I was just reading James D G Dunn on Philippians 2:6-11 before going to sleep last night. I found it a fascinating and illuminating interpretation from the perspective of Adam Christology. However, Dunn never once mentioned that _morphë_ can mean the nature or essence of something, as opposed to just the external form of something.
Revelation 1:8 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This was in a dream/vision John had, allegedly. It didn't happen while Jesus was on this earth. In in Hebrews 7:3 Melchizedek is described "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life." Literally the same thing. Why isn't he God?
In Revelation 1:8, the one who says he is the Alpha and the Omega is called the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” Verse 4 refers to this same person who is called "him who is, and who was, and who is to come." Then in verse 5, Jesus is spoken of as a *different* person - "and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness." It is clear from these verses that Jesus is not the one called Lord God and who is the Alpha and the Omega. If you read Revelation chapter 1 carefully, you will see that a distinction is made between God the Father and Jesus Christ. They are not the same. The very first verse says that John received a revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him. Verses 5 and 6 say that Jesus “made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father.” Verse 7 refers to Jesus coming with the clouds, but it is clear that verse 8 is referring to Almighty God as “the Alpha and the Omega.”
Paul and all Please share thought: I have a nagging thought lately: I realize that all this mental gymnastic to proof Jesus is with God part of God not only does not convince.. but that digging deep in the scholarly work is not useful for a person who calls triniterian to monotheism? Because average Christian who lack knnowledge of Scholars findings (that John Gospel is not authentic etc) would not need all this or can't or won't, while christian with high knoweldge of this, they made up their mind despite of Scholars findings, either to save there teaching position, jobs as clergy, or to cling to forefathers' ways (As Quran puts it). So in the realm of Dawah basic approach maybe more effective to go with basic contradictions etc.. or Isaiah 42, etc.. what you guys think? It seems that average Christians do not understand about academia stuff either to appreciate the critiques.
"Being in the image of god" is synonymous with being "in the image of god" and that the "image" terminology points to christ in adamic terms" - David Steenburg, "thebworship of Adam and christ in the image of god" JSNT vol. 39, pg 99 "The key to the text lies in the intended parallel between the first adam and the second Adam. This is the generally prevailing modern view. The former senselessly sought to grasp at equality with god and through pride and disobedience lost the glorious image of his maker. The former chose to tread the pathway of lowly obedience in order to be exalted by god." - Ralph P. Martin, epistle of paul to the philippians, an introductory and commentary. Tyndall, new testament commentaries (grand rapids. Eerdmans, 1987) pg 102 " equality with god, greek: isa theou, may not be simply translated by terms like "equality to god" that would require the form " isos theos". What we have in the adverb "isa" and that merely means " as god". So there is no statement about christ being equal to god and thus, in turn tells against an interpretation in terms of pre existance. So on both traditio-historical linguistic grounds, according to the catholic exegete and Jerusalem dominican Jerome Murphy O' Connor, there is "no justification for interpreting the phrase of the hymn in terms of "being of christ" - Karl joseph Kuschel, born before time pg 251 I could keep going on and on and on. The point is. This is more of a theologically driven argument of xians. The problem is, they see jesus as god that they cant unsee him as god and to who he wouldve been in history and in the 1st century palestinian jewish milieu
None of those quotations address the fact that in verses 10-11 of the passage Christ is explicitly identified with Yahweh via a reference to Isaiah 45:23 (see my comment above). No one denies Adamic references in the poem, that's explicit in the NT. What you have done, as always with Muslim apologists, is ignore the part of the passage that decisively defeats your interpretation. It's ridiculous that you say Christians can't unsee Jesus as God whereas you can't unsee him as purely human, even completely ignoring evidence which explicitly affirms his divinity on the exact same page. YOU're the one reading the the New Testament through the lens of the 7th century Arabian Qur'an! I.e., not in the context of 1st century Palestinian Judaism. "It is widely agreed by interpreters, however, that the Christ poem depicts Jesus as equal to God after his resurrection. This is because the last two stanzas quote Isaiah 45:22-23 ("Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess"), which in the original context clearly refers to God the Father." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Philippians#Incarnation_Christology
