Created immortal (indestructable)?

[JehovahsWitness]

To my knowledge "immortality" is only spoken of as being a reward for certain faithful. What is the scriptural basis for saying "humans" were originally created immortal*?

- do you believe Satan is immortal?
- do you believe the wicked are immortal?

- do you believe God can destroy them (as in put an end to their existence) but will never choose to do this?

- do you believe God cannot (does not have the ability to) destroy them (put an end to their existence)?

Why?


*by immortal I mean basically "indestructable"

[onewithhim]

To Claire Evans:

Just wanted to reply to a few of your comments.

(1) You wrote that the Trinity concept is in the Bible. Where?

2 Corinthians 3:17

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

So we see here that the Lord is the Holy Spirit.

1 Timothy 4:10New International Version (NIV)

10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

We know that Jesus is our saviour so Jesus and God are interchangeable.

Likewise...

Luke 1:47

and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1


..the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ...gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity.. Titus 2:13-14


"...CHRIST JESUS...being in the FORM OF GOD, thought it not robbery to be EQUAL WITH GOD: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."--Philippians 2:5-8


For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

1 John 5:7

(2) You say that we "won't find logic associated with faith." I disagree. Logic is always a good thing to appeal to.

What is logical about a relationship and faith in God? Please logically explain how that can be achieved? Faith and reason aren't mutually exclusive but logic is not the same as reason.

The primary difference between logic and reason is that reason is subject to personal opinion, whereas logic is an actual science that follows clearly defined rules and tests for critical thinking. Logic also seeks tangible, visible or audible proof of a sound thought process by reasoning.

If one wants to find God in a scientific manner, they will be disappointed.

(3) Regarding your statement about the number of atheists: I say that there are atheists in spite of logic that is indeed associated with the ways of the Lord. He gave us the ability to reason, and it's my opinion that He wants us to do that. He never does things that have no logic.

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD." (Isaiah 1:18, KJV)

Reason isn't logic.

(4) In response to your question of "how did Satan get his power before humans when he needs human suffering to be sustained?".....I ask how did you arrive at the conclusion that he needs human suffering to be sustained? Where did that come from? Satan, according to the Scriptures, was created as a good angel and, since he had free will, eventually decided to become independent of God and to run his own show. He convinced a part of the good angels to switch sides, if you will. Then we had demons---bad angels. That's not difficult to understand.

I am looking forward to your comments and answers to my questions.

Have you not experienced that for yourself? That the more Satan manages to torment a person, the stronger he gets? I know that from experience. Demons need negative energy to replenish their energy:

http://www.spiritdaily.net/emotionsspirits.htm

Satan's presence in the Garden of Gethsemane was strong because Jesus was tormented by fear. Satan was feeding off the negative energy of fear. Once God gave Jesus peace, Satan left because he can't feed off positive energy exuded by peace.

First of all, in 2 Corinthians 3:17 it says that the Spirit was OF the Lord; In fact, there are TWO implications of "spirit" in that verse. The first implication is that God IS Spirit---that means He is a spirit Person, not a physical one. ("God is a Spirit..." John 4:24) Then, afterward, it mentions the Spirit OF God, which means the force with which He does things. He creates, He anoints, He blesses, He relates in many ways to humans and the rest of His creation by way of His force, or, spirit.

Anyway, this does not show that the Spirit is a third member of a trinity of Gods.

Isn't God as a spirit also called the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is not physical. The Holy Spirit is considered our intermediary to God through Jesus Christ who is now a spirit. Why is it so hard to imagine that there are different facets to one entity? John 4:24 refers to people who must be filled with the Holy Spirit to worship Him.

Are we to say that God stopped dwelling in Jesus once Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit when He was baptized?

Furthermore, Corinthians goes on to say that Jesus is the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17-18). Jesus was a physical being.

Secondly, Jesus and God are NOT interchangeable. God says that he is Jehovah and there is no one else that is God. (Psalm 83:18, KJV; Isaiah 43:10,11; Psalm 36:9)

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the Most High over all the earth." (Psalm 83:18, KJV)

"Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am HE: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, I am Jehovah; and besides me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43:10,11, Darby)

"For with you is the source of life; by light from you we can see light." (Psalm 36:9, NWT)

If God thought the Jews understood God, then why did Jesus come to witness for the truth if the Jews had the truth already? The OT Yahweh contradicts the Father so badly that one has to wonder why.

Jesus also said that his Father, Jehovah, was "the only true God." (John 17:3) He didn't say "we are God."

Jesus said He and the Father are one so we didn't have to say "we".

Now, if Jehovah is the only God, and He is the Savior, how can Jesus be the Savior? He can be the Savior because JEHOVAH CHOSE HIM to do the job of coming to Earth and giving up his human life for mankind. Jesus was ANOINTED to do these things and represent Jehovah on the earth. Jesus was God's MEANS of saving mankind. The SOURCE of that plan was Jehovah. It was Jehovah who instructed Jesus as to what to do.

God without Jesus cannot be the saviour. Was it believed in the OT that God could only save by sending His Son? And I mean generally accepted by the Jews. If animal sacrifices were enough to redeem sin, then what was Jesus for? Consider that Jesus was incarnate of God so that He could come to this earth in physical form. Jesus wasn't just a representative. He said He was one with God! Any messiah can say they represent God.

"The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is on me [Jesus; Luke 4:16-21], because Jehovah did anoint me to proclaim tidings to the humble, he sent me to bind the broken of heart, to proclaim to captives liberty, and to bound ones an opening of bands. To proclaim the year of the good pleasure of Jehovah, and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all mourners." (Isaiah 61:1,2, Young's Literal Translation)

Did Jehovah anoint himself?

"Jesus therefore responded [to those who accused him of making himself equal to God] and said unto them, 'Verily, verily, I say to you, The Son is not able to do anything of himself, if he may not see the Father doing anything; for whatever things He may do, these also the Son doeth in like manner; for the Father doth love the Son, and doth show to him all things that He himself doeth." (John 5:19, Young's) So....Jesus LEARNED from the Father. God does not have to learn from anybody.

Jesus said: "I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to speak....The things I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak." (John 12:49,50) It doesn't look like Jesus and the Father, Jehovah, are one and the same. Jesus took orders from the Father.

Let's look at the egg analogy. We see the egg as one unit. Taking out the yolk, albumen and peel off the shell doesn't make them suddenly separate not related to the same unit. You can't see yolk and think it never came from the egg. It is the same. You cannot think of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as separate beings when they were one with the Father in the form of an egg. The various parts that make up an egg have different functions as Jesus and the Holy Spirit have yet are still one with the Father.

