Phil2:5-11

[OldShepherd]

Never mind EV I found it. Here are a few real quick draw from the hip responses. More to follow.

Posted by EV
Let’s examine A. T. Robertson's argument, and see how it stands up to a rigorous cross-examination.

EV, have you by any chance taken any advanced Greek courses since your previous admissions that you did not know Greek?

• Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament
  Philippians 2:6
  Being (uparcwn). Rather, "existing," present active participle of uparcw.

Robertson says that Jesus was existing "in his preincarnate state." But he cites no Scripture to prove this!

In all of the references which you have posted in response to me how many scriptures did any of those scholars cite in support of their opinions? And, Oh BTW, Robertson does cite scripture in support of his definition of “arpagmos” And whether Robertson cited scripture in support or not, I have on this thread. I'l look it up again and repost it.

First of all, the definition on which Robertson's argument turns, is actually a misrepresentation[]/I] of the Aristotelian use of morphe. Having studied Aristotelian metaphysics at university, I am qualified to discuss this topic with some measure of authority.

Are you now? Please show the relevance between Aristotelian Greek, which oh BTW, was 300+ years and a continent removed from the Koine’, in which the Bible was written. Quick ?, in this regard is Australian English different from British English different from American English?

If Paul had wanted to say that Jesus pre-existed as God (i.e. sharing divine nature), he would have used (a) (the Greek word for “pre-existence”), which he does not, and (b) “theios“ or “theotes” (two Greek words for “divine nature”), which he also does not.

See my previous comment about your lack of expertise in this area. Since you have admitted not being a Greek scholar, on what do you base your presumption what language a Greek author should use to express anything? As you know communicating in any language is more than just picking words out of a dictionary or lexicon.

 

[Future Man]

Hello and God bless-

Please be reminded that personal conflicts should be handled through your e-mail or private message option in the profile page. Do not air them publicly.

10-4. No way do I need this thread to be closed. <zipping my mouth>

Os-

Great post man . I'm currently looking into finding Hoover's article. Got someone who may be able to send it to me.

Ev's response will come tonight. Had to cut my work short last night...

God bless--FM

 

[OldShepherd]

Posted by David Burke
You foolishly criticise me for using LSJ (when in fact the text has shown that the LSJ's definition of harpagmos and morphe is perfectly consistent with the NT use and definition of both words!) and then shoot yourself in the foot by referring outside the Bible to Plutarch! This is another example of the Trinitarian double standard, and exposes your hypocrisy for all to see.

Circular reasoning. Since the words are used only once and three times respectively, in the N.T, there is no basis to determine if they are consistent or not.

Posted by FM
Know why you won't find 'harpagmos'? Because it occurs but ONCE in the NT (Phil2:6) and *nowhere* in the LXX.

...merely reveals your ignorance. The precise form is irrelevant; the essential meaning remains the same. But of course, you didn't know that...

Neither did you know that. You have previously admitted no training in Biblical Greek. Exactly what “precise form” and “essential meaning” are you referring to? “Harpazo” is a verb, “harpagmos” is a noun.

Your latest post consists of little more than borrowed arguments from unreliable sources, and a pitiful attempt to ape your betters by emulating Robert Turkel's writing style. You prance and posture without delivering any substance, and take pride in your transparent affectations - not realising, perhaps that those of us who have been blessed with much more than a high school education, can see right through them.

Rather isn’t it you who prance and posture without delivering any real substance and take pride in your affectations, when you tout your meager BS against scholars like A.T. Robertson with multiple doctorates?

 

[Evangelion]

OS -

CDs believe that Jesus did not preexist, so how could He “have an affinity with God”, “claim an equal share in all God’s powers”, “stand near to God”, or “resented His inferior place.”, all, before His birth?

Raw eisegesis.

Where in Philippians 2:5-11 are we told that all of this occurred "before his birth"?

I don't see that anywhere. You're reading it into the text.

 

[Evangelion]

OS -

My original quote “a prize to be grasped eagerly.”

Irrelevant. This doesn't have any impact on my argument.

What is the difference between these two statements?

Virtually nothing.