@@ConsideringPhlebas problem with your argument is that jesus isn't identified as yahweh. See. This is what im talking about. Depsrate forced connections as usual. I love how you quoted verse verse 10 referencing that every knee shall bow but forgot verse 9 which states thats you know..... after God exalts him after every name. Jesus became exalted by god by being a perfect representation of him being sinless and uncorrupted by sin.jesus being gkds representative is given authority to forgive sin by the authority of God (matthew 9:8) and resurrects the dead as well. Something he was given by the will of the father, for he can do nothing without the will of the father (john 5:19) jesus wasn't identified with god in those verses. You did as I stated. You cherry picked a verse then read your beliefs into it. The quotations i did provide shows that the verses most famously associated to the incarnation of jesus dont say it and then you tried connecting him to being identified as god but forgot that he was first exalted by god for being his representative. Jesus being hid's perfect representative is what allowed him to be exalted and thus, allowed to have knees bow as a representative of god. This really gets old tbh. " as the righteous man par excellence. Christ was the perfect image (eikon) of god. He was totally what God intended man to be. His sinless condition gave him the right to be treated as if he was god, that is, to enjoy the incorruptability in which adam was created. This right however, was not use to his own advantage, but, he gave himself over to the consequences of a mode of existence that was not his by accepting the condition of a slave which involved suffering and death" - Jerome Murphy O'Connor, "Christological anthropology in phil 2:6-11" Revue biblique vol 93 (paris, 1976) pg 49 "Jewish heritage rather then hellenistic syncretism may be the key to the philippian hymn. Indeed an increasing number of present day new testament scholars with good reason question the premises of exegesis hitherto and cannot see pre existance, let alone incarnation in the ohilippian hymn. In this text, christ is not celebrated as a pre existant heavenly being, but in a good jewish fashion, as a human counterpart to adam. Christ is the great contrasting figure to adam. Adam. The audacious man, Christ. The man who humbled himself. Adam the one who was forcibly humbled by god. Christ the man who voluntarily humbled himself to god, adamn the rebellious man. Christ, the man who was utterly obedient, adam, the man who was ultimately cursed. Christ, the one who was ultimately exalted. Adam, who wanted to be like god, and in the end, became dust. Christ, Who was in the dust and indeed went to the cross and is in the end, the lord of the cosmos" - Kuschel, page 250- 252 Jason BeDuhn in his book, "truth in translation" pg 55 states about this verse: "there is not a single word derived from the word "harpazo" (grasped) that suggests to holding onto something already possessed" " the old contention about harpagmos is over. Eulqualitybwith hod is not a res rapta a position which the ore existant christ had and gave up. But. It is a res rapienda a possibility for advancement which he declined" - Ethelbert Stauffer, New testament theology (London SCM press, 1955) pg 284. I'm pretty sure these quotations do what you stated the others didnt
@@omaralyafai2368 "You cherry picked a verse then read your beliefs into it." Nonsense. This is precisely what you've done, hence why I quoted the above passage, the citation for which is Bart Ehrman, who can hardly be accused of being pro-Christianity: "It is widely agreed by interpreters, however, that the Christ poem depicts Jesus as equal to God after his resurrection. This is because the last two stanzas quote Isaiah 45:22-23 ("Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess"), which in the original context clearly refers to God the Father." Ehrman, Bart D. (2014). "7. Jesus as God on Earth: Early Incarnation Christologies" Also relevant to this subject: "The Christ poem is significant because it strongly suggests that there were very early Christians who understood Jesus to be a pre-existent celestial being, who chose to take on human form, rather than a human who was later exalted to a divine status." Martin, Ralph P. (1997). Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation & in the Setting of Early Christian Worship Ehrman, Bart D. (2014). "7. Jesus as God on Earth: Early Incarnation Christologies en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Philippians#Incarnation_Christology "I'm pretty sure these quotations do what you stated the others didnt" No they do not, which just goes to show how slipshod you're being (and that you don't even understand which specific points are being argued) in understanding this passage and that's because you don't care what it actually says, you just want to "prove" that Christians are wrong about it, which they're not. For one thing, these quotations are about pre-existence, incarnation and equality to God at the start of the poem. They don't even touch the fact that verses 10-11 put Christ in the same position as Yahweh in Isaiah 45:23. There's a development throughout the poem that your own citation illustrates and it even refutes your own view because it affirms that Christ became "lord of the cosmos" (Kuschel) by the end of the passage. But nevertheless, I would seriously question the notion that this poem doesn't teach pre-existence as it affirms Christ "taking the form of" a servant, in human likeness and a human form, which is clearly contrasted with his being in the "form of God" previously. If he was just in the "image of God" like Adam was, then his taking on a human likeness wouldn't constitute any kind of "humbling" because Adam was already in a human likeness. Christ's taking on a human form, not just the role of a servant, is part of his humbling in the passage. Otherwise, the passage wouldn't bother to repeatedly insist on his being in human form because if it were just equating Jesus with Adam, the fact that he was in human form would go without saying. Christ's humanity is a part of his 'emptying' or humbling.