You are being, inadvertently I'm sure, deceptive in your presentation of Titus 2:13 as showing that Jesus is God. Versions DIFFER in its rendering! For example, the New American Bible puts it this way: "As we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God [Jehovah] AND OF our savior Jesus Christ." Totally different meaning than what you presented. (That word "of" means a lot.)

Us who believe in the trinity also say God and the Holy Spirit and Jesus. Yet this doesn't mean we are viewing them as three separate entities but rather three aspects of the one God. We cannot see God and so we can only see God when He is the form of Jesus. Seeing Jesus is seeing God.

John 1:1---"and the word was God"---is a mess of a translation, and I imagine St. John, who is now in heaven, cringes at the meaning trying to be conveyed by most Bible translators. The King James translation committee was so extremely biased by their own religious up-bringing that they made out the words of John to mean something he never meant! He was trying to show a DISTINCTION between "the" God and the Word. In Greek, "the" god had the definite article in front of "god." That showed that it was the only God that was being referred to. In the phrase "and the word was God," there is no definite article in front of "god," so it is correctly rendered "a god." So the Word was NOT the God. It is difficult to understand if a person doesn't know that in the Apostle John's time "god" meant any powerful, important person; the people thought of judges and political figures as "gods."

http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... s-ago.html


.

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htm


It was crucial you address all points which you tend not to do and that is why I'm reluctant to debate with you. So I post it again:

"...CHRIST JESUS...being in the FORM OF GOD, thought it not robbery to be EQUAL WITH GOD: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."--Philippians 2:5-8


For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

This clearly indicates the belief in a trinity.

Why are people so reluctant to talk about evil and Satan? You are the second person I've come across that has glossed over the mention of Satan.

I would say No, God is not also called the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit comes from God, it is not God. It is "force" emanating from Him, similar to the term "power."

There is some discussion out there that 2 Corinthians 3:17,18 refers to the Father, Jehovah, rather than Jesus. It says "the Lord." Which "Lord" is that? Since scribes refused to acknowledge the name of God in the Greek Scriptures, there has been great confusion. Even where "YHWH" is in the O.T. and is quoted in the N.T., copiers have declined to carry the Divine Name over in the quote. So how can we tell which Lord is being referred to? Some scholars would say it is "Jehovah" in 2 Corinthians and not Jesus.

There is a different meaning not related to the trinity. Jesus as the Spirit who enables true understanding of God not known through non believers belief in the OT.

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/2 ... /3-17.html

Jesus said that he and the Father are "one," meaning they were unified, they saw eye-to-eye, they were in agreement, not that they are the same Person or the same God. It was the same thing that Jesus said about his disciples at John 17:20-23. He prayed 'that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us.... Also, I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one....."

Doesn't that show you what "one" means in these scriptures (even in John 10:30)?

That is not how the Jews saw it and Jesus did not correct it:

John 10:31

“The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.� Why? Blasphemy was a crime punishable by death according to the Jewish Law. When Jesus asked why they were planning to kill Him, they answered, “For blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God� (John 10:33)

Jesus referring to the disciples as being one means being one in one spiritual body.

1 Cor. 6:17. Let them all be stamped with the same image and superscription, and influenced by the same power.

John 11:52New International Version (NIV)

52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.


https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ ... John.17.23

God, Jehovah, is the Savior. He doesn't need anybody else, but He chose to include Jesus in His plan for salvation. Jesus is the means by which Jehovah saves, as has been explained.

By what other method do you think that God could have saved mankind? Would He not have chosen any other way other than for His Son to suffer death and hell? He clearly thought being in the form of the Son was the only way to reach out and save mankind. No Jesus, no salvation.

No, let's not look at the "egg analogy." It is a lame attempt to make God out to be THREE. He is not three, He is "one" and only one Person. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

If the OT writers had it right about God, why did Jesus come to make a new covenant? They didn't understand God so why use Deuteronomy as ammo to your argument?

You say that I don't usually address all of your points, but that is just not true. I have shown you that many Bible versions do not translate Phil.2:6 the way that the KJV translates it. You have chosen to IGNORE what I have, in a thorough manner, posted.

I have also commented on I John 5:7. Why do you keep ignoring that? I have commented on it now for the third time. (That verse is not accepted by most scholars today as authentic; it was added much later than when John wrote that first letter.)


How have I been "reluctant" to take about Satan? I have never been reluctant to talk about the number one opponent of God.

Sorry, I didn't see that you had continued your comment in a new comment section.

Do you agree that Satan feed off the agony of Christ?

You are commenting in a manner like that of throwing plaster at the walls and hoping that some of it sticks, no matter how far from clear and reasonable it is. You respond to one scripture that I cite by commenting on an entirely different scripture, as anyone can see if they take the time to read through the above posts.

What does it matter to us (we who are listening to Jesus) if the Jews didn't see it the way Jesus taught it? He said so himself, that they were teaching traditions of men, and not God's commands.

"He said to them: 'Isaiah aptly prophesied about you,hypocrites, as it is written, "This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me [YHWH], because they teach as doctrines commands of men." Letting go the commandment of God, you hold fast the tradition of men."'" (Mark 7:6-8)


Jesus said clearly that to be "one" was to be in agreement; to be unified. (John 17:21-23) Why do you continue to set that aside?

You say that Jesus did not correct the Pharisees when they accused him of being equal to God, but, as I have pointed out already, he DID correct them. In THEIR eyes, he could be condemned for "making himself equal to God," just because he called God his own Father. Calling God his Father did not mean that he was calling himself equal to God. He refuted that immediately by saying:

"'Most truly I say to you, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.'" (John 5:19) The Son LEARNED FROM the Father. If he was God, would he have to learn anything?


He also corrected them, at John 10:34-36, when the Jews accused him of "making himself God."

He replied: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said: "You are gods"'? If he [the Father] called 'gods' those against whom the word of God came [human judges in Israel], and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I SAID I AM GOD'S SON?" You will notice that he absolutely corrected them, both times that they accused him of saying he was God or equal to God.

You neglected to answer my pointed questions, such as "did Jesus anoint himself?" You get around that by more smoke, mirrors, distractions, and changing the subject, IMHO. It would be great if you would actually spend a little time in taking into consideration what has been said in response to your allegations and then commenting on those things, especially when questions are asked of you to further the discussion.


.

[ttruscott]

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

This clearly indicates the belief in a trinity.

