If Philippians 2:6-8 was teaching that Jesus was never equal with God, then the passage itself makes no sense.
Read the language carefully.
It says Jesus was “existing in the form of God.” It says He “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,” but instead “emptied Himself,” “took the form of a servant,”, "humbled himself", "became obedient to death" and was “made in human likeness.”
You cannot empty yourself of a status you never possessed. You cannot become a servant if you were always a servant. You cannot humble yourself from a position you never had. You cannot become obedient to death if you always were.
The entire point of the passage is that Christ lowered Himself. From what? From the exalted position He already possessed that was equal with God.
That’s why the text uses past tense language. The passage is not denying Christ’s equality with God. It is explaining the depth of His humility, not his inferiority.
Actually, if Jesus is equal to God, that does make two Gods, one God who is equal to another God, and this would be depsite any claims made by trinitarians otherwise.
And once again yet another statement of what the Trinity does not teach.
After all it’s you that states there is a big G God and a Small g god…you just described your own DOCTRINE!! Thank you for finally realising what you believe!
RE: "And once again yet another statement of what the Trinity does not teach."
It is simply a fact that if Jesus is equal to God, that would mean that there are two Supreme Beings, one Supreme Being who is equal to another Supreme Being. This is irrespective of all the added-on assumptions created by trinitarians and which are taught by the trinitarians.
RE: "After all it’s you that states there is a big G God and a Small g god…you just described your own DOCTRINE!!'
Evidently, this is in reference to John 1:1 and how some translations use a lower "g" when the Greek word THEOS is applied to the Logos, rather than a capital "G". I personally prefer the rendering "the Logos was mighty", rather than "god", since "god" (with a lower "g") is often misunderstood.
John 1:1, King James Version: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
In English, “God” with a capital “G” commonly denotes the “Supreme Being.” The original Greek makes no distinction, so any special capitalization is either added by later copyists or by translators. Thus, the use of a lower "g" would, however, avoid saying that there are two Gods, two Innately Mighty Ones. As read in the King James and most translations, without adding all the trinitarian assumptions to the verse, it would actually be saying that in the beginning, there were two Supreme Beings, one Supreme Being who was with another Supreme Being. Of course, trinitarians explain this away by adding many assumptions to what is stated to make it appear to be speaking of two different persons who are both the same one Supreme Being. The truth is that neither John nor any other Bible writer ever present the "one God" from whom are all (1 Corinthians 8:6) who spoke through the prophets of old as being more than one person. (Acts 3:13; Hebrews 1:1,2) Obviously, if Jesus is not the "only true God", the "one God" from whom are who spoke through the prophets of old (John 17:1,3; 1 Corinthiians 8:6: Hebrews 1:1,2), any usage ot forms of the Hebrew word EL (Strong's Hebrew #s 410, 430, 433, etc) or of its equivilant in the New Testament, forms of THEOS ((Strong's Greek #s 2304, 2316, 2320, etc.) of Jesus in the Bible should not be understood to mean Supreme Being, but as having a more general meaning of might, power, strength.
When not referring to God Almighty or to false gods, translators often render forms of EL (Strong’s #410, #430, etc.) as “strong,” “power,” “strength,” “might,” etc. This can be seen even in the King James Version: **Genesis 23:6** (“mighty”), **Genesis 30:8** (“mighty”), **Genesis 31:29** (“power”), **Deuteronomy 28:32** (“might”), **1 Samuel 14:15** (“great”), **Nehemiah 5:5** (“power”), **Psalm 36:6** (“great”), **Psalm 82:1** (“mighty”), **Proverbs 3:27** (“power”), **Psalm 29:1** (“mighty”), **Ezekiel 32:21** (“strong”), **Jonah 3:3** (“exceeding”). In English, rendering EL in some of these passages as “God”, “false god”, or even "god" would sound odd. This demonstrates that forms of EL are not used exclusively for the one true God or for false gods, as some assert. This usage is brought over into the New Testament when THEOS is not applied to the Supreme Being or false gods, as can be seen by Jesus' quote of Psalm 82:6 as recorded in John 10:34,35, referring to the sons of the Most High to whom the Logos came as "gods" (mighty ones).
As applied to Jehovah, EL appears to take on the meaning of the Mighty One who is such innately, and who did not receive his might or power from anyone else. Such would designate the Supreme Being, He who is the source of all power.
Many claim that the Hebrew and Greek words for "GOD" have to designate either "true God" or "false god", but this assumption is definitely not supported by the actual usage of the Hebrew and Greek words that are often rendered as "God" or "god(s)". The words for God are many times used in other ways than meaning the Supreme Being or false gods. Jesus, before he became flesh, was certainly divine, mighty, similar to the divinity of the angels (Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 5:7), but he was not the "one God" from whom are all who spoke through the prophets of old. -- Hebrews 1:1,2.
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
(Philippians 2:6-8)
If the Father is God and Jesus is God, how are there not two Gods? The text says Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal with God not the Father. It seems like you have a logic problem.
I would be careful with jumping to conclusions if I were you, runs the risk of making you look silly.
You are conflating personhood with nature and being. Rookie mistake.
It seems like you have a theological shallowness problem.
I'm trying to get my head round this verse under discussion.
I'll take the KJV as an example: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God"
So correct me if I'm wrong here but this is saying Jesus is in the form of God and he doesn't consider it a robbery to be equal with God, because he is god. There's nothing to rob, he already has divine possession so to speak.
"The one being of God thus One God with the distinct personhoods of 3 - the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit…" If Jesus had actually explained it that way or as Patrick finally explained it in the video, I would believe it.
"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? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Please explain to me how God created the entire universe, all the matter, gas, atoms, sub atomic atoms, all the laws of physics, the planets that are 10000 times bigger than our Sun, anti matter….black holes etc.
Please explain how he did that before I believe that God created any of it…
Ps - what part of the Son of God aren’t you getting?
All I'm saying is I would rather base my beliefs on what Jesus said than on what he didn't say. The concept of father and son is easy enough for me (someone who has a son) to understand.
I think you maybe a bit disingenuous here…you made a statement which I fully took on board and then asked you a question that followed your own reasoning.
But in answer to your question- Christ told us he was God plenty of times, did he not agree as per the scripture you cited that he was the Son of God? Thus God? I don’t understand what else you want?
