ThatGirlAgain wrote:
But since this is the Catholic sub-forum, here is a Catholic answer.
So you speak for all catholics then?
Upon whose authority?
Are there other catholic answers besides yours?
If yes please provide examples and their source?
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Philippians 2:5-10
[5] For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
[6] Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [7] But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. [8] He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. [9] For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: [10] That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:
[11] And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.
Douay-Rheims of course O:)
This is Paul quoting an existing hymn. The implication is that the pre-existing divinity of Jesus (vv 6-7) was an idea already around in the time of Paul. So saith the Catholics. And remember the discussion here is why do Catholics believe this. ;)
.
1. "There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 2:5.)
So Jesus really is a man. This is the undoubted teaching of the New Testament. Now compare that with these words by the former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus:
"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."
Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching.
If Jesus was really God, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven, then he was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.
(My emphasis - Source: http://www.god-so-loved-the-world.org/e ... heaven.htm)
2. Interesting how you claim trinitarian catholics refute and deny there own scholars e.g. -
The late Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, wrote:
"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed". (27)
Or more recently:
"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament". (28)
27. "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180
28. A & R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173,1980
More so -
The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306).
See also:
The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.... There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead.... Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the Trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.
Fortman, Edmund J. (1972), The Triune God, Baker Book House, pp. xv, 8, 9.
See also:
The Old Testament can scarcely be used as authority for the existence of distinctions within the Godhead. The use of ‘us’ by the divine speaker (Gen. 1:26, 3:32, 11:7) is strange, but it is perhaps due to His consciousness of being surrounded by other beings of a loftier order than men (Isa. 6:8).
Davidson, A.B., Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II, p. 205.
3. Some people say that since the disciples baptised in the "name of the Father, son and Holy Spirit", this must mean that all three are God. However:
The name of [Yahshua] is the essential part of it as is shown in Acts. Triune immersion is not taught as the Greek Church holds and practices, baptism in the name of the Father, then of the Son, then of the Holy Spirit. The use of "name" (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.
Robertson, A. T., Word Pictures in the New Testament vol. 1, p.245.
The proof of this is made evident in later passages, where we find the apostles baptising in the name of Jesus alone. There is no example in the Book of Acts of any Trinitarian formula anywhere, nor are we told that the identity of God is expressed in the formula "Father, son, Holy Spirit." Note the following:
Acts 2:38.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 8:16.
For as yet [the Spirit] was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of Jesus.
Acts 10:48.
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Acts 19:5.
When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of Jesus.
Acts 22:16.
And now why tarriest? arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on [His name -- all texts].
4. If "in the form of God" means the very nature of God, then Christ could not have been "Very God" while on earth, as trinitarians assert, since this is what he is said to have sacrificed and left behind in coming to the earth.
The Greek word "morphe" (translated "form") does not refer to "essential nature" as the trinitarian cause requires. This is proven by the following:
"Eidos", not "morphe" is the Greek word which conveys the idea of "essential nature". As Liddell and Scott point out in their lexicon, "morphe" means form, shape, fine, beautiful form or shape, figure, fashion, appearance, outward form or semblance. It is opposed to "eidos" which means "true form".
In the context of this passage, it is stated that Christ "took upon him the form of a servant" (vs. 7). But what is the form of a servant (Grk. "doulos", a slave)? The "essential nature" of a slave is the same as that of any other human being. The form, therefore, must refer to the semblance or demeanour of a slave as the distinguishing characteristic.
"Morphe" occurs in only one other place in the N.T. - Mark 16:12, and here it clearly does not mean "essential nature". Jesus appeared "in another form", but this could not refer to a change of his essential nature since the reason why he appeared to be in another form was because the disciples' "eyes were holden". (Luke 24:16 cf. vs. 31). Not even a trinitarian or a J.W. would be prepared to say that Christ's essential nature was changed after his resurrection and glorification.
How was Christ in the form of God? He had the semblance and demeanour of the Father mentally and morally. His character was the express image of his Father's person. (Heb. 1:3).
Sometimes trinitarians stress that Christ was originally in the form of God - i.e., "being" in the form of God is taken to mean that he was in fact "Very God" before his "incarnation". The Greek verb "huparchon" refutes this position since it is in the imperfect tense which expresses action yet, or still in course of performance. Time signified by an imperfect tense is of a continual, habitual, repeated action, so that "being in the form of God" means "being, and continuing to be in the form of God". Christ never ceased to be in the form of God since in semblance and demeanour from his birth he habitually exemplified his Father's character. Note the use of "huparchon" in the following passages:
Acts 2:30 - "Therefore being a prophet does not mean "being originally before birth a prophet", but rather a prophet and continuing to be such.
1 Cor. 11:7 - "Forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God" does not mean "being originally before he was born the image and glory of God", but rather being the image of God and continuing to be.
Gal. 2:14 - "If thou being a Jew" does not mean "being originally before his birth as a Jew", but rather if you from the start and continuing to be a Jew.
"Thought it not robbery to be equal with God" is generally acknowledged to be a poor translation. The R.S.V. reads as follows: "He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." Unlike Eve who grasped after the fruit which was to be desired to make one like God (the "elohim") to know good and evil, Jesus refused to take the kingdoms of the world without the crucifixion of the flesh and the declaration of the righteousness of his Father. In the Garden of Gethsemane he subjected his will to his Father's, not arrogating to himself prerogatives that rightly belonged to his Father. (Matt. 26:39).
How did Christ take the form of a servant (slave)? Two passages supply the answer:
"If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet." (John 13:14).
"Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Hebrews 5:8, 9).
Although Christ was in the form of God in his semblance and demeanour, he took on him the semblance and demeanour of a slave.
"He humbled himself"; "he emptied himself" R.S.V. (vs. 8), refers to Christ's deliberate choice to submit his will to that of his Father. Christ was worshipped (Matt. 8:2; 9:18), performed the works of God (John 10:37-38), and forgave sins (Matthew 9:2), but he never arrogated to himself authority which had not been delegated to him by the Father. In so doing his example was a powerful lesson in humility to the Philippians. But if Christ "being originally, before his birth, while he was in heaven in the form (essential nature) of God thought at his birth, when he descended into the womb, not to be equal with God, but left the form of God",1 where is humility demonstrated?
(Source: wrestedcriptures.com - Phil. 2:6,7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:
1. This is the way in which Phil. 2:6 is read by trinitarians. See A.B. Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ, (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clarke, 1889), pp. 1-23.
![Image](http://i43.servimg.com/u/f43/12/43/81/32/velvet10.gif)