What does this actually mean... [Archive]

Mike

12-04-2006, 10:11 AM

Philippians 2:5
Let this mind be in you,which was also in Christ Jesus
6:Who,being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God

Ive never really thought about it but ive heard it debated on before

Hi jnix,

Before creation God had no need of a FORM. Before the beginning he made one for himself known as the Word or Logos in Greek. The form was the express image of his omni present essence.

1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2: The same was in the beginning with God.
3: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

Through this form he created all things. I believe the FORM he created for him to dwell visibly in was the Angel of his presence spoken of in the Old Testament.

When men saw this FORM they were seeing God. As Jesus in the New Testament was both God and Man This Logos form was both God and Angel. He thought it not robbery to be equal with God in the sense he knew he was FORMED to BE GOD.

Who being in THE FORM of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God.

And the WORD was God.

That was the FORM Paul spoke of.

jnix

12-04-2006, 10:50 PM

thanks..brothers,I just heard ppl try to make it into 2 persons in the Godhead & wondered what it meant to all in here

Donny Cage

12-05-2006, 09:07 AM

thanks..brothers,I just heard ppl try to make it into 2 persons in the Godhead & wondered what it meant to all in here

Let no one deceive you. It's not two persons, and it's not three persons... What people seem to do is stop where you stopped, and build a false doctrine from a partial thought. You have to read the rest of the thought.

Most people stop right after "did not consider it robbery to be equal with God" - the key word, is the VERY NEXT WORD, <<<<"BUT">>>>

People read the scripture, and see something that the scripture does not say. They read into this with a preconceived idea, therefore warping their understanding of the text.

Let's look at it again, without any preconceived ideas....

5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Let's ask questions and answer them, using the above scripture....

In what form was Jesus before becoming a Man?

6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#)who, being in the form of God

Even though He did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, what did He do INSTEAD?

but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men

What did He do, when He got here?

8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#)And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

When God became a Man, did He ever stop being God in heaven?

9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#)Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,

Back up, why, if He was God before becoming a Man, why would He need to be exalted?

Again, "made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross" (In His humbled state of humanity, He was made lower than even the angels - Hebrews 2:9)

And for what Purpose did God highly exalt Him?

10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#)that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I hope this helps. The text does not say, "Jesus who being in the form of God was equal with God" (That would be a redundant statement to say the least!), it said, "Who being in the form of God did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, BUT..." ("BUT" WHAT?) What did He do instead? "but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men."

I hope this helps.

jnix

12-06-2006, 09:10 PM

Let no one deceive you. It's not two persons, and it's not three persons... What people seem to do is stop where you stopped, and build a false doctrine from a partial thought. You have to read the rest of the thought.

Most people stop right after "did not consider it robbery to be equal with God" - the key word, is the VERY NEXT WORD, <<<<"BUT">>>>

People read the scripture, and see something that the scripture does not say. They read into this with a preconceived idea, therefore warping their understanding of the text.

Let's look at it again, without any preconceived ideas....

5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Let's ask questions and answer them, using the above scripture....

In what form was Jesus before becoming a Man?

6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#)who, being in the form of God

Even though He did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, what did He do INSTEAD?

but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men

What did He do, when He got here?

8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#)And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

When God became a Man, did He ever stop being God in heaven?

9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#)Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,

Back up, why, if He was God before becoming a Man, why would He need to be exalted?

Again, "made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross" (In His humbled state of humanity, He was made lower than even the angels - Hebrews 2:9)

And for what Purpose did God highly exalt Him?

10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#)that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I hope this helps. The text does not say, "Jesus who being in the form of God was co-equal with God" (That would be a redundant statement to say the least!), it said, "Who being in the form of God did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, BUT..." ("BUT" WHAT?) What did He do instead? "but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men."

I hope this helps.

Praise the Lord brother...thanks for taking the time to answer

complete

12-10-2006, 06:37 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Cage http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?p=241529#post241529)
Let no one deceive you. It's not two persons, and it's not three persons... What people seem to do is stop where you stopped, and build a false doctrine from a partial thought. You have to read the rest of the thought.

