Arian vs Socinian interpretation of Philippians 2:5-9

[tstor]

For my presentation of the Arian perspective, I will be heavily relying on the writings of Greg Stafford who, in my opinion, is one of the greatest contemporary Arian scholars. I will start by providing his rendering of Philippians 2:5-9 provided in his book Jehovah's Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics (3rd Edition). Any page number references are out of this book as well.

Your attitude should be the same as Jesus Christ's, who even though he was existing in the form of God/a god [or 'a divine form'] he did not consider this equality with [or 'this likeness to'] God as something to exploit. Instead he gave himself up and took on the appearance of a slave and he came to be the same as men. When he found out that he was in the same form as men, he lowered himself even further by becoming obedient until death, indeed, death by torture. (Philippians 2:5-9)​

Mr. Stafford, assuming his rendering of the text is accurate, believes that Paul references a prehuman state of Jesus "in the form of God/a god" (morphe theou). Paul states that it was this form that was given up by Jesus ('emptied himself,' keno'o). Jesus set aside his "equality" or "likeness" (isa) with God by taking on a "slave's form." The "slave's form" is in reference to the "likeness of men" (v. 7).

Mr. Stafford interprets this "form" or "equality" with God the same way he interprets Hebrews 1:3. It is in this verse that we read Jesus is "the reflection of [God's] glory and the exact representation of his [God's] very being." He interprets 2 Corinthians 8:9 the same way also. It is in this verse that we read "though [Jesus] was rich he became poor." Jesus being rich meant that he had something. Him becoming poor indicates that he has now lost whatever that something was. He had to genuinely give up these riches in order to become poor (i.e., he could not have simply set them aside for a temporary period). Otherwise, he would only be pretending to be poor while not actually being poor. The view of Mr. Stafford is that Jesus gave up what he had before coming to earth as a man. "The Word 'emptied himself' of his 'riches' and became 'the same as men' (Greek: en homoiomati anthropon)." Jesus gave up one form that he previously had (i.e., the form of God/a god) and adopted another (i.e., the form of man). He did this for our sakes.

Anthony Buzzard, a Socinian, believes that Paul is speaking of Jesus existing "in the form of God" because "as the Messiah [Jesus] was invested with a functional equality with God," and he "did not take advantage of his royal position as God's legal representative but adopted the character of a slave." The response given by Mr. Stafford is as follows:

It is prior to "emptying himself" that Jesus existed in the "form of God/a god." Thus, Paul uses the present verb for "existing" (Greek: hyparkon) when he writes about the "form" Jesus had before he "emptied himself." Paul explains that after Jesus "emptied himself" of the "form of God/a god" he then took on an entirely different "form," that of a "man." (pp. 218)
​

Mr. Stafford continues his critique of Mr. Buzzard's interpretation by saying:

If while in the "form of God/a god" Jesus was already in the form or appearance of a "man," then there would be no need for Paul to say that he "took on" this other form! If, as Buzzard and Hunting believe, the "form of God" is simply the "exalted status of the man Jesus" (even though Jesus is not said to be "exalted" until after his death [Philippians 2:10-11]), Paul could simply have said that "Jesus was in the form of God/a god and in this form he was faithful until death." But Paul breaks things up to show that while existing in one form ("of God/a god") Jesus did not "exploit" his "equality" with God. Rather, the prehuman Jesus "took" (Greek: labon) a slave's form and "came to be" (Greek: genomenos) just like men. Futher, when he "found out (Greek: heuretheis) that he was in the same form as men" he was obedient until death. (pp. 218-219)
​

This understanding of the distinction between the two forms of Christ (i.e., God/a god and man) is also pronounced clearly by John in his Prologue. It is there that we read the Word existed "with" God as "a god" and then proceeded to "reside among us" in the "flesh" as a man John 1:1; 14). Responding to the Trinitarian perspective, Mr. Stafford notes that Philippians 2:5-9 does not at all limit the "emptying" of Jesus to merely the laying aside of his privileges. I do not wish to use this post to express the differences between the Arian and Trinitarian interpretations of this passage, however. I will save that for another time.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Why can't it be this simply

"49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God/El; thou art the King of Israel/Yahweh"

El is the Father , Yahweh is his Son, mediator between man and the Father.