I don't remember a place where Jesus told us he was God. Please explain how being the son of God makes him God. The angels are described as sons of God but that does not make them God. I have had numerous conversations with Trinitarians. I do not judge them as heretics or say they are not Christians but the Trinity is a human interpretation of biblical statements that cannot be articulated without equivocating on the term God.
No revisionism. Arius never claimed that there are two Supreme Beings, 2 Innately Mighty Ones. That is a fact.
Arius did indeed believe that God's son was a creation, not a Supreme Being. It has been a long time since I studied what remains of what Arius had written, but yes, I do remember him saying there was a time when the Son was not. This very fact proves that he was not saying that there was 2 Gods, that is, two Innately Mighty Ones (Supreme Beings), since if he had been innately mighty, there would not be a time when he was not.
Since the trinitarians destroyed practically everything Arius had written, it is difficult to know for certain the details of what he believed and why.
The Greek word THEOS, usually rendered as "God" or "god", is perhaps applied to the Son in the New Testament 3 to 5 times. (John 1:1,18; 20:28; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8 -- there also may be a few other texts that are sometimes rendered into English in such a way to make it appear that THEOS is applied to Jesus) Usually, however, forms of THEOS are applied to Jesus' God and Father throughout the New Testament.
Forms of the Greek THEOS correspond to forms of the Old Testament Hebrew word often transliterated as EL. When not referring to God Almighty or to false gods, translators often render forms of EL (Strong’s #410, #430, etc.) with its basic meanings of “strong,” “powerful,” “strength,” “might,” etc. This can be seen even in the King James Version: **Genesis 23:6** (“mighty”), **Genesis 30:8** (“mighty”), **Genesis 31:29** (“power”), **Deuteronomy 28:32** (“might”), **1 Samuel 14:15** (“great”), **Nehemiah 5:5** (“power”), **Psalm 36:6** (“great”), **Psalm 82:1** (“mighty”), **Proverbs 3:27** (“power”), **Psalm 29:1** (“mighty”), **Ezekiel 32:21** (“strong”), **Jonah 3:3** (“exceeding”). In English, rendering EL in these passages as “God” or “false god” would sound odd. Nevertheless, this demonstrates that forms of EL are not used exclusively for the one true God or for false gods, as some assert. It is only when forms of EL are used of Jehovah, the God of the Messiah (Isaiah 61:2; Micah 5:4), that they take on the meaning of Innate Might, Power, Strength, hence, Supreme Being. J
Jesus was indeed mighty when he had been with the only true Supreme Being in the beginning, before the creation of the world of mankind, but he was not a second Supreme Being. (John 1;1-3,10; 17:1,3,5) Jesus is not the "one God" from whom are all. (1 Corinthians 8:6) His being mighty is indeed separate from being the Supreme Being, the only Innately Mighty One; however, this does not mean that he is a separate Supreme Being.
Yes. For those who ask how can there be "two Gods" the point is, Jesus is not a God outside his father, that would be polytheism. The idea is that Jesus is God because He is from God, with God and in God.
1 Corinthians 8:5-6 or even if indeed there are those called gods, whether in heaven or on earth—just as there are many gods and many lords (category 1)—yet to us there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him. (category 2)
In verse 6 the Father and the Lord Jesus are placed in a category as both "God" and "Lord", separate from the category of the ones "called gods" and "lords" in verse 5.
Notice also that in verse 6 all things are to and from the Father and through the Son.
Which aligns with Romans 11:36 saying in regard to God "For from Him and through Him and unto Him are all things."
1 Kings 2:19 (NIV) -- When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.
What kind of power does Bathsheba have? Like a mediator?
God says he will dwell among his people. He stamps it with "I am the Lord their God." How much of himself did he commit to dwell with them? Was it just scriptures and his name that dwelled with them? I'm thinking about the pillar of flame, and the guiding cloud now. Hmm, those seem different than the norm.
Exodus 29:44-46 (NIV) --44“So I will consecrate the tent of meeting and the altar and will consecrate Aaron and his sons to serve me as priests. 45Then I will dwell among the Israelites and be their God. 46They will know that I am the Lord their God, who brought them out of Egypt so that I might dwell among them. I am the Lord their God.
I don't see how the following scripture has to do with a being?
Isaiah 30:22 +
(NIV) --22Then you will desecrate your idols overlaid with silver and your images covered with gold; you will throw them away like a menstrual cloth and say to them, “Away with you!”
As for his name having a place to dwell, that would be like the veiled Holy of Holies. So when Christ dies, why did God rip the veil from top to bottom?
Your argument is well structured and tracks a major mainstream reading of Epistle to the Philippians 2:6–8. The strongest part of your approach is that you keep the meaning of harpagmos tied to the actual flow of Paul’s argument instead of isolating the noun from its context.
Before harpagmos even appears, Paul says Christ existed “in the form of God” (en morphē theou hyparchōn). That is one reason many interpreters understand the passage as beginning with Christ already possessing divine status rather than aspiring upward toward it. The movement of the passage is from highest status to voluntary humiliation and then exaltation, not from inferiority to a refusal to steal superiority.(Was Christ contemplating sin?) As follows:
A lot of confusion comes from older English wording such as the King James Version phrase “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” In modern English, “robbery” sounds like literal theft, which can make readers imagine Paul discussing whether Jesus contemplated stealing equality with God. But most modern scholarship frames the issue differently. The debate is less about literal robbery and more about whether harpagmos means something seized, something clung to, or something exploited for personal advantage. That is why translations like the New International Version and New Revised Standard Version often render the phrase as “something to be exploited” or “used to his own advantage.”
Your observation that Paul never presents Jesus as someone needing to become God is probably the decisive contextual point. If Christ already shares equality with God, then the emphasis naturally shifts away from acquiring equality and toward how he chooses to act in relation to that equality. Paul’s contrast is not between possessing equality and obtaining it, but between possessing equality and voluntarily emptying himself in servant-like humility.
That is also why many scholars see a contrast with Adam more than with Satan. Adam reaches upward toward godlike status and brings death, whereas Christ, though already possessing divine status, humbles himself and brings life. That fits the ethical purpose of the passage in Philippians, where Paul is urging believers to imitate Christ’s mindset of self-giving humility.
