What did Paul mean?

[Elijah John]

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped

For debate:

What did Paul mean when he said Christ was "in the form of God"?

-Aren't we all made in the image of God?
-Did Paul believe that Christ was God? Or that Christ was God in disguise?

[onewithhim]

The word "form" refers to “that body of qualities which constitute (Jesus) God and without which he would not be God� (See Bob Deffinbaugh, The Spirit of Christ, http://bible.org/seriespage/spirit-chri ... ians-21-13, June 2004).

It “refers to that which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it� (Gerald Hawthorne, “In the Form of God and Equal With God� in Where Christology Began, edited by R. Martin and Brian J. Dodd, Louisville, Kentucky, Westerminster John Knox Press, 1998, p. 101).

In classical Greek, "it describes the actual specific character, which (like the structure of a material substance) makes each being what it is; and this same idea is always conveyed in the New Testament by the compound words in which the root "form" is found (Romans 8:29; Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Galatians 4:19). (Ellicot's Commentary,https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ellic ... ians/2.htm)

"The expression “form of God� is one of the strongest possible ways to express Christ’s deity in the Greek language. The term “form� (morphe) refers not to outward similarities, but to inward or essential attributes, properties, and characteristics."( https://bible.org/seriespage/3-jesus-ch ... and-savior).

Therefore, the Hymn to Christ states that Christ is God. Paul did not write it. He merely used it in his letter to the Philippians. Bible scholars believe it was one of the earliest creeds used by the church not long after Christ's ascension to heaven. Obviously, since Paul chose to use it, he must have believed what it said about Jesus being divine.

And, of course, he demonstrated that belief elsewhere in his letters, including the one he wrote to Titus. He wrote, “. . . while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good� (Titus 2:13-14).

The words "God" and "Saviour" both refer to Jesus. It is one of the clearest statements in the New Testament re: Christ's deity. The construction of the Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule. Sharp pointed out that "in the construction of article-noun-and-noun, when nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they ALWAYS have the same referent." (NET Bible footnote).

Unfortunately, Jehovah Witnesses re-wrote that verse in their New World Translation to make it fit their belief that Jesus wasn't divine. That's the problem with their version of the Bible. It was not based on Greek texts and, therefore, contains a lot of errors which, if they would go back to the original Greek, they would see.

Jesus is indeed God the Son, the second person of the Triune Godhead. For more, see here:

http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org ... -deity-of-...

You add a lot to the Scriptures, as do Bob Deffenbaugh and Gerald Hawthorne. It is a simple deduction: Jesus was in the form of God, and God is a SPIRIT, therefore Jesus' form was SPIRIT. That did not make him God. Hawthorne insists that this makes Jesus EQUAL to God, but that is not what the Scripture says (bad translation of Phil.2:6 notwithstanding). I don't know what hymn you refer to, but the Scripture does not say or infer that "Christ is God."

Paul did not say that Jesus was God. He did not believe that, and if you would read any of his salutations to the congregations you would see he clearly differentiates between "God" and "Jesus Christ, His Son." Titus 2:13 is not referring to only Jesus, as you would have it. He speaks of TWO individuals, "the great God" AND "of our Savior, Jesus Christ." The great God is the Father and God of Jesus and us all. Paul says so repeatedly, if you would take the time to read all of his introductions to the congregations.

It is not a clear statement that Jesus is God. You take a reference to his Father and make it a reference to him. That is dishonest, is it not? JWs did not "re-write" that verse. If you compared other versions, you would find that several versions translate it the same way. They recognize TWO Persons in that verse, and not just one.

Granville Sharp is blustering into his necktie. He has his opinion, other scholars say something different.

The New World Translation did go back to the original Greek, and, in fact, base their scholarship on Westcott and Hort's work. I believe those men are honored in the scholarly community. There are not any errors of note in the NWT, and at least one scholar finds it to be the best translation available. (Jason BeDuhn, author of Truth in Translation)

Jesus is never referred to as "God the Son" anywhere in the Bible. He is always the Son of God. The "Triune Godhead" is spurious and blasphemous. It is a pagan doctrine and was not accepted by the apostate church until the 4th century, after GRADUALLY playing around with it and molding it to suit whatever political wind was blowing. I'd make sure of what accusations I'm casting abroad before I make these claims against honest people who desire nothing but to honor Christ and his Father, God.

