The Word prior to His incarnation.

[37818]

John 1:1-2, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

It can be understood that the Word was always both with God and was God prior to His incarnation.

In His incarnation His being God did not change, but how He was with God did change.

 

[Van]

Not desiring equality with God... (Philippians 2:6)

 

[37818]

Philippians 2:6-11, 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. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[canadyjd]

John 8:29 “And He who sent Me is with Me. My Father has not left Me alone.

peace to you

 

[Dave G]

" Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 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: "

To me, this says that He did not think that it was stealing from God, to be equal with God.
That fits with Who He said He is, does it not?

Jesus is God...
"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

"Emmanuel" = "God with us" ( Matthew 1:23 ).


He is God, was God and will always be God.

 

[CJP69]

Not desiring equality with God... (Philippians 2:6)

That is NOT what Philippians 2:6 says. In fact, it is the opposite.

 

[Van]

I remember a Perry Mason TV show where a witness did not know what happened, but knew what did not happen.

CSB
who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited.
ESV
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
LEB
who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God something to be grasped,
NASB
who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
NET
who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,
NIV
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
RGT
Who, being in the form of God, did not eagerly desire equality with God as a prize.

OTOH, I did not see a published translation that said Jesus did desire equality with God as something to grasp.​

 

[37818]

He is God, was God and will always be God.

And did become part of His creation as a man and will now always be part of His creation as a man. Hebrews 13:8, Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

 

[CJP69]

I remember a Perry Mason TV show where a witness did not know what happened, but knew what did not happen.

CSB
who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited.
ESV
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
LEB
who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God something to be grasped,
NASB
who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
NET
who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,
NIV
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
RGT
Who, being in the form of God, did not eagerly desire equality with God as a prize.

OTOH, I did not see a published translation that said Jesus did desire equality with God as something to grasp.​

Philippians 2:6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
​

It isn't hard to understand this verse! Jesus did consider His being equal with God to be taking anything away from God!

Jesus is either God or He's the biggest blaspheming lunatic the world has ever known!

 

[Van]

"Jesus did consider His being equal with God - to be taking anything away from God!

The above is a word salad worth of Baghdad Bob.

Jesus did not consider His being equal with God the Father to be something He could not relinquish.
Jesus did not consider relinquishing His equality for the incarnation to be taking something away from His own deity.
Jesus was God with us, not a non-god with us.
The idea God cannot choose to set aside His innate attributes to achieve His purpose is to claim God is not all powerful.

 

[canadyjd]

The Greek word translated “robbery” in the passage refers to “clinging to or grasping onto”

So, Jesus didn’t “cling to or grasp” His equality with God, but rather took the form of a servant.

peace to you

 

[CJP69]

"Jesus did consider His being equal with God - to be taking anything away from God!

The above is a word salad worth of Baghdad Bob.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Jesus did not consider His being equal with God the Father to be something He could not relinquish.

Talk about word salad! Can you say double negative?

The term translated "robbery" is ἁρπαγμός Strong's G725), and it means just that! It does not mean to grasp hold of something. "Booty" is implied - thus theft.

If simply grasping or taking procession of was the intended idea, the word would have been κατέχω or ἀναλαμβάνω (Strong's G2722 or G353).

Jesus did not consider relinquishing His equality for the incarnation to be taking something away from His own deity.

The text DOES NOT say this!
At best, this is your interpretation of the verse.

Jesus was God with us, not a non-god with us.

That is not what this verse is talking about! You're simply ignoring the logical sequence of the passage.

The passage begins with Jesus being "in the form of God" and then goes on to talk about Him being found in the form of man. When He was in the form of God, He was equal with God (i.e. He was with God and He was God (John 1:1)) and that fact was not a problem (i.e. robbery).

The idea God cannot choose to set aside His innate attributes to achieve His purpose is to claim God is not all powerful.

That depends on how you define the terms "innate attributes" and "all powerful".

 

[CJP69]

The Greek word translated “robbery” in the passage refers to “clinging to or grasping onto”

So, Jesus didn’t “cling to or grasp” His equality with God, but rather took the form of a servant.

peace to you

I don't think so. It's more like "snatching" like when you take something that you have no right too.

Simply grasping hold of something is going to be κατέχω or ἀναλαμβάνω (Strong's G2722 or G353).

 

[canadyjd]

I don't think so. It's more like "snatching" like when you take something that you have no right too.