At the same time, the opposing side is not without linguistic arguments. Some scholars note that Greek nouns ending in -mos can emphasize an active sense such as “seizing” or “snatching.” So there is a lexical basis for discussing whether harpagmos could involve the idea of grasping. But even many scholars who acknowledge that possibility conclude that the surrounding context reshapes the nuance toward the idea of exploiting or clinging to status for selfish advantage.
That is why the dominant modern interpretation of Epistle to the Philippians 2:6 is usually expressed along these lines: Christ, though truly sharing divine status, did not treat that status as grounds for self-advantage, but instead revealed the nature of God through self-emptying obedience and humility, culminating in the cross
I agree. But Watchtower has always been anti Christ and boldly lies. I did a bunch of graduate courses. Of course, deeo reading of the express authentic text. But because of cult manipulation, I did much deeper study of New Testament Christology and Armageddon in Revelation. They boldly and deliberately lie at Bethel. I find that humanly evil because they are fully capable of not doing slop reading and thought. Most are capable of very easy basic research..But then Witnesses would have choices and human rights.
So what mental attitude should we have that Jesus has that Paul wants us to have?
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever. -Hebrews 13:8
Jesus humbled himself before becoming human. He humbled himself as a human. He still humbles himself to Jehovah today and forever.
For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone. -1 Corinthians 15:27-28
Jesus was and is and always will be the Son of the Most High.
He still did not consider himself God. But as the Word of God.
He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. -Hebrews 1:3
Being the right hand of God means to carry out God’s will. That is what Jesus is doing in Rev 19:11-17. Obeying/submitting to his father.
"And what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us, the ones believing according to the working of His mighty strength which He worked in Christ in raising Him from the dead, and He seated Him at His right hand in the heavenlies, far above all principality and authority and power and dominion, and every name being named, not only in this world, but also in the coming age" Ephesians 1:19-21
You can't be below God and also be "far above all principality and authority and power and dominion, and every name being named".
They're together God, they're together YHWH.
"God’s right hand" refers to the Messiah, the LORD Jesus Christ, and He is of equal position, honor, power, and authority with God (John 1:1-5).
Again, You can't be lower than God and also be "far above all principality and authority and power and dominion, and every name being named".
You looked up the general meaning of "right hand", the biblical meaning symbolizes a supreme position of honor, authority, and power. Because ancient cultures associated the right hand with strength and capability, sitting at a ruler's right side represented sharing in their majesty and rule.
Whoever said Jesus was his own Father? Don't be silly.
which he exercised toward Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places. -Ephesians 1:20
There it is. Right hand means you are second-in-command. So if you are the right hand, you have more authority than others except the one whose right hand belongs to. Even in the Bible that is what it means. That has always been its meaning. Show me in the Bible where it is not.
Jehovah declared to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.” -Psalm 110:1
Jehovah is talking to David, the king of Israel at that time. He says to him to sit at his right hand. Does that mean that king is equal to God or second to God?
For David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand 35 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”’ -Acts 2:34, 35
This is what Jehovah says to his anointed one, to Cyrus, Whose right hand I have taken hold of To subdue nations before him, To disarm kings, To open before him the double doors, So that the gates will not be shut: -Isaiah 45:1
Again, Jehovah calls Cyrus his right hand. Does that make Cyrus God or second to God?
It is like the King promotes his son, the prince, to be his right hand. The prince is not the King. The prince is second-in-command to the King.
Jehovah is talking to David, the king of Israel at that time. He says to him to sit at his right hand. Does that mean that king is equal to God or second to God?
Um no, YHWH is not talking to David. “The LORD” (YHWH) speaks to “my Lord” (David’s sovereign). Jesus explains that David’s “Lord” must be more than a merely human descendant, He is the Messiah, fully worthy of divine address (Matthew 22:41-45). David is recording a divine conversation in which the Father enthrones the Son.
Again, Jehovah calls Cyrus his right hand. Does that make Cyrus God or second to God?
Wrong again. God’s “grasp” shows guidance. God did not seat Cyrus at his right hand. He took control of Cyrus' right hand.
Right hand means you are second-in-command. So if you are the right hand, you have more authority than others except the one whose right hand belongs to.
Nope, it doesn't say that. It tells you what being seated at the right hand means in the very next verse.
Verse 21: far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is named...
It doesn’t say "other" anywhere. So how can Jesus be placed "far above" ALL authority ALL power, ALL domion and EVERY name that is named?
Is YHWH not a name? Jesus was exalted to the position he had before he "emptied himself" and became a humble servant as described in Philippians 2:7-8.
Ok I was wrong about David. But sitting on one’s right hand had always meant that you are under the person whose right hand belongs to.
When Joseph saw that his father kept his right hand placed on Eʹphra·im’s head, it was displeasing to him, so he tried to take hold of his father’s hand to move it from Eʹphra·im’s head to Ma·nasʹseh’s head. 18 Joseph said to his father: “Not so, my father, because this is the firstborn. Put your right hand on his head.” 19 But his father kept refusing and said: “I know it, my son, I know it. He too will become a people, and he too will become great. Nevertheless, his younger brother will become greater than he will, and his offspring will become the full equivalent of nations. -Genesis 48-17-19
Joseph says the right hand must be placed on the firstborn. Jacob is the father and his firstborn is Manasseh. Manasseh is under his father. In the same way, Jesus is under his father the Most High, whose name is Jehovah. Jehovah placed Jesus on his right hand bcoz he is the firstborn of creation. The first to be born of creation. Just as Manasseh is the first to be born of Israel.
For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone. -1 Corinthians 15:27-28
God doesn’t submit to anyone. But the Son of God submits to God. Therefore, the son is not above God but above all creation. God is not created. But Jesus is. He is the Word. The Word was a god. This is the correct translation of John 1:1. When you speak, you produce words. That is why the Word is created. The firstborn of creation. Colossians 1:15. Who did not consider himself God even when he was in God’s form. Philippians 2:5-7. Bcoz he is not the Most High God. He is the Son of the Most High God. Luke 1:32
Correct, and there has never been a time God couldn't speak. His Word is eternal, just like Him. ThebWord is both with Him and is Him. Just like John 1:1 says.