The Hindus maintain that all gods are nothing but reincarnation of a certain entity called "brahman." Christians have a very similar view, "one being" but three persons.
thanks for the replies, I understand what you mean, but I always think and say the shorter version is 1st commandment alone will slap many faces into reality on that Day, and the mental gymnastic will crumble in 1 second. Not to mention "my father is greater than I " why call me good" "I don't know the hour", gospels were written by anoynmous! Can you believe it, you meet God with a faith made by anonymous men!! Just 1st commandment alone will slap people's faces very fast, the only think that console me is that it is clear that Islam, Quran etc, guarantee guidance to those who are sincere: not putting jobs, family, ties, pride, desire above God path.. if a person is sincere God will guide him.. here is one of many promises: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, "Allah Almighty says: Whoever comes with a good deed will have the reward of ten like it and even more. Whoever comes with an evil deed will be recompensed for one evil deed like it or he will be forgiven. Whoever draws close to me by the length of a hand, I will draw close to him by the length of an arm. Whoever draws close to me by the length of an arm, I will draw close to him by the length of a fathom. Whoever comes to me walking, I will come to him running. And whoever meets me with enough sins to fill the earth, not associating any idols with me, I will meet him with as much forgiveness as possible. " Muslim 2687
I see your point but just beacus God jesus has a God his father it doenst disqualify him from being our God or even Jehova. You said because God has a God he can't be the God of the old testament because God says there is no one bedsides me. God is a tittle given to someone one or more then one person just as the word Group , the word group can make 3 people turn into 1 group. While the word God can make 3 Gods count as 1. When we use the word group we understand that the people in the group didnt morph together in some weird way. We understand thst there is different personalities in the group. Well the word God does the same thing, the only difference is that the word God lets us know its Divine entities we are talking about.
Psalm 110:1 shows clearly that Jesus is not Jehovah. According to the KJV it says: “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Who is speaking to whom? The Hebrew text for this verse includes the divine name YHWH (unfortunately, most Bibles substitute LORD in all caps for the divine name). In English this verse would read “Jehovah [or Yahweh] said to my Lord.” In Acts 2:34-36, Peter quotes Psalm 110:1 and explains that God is speaking to Jesus Christ. This shows clearly that Jesus is not the same as Jehovah.
I've heard this 'Phil. 2 is simply equating Jesus to Adam' argument before, but it's really weak. For one thing, Adam didn't have a pre-incarnate state of existence in the "form of God" and only then was down-graded by taking on a lowly human form. Adam was always just a human, it wasn't a diminution of his status to be human, he always was one. Also important, verses 10-11 state: "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" Which is a clear reference (and therefore equivalence) to Yahweh/God in Isaiah 45:23: "‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance (Septuagint: 'every tongue shall confess to God')" So no, Jesus IS being equated to Yahweh in the Christ poem. Further, it's note-worthy that this isn't even considered Paul's writing, but a pre-Pauline text that could go back as early as the mid 30s AD, which certainly helps to put a nail in the coffin of the "high Christologies are late" argument. "It is widely agreed by interpreters, however, that the Christ poem depicts Jesus as equal to God after his resurrection. This is because the last two stanzas quote Isaiah 45:22-23 ("Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess"), which in the original context clearly refers to God the Father." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Philippians#Incarnation_Christology That said, I wouldn't deny that there are some parallels with Adam in the poem, but Christians accept that Christ is the likeness of Adam (even the Qur'an does), but that's not the totality of belief about him, of course. And as for Christ's subordination to the Godhead, I would say this makes sense given that Christ himself is not the totality of God in Trinitarianism but is only one part of the three divine Persons. Also, the human form of Christ is subordinate to God according to the Athanasian creed.
You said regarding Jesus subordination “...as for Christ’s’ subordination to the Godhead, I would say it makes sense given that Christ himself is not the totality of God in trinitarianism but is only one part of the three divine persons” That fact you said Christ is not the totality of God implies and shows that Christ himself is not God rather God took on Jesus I.e switched modes from God almighty to being Christ; then you said he is a part of the three divine person, the fact that you mentioned three “divine” persons shows that there are three gods not one God since the three divine persons are distinct from each other besides the fact that you said “three divine persons” that passages a quoted you saying show that you are not being consistent shifting to different theologies without even realising it. Also I would like to point out that the fact you believe Jesus being subordinate in the Trinity shows that Jesus is not God almighty and clearly implies tritheism given the fact you still believe Jesus to be divine. You also mentioned about a particular creed mentioning that the human form of Christ is subordinate to God. Now the fact it mentions “the human form of Christ” it gives clear implications of the seperationism theology. Also I would like to point out that the fact you said Christ is only one part of the trinity, would also imply the three persons make up a group known as “God”. You fell into a couple of heresies without even realising.
