Does God have a God? Explaining John 20:17 in Defense of the Trinity.

[Bible Highlighter]

How about this:

Can anyone 'show me' or 'explain' to me how 'trinity' can benefit anyone?

If the first 'Christians' knew nothing of 'trinity', how can "I" benefit from such understanding if it was not something introduced by Christ or His apostles?

And then explain 'why' it is 'so important' to the 'church' that everyone 'accept it'? What possible benefit is to the 'congregation' to believe that Jesus is God rather than the Son of God?

And what possible damage could 'trinity' actually DO if Christ is 'not God' but simply the Son of God?

Look. I am 'all for' anything that can lead us to 'deeper' understanding of the 'truth'. But I am well aware of how easily we can be led astray and what the potential consequences of 'being led astray can create'.

So show me. Show me how it is a 'benefit' to accept a doctrine created by 'men' that were 'not apostles'. Show me how 'worshiping Christ' as God 'helps' me to be closer to God. Show me 'why' I should abandon the words of Christ and accept words of men that are contradictory. If you can 'do this', I'm all 'for it'.

But if you can't. If 'all' you are capable of doing is 'telling' me that I 'should follow' regardless. Then I would be an utter 'fool' to listen.

I have done my 'homework'. I have 'done' what I have been instructed to 'do' in order to come to the truth according to the Bible. I have NEVER had 'trinity' revealed to me. I have prayed upon the issue for many many many years. And I have continually been led to recognize what I offer here: 'trinity' is merely a 'man made' concept that does not exist in the Bible. Those that 'created trinity' openly admit that it does 'not exist in the Bible'. They say that one can 'use' the Bible to confirm 'trinity' but every 'cult' that ever existed can make this same claim. They openly admit that it is a concept that was 'divinely revealed'. And even after being 'divinely revealed', still remains a 'mystery'. So anyone here that tries to say they 'understand trinity', is in utter contradiction to those that 'created and defined trinity'. For they openly admit that it is a mystery that is 'incomprehensible'.

And it becomes apparent that those that created and defined 'trinity' were 'correct' and those here on this forum that attempt to defend it mostly don't even KNOW what it is. They only know what they have been 'taught' by their 'churches' to believe.

Do your homework. Don't limit yourself to propaganda offered by the 'churches'. Read about 'it's' history and then read the Bible without trying to compare every line 'TO trinity', but read every line to 'see' if 'trinity' is there. It's not. Not even close. And if it were 'so' important that we follow such a doctrine, why IS IT NOT in the Bible? Answer that 'one' question and you will begin to 'see' the truth.

Blessings,

MEC

Jesus said if you do not believe "I AM" he, you will die in your sins. Jesus later explained to a crowd of Pharisees of how he was able to know of Abraham before he was born. Jesus said he was the "I AM" to them and they all went ape crazy at hearing that and wanted to stone him for it (See John 8). For the "I AM" is the name of God in Exodus chapter 3.

So not believing WHO Jesus really is a salvation issue.
For when a person truly accepts Christ as their Savior (the right way) they can truly be forgiven of their sins. That is the benefit.

For when a person truly accepts Christ as their Savior (the right way), the Holy Spirit (Who is a person and who is also God within the Trinity) is able to transform a person spiritually whereby they are a new creature in Christ. Overcoming sin and knowing that they are saved by the Spirit is yet another benefit.

Also, when a person truly accepts Christ as their Savior (the right way), their relationship with God the Father is reconciled or restored (from the time of when they were a baby and or really young). They are truly returning home to the Father and His love (as the Prodigal Son had returned home to his Father confessing his sin before Heaven and his father - Which is yet another benefit).

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20).

The invisible things of Him (GOD) from the creation of the world are clearly seen .... even His.... Godhead, so they are without excuse.

There are examples of His Godhead within certain invisible things within nature.

Atoms = Nucleus, Protons, Electrons.
Water Molecules = Hydrogen Atom, Hydrogen Atom, Oxygen Atom.
Colors of White Light = Red, Blue, Green.

They are all three in one.

Oh, and despite the fact that "siamese twins" are the result of the fall of man (or sin), they do tell us that a life can be one body and yet still have two or more minds to it.

However, unlike siamese twins, just to be clear, the Lord Our God is...

One God with three distinct but connected persons acting in perfect harmony or of one mind.

Even according to the Scriptures, man is made in God's image. So we can expect that if God is three in one, then we must be three in one, as well.