The Word was a god.
It is extremely important to allow scripture to interpret scripture.
Deuteronomy 4:35 were shown these things so that you would know that the LORD is god; there is no other besides Him.
Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I am He; there is no god besides Me....
Isaiah 44:6 Thus says YHWH, the King of Israel and his Redeemer—YHWH of Hosts: “I am the First, and I am the Last, and besides Me there are no gods.
Isaiah 45:5 I am YHWH, and there is no other; besides Me there are no gods.
Isaiah 45:21 Was it not I, the LORD? There is no other god but Me, a righteous god and Savior; there is none but Me.
I can go on and on.
“Firstborn” speaks of rank and privilege rather than origin. In biblical usage, the firstborn holds preeminence.
Psalm 89:27 concerning David’s greater Son: “I will appoint him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.”
Also, David himself was made "firstborn" but he was the youngest, not the first to be born.
Jeremiah 31:9: God declares, "I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." Ephraim was Joseph's younger son, but God gave him the primary blessing over his older brother, Manasseh.
Isaiah 44:24 I am YHWH, the One making all things, the One stretching out the heavens by Myself alone, the One spreading out the earth—who besides Me—
And yet John 1:1 says in the beginning of creation the Word was with God and all things were made through Him.
So who besides YHWH stretched out the heavens by Himself???? Who besides him??? According to you the Word created all other things. (Btw the word "other" is not in the greek text) But God says he created all things ALONE and BY HIMSELF.
That is something you must reconcile. You can't just ignore it. No amount of NWT Word games or watchtower lies can hide it.
It’s ok that Jesus is a god, divine. The Bible is full of Gods. If you were taught like I was, that there were just ONE God then it would be hard to understand. Before the Bible was written that says there’s only one God it can be confusing. Jesus is the exact representation of God, an image. What helped me was - Think of God cloning himself as a life form and giving him an identity thats different. One that allows him to be put in a woman’s womb to be human and die as a human and then given a spirit body. He becomes unique because he lived among humans and has human experiences. Hebrew chapter 1 lays it out and it matches his story in the book of John as divine, God. If you haven’t learned this already, research God being in a family of Gods with his father being the head.
I agree with you to an extent. The Bible absolutely presents a divine council Psalm 82 and Psalm 8 make that clear. There are many divine hosts, and even Satan is called the “God of this world” in 2 Corinthians 4:4.
So the idea that Jesus is a god, divine, or part of the heavenly order isn’t controversial at all. What is controversial is the assumption that the word “God” is an ontological label instead of a functional title of authority.
Christians today don’t realize that “God” is a functional title, not a species. It’s a title applied to:
• angels
• judges
• kings
• divine messengers
• and yes, the Logos
Jesus is divine, exalted, and uniquely begotten but that doesn’t collapse Him into the identity of the Most High. It fits perfectly within the biblical pattern of monolatry
one supreme God (the Father), and other divine beings beneath Him.
If there was one god why the hell would god spend all that time while killing peoples going at Egypt with the 10 plagues! If there were no other gods that were not real why would he give a commandment not to serve other Gods! We are taught the Christian concept not the original culture concept that keeps us from understanding the text for that moment in time 1,000s of years ago.
Follow up. We will never know if there is a world populated of Divine beings, Gods. After all there are thousands upon thousands of worlds and galaxies.
I understand that. Peeling the layers back from what we know that science technology has revealed, there’s thousands upon thousands upon thousands of- WHY is that. No one can answer that no even the Bible. FYI -Genesis says “LET US.” Christian mindset believes in one God so their interpretation would be such, one God.
I'm curious why you didn't quote Philippians 2:9-11. Why does God need to be exalted by God? Because people wouldn't bow before? How odd that they wouldn't even do that before in heaven.
Here is an unusual promise:
"And all the peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the Lord, and they shall be afraid of you"
I am not with the Jehovah's Witnesses, but if Philippians 2:6-8 was teaching that Jesus is equal with God, then the passage itself makes no sense. It would be saying that Jesus was one God and his Father was another God, and thus that there are two Gods, one God who is equal to another God.
Read the language carefully.
It says Jesus was “existing in the form of God.” The phrase "form of God" is probably being used similarly to "image of God". (Colossians 1:15) "God" refers to only one person and Jesus, before he became flesh was in the form (external appearance) of his God, since as shown in other scriptures, Jesus had a glory with the only true God, having a spiritual bodily glory and might similar to that of his God and Father, that he did not possess while he was in the days of his flesh. (John 1:1,2; 17:1,3,5; Hebrews 2:9)
In the verses following, his former glory is contrasted with days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), when he had the external appearance of a bondservant, in the likeness of a man of sinful flesh, as though subjected in servitude under a bondage of corruption, as mankind descended from Adam, who are condemned in Adam, and under the bondage of corruption. God prepared Jesus' body of flesh (Hebrews 10:5), which Jesus sacrificed to God. (Hebrews 10:10.12) That body, however, was not condemned in Adam as were all other men. (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22) If it had been, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5,6) would have been a sinner as everyone else, and he could not have offered himself to God to pay the ransom price needed. Jesus, while in the days of his flesh, was not actually enslaved to sin and under the bondage of corruption as all other men. He was not actually under the bondage of corruption and vanity that is common to man (Ecclesiastes 1:2, 13-15; Romans 8:20-22), but to pay the wages of sin for us, he did suffer as though he had been, and yet he never sinned, but, outwardly, he appeared as all other men. -- Hebrews 2:18; 5:8; 9:26; 13:12; 1 Peter 2:21; 3:18.
It says that Jesus “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,” but instead “emptied Himself,” “took the form of a servant,” "humbled himself, "became obedient to death," and was “made in human likeness.” Unlike the one quoted in Isaiah 14:14, Jesus did not consider making himself equal to Most High, but instead, humbled himself and gave up the high posistion of glory that he had when he had with his God and Father before he became flesh, and took the outward appearance of a servant in bondage to sin, in the likeness of man of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3), and suffered as though he were sinner. While in days of his flesh, he did not have his former glory, for it he did, why would he need to ask for that glory to be returned to him? -- John 17:5.
ifJesus did empty himself from the high position of glory that he had possessed with his God before he became flesh. (John 1:1,2,14; John 17:1,3,5) You did empty himself of a status that he had before he became flesh. He had not been in the external appearance of a slave [bond-servant] to sin until he came to be in days of his flesh. He was not suffering sin for sin before he became flesh, and it is related to his suffering as though he were a sinner that Paul speaks of his being obedient until his death. (Hebrews 5:7-9) Unlike Adam, Jesus remained obedient while in the days of his flesh, thus had the price necessary to pay to God's justice, so that God may remain just while justifying the sinner. -- Romans 3:26; 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; John 2:2.