Notice in my original quote the word "for" does not occur. "grasp for" and "grasp eagerly" are not the same thing.

Irrelevant. Both statements are continigent on the fact that the one who grasps, does not currently possess that for which he is grasping.

 

[Evangelion]

OS -

quote:
Originally posted by Evangelion
This just in - Dennis Ray Burk Jr supports my argument concerning the correct definition of harpagmos!

Get the scoop right here!

Only if you subscribe to the rest of his conclusions.

False. I can agree with his interpretation of harpagmos without agreeing with anything else he writes. His interpretation of harpagmos is not contingent on his interpretation of the rest of the passage. That's a simple point of logic.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Evangelion]

OS -

EV, have you by any chance taken any advanced Greek courses since your previous admissions that you did not know Greek?

Nope. Is this necessary? If so, please explain why.

quote:
Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament
Philippians 2:6
Being (uparcwn). Rather, "existing," present active participle of uparcw.

Robertson says that Jesus was existing "in his preincarnate state." But he cites no Scripture to prove this!

In all of the references which you have posted in response to me how many scriptures did any of those scholars cite in support of their opinions?

And, Oh BTW, Robertson does cite scripture in support of his definition of “arpagmos”

*snip*

Straw man!

Firstly, this is not the word of which I had said "Robertson cites no Scripture to prove this." It was uparcwn to which I referred! (Read the post! Get it right!)

Secondly, re. Roberston's mangled "interpretation" of harpagmos, I'e got a wealth of Trinitarian scholarship which contradicts both him and you.

quote:
First of all, the definition on which Robertson's argument turns, is actually a misrepresentation of the Aristotelian use of morphe. Having studied Aristotelian metaphysics at university, I am qualified to discuss this topic with some measure of authority.

Are you now?

Yes, I am. Have you taken an advanced course in Aristotelean metaphysics since we last crossed swords? Care to debate me on Aristotelian metaphysics? Want to start discussing Aristotle's eidos, do you?

Please show the relevance between Aristotelian Greek, which oh BTW, was 300+ years and a continent removed from the Koine’, in which the Bible was written.

*snip*

News flash - there isn't any, and that is my whole point! Robertson is the one whose argument from the word morphe is based upon his personal misunderstanding of Aristotle's use of the word! My argument from the word morphe is based upon the New Testament use of this word. So Robertson is the one whose argument is largely subjective, and Roberston is the one who goes outside the Bible in an attempt to find a definition of morphe that fits his Trintiarian preconceptions. Robertson is the one whose argument is founded upon a clumsy mishandling of a word in Aristotelian metaphysics "330+ years and a continent removed from the Koine in which the Bible was written"!!!

Get the picture?

quote:
If Paul had wanted to say that Jesus pre-existed as God (i.e. sharing divine nature), he would have used (a) (the Greek word for “pre-existence”), which he does not, and (b) “theios“ or “theotes” (two Greek words for “divine nature”), which he also does not.

See my previous comment about your lack of expertise in this area.

Relevance?

Since you have admitted not being a Greek scholar, on what do you base your presumption what language a Greek author should use to express anything?

*snip*

Oh, I dunno... perhaps it's just logical for a man to use words which mean "pre-existence" when he's talking about pre-existence. I would have thought that this would make perfect sense, but you seem to disagree, so... whatever.

OK, let's test your theory.

• Paul wants to talk about the pre-existence of Christ.
  
• Instead of using the Greek word for "pre-existence", he starts talking about milk bottles.
  
• This (according to you) would convey his argument just as effectively.

Well, I think we can all see the problem here.

 

[Evangelion]

OS -

quote:
Posted by David Burke
You foolishly criticise me for using LSJ (when in fact the text has shown that the LSJ's definition of harpagmos and morphe is perfectly consistent with the NT use and definition of both words!) and then shoot yourself in the foot by referring outside the Bible to Plutarch! This is another example of the Trinitarian double standard, and exposes your hypocrisy for all to see.

Circular reasoning.

No, it is not circular reasoning - it is legitimate exegesis. Why can't Robertson take his argument for the definition of morphe from the NT? Because he knows perfectly well that the NT use of this word stands in contrast to his subjective interpretation!