This is confirmed even more by God's Word.

For we learn in His Word that:

Man's Formation =
(a) Dust,
(b) Mist (i.e. Water),
(c) Breadth of Life.

Man =
(a) Soul
(b) Spirit Body,
(c) Physical Body.

Also, the majority of your Biblical Cults and the Atheistic World do not believe Jesus was God Almighty in the flesh. In other words, if you believe Jesus is God Almighty, you believe in God's Triune Nature. That is why God made such a big deal out of being resurrected "three days" later after being crucified on the cross thru the flesh of a man. The Lord was declaring that He was not a mere man but that He was God Almighty.

...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

For we see this pattern of 3 in 1 thru out Scripture over and over again.

"And God [singular] said, Let us [plural #1] make man in our [plural #2] image, after our [plural #3] likeness... " (Genesis 1:26).

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name [singular] of the Father [person #1], and of the Son [person #2], and of the Holy Ghost [person #3]." (Matthew 28:19).

Side Note:

The words in blue within brackets are my commentaries to the text. Thank you; And may God bless you.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jesus said if you do not believe "I AM" he, you will die in your sins. Jesus later explained to a crowd of Pharisees of how he was able to know of Abraham before he was born. Jesus said he was the "I AM" to them and they all went ape crazy at hearing that and wanted to stone him for it (See John 8). For the "I AM" is the name of God in Exodus chapter 3.

Here is the scene of Jesus (from the Gospel of John movie) declaring Himself to be the "I AM" taken directly verbatim from the Good News Translation (Which is not that much different from the KJV in this particular part of Scripture).

Skip to minute 7.

Side Note:

Please take note that the casting choice for this film is not exactly accurate. Jesus is not European or white (as most people think of Him), but He is ancient Jewish in appearance (i.e. mid tone in skin color, etc). Jesus in the recent movie called "Risen" would be more closer in accuracy to His appearance (all be it that is not how He looked exactly - of course). Anyways, here is a pic of the actor playing "Jesus" in the movie called "Risen" (of which I believe is one step closer in the right direction in regards to Christ's physical apperance).




...

 

[Der Alte]

How about this:
Can anyone 'show me' or 'explain' to me how 'trinity' can benefit anyone?
If the first 'Christians' knew nothing of 'trinity', how can "I" benefit from such understanding if it was not something introduced by Christ or His apostles?
And then explain 'why' it is 'so important' to the 'church' that everyone 'accept it'? What possible benefit is to the 'congregation' to believe that Jesus is God rather than the Son of God?
And what possible damage could 'trinity' actually DO if Christ is 'not God' but simply the Son of God?
Look. I am 'all for' anything that can lead us to 'deeper' understanding of the 'truth'. But I am well aware of how easily we can be led astray and what the potential consequences of 'being led astray can create'.
So show me. Show me how it is a 'benefit' to accept a doctrine created by 'men' that were 'not apostles'. Show me how 'worshiping Christ' as God 'helps' me to be closer to God. Show me 'why' I should abandon the words of Christ and accept words of men that are contradictory. If you can 'do this', I'm all 'for it'.
But if you can't. If 'all' you are capable of doing is 'telling' me that I 'should follow' regardless. Then I would be an utter 'fool' to listen.
I have done my 'homework'. I have 'done' what I have been instructed to 'do' in order to come to the truth according to the Bible. I have NEVER had 'trinity' revealed to me. I have prayed upon the issue for many many many years. And I have continually been led to recognize what I offer here: 'trinity' is merely a 'man made' concept that does not exist in the Bible. Those that 'created trinity' openly admit that it does 'not exist in the Bible'. They say that one can 'use' the Bible to confirm 'trinity' but every 'cult' that ever existed can make this same claim. They openly admit that it is a concept that was 'divinely revealed'. And even after being 'divinely revealed', still remains a 'mystery'. So anyone here that tries to say they 'understand trinity', is in utter contradiction to those that 'created and defined trinity'. For they openly admit that it is a mystery that is 'incomprehensible'.
And it becomes apparent that those that created and defined 'trinity' were 'correct' and those here on this forum that attempt to defend it mostly don't even KNOW what it is. They only know what they have been 'taught' by their 'churches' to believe.
Do your homework. Don't limit yourself to propaganda offered by the 'churches'. Read about 'it's' history and then read the Bible without trying to compare every line 'TO trinity', but read every line to 'see' if 'trinity' is there. It's not. Not even close. And if it were 'so' important that we follow such a doctrine, why IS IT NOT in the Bible? Answer that 'one' question and you will begin to 'see' the truth.
Blessings,
MEC

This is a logical fallacy, argument from silence. The word "homosexual" does not occur in the Bible but we can certainly recognize that as sin from what is written. You have used a word in this post six times that does not occur in scripture, "Bible." There are other words which do not occur in scripture but are completely acceptable in discussing scripture e.g.; "theology,""Christology,""pneumatology,""hamartology,""hermeneutics," etc.