 

[tstor]

Why can't it be this simply

"49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God/El; thou art the King of Israel/Yahweh"

El is the Father , Yahweh is his Son, mediator between man and the Father.

Nothing is ever simple in theology, unfortunately. From my own readings, I have come across the following:

1. Trinitarian
2. Bitarian
3. Unitarian

Under "unitarian" there are:

• Arian
• Socinian
• Oneness

I am not sure where Mormons fall into it.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Nothing is ever simply in theology, unfortunately. From my own readings, I have come across the following:

1. Trinitarian
2. Bitarian
3. Unitarian

Under "unitarian" there are:

• Arian
• Socinian
• Oneness

I am not sure where Mormons fall into it.

Well I have read a little on Arian and believe we fall under that notion however as I understand it he felt Jesus was a created being, or something from nothing and that does not describe us. We also do not believe God is an immaterial substance, no such thing. Thinking does not go on outside of matter. We believe we are literally made in God's image. I think we read the Bible more as is than other Christians.

In Mormonism everything has always existed but it was unorganized. Our souls which we call intelligences also existed. God/El the Father takes this intelligence adds his light to it and places it within a spirit body made of pure matter thus making God/El the Father of Spirits, Heb 12. The first spirit He organized was the greatest of all the intelligence before him and he was named Yahweh. Yahweh is the firstborn and the beginning of the creation of God, after him many sons and daughters were organized including you and me. Yahweh was so righteous there is no darkness in him at all, his scepter was perfectly righteous so the Father anointed him God with the oil of gladness above his fellows or us, Heb 1. He was given the power of creation and he organized this physical earth. He was the God who spoke to Abraham, Moses and all the prophets but as El's agent, he is the mediator between fallen man and God the Father. Then in the meridian of time he left his throne next to the Father and became the mortal Jesus offering himself as an atonement for us. After He was resurrected he sat down on the right hand of God the Father.

I have a rather long answer where I use the Bible to argue against the creeds but I have not posted it, perhaps this would be a good place to do it.

 

[tstor]

I have a rather long answer where I use the Bible to argue against the creeds but I have not posted it, perhaps this would be a good place to do it.

Feel free to!

 

[Questore]

The Bible states there is only one G-d over and over.

Hear, O israel, YHVH our G-d YHVH is one.

YHVH is one, and there is no other.

It doesn't matter that there is a plurality within G-d...for he is not human, with a limited soul and mind. G-d can be everywhere, in more than one form, as indeed he is.

He is G-d the Father in Heaven, a different dimension from ours; and also G-d the Spirit as he is breathed out by G-d the Father from that dimension into ours to all of us who trust in Yeshua; while Yeshua is the 'Son' of G-d in that he is G-d in human form, a portion of G-d's soul focused into our universe, and actually is G-d doffing the majority of his power in that Dimension, to grow up as a human child prepared for the purpose of becoming Mashiach in our dimension.

G-d has also shown himself as the Shekinah in the Tent of Meeting, as the Column of Smoke and as the Column of Light in the Exodus, as the Angel of the Presence, as a human visiting Abraham, and wrestling with Ya'acov.

The 'trinity' is merely a description dreamed up by the Romans because Constantine demanded a solution that could be described to everyone, and believed without understanding. Every expression of G-d is never separate from the other, but merely G-d reaching out, and showing himself differently.

We know more now of how G-d makes things and does things scientifically, and people need to stop thinking of G-d as three parts, when they are merely multiple appearances by the one and only G-d both inside and outside our time/space at one and the same time. Even Yeshua when he spoke said that he and the Father were one and the same. Why will people not see that?

