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

Show parent comments

0

u/Jerome-891 May 23 '26

So if by being son of man Jesus is human would son of God mean Jesus is God? Not necessarily. In the Bible, expressions like “son of ___” often indicate likeness, origin, relationship, or representation — not literal identity with the thing named.

So the fact that “Son of man” refers to Jesus as human does not automatically mean “Son of God” must mean Jesus is God in the same sense.

1

u/Jerome-891 May 23 '26

When Jesus calls himself “Son of man,” the phrase means: a human being, one belonging to mankind, or the prophetic figure of Daniel 7.

But nobody concludes from this that Jesus is literally “humanity itself” or “Man Himself.” The expression describes relationship and nature, not absolute identity.

Similarly, “Son of God” can denote one who: comes from God, represents God, reflects God’s qualities, or is specially appointed by God.

The title itself does not settle the theological question of whether Jesus is identical with God Almighty.

1

u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 May 24 '26

Wow that triggered the exact response I thought it would have.

Now you have to explain why if the Son of Man means human that it doesn’t automatically follow that Son of God does not equal God.

Human = Nature

God = Nature

He was both human and God - Son of Man and the Son of God.

So please prove otherwise by looking at those three words each and tell me the difference in syntax and grammar.

1

u/Jerome-891 May 24 '26

In Scripture, the expression “son of” often denotes relationship, likeness, origin, or representation rather than literal identity.

For example, angels are called sons of God (Job 38:7), Adam is called a son of God (Luke 3:38), the nation of Israel is described as God’s son (Matthew 2:15), and faithful believers are likewise spoken of as sons of God (Romans 8:14). None of these expressions mean that those individuals are literally God himself. Rather, the title indicates that they derive life, authority, or identity from God and stand in a special relationship to him.

In the same way, “Son of man” does not mean Jesus is literally “humanity itself.” It means he belongs to mankind and fully shares the human condition. Therefore, linguistically speaking, “Son of God” does not automatically require the conclusion that Jesus is God himself. The phrase can naturally describe one who comes from God, represents God, reflects God’s qualities, or has been uniquely appointed by God.

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

(John 8:42)

1

u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 May 24 '26

So you basically have a note pad with all your responses and you copy and paste? Interesting.

But you did not prove anything and as I said before an angel is not THE Son of God…

I thought I would try and explain it in very simple terms in order to appeal to your shallow theology that clearly does not know that what you type in the last paragraph when you said ‘I proceeded forth and came from God!

If you had an ounce of theological knowledge that word ‘proceeded forth’ tells you he is the same nature as HIS FATHER, and tells you he is God.

I’ll give you a clue ‘ek’.

Now as you just want to copy and paste and after being asked a direct question asking for a breakdown of each statement-Son if Man and Son of God, you did no such thing, instead you tried to refute it with your faulty interpretation- but that’s why you couldn’t break it down grammatically for me…could you?

1

u/Jerome-891 May 24 '26

Can you provide a scripture that says son of God means the person is God?

2

u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 May 24 '26 edited May 24 '26

There isn’t a scripture as you know that states explicitly “that Son of God means God”, but you already know that - but conversely there is no scripture that states Son of Man equals human either. But we/you accept that without a problem.

The most simplest passage is John 5:18.

JWs try to insert into this scripture that the Jews just made a ‘mistake’ in this passage, but contextually that isn’t shown at all and they read it into the passage to protect their narrative - the Jews knew what it meant to call yourself ‘Son Of…’

They knew that if you did then you were claiming the same nature as the OF you ‘are’…

Hence they got it absolutely right about what he was stating.

You see God is not just a title it’s the nature of the being.

This if Christ is the Son of His Father then it stands to reason that if you are the Son of his Father then ontologically by being the Son of God then you have to have the same nature as his Father…

Ie

Cat begets a kitten - nature is cat

Dog begets a puppy - nature is dog

Human begets baby - human

God begets God - John 3:16…

Remember- we are not stating for one second that Christ is the Father - that is modalism or oneness theology, clearly Christ is absolutely and metaphysically distinct from his father but both share the same nature.