I would like to add one to my comment, you said, Christ is not the totality of God. Now since you said “Christ is not the totality OF God” that would imply modalism since you believe in a trinity.
@@XxzombisSlayaXx No, you're just one of these sneaky Islamic apologists who tries to trick unknowledgeable Christians about their faith by accusing them of Christological heresy, hoping they won't know enough about Christian theology to notice and refute the deception. That Christ, by himself, is NOT the totality of the Godhead is mainstream Christian theology, not modalism. Nice try. There is nothing heretical or polytheistic about calling the Father, Son and Holy Spirit "three divine persons." This is, once again, orthodox Christian theology. "seperationism theology" No, Separationism is about the divine aspect of Christ leaving him at some point, e.g., his crucifixion. The idea that Christ is of two natures, one human, the other divine, is, guess what, orthodox Christology.
@@ConsideringPhlebas regarding separationism, since you said it is regarding Jesus’ divine aspect nature and human aspect nature, now you admit that the divine nature left Jesus at the crucifixion. First of all a divine being is unlimited and human being is limited, something that is unlimited cannot be reconciled with that which is limited it is simply irrational. God cannot be omnipresent and not omnipresent exactly the same time nor all-seeing and not all-seeing at the exact same time; going back to the divine nature leaving Christ the fact that you distinguish the divine nature from the human shows that their are two Christ’s one who is a mere human and one who is divine, now you cannot deny the face that an eternal being cannot die thus you have not choice but resort to there are two Christ’s and the divine Christ took on/possessed the human Christ. Early church fathers in the mid 2nd century to the third were discussing the incarnation of God in Christ, they disputed Arians saying that Jesus is simply God not mention anything of the trinity at all while the Arians said he is of the same nature but subordinate to God almighty, this whole separationist theology came in the 4 or 5 century when todays trinity was formed. Tertullian believed the son and the holy spirit were subordinate to the Father this shows they were gods who were beside the God the Father who is the almighty amongst them.
@@ConsideringPhlebas Christ not being the totality of God implies modalism, God made up of three parts which nullifies God being the necessary existence, or that the father, the son and the Holy Spirit make up a team/group know as “God”. Since you believe as you previously said that Christ subordinance is not an issue since he is not the totality of God then that would imply that their are three gods, one is almighty and the other two aren’t or also modalism in the sense that God switches to being the son thus he is no longer all-mighty thus limited but still a god some how while being in the son, likewise with the Holy Spirit. Regarding calling the father, the son, the Holy Spirit three divine persons, it is rather heretical because you believe their is only one Divine being that’s what makes a monotheist a monotheist, saying that the three are divine and the fact that the three a distinct from each other shows that their are three gods not one God; also saying that could also imply modalism in a way, in the sense that the son and the Holy Spirit become divine once God switches to them and also in the sense that God exists in the son and the Holy Spirit while still being himself god the father which is another form of modalism. Today’s trinity is known as the Father the son and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal, co-equal who are of the same nature but distinct but they are one. The early church fathers for didn’t believe in the divinity of the Holy Spirit until Tertullian Brough it up and still at time they did not believe in the divinity of the Holy Spirit the discussions regarding if carried to until the late 3rd century when eventually it widely accepted that the Holy Spirit to be divine. Tertullian also didn’t believe the son and the Holy spirit was coequal and co-eternal with the father rather he believed they were created by the Father and were subordinate to the Father
Whichever way you go current Christianity is based on weak foundations and falsehoods!!!! It is sad!!!! Weak up to the truthfulness of Islamic Isa(pbuh) It is not too late to gain Allah salvations and not his wrath’s Read Quran and accept and follow prophet Mohammad ( the seal of all prophets!
God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should repent" numbers 23:19
I was just reading James D G Dunn on Philippians 2:6-11 before going to sleep last night. I found it a fascinating and illuminating interpretation from the perspective of Adam Christology. However, Dunn never once mentioned that _morphë_ can mean the nature or essence of something, as opposed to just the external form of something.
Bro I would like to see you on scdawah live streams
not going to happen
@@BloggingTheology why not?
@@lionhero0 they do not speak to me.
@@BloggingTheology what do u mean? Do u mean that they don't speak to you at all or they didn't invite you to come on the streams?