John 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. ​

The Greek word translated "even as" means "just as." If we do not honor the Son exactly as we honor the Father we are not honoring the Father.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is a logical fallacy, argument from silence. The word "homosexual" does not occur in the Bible but we can certainly recognize that as sin from what is written. You have used a word in this post six times that does not occur in scripture, "Bible." There are other words which do not occur in scripture but are completely acceptable in discussing scripture e.g.; "theology,""Christology,""pneumatology,""hamartology,""hermeneutics," etc.

Where did I ever use that word in your first sentence? I didn't. Also, I am totally aware of how the Bible uses other words to say words that we use today. Godhead is used in the KJV. This is just another way of saying "Trinity." So I do not get how you think I am against the Bible using different words than what we use today. I believe it is perfectly fine to use different words like "Trinity" to reference the "Godhead." I believe we can use theological terms to talk about things. Not sure why you got that impression that I do not believe this to be the case. But I mentioned the Queen James Bible because it is obviously a wrong translation that was created by the influence of a particular sin. My point is that Modern Translations can be corrupted to some extent. Yet, God says He would preserve His Word for all generations; And that His Word would be perfect. Meaning, there is a perfect Word of God for our day today. I believe God and His Word on this matter.

John 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. ​

The Greek word translated "even as" means "just as." If we do not honor the Son exactly as we honor the Father we are not honoring the Father.

Not sure why you feel the need to tell me this. I am not against the Trinity. I believe in it whole heartedly because that is what the Scriptures teach.


...

 

[Der Alte]

Where did I ever use that word in your first sentence? I didn't. Also, I am totally aware of how the Bible uses other words to say words that we use today. Godhead is used in the KJV. This is just another way of saying "Trinity." So I do not get how you think I am against the Bible using different words than what we use today. I believe it is perfectly fine to use different words like "Trinity" to reference the "Godhead." I believe we can use theological terms to talk about things. Not sure why you got that impression that I do not believe this to be the case. But I mentioned the Queen James Bible because it is obviously a wrong translation that was created by the influence of a particular sin. My point is that Modern Translations can be corrupted to some extent. Yet, God says He would preserve His Word for all generations; And that His Word would be perfect. Meaning, there is a perfect Word of God for our day today. I believe God and His Word on this matter.
Not sure why you feel the need to tell me this. I am not against the Trinity. I believe in it whole heartedly because that is what the Scriptures teach.
...

Houston we have a problem. My post which you quoted and responded to was in response to a post by Imagican.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Houston we have a problem. My post which you quoted and responded to was in response to a post by Imagican.

My deepest apologies.
I honestly thought you replying to me (Because I mentioned the Queen James Bible).

Oh, and I love that Houston phrase. I say that one all the time.
But my favorite uses of catch phrases are from the Bible (of course).

In fact, as I am sure you are aware, all languages and the use of most of their written or spoken words has a connection to the Bible in some way. For the English word "good" is a derivative of the word "god". The word "evil" spelled backwards says "live". The word "flesh" is called "self" spelled backwards without the "h". The word "tentative" means provisional; Which is a derivative of the word "tent". For a tent is a temporary or provisional dwelling place that was used by many of the early men of faith. Anyways, catch phrases that are commonly used in our every day language are from the Bible, such as:

1. "A Law unto themselves" (Romans 2:14),
2. "A drop in a bucket" (Isaiah 40:15),
3. "A leopard cannot change it's spots" (Jeremiah 13:23),
4. "I have escaped by the skin of my teeth" (Job 19:20).

For even the writing of the Chinese language is tied to the Bible...

http://students.washington.edu/cbsf/cool/Chinese.swf

Anyways, thank you for being kind in return.

May God's love shine upon you this fine day.


...