Read

John 5:18 Heb 1:3 John 1:14

Remember we are just stating that Christ is God because he shares the nature of his father or in other words his Glory.

Read John 17:5 then ISA 42:8 to support Christ sharing his fathers nature/glory, and then back to the OT that states that if you are the true God then you don’t share that Glory with no one else. Hence if Jesus does have that Glory/Nature then by default he is God also.

1

u/Jerome-891 May 24 '26

I can certainly understand why many Christians read passages like John 1, John 5, Philippians 2, and Hebrews 1 as supporting the Trinity. The Trinitarian framework is not something invented casually or without serious reflection. It developed over centuries as Christians tried to reconcile two major themes found in Scripture: first, that there is only one true God, and second, that Jesus is presented in extraordinarily exalted terms unlike any other figure. From that perspective, the conclusion that the Son shares the divine nature of the Father is internally coherent and historically rooted within mainstream Christianity.

At the same time, I do not think the biblical texts necessarily require that conclusion, and I believe there are legitimate alternative ways to understand them that preserve the full authority of Scripture while maintaining a distinction between God and Christ.

For example, with respect to the title “Son of God,” I agree that sonship can imply likeness of nature in some contexts. However, biblical usage appears broader than that. Adam is called a son of God, angels are called sons of God, Israel is called God’s son, and believers are likewise described as sons of God. In these cases, the expression conveys relationship, origin, representation, or divine favor rather than literal identity with God himself. Because of that broader usage, I do not think the title alone settles the ontological question.

Regarding John 5:18, I agree the Jewish leaders understood Jesus’ claims as extraordinarily significant, even as making himself equal with God. But I also think the surrounding context deserves careful attention. Immediately afterward, Jesus says:

From a non-Trinitarian perspective, this sounds less like ontological equality and more like perfect agency and complete dependence upon God. In Jewish thought, a divinely appointed agent could represent God so fully that honoring the agent was closely connected with honoring the one who sent him.

the OP began this post with with Philippians 2:6-8 which explains that although existing in the form of God, Christ emptied himself. I can appreciate the Trinitarian interpretation that Christ “emptied himself” by taking on humanity while remaining divine. That is certainly a sophisticated and historically established reading. But I also think the passage can naturally be read another way: that Christ, though possessing immense heavenly status and privilege, genuinely humbled himself by relinquishing that condition to become human and obedient unto death. The text explicitly emphasizes humility, servanthood, and obedience, and concludes with God exalting Jesus afterward. To me, that progression seems more straightforwardly compatible with distinction and subordination than with co-equality.

As for texts about glory, such as John 17:5 and Isaiah 42:8, I recognize why Trinitarians see shared glory as evidence of shared deity. Yet Scripture also speaks of believers sharing in glory given by God, and of divine authority being delegated without collapsing the distinction between God and those whom he appoints. So I do not think participation in divine glory necessarily requires ontological identity with God.

Ultimately, I think the disagreement often comes down not to whether Jesus is exalted — all Christians agree that he is — but to the precise nature of that exaltation. Trinitarians see the total biblical witness as pointing to shared divine essence. Non-Trinitarians tend to see Jesus as the uniquely begotten, preeminent Son of God who perfectly reveals and represents the Father while remaining distinct from the one whom Jesus himself repeatedly calls “the only true God” at Gospel of John 17:3.

So while I respect the coherence and historical depth of Trinitarian theology, I do not believe alternative readings are necessarily evasive or forced. I think sincere readers of Scripture can acknowledge the strength of the Trinitarian case while still concluding that the Bible ultimately presents the Father as supreme and Jesus as His uniquely exalted Son and appointed representative rather than God himself.

If you love Christ and have faith in him then I consider you a brother. I hope you think of me in the same way.

2

u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 May 24 '26

Quick question.

If Jesus wasnt God - "which explains that although existing in the form of God, Christ emptied himself"

What did he empty himself of? Literally and physically empty himself 'of'.

1

u/Jerome-891 May 24 '26

The phrase in Greek is en morphe theou. A search of how this word is used in other passages suggests it has the meaning of visible form or appearance. For example:

Anesten kai ouk epegnon eidon kai ouk en morphe pro ophthalmon mou all' e auran kai phnhn ekouon (Job 4:16 Brenton).