Simply grasping hold of something is going to be κατέχω or ἀναλαμβάνω (Strong's G2722 or G353).

The word is used to refer to robbery, or pickpocketing or simply grabbing a coin purse and running.

But it does convey holding onto to something tightly.

I guess we just need to consider the context and decide what makes sense.

Since Jesus has always been fully God, it seems nonsensical to suggest He would not consider snatching deity from the Father. It implies Jesus didn’t consider Himself to be fully divine, and then expect credit for not snatching deity from God.

Peace to you

 

[Van]

LOL, harpagmos" (G725) refers to seizing something. Or snatching something. The idea is to possess, grasp, hold on to, and otherwise not relinquish something.

First we are needing to follow the logical sequence of the passage, so we are to ignore what it says, and claim Jesus was found in the form of God by Inspector Gadget.

And of course, if we follow the logical sequence of the passage, we will ignore that because emptied Himself, that did not mean He was willing to relinquish equality with God.

Lastly some people do not know what a double negative is. In a compound sentence, each clause containing a subject-predicate should only have one negative.

 

[CJP69]

LOL, harpagmos" (G725) refers to seizing something. Or snatching something. The idea is to possess, grasp, hold on to, and otherwise not relinquish something.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Even if you laugh before you say it.

First we are needing to follow the logical sequence of the passage, so we are to ignore what it says, and claim Jesus was found in the form of God by Inspector Gadget.

Do you always just say random nonsense that disagrees with what I say, no matter what I've said or whether what you're writing make any sense whatsoever? I mean, is this the sort of "argument" that convinced you of your doctrine? Is this the sort of "argument" that you find persuasive? It would explain a lot.

And of course, if we follow the logical sequence of the passage, we will ignore that because emptied Himself, that did not mean He was willing to relinquish equality with God.

You left out a pronoun there which along with the just general laziness with which you've posted this makes it difficult to know for sure just what it is you mean here. There seems to be no connection at all between the beginning and the end of the sentence. It certainly isn't any argument I've made. At best, this seems to be just another attempt to find any means by which to disagree for the sake of disagreeing.

Lastly some people do not know what a double negative is. In a compound sentence, each clause containing a subject-predicate should only have one negative.

No one cares, nor need anyone care other than those who just one sentence earlier accused someone of spewing "word salad".

The point was, "Don't be a hypocrite!"

 

[percho]

Did he being equal unto God, trump, he being equal unto man?

Was one more important than the other?

Why did he become equal unto man anyway?

What was He accomplishing?

Hypostatic union ------- trump/Trump

 

[Van]

Does scripture say Jesus, God incarnate, was "equal" with man? Nope, But He was made a little lower than God, thus He did not grasp equality with God, but became "like a man." Note Jesus was sent in the "likeness" (same word) of sinful flesh. But He had no "sinful flesh," as He was without spot or blemish. (Romans 8:3) He was certainly sent as an image made like a corruptible man. Romans 1:23

 

[canadyjd]

LOL, harpagmos" (G725) refers to seizing something. Or snatching something. The idea is to possess, grasp, hold on to, and otherwise not relinquish something.

First we are needing to follow the logical sequence of the passage, so we are to ignore what it says, and claim Jesus was found in the form of God by Inspector Gadget.

And of course, if we follow the logical sequence of the passage, we will ignore that because emptied Himself, that did not mean He was willing to relinquish equality with God.

Lastly some people do not know what a double negative is. In a compound sentence, each clause containing a subject-predicate should only have one negative.

Are you saying Jesus “relinquished equality with God” during the incarnation?

What He relinquished was His glorified position in Heaven, to take the form of a servant. That is clear in the context.

Jesus never “relinquished equality” with God in the sense of not being fully God.

peace to you

 

[Van]

Are you saying Jesus “relinquished equality with God” during the incarnation?

What He relinquished was His glorified position in Heaven, to take the form of a servant. That is clear in the context.

Jesus never “relinquished equality” with God in the sense of not being fully God.

peace to you

Good grief! I already posted He was made a little lower than God!! Post #18, Hebrews 2:9

Now you can claim being made a little lower than God does not mean He relinquished equality with God in some aspects of the incarnation till the cows come home, doesn't alter the truth. And you can deny God can set aside or limit utilization of an attribute, which is tantamount to claiming God is not all powerful.