If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Cypress]

It doesn't and if you read the subsequent verses, you'll see it's saying he's similar, in his behavior, to God.

Holy smoke man, that's the nature of the Trinity, God expresses himself in three different forms.

It is.

Yes, which was common. Jesusater Christians competed with other "prophets" who claimed to be godly.

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel to avoid reading the words as they are clearly written. The earliest Christian community at the time Paul was writing believed Christ was God in human form, according to the manuscript evidence.

(Christ) Who, being in very nature God,​

did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;​

rather, he made himself nothing​

by taking the very nature of a servant,​

being made in human likeness.​

​

I think you're seeing what you want to see.

It's the other way around. You are twisting like a pretzel to reinterpret clearly written words to mean something different.

You didn't even know about Philippians until this thread, and now you're an expert on it? It seems like you didn't even know Paul knew the eyewitnesses Peter, James, John.


The bottom line is this:
any belief you had that up until the late first century Christians just thought Jesus was just a human with good teachings is categorically wrong based on the manuscript evidence.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

The bottom line is this:
any belief you had that up until the late first century Christians just thought Jesus was just a human with good teachings is categorically wrong based on the manuscript evidence.

though he was that also.

 

[ZenMode]

Holy smoke man, that's the nature of the Trinity, God expresses himself in three different forms.

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel to avoid reading the words as they are clearly written. The earliest Christian community at the time Paul was writing believed Christ was God in human form, according to the manuscript evidence.

(Christ) Who, being in very nature God,​

did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;​

rather, he made himself nothing​

by taking the very nature of a servant,​

being made in human likeness.​

​

It's the other way around. You are twisting like a pretzel to reinterpret clearly written words to mean something different.

You didn't even know about Philippians until this thread, and now you're an expert on it? It seems like you didn't even know Paul knew the eyewitnesses Peter, James, John.


The bottom line is this:
any belief you had that up until the late first century Christians just thought Jesus was just a human with good teachings is categorically wrong based on the manuscript evidence.

John specifically said that Jesus was God. John said he was there since the beginning. The ambiguous wording you referenced is nothing more than the usual deity/human overlap that happened in that time.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

John specifically said that Jesus was God. John said he was there since the beginning. The ambiguous wording you referenced is nothing more than the usual deity/human overlap that happened in that time.

TBH, I don't take the Gospel as gospel. They were the honest perceptions of ancient village people who believed in magic to cure ailments.

Trying to prove the non-existence of a power greater than the Universe by cherry-picking ancient perceptions is not very sophisticated.

 

[Into the Night]

Holy smoke man, that's the nature of the Trinity, God expresses himself in three different forms.

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel to avoid reading the words as they are clearly written. The earliest Christian community at the time Paul was writing believed Christ was God in human form, according to the manuscript evidence.

(Christ) Who, being in very nature God,​

did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;​

rather, he made himself nothing​

by taking the very nature of a servant,​

being made in human likeness.​

​

It's the other way around. You are twisting like a pretzel to reinterpret clearly written words to mean something different.

You didn't even know about Philippians until this thread, and now you're an expert on it? It seems like you didn't even know Paul knew the eyewitnesses Peter, James, John.


The bottom line is this:
any belief you had that up until the late first century Christians just thought Jesus was just a human with good teachings is categorically wrong based on the manuscript evidence.

Nope. Christ is the Son of God. Go read the scripture again.

 

[Into the Night]

John specifically said that Jesus was God.

He never did. Jesus is the Son of God.

John said he was there since the beginning.

He was.

The ambiguous wording you referenced is nothing more than the usual deity/human overlap that happened in that time.

The word games are yours. You cannot blame your word games on anybody else.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Nope. Christ is the Son of God. Go read the scripture again.

shut your idiot mouth, dumb mother fucker.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

He never did. Jesus is the Son of God.

He was.

The word games are yours. You cannot blame your word games on anybody else.

He never did. Jesus is the Son of God.

He was.

The word games are yours. You cannot blame your word games on anybody else.

please give it a rest on this issue, you idiotling.

 

[ZenMode]

He never did. Jesus is the Son of God.

He was.

The word games are yours. You cannot blame your word games on anybody else.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

 

[Cypress]

The ambiguous wording you referenced is nothing more than the usual deity/human overlap that happened in that time.

There is nothing ambiguous about the statement in Philippians: Christ was God in human form, and equal to God who took on a human likeness.

Your belief that it was totally common for Second Temple era Jews to believe humans were conflated with deities is not supported by manuscript evidence. It would have been blasphemous for any first century Jew to claim to be a god-like entity capable of forgiving sins and receiving worship.

What you are thinking of is Greco-Roman literary tradition where humans and gods could cross breed and produce human children of divine lineages.

 

[ZenMode]

There is nothing ambiguous about the statement in Philippians: Christ was God in human form, and equal to God who took on a human likeness.

