Philippians 2:6

[TCassidy]

A particular language is not required to receive the knowledge God reveals to mankind.

You seem to have missed the point. The topic of this thread is the Greek grammar which may or may not separate μορφη from ισα θεω by means of the articular infinitive.

If you can intelligently discuss the articular infinitive please feel free to do so. If not perhaps it would be better for you to find another thread to post in.

 

[Happy]

You seem to have missed the point. The topic of this thread is the Greek grammar which may or may not separate μορφη from ισα θεω by means of the articular infinitive.

If you can intelligently discuss the articular infinitive please feel free to do so. If not perhaps it would be better for you to find another thread to post in.

The topic of this thread is Philippians 2:6

The question asked was: Does equality with God grammatically correspond with form of God?

In your opinion, does it? Yes or no?

 

[TCassidy]

The topic of this thread is Philippians 2:6

The question asked was: Does equality with God grammatically correspond with form of God?

In your opinion, does it? Yes or no?

I've already answered that question and addressed the Greek grammar of Philippians 2:6.

So, please discuss the implications of the articular infinitive as related to the relations between the Persons of the Godhead.

 

[Van]

The Second Person of the Trinity existed in the form of God, but did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped.

Slice and dice it as you will, but the Second Person gave up something in His incarnation. No need to discuss gabble-gook.

 

[SATS PROF]

The Second Person of the Trinity existed in the form of God, but did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped.

Slice and dice it as you will, but the Second Person gave up something in His incarnation. No need to discuss gabble-gook.

----

IMO,He gave up neither deity nor attributes there of as sovereignty. The humbling ocurs in His humanity not His deity. :...as Man, He humbled Himself." Phil 2:8

 

[Van]

Fair enough, Sats Prof. IMO Jesus gave up (or chose not to use) some of His pre-incarnate divine attributes. That is the plain reading of Phil. 2:6.

 

[SATS PROF]

Fair enough, Sats Prof. IMO Jesus gave up (or chose not to use) some of His pre-incarnate divine attributes. That is the plain reading of Phil. 2:6.

---

not to me.

 

[Craig CrossWise]

Does equality with God grammatically correspond with form of God?

I think "yes". Some would claim that the article preceding the infinitive being equal with God (to einai isa theō) is anaphoric, referring back to form of God (morphȩ̄ theou). I'm a bit ambivalent on this issue, as I'm not so sure this is a universal function of the article, though that may be one of its functions here. In addition, it seems verse 6 is in rough parallel with verse 7, with form of a slave (morphēn doulou) there corresponding to in likeness of man became (en homoiōmati anthrōpōn genomenos).

 

[Craig CrossWise]

Since I'm suffering from a bit of insomnia, I thought I'd ask a somewhat related question. Hopefully, this is not too far off topic.

I've been on another blog defending Trinitarian beliefs over Unitarianism. One of the verses 'exegeted' over there is Philippians 2:6, and one of the claims is that οὐχ negates ἁρπαγμὸν rather than the verb ἡγήσατο, with the author's takeaway that Christ 'counted not something to be grasped being equal with God'. In other words, Christ was stating that He wasn't God and had no desire to aspire to godhood. Ridiculous, of course, but I want to be able to definitively refute such 'exegesis', such that I cannot be accused of reading Trinitarianism into my exegesis. My thoughts are that οὐχ negates the entire clause, which means, essentially, the verb. On what solid ground, if any, can I make such an assertion? I've looked in Wallace's grammar, Stanley Porter's Idioms, and Black's It's Still Greek to Me, and Porter has been the most helpful, though, as far as I can see, not definitive. Since I'm a self-studying layman, it's possible that the answer is obvious to those who've actually taken Greek at the university level.

My take is that ἁρπαγμὸν is fronted in the clause (after οὐχ) for emphasis. Would anyone agree with that?

 

[Happy]

I've already answered that question and addressed the Greek grammar of Philippians 2:6.

So, please discuss the implications of the articular infinitive as related to the relations between the Persons of the Godhead.