I am a Trinitarian and I cannot accept this... 1 John 5:7 ACTUALLY SAYS: 6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ—not by water alone, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies to this, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement.…

It is the Spirit, the water and the blood that AGREE as one. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges contends: "It is very doubtful whether the Trinity is even remotely symbolized."

1 John 5:6 is not referring to the trinity but 7 is.

To get the Trinity out of For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood... is merely a step too far for me. If it is proven to me to be what the Spirit was saying I'm fine with that since I am Trinitarian.

[Claire Evans]

Just a couple more comments, though I have commented on these points several times before, and I'm a little chagrined that my comments, apparently, weren't considered valid.

Philippians 2:6 was quoted by you to show that Jesus was equal to God. Other versions translate that verse to mean something entirely different. For example, the New American Bible, New International Version, & the New American Standard Bible, to name just a few of many, render the verse as such:

"Who, although he existed in the form of God [spirit], did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped."

"Grasped" has the meaning of taking hold of something that one did not have before.

That means being equal with God was not something to be taken advantage of (grasp)

Philippians 2:5-8New International Version (NIV)

5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

It clearly says He existed in the form of God and that He was equal yet did not exploit that.

I disagree. Jesus was in the SAME FORM as God----SPIRIT----which need not be equal to God. After all, the angels are spirits and they are not equal.

Most of the versions I have examined do NOT say that Jesus was "equal" to God. What version are YOU using?

The AB and LB are two examples of where the translators do not translate the Greek, but substitute interpretations of their own that are not based on Paul's language at all. Therefore they are inaccurate.

The word of particular interest in the verse at Phil.2:6 is the Greek "harpagmos." It is translated by some versions as "something to be grasped" (NAB, NIV), "a thing to be grasped" (NASB), and "a thing to be eagerly grasped." (AB) Translators have felt that the word "harpagmos" falls pretty clearly on one side or the other of two possible meanings---for equality or against it. The KJV uses "robbery" to translate "harpagmos, and the NWT uses "seizure." These two words suggest snatching at something one does not possess. This lines up with The Liddell & Scott Greek Dictionary which defines "harpagmos as "ROBBERY," "RAPE," & "PRIZE TO BE GRASPED."

The words related to that Greek word have to do with the seizure of something NOT YET ONE'S OWN. There is not a single word derived from "harpozo" or " harpagmos" that is used to suggest holding on to something already possessed. In the New Testament, these Greek words ALWAYS mean to snatch something away, to seize and TAKE it. (The KJV reverses the meaning of the Greek by reading Greek syntax as if it were English. So it reads: "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." All modern translations recognize that this is a misunderstanding of the Greek.

The meaning is clear, once we understand that to "grasp" is to seize something you did not already possess. So the far superior rendering of Philippians 2:6 is:

"Christ Jesus, who, although he existed in the form of God, did NOT regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men." (NASB, NIV, NAB, 21st-Century N.T., Revised English Bible, Good News for Modern Man/TEV)


Having informed ourselves of the meaning of "harpagmos," we can see plainly that Jesus didn't want to forcefully grasp something that was NOT his---equality with God.

Before we go onto the meaning of "grasp", we should ask ourselves why Jesus is considered the form of God. This is insinuating interchangeability.



Philippians 2:6-8
(6) Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

In Greek, form is morphe

"1. Form (Noun) morphe denotes "the special or characteristic form or feature" of a person or thing; it is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Php 2:6,7, in the phrases "being in the form of God," and "taking the form of a servant." An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: "morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists. ... Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ. ... For the interpretation of 'the form of God' it is sufficient to say that


it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them, since they could have no actual existence without it; and
that it does not include in itself anything 'accidental' or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty, which may at one time be attached to the 'form,' at another separated from it. ...
The true meaning of morphe in the expression 'form of God' is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase, 'form of a servant.' It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly antithetical, and that 'form' must therefore have the same sense in both." [ From Gillford, "The Incarnation," pp. 16,19,39.]"

http://gospelhall.org/bible/bible.php?s ... lang=greek


Here is an example:

Luke 24:13-33New International Version (NIV)

On the Road to Emmaus
13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him.

17 He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?�

They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?�

19 “What things?� he asked.

“About Jesus of Nazareth,� they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.�

25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?� 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.� So he went in to stay with them.

30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?�

33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together"

Jesus was still the same but He had a different outer appearance. Likewise, God is the same as Jesus but Jesus is God's outer appearance.

And:

Isaiah 44:13

The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in human form, human form in all its glory, that it may dwell in a shrine.


https://bible.org/article/meaning-phili ... in-godhead


Now for harpagmos. Although God and the Son are one in their essence as they are both in the form of God, they have their distinct roles which are different to each. God sent the Son to be a servant but Jesus did not digress from His role as the Son and try and seize power from God which was not His. Jesus, although another form of God, was meant to be the subordinate for His purpose of being on earth and could not take on the role of the Father. Yet before time, they were glorified as God:

Jesus said, “I glorified Thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which Thou hast given Me to do. And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was� (John 17:4-5). Amen.

Why should Jesus have glory if He is not also the Father in heaven? Should not only the Father receive glory?

[onewithhim]

Just a couple more comments, though I have commented on these points several times before, and I'm a little chagrined that my comments, apparently, weren't considered valid.

Philippians 2:6 was quoted by you to show that Jesus was equal to God. Other versions translate that verse to mean something entirely different. For example, the New American Bible, New International Version, & the New American Standard Bible, to name just a few of many, render the verse as such:

"Who, although he existed in the form of God [spirit], did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped."

"Grasped" has the meaning of taking hold of something that one did not have before.

That means being equal with God was not something to be taken advantage of (grasp)

Philippians 2:5-8New International Version (NIV)

5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

It clearly says He existed in the form of God and that He was equal yet did not exploit that.

I disagree. Jesus was in the SAME FORM as God----SPIRIT----which need not be equal to God. After all, the angels are spirits and they are not equal.

Most of the versions I have examined do NOT say that Jesus was "equal" to God. What version are YOU using?

The AB and LB are two examples of where the translators do not translate the Greek, but substitute interpretations of their own that are not based on Paul's language at all. Therefore they are inaccurate.

The word of particular interest in the verse at Phil.2:6 is the Greek "harpagmos." It is translated by some versions as "something to be grasped" (NAB, NIV), "a thing to be grasped" (NASB), and "a thing to be eagerly grasped." (AB) Translators have felt that the word "harpagmos" falls pretty clearly on one side or the other of two possible meanings---for equality or against it. The KJV uses "robbery" to translate "harpagmos, and the NWT uses "seizure." These two words suggest snatching at something one does not possess. This lines up with The Liddell & Scott Greek Dictionary which defines "harpagmos as "ROBBERY," "RAPE," & "PRIZE TO BE GRASPED."

