I am making, bold or not. (of course, I am not alone in this). I am excited to see your interest in this; should be a fun discussion.You seem to be making a bold claim here, that Paul is calling Jesus the "Great I AM" (YHVH) the way that the Evangelist John seems to have done.
I will start a new thread on Christology soon; but it will be rather long and exegetical and will take me some time to compile.
Post #27
Challenges Continued:
(F) If Jesus and/or the first century Christians - considered a sect of (the single-person God) Judaism at that time - truly believed that Jesus was God, how could they possibly be allowed to teach in the temple and synagogues as they were?
Ac 13:14 - 44 -
But going on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down.
After the reading of the Law and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, "Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it." ….
Ac 14:1 -
In Iconium they entered the synagogue of the Jews together, and spoke in such a manner that a large number of people believed, both of Jews and of Greeks.
Acts 17:1 Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ."
Ac 18:4 -
And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
Ac 19:8 -
And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading {them} about the kingdom of God.
………………………………..........
Teaching in the Temple
Mt 26:55 -
At that time Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as {you would} against a robber? Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me.
Mr 12:35 -
And Jesus answering began to say, as He taught in the temple, "How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?
Lu 21:37, 38 -
Now during the day He was teaching in the temple, but at evening He would go out and spend the night on the mount that is called Olivet.
And all the people would get up early in the morning to come to Him in the temple to listen to Him. -
Ac 5:42 -
And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.
If there had been any suspicion that the Christian sect believed in or taught a three-person God (or any other person equal to YHWH), they would never have even been allowed inside the temple or a synagogue. They certainly would never have been considered a sect of Judaism (as they were up till 135 A.D. and Bar Kochba‘s Rebellion).
(F) If Jesus and/or the first century Christians - considered a sect of (the single-person God) Judaism at that time - truly believed that Jesus was God, how could they possibly be allowed to teach in the temple and synagogues as they were?
Ac 13:14 - 44 -
But going on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down.
After the reading of the Law and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, "Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it." ….
Ac 14:1 -
In Iconium they entered the synagogue of the Jews together, and spoke in such a manner that a large number of people believed, both of Jews and of Greeks.
Acts 17:1 Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ."
Ac 18:4 -
And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
Ac 19:8 -
And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading {them} about the kingdom of God.
………………………………..........
Teaching in the Temple
Mt 26:55 -
At that time Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as {you would} against a robber? Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me.
Mr 12:35 -
And Jesus answering began to say, as He taught in the temple, "How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?
Lu 21:37, 38 -
Now during the day He was teaching in the temple, but at evening He would go out and spend the night on the mount that is called Olivet.
And all the people would get up early in the morning to come to Him in the temple to listen to Him. -
Ac 5:42 -
And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.
If there had been any suspicion that the Christian sect believed in or taught a three-person God (or any other person equal to YHWH), they would never have even been allowed inside the temple or a synagogue. They certainly would never have been considered a sect of Judaism (as they were up till 135 A.D. and Bar Kochba‘s Rebellion).
-
liamconnor
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3170
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm
Re: CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE
Post #28[Replying to post 1 by tigger2]
For everyone on the Phil 2 passage, I am just curious: how do you interpret the last words "and gave him the name that is above every name"?
Note it doesn't say, "made his name (i.e. Jesus) greater than every name (if so, the verb would be ποιεῖ ) but gave him (�χα�ίσατο α�τῷ) a name already in existence.
So, what was that name?
For everyone on the Phil 2 passage, I am just curious: how do you interpret the last words "and gave him the name that is above every name"?
Note it doesn't say, "made his name (i.e. Jesus) greater than every name (if so, the verb would be ποιεῖ ) but gave him (�χα�ίσατο α�τῷ) a name already in existence.
So, what was that name?
Re: CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE
Post #30[Replying to tigger2]
While morphe can mean “external appearance� depending on the context, the suggestion that this is the only, or even the primary, meaning is probably false. The word means “form.� See Aristotle’s Metaphysics for an example of the complicated meaning of this word.
I will note the citation from the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says that morphe is instanced to mean outward appearance. That is, there are example of it meaning this, not that that outward appearance is the primary meaning of the word.
Like the English word “form,� if the context is about how something looks then it can mean “external appearance.� However, in this case “external appearance� does not fit the context since Paul was not writing about appearances or looks. (I am a little curious what you think Paul is saying if we translate morphe as “external appearance� in this passage).
We can translate morphe literally as “form,� so the sentence would read, “Jesus Christ, who subsists in the form of God...� This supports the deity of Christ, as it says that the substance of Christ is the form of God. This makes “being in the very nature God� seem like a reasonable translation, though the more literal translation gets us to the same place.
While morphe can mean “external appearance� depending on the context, the suggestion that this is the only, or even the primary, meaning is probably false. The word means “form.� See Aristotle’s Metaphysics for an example of the complicated meaning of this word.
I will note the citation from the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says that morphe is instanced to mean outward appearance. That is, there are example of it meaning this, not that that outward appearance is the primary meaning of the word.
Like the English word “form,� if the context is about how something looks then it can mean “external appearance.� However, in this case “external appearance� does not fit the context since Paul was not writing about appearances or looks. (I am a little curious what you think Paul is saying if we translate morphe as “external appearance� in this passage).
We can translate morphe literally as “form,� so the sentence would read, “Jesus Christ, who subsists in the form of God...� This supports the deity of Christ, as it says that the substance of Christ is the form of God. This makes “being in the very nature God� seem like a reasonable translation, though the more literal translation gets us to the same place.
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo