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alter,
You know that is 'not' the point. It is not merely the 'word' that does not exist in the Bible, (and Bible doesn't need to exist in scripture. It is merely the 'book' that contains what is considered 'inspired scripture'. So of course there was no 'word' Bible offered in 'scripture'. The Bible did not exist until 'created'). And that 'is' the point.
It is clear through 'church history' that the 'church' created 'trinity'. It started with the council at Nicaea where 'men' determined that Christ is of the 'same essence' as the the Father.
And then it was further conceived 'later' at other councils that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 'three persons in one God'.
So, it is obvious, (ludicrous for anyone to try and 'say' that 'trinity' was know of or taught by the apostles since it wasn't even a doctrine of the 'church' until almost four hundred years 'after' the death of Christ). that 'trinity' was something that 'evolved' into it's present 'doctrine'. It certainly didn't exist until it was 'created' by the 'Church'.
Yet so many seem to find this offensive. That when someone like me offers the 'truth', immediately those that try and defend 'trinity' seem to lose any sense of 'order' and just 'freak out'. Yet the 'truth' is: 'trinity' does not exist in the Bible, nor was it even ever 'mentioned' by prophet, Christ or the apostles. The 'church' had never even heard of the term 'trinity' in reference to God until about two hundred years after the death of Christ. And even then the use of the word had no connection to the 'trinity' that was formed almost two hundred additional years after it's first mention.
So the point isn't whether a 'word' exists in the Bible. The point is that the 'concept' doesn't exist in the Bible.
Sure, obscure lines of scripture are used in an attempt to defend 'trinity' or make it 'look like' there is evidence of the 'idea'. Yet one has to 'turn' scripture into that 'message'. For the message itself does not exist.
Christ didn't offer 'mysteries' concerning His identity. The apostles didn't offer 'mysteries' concerning Christ's identity. Christ made it perfectly clear that the Father is 'greater' than the Son. This one 'fact' destroys any possibility of 'equality' taught in 'trinity'. This one 'fact' proves that Christ is 'not God' nor equal to God. For the Father IS God. God IS the Father. Christ is the 'begotten', (get it?), Son of God. Son of the Father. They are 'not the same'. God as the Father is a 'singular' entity regardless of attempts to make Him 'plural'. Heck even Muslims know this. The Jews have know it for thousands upon thousands of years. They KNOW God is singular. No 'other Gods beside Him'.
Blessings,
MEC

A lot of anti-rhetoric a lot of argumentation but you did get the last three sentences right. Trinitarians also believe that God is singular, there are no other gods beside Him.
.....The Trinity was not "created", it was not "made" etc. The word Trinity is simply descriptive of what is revealed in scripture. There is one God. The Father is God but He is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is God but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God but He is not the Son or the Father. There is one God.
.....John 14:28 does not destroy anything.

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. ​

It is explained by John 1:1 and Philippians 2:6

Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ​

As for the Son being "begotten." "Monogenes" the word translated "only begotten" does not mean begotten at all. It is a compound word formed from "mono," "only" and "ginomai" which means "cause to be" or "come into being." The ESV translates "mongenes" as "only son". The ISV,"unique son." NET, "one and only son." "Genomai" alone is never translated as "begotten" or "born." Got it?

 

[sparow]

The post I was responding to said that Jesus only referred to Himself as "son of man" never "Son of God." I was not responding to the question if Jesus was always God's son.

Yes half of those quotes have Jesus saying He is the son of God; I was wrong.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

A lot of anti-rhetoric a lot of argumentation but you did get the last three sentences right. Trinitarians also believe that God is singular, there are no other gods beside Him.
.....The Trinity was not "created", it was not "made" etc. The word Trinity is simply descriptive of what is revealed in scripture. There is one God. The Father is God but He is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is God but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God but He is not the Son or the Father. There is one God.
.....John 14:28 does not destroy anything.

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. ​

It is explained by John 1:1 and Philippians 2:6

Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ​

As for the Son being "begotten." "Monogenes" the word translated "only begotten" does not mean begotten at all. It is a compound word formed from "mono," "only" and "ginomai" which means "cause to be" or "come into being." The ESV translates "mongenes" as "only son". The ISV,"unique son." NET, "one and only son." "Genomai" alone is never translated as "begotten" or "born." Got it?

As for Philippians 2:6:

To get a clearer idea of just how different in meaning the phrase is, “thought it not robbery to be equal with God” from “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” compare the following statements.