The words related to that Greek word have to do with the seizure of something NOT YET ONE'S OWN. There is not a single word derived from "harpozo" or " harpagmos" that is used to suggest holding on to something already possessed. In the New Testament, these Greek words ALWAYS mean to snatch something away, to seize and TAKE it. (The KJV reverses the meaning of the Greek by reading Greek syntax as if it were English. So it reads: "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." All modern translations recognize that this is a misunderstanding of the Greek.

The meaning is clear, once we understand that to "grasp" is to seize something you did not already possess. So the far superior rendering of Philippians 2:6 is:

"Christ Jesus, who, although he existed in the form of God, did NOT regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men." (NASB, NIV, NAB, 21st-Century N.T., Revised English Bible, Good News for Modern Man/TEV)


Having informed ourselves of the meaning of "harpagmos," we can see plainly that Jesus didn't want to forcefully grasp something that was NOT his---equality with God.

Before we go onto the meaning of "grasp", we should ask ourselves why Jesus is considered the form of God. This is insinuating interchangeability.



Philippians 2:6-8
(6) Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

In Greek, form is morphe

"1. Form (Noun) morphe denotes "the special or characteristic form or feature" of a person or thing; it is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Php 2:6,7, in the phrases "being in the form of God," and "taking the form of a servant." An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: "morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists. ... Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ. ... For the interpretation of 'the form of God' it is sufficient to say that


it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them, since they could have no actual existence without it; and
that it does not include in itself anything 'accidental' or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty, which may at one time be attached to the 'form,' at another separated from it. ...
The true meaning of morphe in the expression 'form of God' is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase, 'form of a servant.' It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly antithetical, and that 'form' must therefore have the same sense in both." [ From Gillford, "The Incarnation," pp. 16,19,39.]"
The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in human form, human form in all its glory, that it may dwell in a shrine.

I already explained what "in the form of" means. It merely means that Jesus was a spirit Being, just like his Father, God, was. John 4:24: "God is a Spirit." No need to do mental gymnastics with that idea.

It wouldn't necessarily mean the "whole essence of the Deity," as your source suggests. That is a lot of assumption that is outside of what the first part of your quote indicates, and outside of what the Scripture says. After all, the ANGELS are spirit beings, as I've said before, and yet they do not contain the "whole essence of the Deity."

Therefore, to say that this fact that Jesus was in the form of God---a spirit---"insinuates interchangeability" is spurious.


.

[onewithhim]

Just a couple more comments, though I have commented on these points several times before, and I'm a little chagrined that my comments, apparently, weren't considered valid.

Philippians 2:6 was quoted by you to show that Jesus was equal to God. Other versions translate that verse to mean something entirely different. For example, the New American Bible, New International Version, & the New American Standard Bible, to name just a few of many, render the verse as such:

"Who, although he existed in the form of God [spirit], did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped."

"Grasped" has the meaning of taking hold of something that one did not have before.

That means being equal with God was not something to be taken advantage of (grasp)

Philippians 2:5-8New International Version (NIV)

5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

It clearly says He existed in the form of God and that He was equal yet did not exploit that.

I disagree. Jesus was in the SAME FORM as God----SPIRIT----which need not be equal to God. After all, the angels are spirits and they are not equal.

Most of the versions I have examined do NOT say that Jesus was "equal" to God. What version are YOU using?

The AB and LB are two examples of where the translators do not translate the Greek, but substitute interpretations of their own that are not based on Paul's language at all. Therefore they are inaccurate.

The word of particular interest in the verse at Phil.2:6 is the Greek "harpagmos." It is translated by some versions as "something to be grasped" (NAB, NIV), "a thing to be grasped" (NASB), and "a thing to be eagerly grasped." (AB) Translators have felt that the word "harpagmos" falls pretty clearly on one side or the other of two possible meanings---for equality or against it. The KJV uses "robbery" to translate "harpagmos, and the NWT uses "seizure." These two words suggest snatching at something one does not possess. This lines up with The Liddell & Scott Greek Dictionary which defines "harpagmos as "ROBBERY," "RAPE," & "PRIZE TO BE GRASPED."

The words related to that Greek word have to do with the seizure of something NOT YET ONE'S OWN. There is not a single word derived from "harpozo" or " harpagmos" that is used to suggest holding on to something already possessed. In the New Testament, these Greek words ALWAYS mean to snatch something away, to seize and TAKE it. (The KJV reverses the meaning of the Greek by reading Greek syntax as if it were English. So it reads: "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." All modern translations recognize that this is a misunderstanding of the Greek.

The meaning is clear, once we understand that to "grasp" is to seize something you did not already possess. So the far superior rendering of Philippians 2:6 is:

"Christ Jesus, who, although he existed in the form of God, did NOT regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men." (NASB, NIV, NAB, 21st-Century N.T., Revised English Bible, Good News for Modern Man/TEV)


Having informed ourselves of the meaning of "harpagmos," we can see plainly that Jesus didn't want to forcefully grasp something that was NOT his---equality with God.

Now for harpagmos. Although God and the Son are one in their essence as they are both in the form of God, they have their distinct roles which are different to each. God sent the Son to be a servant but Jesus did not digress from His role as the Son and try and seize power from God which was not His. Jesus, although another form of God, was meant to be the subordinate for His purpose of being on earth and could not take on the role of the Father. Yet before time, they were glorified as God:

Jesus said, “I glorified Thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which Thou hast given Me to do. And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was� (John 17:4-5). Amen.

Why should Jesus have glory if He is not also the Father in heaven? Should not only the Father receive glory?

You say that Jesus "took on the role of" being subordinate while on Earth. Then explain I Corinthians 11:3 which says: "God is the head of Christ." So, according to the Bible, God, the Father, Jehovah, is the authority over Jesus Christ---in heaven.

Jesus said to the Apostle John, when he was giving John the Revelation, that he, Jesus, HAS A GOD.

"He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the Temple of MY GOD,...and I will write on him the name of MY GOD, and the name of the city of MY GOD, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from MY GOD." (Revelation 3:12)

So it's plain to see, without mental gymnastics, that Jesus HAS a God, and God would not HAVE a God. It is also plain to see that "God is the HEAD OF CHRIST." The Father is SUPERIOR, even when Christ is in heaven.