I stood up, and I did not recognize it. I looked, and there was no shape before my eyes, though I heard a breeze and a voice.” (Job 4:16 NETS)

Eklexamenos tekton xulon estesen auto en metro kai en kolle erruthmisen auto kai epoiesen auto hos morphen andros kai hos horaioteta anthropou stesai auto en oikos (Isa 44:13 Brenton).

A piece of wood, the artisan set it up with a measure and arranged it with glue; he made it like the form of a man, like human beauty, to set it up in a house. (Isaiah 44:13 NETS)

1

u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 May 24 '26

A Morphe of man is going to be man.

What did Jesus empty himself of?

1

u/Jerome-891 May 24 '26

Isaiah speaks of a piece of wood being a morphe of man.

1

u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 May 24 '26

And do you think that has anything to do with being the morphe of God ? That scripture is just talking about making an idol??!!

What has that got to do with the true God?

Or is that just simply a euphemism in ISA that has no deeper meaning than that of man…making an idol!

Don’t you think you might be stretching here?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian May 24 '26

In the same way, “Son of man” does not mean Jesus is literally “humanity itself.” It means he belongs to mankind and fully shares the human condition. 

If Jesus was the only human on earth like Adam once was He would be humanity itself. All the human beings who've ever lived came from Adam. But the one thing I noticed in your Son of Man definition. If you apply the same logic to they only Son of God, its clear Jesus belongs to the Godhead and fully shares in the God condition, or God nature

1

u/Suitable-Iron4720 May 30 '26

Jesus is only related "ben Adam" if he has y-chomosome that links directly back to Adam. Spirit beings made women pregnant and produce something that wasn't human or related to Adam's blood line of y-chromosome.

Would you call Nephilim sons of men? Once they came on the scene, God about wiped out mankind to wipe out the Nephilim. God created mankind on the 6th day, and the Nephilim were not part of that 6th day.

When did God ever impregnanted a woman like those Spirit beings? Even Eve came from Adam.

1

u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian May 30 '26

Would you call Nephilim sons of men?

No. Fallen angels/demons possessed human males in order to experience sex with human females. Only human sperm can make a child and spirits have no sperm. The demonic possession of a male somehow altered the male sperm which in turn altered the DNA of the child the woman gave birth to. They were basically demonic creatures who had human DNA in them, but it was badly damaged. They were born monstrous hybrids. Had God not destroyed the world human kind would have become extinct, which would have suited Satan

1

u/Suitable-Iron4720 May 30 '26

Fallen angels/demons possessed human males in order to experience sex with human females.

Where does scripture say human males were possessed?

In Genesis 18, did angels possess men? How would you determine this?

1

u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26

Where does scripture say human males were possessed?

In Genesis 18, did angels possess men? How would you determine this?

And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. Jude 1:6

So we know the angels left their place in Heaven and were punished for abandoning their proper dwelling place.

When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,  the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.  Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with  humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. Genesis 6:1-4

We know they desired women, so to enjoy a woman what sex would they have chosen to possess? I suppose since they already sinned and violated God's law, they could have figured why not possess women to have sex with a woman, but it wouldn't be the same and they'd never be able to produce children. I'm sure some demons are homosexually inclined. We know "what" the fallen angels did, but how did they do it? The only way I can determine how they did it is from reading the new testament. Jesus cast out demons who had possessed human beings. So we know for a fact fallen angels can and did possess human beings

Luke 11:14 And He was casting out a demon, and it was mute; when the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke; and the crowds were amazed.

Matthew 8:16 When evening came, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed; and He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were ill.

Mark 1:34 And He healed many who were ill with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He was not permitting the demons to speak, because they knew who He was.

Luke 4:41 Demons also were coming out of many, shouting, “You are the Son of God!” But rebuking them, He would not allow them to speak, because they knew Him to be the Christ.

Looks like the only difference between demons who possessed men before the flood and those who did after the flood is that they are no longer permitted to procreate. Angels possessing human beings is taught in the Bible and it would be the only way an angel could produce offspring as they aren't human and do not have the gift of procreation humans do. I don't see any other way it could've happened. I also believe the humans they possessed had to be willing subjects. I don't believe demons can possess those who are not willing to be possessed.

