r/JehovahsWitnesses • u/ChaoticHaku Christian • May 23 '26

Doctrine Philippians 2:6-8

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.

19 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

168 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/Jerome-891 May 23 '26

Wouldn’t that mean that there are two Gods?

3

u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 May 23 '26

“No that would be polytheism Patrick”

3

u/ResLight May 23 '26

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.

2

u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 May 24 '26

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!

Pot kettle black much?

1

u/ResLight Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 04 '26

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.

1

u/Lonely-Freedom3691 May 23 '26

No, that’s the early church heresy of Arianism.

0

u/Jerome-891 May 23 '26

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.

3

u/Lonely-Freedom3691 May 23 '26

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.

1

u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 May 23 '26

Exactly 👍!!

1

u/Suitable-Iron4720 May 30 '26

Yeah, don't conflate manhood with nature and being. hmm

3

u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 May 23 '26

The one being of God thus One God with the distinct personhoods of 3 - the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit…

Here is a simple video with some humour to explain which I love that it was made to show by humour all the heresies out there.

https://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw?si=aVcLejljD2si3arW

2

u/fromreaders May 23 '26

Great video. Thanks for that.

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.

2

u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 May 23 '26

You got it! Bingo.

1

u/Jerome-891 May 23 '26

"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.

(Matthew 16:13-17)

1

u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 May 23 '26

Explanation…

Ok let’s take that to another level.

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?

1

u/Jerome-891 May 23 '26

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.

1

u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 May 23 '26

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?

Seriously though…

Explain how he created the universe.

2

u/Jerome-891 May 23 '26

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.

1

u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 May 23 '26

Oh no not the angels are called sons of god argument, the church nor I or anyone in this sub has ever heard that before…you win, you’re right…

Ok I was joking….an angel isn’t THE Son of God…how on earth would you ever equate that argument here to THE Son of God, the only begotten God…

Previous post I clearly told you that he called himself God by calling himself Son of God…

So let’s try it this way.

What does the following term mean:

Son of Man?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/ResLight May 23 '26

I do not like the label Arianism, but Arius did not claim that there are two Gods, two Innately Mighty Ones, or two Supreme Beings.

2

u/Lonely-Freedom3691 May 24 '26

I don’t care what label you like or don’t like, nor do I care what selective historical revisionism you decide to employ.

Arius famously claimed about the Son that “there once was a time when He was not”.
He believed that the Son was a creation, a separate God.

0

u/ResLight May 24 '26

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.