[QUOTE=seekerman;1209658]No, if Jesus already at authority He wouldn't need to be given it. At some point in time someone gave Jesus authority. The scripture again...
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
Likewise, Jesus gave authority to the Apostles, who didn't have authority before it was given to them. There is a giver and there is a receiver with both Jesus and the Apostles.
Nope, God in Him did not mean that He was God, it means that God was in Him. He was the express image of God. He manifested God. But He wasn't God, He was the Son of God, the Christ, the Lamb of God.
Phil. 2 tells us that Christ is God and man.
Philippians 2 has 30 verses. Would you point out where the chapter tells us that Christ is God and man?
There is no scripture supporting your statement that 'as God he set aside all His divine prerogatives and lived the life of a man'. If you have it, please post it. If this is the passage you're attempting to use to support your view, it doesn't work.
Php 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Php 2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
'My Christ' is the Son of God, sent by His Father and God (who incidentally is the same Father and God of Mary), is the Lamb of God, the Son of David, the perfect high priest and now sits with His Father and God in His Father and God's throne.
He's not God.
Let's review the Carmen Christie together shall we?
τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὁ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος• καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωποςἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ.
Your first error above is that you started the hymn too late, in v. 6, when the relative pronoun translated "Who" (Nominative Masc. Sing.) modifies the noun "Christ Jesus" in v. 5. So, you can't begin in mid-stream & reach a solid conclusion.
"Christ Jesus" was the name given to the historical Messiah, God enfleshed for the redemption of mankind. This explains why we do not find this Name in the OT (strange for a "Co-Eternal" person so-named?). This is who is in view in v. 6 as demonstrated by the lead pronoun "Who."
Next, the present active participle translated "being" (huparchon) is mentioned no less than 60 times in the NT & not one-single time does it denote "Pre-Existence" (G-5225). Lexicographers inform us that this word denotes "to begin below; to come into existence" (e.g., Thayer p. 638, etc.). Did the "Eternal-Son" "come into existence?" Hmmm.
Since participles do not inherently posses "time," they must necessarily derive their time-tense from the main verb...In this case "regard" (NASB) or "thought" (KJV). You can think of participles (usually suffixed in "-ing") as folks who are always asking others what time it is. This is how the GK. participle works, it has to ask the main verb what time it is & coincide itself with that time.
Dr. Daniel Wallace's GGBB, p. 625: "The present participle is normally contemporaneous in time to the action of the main verb."
So, what is the "time of the action of the main verb," translated "did not consider" (NIV)? This verb is an Aorist aspect-Indicative Mood, which "indicates simple past time" (Wallace, GGBB, pp. 542 & 555).
Hence, the participle "being" "is normally contemporaneous in time to the action of the main verb"....being "simple past time" in this case. This is not the "eternal world," but rather "simple past-time" to the date of Paul's writing (i.e., the "time" of the Messiah's earthly humiliation).
Next, the noun translated "form" (μορφῇ) virtually always defines as "outward appearance; bodily form" (e.g., BAGD p. 528; Thayer p. 418).
Moulton & Milligan's Greek Testament; p. 417: "Morfay/Form always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it." Again, the grammar here reflects the earthly humiliation of Christ...Not the "Pre-Existent" world.
The verb translated "mind" (φρονεῖτε; G-5426) in v. 5 always refers to a human mind in the Pauline corpus. If you take the time to look up each instance, you will find that in no place does this verb refer to divinity, but always the a genuine human "attitude"....Which was exactly the subject Paul was addressing in the Philippian believers.
The same "mind" or "attitude" that was to be found in the human believers was the same "mind" or "attitude" that was found in their template...The Man, Christ Jesus. Clearly Paul was not exhorting the Philippians to imitate what God did in heaven!?
Dr. R. P. Martin's (Cambridge Proffes.) exhaustive "Carmen Christie" concluded on this wise: "There is nothing grammatically that prevents one from taking the position that the hymn describes Christ’s abasement on Earth. Nor is there anything of necessity in the construction of the strophes that demands a pre-incarnate Son."
The text is exhorting the church to look to Christ who, though He was God enfleshed, yet He forfeited His divine privileges...opting instead to assume the posterior of a servant. In sum, Paul is telling the church not to cling to their "rights," but rather to act in a way as to prefer the well-being of others.
The text knows nothing of a "2nd of 3 divine members in the Trinity" & I have no idea why Trinitarians appeal to this verse. If you respond to this, pls. offer exegetical-textual interaction as opposed to the Red-Herrings we've grown accustomed to.
Shalom!
Threaded Mode