Most people stop right after "did not consider it robbery to be equal with God" - the key word, is the VERY NEXT WORD, <<<<"BUT">>>>

People read the scripture, and see something that the scripture does not say. They read into this with a preconceived idea, therefore warping their understanding of the text.

Let's look at it again, without any preconceived ideas....

5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Let's ask questions and answer them, using the above scripture....

In what form was Jesus before becoming a Man?

6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#)who, being in the form of God

Even though He did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, what did He do INSTEAD?

but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men

What did He do, when He got here?

8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#)And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

When God became a Man, did He ever stop being God in heaven?

9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#)Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,

Back up, why, if He was God before becoming a Man, why would He need to be exalted?

Again, "made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross" (In His humbled state of humanity, He was made lower than even the angels - Hebrews 2:9)

And for what Purpose did God highly exalt Him?

10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#)that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I hope this helps. The text does not say, "Jesus who being in the form of God was co-equal with God" (That would be a redundant statement to say the least!), it said, "Who being in the form of God did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, BUT..." ("BUT" WHAT?) What did He do instead? "but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men."

I hope this helps.

....Who was performing this action but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, in v. 7? Where was His physical location at the time of this action? At what point was He "existing in the form"? Who does Paul attribute this existence to? Describe the time frame of this passage to assist you in a more clear understanding. Give some thought to the words equality, grasp, form and existing.

One other thought to ponder....was there any humility in the action performed by this person?

Take your time and think through your answer.

mizpeh

12-10-2006, 11:54 PM

Finishedwork,

Why don't you explain what you believe this passage means instead of being cryptic?

5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=2&translation=nkjvp&x=6&y=8#) and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

....Who was performing this action in v. 7?

Christ was performing the action of making himself of no reputation.

Where was His physical location at the time of this action?

Christ was in the form of God. He was physically in the form of God. Which for me could mean one of two things. Since God is an invisble Spirit, He has no form therefore Christ was in the form of God as a man who is the express image of the invisible God on the earth or He was in his preincarnate state as the invisible omnipresent Spirit because he was "existing in the morphe" which to some means a continuing existence.

At what point was He "existing in the form"?

See the answer above. It was either preincarnate of postincarnate, I haven't decided which version I want to stick with yet. Maybe you can help me.

Who does Paul attribute this existence to?

Christ was God's form, and it says that being in the form of God, Christ made himself of no reputation. I'm not sure if this answers your question.

Describe the time frame of this passage to assist you in a more clear understanding.

Some say this is the time in which God became man. Perhaps he was in Mary's womb. :idea:

Give some thought to the words equality, grasp, form and existing.

From Strongs:
Equality: equal, in quantity or quality Strong's Number: 2470iâsov

Grasp:

the act of seizing, robbery
a thing seized or to be seized
booty to deem anything a prize
a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained Strong's Number: 725aºrpagmo/vForm:

the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision
external appearance Strong's Number: 3444morfh/Existing:

to begin below, to make a beginning
to begin
to come forth, hence to be there, be ready, be at hand
to beStrong's Number: 5225u(pa/rxw

One other thought to ponder....was there any humility in the action performed by this person?

To be God and become man was there any humility, well, of course, there was deep humility to go from Creator to creature.

http://www.geocities.com/robert_upci/theories_of_the_incarnation.htm

complete

12-12-2006, 09:46 AM

Mizpeh;
Why don't you explain what you believe this passage means instead of being cryptic?

The questions are designed to spark someone's interest enough so that an exhaustive investigation can be performed.

mizpeh

12-12-2006, 03:16 PM

Mizpeh;

The questions are designed to spark someone's interest enough so that an exhaustive investigation can be performed.

Finished,

Well, as you can see I'm torn between two interpretations. Can you explain how you understand this passage to me? Perhaps it will help me decide which is truth.

complete

12-13-2006, 07:10 AM

Finished,

Well, as you can see I'm torn between two interpretations. Can you explain how you understand this passage to me? Perhaps it will help me decide which is truth.

