This is the typical UT response. "My scripture trumps your scripture." "My Bible version trumps your Bible version." Let me address your last proof text, 1 Cor 11:3. "The God Jesus Christ is subordinate God to The Almighty "God of Gods" Jehovah." First this is total nonsense.
and this is total argumentum ad hominum.
Der Alter said:
YHWH said in the OT, there was no god before me, there is no god, beside me, there will be no god after me. Is there any other god, I know not any.
Jesus existed in one form, Philippians 2, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7.
it doesn't say he took on
another form. That is your interpretation.
der Alter said:
What was Jesus’ form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?
the verse says he took on the form of a servant, not that he took on the form of a man. your agrument is based on your interpretation of phil. 2.6 not what phil. 2.6 says.
Der Alter said:
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 {RAPINE} ηγησατο το {ESTEEMED IT} ειναι {TO BE} ισα {EQUAL} θεω {WITH GOD;}
The verb
ειναι, translated ”
to be,” which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present active infinitive,
not a future tense. “
Being equal with god,” was a, then, present reality
not something considered and rejected.
that only proves that Jesus isn't God . If Jesus was God he wouldn't be in the form of God, he would be God.
Der Alter said:
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,
we had quite an extensive argument about that some years back. you know the part about acting upon himself. like the verse that says the wind became calm, became doesnt mean something acted upon itself. the wind didn't actupon itself to become calm. egoneto= became
(Rotherham) Matthew 8:24 And 1o! a great squall,
arose(egeneto) in the sea, so that, the boat, was being covered, by the waves,--but, he, was sleeping.
a great squal didn't act upon itself to become (arose or egeneto) in the sea. the word egeneto which you are refering to occurs on practically every page of the NT. Something becoming something doesn't mean it acted upon itself to become something.
Rotherham) Matthew 17:2 and was transformed before them,--and his face shone as the sun, and, his garments,
became (egeneto) white as the light.
Rotherham) Mark 1:11 and a voice [[came]](become egeneto) out of the heavens--Thou, art my Son, the Beloved,--In thee, I delight.
a voice didn't act upon itself out of the heavens, and His garments didn't act upon themselves to become white. and neither did Gods words act upon themselves to become flesh.
(Rotherham) John 1:14 And, the Word,
became (egeneto), flesh, and pitched his tent among us, and we gazed upon his glory,--a glory, as an Only-begotten from his Father. Full of favour and truth.
so egeneto doesn't mean someone or something acted upon itself to become, it just means to become.
der Alter said:
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 human being, “
humble himself and become obedient unto death?”
You've made a false assumption. the correct assumption to make is that Jesus is a new sinnless human being, not a mere human being. To answer your question, Jesus didn't have to die because he was sinnless. But he humbled himself to the will of God who wanted Jesus to die for the sins of the whole world, so that all mankind could be saved. He was found in the fashion of a man (1st adam) in that he is human. he came from a human female egg combined with new human male seed that God created to use to fertilize Mary's egg with.
Der Alter said:
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?
Jesus was not appointed unto death because he was the new man, the last adam, who was sinnless. only the first adam was and is appointed unto death.
Der Alter said:
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 [UBS] 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
Hoover Article
Note this is by real, accredited Greek scholars which do not exist in the WTBS.
the new NIV translation of phil 2.6 is a commentary , not a translation. being in very nature God, isn't in phil 2.6, nor is 'to be used to his own advantage.' total interpretation, not translation.
Jesus had in his possession the ability or right to consider himself equal with God, as does anyone. IN fact anyone can , if he wants to , believe and say that he is God. Lots of people have done that through out the ages. The NIV just falsly interprets that to mean that Jesus really was equal with God because he had the right to grasp at equality with God. Everyone ha the right to grasp at equality with God, but that's a big no no, and Jesus was no dummy, he knew better than to grasp at eqauality with God.
Plus it makes no sense to say harpogomos means something a person has but doesn't use to their own advantadge. . there is no word that means something you have but don't use to you're advantadge..
and plus you've offered no reason why they assume that other than to quote a source with 11 pages, obviously there is no good reason or you would have quoted it.
Plus tthe NIV is the only one who translates it the way they do, so thats a big negatory also.