There are not three separate G-d persons, but one G-d expressing himself in separate ways that coexist and interact with each other inside and outside of our time/space, only because G-d chose to create a separate time/space to enable us to be created physically for a physical universe that is our cradle, playpen and school.

Yeshua was even able to grow up into his human identity as Yeshua without losing his self identity as G-d, and spoke constantly in prayer, communing with the whole of himself, which is not like a human being, but a soul beyond our comprehension.

Yeshua is described as totally separate during his Human life from the Father, but that is a description of Yeshua's purpose and personal actions and experiences, and discussed by people who were not aware of how some technological things are done now, and others theorized.

Yeshua never lost that internal tie to the rest of himself outside our time/space, and was strengthened and amplified by the Ruach ha Kodesh linking him to the Father not merely in soul, but in awareness as he took on his ministry, and he resurrected himself...no separate part of him did that. The power was his and he took it as needed, but for explanatory purposes described it as G-d the Father 'strengthening' him, or sending Angels to do the same.

Certainly Yeshua spoke of ascending to the Father...how else was he to explain to his disciples his rejoining the Father in the Heaven that he mostly resides in, or that he would one day come back into our universe, and be with us.

G-d is one, and there is no other...we merely have different descriptions of what he does, and how.

 

[withwonderingawe]

The Bible states there is only one G-d over and over.

Hear, O israel, YHVH our G-d YHVH is one.

YHVH is one, and there is no other.

It doesn't matter that there is a plurality within G-d...for he is not human, with a limited soul and mind. G-d can be everywhere, in more than one form, as indeed he is.

He is G-d the Father in Heaven, a different dimension from ours; and also G-d the Spirit as he is breathed out by G-d the Father from that dimension into ours to all of us who trust in Yeshua; while Yeshua is the 'Son' of G-d in that he is G-d in human form, a portion of G-d's soul focused into our universe, and actually is G-d doffing the majority of his power in that Dimension, to grow up as a human child prepared for the purpose of becoming Mashiach in our dimension.

G-d has also shown himself as the Shekinah in the Tent of Meeting, as the Column of Smoke and as the Column of Light in the Exodus, as the Angel of the Presence, as a human visiting Abraham, and wrestling with Ya'acov.

The 'trinity' is merely a description dreamed up by the Romans because Constantine demanded a solution that could be described to everyone, and believed without understanding. Every expression of G-d is never separate from the other, but merely G-d reaching out, and showing himself differently.

We know more now of how G-d makes things and does things scientifically, and people need to stop thinking of G-d as three parts, when they are merely multiple appearances by the one and only G-d both inside and outside our time/space at one and the same time. Even Yeshua when he spoke said that he and the Father were one and the same. Why will people not see that?

There are not three separate G-d persons, but one G-d expressing himself in separate ways that coexist and interact with each other inside and outside of our time/space, only because G-d chose to create a separate time/space to enable us to be created physically for a physical universe that is our cradle, playpen and school.

Yeshua was even able to grow up into his human identity as Yeshua without losing his self identity as G-d, and spoke constantly in prayer, communing with the whole of himself, which is not like a human being, but a soul beyond our comprehension.

Yeshua is described as totally separate during his Human life from the Father, but that is a description of Yeshua's purpose and personal actions and experiences, and discussed by people who were not aware of how some technological things are done now, and others theorized.

Yeshua never lost that internal tie to the rest of himself outside our time/space, and was strengthened and amplified by the Ruach ha Kodesh linking him to the Father not merely in soul, but in awareness as he took on his ministry, and he resurrected himself...no separate part of him did that. The power was his and he took it as needed, but for explanatory purposes described it as G-d the Father 'strengthening' him, or sending Angels to do the same.

Certainly Yeshua spoke of ascending to the Father...how else was he to explain to his disciples his rejoining the Father in the Heaven that he mostly resides in, or that he would one day come back into our universe, and be with us.