“The black man thought it not robbery to be equal with the white man.” In other words, he was not stealing something that did not belong to him; he is equal to the white man.

“The black man did not regard equality with the white man a thing to be grasped.” He didn’t even try and thought it way beyond him.

Source used:
https://badmanna.wordpress.com/2015...tation-a-post-from-will-j-kinney-kjv-website/


...

 

[Der Alte]

As for Philippians 2:6:
To get a clearer idea of just how different in meaning the phrase is, “thought it not robbery to be equal with God” from “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” compare the following statements.
“The black man thought it not robbery to be equal with the white man.” In other words, he was not stealing something that did not belong to him; he is equal to the white man.
“The black man did not regard equality with the white man a thing to be grasped.” He didn’t even try and thought it way beyond him.
Source used: ...

All irrelevant. Anyone can concoct examples, in English, which support virtually any argument. Unfortunately we are not talking about something written in English about a black man. Philippians 2:6 was written in Greek. So lets dispense with all the concocted examples.
Jesus existed in one form, Philippians 2, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7.
.....What was Jesus’ form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?

Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [μορφη] of God, thought it not robbery [something to be grasped] to be equal with God:
(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 ος {who,} εν {in [the]} μορφη {form} θεου {of god} υπαρχων {subsisting,} ουχ {not} αρπαγμον {something to be used to his own advantage} ηγησατο το {esteemed it} ειναι {the being} ισα {equal} θεω {with god;}​

The verb ειναι, translated ”to be,” in the KJV, which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present infinitive, not a future tense. “the being equal with god,” was a, then, present reality not something considered and declined.
.....The word translated "robbery" in the KJV, "arpagmos" is a noun, a thing, not a verb which is an action. See scholarship below. Virtually all attempts to disprove what Philp 2:6 says tries to change the noun arpagmos into a verb. Philp 2:6 does not have any sense of stealing, robbing or usurping anything from God as in your concocted example above. Remember, there is no future tense in Philp 2:6 and arpagmos is a noun not a verb.

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:​

Jesus’ earthly ministry occurred between verses, 7 and 8. Where the one who was equal with God, vs. 6, the one who, acting upon himself, became flesh, cf. John 1:14, made himself of no reputation, vs. 7, cf. Heb 2:17, took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men, vs. 7. After which God, not merely exalted him, but “highly exalted” him, and glorified him with the same glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)
.....It was here where all the things anti-Trinitarians cannot comprehend happened, e.g. “If Jesus was God, why didn’t he know the hour of his return?” etc., etc., etc.

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.​

If Jesus was only a mere human being, how does a mere human being, “humble himself and become obedient unto death?” All mankind is appointed to death, no obedience or humbling involved! Heb 9:27. Were the criminals who were crucified with Jesus also obedient, did they also humble themselves unto death on the cross?

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, cf. [יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, cf. [ יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] to the glory of God the Father.​

In verses 10,11 Paul applies Isaiah 45:23, which refers to יהוה/YHWH], to Jesus as I have shown above!

The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011.
In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:

When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”​

See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes​

A short excerpt from the 25 page Harvard theological review article αρπαγμον /harpagmos, by Roy Hoover, referenced in the NIV.

‘O petros de arpagmon ton dia stavrou thanton epoieito dia tas soterious elpidas”
(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)
“Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias”
(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)
Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.
What he [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.
“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.
Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108
Link to: Hoover Article​

 

[Bible Highlighter]

All irrelevant. Anyone can concoct examples, in English, which support virtually any argument. Unfortunately we are not talking about something written in English about a black man. Philippians 2:6 was written in Greek. So lets dispense with all the concocted examples.
Jesus existed in one form, Philippians 2, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7.
.....What was Jesus’ form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?

Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [μορφη] of God, thought it not robbery [something to be grasped] to be equal with God:
(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 ος {who,} εν {in [the]} μορφη {form} θεου {of god} υπαρχων {subsisting,} ουχ {not} αρπαγμον {something to be used to his own advantage} ηγησατο το {esteemed it} ειναι {the being} ισα {equal} θεω {with god;}​

The verb ειναι, translated ”to be,” in the KJV, which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present infinitive, not a future tense. “the being equal with god,” was a, then, present reality not something considered and declined.
.....The word translated "robbery" in the KJV, "arpagmos" is a noun, a thing, not a verb which is an action. See scholarship below. Virtually all attempts to disprove what Philp 2:6 says tries to change the noun arpagmos into a verb. Philp 2:6 does not have any sense of stealing, robbing or usurping anything from God as in your concocted example above. Remember, there is no future tense in Philp 2:6 and arpagmos is a noun not a verb.

