Phillipians2:5,6NASB"5Have this attitude [e]in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be [f]grasped,"
Some claim that this proves that the apostolic church had already accepted the trinity or at the very very least that Jesus was the God of the bible in some way.
Some questions I always have to ask about so called trinitarian proof texts are, why the coyness? If Jesus is the only true God,why don't the bible writers simply say it in plain language ? After all there was (is)never any debate as to Godhood of the God and Father of Jesus . The scriptures are quite clear that the God of Jesus is the most high God.
John10:29NASB"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; ..."
Note the God of Jesus is Greater than ALL (not many,not most)
Acts3:13NASB"13The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His [d]servant Jesus,..."
JEHOVAH is God and Lord of Jesus and the nation of Israel stated in so many words.
Does it ever bother trinitarians that in contrast to such straightforward declarations re: the supremacy of the God and Father of Jesus , we always have to indulge in these farfetched contrivances in order to extract some vague similitude of their dogma from the Holy Scriptures. So let us now prayerfully let the bible speak for itself re:phillipians2:5,6. We(Christians) are first urged to have the same attitude that Christ always has. What attitude is that? To consider ourselves equal to our God? If he is equal to God he is not bound by law to obey God. Thus his obedience would not be a matter of righteousness. He would remain righteous whether he cooperated with God or not. Thus his cooperating with his God would be considered a favor with no legal merit accruing to him. And of course if he acquired no legal merit for himself he could impute none to us. Surely this is the opposite of the point the writer is trying to make. The word rendered existed in the passage is 'huparchon' some have attempted to suggest that this means that Christ has always existed in the (Morphe) form of JEHOVAH. According to strong's 'huparchon' means
"From hupo and archomai; to begin under (quietly)"
Unsurprisingly then this word is NEVER used of JEHOVAH in either the Greek new testament or the Greek old testament.
It is however used of Man.
1Corinthians11:7NKJV"7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is (Huparchon)the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man."
Thus the use of the word 'Huparchon' suggest the inverse of what some trinitarian apologists claim it does.
Some have also desperately attempted to conscript the word 'morphe' rendered form in the NASB. Thus they claim that 'morphe' means that he possessed the very nature of the supreme being and thus was the supreme being or in some kind of mystical union with the supreme being.
Strong's 3444" Perhaps from the base of meros (through the idea of adjustment of parts); shape; figuratively, nature -- form."
Thus being in the 'morphe' of the God (not merely the Father) does not make one identical to the God,indeed it seems trite to point out that the God existed in the form of the God.
Isaiah44:13NASB" craftsman of wood extends a measuring line; he outlines it with a marker. He works it with carving knives and outlines it with a compass, and makes it like the form(Morphe) of a man, like the beauty of mankind, so that it may sit in a house. "
Obviously the prophet was not suggesting that this artesan's carvings possessed the very nature of a man. Surely if he possessed such capabilities he would claim Godhood for himself.
Thus yet another farfetched attempt by Trinitarians to read their absurdity into the scriptures fails
No comments:
Post a Comment