Your belief that it was totally common for Second Temple era Jews to believe humans were conflated with deities is not supported by manuscript evidence. It would have been blasphemous for any first century Jew to claim to be a god-like entity capable of forgiving sins and receiving worship.

What you are thinking of is Greco-Roman literary tradition where humans and gods could cross breed and produce human children of divine lineages.

I think it was common for people of many religions, at the time, to believe that there were many gods and that there was overlap between humans and gods. This is true of Jews and Christians:

Psalm 82

A psalm of Asaph.

1 God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:

2 “How long will you[a] defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”

8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.

 

[Cypress]

I think it was common for people of many religions, at the time, to believe that there were many gods and that there was overlap between humans and gods. This is true of Jews and Christians:

Psalm 82

A psalm of Asaph.

1 God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:

2 “How long will you[a] defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”

8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.

I specifically and intentionally said that in the Second Temple era Judaism of the first century it would have been outrageous and blasphemous for any Jew to claim to be god, claim to be divine, claim to be able to forgive sins.

You are only claiming the statement Paul writes in Philippians is ambiguous because you had never heard of it before, and you don't want it to make your preconceived beliefs untenable.

The fact is nothing could be clearer than the words Paul writes in Philippians.

(Christ) Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.


There is simply no way to read Philippians and somehow believe Paul is writing about a just a human being who happens to be a good teacher.

 

[ZenMode]

I specifically and intentionally said that in the Second Temple era Judaism of the first century it would have been outrageous and blasphemous for any Jew to claim to be god, claim to be divine, claim to be able to forgive sins.

You are only claiming the statement Paul writes in Philippians is ambiguous because you had never heard of it before, and you don't want it to make your preconceived beliefs untenable.

The fact is nothing could be clearer than the words Paul writes in Philippians.

(Christ) Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.


There is simply no way to read Philippians and somehow believe Paul is writing about a just a human being who happens to be a good teacher.

The other interpretation of that passage:

The Mind of Christ
(Isaiah 52:13–15)

5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus:

6Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,a

7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.

8And being found in appearance as a man,He humbled Himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross.

The other thing to note is that the passage references Jesus death on the cross. The fact that Paul and others believed Jesus came back to life shows that they likely believed he was elevated from human to a god, which was common at the time and different than Jesus was God.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

There is nothing ambiguous about the statement in Philippians: Christ was God in human form, and equal to God who took on a human likeness.

Your belief that it was totally common for Second Temple era Jews to believe humans were conflated with deities is not supported by manuscript evidence. It would have been blasphemous for any first century Jew to claim to be a god-like entity capable of forgiving sins and receiving worship.

What you are thinking of is Greco-Roman literary tradition where humans and gods could cross breed and produce human children of divine lineages.

none of these neocon fucks understand Christianity.

they're all Zionist retards who are also Zionist and retarded.

 

[Into the Night]

shut your idiot mouth, dumb mother fucker.

Ah. Back to your usual insults that don't accomplish anything.
Go read the Bible, NoName. You might even improve your English.

 

[Into the Night]

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

...and...? Are you trying to make a point here?

 

[Into the Night]

There is nothing ambiguous about the statement in Philippians: Christ was God in human form, and equal to God who took on a human likeness.

What statement? How can one be the Son of God and God at the same time??

Your belief that it was totally common for Second Temple era Jews to believe humans were conflated with deities is not supported by manuscript evidence. It would have been blasphemous for any first century Jew to claim to be a god-like entity capable of forgiving sins and receiving worship.

To who? Why does that matter?

What you are thinking of is Greco-Roman literary tradition where humans and gods could cross breed and produce human children of divine lineages.

So you believe in Zeus and Apollo instead?

 

[Into the Night]

I specifically and intentionally said that in the Second Temple era Judaism of the first century it would have been outrageous and blasphemous for any Jew to claim to be god, claim to be divine, claim to be able to forgive sins.

You are only claiming the statement Paul writes in Philippians is ambiguous because you had never heard of it before, and you don't want it to make your preconceived beliefs untenable.

The fact is nothing could be clearer than the words Paul writes in Philippians.

(Christ) Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.


There is simply no way to read Philippians and somehow believe Paul is writing about a just a human being who happens to be a good teacher.

No such passage. Stop making shit up.

 

[Into the Night]

The other interpretation of that passage:

The Mind of Christ
(Isaiah 52:13–15)

5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus:

6Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,a

7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.

8And being found in appearance as a man,He humbled Himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross.

The other thing to note is that the passage references Jesus death on the cross. The fact that Paul and others believed Jesus came back to life shows that they likely believed he was elevated from human to a god, which was common at the time and different than Jesus was God.

No such passage. Stop making shit up.

 

[Into the Night]

none of these neocon fucks understand Christianity.

they're all Zionist retards who are also Zionist and retarded.

You obviously don't understand it either, NoName.
But then, your own inability to understand English or history is your biggest problem.

Did you know Israel already exists, and that you just called every Jew a retard?