G-d is one, and there is no other...we merely have different descriptions of what he does, and how.

I'm sorry but I feel like you and I live in different realities

"Yeshua never lost that internal tie to the rest of himself outside our time/space, and was strengthened and amplified by the Ruach ha Kodesh linking him to the Father not merely in soul.."

What in the world does that mean?

 

[gadar perets]

Why can't it be this simply

"49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God/El; thou art the King of Israel/Yahweh"

El is the Father , Yahweh is his Son, mediator between man and the Father.

El is the Father and El is YHWH -

Psalm 118:27 EL is YHWH, which has shown us light: bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar.​

Psalm 94:1 O YHWH EL, to whom vengeance belongs; O EL, to whom vengeance belongs, show thyself.
Psalm 95:3 For YHWH is a great EL, and a great King above all gods (elohim).
Isaiah 42:5 Thus saith EL YHWH, He that created the heavens, and stretched them out; He that spread forth the earth, and that which comes out of it; He that gives breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

There are over 50 other verses that clearly tell us YHWH is EL.

YHWH, the only true EL, sent His Son Yeshua to be the mediator between YHWH and man. There is only one YHWH, the Father.

 

[Dartman]

Nothing is ever simple in theology, unfortunately. From my own readings, I have come across the following:

1. Trinitarian
2. Bitarian
3. Unitarian

Under "unitarian" there are:

• Arian
• Socinian
• Oneness

I am not sure where Mormons fall into it.

You left out the Apostolic Unitarianism actually preached in the Scriptures.
This is the Biblical belief in the Corporeal oneness of Jehovah/YHVH God, and Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish descendant of David, who became the "only begotten son of God" at his resurrection to immortality.
These doctrines are clearly seen, repeatedly, in the Scriptures. And are the exclusive teachings found in every single sermon recorded in Scripture.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread had been moved to the Christianity & World Religion forum.
Please note and abide by the SOP of this forum.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Dartman]

I'm sorry but I feel like you and I live in different realities

"Yeshua never lost that internal tie to the rest of himself outside our time/space, and was strengthened and amplified by the Ruach ha Kodesh linking him to the Father not merely in soul.."

What in the world does that mean?

It doesn't mean anything. This quote isn't from Scripture, and confirms your theory regarding realities .... this quote isn't dealing with reality, it's in error.

 

[Dartman]

The Bible states there is only one G-d over and over.

Hear, O israel, YHVH our G-d YHVH is one.

YHVH is one, and there is no other.

It doesn't matter that there is a plurality within G-d...

There is no plurality within God.

...for he is not human

Correct, but Jesus is.

G-d can be everywhere, in more than one form, as indeed he is.

Only God's spirit/mind. God is a corporeal being, who created mankind in His image. God is in heaven, but has left heaven to walk in the garden, on the earth, to speak to Israel on Mt. Horeb, to show His back parts to Moses in Ex 33 and 34. God will LEAVE heaven, and come to dwell on the earth, (Rev 21) after the wicked are destroyed (Rev 20).

He is G-d the Father in Heaven, a different dimension from ours;

Please provide Scripture for this "other dimension" theory??

and also G-d the Spirit

There is no "God the spirit" ..... there is GOD'S spirit.
God's spirit is His mind, and the power produced BY His mind ... or His breath.

Yeshua is the 'Son' of G-d in that he is G-d in human form, a portion of G-d's soul focused into our universe, and actually is G-d doffing the majority of his power in that Dimension, to grow up as a human child prepared for the purpose of becoming Mashiach in our dimension.