Your scripture at John 17:4,5 does not show that Jesus was EQUAL to the Father and was glorified as God. That is not what it says at all. In fact, Jesus thanked the Father for GIVING him glory, and asked Him to give it back to him. God would not RECEIVE glory, he would already have had it, no matter the circumstance, and God would not ASK to have glory returned to Him. The Father and Christ are clearly unequal. The glory was certainly not equal, because Christ GAVE HIS DISCIPLES glory, just as the Father had given HIM glory. Any glory to the disciples would of course be far from the amount of glory that the Father had, and Jesus gave THEM the glory like that which the Father had given him!

"I have given them the glory that you have given me." (John 17:22)

Does that make the disciples equal to God?



The Father is the Source of all glory and everything good (James 1:17). Any glory that is distributed from Him to anyone else is of a much lesser intensity than what He Himself has. He dispenses "glory" to persons that He deems worthy of praise for a job well done. That glory or praise would never be equivalent to what God Himself has or deserves.

So only God should have glory? Then why did Jesus give glory to his disciples? (John 17:22) Please explain.



.

[Claire Evans]

To Claire Evans:

Just wanted to reply to a few of your comments.

(1) You wrote that the Trinity concept is in the Bible. Where?

2 Corinthians 3:17

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

So we see here that the Lord is the Holy Spirit.

1 Timothy 4:10New International Version (NIV)

10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

We know that Jesus is our saviour so Jesus and God are interchangeable.

Likewise...

Luke 1:47

and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1


..the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ...gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity.. Titus 2:13-14


"...CHRIST JESUS...being in the FORM OF GOD, thought it not robbery to be EQUAL WITH GOD: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."--Philippians 2:5-8


For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

1 John 5:7

(2) You say that we "won't find logic associated with faith." I disagree. Logic is always a good thing to appeal to.

What is logical about a relationship and faith in God? Please logically explain how that can be achieved? Faith and reason aren't mutually exclusive but logic is not the same as reason.

The primary difference between logic and reason is that reason is subject to personal opinion, whereas logic is an actual science that follows clearly defined rules and tests for critical thinking. Logic also seeks tangible, visible or audible proof of a sound thought process by reasoning.

If one wants to find God in a scientific manner, they will be disappointed.

(3) Regarding your statement about the number of atheists: I say that there are atheists in spite of logic that is indeed associated with the ways of the Lord. He gave us the ability to reason, and it's my opinion that He wants us to do that. He never does things that have no logic.

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD." (Isaiah 1:18, KJV)

Reason isn't logic.

(4) In response to your question of "how did Satan get his power before humans when he needs human suffering to be sustained?".....I ask how did you arrive at the conclusion that he needs human suffering to be sustained? Where did that come from? Satan, according to the Scriptures, was created as a good angel and, since he had free will, eventually decided to become independent of God and to run his own show. He convinced a part of the good angels to switch sides, if you will. Then we had demons---bad angels. That's not difficult to understand.

I am looking forward to your comments and answers to my questions.

Have you not experienced that for yourself? That the more Satan manages to torment a person, the stronger he gets? I know that from experience. Demons need negative energy to replenish their energy:

http://www.spiritdaily.net/emotionsspirits.htm

Satan's presence in the Garden of Gethsemane was strong because Jesus was tormented by fear. Satan was feeding off the negative energy of fear. Once God gave Jesus peace, Satan left because he can't feed off positive energy exuded by peace.

First of all, in 2 Corinthians 3:17 it says that the Spirit was OF the Lord; In fact, there are TWO implications of "spirit" in that verse. The first implication is that God IS Spirit---that means He is a spirit Person, not a physical one. ("God is a Spirit..." John 4:24) Then, afterward, it mentions the Spirit OF God, which means the force with which He does things. He creates, He anoints, He blesses, He relates in many ways to humans and the rest of His creation by way of His force, or, spirit.

Anyway, this does not show that the Spirit is a third member of a trinity of Gods.

Isn't God as a spirit also called the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is not physical. The Holy Spirit is considered our intermediary to God through Jesus Christ who is now a spirit. Why is it so hard to imagine that there are different facets to one entity? John 4:24 refers to people who must be filled with the Holy Spirit to worship Him.

Are we to say that God stopped dwelling in Jesus once Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit when He was baptized?

Furthermore, Corinthians goes on to say that Jesus is the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17-18). Jesus was a physical being.

Secondly, Jesus and God are NOT interchangeable. God says that he is Jehovah and there is no one else that is God. (Psalm 83:18, KJV; Isaiah 43:10,11; Psalm 36:9)

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the Most High over all the earth." (Psalm 83:18, KJV)

"Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am HE: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, I am Jehovah; and besides me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43:10,11, Darby)

"For with you is the source of life; by light from you we can see light." (Psalm 36:9, NWT)

If God thought the Jews understood God, then why did Jesus come to witness for the truth if the Jews had the truth already? The OT Yahweh contradicts the Father so badly that one has to wonder why.

Jesus also said that his Father, Jehovah, was "the only true God." (John 17:3) He didn't say "we are God."

Jesus said He and the Father are one so we didn't have to say "we".

Now, if Jehovah is the only God, and He is the Savior, how can Jesus be the Savior? He can be the Savior because JEHOVAH CHOSE HIM to do the job of coming to Earth and giving up his human life for mankind. Jesus was ANOINTED to do these things and represent Jehovah on the earth. Jesus was God's MEANS of saving mankind. The SOURCE of that plan was Jehovah. It was Jehovah who instructed Jesus as to what to do.

God without Jesus cannot be the saviour. Was it believed in the OT that God could only save by sending His Son? And I mean generally accepted by the Jews. If animal sacrifices were enough to redeem sin, then what was Jesus for? Consider that Jesus was incarnate of God so that He could come to this earth in physical form. Jesus wasn't just a representative. He said He was one with God! Any messiah can say they represent God.

"The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is on me [Jesus; Luke 4:16-21], because Jehovah did anoint me to proclaim tidings to the humble, he sent me to bind the broken of heart, to proclaim to captives liberty, and to bound ones an opening of bands. To proclaim the year of the good pleasure of Jehovah, and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all mourners." (Isaiah 61:1,2, Young's Literal Translation)

Did Jehovah anoint himself?

"Jesus therefore responded [to those who accused him of making himself equal to God] and said unto them, 'Verily, verily, I say to you, The Son is not able to do anything of himself, if he may not see the Father doing anything; for whatever things He may do, these also the Son doeth in like manner; for the Father doth love the Son, and doth show to him all things that He himself doeth." (John 5:19, Young's) So....Jesus LEARNED from the Father. God does not have to learn from anybody.

Jesus said: "I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to speak....The things I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak." (John 12:49,50) It doesn't look like Jesus and the Father, Jehovah, are one and the same. Jesus took orders from the Father.