Since the words are used only once and three times respectively, in the N.T, there is no basis to determine if they are consistent or not.

*snip*

Balderdash! Read Decker's argument for a comphrehensive rebuttal on this point.

You have previously admitted no training in Biblical Greek.

Yep, and this is irrelevant.

Exactly what “precise form” and “essential meaning” are you referring to?

By "precise form", I refer to the delineation between noun and verb. By "essential meaning", I refer to the definition of the word itself.

“Harpazo” is a verb, “harpagmos” is a noun.

*snip*

Irrelevant.

Rather isn’t it you who prance and posture without delivering any real substance

*snip*

Nope. I've delivered a series of broadsides from recognised and authoritative Trintiarian scholars, such as Decker, Clarke, & Burk Jr, as well as recognised and authoritative sources, such as LSJ, the IB, and the EGT.

To date, nobody has succeeded in proving that my sources are somehow at fault, or that my arguments are inherently flawed.

 

[Evangelion]

To review:

• Robertson reaches for Plutarch for a definition of harpagmos.
  
• Robertson reaches for Aristotle for a definition of morphe (which he subsequently bungles.
  
• Nobody has succeeded in justifying Robertson's attempted use of these sources, and nobody has succeeded in proving that they vindicate his argument.

In fact, OS has successfully shot Robertson down in flames by correctly observing that it makes no sense at all to draw an argument from a definition of a word in a piece of classical Greek literature "330+ years and a continent removed from the Koine in which the Bible was written"!

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by Evangelion
To review:

• Robertson reaches for Plutarch for a definition of harpagmos.
  
• Robertson reaches for Aristotle for a definition of morphe (which he subsequently bungles.
  
• Nobody has succeeded in justifying Robertson's attempted use of these sources, and nobody has succeeded in proving that they vindicate his argument.

In fact, OS has successfully shot Robertson down in flames by correctly observing that it makes no sense at all to draw an argument from a definition of a word in a piece of classical Greek literature "330+ years and a continent removed from the Koine in which the Bible was written"!

Too bad you didn't check bother to find out who Plutarch was and when he lived before bloviating all over the forum. I guess I'll have to live with the fact that he lived in Greece. But it was during the time of Paul's writing so we'll need to see some proof that both Paul and Plutarch were wrong. And nobody has to vindicate Robertson. Once again your total lack of knowledge of the subject is clearly revealed. Also lets see if you understand the word "grasp". That is an English word in case you didn't know.

• 
  Main Entry: 1grasp
  Pronunciation: 'grasp
  Function: verb
  Etymology: Middle English graspen
  Date: 14th century
  intransitive senses : to make the motion of seizing : CLUTCH
  transitive senses
  1 : to take or seize eagerly
  2 : to clasp or embrace especially with the fingers or arms
  3 : to lay hold of with the mind : COMPREHEND
  synonym see TAKE
  - grasp·able /'gras-p&-b&l/ adjective
  - grasp·er noun
  - grasp at straws : to reach for or try anything in desperation
  - grasp the nettle : to act boldly
  
  PLUTARCH ploutarcoV
  (circa 45 - 125 A.D.) By his writings and lectures Plutarch became a celebrity in the Roman empire, yet he continued to reside where he was born, and actively participated in local affairs, even serving as mayor.
  
  http://www.e-classics.com/plutarch.htm

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by Evangelion
OS -

Raw eisegesis.

Where in Philippians 2:5-11 are we told that all of this occurred "before his birth"?

I don't see that anywhere. You're reading it into the text.

It had to happen before Jesus was in the "morphe" of a servant and the "schemati" of a man, when was that?

 

[fieldsofwind]

Posted by evangelion: "Both statements are continigent on the fact that the one who grasps, does not currently possess that for which he is grasping."

No... the point is that He did not have to grasp at it... Equality with God was something that he did not need to grasp

take care

FOW

 

[Future Man]

He put a >< at the end of EVERY post!

Notice in my original quote the word "for" does not occur. "grasp for" and "grasp eagerly" are not the same thing.

Irrelevant. Both statements are continigent on the fact that the one who grasps, does not currently possess that for which he is grasping.

