General Christ Jesus, the Son of God, existing in the form of God.

[oneapart]

Hi @Lori Jane,

I'm swamped with work, but have been thinking of wanting to further our discussion with Grant (is he on this site) regarding your shared beliefs.

I wanted to drop in to ask do you believe we are the adopted children of God?

My husband and I both share the same belief that we are given the "right" or "authority" to become "children of God" but that that is conditional upon and through Christ alone.

We do NOT believe that Christ is an adopted child of God:

We believe in the Greek meaning of genos of monogenos in the literal meaning, which is 'family' in a genetic kind of sense: a generated descendant. (See Strongs, Thayers)

Then, in short, we also believe that you cannot both "empty yourself" of something to "take "on another "form", and yet hold both forms (given the statement as recorded in scripture).

So before Christ was ever human, he existed in the form of God. He was spoken of as the 'monogenos' Son of God (or the 'monogenes' Son) who was sent.

1. That means the son God was generated (born), only one of the kind, before sending him.
2. Sending him, he emptied himself of the one form (it says so, right?) before taking on the other?

When do you believe Christ 'emptied himself' (of the form of God), which we read as defined in the verse (by taking the other form)?

Do you believe Jesus is the (mono) genus/genos/genes Son of God or adopted like us?

5206 hyiothesía (from 5207 /hyiós, "son" and 5087 /títhēmi, "to place") – properly, sonship (legally made a son); adoption.

If you could also elaborate on when you believe he "existed in the form of God" prior to "emptied himself" and "taking" the form of... man?

I'm using the Berean Literal Bible with formatting added:

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Yeshua:

1. Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider to be equal with God something to be grasped,
2. but emptied Himself (having taken the form of a servant, having been made in the likeness of men).

(As soon as he 'took the form of a servant' what happened? what was true? wasn't it true that he had 'emptied himself'? Wouldn't he had to have been 'form of God' first before the form he took AFTER emptying himself by the very act of taking up the new form?

God is said to have sent his 'monogenes' son into the cosmos... he got here by "born of a woman" — the monogenes was now (note 'geno') genomenon: (signifies a change of condition, state or place). (I don't believe he gave up his a part of his Father's family, but that he gave up that form as the verse says, to become a human form of the human family instead. It doesn't allow for becoming a human first, holding both forms at the same time as it is written.)

Isn't this why he is Son of God, literally, (because he is the mono genus of God) and Son of Man because he was the son of a woman (genus/family, Man (homo sapiens))?

Thank you Lori Jane, I'm curious about your thoughts. (If Grant is on the site or others that were present too, please feel free to tag them.)

 

[oneapart]

03:59 Before becoming human, the Messiah pre-existed in a state of glory and equality with God.
04:06 And, unlike Adam, who tried to seize equality with God,
04:10 the Messiah chose not to exploit his equal status for his self-advantage.
04:14 Rather, he emptied himself of status.
04:17 He became a human.

Hi @Lori Jane, found this video, and included a link above direct to the verses we were talking about.

You don't believe he emptied himself to become human, you believe he was human and emptied himself, right?

Also, you said you used to believe Jesus existed, and came from heaven, before, and then transitioned to talking about how you came to your new beliefs. What denomination or teacher could I read more about, please?

 

[McSquidly]

03:59 Before becoming human, the Messiah pre-existed in a state of glory and equality with God.
04:06 And, unlike Adam, who tried to seize equality with God,
04:10 the Messiah chose not to exploit his equal status for his self-advantage.
04:14 Rather, he emptied himself of status.
04:17 He became a human.

Hi @Lori Jane, found this video, and included a link above direct to the verses we were talking about.

You don't believe he emptied himself to become human, you believe he was human and emptied himself, right?

Also, you said you used to believe Jesus existed, and came from heaven, before, and then transitioned to talking about how you came to your new beliefs. What denomination or teacher could I read more about, please?

Hi Angela, I just read your comments and went through the video. I did enjoy some parts of the video no doubt but here are my objections...the presenter assumes Trinitarianism into it pretty early on (or at least Christ's pre-existence) He says..."so before becoming human" without even citing a scripture. He also says "he became human and pre-existed in a state of glory" he then mentions his "incarnation". He then rips Jesus's and the whole Jewish creed out from under him when he says.."The true God of Israel consists of God the Father and the lord Jesus Christ. I know he references this to Paul quoting it from Isaiah 45:23 but you have to admit the presenter is framing this as The true God is both the father and the lord Jesus Christ. Even in the risen, glorified, highly exalted state the scriptures never speak about Jesus as being the true God. He then goes on to say that Paul expresses the conviction of who Jesus really is and I agree but not as he does. He obviously believes that Jesus is the true God. I do not. John 17:3, Mark 12:29, 30.

I like how he says "living breathing examples of the stories of Jesus" Yes, Paul does that well but remember what Paul also says about Jesus...2 Corinthians 5:16..."So from now on we regard no one according to the flesh. Although we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.a The old has passed away. Behold, the new has come! (BSB)........This is very important because Paul writes this way about Christ often. He speaks about him as the risen Christ you can see that in Philippians 2 (more on that later)

One thing we have to keep in mind is the overall context of Philippians 2. Paul is urging the Philippian Christians to be like Christ and show humility all the way to death. How could the Philippians have any hope of being like Christ if he was some God-like figure that literally pre-existed? Impossible! Right? After all, it would be easy for Jesus if he was some God-like figure that existed from eternity past or whatever spin Trinitarians like to put on it. In saying that though, it would be an attainable goal for us all including the Philippians in their day if all Jesus was is a human being. Starting to make sense? In this way, we can all follow Jesus. Now that's the kind of Jesus that Paul invites us to follow. How would Jesus ever expect us to follow him if he never really was born when he was born or existed when he existed. It makes no sense. This guy (presenter) is obviously clouded by his biases/upbringing.

So WHEN did Jesus Empty Himself?.....Now for some Greek.....Philippians 2:6 - ........

who in the form of God [presently] being* did not consider** Php 2:6

* present active participle - nominative

** indicative aorist

Remember I mentioned that Paul for now on is referring to Christ in his "Risen" state? So when Paul wrote this one could confidently say that Jesus had risen to heaven and was the glorified Jesus right? So in this way Jesus was and is in the "form of God". Other things also need to be mentioned...when you get a chance, check out the previous verse in 5. Some translations have "was" there. This can sway a person to think that the past is what Paul is referring to in verse 6. The Greek does not have the equivalent word "was" there. It's just not there! Translators have added the word "was". It makes one wonder why they did that doesn't it?

A Paraphrase of Paul's Intent would then be: Philippians, do not exalt yourself in empty glory but esteem others as higher than yourselves.....Have this mind in yourselves which also in Christ Jesus who [now] being in the form of God, did not esteem a claim to be equal to God [in majesty/glory]. Rather, he [the man Jesus] emptied himself taking the form of a servant.... Therefore, God highly exalted him [to an equal thronal status with God]... giving him the name above every name.... that at the name of Jesus... every tongue confess [the glorified] Jesus is Lord (the form/status which God has in contrast to the form/status a servant of God has).

I hope this video sheds some more light on it for you....Jesus in the form of God. When?

 

[Lori Jane]

Hi Angela,

Thanks for opening up the discussion further here. I see Grant found the thread and beat me to being first responder <g>.

Here are my thoughts in response to your post and I hope it answers the questions you directed toward me.

MONOGENOS / MONOGENES​

I totally agree that Jesus is God's (YHWH) unique, one-of-a-kind son.