Ponder these statements and questions:

1. Paul states unequivocally in Phil 2 an existence prior to the incarnation.

a. the tense of the verb denotes a continuous existence
b. is that existence a thought or a "mind behind the plan"
c. can a thought or idea be given a "who" connotation
d. can a thought or idea humble itself
e. if a "who" connotation fits, who is who equal to
f. a law: there have to be 2 components in any definiton
of equality

2. The birth of Jesus in Matthew 1: 18-23

3. Birth of Jesus foretold in Luke 1: 26-37

4. Study to own the meaning of the words only begotten in John 1:14, 18

a. define "in the bosom" of the Father

Mizpeh, it took me four years of study to insure the passage in Philippians states what it states....Christ pre-existed His incarnation as the Son of God from all eternity. This short outline and diligent study will help you own this truth.

Donny Cage

12-13-2006, 08:40 AM

Mizpeh, it took me four years of study to insure the passage in Philippians states what it states....Christ pre-existed His incarnation as the Son of God from all eternity. This short outline and diligent study will help you own this truth.

I think it's pretty clear just from the plain reading of the passage that Jesus did pre-exist His incarnation.... as God. (Not as "God the Son", Not as the "Son of God", but as GOD.)

thus, "...who being in the Form OF GOD" And this is further confirmed in John 1:1.

Scripture is perfectly clear where and why He is called "Son of God".

Luke 1:35

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Therefore.... Shall be called.... Son of God.

This is the Biblical reason He is called "Son of God", that is where and why He got this title. No twisting involved, that's just the plain reading of scripture. The Bible tells us the Son was born of a Woman (Galatians 4:4).

mizpeh

12-13-2006, 09:58 AM

Finishedwork,

Ponder these statements and questions:

1. Paul states unequivocally in Phil 2 an existence prior to the incarnation.

Strong's and Vine's give different meaning to the word "Morphe". Which can you trust? Strong's gives the interpretation of being able to see the form, as in the image of God is seen. Whereas Vine's gives the connotation of a continuous existence. And knowing no Greek, I have to bring in other scripture to interpret this verse.

a. the tense of the verb denotes a continuous existence

, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

Just consider this for a moment, if Christ in this verse is existing in the form of God preincarnate why would Paul write "did not consider it robbery to be equal with God"? If Christ was existing as God that statement makes no sense because being God, He would be equal to himself or if He was as you believe preexisting as the Son of God, He is equal to God. To me the "did not consider it robbery" portion makes more sense if we say He is in the form of a man,(I want to make a correction without changing what I initially wrote. ...portion makes more sense if we say He is in the form of God which is the man, Christ Jesus, who is the image/form of God. Because when you SEE the man, Christ Jesus, you have seen the Father,ie: God made flesh) that form is "the express image of his person". What are your thoughts on this? I do not mind more thought-provoking questions if that is what you prefer.

b. is that existence a thought or a "mind behind the plan"
c. can a thought or idea be given a "who" connotation
d. can a thought or idea humble itself

Good questions. I don't believe a thought or an idea can be a who or humble itself. "The mind behind the plan" is another thing altogether. The mind is more than a thought or idea. We as humans exist with a soul, spirit,and body. What we do apart from the body is think and have emotions. We express what is in us by words and physical expressions. The soul and spirit are the substance (what we are made of) of who we are, whereas the thoughts and feelings are who we are. You cannot have one without the other. You cannot have thoughts and feelings without the soul and spirit. The soul and spirit produce the thoughts and feelings. Does this make sense to you? I hope you can understand what I am trying to put into words.

When it comes to the "mind of God", this is not just "part of what God is". The mind and its thoughts go together. The concept of "person" is a vacuous term that has no substance in reality when it comes to God. When God speaks, He is speaking His thoughts. His thoughts and words are not separate from who He is, unless they (words and thoughts) are personified like in Proverbs or John. I need more time and knowledge of the word to really give a more complete explanation.

Ask me some more questions, maybe that will help me to solidfy my thoughts more coherently.

e. if a "who" connotation fits, who is who equal to

Your question presupposes preexisting as opposed to existing in a human form. As I said before this "equal" makes no sense if Christ was in his preexistent state which is GOD. It is apparent and understood that if He is God, He is equal to Himself whether you believe in one or three persons of God.

f. a law: there have to be 2 components in any definiton
of equality

This law would not be violated if who, being in the form of God is speaking of the Christ in his incarnate state. The two components would be God preincarnate = God incarnate. God = God, no matter what form He is in.