False. If I "hold onto a job", what am I doing?

False. I can agree with his interpretation of harpagmos without agreeing with anything else he writes. His interpretation of harpagmos is not contingent on his interpretation of the rest of the passage. That's a simple point of logic.

Such as verses:
Phi 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than themselves.
>
Phi 2:5 For let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
>
You need to tell me what *motivated* Paul to speak these words. Were the Phillipians seeking equality with God? No. See vs3. It was with each other i.e. their equals. Context. As I said, the relationship between man and woman as husband and wife is a direct parallel.

Nope. Is this necessary? If so, please explain why.

You've demonstrated this yourself.

Secondly, re. Roberston's mangled "interpretation" of harpagmos, I'e got a wealth of Trinitarian scholarship which contradicts both him and you.

And we've got it's use lexically in the Koine. Your "Trinitarian scholarship" doesn't mean a hill of beans unless it is 'up to date' or at least in line with today's standards. "Matthew Henry" isn't going to cut it.
>
As for your "NT use", it is interesting that it [repeat] occurs ONLY ONCE in the NT and *nowhere* in the Lxx. This is why Hoover's arguement [which you judge in absence of having even read it] is of such value.

News flash - there isn't any, and that is my whole point! Robertson is the one whose argument from the word morphe is based upon his personal misunderstanding of Aristotle's use of the word! My argument from the word morphe is based upon the New Testament use of this word. So Robertson is the one whose argument is largely subjective, and Roberston is the one who goes outside the Bible in an attempt to find a definition of morphe that fits his Trintiarian preconceptions. Robertson is the one whose argument is founded upon a clumsy mishandling of a word in Aristotelian metaphysics "330+ years and a continent removed from the Koine in which the Bible was written"!!!

"Robertson's personal misunderstanding" could easily be "your personal interpretation".
>
I also find it interesing that you DID make an argument from Aristotle's use of the word and then in an attempt to downgrade Robertson, admit that this is fruitless in the above! Is that called 'intellectual dishonesty'?

 

[Future Man]

.....

Oh, I dunno... perhaps it's just logical for a man to use words which mean "pre-existence" when he's talking about pre-existence. I would have thought that this would make perfect sense, but you seem to disagree, so... whatever.

Why should this passage emphasize 'pre-existence'? And why must it do so with a 'word'? What does this have to do with 'harpagmos'? This pre-existence can easily be inferred from the context regarding voluntary humility in becoming ['ginomai'] man. See Jn1:14. Fits quite well. Additionally, Robertson is not writing a book for the purpose of apologetics, but for Greek Grammar. Trinitarians, Jehovah's Witnessess [Yes Ev, real live scholars like Greg Stafford!], SDAs, Mormons, etc.. already understand the biblical teaching of Christ's pre-existence. There is no need to make an immediate arguement for it, rather just a mention.
>
Read:
>
Phi 2:7 but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.
Phi 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
>
Implies pre-existence to me. Note that the voluntary humiliation *includes* the act of "taking the form of man". The Unitarian interpretation is just simply redundant.

OK, let's test your theory.
Paul wants to talk about the pre-existence of Christ.

Instead of using the Greek word for "pre-existence", he starts talking about milk bottles.

This (according to you) would convey his argument just as effectively.

Well, I think we can all see the problem here.

That is essentially what your reasoning comes down to. Remember on TOL when I brought up the "murder analogy" in regards to your mentality? How a court scene was enacted where a 'murder' was described without actually using the word 'murder'. Please try thinking above this.

No, it is not circular reasoning - it is legitimate exegesis. Why can't Robertson take his argument for the definition of morphe from the NT? Because he knows perfectly well that the NT use of this word stands in contrast to his subjective interpretation!

How so? Even under your exclusive interpretation in which you admit the word carries a meaning of "quality", it would fit nicely. The context IS, afterall, about *functional subordination* NOT entirely *ontological subordination*. Straw man.
>
Interesting too that you seem to assert Paul's motive as being to draw a parallel to man being in the image ['eikon'] of God. Why didn't he use this word to make the clear connection?

 

[Future Man]

...