@@lionhero0 both. I am a non person.
May Allah bless you and keep you on the straight path.
Revelation 1:8
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."
THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALMIGHTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This was in a dream/vision John had, allegedly. It didn't happen while Jesus was on this earth. In in Hebrews 7:3 Melchizedek is described "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life." Literally the same thing. Why isn't he God?
In Revelation 1:8, the one who says he is the Alpha and the Omega is called the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” Verse 4 refers to this same person who is called "him who is, and who was, and who is to come." Then in verse 5, Jesus is spoken of as a *different* person - "and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness." It is clear from these verses that Jesus is not the one called Lord God and who is the Alpha and the Omega.
If you read Revelation chapter 1 carefully, you will see that a distinction is made between God the Father and Jesus Christ. They are not the same. The very first verse says that John received a revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him. Verses 5 and 6 say that Jesus “made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father.” Verse 7 refers to Jesus coming with the clouds, but it is clear that verse 8 is referring to Almighty God as “the Alpha and the Omega.”
@blogging theology
I really like your videos, some of them are translated into French but some you couldn't put it please in this video
thanks
Paul and all Please share thought:
I have a nagging thought lately: I realize that all this mental gymnastic to proof Jesus is with God part of God not only does not convince.. but that digging deep in the scholarly work is not useful for a person who calls triniterian to monotheism? Because average Christian who lack knnowledge of Scholars findings (that John Gospel is not authentic etc) would not need all this or can't or won't, while christian with high knoweldge of this, they made up their mind despite of Scholars findings, either to save there teaching position, jobs as clergy, or to cling to forefathers' ways (As Quran puts it). So in the realm of Dawah basic approach maybe more effective to go with basic contradictions etc.. or Isaiah 42, etc.. what you guys think? It seems that average Christians do not understand about academia stuff either to appreciate the critiques.
"Being in the image of god" is synonymous with being "in the image of god" and that the "image" terminology points to christ in adamic terms"
- David Steenburg, "thebworship of Adam and christ in the image of god" JSNT vol. 39, pg 99
"The key to the text lies in the intended parallel between the first adam and the second Adam. This is the generally prevailing modern view. The former senselessly sought to grasp at equality with god and through pride and disobedience lost the glorious image of his maker. The former chose to tread the pathway of lowly obedience in order to be exalted by god."
- Ralph P. Martin, epistle of paul to the philippians, an introductory and commentary. Tyndall, new testament commentaries (grand rapids. Eerdmans, 1987) pg 102
" equality with god, greek: isa theou, may not be simply translated by terms like "equality to god" that would require the form " isos theos". What we have in the adverb "isa" and that merely means " as god". So there is no statement about christ being equal to god and thus, in turn tells against an interpretation in terms of pre existance. So on both traditio-historical linguistic grounds, according to the catholic exegete and Jerusalem dominican Jerome Murphy O' Connor, there is "no justification for interpreting the phrase of the hymn in terms of "being of christ"
- Karl joseph Kuschel, born before time pg 251
I could keep going on and on and on. The point is. This is more of a theologically driven argument of xians. The problem is, they see jesus as god that they cant unsee him as god and to who he wouldve been in history and in the 1st century palestinian jewish milieu
Typo alert!!! In first quote its supposed to say " being in the form of god" is synonymous with being in the image of god"
Excellent thank you!
None of those quotations address the fact that in verses 10-11 of the passage Christ is explicitly identified with Yahweh via a reference to Isaiah 45:23 (see my comment above). No one denies Adamic references in the poem, that's explicit in the NT. What you have done, as always with Muslim apologists, is ignore the part of the passage that decisively defeats your interpretation.
It's ridiculous that you say Christians can't unsee Jesus as God whereas you can't unsee him as purely human, even completely ignoring evidence which explicitly affirms his divinity on the exact same page. YOU're the one reading the the New Testament through the lens of the 7th century Arabian Qur'an! I.e., not in the context of 1st century Palestinian Judaism.