Before I move on to the other parts of your outline, I just want to say I can see where you are coming from, but is it consistent with the rest of scripture? If your understanding of this passage is incorrect, does it influence the rest of your understanding of who Christ is and who God is?

Thank you for the questions.

Mizpeh

Donny Cage

12-13-2006, 10:49 AM

I think it's as simple as this... If I was about to become something that I am not currently, I would not consider it robbery to be equal to what I am now... However, what I'm going to do INSTEAD is make myself of no repuation and take on this other form, and being found in the appearance of this other form, I will humble myself.

"Who being in the form of God did not consider it robbery to be equal with God"

So since He did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, the question then becomes, what did He do instead?

"BUT made Himself of no reputation taking on the form of a bond servant, and walking in the likeness of a man"

To understand this verse you cannot stop at "did not consider it robbery to be equal with God" especially if you have a preconceived idea of multiples of persons... that would warp your understanding of the text... The thought is continued with "BUT...." If you stop before then, all you have is God not considering equality with Himself, robbery.... which as Mizpeh correctly pointed out, that would be a redundant statement to say the least.

The entire point of the passage is showing God becoming a Man. God is already equal with Himself (that's obvious), but that's not what is being said. The entire point of the passage is "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus"

- See, the exact opposite happened with Lucifer. Lucifer believed He could exalt himself above the throne of God, and he was brought down (Isaiah 14:12-15)... Yet Jesus (who is God Himself) became a Man (even lower than the angels [Hebrews 2:9]) and humbled Himself, obedient to the point of Death... And He was highly exalted (Acts 2:36) and given a name above every other name (Philippians 2:9)... That at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father ...

What Jesus did was the exact opposite of what Lucifer did... Lucifer exalted himself and was brought down (Isaiah 14:12-15). Jesus humbled Himself and was exalted (Philippians 2:5-9).

So let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.

jnix

12-13-2006, 11:21 PM

OriginalPraxeas

12-15-2006, 08:41 PM

complete

12-16-2006, 03:41 PM

I think it's pretty clear just from the plain reading of the passage that Jesus did pre-exist His incarnation.... as God. (Not as "God the Son", Not as the "Son of God", but as GOD.)

thus, "...who being in the Form OF GOD" And this is further confirmed in John 1:1.

Scripture is perfectly clear where and why He is called "Son of God".

Luke 1:35

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Therefore.... Shall be called.... Son of God.

This is the Biblical reason He is called "Son of God", that is where and why He got this title. No twisting involved, that's just the plain reading of scripture. The Bible tells us the Son was born of a Woman (Galatians 4:4).

...through your answer. I will ask again that you give your answer more thought. One or two verses will not and does not uphold a proper exegesis of a passage and after viewing several of your posts I would say you think along these same lines. BTW, I never twist...there is no warrant for it.
Please reconsider my outline to Mizpeh in this thread and make an exhaustive investigation of how words are used in a sentence and how they are defined in a particular passage and who are the recipients of the message.

complete

12-16-2006, 03:56 PM

complete

12-16-2006, 04:07 PM

OriginalPraxeas: Not one place does Phil say the Son pre-existed the incarnation AS the Son.

....John 1: 14, 18--Matthew 1: 18-23--Luke 1: 26-37--Romans 1: 3-4--and a feverish study of what it means to be "the only begotten God in the bosom of the Father" will give you the proper understanding of Phil 2

Evangelist Paul

12-16-2006, 05:37 PM

Brethren, Jesus is God manifest in the flesh.

Anything beyond that is good conversation and a lot of conjecture; but we do know this; In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Period.

If you believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh you believe the truth.

complete

12-16-2006, 05:58 PM

mizpeh: Strong's and Vine's give different meaning to the word "Morphe". Which can you trust? Strong's gives the interpretation of being able to see the form, as in the image of God is seen. Whereas Vine's gives the connotation of a continuous existence. And knowing no Greek, I have to bring in other scripture to interpret this verse.