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:​

Jesus’ earthly ministry occurred between verses, 7 and 8. Where the one who was equal with God, vs. 6, the one who, acting upon himself, became flesh, cf. John 1:14, made himself of no reputation, vs. 7, cf. Heb 2:17, took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men, vs. 7. After which God, not merely exalted him, but “highly exalted” him, and glorified him with the same glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)
.....It was here where all the things anti-Trinitarians cannot comprehend happened, e.g. “If Jesus was God, why didn’t he know the hour of his return?” etc., etc., etc.

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.​

If Jesus was only a mere human being, how does a mere human being, “humble himself and become obedient unto death?” All mankind is appointed to death, no obedience or humbling involved! Heb 9:27. Were the criminals who were crucified with Jesus also obedient, did they also humble themselves unto death on the cross?

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, cf. [יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, cf. [ יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] to the glory of God the Father.​

In verses 10,11 Paul applies Isaiah 45:23, which refers to יהוה/YHWH], to Jesus as I have shown above!

The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011.
In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:

When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”​

See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes​

A short excerpt from the 25 page Harvard theological review article αρπαγμον /harpagmos, by Roy Hoover, referenced in the NIV.

‘O petros de arpagmon ton dia stavrou thanton epoieito dia tas soterious elpidas”
(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)
“Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias”
(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)
Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.
What he [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.
“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.
Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108
Link to: Hoover Article​

Sorry, I do not feel that it is irrelevant. There is no special golden language God wants us to communicate in. God can speak to us in our own language. For the basis of how you are communicating with others now. For there is a perfect Word of God in existence for us today. For me, nobody today, grew up writing Biblical Greek because it is a dead language. Folks can only make educated guesses or look at scholars or the scribes. But Jesus said beware of the scribes. So I have to take what they say with a grain of salt. Also, in Acts 2, God was able to communicate to people in their own language. So I believe God is simple and He does not require us to learn an ancient language in order to understand Him.

Anyways, I believe we are not in disagreement about the Kenosis being in conflict with Jesus being God. On this point, I believe we agree (Which is the important point of topic here).


...

 

[Der Alte]

Ok, now 'show me'. Show me that the word "Word" is the Son of God. Other than it's capitalization created by the interpreters of the Bible, show me that God's Word that was 'in the beginning' with God is Jesus Christ.
A simple question brings about 'thought'. Why did John use the word 'word' if he meant to convey Christ? instead of 'God's Word', why didn't John just say, "in the beginning what the Son and the Son was with God and the Son was God"? Or, "In the beginning was Jesus Christ and Jesus was with God and Jesus 'was' God"? Why did John use the word 'Word' instead?
Surely God knowing 'everything' He would have recognized that such vague statements would end up causing confusion. Right? So why didn't God inspire John to 'say': The son, Jesus, the Messiah, Christ? Think about it. Obviously there is some 'reason' that the word 'Word' was used.
Now, if I were to say: "Der Alter" gave us his 'word' that he would be here. Obviously what we are referring to isn't some 'separate part' of yourself. It is 'you' or rather the means by which you communicate with others.
So why did John use the word 'Word' unless it has some 'other meaning' than the one that 'trinitarians' insist.
What if? What IF John was indeed referring to God's word. His literal 'word' or 'voice' or means of communicating His will? For we have the account in Genesis where one of the 'first things' that God did was 'speak' light into existence. It was 'through' God's 'word' that light came into existence. At least that is what the Bible says. But it does 'not say' that the Son spoke or the Holy Spirit spoke. It says that: "God said..........".
And when the Spirit of God was seen to descend upon His Son, if we 'believe' in the Bible, it states that God 'said', "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased". Obviously if it was 'heard' then it was literally the 'voice' of God. Not Christ as His Word. But God actually 'speaking' His word. His 'word' heard by at least John if not others present.
So here are two of 'very many' instances where God 'spoke'. Men 'heard' His word.
But if the first three verses of John are referring to Jesus as God's Word, does that mean that God has 'never spoken' except 'through' Jesus Christ? Of course not. For upon His Baptism, the 'voice' that was heard was not the voice of Christ. But the voice of God speaking 'about' Christ.
And when Christ openly states that the words He offered were 'not His own', but given Him by the Father. How is Christ the 'Word of God' if the very words that He spoke were 'not His own'?
You see. I do not approach this issue 'lightly'. It is not mere contention that you witness. It is contradiction that has led me to what I believe. Contradiction that exists in the Bible to this 'idea' of 'trinity' and the 'idea' that Jesus is the Word of God referred to by John. If Jesus has 'always' been the Word of God since the beginning, how is it that He stated that the words He spoke were not even His own? If He were 'indeed' the Word of God, wouldn't the words He spoke be His own as God? You know, God the Son. If God the Son is The Word of God, then how did Jesus say that the words He spoke were 'not' His own?
Blessings,
MEC