"It is widely agreed by interpreters, however, that the Christ poem depicts Jesus as equal to God after his resurrection. This is because the last two stanzas quote Isaiah 45:22-23 ("Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess"), which in the original context clearly refers to God the Father."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Philippians#Incarnation_Christology
@@ConsideringPhlebas problem with your argument is that jesus isn't identified as yahweh. See. This is what im talking about. Depsrate forced connections as usual. I love how you quoted verse verse 10 referencing that every knee shall bow but forgot verse 9 which states thats you know..... after God exalts him after every name. Jesus became exalted by god by being a perfect representation of him being sinless and uncorrupted by sin.jesus being gkds representative is given authority to forgive sin by the authority of God (matthew 9:8) and resurrects the dead as well. Something he was given by the will of the father, for he can do nothing without the will of the father (john 5:19) jesus wasn't identified with god in those verses. You did as I stated. You cherry picked a verse then read your beliefs into it. The quotations i did provide shows that the verses most famously associated to the incarnation of jesus dont say it and then you tried connecting him to being identified as god but forgot that he was first exalted by god for being his representative. Jesus being hid's perfect representative is what allowed him to be exalted and thus, allowed to have knees bow as a representative of god. This really gets old tbh.
" as the righteous man par excellence. Christ was the perfect image (eikon) of god. He was totally what God intended man to be. His sinless condition gave him the right to be treated as if he was god, that is, to enjoy the incorruptability in which adam was created. This right however, was not use to his own advantage, but, he gave himself over to the consequences of a mode of existence that was not his by accepting the condition of a slave which involved suffering and death"
- Jerome Murphy O'Connor, "Christological anthropology in phil 2:6-11" Revue biblique vol 93 (paris, 1976) pg 49
"Jewish heritage rather then hellenistic syncretism may be the key to the philippian hymn. Indeed an increasing number of present day new testament scholars with good reason question the premises of exegesis hitherto and cannot see pre existance, let alone incarnation in the ohilippian hymn. In this text, christ is not celebrated as a pre existant heavenly being, but in a good jewish fashion, as a human counterpart to adam. Christ is the great contrasting figure to adam. Adam. The audacious man, Christ. The man who humbled himself. Adam the one who was forcibly humbled by god. Christ the man who voluntarily humbled himself to god, adamn the rebellious man. Christ, the man who was utterly obedient, adam, the man who was ultimately cursed. Christ, the one who was ultimately exalted. Adam, who wanted to be like god, and in the end, became dust. Christ, Who was in the dust and indeed went to the cross and is in the end, the lord of the cosmos"
- Kuschel, page 250- 252
Jason BeDuhn in his book, "truth in translation" pg 55 states about this verse: "there is not a single word derived from the word "harpazo" (grasped) that suggests to holding onto something already possessed"
" the old contention about harpagmos is over. Eulqualitybwith hod is not a res rapta a position which the ore existant christ had and gave up. But. It is a res rapienda a possibility for advancement which he declined"
- Ethelbert Stauffer, New testament theology (London SCM press, 1955) pg 284.
I'm pretty sure these quotations do what you stated the others didnt
@@omaralyafai2368
"You cherry picked a verse then read your beliefs into it."
Nonsense. This is precisely what you've done, hence why I quoted the above passage, the citation for which is Bart Ehrman, who can hardly be accused of being pro-Christianity:
"It is widely agreed by interpreters, however, that the Christ poem depicts Jesus as equal to God after his resurrection. This is because the last two stanzas quote Isaiah 45:22-23 ("Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess"), which in the original context clearly refers to God the Father."
Ehrman, Bart D. (2014). "7. Jesus as God on Earth: Early Incarnation Christologies"
Also relevant to this subject:
"The Christ poem is significant because it strongly suggests that there were very early Christians who understood Jesus to be a pre-existent celestial being, who chose to take on human form, rather than a human who was later exalted to a divine status."
Martin, Ralph P. (1997). Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation & in the Setting of Early Christian Worship
Ehrman, Bart D. (2014). "7. Jesus as God on Earth: Early Incarnation Christologies
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Philippians#Incarnation_Christology
"I'm pretty sure these quotations do what you stated the others didnt"
No they do not, which just goes to show how slipshod you're being (and that you don't even understand which specific points are being argued) in understanding this passage and that's because you don't care what it actually says, you just want to "prove" that Christians are wrong about it, which they're not.
For one thing, these quotations are about pre-existence, incarnation and equality to God at the start of the poem. They don't even touch the fact that verses 10-11 put Christ in the same position as Yahweh in Isaiah 45:23. There's a development throughout the poem that your own citation illustrates and it even refutes your own view because it affirms that Christ became "lord of the cosmos" (Kuschel) by the end of the passage.
But nevertheless, I would seriously question the notion that this poem doesn't teach pre-existence as it affirms Christ "taking the form of" a servant, in human likeness and a human form, which is clearly contrasted with his being in the "form of God" previously. If he was just in the "image of God" like Adam was, then his taking on a human likeness wouldn't constitute any kind of "humbling" because Adam was already in a human likeness. Christ's taking on a human form, not just the role of a servant, is part of his humbling in the passage. Otherwise, the passage wouldn't bother to repeatedly insist on his being in human form because if it were just equating Jesus with Adam, the fact that he was in human form would go without saying. Christ's humanity is a part of his 'emptying' or humbling.