Balderdash! Read Decker's argument for a comphrehensive rebuttal on this point.

Evidently not convincing.

You have previously admitted no training in Biblical Greek.
Yep, and this is irrelevant.

Highly relevent. I'll take the point JP made to an atheist. You telling me that you're going to "parse the Greek" or some other, is likened to my doctor performing open heart surgery after telling me I have "hart" disease.
Point intact.

To date, nobody has succeeded in proving that my sources are somehow at fault, or that my arguments are inherently flawed.

Take the sunglasses off and you can see better.

By "precise form", I refer to the delineation between noun and verb. By "essential meaning", I refer to the definition of the word itself.

Do you know what a 'nuance' is? Evidently not. Oh, when is that Hoover article coming?
>
>
God bless--FM

 

[OldShepherd]

Previously posted by OS
EV, have you by any chance taken any advanced Greek courses since your previous admissions that you did not know Greek?

Nope. Is this necessary? If so, please explain why.

Like the man said QED. See irrelevant excursion into Artistotelian meta-whatzit, here and elsewhere, in this thread. NB, Ari lived and wrote 350 years BC.

Dave you claim to have studied AM. I will concede, arguendo, that you have. On the other hand I have not, in fact never heard of it until you mentioned it on another forum. Let us suppose I wanted to discuss this utterly fascinating topic with you so I run get me a glossary of AM terms and now I am prepared. I have the corresponding ammunition that you are using in your discussion of Biblical Greek, nothing but a concordance and/or lexicon. How will I fare in my discussion?

Now answer your own question is some degree of education, in a particular field, necessary to intelligently discuss that field? Or can any person pick up a dictionary, concordance and be an instant expert, to the point that they challenge professionals with 47 years in the field as you have done. Yes we know you are a flaming genius and can walk on water.

First of all, the definition on which Robertson's argument turns, is actually a misrepresentation of the Aristotelian use of morphe. Having studied Aristotelian metaphysics at university, I am qualified to discuss this topic with some measure of authority.

Sadly you are mistaken. Perhaps you should concentrate on presenting truthful information. Robertson neither cites nor quotes Aristotle. He does refer to Plutarch, a contemporary of Paul.

Yes, I am. Have you taken an advanced course in Aristotelean metaphysics since we last crossed swords? Care to debate me on Aristotelian metaphysics? Want to start discussing Aristotle's eidos, do you?

Irrelevant, the topic of this thread is Philp 2:5-11. My specialty is Law, care to debate me on my turf, and I will even supply the law dictionary? You have yet to prove any relevance between Aristotle and the N.T., which was my point.

News flash – there isn't any, and that is my whole point! Robertson is the one whose argument from the word morphe is based upon his personal misunderstanding of Aristotle's use of the word! My[/I] argument from the word morphe is based upon the New Testament use of this word.

Then why this obsessive-compulsive fixation on Aristotle. Robertson neither quotes nor cites Ari. You are the one who keeps bringing him up. And why have you not referenced any recognized N.T. language authorities and ignored the ones which have been posted, e.g. BAGD, TDNT? And LSJ supports not refutes Robertson. And now you are an expert on the word “morphé” in the N.T. and you couldn’t parse a Greek verb if your life depended on it. You don’t even know what the term means. Oh I know now you will fire off a quick email to the bro. on the other side of Australia and post a semi-lucid answer.

Oh, I dunno... perhaps it's just logical for a man to use words which mean "pre-existence" when he's talking about pre-existence. I would have thought that this would make perfect sense, but you seem to disagree, so... whatever.

Ok Mr. Greek authority what is the word for “preexistence” and how would that ideal statement be written, in Greek? And then tell us what was in Paul’s mind when he wrote and why he wrote as he did.

 

[OldShepherd]

Phil 2:6 Who, being uparcw <5225> in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be einai <1511> equal with God:

• 
  A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament
  {Being} (\huparchôn\). Rather, "existing," present active participle of \huparchô In the form of God (\en morphêi theou\). \Morphê\ means the essential attributes as shown in the form.
  
  Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is uparcw <5225> Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
  
  Mt 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am einai<1511>?
  