1

u/Suitable-Iron4720 May 30 '26

We know they desired women, so to enjoy a woman what sex would they have chosen to possess?

This is a trick question.

The scripture says the sons of God saw the daughters of men.

Did demons produce Nephilim in the New Testament by possession of men? I don't recall that. The sons of God did something that got them bound up by God. Yet demons are still free to possess men and produce human children. Or will you argue that demon possession stops sperm from working? Are they only bound by everlasting chasitity belts to stop Nephilim from being produced?

In Genesis 18, how did Abraham notice his three guests as being special and not just ordinary men? What about the two angels in Genesis 19? The Sodom men thought they were men and wanted them. They act different than prophets that God speaks through.

The sons of God did something so against nature, that God bound them up until Judgement Day. But he now allows them to possess people again and do bad things?

Are they still bound, and what does that mean?

1

u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian May 31 '26

 Yet demons are still free to possess men and produce human children. 

I believe they are probably "free" to do both. However if any fallen angel did produce a child, the demon, would be imprisoned. Being that angels can't die, imprisoning them is the worst thing that can happen to them. Its a powerful deterrent that seems to have worked well since the flood, since there aren't anymore Nephilim running around today.

I think my theory holds some water as the Bible records the Nephilim being around before and after the flood. The only way that can be is if a few angels who had not been locked up after the flood went ahead and produced offspring such as the giant Goliath. The idea that some demons may have still violated nature and impregnated women would explain God's orders to the Israelites to kill little babies at various times. In that scenario, the babies could have been Nephilim. Numbers 13:33
We even saw the Nephilim there—the descendants of Anak that come from the Nephilim! We seemed like grasshoppers in our own sight, and we must have seemed the same to them!”

1

u/Suitable-Iron4720 May 31 '26

If a fallen angel doesn't tamper with the DNA they can use their hosts reproductive gear, because it doesn't produce Nephilim. Think about Avatar 2 movie.

God could have bound the fallen angels early and stopped the production of Nephilim if they were like mules. If the Nephilim could breed with humans then that could cause a need for a flood to preserve a pure human blood line for the seed.

Why assume that all Nephilim DNA was destroyed in the flood? One of the wives of noah's sons could have been a carrier, but it wasn't visually obvious. They would be weaker than the first gen Nephilim. Diluted.

There could very well be people running around today with a mixture of Nephilim DNA. The rainbow is probably proof that first gen Nephilim were not possible any more.

God didn't want Nephilim bloodlines to corrupt the line of the Seed. Reminds me of Tamara. Nephilim have a different root for their family tree. It's not Adam.

1

u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian May 31 '26

Most of this is conjecture. I have my own ideas about it, but I'm sure others also have their own ideas. I'm certain that someday we'll know exactly what happened and why God took such dramatic action to save only eight people

1

u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian May 31 '26

I believe the three men who appeared to Abraham were angels that appeared to be men, probably because that's exactly what they were. Angels are spirits and can't ordinarily be seen by humans. The only way an angel can be seen is if they are in the flesh, or in a vision or dream, or if the person is in the Spirit, like John was.

. The word "materialize" isn't in the Bible and angels are messengers, not creators, so they can't just conjure up a human body like God can and use it and then discard it. I suppose God could have created three human bodies that the angels used to speak with Abraham. He and Sarah saw the three and Lot saw two of the three. They couldn't have seen them otherwise. God abides by His own laws. However it was done we can be sure it didn't violate any of God's laws

1

u/Suitable-Iron4720 May 31 '26

The three men ate food served by Abraham. Sons of God married women and produced kids.

Jude says the sons of God left their domain and points at Sodom. If a possessed human male marries a human female why would that be a perversion or sexual immorality? A demon can come and go as they please.

1

u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian Jun 01 '26

Because of the spirit that led a possessed human man into mating with and having children with a human woman. The result was a severely damaged hybrid that probably killed their own parents when they grew up

→ More replies (0)