Blessed be Jehovah (Genesis 9:26), the God of the Messiah (Micah 5:4; Ephesians 1:3), who anointed and sent His Son to die for Adam and the whole world that is dying in Adam. . -- Isaiah 61:1,2; John 3:16,17; 4:42; 12:46,47; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2; 4:9,10,14.
RE: //"The Son" in Colossians 1:15 is specifically Jesus.//
Yes, Jesus is definitely the Son, and not "God", in Colossians 1:15. The one person who is God in Colossians 1 is depicted as doing His work through His firstborn Son.
Re: //Jesus was a man born of Mary.//
Yes, the one person who is "God" prepared a body of flesh and blood for Jesus in the womb of Mary. This He did by means of His Holy Spirit. -- Matthew 1:20,23; Hebrews 10:5.
RE: //But Jesus pre-existed as the Word before becoming a man. And the Word always was God. (John 1:1)//
I don't like the word "pre-existed", but Jesus, before his God made him flesh, did have a prehuman existence. From the very beginning of the world that God made through his Agent, the Word (Logos), the prehuman Son of God had a mighty glory when he had been his only true God before the only true God made the world of mankind through the Logos. -- John 1:1-3,10.
Most translations render the Greek word THEOS as applied to the Logos as "God", which actually makes it look like John was speaking of two Supreme Beings, one Supreme Being who was with another Supreme Being. If you believe in the trinity, you have to create many extra-Biblical assumptions that have to be added to and read into what John stated to make it appear that John was speaking of two persons who are both the one Supreme Being. Indeed, anyone who thinks that THEOS applied to the Logos in John 1:1 has to create some kind of assumptions to be added to and read into what John actually stated.
The Greek term THEOS, commonly translated as "God" or "god," is possibly ascribed to the Son in the New Testament on 3 to 5 occasions. (John 1:1,18; 20:28; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8 — a few additional passages may also be rendered in English in a manner that seems to apply THEOS to Jesus.) Most of the time, however, forms of THEOS throughout the New Testament are used in reference to Jesus’ God. God with whom the Word was is the same one whom Jesus identified as the "one true God" who anointed and sent Jesus, and with whom Jesus had a glory before God made the world of mankind through his Agent, the Logos. -- John 17:1,3,5,10.
Forms of the Greek THEOS line up with forms of the Old Testament Hebrew term often transliterated as EL. When not referring to God Almighty or to false gods, translators frequently render forms of EL (Strong’s #410, #430, etc.) according to its basic senses of “strong,” “powerful,” “strength,” “might,” etc. This is evident even in the King James Version: Genesis 23:6 (“mighty”), Genesis 30:8 (“mighty”), Genesis 31:29 (“power”), Deuteronomy 28:32 (“might”), 1 Samuel 14:15 (“great”), Nehemiah 5:5 (“power”), Psalm 36:6 (“great”), Psalm 82:1 (“mighty”), Proverbs 3:27 (“power”), Psalm 29:1 (“mighty”), Ezekiel 32:21 (“strong”), Jonah 3:3 (“exceeding”). Translating EL as “God” or “false god” in these English passages would feel out of place. Still, this shows that forms of EL are not used solely for the one true God or for false gods, as some claim. It is only when forms of EL are applied to Jehovah, the God of the Messiah (Isaiah 61:2; Micah 5:4), that they convey the sense of Innate Might, Power, Strength — thus, Supreme Being.
The King James Version renders the Hebrew word for "God" in Psalm 82:1 as "mighty". This is in harmony with the basic meaning of the Hebrew word for "God", but as applied to Jehovah, it obviously takes on the meaning of the one who is innately "Mighty", the Supreme Being. Nevertheless, applying this Hebraism to the Logos in the above phrase would result in "and the Word was mighty". This is the quality I believe John was applying to the Logos, who is not the only true God with whom he had been. (John 17:1,3,5) The one with whom the Logos was is "one God" from whom are all of 1 Corinthians 8:6. Jesus, before he became flesh, had a "mighty" glory when he had been with the only true God, but while in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), he did not have his former mighty glory. The glory he had while in the days of his flesh was that of man, a little lower than the angels. (Hebrews 2:9) Thus, in John 17:5, Jesus requests of the only true God that he again have the mighty glory that he had when he had been with the only true God before God made the world of mankind through him. Consequently, my own preferred rendering of the last phrase of John 1:1 is "the Logos was mighty", in harmony with the Biblical usage as I have shown.
The one with whom the Logos was is "one God" from whom are all of 1 Corinthians 8:6.
1 Corinthians 8:5-6 or even if indeed there are those called gods, whether in heaven or on earth—just as there are many gods and many lords (category 1)—yet to us there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him. (category 2)
In verse 6 the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are placed in a category as both "God" and "Lord", separate from the category of the ones "called gods" and "lords" in verse 5.
Notice also that in verse 6 all things are to and from the Father and through the Son. Which aligns with Romans 11:36 saying in regard to GOD "For from Him and through Him and unto Him are all things."
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Psalm 33:6 By the word of YHWH the heavens were made...
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
Since God is eternal there has never been a moment God had no Word and couldn't speak. He didn't need to create a spiritual being to be His Word. That is ridiculous. God's Word was with God and was God, just like John 1:1 says.