Let's look at the egg analogy. We see the egg as one unit. Taking out the yolk, albumen and peel off the shell doesn't make them suddenly separate not related to the same unit. You can't see yolk and think it never came from the egg. It is the same. You cannot think of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as separate beings when they were one with the Father in the form of an egg. The various parts that make up an egg have different functions as Jesus and the Holy Spirit have yet are still one with the Father.

You are being, inadvertently I'm sure, deceptive in your presentation of Titus 2:13 as showing that Jesus is God. Versions DIFFER in its rendering! For example, the New American Bible puts it this way: "As we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God [Jehovah] AND OF our savior Jesus Christ." Totally different meaning than what you presented. (That word "of" means a lot.)

Us who believe in the trinity also say God and the Holy Spirit and Jesus. Yet this doesn't mean we are viewing them as three separate entities but rather three aspects of the one God. We cannot see God and so we can only see God when He is the form of Jesus. Seeing Jesus is seeing God.

John 1:1---"and the word was God"---is a mess of a translation, and I imagine St. John, who is now in heaven, cringes at the meaning trying to be conveyed by most Bible translators. The King James translation committee was so extremely biased by their own religious up-bringing that they made out the words of John to mean something he never meant! He was trying to show a DISTINCTION between "the" God and the Word. In Greek, "the" god had the definite article in front of "god." That showed that it was the only God that was being referred to. In the phrase "and the word was God," there is no definite article in front of "god," so it is correctly rendered "a god." So the Word was NOT the God. It is difficult to understand if a person doesn't know that in the Apostle John's time "god" meant any powerful, important person; the people thought of judges and political figures as "gods."

http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... s-ago.html


.

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htm


It was crucial you address all points which you tend not to do and that is why I'm reluctant to debate with you. So I post it again:

"...CHRIST JESUS...being in the FORM OF GOD, thought it not robbery to be EQUAL WITH GOD: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."--Philippians 2:5-8


For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

This clearly indicates the belief in a trinity.

Why are people so reluctant to talk about evil and Satan? You are the second person I've come across that has glossed over the mention of Satan.

I would say No, God is not also called the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit comes from God, it is not God. It is "force" emanating from Him, similar to the term "power."

There is some discussion out there that 2 Corinthians 3:17,18 refers to the Father, Jehovah, rather than Jesus. It says "the Lord." Which "Lord" is that? Since scribes refused to acknowledge the name of God in the Greek Scriptures, there has been great confusion. Even where "YHWH" is in the O.T. and is quoted in the N.T., copiers have declined to carry the Divine Name over in the quote. So how can we tell which Lord is being referred to? Some scholars would say it is "Jehovah" in 2 Corinthians and not Jesus.

There is a different meaning not related to the trinity. Jesus as the Spirit who enables true understanding of God not known through non believers belief in the OT.

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/2 ... /3-17.html

Jesus said that he and the Father are "one," meaning they were unified, they saw eye-to-eye, they were in agreement, not that they are the same Person or the same God. It was the same thing that Jesus said about his disciples at John 17:20-23. He prayed 'that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us.... Also, I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one....."

Doesn't that show you what "one" means in these scriptures (even in John 10:30)?

That is not how the Jews saw it and Jesus did not correct it:

John 10:31

“The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.� Why? Blasphemy was a crime punishable by death according to the Jewish Law. When Jesus asked why they were planning to kill Him, they answered, “For blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God� (John 10:33)

Jesus referring to the disciples as being one means being one in one spiritual body.

1 Cor. 6:17. Let them all be stamped with the same image and superscription, and influenced by the same power.

John 11:52New International Version (NIV)

52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.


https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ ... John.17.23

God, Jehovah, is the Savior. He doesn't need anybody else, but He chose to include Jesus in His plan for salvation. Jesus is the means by which Jehovah saves, as has been explained.

By what other method do you think that God could have saved mankind? Would He not have chosen any other way other than for His Son to suffer death and hell? He clearly thought being in the form of the Son was the only way to reach out and save mankind. No Jesus, no salvation.

No, let's not look at the "egg analogy." It is a lame attempt to make God out to be THREE. He is not three, He is "one" and only one Person. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

If the OT writers had it right about God, why did Jesus come to make a new covenant? They didn't understand God so why use Deuteronomy as ammo to your argument?

You say that I don't usually address all of your points, but that is just not true. I have shown you that many Bible versions do not translate Phil.2:6 the way that the KJV translates it. You have chosen to IGNORE what I have, in a thorough manner, posted.

I have also commented on I John 5:7. Why do you keep ignoring that? I have commented on it now for the third time. (That verse is not accepted by most scholars today as authentic; it was added much later than when John wrote that first letter.)


How have I been "reluctant" to take about Satan? I have never been reluctant to talk about the number one opponent of God.

Sorry, I didn't see that you had continued your comment in a new comment section.

Do you agree that Satan feed off the agony of Christ?

You are commenting in a manner like that of throwing plaster at the walls and hoping that some of it sticks, no matter how far from clear and reasonable it is. You respond to one scripture that I cite by commenting on an entirely different scripture, as anyone can see if they take the time to read through the above posts.

What does it matter to us (we who are listening to Jesus) if the Jews didn't see it the way Jesus taught it? He said so himself, that they were teaching traditions of men, and not God's commands.

It does matter because Yahweh is supposed to be the Father of Jesus. How can they be in congruent? Why should Jesus have a new commandment if the OT beliefs are truly commandments from God? He said He came to bring a new covenant. The Jews were expecting a messiah as prophecized for them and Jesus didn't fit the description! Why? Why should Jesus say those who live by the sword, die by the sword when Yahweh was commanding war all the time? In fact, he is known as the God of War.

"He said to them: 'Isaiah aptly prophesied about you,hypocrites, as it is written, "This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me [YHWH], because they teach as doctrines commands of men." Letting go the commandment of God, you hold fast the tradition of men."'" (Mark 7:6-8)[/quote]

One of the commandments of God could not be, "You shall not commit murder" because, according to the OT, Yahweh always advocated that. Yes, those traditions of men included the ten commandments. Clearly they were laws like we have today like it being illegal to murder, steal, etc. What is the point of having these laws if one does not obey God's commandment to love one another and put God first? That is what Jesus changed it to.

Jesus scorned the traditions of men but, according to Jewish tradition, keeping the Sabbath was vital. Jesus disregarded that but, according to the OT, one was to be put to death for not observing the Sabbath( Numbers 15: 32-3). See the problems here?

