Jesus is God - grasping equality

[Wootah]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV

Philippians 2:5-11
English Standard Version
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This is a clear: fully God, fully man situation.

However, depending on your Christian persuasion, there are some questions for you:

How can Jesus be in the form of God but not be God?

How can Jesus be in the form of a man but not a man?

If Jesus is not God, are you really going to bow down to a not God creature?

But mainly question 2. If Jesus cannot grab equality with God why would it phrase it as if He could grab it? So could Jesus have grasped equality with God or not?

if Jesus could have grasped equality with God then he is equal to God. Which dialect of Christianity is going to argue that Jesus could have been equal to God but chose not to but He is not God?

Let's put it this way. Suppose there was Thor's hammer and only the ones who are worthy can pick it up. That means everyone that can pick it up, regardless of whether they do pick it up are equally worthy of holding the hammer.

If Jesus could not have grasped equality then why is that statement in the Bible?

It sure seems like the statement is there in the Bible to show that Jesus could have been equal to God but chose not to.

[1213]

...How can Jesus be in the form of a man but not a man?

Bible tells Jesus is a man:

For God is one, also there is one Mediator of God and of men, the Man Christ Jesus,
1 Tim. 2:5

[Wootah]

...How can Jesus be in the form of a man but not a man?

Bible tells Jesus is a man:

For God is one, also there is one Mediator of God and of men, the Man Christ Jesus,
1 Tim. 2:5

Please focus on the thread. Especially the grasping verse.

OK you can clearly see the part of the quote saying Jesus was found in the form of a man.

Found in the form? What other form can he take? If a wolf is found in the form of a sheep is it a sheep?

[1213]

...How can Jesus be in the form of a man but not a man?

Bible tells Jesus is a man:

For God is one, also there is one Mediator of God and of men, the Man Christ Jesus,
1 Tim. 2:5

Please focus on the thread. Especially the grasping verse.

OK you can clearly see the part of the quote saying Jesus was found in the form of a man.

Found in the form? ...

Interesting question. Bible tells, Jesus is the image of God. Bible tells also that man is an image of God.

who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation. For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible; whether thrones, or lordships, or rulers, or authorities, all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Col. 1:15-16

It can be said that image has the form from what it was taken. Because Bible tells God is spirit, the form must be something spiritual, not physical. This means, if Jesus has from of God, he has same attributes, like for example speaks what God told him to speak.

And, I think it is good to understand, image is not the same as the matter it was taken from. For example, you would not pay as much for image of a house than for the house itself, because there is a great difference between the image and actual thing.

[Wootah]

[Replying to 1213 in post #4]

Was Jesus in the form of a man? Was Jesus a man or what was he to you that he was only in the form of man?

[JehovahsWitness]

Please focus on the thread. Especially the grasping verse.

QUESTION: Can Philippians 2:5, 6 be used to support the trinity?

Philippians 2:5, 6 reads as follows in English:

ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped

Was Paul saying here that Jesus considered equality with God to be something he should rightfully "grasp" (ie to take and cling to) OR was Paul's meaning that that Jesus knew he had no right to try and obtain it?

The phrase in verse 6, [ouch harpagmon hegesato: not - seize - (he) considered] is, it has to be admitted on the surface somewhat ambiguous. The Greek word translated "grasp" by the ESV is harpagmon ; about this word The Expositora's Greek Testament makes the following comment:

We cannot find any passage where [har·paʹzo] or any of its derivatives [including harpagmon] has the sense of holding in possession, retaining. It seems invariably to mean "seize/ snatch violently." (Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.

A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (George Abbot Smith), states "there is certainly a presumption in favour of the active meaning here" since the apostle does not use the LXX form harpagma. Paul thus speaks of an act of seizing [...] - A-S 60

Interestingly 1969, a new French lectionary that was approved by the Holy See rendered Phil 2:6: Christ Jesus is God's image; but he did not choose to seize by force equality with God

NOTE: If he [Christ] refused to seize it [equality with God], it must be that he did not already possess it. stated The Catholic monthly magazine Itineraires, supplement January 1971. If Christ did not already possess equality with God he cannot *BE* God.