Very low sound unfortunately...
Is this an Arian type of theology?
Still shirk from an Islamic point of view.
it's very dodgy from an orthodox Jewish view too!
@@BloggingTheology
First Commandment, ''Thou shalt have no other gods before me".
@@sherifel-hadi3439 indeed! Which is why orthodox Jews will never enter a church: idolatry.
The Hindus maintain that all gods are nothing but reincarnation of a certain entity called "brahman." Christians have a very similar view, "one being" but three persons.
thanks for the replies, I understand what you mean, but I always think and say the shorter version is 1st commandment alone will slap many faces into reality on that Day, and the mental gymnastic will crumble in 1 second. Not to mention "my father is greater than I " why call me good" "I don't know the hour", gospels were written by anoynmous! Can you believe it, you meet God with a faith made by anonymous men!! Just 1st commandment alone will slap people's faces very fast, the only think that console me is that it is clear that Islam, Quran etc, guarantee guidance to those who are sincere: not putting jobs, family, ties, pride, desire above God path.. if a person is sincere God will guide him.. here is one of many promises:
The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, "Allah Almighty says: Whoever comes with a good deed will have the reward of ten like it and even more. Whoever comes with an evil deed will be recompensed for one evil deed like it or he will be forgiven. Whoever draws close to me by the length of a hand, I will draw close to him by the length of an arm. Whoever draws close to me by the length of an arm, I will draw close to him by the length of a fathom. Whoever comes to me walking, I will come to him running. And whoever meets me with enough sins to fill the earth, not associating any idols with me, I will meet him with as much forgiveness as possible. " Muslim 2687
I see your point but just beacus God jesus has a God his father it doenst disqualify him from being our God or even Jehova. You said because God has a God he can't be the God of the old testament because God says there is no one bedsides me. God is a tittle given to someone one or more then one person just as the word Group , the word group can make 3 people turn into 1 group. While the word God can make 3 Gods count as 1. When we use the word group we understand that the people in the group didnt morph together in some weird way. We understand thst there is different personalities in the group. Well the word God does the same thing, the only difference is that the word God lets us know its Divine entities we are talking about.
Psalm 110:1 shows clearly that Jesus is not Jehovah. According to the KJV it says: “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Who is speaking to whom? The Hebrew text for this verse includes the divine name YHWH (unfortunately, most Bibles substitute LORD in all caps for the divine name). In English this verse would read “Jehovah [or Yahweh] said to my Lord.” In Acts 2:34-36, Peter quotes Psalm 110:1 and explains that God is speaking to Jesus Christ. This shows clearly that Jesus is not the same as Jehovah.
I've heard this 'Phil. 2 is simply equating Jesus to Adam' argument before, but it's really weak. For one thing, Adam didn't have a pre-incarnate state of existence in the "form of God" and only then was down-graded by taking on a lowly human form. Adam was always just a human, it wasn't a diminution of his status to be human, he always was one. Also important, verses 10-11 state:
"at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord"
Which is a clear reference (and therefore equivalence) to Yahweh/God in Isaiah 45:23:
"‘To me every knee shall bow,
every tongue shall swear allegiance (Septuagint: 'every tongue shall confess to God')"
So no, Jesus IS being equated to Yahweh in the Christ poem. Further, it's note-worthy that this isn't even considered Paul's writing, but a pre-Pauline text that could go back as early as the mid 30s AD, which certainly helps to put a nail in the coffin of the "high Christologies are late" argument.
"It is widely agreed by interpreters, however, that the Christ poem depicts Jesus as equal to God after his resurrection. This is because the last two stanzas quote Isaiah 45:22-23 ("Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess"), which in the original context clearly refers to God the Father."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Philippians#Incarnation_Christology
That said, I wouldn't deny that there are some parallels with Adam in the poem, but Christians accept that Christ is the likeness of Adam (even the Qur'an does), but that's not the totality of belief about him, of course.
And as for Christ's subordination to the Godhead, I would say this makes sense given that Christ himself is not the totality of God in Trinitarianism but is only one part of the three divine Persons. Also, the human form of Christ is subordinate to God according to the Athanasian creed.