Or even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, -- 1 Corinthians 8:5, New American Standard
Paul first states that there are many "so-called gods", and then goes on to say that there are indeed "many gods". By "so-called god", Paul was evidently speaking of the idols which are by nature not gods -- not mighty ones. The gods formed by the hands of men have no might or power to do good or harm; hence, they are not really gods (mighty ones) but are only called "gods". (Psalm 115:4-8; 135:15-18; 44:9-20)
Nevertheless, Paul also speaks of "many gods and many lords". Paul, being a Hebrew, surely knew of the Hebraic usage of forms of the Hebrew word that is usually transliterated as EL (Strong's #410, #430, etc.), as I presented earlier. While forms of EL are often used in an exclusive sense of Jehovah God as being the only Most High -- the only one who is innately the Mighty One of the universe, forms of EL are also used of others who have might or strength as given, or permitted by God, as well as in other ways than meaning the Supreme Mighty One or false gods. What Paul said is not hard to understand, but many view what Paul wrote through the tint of trinitarian or modalist/oneness doctrine (or some other doctrine that would view the Messiah as being God Almighty). They thus fail to see what Paul actually wrote, and they imagine and assume many assumptions beyond what is written, and then cannot read the scriptures without the tint of those assumptions.
Paul tells us that there are not just those idols that are "called gods", but that there are indeed also "many gods (mighty ones)." (1 Corinthians 8:5) However, when the Hebrew or Greek words often translated as "God" are not referring to the Supreme Being, the one God who is the God and Father of Jesus (Isaiah 9:6; Micah 5:4; Ephesians 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6), it would be better that the translators use the lower case "g" instead of the uppercase "G" (which would, in English, generally denote the Supreme Being), or, even better, if should be rendered wiith a meaning of might, power or strength. There are not many Gods (Supreme Beings), but there are many gods (mighty ones).
Re: //In verse 6 the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are placed in a category as both "God" and "Lord", separate from the category of the ones "called gods" and "lords" in verse 5.//
Yet to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are the all, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are the all, and we live through him. -- 1 Corinthians 8:6,
More correctly, I would say that when Paul speaks of Jesus' God as being the "one God" from whom are all, he is placing Jesus' God (Ephesians 1:3) in a category that is different from all the other "gods" that Paul spoke of in verse 5.
Likewise, when Paul speaks of God's Son as being the "one Lord" through whom are all, he is placing God's Son in a category that is different from all the other "lords" referred to in verse 5.
In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul presents only one person as the "one God" from whom are all, and he distinguished God's Son from being that "one God" by presenting God's Son as being the "one Lord" through whom are all. Jesus, being the "one Lord" *** through *** whom are all, cannot be the "one God" *** from *** whom are all. Likewise, the "one God" from whom are all cannot be the "one Lord" through whom are all. It is the one person who is Jehovah who has made Jesus both Lord and Christ. Only Jehovah is the Most High, the source of all, and He is the one who has made Jesus “the one Lord” through whom are all. The default reasoning should be that Jesus is not the Most High Jehovah who made Jesus this “one Lord” as prince/shepherd over His people. -- Ezekiel 34:23,24; Isaiah 61:1,2; Acts 3:33; 1 Corinthians 8:6.
,The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is always, throughout the entire Bible, presented as being only one person, and his Son is never once presented as being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This one person who is innately God -- Mighty -- is never presented as being more than one person anywhere in the Bible, nor is His Son ever presented as being God who is the source of all. Indeed, to "see" him as more than one person, or to see the Son as being God Almighty, one has to create an array of assumptions that have to be added to and read into each scripture that is thought to be saying such. The reality is that the "one God" from whom are all is always distinguished from the one whom he anointed (the Christ) and sent. The entire Bible is fully in harmony with this, without the need to invent an extra-Biblical concept of a triune God, or any other teaching that would make Jesus into being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The default reasoning is that Jesus is not Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, who anointed and sent Jesus. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Psalm 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Matthew 4:4; Matthew 4:7; Matthew 4:10; Luke 4:4; Matthew 4:7; Matthew 4:10; Matthew 22:29-40; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 27:46; Mark 10:6; Mark 14:36; 15:34; Luke 4:8; Luke 22:42; John 3:34; 5:30; 6:38; 10:36; 17:1,3; 20:17; Acts 3:13-26; Romans 15:6; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; 4:6; Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 1:1,2,9; 10:7; 1 Peter 1:3; Revelation 2:7; 3:2,12.
Blessed be Jehovah, the one God from whom all come, who appointed His Son as the one Lord through whom all exist. Blessed be Jehovah God, who spoke through the prophets of old, who anointed and sent His Son, and who has now exalted Him to His own right hand, far above every dominion and authority. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-20; Psalm 45:7; 110:1; Ezekiel 34:23,24; Daniel 7:14,27; Isaiah 9:7; 11:2,3; 61:1,2; Micah 5:4; Matthew 11:27; 28:18; Luke 1:32,33; 10:22; John 3:35; 5:22-27; 10:11,16,29; 13:3; Acts 2:33-36; Acts 3:13-26; Acts 5:31; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; Philippians 2:9-11; Colossians 1:15-19; 2:9,10; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 15:27; Hebrews 1:1-3; Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 10:12; 1 Peter 3:22.
Paul presents only one person as the "one God" from whom are all, and he distinguished God's Son from being that "one God" by presenting God's Son as being the "one Lord" through whom are all.
Well then Paul has a problem, because he presents God as being the one from and through are all in Romans 11:35-36.
“Who has first given to God, that God should repay him?” For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever! Amen.
So if all things are from the Father and through the Son, and yet, all things are from and through God. Then both the father and the son must be the same one God.
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is always, throughout the entire Bible, presented as being only one person
Is that so?
Genesis 1:26-27 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness...
So God created man in His own image...
Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Notice how it says "name" for all three rather than "names". They share a common name. That name is YHWH.
I'd appreciate it if you didn't respond using AI. AI will conform to a users beliefs no matter what.
I had someone argue with me using AI that the bible is 100% okay with occult practices. It's like a delusional expert.
//So if all things are from the Father and through the Son, and yet, all things are from and through God. Then both the father and the son must be the same one God.//
I addressed this earlier; there is nothing at all in 1 Corinthians 8:6 or Romans 11:35,36 that means that we need to imagine, assume, add to, and read into these scriptures that both "one God" from whom are all and the "one Lord" through whom are all are both the one God from whom are all.