  1511 einai einai i’-nahee
  present infinitive from 1510;; v

As I pointed out before the Greek word “einai” translated “to be” in Phil 2:6, is a present infinitive in Greek, not a future, although, in English, it appears to be future. “Einai” expresses a present reality not a future possibility! Also as Robertson points out “huparchon” also expresses existence, as in Matt 16:13. In Phil 2:6, Jesus exists in the form of God, in the same way that God “is”, Lord of heaven and earth, Act 17:24.

• 
  Robertson, Word Pictures.
  Originally words in mos\ signified the act, not the result (ma\). The few examples of \harpagmos\ (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to \harpagma\, like \baptismos\ and \baptisma That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won ("robbery").

Note that Robertson’s exegesis is supported by BAGD and TDNT. As has been pointed out, by many, the word arpagmon/”harpagmon”, occurs only in Phil 2:6, in the N.T., and not at all in the LXX. However, there are several words with the same construction from which we can learn how this form is used. For example, Robertson mentioned “baptismos” and note, in Rev 14:15 the verb qerisai/”thersai”, to reap, by changing the word ending to –“mos” becomes the noun, qerismoV/”therimos”, “harvest”, in the same sentence.

• 
  Ac 1:22 Beginning from the baptism baptismatoV of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
  
  Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism baptismatoV into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
  
  Rev 14:15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap qerisai; for the harvest qerismoV of the earth is ripe.
  
  2325 qerizw theridzo ther-id’-zo
  from 2330 (in the sense of the crop); TDNT - 3:132,332; v
  1) to reap, harvest
  
  2326 qerismoV therismos ther-is-mos’
  from 2325; TDNT - 3:133,332; n m
  AV - harvest 13; 13
  1) harvest, the act of reapinge]
  
  1 Tim 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain porismoV is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. (1 Tim 6:6)
  
  4200 porismoV porismos por-is-mos’
  from a derivative of poros (a way, i.e. means);; n m
  AV - gain 2; 2
  1) acquisition, gain
  2) source of gain

Note Robertson’s exegesis of Phil 2:7. While the word morfh/“morphe” occurs only three times in the N.T., and all three times of Jesus. Its use here in Phil can inform us exactly how Paul was using the word. If, as the detractors argue, “morphe”, in verse six, only means outward appearance, i.e. “Jesus was not literally God, He only appeared to be like God, etc., etc, etc.”, then by the same reasoning in verse 7, Jesus was not actually, literally a servant, He only appeared to be one. Although Paul said that Jesus had the mind of a servant, the appearance, and the actions of a servant. Paul was a Jew and he wrote with a Jewish mind set, the terms, “form of a servant” and “likeness of men”, are Hebrew parallels, the same thing stated in slightly different ways, for emphasis, and it is clearly contrasted against two parallels, in verse six, by Paul’s use of the conjunction alla/”but.”

Condition before, vs. 6, “in the form of God, equal with God” but condition after, vs 7, “the form of a servant, in the likeness of men.” If Jesus was actually, literally a servant and a man, as the scriptures state, then the use of the same words clearly show that Jesus was also God.

• 
  Phil 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
  8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
  
  Robertson
  {The form of a servant} (\morphên doulou\). He took the characteristic attributes (\morphên\ as in verse #6) of a slave. His humanity was as real as his deity. {In the likeness of men} (\en homoiômati anthrôpôn\). It was a likeness, but a real likeness (Kennedy), no mere phantom humanity as the Docetic Gnostics held. Note the difference in tense between \huparchôn\ (eternal existence in the \morphê\ of God) and \genomenos\ (second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\, becoming, definite entrance in time upon his humanity).
  