John 20:17
I Corinthians 11:3

[onewithhim]

The word "form" refers to “that body of qualities which constitute (Jesus) God and without which he would not be God� (See Bob Deffinbaugh, The Spirit of Christ, http://bible.org/seriespage/spirit-chri ... ians-21-13, June 2004).

It “refers to that which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it� (Gerald Hawthorne, “In the Form of God and Equal With God� in Where Christology Began, edited by R. Martin and Brian J. Dodd, Louisville, Kentucky, Westerminster John Knox Press, 1998, p. 101).

In classical Greek, "it describes the actual specific character, which (like the structure of a material substance) makes each being what it is; and this same idea is always conveyed in the New Testament by the compound words in which the root "form" is found (Romans 8:29; Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Galatians 4:19). (Ellicot's Commentary,https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ellic ... ians/2.htm)

"The expression “form of God� is one of the strongest possible ways to express Christ’s deity in the Greek language. The term “form� (morphe) refers not to outward similarities, but to inward or essential attributes, properties, and characteristics."( https://bible.org/seriespage/3-jesus-ch ... and-savior).

Therefore, the Hymn to Christ states that Christ is God. Paul did not write it. He merely used it in his letter to the Philippians. Bible scholars believe it was one of the earliest creeds used by the church not long after Christ's ascension to heaven. Obviously, since Paul chose to use it, he must have believed what it said about Jesus being divine.

And, of course, he demonstrated that belief elsewhere in his letters, including the one he wrote to Titus. He wrote, “. . . while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good� (Titus 2:13-14).

The words "God" and "Saviour" both refer to Jesus. It is one of the clearest statements in the New Testament re: Christ's deity. The construction of the Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule. Sharp pointed out that "in the construction of article-noun-and-noun, when nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they ALWAYS have the same referent." (NET Bible footnote).

Unfortunately, Jehovah Witnesses re-wrote that verse in their New World Translation to make it fit their belief that Jesus wasn't divine. That's the problem with their version of the Bible. It was not based on Greek texts and, therefore, contains a lot of errors which, if they would go back to the original Greek, they would see.

Jesus is indeed God the Son, the second person of the Triune Godhead. For more, see here:

http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org ... -deity-of-...

You add a lot to the Scriptures, as do Bob Deffenbaugh and Gerald Hawthorne. It is a simple deduction: Jesus was in the form of God, and God is a SPIRIT, therefore Jesus' form was SPIRIT. That did not make him God. Hawthorne insists that this makes Jesus EQUAL to God, but that it not what the Scripture says (bad translation of Phil.2:6 notwithstanding). I don't know what hymn you refer to, but the Scripture does not say or infer that "Christ is God."

Paul did not say that Jesus was God. He did not believe that, and if you would read any of his salutations to the congregations you would see he clearly differentiates between "God" and "Jesus Christ, His Son." Titus 2:13 is not referring to only Jesus, as you would have it. He speaks of TWO individuals, "the great God" AND "of our Savior, Jesus Christ." The great God is the Father and God of Jesus and us all. Paul says so repeatedly, if you would take the time to read all of his introductions to the congregations.

It is not a clear statement that Jesus is God. You take a reference to his Father and make it a reference to him. That is dishonest, is it not? JWs did not "re-write" that verse. If you compared other versions, you would find that several versions translate it the same way. They recognize TWO Persons in that verse, and not just one.

Granville Sharp is blustering into his necktie. He has his opinion, other scholars say something different.