"Only begotten" = Uniquely fathered in my mind.

begotten - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
begotten: A somewhat old fashioned adjective, begotten is the past participle of the verb beget, which means to father or produce as offspring.
Adjective: (of offspring) generated by procreation
“naturally begotten child”
Synonyms: biological - of parents and children; related by blood

1. Adjective: (of offspring) generated by procreation
   “naturally begotten child”
   Synonyms: biological - of parents and children; related by blood

The angels are called "sons of God" we are called "children of God" but only Jesus is the uniquely fathered or one of a kind son of God's. It often means first born but can also mean pre-eminent.

And from Wikipedia (emphasis added):

Monogenes has two primary definitions, "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship" and "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind".[1] Thus monogenēs (μονογενής) may be used both as an adjective monogenēs pais, meaning unique and special.[2] Its Greek meaning is often applied to mean "one of a kind, one and only". Monogenēs may be used as an adjective. For example, monogenēs pais means only child, only legitimate child or special child. Monogenēs may also be used on its own as a noun. For example, o monogenēs means "the only one", or "the only legitimate child".[3]

The word is used in Hebrews 11:17-19 to describe Isaac, the son of Abraham. However, Isaac was not the only-begotten son of Abraham, but was the chosen, having special virtue.[4] Thus Isaac was "the only legitimate child" of Abraham. That is, Isaac was the only son of Abraham that God acknowledged as the legitimate son of the covenant. It does not mean that Isaac was not literally "begotten" of Abraham, for he indeed was, but that he alone was acknowledged as the son that God had promised.
Monogenēs - Wikipedia

Christ as Firstborn​

Regarding "Firstborn" this quote explains it well I think:

To be God’s “firstborn Son” means to be God’s chief and preeminent Son. “Firstborn” were even in the OT not always chronologically the first to be born. Jesus is the first and most notable in the new creation. Ephraim was God’s firstborn and Isaac was Abraham’s firstborn, but not literally first to be born. Jesus is the firstborn for a very good reason defined by Psalm 89:27. Of the predicted Messiah, God announced: “I will make him my firstborn, that is, the highest of the kings of the earth.” The chief king. “Firstborn” is thus the Messianic title for the Son of God. Jesus, miraculously begotten in Mary, was to be the chief ruler in God’s great royal immortality program. As such, he is the first of other firstborn kings, the faithful. Jesus was the “firstborn among many brothers” (Rom. 8:29). So then we are co-heirs with him for whom the universe was created. “If we suffer with him, we will reign as kings with him” in that future Kingdom (2 Tim. 2:12).

I believe Jesus is literally the son of God because God literally fathered him with his holy spirit. Holy spirit created DNA perhaps? The bible does not give any more details other than the holy spirit hovered over Mary. So however it was done God is his father. God created everything, he designed DNA and the whole reproductive process. He can uniquely father a human son.

It doesn't require the transference of another entity into a baby. Creating a hybrid being. Since he is also "son of David" he has to be human from his line.

FORM OF GOD / MORPHE​

If you could also elaborate on when you believe he "existed in the form of God" prior to "emptied himself" and "taking" the form of... man?

I believe in the gospel accounts of Jesus history. The first three gospels start with the virgin conception via holy spirit story. John's is a little different as I believe he is trying to make a comparison to the creation story of genesis and the creation story of Jesus.

I believe Jesus "existed i the form of God" from the moment he was conceived via holy spirt (God's personal presence and power) in the womb of Mary. That's what makes him unique. No other human had that except Adam. And Jesus was even more unique in that he was born of a woman.

I like the way Wachtel explains here with an excerpt following:

No, the one who was “in the form of God” is the man called “Christ Jesus,” and Paul is describing what was true of that man while he was on the earth! But what does Paul mean by this phrase? Trinitarian commentators often interpret the Greek word morphe in light of some of its usage in classical Greek literature, that is, from the period five or six centuries earlier. That usage could imply “what is essential and permanent.” But the New Testament is not written in “classical Greek,” but rather in what is called Koine Greek, the popular language of Paul’s day. From many Koine manuscripts discovered by archaeologists and dating from the first century, we know that some terms had acquired new meanings. One of those terms was morphe, usually translated “form.” From Professor of Greek at Moody Bible Institute, Kenneth S. Wuest, himself a Trinitarian, we learn that in Koine Greek the word morphe had come to refer to “a station in life, a position one holds, one’s rank. And that is an approximation of morphe in this context [Philippians 2]” (The Practical Use of the Greek New Testament, p. 84).

How can we be sure that morphe in Philippians 2:6 means “station in life [status], rank, position,” and not “inherent nature,” as some translators or commentators would interpret the Greek word (see NIV on Philippians 2:6, for example)? Here we appeal to the immediate context to help us understand how Paul is using the word. In verse 7 he says that Christ took the “form,” the morphe, of a servant — literally, of a slave. What does this mean? Does morphe suggest that a servant has some kind of “inherent nature” that would constitute him a slave, or does it not rather imply that servanthood is, per se, a matter of “status, rank, or position”? One’s position as a servant is either a matter of choice or a matter of circumstances. We cannot see, therefore, that the context supports any other meaning for morphe than that which deals with one’s rank or status. Christ’s status as God is contrasted with His status as a servant. To translate or to understand morphe as “inherent nature” in Philippians 2, then, clearly does not fit the way it is used in this context.

EMPTIED HIMSELF / KENO​

He emptied himself when he dedicated himself to doing his father's will fully - giving up any personal desires for normal human activity, wife, family, career, etc. He willingly became God's vessel for doing his will.

Jesus had free will like we do - he could have "gone bad" like Satan did and chose glory for himself. Instead he chose to be glorified by God. He did all things for God. He did God's will so well that many today confuse him as God himself.

He started off fully human and became the first of the new creation. He is god-like now, he is Devine now as he resides in the heavenly realm. He is the first of the new creation as he has a fleshly body that was transformed and given immortality that is able to be on earth and heaven.

Aother helpful quote from Wachtel:

The verb “empty” is the Greek kenoo, from which some Trinitarians have developed a doctrine called the “kenosis theory.” According to this doctrine, the “pre-existent Christ” divested himself of the manifestation of some of his attributes of deity in order to become man. Without going into the various aspects of this theory and the disagreements even among those who profess it, we may say that all of them use the term “kenosis” to support the idea of Christ’s personal preexistence. KJV ignores such ideas by translating that he “made himself of no reputation,” an obvious reference to the period of his human lifetime and ministry. We have already seen that Paul is talking about the historical man Christ Jesus, not about a person who was later to become Christ Jesus! It is therefore this historical person who “emptied” himself. In such a setting, the word suggests that Christ put away any temptation for self-aggrandizement or to exalt himself in any way. The queen of Sheba was “emptied” of her pride when she saw the magnificence of Solomon’s court. There was “no more spirit in her”! (1 Kings 10:1-13). Likewise, Christ’s “self-emptying” left within him no room for pride, arrogance, or any plans being made without total subjection to the will of God. (Heb. 10:7-10; Psa. 40:7-9)

Christ’s “self-emptying” may be seen as part and parcel of his having taken the status of a servant and of his having come into existence in human likeness. “Having taken” is from the aorist participle labon, and “having come into existence” from the aorist participle genomenos. Such aorist participles often denote a time prior to the action of the main verb. This would support the view that his “self-emptying” (the main verb) occurred after he was born, not before. “Kenosis theories,” therefore, can be considered simply philosophical speculations that can have no basis in the present text. As such, they would be an example of “eisegesis” (reading into the text), not exegesis.

 

[Lori Jane]

Also, you said you used to believe Jesus existed, and came from heaven, before, and then transitioned to talking about how you came to your new beliefs. What denomination or teacher could I read more about, please?

