Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped
Just piping in with my own perspective. For me, up until this post of yours BJB, I have been hesitant to say I mostly agree with you because you have seemed to repeatedly say that Jesus is a man only. In this post you say enough extra that I'm on board with you regarding what you say in this post, where you acknowledge that Jesus is more than just a man. That was my hangup in previous posts.
Jesus IS more than just a man, I think we all agree on that.
And I don't think that Philippians 2:6 works to say that "Jesus is God".
Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
The phrase "did not consider being equal with God" or "did not consider equality with God" doesn't get us there. If I am equal with my spouse, it still doesn't mean I AM my spouse. My spouse is my spouse, and I am me. I can be equal with another person, but we cannot say that means I AM that other person. Same here. Jesus was in the form of God, and can surely claim equality with God (which I will get to in just a sec) but none of those things mean, even grammatically, that He IS God (the Father).
A coin has the form of a presidential face on it, but that form doesn't mean it IS the actual face of the president.
The greek for equality in Philippians 2:6, as has already been said, is "isa". It's the same word used in John 5:18:
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
And there we see what "equality with God" is. Jesus is calling God His own Father, thus making Himself equal with God. Equality with God means that God is His Father, not that He IS God. It doesn't mean He IS God the Father. In relation to us mortal humans, Jesus being the Son of God means that we afford Him the same respect, honor, deference, submission, glory, etc as God His (and our) Father. This doesn't mean that Jesus is God the Father. Even the trinity model shows that (that Jesus is not God the Father). We would regard a prince - the son of a king - as royalty, just as the king is royal too, by dint of his being the king's son. It doesn't mean, though, that the prince IS the king. (BJB, incidentally this is why I was speaking of "god-kind" a while back.....the "royalty" example gets across the same thought.)
P.S. are there plenty of other verses people point to about Jesus being God? Sure. I'm just dealing with the one that has been brought up in the last few posts.
|
For Jesus to be equal with God, doesn't mean that He is the Father, but does mean that Jesus is God. Too many verses tell us that. Jesus, as the eternal Logos of God, is also the eternal Son of God. How could He be anything other than God, if He has created all things and is worthy of our worship. He is the image of the invisible God. God the Father's image is His eternal Son of God. If Jesus were not God, then the Father would never share His worship, His throne, His glory with His Son.
Boxjobox somehow would like us to get the impression that Jesus began in the womb of Mary, that He was a unique man, who became Messiah. That view sees only the seen, and not the unseen.
"Before Abraham was, I am."
For Boxjobox to promote the idea that the man Jesus was exalted by God and now at the right hand of His throne (but denying His eternal deity) is to me the same as the RCC exalting the "blessed virgin" Mary. Read their theology. Billions believe that sinless and perfect Mary is their co-Redeemer, has ascended to the heavens, has been crowned with glory and honor, and is now deserving all the prayers and praise of all God's children.