This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANY Biblical sermon, explanation or statement.
Jehovah/YHVH God is El. He alone is the creator of the universe, and the creator of all mankind, including Jesus of Nazareth who is a direct descendant of Eve, Abraham, David and Mary .. to name a few. Jehovah/YHVH God has EXALTED the man Jesus of Nazareth to be Christ, Lord, King, Savior, Jehovah's son.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You left out the Apostolic Unitarianism actually preached in the Scriptures.
This is the Biblical belief in the Corporeal oneness of Jehovah/YHVH God, and Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish descendant of David, who became the "only begotten son of God" at his resurrection to immortality.
These doctrines are clearly seen, repeatedly, in the Scriptures. And are the exclusive teachings found in every single sermon recorded in Scripture.

Apostolic Unitarianism. Interesting. I've never heard of this sect ...................................

[edit - after doing a little searching, I found the following]

Now, I guess I'm getting 'closer'...........interesting history [link] related to your 'church' connection, Dartman. Does the name, John Schoenheit, mean anything to you? How about the website: BiblicalUnitarian.com | A website about God and His son, Jesus Christ

 

[gadar perets]

Apostolic Unitarianism. Interesting. I've never heard of this sect ...................................

[edit - after doing a little searching, I found the following]

Now, I guess I'm getting 'closer'...........interesting history [link] related to your 'church' connection, Dartman. Does the name, John Schoenheit, mean anything to you? How about the website: BiblicalUnitarian.com | A website about God and His son, Jesus Christ

BiblicalUnitarian.com has many excellent articles under the "Common Verses" link. Its too bad they are not Torah keepers.

 

[Dartman]

Apostolic Unitarianism. Interesting. I've never heard of this sect ...................................

Sect?
Is "Trinitarianism" a Sect?
Apostolic Unitarianism is merely a title for those who believe in the God preached by the apostles. Also called, "the God of the Jews".... "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"..... "the God of our Fathers" ....
"the God of our Lord Jesus Christ".

[edit - after doing a little searching, I found the following]

Now, I guess I'm getting 'closer'...........interesting history [link] related to your 'church' connection, Dartman. Does the name, John Schoenheit, mean anything to you?

Nope. I'm not sure I've ever heard the name before.

How about the website: BiblicalUnitarian.com | A website about God and His son, Jesus Christ

I think I took a look at this site a couple of years ago.... but I'm not sure. I will have to check it out.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sect?
Is "Trinitarianism" a Sect?
Apostolic Unitarianism is merely a title for those who believe in the God preached by the apostles. Also called, "the God of the Jews".... "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"..... "the God of our Fathers" ....
"the God of our Lord Jesus Christ".
Nope. I'm not sure I've ever heard the name before.
I think I took a look at this site a couple of years ago.... but I'm not sure. I will have to check it out.

Well, since you won't come right out and say who your church affiliation is, then you leave me hunting around---guessing, surmising.

Anyway. I'm not here to condemn you for your variant in belief. I'm here simply to contend for what I think is a more accurate interpretation. And if you think I'm wrong, then I'd like for you to site your sources [other than the Bible itself] to support your viewpoint so things will be more clear for me.

I ask for this information because I don't trust those who don't or won't back up their assertions and refuse to give reference to the sources they use, and we BOTH know that one doesn't learn Ancient Hebrew or Koine Greek, or even exegesis, by simply reading an English Bible.

 

[gadar perets]

Well, since you won't come right out and say who your church affiliation is, then you leave me hunting around---guessing, surmising.

Anyway. I'm not here to condemn you for your variant in belief. I'm here simply to contend for what I think is a more accurate interpretation. And if you think I'm wrong, then I'd like for you to site your sources [other than the Bible itself] to support your viewpoint so things will be more clear for me.

I ask for this information because I don't trust those who don't or won't back up their assertions and refuse to give reference to the sources they use, and we BOTH know that one doesn't learn Ancient Hebrew or Koine Greek, or even exegesis, by simply reading an English Bible.