You said regarding Jesus subordination “...as for Christ’s’ subordination to the Godhead, I would say it makes sense given that Christ himself is not the totality of God in trinitarianism but is only one part of the three divine persons”
That fact you said Christ is not the totality of God implies and shows that Christ himself is not God rather God took on Jesus I.e switched modes from God almighty to being Christ; then you said he is a part of the three divine person, the fact that you mentioned three “divine” persons shows that there are three gods not one God since the three divine persons are distinct from each other besides the fact that you said “three divine persons” that passages a quoted you saying show that you are not being consistent shifting to different theologies without even realising it. Also I would like to point out that the fact you believe Jesus being subordinate in the Trinity shows that Jesus is not God almighty and clearly implies tritheism given the fact you still believe Jesus to be divine. You also mentioned about a particular creed mentioning that the human form of Christ is subordinate to God. Now the fact it mentions “the human form of Christ” it gives clear implications of the seperationism theology. Also I would like to point out that the fact you said Christ is only one part of the trinity, would also imply the three persons make up a group known as “God”. You fell into a couple of heresies without even realising.
I would like to add one to my comment, you said, Christ is not the totality of God. Now since you said “Christ is not the totality OF God” that would imply modalism since you believe in a trinity.
@@XxzombisSlayaXx
No, you're just one of these sneaky Islamic apologists who tries to trick unknowledgeable Christians about their faith by accusing them of Christological heresy, hoping they won't know enough about Christian theology to notice and refute the deception.
That Christ, by himself, is NOT the totality of the Godhead is mainstream Christian theology, not modalism. Nice try.
There is nothing heretical or polytheistic about calling the Father, Son and Holy Spirit "three divine persons." This is, once again, orthodox Christian theology.
"seperationism theology"
No, Separationism is about the divine aspect of Christ leaving him at some point, e.g., his crucifixion. The idea that Christ is of two natures, one human, the other divine, is, guess what, orthodox Christology.
@@ConsideringPhlebas regarding separationism, since you said it is regarding Jesus’ divine aspect nature and human aspect nature, now you admit that the divine nature left Jesus at the crucifixion. First of all a divine being is unlimited and human being is limited, something that is unlimited cannot be reconciled with that which is limited it is simply irrational. God cannot be omnipresent and not omnipresent exactly the same time nor all-seeing and not all-seeing at the exact same time; going back to the divine nature leaving Christ the fact that you distinguish the divine nature from the human shows that their are two Christ’s one who is a mere human and one who is divine, now you cannot deny the face that an eternal being cannot die thus you have not choice but resort to there are two Christ’s and the divine Christ took on/possessed the human Christ. Early church fathers in the mid 2nd century to the third were discussing the incarnation of God in Christ, they disputed Arians saying that Jesus is simply God not mention anything of the trinity at all while the Arians said he is of the same nature but subordinate to God almighty, this whole separationist theology came in the 4 or 5 century when todays trinity was formed. Tertullian believed the son and the holy spirit were subordinate to the Father this shows they were gods who were beside the God the Father who is the almighty amongst them.
@@ConsideringPhlebas Christ not being the totality of God implies modalism, God made up of three parts which nullifies God being the necessary existence, or that the father, the son and the Holy Spirit make up a team/group know as “God”. Since you believe as you previously said that Christ subordinance is not an issue since he is not the totality of God then that would imply that their are three gods, one is almighty and the other two aren’t or also modalism in the sense that God switches to being the son thus he is no longer all-mighty thus limited but still a god some how while being in the son, likewise with the Holy Spirit.
Regarding calling the father, the son, the Holy Spirit three divine persons, it is rather heretical because you believe their is only one Divine being that’s what makes a monotheist a monotheist, saying that the three are divine and the fact that the three a distinct from each other shows that their are three gods not one God; also saying that could also imply modalism in a way, in the sense that the son and the Holy Spirit become divine once God switches to them and also in the sense that God exists in the son and the Holy Spirit while still being himself god the father which is another form of modalism.
Today’s trinity is known as the Father the son and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal, co-equal who are of the same nature but distinct but they are one. The early church fathers for didn’t believe in the divinity of the Holy Spirit until Tertullian Brough it up and still at time they did not believe in the divinity of the Holy Spirit the discussions regarding if carried to until the late 3rd century when eventually it widely accepted that the Holy Spirit to be divine. Tertullian also didn’t believe the son and the Holy spirit was coequal and co-eternal with the father rather he believed they were created by the Father and were subordinate to the Father
Whichever way you go current Christianity is based on weak foundations and falsehoods!!!!
It is sad!!!! Weak up to the truthfulness of Islamic Isa(pbuh)
It is not too late to gain Allah salvations and not his wrath’s
Read Quran and accept and follow prophet Mohammad ( the seal of all prophets!