John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
…
John 1:14-18 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God,* which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
[* according to the oldest most reliable manuscripts]

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Revelation 19:15-16 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
…
John 1:14-18 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God,* which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
[* according to the oldest most reliable manuscripts]

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Revelation 19:15-16 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
…
John 1:14-18 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God,* which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
[* according to the oldest most reliable manuscripts]

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Revelation 19:15-16 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

14 "That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;"
(1 Timothy 6:14-15).

"For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, ... " (Deuteronomy 10:17).

And Psalms 47:2 says,

“For the Lord MOST HIGH ... HE is a great KING over ALL the earth.”

In other words, Scripture says God is Lord of Lords.
Yet, Scripture also says Jesus is Lord of Lords.
Scripture says Jesus is King of Kings.
Yet, Scripture also says the Lord Most High is a great King over all the earth (i.e. King of Kings).


...

 

[Jack Terrence]

I believe the King James Bible to be the inerrant perfect Word of God that is faithful translation from the original languages.

You have a higher view of the KJV than the translators themselves had. See their Preface to the original 1611 version under the heading "REASONS MOVING US TO SET DIVERSITY OF SENSES IN THE MARGIN, WHERE THERE IS GREAT PROBABILITY FOR EACH"

You shouldn't exalt their translation above what they did.

http://watch.pair.com/thesis.html

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You have a higher view of the KJV than the translators themselves had. See their Preface to the original 1611 version under the heading "REASONS MOVING US TO SET DIVERSITY OF SENSES IN THE MARGIN, WHERE THERE IS GREAT PROBABILITY FOR EACH"

You shouldn't exalt their translation above what they did.

http://watch.pair.com/thesis.html

They were being humble. They were not saying they made errors within it. Besides, which Word of God is your final authority? Or do you just guess as to which translation sounds more correct for you when it comes to reading certain passages? In other words, do you piece together your own version of God's Word - looking at one translation here for a certain passage and then looking at another translation for another different passage? If not, then please explain how you are not being influenced into seeing what you want to see.

Also, the Modern Bible Versions vs. the KJV is a Scriptural issue. There is no evidence of God's people using many translations or looking to a special language to figure out what God is saying. Not that it is wrong using Modern Translations mind you. I just believe it is wrong when nobody has a final Word of authority that they cannot be held accountable to. There is one God and there is one word of God with one message.

...

 

[Jack Terrence]

They were being humble. They were not saying they made errors within it. Besides, which Word of God is your final authority? Or do you just guess as to which translation sounds more correct for you when it comes to reading certain passages? In other words, do you piece together your own version of God's Word - looking at one translation here for a certain passage and then looking at another translation for another different passage? If not, then please explain how you are not being influenced into seeing what you want to see.

Also, the Modern Bible Versions vs. the KJV is a Scriptural issue. There is no evidence of God's people using many translations or looking to a special language to figure out what God is saying. Not that it is wrong using Modern Translations mind you. I just believe it is wrong when nobody has a final Word of authority that they cannot be held accountable to. There is one God and there is one word of God with one message....

My problem is with your saying that the KJV is the "perfect" word of God. Even the KJV translators said that that was not the case. They expressed confidence that it was perfect only in matters of faith, hope and charity.

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point. For though, "whatsoever things are necessary are manifest," as S. Chrysostom saith, [S. Chrysost. in II. Thess. cap. 2.] and as S. Augustine, "In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity." [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9.]

Also, the Modern Bible Versions vs. the KJV is a Scriptural issue. There is no evidence of God's people using many translations or looking to a special language to figure out what God is saying.

The translators themselves said that it was "conceit" to be captivated by one translation and to not compare other translations.