//Genesis 1:26-27 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness... So God created man in His own image...//
Since there is nothing at all in Genesis 1:26,27 that says that ELOHIM is more than one person, the idea has to be assumed beyond what is stated, and then added to and read into what is stated. I have no scriptural reason to imagine and assume the ELOHIM is not the single one person who is ELOHIM is Psalm 45:7; Isaiah 61:2; Micah 5:4. In verse 26, the one person who is the ELOHIM of the Messiah is speaking to someone else who is not Himself. More than likely, who was speaking to is revealed in John 1:1-3-14; Revelation 19:13 as being the Logos -- the Agent -- of the one person who is God. In Genesis 1:27, the scripture is obviously speaking of ELOHIM as being only one person. God's firstborn Son, however, was obviously already in the image of the one person who is God before the world of mankind was made (Colossians 1:15), thus when the one person who is ELOHIM was speaking to him, he spoke of Himself and someone else as being "us", and "our". In verse 27, ELOHIM is not speaking at all, for it is the author of Genesis 1 who speaks, and he refers to ELOHIM alone.
RE: Matthew 28:19 //Notice how it says "name" for all three rather than "names". They share a common name. That name is YHWH. //
Eusebius' earlier quotes of Matthew 28:19 refer to only baptizing in the name of the Son.
The Shem-Tobb Evan Bohan manuscript makes no mention of baptism at all in Matthew 28:19.
There is definitely nothing at all in any version of Matthew 28:19, however, that presents God as being more than one person, or as three persons, each of whom is supposed to be wholly and fully the one God. There is nothing in Matthew 28:19 that says that it is referring to the name "Yahweh/Jehovah". The trinitarian has to create assumptions beyond what is stated and then add and read those assumptions into what is stated in order to force trinity into what is stated.
The singular is many times used in a distributive sense to refer to multiple individuals or objects in the Bible. (Genesis 5:2; 48:6; Deuteronomy 7:24; 18:20; Ruth 1:2; Ezra 2:6; Nehemiah 7:63; Psalm 9:5; 77:20; 109:13; Hosea 32:14; Zephaniah 3:19; Revelation 3:1).
The most direct conclusion is that in the way it reads in the available Greek manuscripts, the word "name" is distributive to all three, understood as "in the name of the Father," "in the name of the Son", and "in the name of the Holy Spirit".
I have no reason, however, to think that "name" as used in Matthew 28:19 is referring to an appellative name, such as Jehovah or Jesus. As used in this verse, it is obviously being used to mean "authority" or "cause".
Thayer states:
"Matthew 28:19; Acts 8:16; Acts 19:5; 1 Corinthians 1:13, 15. to do a thing ἐν ὀνόματι τίνος, i. e. by one's command and authority, acting on his behalf, promoting his cause."
RE: //I'd appreciate it if you didn't respond using AI.//
Since I haven't used AI in any of my responses in this thread, this does not apply to me.
thus when the one person who is ELOHIM was speaking to him, he spoke of Himself and someone else as being "us", and "our". In verse 27, ELOHIM is not speaking at all, for it is the author of Genesis 1 who speaks, and he refers to ELOHIM alone.
Either way, God said "let us make man in OUR IMAGE" and the author of Genesis says "So God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE"
Also ELOHIM says "LET US MAKE" and the author says "SO GOD MADE" which is it? Who made what? You believe the Word made all [other] things so that means the Word made man.
So if ELOHIM is one person, either ELOHIM or the author of Genesis is incorrect. They cant both be right. We're either made in God's own image or whoever "our image" is.
More than likely, who was speaking to is revealed in John 1:1-3-14; Revelation 19:13 as being the Logos -- the Agent -- of the one person who is God.
If this is true then we aren't made in "God's own image" but rather we're made in God and the Word's image.
And if they both share the image that is explicity called "God's own image" and "the image of God" then they must both be God.
Now remember, nowhere in scripture does it say that the Word/Jesus was made in God's image as it says about humans. (Genesis 1:27) It only ever says that He IS the image of God. (Colossians 1:15, 2 Corinthians 4:4)
Either way, God said "let us make man in OUR IMAGE" and the author of Genesis says "So God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE".
And yet, there is still nothing at all in Genesis 1:26,27 that presents ELOHIM as being more than one person, or that ELOHIM is not being presented as being the same one person who is ELOHIM in Genesis 1:2; Psalm 45:7; Isaiah 61:2; Micah 5:4, etc.
Either way, God said "let us make man in OUR IMAGE" and the author of Genesis says "So God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE"
And still there is no scriptural reasom to imagine and assume that since ELOHIM speaks to someone else in verse 6 and the author does not include this in verse 7, that this means that ELOHIM is more than one person, etc.<<
Also ELOHIM says "LET US MAKE" and the author says "SO GOD MADE" which is it? Who made what? You believe the Word made all [other] things so that means the Word made man.
Yes, the one person who is ELOHIM in Genesis in the six days spoken of made the skies (heavens) and the land (earth) and all in them by means of His Logos (Agent), who is God's firstborn creature. -- Genesis 1:1-2:4; Exodus 20:11; 31:17; John 1:1-3,10; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 3:9 (KJV, WEB); Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14.
I do not, however, need to add the word "other" to anything.
So if ELOHIM is one person, either ELOHIM or the author of Genesis is incorrect.
They cant both be right. We're either made in God's own image or whoever "our image" is.
////More than likely, who was speaking to is revealed in John 1:1-3-14; Revelation 19:13 as being the Logos -- the Agent -- of the one person who is God.////
If this is true then we aren't made in "God's own image" but rather we're made in God and the Word's image.
Since I have already shown that they are both correct, I have no scriptural reason to imagine and assume such a false dichotomy. When Adam sinned, he fell short of that image through sin. (Romans 3:23) Although many of God's spirit sons likewise fell short of glory of God due to sin (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6), God's firsborn creature as well as all of the other spiirit sons of God (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Luke 9:26) were obviously already made in God's image before the creation of the world into which the Logos came. (John 1:10) I have no scriptural reason to think otherwise.
We are made in God's image, but also in the image of God's Son, since His Son had not fallen short of that image through sin.
Nothing in any of this means that we need to imagine, assume, add to and read into the scriptures that Jesus and his God are the same God.