These are some people / organizations I follow and agree with how I understand things. They are much more eloquent than myself. If you were to google for like-minded folks you’d use the term “Biblical Unitarian” although I like a term I heard called “Christian Montarian” and have a sub-forum on this site of the same name. It has lots of favorite articles or items we’re discussing in our corresponding bible studies that are on the calendar (just filter on non-trinitarian)

21stcr.org
Focusonthekingdom.org
Thebiblejesus.org
Hgcnashville.org
Restitutio.org
Lhim.org
Dale Tuggy (trinities.org)
RayFaircloth.com
Trinity Delusion

 

[Shelley]

Hi Angela, I just read your comments and went through the video. I did enjoy some parts of the video no doubt but here are my objections...the presenter assumes Trinitarianism into it pretty early on (or at least Christ's pre-existence) He says..."so before becoming human" without even citing a scripture. He also says "he became human and pre-existed in a state of glory" he then mentions his "incarnation". He then rips Jesus's and the whole Jewish creed out from under him when he says.."The true God of Israel consists of God the Father and the lord Jesus Christ. I know he references this to Paul quoting it from Isaiah 45:23 but you have to admit the presenter is framing this as The true God is both the father and the lord Jesus Christ. Even in the risen, glorified, highly exalted state the scriptures never speak about Jesus as being the true God. He then goes on to say that Paul expresses the conviction of who Jesus really is and I agree but not as he does. He obviously believes that Jesus is the true God. I do not. John 17:3, Mark 12:29, 30.

I like how he says "living breathing examples of the stories of Jesus" Yes, Paul does that well but remember what Paul also says about Jesus...2 Corinthians 5:16..."So from now on we regard no one according to the flesh. Although we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.a The old has passed away. Behold, the new has come! (BSB)........This is very important because Paul writes this way about Christ often. He speaks about him as the risen Christ you can see that in Philippians 2 (more on that later)

One thing we have to keep in mind is the overall context of Philippians 2. Paul is urging the Philippian Christians to be like Christ and show humility all the way to death. How could the Philippians have any hope of being like Christ if he was some God-like figure that literally pre-existed? Impossible! Right? After all, it would be easy for Jesus if he was some God-like figure that existed from eternity past or whatever spin Trinitarians like to put on it. In saying that though, it would be an attainable goal for us all including the Philippians in their day if all Jesus was is a human being. Starting to make sense? In this way, we can all follow Jesus. Now that's the kind of Jesus that Paul invites us to follow. How would Jesus ever expect us to follow him if he never really was born when he was born or existed when he existed. It makes no sense. This guy (presenter) is obviously clouded by his biases/upbringing.

So WHEN did Jesus Empty Himself?.....Now for some Greek.....Philippians 2:6 - ........

who in the form of God [presently] being* did not consider** Php 2:6

* present active participle - nominative

** indicative aorist

Remember I mentioned that Paul for now on is referring to Christ in his "Risen" state? So when Paul wrote this one could confidently say that Jesus had risen to heaven and was the glorified Jesus right? So in this way Jesus was and is in the "form of God". Other things also need to be mentioned...when you get a chance, check out the previous verse in 5. Some translations have "was" there. This can sway a person to think that the past is what Paul is referring to in verse 6. The Greek does not have the equivalent word "was" there. It's just not there! Translators have added the word "was". It makes one wonder why they did that doesn't it?

A Paraphrase of Paul's Intent would then be: Philippians, do not exalt yourself in empty glory but esteem others as higher than yourselves.....Have this mind in yourselves which also in Christ Jesus who [now] being in the form of God, did not esteem a claim to be equal to God [in majesty/glory]. Rather, he [the man Jesus] emptied himself taking the form of a servant.... Therefore, God highly exalted him [to an equal thronal status with God]... giving him the name above every name.... that at the name of Jesus... every tongue confess [the glorified] Jesus is Lord (the form/status which God has in contrast to the form/status a servant of God has).

I hope this video sheds some more light on it for you....Jesus in the form of God. When?

This makes sense to me as most scriptures that I read say Jesus is God's human son. And so morphing from another type of creature to being a man doesent make sense. Plus Jesus is now still human, but an immortal human not some other type of creature.

 

[Samizon]

Scriptures on the Pre-existence of Jesus

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

Micah 5:2 “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.”

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

John 1:15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’”

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” 57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

John 17:5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

John 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end… 16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.”

 

[Shelley]

Those scriptures don't say Jesus actually existed before he was a man on earth when I read them. They say he was already prophesied to be born on earth right from the beginning of Genesis. Abraham and others knew it long before he was born. John the Baptizer knew he was the one prophesied to be born and what greater things he would do than he did.

If he existed before he was born then why are there not more or really better scriptures to say that he did. He never said anything about being in Heaven, what it was like, what he did there, what kind of creature he was. He never said he created anything, he said his father did. God the father also said he did the creating alone.

What was Jesus before he morphed into Mary's Womb? Why bother having him go that route? He could have just appeared on earth without being born if he already existed. He had to be human perhaps, but Adam didn't need to be born to be human. Did Jesus exist in heaven as a human before he was born? What did he exist as? Surely he wasn't his father Almighty God. Was he god number 2. Was he an angel, nope. What in heavens name was he in this so called pre existence?

 

[Shelley]

And no I don't site scripture often in my comments. I've learned you can pretty much cherry pick, take bits and pieces, use ellipses and creatively get them to say what you want if you want to. So I don't subscribe to so called proof texts even. I've been burned by that approach for too long. Reading the bible period. Big chunks. Not having to have it be a mystery or having to use any complicated thinking strategy to understand it. Asking a child to explain to me is probably my best option sometimes.

 

[Samizon]

Those scriptures don't say Jesus actually existed before he was a man on earth when I read them. They say he was already prophesied to be born on earth right from the beginning of Genesis. Abraham and others knew it long before he was born. John the Baptizer knew he was the one prophesied to be born and what greater things he would do than he did.

If he existed before he was born then why are there not more or really better scriptures to say that he did. He never said anything about being in Heaven, what it was like, what he did there, what kind of creature he was. He never said he created anything, he said his father did. God the father also said he did the creating alone.

What was Jesus before he morphed into Mary's Womb? Why bother having him go that route? He could have just appeared on earth without being born if he already existed. He had to be human perhaps, but Adam didn't need to be born to be human. Did Jesus exist in heaven as a human before he was born? What did he exist as? Surely he wasn't his father Almighty God. Was he god number 2. Was he an angel, nope. What in heavens name was he in this so called pre existence?

 

[benadam1974]

Hi @Lori Jane,

I'm swamped with work, but have been thinking of wanting to further our discussion with Grant (is he on this site) regarding your shared beliefs.

I wanted to drop in to ask do you believe we are the adopted children of God?

My husband and I both share the same belief that we are given the "right" or "authority" to become "children of God" but that that is conditional upon and through Christ alone.

We do NOT believe that Christ is an adopted child of God:

We believe in the Greek meaning of genos of monogenos in the literal meaning, which is 'family' in a genetic kind of sense: a generated descendant. (See Strongs, Thayers)

Then, in short, we also believe that you cannot both "empty yourself" of something to "take "on another "form", and yet hold both forms (given the statement as recorded in scripture).

So before Christ was ever human, he existed in the form of God. He was spoken of as the 'monogenos' Son of God (or the 'monogenes' Son) who was sent.

1. That means the son God was generated (born), only one of the kind, before sending him.
2. Sending him, he emptied himself of the one form (it says so, right?) before taking on the other?

When do you believe Christ 'emptied himself' (of the form of God), which we read as defined in the verse (by taking the other form)?

