|
|
Post by dizerner2 on Jul 12, 2023 16:00:15 GMT -8
Which one makes more sense? Trins basically teach Phil 2 portrays a power struggle in the Godhead.... 6 Who(2nd person), being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God(the other 2 persons)
It's not a struggle, the point of it is that Jesus didn't have to struggle at all to be equal to God.
The greatest creation—the most magnificent, powerful thing God could ever create—cannot share his essential attributes and essence, because God is boundless and infinite.
The gulf between Creator and greatest creation is an infinite and unsurpassable gulf.
Any attributing of the Creator's glory and essence to creation is idolatry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Truther on Jul 12, 2023 16:02:13 GMT -8
Which one makes more sense? Trins basically teach Phil 2 portrays a power struggle in the Godhead.... 6 Who(2nd person), being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God(the other 2 persons)
It's not a struggle, the point of it is that Jesus didn't have to struggle at all to be equal to God.
The greatest creation—the most magnificent, powerful thing God could ever create—cannot share his essential attributes and essence, because God is boundless and infinite.
The gulf between Creator and greatest creation is an infinite and unsurpassable gulf.
Any attributing of the Creator's glory and essence to creation is idolatry.
Thinking it is not robbery to be equal with your equals is PERSONAL DOUBT. |
|
|
|
Post by Truther on Jul 12, 2023 16:09:46 GMT -8
Look carefully...
6 Who(Subject #1), being in the form of God(subject #2), thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
There is somebody and there is God.
Unless you think God's name is "Who"?
|
|
|
|
Post by dizerner2 on Jul 12, 2023 17:37:24 GMT -8
Thinking it is not robbery to be equal with your equals is PERSONAL DOUBT.
This is an idiom in the Greek, and a complicated word with some ambiguity.
It's like saying, "It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say..."
We could say, "Bill Gates could consider himself one of the richest men alive without robbing anybody."
Christ considering himself equal to God did not need any "robbery" to make true.
Christ didn't have to rob anything or anyone.
There's other possible interpretations, but is this most natural, otherwise there is no "emptying" at all, for there is nothing to empty.
|
|
|
|
Post by dizerner2 on Jul 12, 2023 20:53:58 GMT -8
You could also say, "Something to be held on to at all costs, to grasp on to aggressively."
This also includes the idea of already having the equality, which it clearly says.
The one thing it is NOT saying, is that Christ was never equal to God to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Truther on Jul 13, 2023 4:43:48 GMT -8
Thinking it is not robbery to be equal with your equals is PERSONAL DOUBT.
This is an idiom in the Greek, and a complicated word with some ambiguity.
It's like saying, "It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say..."
We could say, "Bill Gates could consider himself one of the richest men alive without robbing anybody."
Christ considering himself equal to God did not need any "robbery" to make true.
Christ didn't have to rob anything or anyone.
There's other possible interpretations, but is this most natural, otherwise there is no "emptying" at all, for there is nothing to empty.
I see, the scripture is an exaggeration. That is the incarnationists stance on Phil 2. |
|
|
|
Post by Truther on Jul 13, 2023 4:47:28 GMT -8
You could also say, "Something to be held on to at all costs, to grasp on to aggressively." This also includes the idea of already having the equality, which it clearly says. The one thing it is NOT saying, is that Christ was never equal to God to begin with. In fact, it says Christ thought it not robbery because the reality is that it is robbery to say one is God's equal. The reason he could justify it not being robbery is he went through this life without sin like God has no sin. The last Adam(the man Christ Jesus that is our mediator between God and man, now) thought it not robbery.... |
|
|
|
Post by dizerner2 on Jul 14, 2023 0:18:36 GMT -8
The reason he could justify it not being robbery is he went through this life without sin like God has no sin. The last Adam(the man Christ Jesus that is our mediator between God and man, now) thought it not robbery....
It's takes more than sinlessness to have divine attributes.
There are many angels who have never sinned, and they are not God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Truther on Jul 14, 2023 5:07:15 GMT -8
The reason he could justify it not being robbery is he went through this life without sin like God has no sin. The last Adam(the man Christ Jesus that is our mediator between God and man, now) thought it not robbery....
It's takes more than sinlessness to have divine attributes.
There are many angels who have never sinned, and they are not God.
He did not say he was equal with God, but considered himself equal. Notice, we are talking about the same thing...God and someone else. We both know there is God and someone else in the verse. Right? |
|
|
|
Post by Truther on Jul 14, 2023 5:08:22 GMT -8
Here is how Jesus felt about himself compared to God....
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
|
|