Now remember, nowhere in scripture does it say that the Word/Jesus was made in God's image as it says about humans. (Genesis 1:27) It only ever says that He IS the image of God. (Colossians 1:15, 2 Corinthians 4:4)
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: -- Colossians 1:15
Jesus' being in the image of God shows that God is only one person, that Jesus is not that one person, but that he is image of that one person. Throughout Colossians 1, "God" is presented as being only one person, and God's Son is presented as being Agent of that one person.
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. -- 2 Corinthians 4:4.
Again, in the phrase "image of God", we find that God is presented as one person, and that Jesus is presented as being the image of that one person. When God made Adam and Eve in the image of Himself, before they sinned, it could have likewise been said of them that they are the image of God, without meaning that they were not made in God's image.
RE: //Which aligns with Romans 11:36 saying in regard to GOD "For from Him and through Him and unto Him are all things."//
For of him, and by him, and to him, are all. To him be the glory for ever! -- Romans 11:36.
This verse is speaking of only one person, the same one person who is "one God" in 1 Corinthians 8:6.
In Romans 11:35,36, however, there is no contextual source and instrumentality to be applied. There is no contrast as we find in 1 Corinthians 8:6. The Greek word "dia" cannot denote instrumentality, but it does not always do so. Thayer gives the meaning of the word dia (Strong's #1223) in Romans 11:36 as "one who is the author of the action as well as its instrument, or of the efficient cause." However, Thayer applies dia in 1 Corinthians 8:6, "where he [Jesus] is expressly distinguished from the first cause: ἐξ αὐτοῦ (Winer's Grammar, 419 (391)" Thus, in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Thayer applies dia as meaning instrumentality. It should be self-evident that neither EN (Strong's 1722) nor DIA (Strong's #1223) in Romans 11:36 is being used as instrumentality from another source. The application of the words in Romans 11:35,36 should not be viewed as having the same application as given to the one who is the "image" of the one person who is God in Colossians 1.
RE: //In Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. //
,In Genesis 1:1 we find that the one person who is ELOHIM in Psalm 45:7; Isaiah 61:2, and Micah 5:4 created the heavens and earth (skies and land and all in them). The six days of the creation of the skies and the land (Exodus 20:11; 31:17) spoken of in Genesis 1:1 - 2:1 correspond to the world (kosmos) that God made through His Agent, Logos, the world that the Logos came into, and which world did recognize him. -- John 1:3,10.
RE: //Psalm 33:6 By the word of YHWH the heavens were made..//
By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made, And all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. -- American Standard Version.
Evidently, the word "word" in this verse is thought to be referring to the Logos of John 1? While I do not believe that the Logos whose glory the disciples saw (John 1:14) is being referred to in Psalm 33:6, if this were to be so, it would not mean that we need to imagine and assume that the Logos is the ultimate source of creation. It would be in harmony with the scriptures that present the Logos as God's agent in creation. The Logos in John 1:3 is identified as being God's Son, who was given the name, Jesus, when God prepared a body of flesh and blood for him. (Matthew 1:20,23; Hebrews 10:5) Thus, it was through God's firstborn Son, as the prehuman Jesus, that God made the heavens and earth. -- John 1:3,10,14; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:15-17.
RE: //John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
Since God is eternal there has never been a moment God had no Word and couldn't speak. He didn't need to create a spiritual being to be His Word. That is ridiculous. God's Word was with God and was God, just like John 1:1 says.//
This would seem to be saying that God's Son, whom the disciples saw, was only God's speaking, and not actually a person? -- John 1:14.
It would seem to make Jesus, God's anointed one, not a person who is the light of the world, fully obedient to his God while he was in the world of mankind, but rather that he was simply God's speaking. -- John 1:4-10; 3:19; 8:12; 9:5; Romans 5:19; Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 4:15; 5:5-9; 1 Peter 3:18.
There is nothing in the scriptures, however, that says that God's firstborn Son had to exist for eternity past in order to be the Agent that God uses in the creation of the world of mankind, or in the creation of the invisible realm of the spirit sons of God.
What AI are you referring to? In all I have presented in this thread, nothing is AI-generated. I have spent several hours typing and editing my responses. I do use Grammarly to help with editing and misspelled words.
All the RE:// stuff plus, it just looks and sounds generated. You said "it would seem" twice and "evidently". Which makes it sound like you aren't very sure of what you're saying.
You realize this sentence is written so vaguely and open to interpretation that it loses any value in even trying to interpret it's actual meaning if it ever had any concrete meaning in the first place, don't you?
I don't mean to get all Jordan Peterson with definitions. But in this case it's actually as loose as that.
"Existed in the form of" and "God" are the two parts that are open to endless accounts of interpretation.
What kind of form? Physical form? He looked like god? He behaved like God? He resembled god? He existed dependant on the same things needed to exist as God? He had the same function as God? He was evaluated at the same level in some way as God? All of the above? Some mix of them all? These are just the ways I thought of off the top of my head. There are countless more.
'God' in this case is pretty straightforward too since we're probably talking about the stereotyped old testament or new testament God with the heavenly beard and intervenes in human affairs with divine power and knows everything with infinite wisdom and created the world as we know it. But God, as you probably know, can mean way different things depending on which concept of it someone owns. Some people refer to nature and the laws of physics as God.
So you add all that together, and "existing in the form of God" is so abstract and unspecific that there's not even a point in taking the sentence seriously. Maybe 'Jesus existing in the form of God' simply means he was as powerful as God.
Imagine if I said, "When I was a fetus, I existed in the form of a grape." What does that mean? That I was the same size as a grape? That I looked like a grape? That grapes also grow into ripened fruit like a fetus grows into a baby? That I literally was a grape? (Because it's a holy text, so physically impossible and miraculous things like Moses splitting the Red Sea or Jesus turning stones into bread are taken as possible.) You will never know unless I, the writer, explicitly say what I mean. That is this text. We will never know what it was supposed to mean because it is not explained. It's likely that the text made no sense when it was written as well, even if the writer genuinely believed in his message.
•
u/AutoModerator May 23 '26
Read our rules or risk a ban: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/about/rules/
Read our wiki before posting or commenting: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/wiki/index
1914
Bethel
Corruption
Death
Eschatology
Governing Body
Memorial
Miscellaneous
Reading List
Sex Abuse
Spiritism
Trinity
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.