CONCLUSION Given the above Philippians evidently carries the active meaning of snatching (i.e., a usurpation). Being in the negative it conveys the idea that Jesus did not /never (ouch) consider (hegesato) snatching or seizing [harpagmon] equality. Obviously if Jesus rejected (would not consider) the notion it would be because he considered it (being equal with God) wrong. Thus Paul is affirming the fact that Jesus did not aspire to equality with God.








JW


Further reading : https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... -26-7.html


RELATED POSTS

QUESTION: Can Philippians 2:5, 6 be used to support the trinity?
viewtopic.php?p=872798#p872798

How should Harpagmos rightly be translated? [tigger]
viewtopic.php?p=1041994#p1041994

To learn more please go to to other posts related to ...

GOD, JESUS and ...THE "TRINITY TEXTS" DEBUNKED

[Wootah]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #6]

Without spamming.

In your opinion

Could Jesus grasp equality with God or could he not?

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #4]

Was Jesus in the form of a man? Was Jesus a man or what was he to you that he was only in the form of man?

I believe Jesus is still a man, as Bible teaches. And to me, he is the King.

[Wootah]

[Replying to 1213 in post #4]

Was Jesus in the form of a man? Was Jesus a man or what was he to you that he was only in the form of man?

I believe Jesus is still a man, as Bible teaches. And to me, he is the King.

So if Jesus is just a man why does the Bible even say he was in the form of a man? Makes no sense to say Wootah was in the form of a man, because what else can i be? One makes sense if it is implying Jesus could be out is usually something else?

[JehovahsWitness]

Please focus on the thread. Especially the grasping verse.

QUESTION: Can Philippians 2:5, 6 be used to support the trinity?

Philippians 2:5, 6 reads as follows in English:

ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped

Was Paul saying here that Jesus considered equality with God to be something he should rightfully "grasp" (ie to take and cling to) OR was Paul's meaning that that Jesus knew he had no right to try and obtain it?

The phrase in verse 6, [ouch harpagmon hegesato: not - seize - (he) considered] is, it has to be admitted on the surface somewhat ambiguous. The Greek word translated "grasp" by the ESV is harpagmon ; about this word The Expositora's Greek Testament makes the following comment:

We cannot find any passage where [har·paʹzo] or any of its derivatives [including harpagmon] has the sense of holding in possession, retaining. It seems invariably to mean "seize/ snatch violently." (Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.

A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (George Abbot Smith), states "there is certainly a presumption in favour of the active meaning here" since the apostle does not use the LXX form harpagma. Paul thus speaks of an act of seizing [...] - A-S 60

Interestingly 1969, a new French lectionary that was approved by the Holy See rendered Phil 2:6: Christ Jesus is God's image; but he did not choose to seize by force equality with God

NOTE: If he [Christ] refused to seize it [equality with God], it must be that he did not already possess it. stated The Catholic monthly magazine Itineraires, supplement January 1971. If Christ did not already possess equality with God he cannot *BE* God.


CONCLUSION Given the above Philippians evidently carries the active meaning of snatching (i.e., a usurpation). Being in the negative it conveys the idea that Jesus did not /never (ouch) consider (hegesato) snatching or seizing [harpagmon] equality. Obviously if Jesus rejected (would not consider) the notion it would be because he considered it (being equal with God) wrong. Thus Paul is affirming the fact that Jesus did not aspire to equality with God.








JW


Further reading : https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... -26-7.html


RELATED POSTS

QUESTION: Can Philippians 2:5, 6 be used to support the trinity?
viewtopic.php?p=872798#p872798

How should Harpagmos rightly be translated? [tigger]
viewtopic.php?p=1041994#p1041994

To learn more please go to to other posts related to ...

GOD, JESUS and ...THE "TRINITY TEXTS" DEBUNKED

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #6]

Without spamming.

Why did you address me regarding spamming? Are you insinuating I was "spamming"?