The New World Translation did go back to the original Greek, and, in fact, base their scholarship on Westcott and Hort's work. I believe those men are honored in the scholarly community. There are not any errors of note in the NWT, and at least one scholar finds it to be the best translation available. (Jason BeDuhn, author of Truth in Translation)

Jesus is never referred to as "God the Son" anywhere in the Bible. He is always the Son of God. The "Triune Godhead" is spurious and blasphemous. It is a pagan doctrine and was not accepted by the apostate church until the 4th century, after GRADUALLY playing around with it and molding it to suit whatever political wind was blowing. I'd make sure of what accusations I'm casting abroad before I make these claims against honest people who desire nothing but to honor Christ and his Father, God.

John 20:17
I Corinthians 11:3

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim]

All im saying is it can be logically valid to have one thing made up as three. An argument was made suggesting that this breaks mathematical laws. I think that is incorrect... One thing can be made of three distinguished parts... It can be logically valid that God is made up as three parts, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit..

That can be logically sound (although it doesnt need to be (see reference (a))

Im not making a case whether it is scriptural sound... In the case of scripture, i am more indifferent then determined when it comes to the trinity... If God wanted to make this an important part of worship, He could have made it VERY clear, as clear as Jesus as the Messiah. As clear as Jesus died for our sins... But I dont think it is that clear, so why should we quarrel about it if it isnt so black and white?



(Reference (a)) 1 Corinthians 1
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.�

20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.


If it is logically invalid to make up the trinity, or foolish to make the trinity, does that matter?

Jesus himself referred to the Father as "God." Not the Father and himself and the H.S. Only the Father. He called Him God, and so did his Apostles refer to the Father as "God." They call Jesus "the Son of God." There is never any reference to three Persons being God. The Father, Son and H.S. are mentioned together often, but that doesn't make them EQUAL. That doesn't make them all "God."

It matters that we give glory to God and no one else (as God). Jesus has glory, but not the glory that the Father has. (Phil.2:11) In fact, the Father GAVE Jesus what glory Jesus has. (John 17:5) Jesus thought it was important to glorify his Father above all others, so I think it is important that we recognize that also. (See also I Corinthians 15:28.)

[onewithhim]

Why would it not make sense, logically, that a complete God is made up of a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? (as iff it needs to be logically sounds (1 Corinthians 1:18-25))

Our government is made by three branches... I see no reason that three PEOPLE as you say (even though they arent all people, i.e. the Holy Spirit and the Father are not phsyical people) cant make up one God...

Logically this is irrelevant... Scripturally is doesnt seem to be that relevant either... In the case of JW's, it seems like you guys are driven by your own political separation from mainstream Christianity... If you guys have back stepped on many failed prophecies, whos to say you are right about being so hardcore anti trinitarian

It doesn't make sense because "God" is referred to by Jesus and his disciples as THE FATHER ONLY. (I Corinthians 8:6)

[onewithhim]

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28)

Do you dismiss that too?

Of course not. You seem to miss the point that Jesus was GIVEN all authority. If he was God or equal to God, he wouldn't need to be GIVEN anything.

He always said that he relied on the Father (God alone) for everything, not able to stand alone on his own power and initiative.

"The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand." (John3:35)

"Jesus said to them: 'Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son does also in like manner.'" (John 5:19) The Son learns from the Father. Does that sound like Jesus is equal to the Father?

"I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me." (John 6:38)


I could go on with plenty of passages that show that Jesus was subordinate to his Father, even while in heaven, but I think that you can see by these few verses that Jesus depended on his Father for everything, and sought the Father's glory and not his own. He is clearly not "God."

[onewithhim]

Ok, i see no reason that we should be against the trinity. If Jesus told people to baptist people in the name of all three that make the trinity...

But my beliefs are not so hardcore cutting edge... That is JW's job..


If you guys have back stepped on failed prophecies, what make you think you shouldnt backstep on this?

If your beliefs are true, why wouldn't you cherish them "hard-core"?

Where in that baptismal "formula" (as the RCC calls it) does it indicate that all three of those "persons" are equal? I don't see any indication of that at all. And just because some things or persons are spoken of in the same breath, does that make them all the same, or, equal? My brothers are Tom, Dick and Harry. They are all one entity! Really?