Do you believe Jesus is the (mono) genus/genos/genes Son of God or adopted like us?

5206 hyiothesía (from 5207 /hyiós, "son" and 5087 /títhēmi, "to place") – properly, sonship (legally made a son); adoption.

If you could also elaborate on when you believe he "existed in the form of God" prior to "emptied himself" and "taking" the form of... man?

I'm using the Berean Literal Bible with formatting added:


(As soon as he 'took the form of a servant' what happened? what was true? wasn't it true that he had 'emptied himself'? Wouldn't he had to have been 'form of God' first before the form he took AFTER emptying himself by the very act of taking up the new form?

God is said to have sent his 'monogenes' son into the cosmos... he got here by "born of a woman" — the monogenes was now (note 'geno') genomenon: (signifies a change of condition, state or place). (I don't believe he gave up his a part of his Father's family, but that he gave up that form as the verse says, to become a human form of the human family instead. It doesn't allow for becoming a human first, holding both forms at the same time as it is written.)

Isn't this why he is Son of God, literally, (because he is the mono genus of God) and Son of Man because he was the son of a woman (genus/family, Man (homo sapiens))?

Thank you Lori Jane, I'm curious about your thoughts. (If Grant is on the site or others that were present too, please feel free to tag them.)

Hi @Lori Jane,

I'm swamped with work, but have been thinking of wanting to further our discussion with Grant (is he on this site) regarding your shared beliefs.

I wanted to drop in to ask do you believe we are the adopted children of God?

My husband and I both share the same belief that we are given the "right" or "authority" to become "children of God" but that that is conditional upon and through Christ alone.

We do NOT believe that Christ is an adopted child of God:

We believe in the Greek meaning of genos of monogenos in the literal meaning, which is 'family' in a genetic kind of sense: a generated descendant. (See Strongs, Thayers)

Then, in short, we also believe that you cannot both "empty yourself" of something to "take "on another "form", and yet hold both forms (given the statement as recorded in scripture).

So before Christ was ever human, he existed in the form of God. He was spoken of as the 'monogenos' Son of God (or the 'monogenes' Son) who was sent.

1. That means the son God was generated (born), only one of the kind, before sending him.
2. Sending him, he emptied himself of the one form (it says so, right?) before taking on the other?

When do you believe Christ 'emptied himself' (of the form of God), which we read as defined in the verse (by taking the other form)?

Do you believe Jesus is the (mono) genus/genos/genes Son of God or adopted like us?

5206 hyiothesía (from 5207 /hyiós, "son" and 5087 /títhēmi, "to place") – properly, sonship (legally made a son); adoption.

If you could also elaborate on when you believe he "existed in the form of God" prior to "emptied himself" and "taking" the form of... man?

I'm using the Berean Literal Bible with formatting added:


(As soon as he 'took the form of a servant' what happened? what was true? wasn't it true that he had 'emptied himself'? Wouldn't he had to have been 'form of God' first before the form he took AFTER emptying himself by the very act of taking up the new form?

God is said to have sent his 'monogenes' son into the cosmos... he got here by "born of a woman" — the monogenes was now (note 'geno') genomenon: (signifies a change of condition, state or place). (I don't believe he gave up his a part of his Father's family, but that he gave up that form as the verse says, to become a human form of the human family instead. It doesn't allow for becoming a human first, holding both forms at the same time as it is written.)

Isn't this why he is Son of God, literally, (because he is the mono genus of God) and Son of Man because he was the son of a woman (genus/family, Man (homo sapiens))?

Thank you Lori Jane, I'm curious about your thoughts. (If Grant is on the site or others that were present too, please feel free to tag them.)

Re: Part 2 Preexistence Discussions

Paul’s command in Phil 2 calls Christians to have the same mindset that “was also in Christ Jesus who, although existing (huparchon) in the form of God,” did not regard said equality with God as something to be exploited or misused.

The Greek huparchon is a present active participle with Christ as its antecedent. Yet, many mistranslate the Greek in the past tense (“he was”) because the goal is to read into the text the so-called preexistence of Christ.

Even though “Judaism has never known anything of a preexistence regarding the Messiah prior to his birth. The dominance of the idea in any Jewish circle whatever cannot seriously be upheld.” (Dalman, The Word of Jesus)

It’s clear from both the context of Phil 2 (ethical vs theological) and in particular v. 5 that it was the human historical “Christ” who Paul had in mind.

 

[oneapart]

Hi Angela, I just read your comments and went through the video. I did enjoy some parts of the video no doubt but here are my objections...the presenter assumes Trinitarianism into it pretty early on (or at least Christ's pre-existence) He says..."so before becoming human" without even citing a scripture.

He doesn’t ‘cite’ a scripture because it is the scripture: he’s narrating Phillipians. At that point, he's at Phillipians 2:6-7.

He also says "he became human and pre-existed in a state of glory"

Yeah, again, because he's narrating scripture:

"he became human” = "being made in human”
pre-existed = “existing”
"in a state of glory” = "in the form of God”

existing = 5225 hypárxō (from 5223 /hýparksis, "under" and 757/arxō, "begin, go first") – properly, already have (be in possession of); what exists, especially what pre-exists, i.e. is already under one's discretion (note the prefix hypo).

Christ hyparxo'ed in the form of God.

He "began first under" the form of God. Phil 2:6

That's the literal translation, not interpretation, of Phil 2:6.

existing = "began first under" hyparxo (or pre-existing)

he then mentions his "incarnation".

Incarnation means literally to “be made flesh”. I’m nearly certain you believe Jesus was ‘made flesh’ after all “the Word became flesh”? If so, that's the literal Latin word for became flesh.

Late Latin incarnari "be made flesh," from in- "in" (from PIE root *en "in") + caro (genitive carnis) "flesh" (originally "a piece of flesh," from PIE root *sker- (1) "to cut”).

He then rips Jesus's and the whole Jewish creed out from under him when he says.."The true God of Israel consists of God the Father and the lord Jesus Christ.

12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 And no one has gone up into heaven except the One having come down out of heaven, the Son of Man. — Jesus (John 3:12,13)

Since you don't take the scripture at face value, I'm not sure I can explain to you heavenly things.

A quite quick attempt is, God is plural. Open up Genesis and see when God says "Let us make man in our image" it is plural. A father and son exclamation, "let us".

God chose to use the Hebrew word for "one" meaning ‘unified one’ (or, one in unity) rather than solitary when describing the relationship being "one" of man and wife Gen 2:24, and then of God in Deu 6:4.

Elohim is one. Yehowah is singular, but "our God" is plural. Deu 6:4

"Hear, O Israel, Yehowah, our God (plural), Yehowah is one”

"Yehowah is one"? What was God's son's name when he was sent?

Isn't it "Yehowah is Salvation" which was shortened? Y'shua?

Jesus said of his Father, "We are one." — John 17:20-23

Jesus is the monogenos god who made el into elohim.

Existing in the form of God, they were one.

We are likewise thought to be the one body of Christ made up of multiple members.

God is a family consisting of multiple members, Father and Son, who are 'one' (Deut 6:4, elohim is one) like a husband and wife (Gen 2:24).

We're also told in this context that he's 'existing in the form of God'.

Later, when he was in human form, he told us,

for those believing in Me through their word, 21 that all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.

22 And I have given them the glory which You have given Me, so that they may be one, as We are one— 23 I in them, and You in Me—that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me and loved them even as You loved Me. — John 17:20-23

So even though they were no longer existing in the same form, they were still "one", and "You, Father, are in Me, and I in You".