  {In fashion} (\schêmati\). Locative case of \schêma\, from \echô\, to have, to hold. Bengel explains \morphê\ by _forma_, \homoiôma\ by _similitudo_, \schêma\ by _habitus_. Here with \schêma\ the contrast "is between what He is in Himself, and what He _appeared_ in the eyes of men" (Lightfoot). {He humbled himself} (\etapeinôsen heauton\). First aorist active of \tapeinoô\, old verb from \tapeinos It is a voluntary humiliation on the part of Christ and for this reason Paul is pressing the example of Christ upon the Philippians, this supreme example of renunciation. See Bruce’s masterpiece, _The Humiliation of Christ_. {Obedient} (\hupêkoos\). Old adjective, giving ear to. See #Ac 7:39; 2Co 2:9. {Unto death} (\mechri thanatou\). "Until death." See "until blood" (\mechris haimatos\, #Heb 12:4). {Yea, the death of the cross} (\thanatou de staurou\). The bottom rung in the ladder from the Throne of God. Jesus came all the way down to the most despised death of all, a condemned criminal on the accursed cross.

While you may have some training in Aristotelian Metaphysics, as has been established in another post, since Aristotle lived and wrote more than 300 years before Paul, a substantial relationship between Koiné Greek and Aristotle’s classical Greek, must be proven, for that to have any relevance. However, since Plutarch, cited by Robertson and LSJ, and Paul were contemporaries, Plutarch’s writings are quite relevant.

I can already hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth. “What about the use of “morphe” in Mar 16:12. Jesus would have to change His entire being, form, blah, blah blah.” Actually this objection is so irrelevant that it doesn’t deserve a response. Anyone with a systematic theology would first harmonize the scriptures before offering such uninformed objection. The parallel passage in Luke 24;15, clearly shows that the reason the disciples did not recognize Jesus, was not because He had changed His entire being, form, appearance, etc., but because their eyes were impaired in some way, preventing them from recognizing Jesus.

Also a simple comparison of language also reveals how juvenile such an objection is. In Phil 2:6, “existing in the morphe” and in Luke 24:15, “appeared in another morphe.” Existence contrasted with mere appearance.

• 
  Mark 16:12 After that he appeared in another form/“morphe” unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
  
  Luk 24:15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
  16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.

It has been argued that arpagmoV”harpagmos” in Phil 2:6, since it is translated “grasped” means that Jesus did not have the equality with God but had to “grasp” for it. One dictionary definition has already been posted, here is another. Grasp means, “to clutch, to grip, to clasp”, none of which require reaching for something not already in one’s possession. A synonym listed for “grasp” is “clasp”, which means, to hold tightly, to grasp, to grip, to embrace; to hold. Again does not require reaching for something not in one’s possession.

• 
  Webster’s New World Dictionary
  grasp
  v.
  1. [To clutch] — Syn.seize, take, grip, clasp; see seize 1.
  2. [To comprehend] — Syn. perceive, apprehend, follow; see understand1.
  See Synonym Study at SEIZE.
  n.
  — Syn. hold, clutch, cinch; see
  
  clasp
  n.
  — Syn. buckle, pin, hook, catch; see fastener.
  v.
  1. [To hold tightly] — Syn. Grasp, grip, embrace; see catch 1, hold 1, hug.
  2.[To fasten with a clasp]
  — Syn. catch, hook, secure; see fasten 1.

It has been argued that Phil 2:6 does not indicate that Jesus preexisted prior to His birth.

• 
  Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form morfh of God, thought it not a prize to be grasped arpagmoV being/einai equal with God:
  • 
    7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
    8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
  When did verses 7 and 8 happen? At what point in His mortal life was Jesus not in the “likeness” of man? At what moment in the earthly life of Jesus did He make Himself, “no reputation”, when did Jesus have a “reputation” to nullify? At what point in His human life did Jesus take upon Himself the “morphé/form” of a servant? When was Jesus ever not in the “morphé/form” of a servant? Since the answer to these questions is never, then Phil 2:6 must have occurred in Jesus preexistence, when Jesus was, “in the form/morfh of God, einai/being equal with God:

 

[armothe]

&nbsp;

 

[OldShepherd]

Posted by Dave
Secondly, re. Roberston's mangled "interpretation" of harpagmos, I'e got a wealth of Trinitarian scholarship which contradicts both him and you.

Mangled "interpretation"? Any proof of this assertion? No what you have is a loooooong laundry list of "scholars", offering various, sometimes contradictory, opinions, on the subject but not supplying any proof, evidence, or documentation. And none of them have refuted LSJ, BAGD, or TDNT. I asked before for the proof. Ignored!

 

[Future Man]