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.

[Wootah]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #20]

OK but could he grasp equality or not?

Lack of answers seems avoiding to me.

[Wootah]

Is anyone who thinks Jesus is not God willing to answer whether Jesus could grasp equality or not?

You

Yes he could because ....

Or

No he could not because ....

[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.

So if Jesus is just a man why does the Bible even say he was in the form of a man?...

Maybe it is said for that people would not so easily think he is the one and only true God.

[Wootah]

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"?

I agree grasping is to gentle a phrasing.

Could Jesus have seized equality?

[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"?

I agree grasping is to gentle a phrasing.

Could Jesus have seized equality?

[JehovahsWitness]

Could Jesus have seized equality?

Could Jesus or anyone have been equal to Almighty God in power, age and position? No. Could Jesus have reached out and to steal / violently sieze/ grasp the divine right to rule? (Stage a coup if you were?) Yes. After all that is exactly what Satan did!

We can only speculate in what sense Paul spoke of "equality" but'it seems reasonble to conclude it was in this latter sense of falsly claiming equal right to rulership and worship.



JC

[Wootah]

Could Jesus have seized equality?

Could Jesus or anyone have been equal to Almighty God in power, age and position? No. Could Jesus have reached out and to steal / violently sieze/ grasp the divine right to rule? (Stage a coup if you were?) Yes. After all that is exactly what Satan did!

JC

Imagine equality with God is Thor's hammer. If you can pick up the hammer you are morally equal to Thor.

Could Jesus have picked up/grasped/siezed the hammer (equality with God or not?

Edit: in the marvel story, no one can grasp the hammer, all are unworthy. In that story: no Jesus could not grasp the hammer.

[JehovahsWitness]

Imagine equality with God is Thor's hammer. If you can pick up the hammer you are morally equal to Thor.

Could Jesus have picked up/grasped/siezed the hammer (equality with God or not?

Why should I? That presumes equality with God (in the absolute) is something that can be seperate from his person and thus be transferable, which obviously is not the case.

For example one cannot be equal to God and be younger than him. Since He is infinate, no created being can equal him in age. His age is an integral part of him, He cannot make someone as old as him nor can he put his infinity down for someone to steal. This is like saying imagine a FATHER making his child older than him

Your illustration simply cannot apply.

[Wootah]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #28]

The Bible says what it says.

We shouldn't perform eisegesis to it the way you do.

Instead you take a simple sentence that implies Jesus could have equality but doesn't grasp it and quite honestly I can't understand how you avoid the conclusion which is why I am trying to explain the sentence to you.

Now i didn't think of this at the start of the thread but it came to me.

You are arguing (I think) that it means he never thought of the idea, the thought never crossed his mind.

But hebrews said Jesus was tempted in every way.

https://www.bible.com/bible/compare/HEB.4.14-16

The basic sin of Adam (siezing the fruit) and all of us is to attempt to sieze equality with God. So it seems bizarre that if Jesus was tempted in every way that he was not tempted in this most basic of ways. So it can't mean your interpretation.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #28]

The Bible says what it says.

Exactly, and that is He (the Father) is ALMIGHTY. You cannot have two Almighties as that would mean a shared supremecy, which is by definition not supremecy at all.