When Jesus existed in the form of God, he consisted of God, and in human form "You, Father, are in Me" and God consists of him, "and I in You".

The family consists of the father and son regardless of form.

You, Father,
are in Me,
and I in You
We are one
You in Me
in unity

We are invited as adopted children into that unity, to be one:

"so that they may be one, as We are one—I in them, and You in Me—that they may be perfected in unity"

"I in them" defines "in Him all things consist.” Colossians 1:16,17

consist: to be made up or composed (from French), or from Latin consistō ("stand together, stop, become hard or solid, agree with, continue, exist"), from com- ("together") + sistō ("I cause to stand, stand").

Between his existing as god (The Word was god), and his testimony as a human regarding his father being in him and he in his father, I think it covers 'consist' from both the perspective of composition (as genus, monogenes) as well as 'together' (with God, in me).

Word was god / monogenes, is one with God, is the Truth.

Since it says that The Son is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15, 2 Cor 4:4) I'd say that he is definitely the image of the one true God, wouldn't you?

Christ emptied himself of something he consisted of in order to, being empty, take on a new form... what do you believe was?

I believe he emptied himself of existence in the form of God.

"calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

the word for equal, both here and Phil 2 is isos, for 'consistent'

[I accidentally posted before finishing responding...]

"We know that we are of God... And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know Him who is true. And we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." — 1 John 5:19,20

We rely on the Son being in the Father. He sent Salvation, Truth, and Life, and being in Christ is how we get to know our Father.

Back to singular versus plural, we saw God used plural but names used singular in the OT, such as Yehowah God. Or now we know his son, Yehowashua God.

The monon true God is singular.

John 17:3 is clear in calling out separately his son.

So it's not the family (genus elohim) of Yehowah, but he himself.

I know he references this to Paul quoting it from Isaiah 45:23 but you have to admit the presenter is framing this as The true God is both the father and the lord Jesus Christ. Even in the risen, glorified, highly exalted state the scriptures never speak about Jesus as being the true God. He then goes on to say that Paul expresses the conviction of who Jesus really is and I agree but not as he does. He obviously believes that Jesus is the true God. I do not. John 17:3, Mark 12:29, 30.

Thanks for sharing your verses. I was only offering the video portion regarding our specific conversation about mainstream Christianity's understanding of Philippians 2 as being Christ's preexistence poem.

I don't know if I can speak to what he meant by 'consist' though I can speak to what it means relative to scripture and did above.

I don't know if I see where he's saying he "obviously believes that Jesus is the true God". It would be lovely if you could ask him if he thinks that that singular God is Christ or his Father.

Consists and consistency (equal, isos) of God between Father and Son isn't the same as which one is "the true God".

When he stuck "one" in the sign though it makes it elohim, not singular. You can't have "one" without the son.

I once made a chart of the adjectives as used between them.

I like how he says "living breathing examples of the stories of Jesus" Yes, Paul does that well but remember what Paul also says about Jesus...2 Corinthians 5:16..."So from now on we regard no one according to the flesh. Although we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.a The old has passed away. Behold, the new has come! (BSB)........This is very important because Paul writes this way about Christ often. He speaks about him as the risen Christ you can see that in Philippians 2 (more on that later)

One thing we have to keep in mind is the overall context of Philippians 2. Paul is urging the Philippian Christians to be like Christ and show humility all the way to death. How could the Philippians have any hope of being like Christ if he was some God-like figure that literally pre-existed? Impossible! Right? After all, it would be easy for Jesus if he was some God-like figure that existed from eternity past or whatever spin Trinitarians like to put on it.

Actually, Grant, the scriptures teach Christ pre-existed, and then EMPTIED himself, and then was a human.

We aren’t asked to be like the Christ existing in the form of God, rather be like the Christ who emptied himself to take on a slaves form to be human. I do recall that is the context of this letter, to serve others. Christ existing in the form of God created all others.

Nobody asked you to follow the preexisting Christ. You were invited to follow the guy in human form, not god form. It’s very clear about those two separate forms and the order of events.

The scenario you talk about being "Impossible! Right?" is not what Christ asked you to do.

In saying that though, it would be an attainable goal for us all including the Philippians in their day if all Jesus was is a human being. Starting to make sense? In this way, we can all follow Jesus. Now that's the kind of Jesus that Paul invites us to follow. How would Jesus ever expect us to follow him if he never really was born when he was born or existed when he existed. It makes no sense. This guy (presenter) is obviously clouded by his biases/upbringing.

So WHEN did Jesus Empty Himself?.....Now for some Greek.....Philippians 2:6 - ........

who in the form of God [presently] being* did not consider** Php 2:6

* present active participle - nominative

** indicative aorist

a present tense participle indicates action occuring at the same time was the action of the main verb

So we’re saying here that Christ was existing or being (in the form of God) at the same time as he did not consider equality, rather decided to empty himself to be made human instead.

It is not saying that he is existing as god right now, in the present.

the aorist (simple past tense, it has happened: writer is outside the view seeing both beginning and end) indicative is used to express things that happen in general, without asserting a time.

This is saying it is already a past fact that "Christ existing as God did not consider…"

It was written in present to describe the past.

existing = pre-existing (literally "began under" the form of God)

Remember I mentioned that Paul for now on is referring to Christ in his "Risen" state? So when Paul wrote this one could confidently say that Jesus had risen to heaven and was the glorified Jesus right? So in this way Jesus was and is in the "form of God".

Grant, could you sit down with the scripture line by line and see how you completely reverse what it says? You are reversing the order.

He starts in the form of God, he gives it up for human, then he's exalted. Again the word you might have as "being" is "existing" or "began under" — does it click when you read a literal Greek translation: "He began under the form of God"?

He gave up the form of God to become the form of human.

The word form is morphe and you can see he 'morphed' in Greek.

He morphes before he can die and become exalted.

We're not talking about what morphe he's in after the poem, we're talking about what morphe he was at the beginning, Phil 2:6, or middle, Phil 2:7, but the "therefore" of Phil 2:9 shows its consequent.

Other things also need to be mentioned...when you get a chance, check out the previous verse in 5. Some translations have "was" there. This can sway a person to think that the past is what Paul is referring to in verse 6. The Greek does not have the equivalent word "was" there. It's just not there! Translators have added the word "was". It makes one wonder why they did that doesn't it?

Actually, a present tense participle indicates action occurring at the same time was the action of the main verb and all those main verbs.

You pointed the main verb and that it was indicative aorist, or simple past tense.

The "existing" or "being" or "beginning / began under" ACTION occurred at the same time as the main verb(s): past tense (indicative aorist).

That is why the translators add "was" in English, so you don't have to look in the Greek to know that it's Greek simple past tense.

A Paraphrase of Paul's Intent would then be: Philippians, do not exalt yourself in empty glory but esteem others as higher than yourselves.....Have this mind in yourselves which also in Christ Jesus who [now] being in the form of God, did not esteem a claim to be equal to God [in majesty/glory]. Rather, he [the man Jesus] emptied himself taking the form of a servant.... Therefore, God highly exalted him [to an equal thronal status with God]... giving him the name above every name.... that at the name of Jesus... every tongue confess [the glorified] Jesus is Lord (the form/status which God has in contrast to the form/status a servant of God has).

I hope this video sheds some more light on it for you....Jesus in the form of God. When?

You cut out the when: the scripture teaches "being made in human likeness” was his “taking the form of a servant” or how he "emptied himself”. What was he before he emptied himself? It says, Christ Jesus existing in the form of God emptied himself and became human.

Christ Jesus … existing in the form of God … emptied Himself … being made ... human.

It is the same verses. Can you do the dots the same as me?