The question I asked simply required a yes or no answer.

 

[TCassidy]

The question I asked simply required a yes or no answer.

So, are you admitting you can't discuss the OP, that you lack the understanding of Greek grammar necessary to participate?

 

[Yeshua1]

---
No one is denying that Jesus ceased to be God.

But I do deny that He laid aside His divine attributes.

Good theologians affirm that attributes inhere in essence , and God does not change.

I am saying that he laid aside the right to use them while here on earth, so he healed and cast out demons by the power of the Holy Spirit!

 

[Yeshua1]

The question was, "Does equality with God grammatically correspond with form of God?"

"Does the articulated infinitive in 2:6 separate morphe from isa theou so that God the Son is not , therefore, relationally equal to God the Father?"

(By the way, wouldn't the phrase be "articular infinitive?" "Articulated" would require it to have movable joints, wouldn't it?)

Jesus stated that He laid aside the pre incarnate Glory that he shared with the father, and when he arose, he "put that back on"

His deity was veiled in human flesh, but now is shining again, just like as on Mount of transfiguation!

 

[Yeshua1]

Since I'm suffering from a bit of insomnia, I thought I'd ask a somewhat related question. Hopefully, this is not too far off topic.

I've been on another blog defending Trinitarian beliefs over Unitarianism. One of the verses 'exegeted' over there is Philippians 2:6, and one of the claims is that οὐχ negates ἁρπαγμὸν rather than the verb ἡγήσατο, with the author's takeaway that Christ 'counted not something to be grasped being equal with God'. In other words, Christ was stating that He wasn't God and had no desire to aspire to godhood. Ridiculous, of course, but I want to be able to definitively refute such 'exegesis', such that I cannot be accused of reading Trinitarianism into my exegesis. My thoughts are that οὐχ negates the entire clause, which means, essentially, the verb. On what solid ground, if any, can I make such an assertion? I've looked in Wallace's grammar, Stanley Porter's Idioms, and Black's It's Still Greek to Me, and Porter has been the most helpful, though, as far as I can see, not definitive. Since I'm a self-studying layman, it's possible that the answer is obvious to those who've actually taken Greek at the university level.

My take is that ἁρπαγμὸν is fronted in the clause (after οὐχ) for emphasis. Would anyone agree with that?

Jesus was/is the same essence as God the father, as in prologue to John, same stuff, but he also choose not to hold unto being in that same state as being found in form of God, ie Spirit, and became flesh to dwell among us...

 

[Craig CrossWise]

Jesus was/is the same essence as God the father, as in prologue to John, same stuff, but he also choose not to hold unto being in that same state as being found in form of God, ie Spirit, and became flesh to dwell among us...

I don't necessarily disagree with what you say, but I'm looking for support specifically from the Greek text of Philippians 2:6 - not assertions based on English translations. In order to refute their teachings I must make my points from the Greek syntax, grammar, lexis, etc.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you say, but I'm looking for support specifically from the Greek text of Philippians 2:6 - not assertions based on English translations. In order to refute their teachings I must make my points from the Greek syntax, grammar, lexis, etc.

Other than this passage, where else would they see Jesus stating that he was not same as God?

 

[Craig CrossWise]

Other than this passage, where else would they see Jesus stating that he was not same as God?

They deny Jesus is Deity, so each Scripture that can possibly fit a Trinitarian meaning is understood differently.

 

[Yeshua1]

They deny Jesus is Deity, so each Scripture that can possibly fit a Trinitarian meaning is understood differently.

How do they butcher John Prologue then?

 

[Craig CrossWise]

How do they butcher John Prologue then?

It depends on the person. There are quite a few different ways I've seen it done.

 

[HankD]

kenoo Friberg 02904 (c) a lowering in status - Militarily rifted in rank, but He did this to Himself - it's reflexive.
The Father did not lower Him in rank, He lowered Himself (for a little while).

RSV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower (elatoo - lowered in authority) than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.

He lowered Himself in rank from a 5 star general to a private to complete His mission.

HankD