You can investigate the Greek without knowing Greek. There are several trusted scholars and books that provide unbiased determinations. To understand how morphe was used will require more than Strong's or Vine's one word definitions. Not to say they are incorrect but to say they do not give all of the myriad of ways words are used in context. I believe you would agree it is the same with our own language.
I must reiterate that it took several years of study and investigation to understand that passage. The outline I gave you assisted me in understanding how language was interpreted and how words were defined and used 2000 years ago. Remember, Jesus spoke Aramaic and I'm sure Paul understood that language. The Bible we have was translated from the Greek and I'm more than satisfied that God did not allow any errors to creep in concerning His Word during the translation process.
I say all that to inform you this is not a hard process to undertake but at the same time if you want to know the meaning of many passages it is a process that needs to happen. It really isn't that difficult, just time consuming. Just get started. Morphe is a good place to start.

mizpeh

12-16-2006, 09:21 PM

You can investigate the Greek without knowing Greek. There are several trusted scholars and books that provide unbiased determinations. To understand how morphe was used will require more than Strong's or Vine's one word definitions. Not to say they are incorrect but to say they do not give all of the myriad of ways words are used in context. I believe you would agree it is the same with our own language.
I must reiterate that it took several years of study and investigation to understand that passage. The outline I gave you assisted me in understanding how language was interpreted and how words were defined and used 2000 years ago. Remember, Jesus spoke Aramaic and I'm sure Paul understood that language. The Bible we have was translated from the Greek and I'm more than satisfied that God did not allow any errors to creep in concerning His Word during the translation process.
I say all that to inform you this is not a hard process to undertake but at the same time if you want to know the meaning of many passages it is a process that needs to happen. It really isn't that difficult, just time consuming. Just get started. Morphe is a good place to start.

I agree God preserved His Word during the translation process, that is why I think it is possible to let scripture interpret scripture. Jesus doesn't tell us to go to the rabbis, the scribes, the priests, etc, but to search the scriptures.

Jesus gave us of His Spirit to teach us. God gave us His Word that we might know Him.

Ps 119:99 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=ps+119:99&version=kjv&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1) I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation

Jesus berated the religious people of his time for upholding their traditions in more high esteem than the Word of God. I am reminded of my first pastor who held the word of God in high regard. He was constantly quoting scripture as well as reminding us how the word is able to save our souls, to build us up, to give us an inheritance, to study the word to show ourselves approved unto God, thy word is a lamp.... Maybe I have strayed too far out from simply letting God teach me from His word into listening to other voices.......

mizpeh

12-16-2006, 09:42 PM

Finishedwork,

You can investigate the Greek without knowing Greek. There are several trusted scholars and books that provide unbiased determinations. To understand how morphe was used will require more than Strong's or Vine's one word definitions. Not to say they are incorrect but to say they do not give all of the myriad of ways words are used in context. I believe you would agree it is the same with our own language.

Who are these trusted scholars and what are the names of these books that are unbiased?

Is it possible to take the plain reading of the word of God and trust what it says? To compare scripture with scripture and come to a determination? What does God want us to study?

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Paul is urging us to study the word of truth. 2 Peter 1:19-21

It is not that I'm being lazy. I don't mind looking up the Greek or reading commentaries, but is this really what God has told us to do?

complete

12-17-2006, 06:17 AM

mizpeh: I agree God preserved His Word during the translation process, that is why I think it is possible to let scripture interpret scripture. Jesus doesn't tell us to go to the rabbis, the scribes, the priests, etc, but to search the scriptures.

I couldn't agree with you more. It's the only way to truth.

Is it possible to take the plain reading of the word of God and trust what it says? To compare scripture with scripture and come to a determination? What does God want us to study?

Absolutely! The problem arises when pastors, teachers or ordinary laymen bring their preconcieved ideas or what they think is the correct interpretation of a word or phrase or sentence to bear upon the text.
There are so many examples of this eisegetic practice--doctrine of intial evidence, no salvation apart from baptism or tongue speaking, Jesus being His own father, a time when Jesus wasn't (Arian) secret handshakes (Mormon) etc. etc. that it boggles the mind. And when you have this type of gross mishandling of the text it should lead one to carefully study to understand what the text is actually teaching. We cannot refuse to face any facts, whatever theories someone holds. Criticism is merciless in dealing with theories, however sacred. Noone has a right to complain of rigid research into the facts. All of us should desire this. Only one must be sure of the facts. It really doesn't matter what the attitude of someone may be toward the truth of say Jesus, baptism, tongues, mantras, secret ceremonies and the like, but we all must patiently examine all the facts that have been presented in order to be sure that they are the facts. How else we will understand what the Spirit teaches?