But you've inserted now on the past tense.

Recall "a present tense participle indicates action occurring at the same time was the action of the main verb".

So you can't take the past tense verb and make it present by adding "now".

Parallel: "Donald Trump, who, being President, did not consider..."

You can't add "now" to that.

 

[oneapart]

Re: Part 2 Preexistence Discussions

Paul’s command in Phil 2 calls Christians to have the same mindset that “was also in Christ Jesus who, although existing (huparchon) in the form of God,” did not regard said equality with God as something to be exploited or misused.

The Greek huparchon is a present active participle with Christ as its antecedent. Yet, many mistranslate the Greek in the past tense (“he was”) because the goal is to read into the text the so-called preexistence of Christ.

Even though “Judaism has never known anything of a preexistence regarding the Messiah prior to his birth. The dominance of the idea in any Jewish circle whatever cannot seriously be upheld.” (Dalman, The Word of Jesus)

It’s clear from both the context of Phil 2 (ethical vs theological) and in particular v. 5 that it was the human historical “Christ” who Paul had in mind.

Christ is the antecedent, and as Grant pointed out, the verb is past tense. He began under (or was present tense under the condition) form of God, then main verbs are past tense, then transition to emptying and taking on a different form.

To whom is your conclusion clear?

Lori Jane mentioned the show, The Chosen. Jesus makes a quip about John having chosen Genesis for Jesus to read for the gathering of people. Just before we're shown the scene of him beginning reading Genesis 1:1 he calls it—creation—a "good memory".

So it's not clear to the folks producing The Chosen, nor the folks at The Bible Project who made the video above.

I've always believed he's the "bread from heaven" and that he "came from above" and that he is "from heaven".

 

[oneapart]

This makes sense to me as most scriptures that I read say Jesus is God's human son. And so morphing from another type of creature to being a man doesent make sense. Plus Jesus is now still human, but an immortal human not some other type of creature.

Hi @Shelley, "morph" is just the Greek word for form.

Think of the metamorphosis of a caterpillar to a butterfly? It changes form, right?

That's what "morphe" means.

It's the root word for "form" and words like "conform" and "transform".

As son of God he was the form of God. As son of Man he was the form of Man.

You can just ignore "morph" and focus on "form". The important thing is that we know and don't gloss over that he was the (existing) Son of God before he was sent, came from heaven (emptied himself), and became the Son of Man.

 

[oneapart]

Scriptures on the Pre-existence of Jesus

Hi @Samizon, we share the logos as recorded faith.

In this study, I learned that hypo+arxo means literally "began under".

Previously I only understood it more simplistically by the meaning "existing".

Because I try to be very precise and literal I went with "The Pre-Human Existence of Christ" as my title.

 

[oneapart]

Those scriptures don't say Yeshua actually existed before he was a man on earth when I read them.

Here's where it says so, @Shelley.

[BEFORE] Christ Yeshua … existing in the form of God … [AFTER] emptied Himself … being made ... human. — Phil 2:5-7

If he existed before he was born then why are there not more or really better scriptures to say that he did.

I think this one depends on perspective.

Jesus might argue,

"I speak that which I have seen with the Father,...” — John 8:38

So what has Jesus "seen with the Father", and speaks about, in this context?

“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows Me will never walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life.” John 8

We end up recalling John 1:1-9 detailing the Word as the Light before he became flesh.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. 4In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcomea it.

6There came a man who was sent from God. His name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify about the Light, so that through him everyone might believe. 8He himself was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.

9The true Light who gives light to every man was coming into the world.

So that's all pre-existence with John 1 dating him back to Genesis 1.

We might think of other things Christ told us that I consider his first-hand knowledge of God:

In My Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?

I think speaking of his Father's house is an example of "I speak that which I have seen with the Father”. John 8:38

Do you?

Another example,

In the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.

Do you believe Jesus speaking of the angels in heaven at Matt 22:30 here is speaking from what he has seen?

He never said anything about being in Heaven, what it was like, what he did there, what kind of creature he was.

And as for "what kind" he is... I don't think he's a creature, since he's not created, but born of God, who is spirit:

The wind blows where it pleases, and you hear its sound, but you don’t know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” John 3:8

Suddenly a sound like a mighty rushing wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw tongues like flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.…

I believe Christ was born of Spirit and knows from first-hand experience as the pre-existing son of God all about what is like for "everyone" who is "born of the spirit".

And doesn't it sound just like the description of the Holy Spirit when it arrived as tongues of fire anointing the Jewish Christians up in that upper room just after Jesus died, don't you think? Obviously, the holy spirit is spirit.

Because "God is spirit" I believe existing in the form of God means existing in spirit form.

I believe Jesus is talking about his first-hand experience with what it's like in spirit form, born of the spirit.

Of course, he emptied himself of the spirit form of God to become man. Phil 2:5-7

He was the son of God, he wasn't created like Adam.

I believe he was sent to focus on Salvation which is Revelation, not Creation which is Genesis.

I believe that's why he spends almost all of his time talking about the future not his past.

He never said he created anything, he said his father did. God the father also said he did the creating alone.

You're right. So, if you do not have to believe Jesus created anything because Jesus didn't say so himself...

there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Yeshua Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist. But not everyone has this knowledge. 1 Cor 8:6

However, scripture says so. Paul's letter to the Corinthians (above) says the same as John's testimony or witness (below).

I'm not going to witness against them:

Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. John 1:3

...and...

the world was made through Him John 1:10

It consistently says all things were made through him.

If the Father did all the creating, scripture says it was still all done through and in Christ his son for his Father.

Each time you see "God" in the old testament, switch over and see if it's plural or singular.

Is it just the Father, or is it elohim?

What was Yeshua before he morphed into Mary's Womb?

He was the morphe, or form, of God before he was the form, or morphe, of Man as Mary's child.

Why bother having him go that route? He could have just appeared on earth without being born if he already existed.

Really good point @Shelley. Obviously, angels just showed up on the earth, and they were even mistaken for men!

But if he just appeared as the Son of God on earth would you accept him as a "son of man"?

The prophesied son of man would have to be born of mankind, right? So that's why "that route".

Adam was created human—the son of man was born human:

Adam is Son of God in the form of human, and Christ the son of God in the form of God—spirit—and human.

He had to be human perhaps, but Adam didn't need to be born to be human. Did Yeshua exist in heaven as a human before he was born?

Nope. While Paul shows a living human can be snatched up or caught up to heaven, Jesus was not a human before he was born as a human. As the son of God, he was the same as God, god.

What did he exist as?

He existed in the form of God, and God is a spirit. So he was too.

Surely he wasn't his father Almighty God. Was he god number 2.

You're right @Shelley. He wasn't his Father. He was his Father's seed, his son. He's the only (mono) genes Son of God.

So yes, he is "god" #2, because he is "god" of his father who is "god".

The son of God or Christ is the image of the invisible God, verses say.

He is the "god" with "God" that said "Let us make man in our image" so that "god" IS plural.

Because his Father is God, being his Father's son meant he was also god. Hence John 5:18.

So it is that he was the Son of God before he was sent to become the Son of Man.

Was he an angel, nope. What in heavens name was he in this so called pre existence?

As the "son of God" he too was "god" just like when as the "son of Man" he was a man.

God is spirit so when Christ was in the form of his Father, God, he was in the form of spirit, because god is spirit.

God is a spirit, and angels are also spirit, but Christ and his Father, while they are spirits, are not angels.

 

[Lori Jane]

So it's not clear to the folks producing The Chosen, nor the folks at The Bible Project who made the video above.