I think just the opposite. I would much rather a person cite Scripture than teach me from a source outside of Scripture. However, sometimes we must go outside Scripture when dealing with Hebrew or Greek. Lexicons can be helpful.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think just the opposite. I would much rather a person cite Scripture than teach me from a source outside of Scripture. However, sometimes we must go outside Scripture when dealing with Hebrew or Greek. Lexicons can be helpful.

You're missing my point. The point is that NO ONE actually formulates their own Christian faith without considering what came before or without being socially and spiritually influenced by other people.

If Dartman simply came to his beliefs by simply picking up the Bible, not reading a single other book or even by being influenced by someone from the Apostolic Unitarian movement, then he should say so. But, if he has been influenced in his thinking by interacting with other sources other than the Bible only, he should also say so.

 

[gadar perets]

You're missing my point. The point is that NO ONE actually formulates their own Christian faith without considering what came before or without being socially and spiritually influenced by other people.

If Dartman simply came to his beliefs by simply picking up the Bible, not reading single other book or by being influenced by someone from the Apostolic Unitarian movement, then he should say so. IF he has been influenced in his thinking by interacting with other sources other than the Bible only, he should also say so.

I was born and raised (influenced) Roman Catholic. I was later influenced by evangelical Christians leading me to be born again. A year later, when the Holy Spirit taught me the truth about the Sabbath and its continued existence for believers today, I began to study the Bible for myself asking for the Holy Spirit's guidance throughout. My studies have led me to abandon my Catholic upbringing and much of what I was taught by Christians. What I believe today was influenced by what I believe the Spirit has shown me through my personal Bible studies. I will admit that my studies were prompted by others as far as what issues to study, but I did not just blindly accept their doctrines. For example, when someone asked me, "What ever happened to the Sabbath"?, my reply was, "What's that"? I then embarked on my own study of the issue and concluded all believers should still be keeping it holy.

To me, it is irrelevant what a person's background is. I hear what they have to say and then I study the issue for myself to see if it is Biblical. I don't reject someone's message simply because I disagree with one of their doctrines. In other words, I can hear a trinitarian's message about a totally unrelated subject such as justification by faith even though I reject the trinity doctrine. I can hear what a Jehovah's Witness has to say about the trinity even though I reject their rejection of Torah. Their background has no bearing on whether or not their message is true. Many people believe both truth and error. Therefore, I do as the Bereans did and hear the message regardless of the messenger and then I study Scripture to decide whether it is true or not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was born and raised (influenced) Roman Catholic. I was later influenced by evangelical Christians leading me to be born again. A year later, when the Holy Spirit taught me the truth about the Sabbath and its continued existence for believers today, I began to study the Bible for myself asking for the Holy Spirit's guidance throughout. My studies have led me to abandon my Catholic upbringing and much of what I was taught by Christians. What I believe today was influenced by what I believe the Spirit has shown me through my personal Bible studies. I will admit that my studies were prompted by others as far as what issues to study, but I did not just blindly accept their doctrines. For example, when someone asked me, "What ever happened to the Sabbath"?, my reply was, "What's that"? I then embarked on my own study of the issue and concluded all believers should still be keeping it holy.

To me, it is irrelevant what a person's background is. I hear what they have to say and then I study the issue for myself to see if it is Biblical. I don't reject someone's message simply because I disagree with one of their doctrines. In other words, I can hear a trinitarian's message about a totally unrelated subject such as justification by faith even though I reject the trinity doctrine. I can hear what a Jehovah's Witness has to say about the trinity even though I reject their rejection of Torah. Their background has no bearing on whether or not their message is true. Many people believe both truth and error. Therefore, I do as the Bereans did and hear the message regardless of the messenger and then I study Scripture to decide whether it is true or not.

Then I applaud you for taking what appears to be a more respectable, 'full-bodied' approach toward the Christian faith, even if you came down on some theological issues a bit differently than I did. And I appreciate your transparency in sharing this with us. For me, your integrity score just went up drastically. Now....let's see if Dartman can follow suite with you.