What? You had originally asked me how I knew that Christ is God
by nature whereas we are not, so I responded with verses about that. Now you're saying that the verses I quoted didn't talk about something else which you didn't originally ask me about...oops?
Yeah, I addressed this already in that reply.
Yeah, and if you're silly enough to take the prophecy of the Spirit literally, then you'll be having dinner with Jesus, too, together with the entire Church of the Laodiceans, excepting those whom Jesus Christ (again, literally, as you'd have it) vomits out of his mouth...so, y'know...bring some napkins in either case!
"And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write,'These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing'--and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked-- I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne."
+++
Yes. What's wrong with this? He's saying "Hey, fellow Jews, your scriptures say that you are called gods and you have no problem with that, so if you have no problem with that being said of yourselves to whom
the scriptures came, why do you have a problem with me saying that I am the Son of God for having been
sent from God the Father likewise?" He's comparing their defense of the scriptures which contain a similar idea with their bristling at him saying about himself the He is likewise sent from God, as they already believed of their holy writings which ought to have already clued them into the concept of being 'sons of God', since again, they can't have a problem with that without having a problem with their own scriptures.
Oh they do not. Mormonism has just made you unable to read beyond the most simple-minded and unconvincing proof-texting imaginable. Quoting even just a little bit beyond the two verses you've focused on shows how it can't possibly mean that, and in fact
says the exact opposite.
Here, I'll show you. Here's what you quoted:
(New Testament | Philippians 2:5 - 6)
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God
And here it is in context, from the beginning of the chapter up through verse 11 (this is where there is a paragraph break in my Bible, so I figured it'd be a natural place to end):
1 Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, 2 fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. 3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. 4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7
but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
+++
Did'ya happen to notice the part directly after where you stopped quoting? I put it in big text so that hopefully this time you won't overlook it. Do you notice how it says that He "made Himself of no reputation", and "came in the likeness of a man", and "became obedient to the point of death", etc.? Wouldn't those phrasings be just a little bit strange if in fact the point of the passage was that He was a man who
became God, and not the other way around? If you're already a man, you don't have to
make yourself a man. You already are one. You don't need to make yourself what you already are.
That's what being something is. (Ow. My brain. This is so stupidly obvious it is hurting my brain.) And "becoming obedient to the point death" makes no sense, either, as men don't die as a matter of obedience, but because men are not
naturally immortal. But you know Who is immortal by nature, right? I'll give you one guess...
For Christians, this part of the Bible is yet another testament to the reality of the incarnation of Christ our God, whereby
God became man. This is why you find it alluded to rather heavily (in some of the same wording:
"...did not consider equality with God a thing to be held on to, but released it and emptied yourself, and took the form of a servant...") in the Coptic Orthodox Christmas liturgy, for instance:
What you are preaching instead (the opposite of what actually happened) is some kind of weird adoptionism, which is one of the oldest heresies encountered and conquered by the Church. It is arguably countered in the scriptures themselves (and I only write "arguably" because it didn't emerge as its own heresy until the 2nd century, so it is obviously not mentioned by name in the scriptures, though the ideas behind it are countered in, e.g., John 1:18, John 3:16, Romans 8:32, etc.), but even if you were to argue that isn't, then we still have witnesses in the late 2nd/early 3rd century (i.e., contemporaneous or nearly so with the full-blown birth of the heresy itself) who call it as a heresy in their own time, such as St. Hippolytus of Rome.
Mormonism is nothing but a repackaging of ancient heresies under new names. If it was wrong in the first, second, and third centuries (and it was), what on earth makes you think it would be right in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries? It wasn't then, and it still isn't, and it won't be next time, either.