Jesus said clearly that to be "one" was to be in agreement; to be unified. (John 17:21-23) Why do you continue to set that aside?

You say that Jesus did not correct the Pharisees when they accused him of being equal to God, but, as I have pointed out already, he DID correct them. In THEIR eyes, he could be condemned for "making himself equal to God," just because he called God his own Father. Calling God his Father did not mean that he was calling himself equal to God. He refuted that immediately by saying:

"'Most truly I say to you, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.'" (John 5:19) The Son LEARNED FROM the Father. If he was God, would he have to learn anything?

He obviously made the claim that He was God for others to accuse Him of blasphemy. Else where else did they get the idea that Jesus claimed He was God? So, no, He did not correct them.

He also corrected them, at John 10:34-36, when the Jews accused him of "making himself God."

He replied: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said: "You are gods"'? If he [the Father] called 'gods' those against whom the word of God came [human judges in Israel], and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I SAID I AM GOD'S SON?" You will notice that he absolutely corrected them, both times that they accused him of saying he was God or equal to God.

He was pointing out the hypocrisy of them being offended because He claimed He was God but they called themselves gods. Gods in the context of the OT means those who are in authority like judges and those who represent God.


https://www.gotquestions.org/you-are-gods.html

So where did the Jews get the impression He was claiming to be God when Jesus said He was the Son of God? He probably claimed both. Jesus claimed to be the light of the world. This made people really indignant because the Father was supposed to be the light of the world. Then He said something more blasphemous to them:

“The truth is, before Abraham was, I AM (John 8:58)

God is said to have said to Moses in Exodus 3:14

"I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

Jesus is saying He is God.


“I alone am God. There is no other God; there never has been and never will be. I am the Lord, and there is no other Savior� (Isaiah 43:10, 11 NLT)

Jesus is either saying the truth that He is God or He is lying. If He is both the Son and the Father as in the concept of the trinity.

The "Equal concept":

"Jesus also claimed to be the, “Son of God.� This title doesn’t mean Jesus is God’s biological Son. Nor does it imply inferiority any more than a human son is inferior in essence to his father. A son shares his father’s DNA, and although he is different, they are both equal as men."



http://y-jesus.com/more/jcg-jesus-claim-god/3/

If Jesus is not God, then He cannot be our saviour as only, as Isaiah indicates, Yahweh is the saviour.

You neglected to answer my pointed questions, such as "did Jesus anoint himself?" You get around that by more smoke, mirrors, distractions, and changing the subject, IMHO. It would be great if you would actually spend a little time in taking into consideration what has been said in response to your allegations and then commenting on those things, especially when questions are asked of you to further the discussion.

You rejected the egg analogy. You rejected the notion that God has 3 facets and that Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit. The trinity does not espouse that they are three distinct beings. It is not beyond God to manifest Himself as a human being in the form of Jesus yet still retain the role of the Father. It seems odd but that is not beyond the supernatural. It's absurd to believe someone can be omniscience and omnipresent. That doesn't seem possible but it is to the supernatural.

Do you agree that Satan feed off the agony of Christ?

[Claire Evans]

Just a couple more comments, though I have commented on these points several times before, and I'm a little chagrined that my comments, apparently, weren't considered valid.

Philippians 2:6 was quoted by you to show that Jesus was equal to God. Other versions translate that verse to mean something entirely different. For example, the New American Bible, New International Version, & the New American Standard Bible, to name just a few of many, render the verse as such:

"Who, although he existed in the form of God [spirit], did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped."

"Grasped" has the meaning of taking hold of something that one did not have before.

That means being equal with God was not something to be taken advantage of (grasp)

Philippians 2:5-8New International Version (NIV)

5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

It clearly says He existed in the form of God and that He was equal yet did not exploit that.

I disagree. Jesus was in the SAME FORM as God----SPIRIT----which need not be equal to God. After all, the angels are spirits and they are not equal.

Most of the versions I have examined do NOT say that Jesus was "equal" to God. What version are YOU using?

The AB and LB are two examples of where the translators do not translate the Greek, but substitute interpretations of their own that are not based on Paul's language at all. Therefore they are inaccurate.

The word of particular interest in the verse at Phil.2:6 is the Greek "harpagmos." It is translated by some versions as "something to be grasped" (NAB, NIV), "a thing to be grasped" (NASB), and "a thing to be eagerly grasped." (AB) Translators have felt that the word "harpagmos" falls pretty clearly on one side or the other of two possible meanings---for equality or against it. The KJV uses "robbery" to translate "harpagmos, and the NWT uses "seizure." These two words suggest snatching at something one does not possess. This lines up with The Liddell & Scott Greek Dictionary which defines "harpagmos as "ROBBERY," "RAPE," & "PRIZE TO BE GRASPED."

The words related to that Greek word have to do with the seizure of something NOT YET ONE'S OWN. There is not a single word derived from "harpozo" or " harpagmos" that is used to suggest holding on to something already possessed. In the New Testament, these Greek words ALWAYS mean to snatch something away, to seize and TAKE it. (The KJV reverses the meaning of the Greek by reading Greek syntax as if it were English. So it reads: "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." All modern translations recognize that this is a misunderstanding of the Greek.

The meaning is clear, once we understand that to "grasp" is to seize something you did not already possess. So the far superior rendering of Philippians 2:6 is:

"Christ Jesus, who, although he existed in the form of God, did NOT regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men." (NASB, NIV, NAB, 21st-Century N.T., Revised English Bible, Good News for Modern Man/TEV)


Having informed ourselves of the meaning of "harpagmos," we can see plainly that Jesus didn't want to forcefully grasp something that was NOT his---equality with God.

Before we go onto the meaning of "grasp", we should ask ourselves why Jesus is considered the form of God. This is insinuating interchangeability.



Philippians 2:6-8
(6) Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

In Greek, form is morphe

"1. Form (Noun) morphe denotes "the special or characteristic form or feature" of a person or thing; it is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Php 2:6,7, in the phrases "being in the form of God," and "taking the form of a servant." An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: "morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists. ... Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ. ... For the interpretation of 'the form of God' it is sufficient to say that


it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them, since they could have no actual existence without it; and
that it does not include in itself anything 'accidental' or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty, which may at one time be attached to the 'form,' at another separated from it. ...
The true meaning of morphe in the expression 'form of God' is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase, 'form of a servant.' It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly antithetical, and that 'form' must therefore have the same sense in both." [ From Gillford, "The Incarnation," pp. 16,19,39.]"
The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in human form, human form in all its glory, that it may dwell in a shrine.