[onewithhim]

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped

For debate:

What did Paul mean when he said Christ was "in the form of God"?

-Aren't we all made in the image of God?
-Did Paul believe that Christ was God? Or that Christ was God in disguise?

Whatever we decide, it is clear that for Paul Jesus was not simply "a good Rabbi" or even "the best Rabbi".

Let's plug in the name of a respected Rabbi of Paul's time, Gamaliel.

"But Gamaliel emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of man...".

I don't care how you render the various Greek terms, it is clear no Jew would ever use such language of someone he thought was simply a venerable man.


The options are:

Paul believed Jesus preexisted his earthly appearance, but was, like the angels, still a creation.

Paul believed Jesus preexisted his earthly appearance, because he was never created, but always was.

I don't understand what your objection is, if we are telling you over and over that Jesus was not "just a venerable man" but was God's Son who came down from heaven.

Your first option is correct. Jesus was the first individual that Jehovah ever created. He has been given the second-highest position in the universe. There is nothing belittling about that fact.

[onewithhim]

If Jesus were in the "form of God", wouldn't that have been obvious to all? Even the Pharisees and Saducees, even the Romans who crucified him?

Seems Jesus, even if he were God, was in the form of a completely human man.

If Jesus was in the "form of God" seems he even had his disciples fooled. At least until his resurrection. Then, was Jesus simply glorified, or did he simply shed his human disguise, and reveal his true form?

He had to LEAVE the form of being a spirit person in order to live on the earth as a human. He was a perfect human being, just as Adam was before he disobeyed. In order to be a covering sacrifice, Jesus had to be equal to Adam. It is not for nothing that Paul called Jesus "the last Adam." (I Corinthians 15:45)

He didn't "fool" his disciples. He had told them that he came from heaven. They all knew that to be in heaven you have to be in the form of spirit. That is a given. And in order to carry on on the planet as a human being, one has to be in physical form. It has been shown that Jesus went back to his spirit form when he was resurrected. (I Corinthians 15:45; I Peter 3:18)

[onewithhim]

Another poster wrote, “say what mean and mean what you say.� I find that Paul did this.

Paul wrote that Jesus is God. He meant that Jesus is God. Everything else is just eisegesis (word play to impose an interpretation on to the text).

If we must engage in such word play then it is worth pointing out that Paul used the same language in the next verse. In Philippians 2:7 Paul wrote that Jesus took “the form of a servant.�

Now, would anyone seriously say that Paul was not saying that Jesus was a servant? It seems ridiculous to even suggest. So I can find no justification for the idea that Paul was not saying that Jesus is God.

Paul used phrase “the form of a servant� to say that Jesus was a servant, and in the same sentence he used the phrase “the form of God� to say that Jesus is God.

He did NOT say that Jesus is God. There are many credible versions of the Scriptures that have rendered the corrupted verses as what they were supposed to convey before copyists inserted certain things or left out other things, to make it look like Jesus is God. The interpretation of the texts was skewed because of the corruptions imposed by dishonest men.

Your point about Jesus being a servant is unclear. You say that because Paul called Jesus a servant we are to accept the idea that he also called Jesus God? I personally don't see how Paul could think that the Almighty God could ever reduce Himself to a servant! That doesn't hold up.

Jesus was in the form of God as a spirit person. Period.

[onewithhim]

If Jesus were in the "form of God", wouldn't that have been obvious to all? Even the Pharisees and Saducees, even the Romans who crucified him?

Seems Jesus, even if he were God, was in the form of a completely human man.

If Jesus was in the "form of God" seems he even had his disciples fooled. At least until his resurrection. Then, was Jesus simply glorified, or did he simply shed his human disguise, and reveal his true form?

After his resurrection, Jesus sets the record straight.

John 20:17

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Nothing could be clearer.

Paul agrees with him.

Ephesians 1:17

and asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in your knowledge of Him.

Excellent.

Clear. Simple. I have to wonder why people, in the face of such clear unadulterated statements, choose to insist on the validity of verses that (there is scholarly evidence that they) have been tampered with.