We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, [Sixtus 5. praef. Bibliae.] (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.

There is one God and there is one word of God with one message....

Yet the apostle Paul told Timothy that the scriptures on which he was raised were "God breathed." Timothy was brought up on the Septuagint. The original Hebrew text was lost. All Hebrew texts remaining were copies which contained corruptions. Those discrepancies were corrected by the Septuagint. For instance, Psalm 8:5 in the corrupt Masoretic text says, What is man...you have made him a little lower than God." But the Septuagint says, "You have made him a little lower than the angels." The Septuagint contradicts the Hebrew scriptures in many places. And Jesus and the apostles favored the Septuagint over the Hebrew scriptures as they quoted it nearly 70% of the time.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

My problem is with your saying that the KJV is the "perfect" word of God. Even the KJV translators said that that was not the case. They expressed confidence that it was perfect only in matters of faith, hope and charity.

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point. For though, "whatsoever things are necessary are manifest," as S. Chrysostom saith, [S. Chrysost. in II. Thess. cap. 2.] and as S. Augustine, "In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity." [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9.]


The translators themselves said that it was "conceit" to be captivated by one translation and to not compare other translations.

We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, [Sixtus 5. praef. Bibliae.] (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.

Yet the apostle Paul told Timothy that the scriptures on which he was raised were "God breathed." Timothy was brought up on the Septuagint. The original Hebrew text was lost. All Hebrew texts remaining were copies which contained corruptions. Those discrepancies were corrected by the Septuagint. For instance, Psalm 8:5 in the corrupt Masoretic text says, What is man...you have made him a little lower than God." But the Septuagint says, "You have made him a little lower than the angels." The Septuagint contradicts the Hebrew scriptures in many places. And Jesus and the apostles favored the Septuagint over the Hebrew scriptures as they quoted it nearly 70% of the time.

You are making assumptions as to what the KJV translators are talking about. Also, it is very possible some of them could feel this way with God still choosing to make the KJV the chosen translation for the world today.

As for Paul: You were not there to actually see which texts he was using. You are only going by what other men are saying. You are trusting their word over the Word of God.

The Word of God says it is perfect. So we should be able to find this perfect Word somewhere. In fact, how can any work of God not be perfect? Does God make mistakes? Why would God leave us in doubt about what He is saying? For either every word of God is perfect or it is not perfect.

Like every other topic, this is a Biblical issue. The defense that there is one Word of God that is perfect that we can trust is Scriptural. But the methodology behind the Modern Translation camp cannot be defended from a Scriptural standpoint. So I will trust God's Word and you can keep trusting what men say in historical documents.


...

 

[Jack Terrence]

You are making assumptions as to what the KJV translators are talking about. Also, it is very possible some of them could feel this way with God still choosing to make the KJV the chosen translation for the world today.

I am not making any assumptions at all. It is right there in their preface. They said that it was "conceit" to be captivated by one translation. If you are not going to heed the wisdom of the translators themselves, then you will certainly not listen to me. So this will be my last word on the subject.

As for Paul: You were not there to actually see which texts he was using. You are only going by what other men are saying. You are trusting their word over the Word of God.

The apostles quoted the Septuagint. It was inspired. Ptolemy commissioned seventy Jewish scholars to determine what the Hebrew scriptures actually said and so he sent them off to translate it separately. He separated them from one another and put them under guard so they could not consult one another. After they finished they came back with a word for word translation. Their translations perfectly matched. If that's not inspiration, then nothing is.

The Word of God says it is perfect. So we should be able to find this perfect Word somewhere. In fact, how can any work of God not be perfect? Does God make mistakes? Why would God leave us in doubt about what He is saying? For either every word of God is perfect or it is not perfect.

The perfect word of God is the Septuagint. See the history above. Again, the Septuagint contradicts the Masoretic Text in many places. For example, the apostle to the Hebrews quoted the Septuagint version of Psalm 8 which says, "You have made him a little lower than the angels." But the MT says "a little lower than God." Only one version can be inspired. One of them is wrong. Seeing that the apostle quoted the Septuagint, then the MT is wrong. This means that the KJV cannot be "perfect" because it translates the old testament from the MT. It's just that simple. God preserved his word through the seventy Jewish scholars.

Seeing that you won't heed the wisdom of the KJV translators, and that you have no regard for scholarship on this issue, then you won't hear me either and so this is my last word.