I already explained what "in the form of" means. It merely means that Jesus was a spirit Being, just like his Father, God, was. John 4:24: "God is a Spirit." No need to do mental gymnastics with that idea.

It wouldn't necessarily mean the "whole essence of the Deity," as your source suggests. That is a lot of assumption that is outside of what the first part of your quote indicates, and outside of what the Scripture says. After all, the ANGELS are spirit beings, as I've said before, and yet they do not contain the "whole essence of the Deity."

Therefore, to say that this fact that Jesus was in the form of God---a spirit---"insinuates interchangeability" is spurious.


.

But you appear not to know the context of morph used by the writer. If I morph into something, I come in a different form yet am still related to what I originally was.

It is not said that the angels existed in the form of God so they cannot have the whole essence of God.

And another thing:

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'"(John 14:9).

How can Jesus say if they have seen Him, they have seen the Father when they are separate beings?

[Claire Evans]

Just a couple more comments, though I have commented on these points several times before, and I'm a little chagrined that my comments, apparently, weren't considered valid.

Philippians 2:6 was quoted by you to show that Jesus was equal to God. Other versions translate that verse to mean something entirely different. For example, the New American Bible, New International Version, & the New American Standard Bible, to name just a few of many, render the verse as such:

"Who, although he existed in the form of God [spirit], did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped."

"Grasped" has the meaning of taking hold of something that one did not have before.

That means being equal with God was not something to be taken advantage of (grasp)

Philippians 2:5-8New International Version (NIV)

5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

It clearly says He existed in the form of God and that He was equal yet did not exploit that.

I disagree. Jesus was in the SAME FORM as God----SPIRIT----which need not be equal to God. After all, the angels are spirits and they are not equal.

Most of the versions I have examined do NOT say that Jesus was "equal" to God. What version are YOU using?

The AB and LB are two examples of where the translators do not translate the Greek, but substitute interpretations of their own that are not based on Paul's language at all. Therefore they are inaccurate.

The word of particular interest in the verse at Phil.2:6 is the Greek "harpagmos." It is translated by some versions as "something to be grasped" (NAB, NIV), "a thing to be grasped" (NASB), and "a thing to be eagerly grasped." (AB) Translators have felt that the word "harpagmos" falls pretty clearly on one side or the other of two possible meanings---for equality or against it. The KJV uses "robbery" to translate "harpagmos, and the NWT uses "seizure." These two words suggest snatching at something one does not possess. This lines up with The Liddell & Scott Greek Dictionary which defines "harpagmos as "ROBBERY," "RAPE," & "PRIZE TO BE GRASPED."

The words related to that Greek word have to do with the seizure of something NOT YET ONE'S OWN. There is not a single word derived from "harpozo" or " harpagmos" that is used to suggest holding on to something already possessed. In the New Testament, these Greek words ALWAYS mean to snatch something away, to seize and TAKE it. (The KJV reverses the meaning of the Greek by reading Greek syntax as if it were English. So it reads: "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." All modern translations recognize that this is a misunderstanding of the Greek.

The meaning is clear, once we understand that to "grasp" is to seize something you did not already possess. So the far superior rendering of Philippians 2:6 is:

"Christ Jesus, who, although he existed in the form of God, did NOT regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men." (NASB, NIV, NAB, 21st-Century N.T., Revised English Bible, Good News for Modern Man/TEV)


Having informed ourselves of the meaning of "harpagmos," we can see plainly that Jesus didn't want to forcefully grasp something that was NOT his---equality with God.

Now for harpagmos. Although God and the Son are one in their essence as they are both in the form of God, they have their distinct roles which are different to each. God sent the Son to be a servant but Jesus did not digress from His role as the Son and try and seize power from God which was not His. Jesus, although another form of God, was meant to be the subordinate for His purpose of being on earth and could not take on the role of the Father. Yet before time, they were glorified as God:

Jesus said, “I glorified Thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which Thou hast given Me to do. And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was� (John 17:4-5). Amen.

Why should Jesus have glory if He is not also the Father in heaven? Should not only the Father receive glory?

You say that Jesus "took on the role of" being subordinate while on Earth. Then explain I Corinthians 11:3 which says: "God is the head of Christ." So, according to the Bible, God, the Father, Jehovah, is the authority over Jesus Christ---in heaven.




Jesus said to the Apostle John, when he was giving John the Revelation, that he, Jesus, HAS A GOD.

"He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the Temple of MY GOD,...and I will write on him the name of MY GOD, and the name of the city of MY GOD, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from MY GOD." (Revelation 3:12)

So it's plain to see, without mental gymnastics, that Jesus HAS a God, and God would not HAVE a God. It is also plain to see that "God is the HEAD OF CHRIST." The Father is SUPERIOR, even when Christ is in heaven.

Jesus, being equal assumed that role as a subordinate and it appears in the spirit realm also. Yet, He as God has the power to choose to be a subordinate. We see in the Nicene Creed that it says Jesus is seated as the right hand of the Father, thus still be distinguishable in heaven. I'm glad I got the opportunity to rectify this.

Your scripture at John 17:4,5 does not show that Jesus was EQUAL to the Father and was glorified as God. That is not what it says at all. In fact, Jesus thanked the Father for GIVING him glory, and asked Him to give it back to him. God would not RECEIVE glory, he would already have had it, no matter the circumstance, and God would not ASK to have glory returned to Him. The Father and Christ are clearly unequal. The glory was certainly not equal, because Christ GAVE HIS DISCIPLES glory, just as the Father had given HIM glory. Any glory to the disciples would of course be far from the amount of glory that the Father had, and Jesus gave THEM the glory like that which the Father had given him!

"I have given them the glory that you have given me." (John 17:22)




The Father is the Source of all glory and everything good (James 1:17). Any glory that is distributed from Him to anyone else is of a much lesser intensity than what He Himself has. He dispenses "glory" to persons that He deems worthy of praise for a job well done. That glory or praise would never be equivalent to what God Himself has or deserves.

So only God should have glory? Then why did Jesus give glory to his disciples? (John 17:22) Please explain.

Why can't you consider that Jesus, being a form of God, choose to make Himself a subordinate to receive glory from the Father who is also God? It seems strange to us that one entity can "divide" themselves to assume different roles, but that is the supernatural.

The context in the glory given to the disciples is being one with Jesus and sharing in eternal life. That we can be one with Him as co-heirs of heaven. (John 17:21) The glory given to the disciples is the Holy Spirit within them even on earth.

Does that make the disciples equal to God?

The disciples didn't have the glory from the beginning as Jesus claimed of Himself.


http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/17-22.htm