That is how I see it - it is not clear to them because they treat the Trinity as a fact vs. an interpretation or construct. Just as evolution is treated and spoken of as fact vs. theory.

This trinity way of thinking has clouded the thinking of many bright scholars. When they won the debate at Nicea and those who did not agree and spoke out risked their lives the whole game changed. That is why it is a popular way of understanding to this day. Many small groups have tried but have gotten stamped out. The JWs had some things right. Not recognizing God as a triune God was correct in my opinion.

I love the Bible Project and The Chosen. I learn a lot from both. But when it comes to calling Jesus God I question their theology but understand where the pressure comes from to tow the party line.

I don't have to do that. I have prayerfully asked for holy spirit to reveal real truth to me and let any scales fall from my eyes that are blocking or clouding my understanding fall away. My honest reading and study of the bible and taking in information from many sources - the bible project included - has led me to the beliefs I have today.

And I thank God I am not risking getting burned at the stake today (not yet anyway).

I think at the end of this gentle debating both sides should see the other side did not arrive at their conclusions lightly. There is not a blind following of men happening here. It is an honest difference of opinion and interpretation.

 

[benadam1974]

Christ is the antecedent, and as Grant pointed out, the verb is past tense. He began under (or was present tense under the condition) form of God, then main verbs are past tense, then transition to emptying and taking on a different form.

To whom is your conclusion clear?

Lori Jane mentioned the show, The Chosen. Jesus makes a quip about John having chosen Genesis for Jesus to read for the gathering of people. Just before we're shown the scene of him beginning reading Genesis 1:1 he calls it—creation—a "good memory".

So it's not clear to the folks producing The Chosen, nor the folks at The Bible Project who made the video above.

I've always believed he's the "bread from heaven" and that he "came from above" and that he is "from heaven".

In the Greek, huparchon is the present active participle of huparcho. Any standard lexicon, commentary can show you that, hence the difference in translations.
But even if you take it as a past tense Paul is talking about the human Christ (Phil 2.5), not some preexistent, before heretofore unknown, person in the biblical account.
Just to be clear, you now hold a binitarian view? i.e., 2 Gods?

 

[oneapart]

In the Greek, huparchon is the present active participle of huparcho. Any standard lexicon, commentary can show you that, hence the difference in translations.

Uh, yeah. I'm discussing it above with Grant. So do you mind elaborating on your point for me? See quote below:

a present tense participle indicates action occuring at the same time was the action of the main verb

So we’re saying here that Christ was existing or being (in the form of God) at the same time as he did not consider equality, rather decided to empty himself to be made human instead.

It is not saying that he is existing as god right now, in the present.

the aorist (simple past tense, it has happened: writer is outside the view seeing both beginning and end) indicative is used to express things that happen in general, without asserting a time.

This is saying it is already a past fact that "Christ existing as God did not consider…"

It was written in present to describe the past.

existing = pre-existing (literally "began under" the form of God)

Meanwhile, do you mind telling me what you think the main verb is related to the word in question @benadam1974?

Thanks.

But even if you take it as a past tense Paul is talking about the human Christ (Phil 2.5), not some preexistent, before heretofore unknown, person in the biblical account.

I was the person in a two-party debate last weekend on the side of the Pre-Human Existence of Christ.

If you don't mind, I'm terribly interested in your answer to what is the main verb, please?

I'm Christian.

 

[oneapart]

Hi Angela,

Thanks for opening up the discussion further here.

Hi there, I'm thrilled to have a place to learn how others think, and why, and to actually be able to discuss those thoughts. I love the scripture. Thanks for creating a wonderful community and cultivating the culture.

We share many beliefs in the same.

Thanks for providing your quotes from Wachtel.

I made a table trying to help me compare and speak to how we look at things and why.

I felt like I was going a bit in circles, but I think it was because I was trying to understand yours, and Shelley's and Grant's beliefs all at once and you actually believe very different things.

So I do hope folks don't tire of my questions because I am interested in the further discussion!

I believe in the gospel accounts of Yeshua history.

So do I. I believe Jesus being born to Mary is the same as is being made human in Philippians 2. It's just that you believe that moment is instead his existing as God.

And "the Word was in the beginning with God and was god and was with God" is the same as existing as god, to me... I guess this is the same as his conception to you?

I believe Yeshua is literally the son of God because God literally fathered him with his holy spirit. Holy spirit created DNA perhaps? The bible does not give any more details other than the holy spirit hovered over Mary. So however it was done God is his father. God created everything, he designed DNA and the whole reproductive process. He can uniquely father a human son.

It doesn't require the transference of another entity into a baby. Creating a hybrid being. Since he is also "son of David" he has to be human from his line.

A hybrid being would be like god-man, right? So, I don't believe Christ was a hybrid being either! I don't believe he was any % god, because I believe 'empty' means 0.

He started off fully human

But I don't understand how he could both "start off fully human" as well as start off existing in the form of god?

I believe Yeshua is literally the son of God because God literally fathered him with his holy spirit.

I believe Jesus "existed i the form of God" from the moment he was conceived via holy spirt (God's personal presence and power) in the womb of Mary.

I put "existing in the form of God" first, as I see you do too.

I note he "began under" (5259 hypó + 757/arxō, "begin, go first") the form of God.

Regardless of any tense, the word itself holds the concept of first, i.e. "began".

He emptied himself when he dedicated himself to doing his father's will fully - giving up any personal desires for normal human activity, wife, family, career, etc. He willingly became God's vessel for doing his will.

But it seems we differ on how we view "emptied".

So, first, would you mind letting me know when you believe he emptied himself, or when it was he dedicated himself to do his father's will?

Are you picturing that at conception prior to his birth, or is this something that happens later at baptism?

The reason I ask is that regardless what Wachtel is teaching about what "emptied himself" it takes place in an order of events.

Prior to being emptied Christ would still be existing in the form of god, after being emptied he would be existing in the form of man, we agree, right?

2758. ekenōsen

from 2756 kenós – properly, empty, void; hence, worthless ("null"), amounting to zero (of no value, profit).

I couldn't find his reference to the Queen of Sheba being "emptied" of her pride???

When the queen of Sheba saw all the wisdom of Solomon, ... it took her breath away.

And he seems to have the worst Bible translation he's using to form his reasoning.

The Queen of Sheba swooning isn't the emptying himself Christ to become man!

Then your guy ends up in his circular reasoning again. He seems not to know that hypoarxo means 'began under'. This isn't some Trinitarian theory, this isn't "Kenosis theory" this is the word of God, translated literally:

He began under the form of God and emptied himself to be ... form of ... man.

So regardless of how Wachtel views 'emptying' it seems you all still agree it had to happen before he could take the form of man, or taking the form of man, he was empty of the form of god. Right?

For Wachtel, I would point him to the verses. His interpretation of what it means to 'empty himself doesn't match what's written in the verse:

but himself emptied, form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made.

"form of a servant having been taken" clarifies how or what it means to be emptied.

I am a designer, my father an artist. I used to work for Disney. If you picture this as details for scenes in a movie, there's an incredible amount of detail here to work with...

Having been made, Grant could tell you that's not the word for creation, but birth.

That birth (genomenos) as man negated his existence as form of god.

And he was already mono genes son of God.

He could never be mono genes and fully human unless he gave up his form of god.

I believe he was mono genes son of God and fully human, because emptied himself.

If he hadn't emptied himself yet he would be partially formed of god and part human.

But that's not how the story was written. He gave up one form by taking the other.

If it were "conception" then it's already too late, because "con" is two people...

And if he's existing in the form of god and he's not conceived yet,

That's pre-conception, and that's pre-existence, right?

The Nephilim were the offspring of the spirit sons of God and women, hybrid beings.

We are clearly told Christ emptied himself by taking the form of man—he wasn't hybrid.

The problem is the Greek literally says he "began under" the form of God, and conception with Mary leaves you with two parts, God and Man, and not human flesh. You can't leave out Mary if it's conception, and call him existing in the form of God.

Because 'conception' is literally to 'take in and hold' we understand this definitely cannot exclude the woman Mary, and thus we know this is the genomenos of the Son of God as man, not God. As scriptures teach, God sent his Son to be born of woman. Son first, born of woman second.

Scriptures say God sent his monogenetic Son who was existing in the form of God to be born as a human.

In other words, sent precedes came, as monogenes of god precedes genos as man.

Or in other words, he sent his son, a god, who came as a man.

The son of God giving up the form of God to be Man doesn't change history:

he is the genea of his father.

that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world — 1 John 4:9

It seems the answer to everything is 'notional', but I'll point out that in making movies, you care about details like this. If someone is sent into the cosmos, you want to know about what things were like before... how can you paint the scene?

Here we learn it is the 'only begotten Son' being sent... (we're early in the movie).

Does our first scene begin with this other world? Or earth?

Every single one of us was born with the predestiny of being the children of God.

He was sent into the world already the son of God.

Remember he was existing in the form of god before the conception.

Before you add any "man" or Mary or womb, you had the "existing in form of God".

“Does this offend you? Then what will happen if you see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before?"

I never understood where your group believes Christ was returning to "from where he was before", a notion?

In my movie, where would you show for "was before"?

You had some reference to a different meaning for the Greek word morphe. I tend not to rely on running around reading men's opinions, but rather let the Word of God be a light unto itself:

"predestined [to become] conformed sýmmorphos to the image" (Rom 8:29)

"who will transform [metaschématizó] our body of humiliation, conformed [sýmmorphos] to the body of His glory"

Cognate: 4832 sýmmorphos – properly, conformed, by sharing the same inner essence-identity (form); showing similar behavior from having the same essential nature (used in Phil 3:10; this adjectival form also occurs in Ro 8:29 in many texts). See 4833 (symmorphoō). (from 4862 /sýn, "together with" and 3444 /morphḗ; "form embodying essence").

When your buddies have rewritten what morphe means, they rewrite it in all places it's used.

Jesus Appears to Two Disciples
He appeared first to Mary Magdalene... And when they heard that Jesus was alive and she had seen Him, they did not believe it. After this, Jesus appeared in a different form [morphe] to two of them as they walked along in the country. And they went back and reported it to the rest, but they did not believe them either.… Mark 16

This verse indicates that the different morphe is something that is visibly manifest, as it's about his appearance.

Next, sadly for your scholars, they have forgotten history. I lived in Rome in University and Ovid's Metamorphasis' (Latin: Metamorphōseōn librī: "Books of Transformations") was a required reading for the program (in it each story contains some sort of transformation, or metamorphosis).

Ovid and Jesus were contemporaries, and Jesus began his ministry after Metamorphasis:

Metamorphosis or transformation is a unifying theme amongst the episodes of the Metamorphoses. Ovid raises its significance explicitly in the opening lines of the poem: In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas / corpora ("I intend to speak of forms changed into new entities")

Transformations, or forms changed into new bodies?

The Bible use of the word indicates the same use and meaning as Ovid's Metamorphasis in circulation at the time.

Obviously the "appearance" which changed between appearing first to Mary then in a different morphe wasn't his "station in life, a position one holds, one’s rank" but rather that the different form (morphe) was different in appearance. As the account in Luke puts it in another instance, "their eyes were kept from recognizing Him" clearly showing this isn't about recognizing a rank or role or status change, but the different form of appearance preventing them from identifying/recognizing who he was in that form.

Again, not because his rank or role changed, but because they saw a different form.

Again, between appearing to Mary Magdalene and the two disciples Jesus didn't change rank or role or status.

Again, just like in Ovid, we're talking a "change of form or structure, action or process of changing in form" from Greek metamorphōsis "a transforming, a transformation," from metamorphoun "to transform, to be transfigured," from meta, here indicating "change" (see meta-) + morphē "shape, form".

Recall, we're said to be predestined to be "conformed to the image of His Son" and in Greek that's sýmmorphos.

If you redefine "morph" according to Wachtel, then you've redefined syn+morphos too. To what effect?

"predestined [to become] conformed sýmmorphos to the image" (Rom 8:29)
"who will transform [metaschématizó] our body of humiliation, conformed [sýmmorphos] to the body of His glory"

You're talking “a station in life, a position one holds, one’s rank" where the Bible is talking the image and body!

1096 gínomai – ... so it is not an exact equivalent to the ordinary equative verb "to be" (is, was, will be) as with 1510 /eimí (1511 /eínai, 2258 /ēn).

Did you know there's a difference between "to be" and "to be born"?

cogito ergo sum—I think therefore I am, right?

Well the "I am" is the ego 1510 /eimí.

It's not "to be born".

1096 gínomai – properly, to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another. 1096 (gínomai) fundamentally means "become" (becoming, became)

so it is not an exact equivalent to the ordinary equative verb "to be" (is, was, will be) as with 1510 /eimí (1511 /eínai, 2258 /ēn).

1096 (ginomai) means "to become, and signifies a change of condition, state or place" (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 109).

He (is) as with 1510 /eimí is the existing in the form of God.

As he said, "before Abraham, I 1510 /eimí ." (John 8:58)

Later "being made" (genomenos) in likeness of man (anthrōpōn), that's when the "Son of God" became the "Son of Man".

genomenos from "gínomai – properly, to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another. 1096 (gínomai) fundamentally means "become" (becoming, became)" human.

"Then He told them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. That is why I told you that you would die in your sins. For unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” — John 8:23

Christ, not of this world, existed in the form of God. Christ born on earth is "of this world" and "from below".

For the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came from God. I came from the Father and entered the world. In turn, I will leave the world and go to the Father.”— John 16:28

We don't confuse 'sent from' with 'came from'. All prophets were sent from God, only Christ came from God.

Christ calls out "in turn" or "again" — it is a Greek word indicating "the idea of oscillatory repetition". (John 16:28)

Before Christ I attest, he is referring to a round trip.

Christ was never created, and he is not the new creation: the new creation is in him.

Christ Jesus:
Who, existing in the form of God,
did not consider to be equal with God something to be grasped,
but emptied Himself,
having taken the form of a servant,
having been made in the likeness of men.

"existing" (present active participle) is in the present for whatever the main verb is:

—a present tense participle indicates action occurring at the same time was the action of the main verb—

"(did not) consider" is the main verb = aorist indicative middle

Active Indicative is a verbal action that is completed in the past.

Middle Ancient Greek had a set of voice forms that English does not. We call these the middle voice. When the Greek middle voice verb form is used, the subject of the verb is seen as acting upon itself or for its own benefit.

All of this is to say I don't know why folks keep repeating these to me.

It is to say that Christ was existing in the form of God at the same time as he was not considering ... and the "not considering" was past tense. And after that he became human. He gave up one form to take another. He was always "god" form before man.

So I was left wondering, what media do you watch for Christian stories?

I mean, even the Jehovah's Witnesses think he was God's son in heaven first, right?

Last question, and I'm sorry it took so long to respond, it took time to read and research more for yours...

When do you believe he was the new creation, is that at conception/birth, or a later time? I ask because specific times are given specific details, like "Touch and see, a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have!"

Also because created isn't born, so I would want to ask about when he was born then.

Pardon me for poor editing. I've been trying to reply for three days!

Good evening,
Angela