Jesus berated the religious people of his time for upholding their traditions in more high esteem than the Word of God. I am reminded of my first pastor who held the word of God in high regard. He was constantly quoting scripture as well as reminding us how the word is able to save our souls, to build us up, to give us an inheritance, to study the word to show ourselves approved unto God, thy word is a lamp.... Maybe I have strayed too far out from simply letting God teach me from His word into listening to other voices.......

Here is one more story to confirm what you have stated above. It comes from Nehemiah 8:

1And all the people gathered as one man at the square which was in front of the Water Gate, and they asked Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel.

2Then Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly of men, women and all who could listen with understanding, on the first day of the seventh month.
3He read from it before the square which was in front of the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of men and women, those who could understand; and all the people were attentive to the book of the law.
4Ezra the scribe stood at a wooden podium which they had made for the purpose. And beside him stood Mattithiah, Shema, Anaiah, Uriah, Hilkiah, and Maaseiah on his right hand; and Pedaiah, Mishael, Malchijah, Hashum, Hashbaddanah, Zechariah and Meshullam on his left hand.
5Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people for he was standing above all the people; and when he opened it, all the people stood up.
6Then Ezra blessed the LORD the great God. And all the people answered, "Amen, Amen!" while lifting up their hands; then they bowed low and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground.
7Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, the Levites, explained the law to the people while the people remained in their place. 8They read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading.

Here, those who had knowledge were explaining the text. Just as I have intimated to you....

mizpeh

12-17-2006, 08:17 AM

Finishedwork,

Absolutely! The problem arises when pastors, teachers or ordinary laymen bring their preconcieved ideas or what they think is the correct interpretation of a word or phrase or sentence to bear upon the text.
There are so many examples of this eisegetic practice--doctrine of intial evidence, no salvation apart from baptism or tongue speaking, Jesus being His own father, a time when Jesus wasn't (Arian) secret handshakes (Mormon) etc. etc. that it boggles the mind. And when you have this type of gross mishandling of the text it should lead one to carefully study to understand what the text is actually teaching.

I see you have found a way to claim some foundational Biblical teachings as false and also put them in the same league as the Arians and Mormons. Interesting. Initial evidence, salvation by baptismS, Jesus being His own Father........all sound doctrine which can easily be found and proven by scripture.

I would be more than happy to discuss these things with you. After which we may still not see eye to eye, but discussion does cause one to search the scriptures and dig deeper into the things of God. Which is a good thing. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.

Mike

12-17-2006, 03:06 PM

Finishedwork,

Do you believe Trinity or something else?

Donny Cage

12-18-2006, 08:39 AM

Totally flabbergasted!! You have unabashadly done a terrible disservice to the text; not only that, but also to the English language.
I'm afraid any further response to your statements may cause you great consternation. Therefore, I will once again ask that you re-investigate.

I think the text is plain and clear, and the explanation I gave is supported by scripture.

The problem is (from a trinitarian view) is the text simply doesn't say what you want it to say. You accuse me of doing a "terrible disservice" to the text, when in reality, I'm reading the text for what it says. No twisting needed, just the plain reading of scripture. The trinitarian position on this verse, however, requires a preconceived idea that God is multiple in persons. What you do with this text is common to what trinitarians do with many texts, which is go into the verse with an idea of a triune god, therefore warping your understanding of the verse... The same thing happens with many other verses, such as John 1:1...

Literally nothing in this verse even comes close to promoting the man made doctrine, called "the trinity". Nothing. If you think it's about multiple persons, then you missed the entire point of the passage....

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus..."

k_pilgrim

12-18-2006, 09:31 PM

You can investigate the Greek without knowing Greek. It really isn't that difficult, just time consuming. Just get started. Morphe is a good place to start.
It will save you a lot of time if you ask directly a Greek though, of course not any Greek, but someone who are able to read the "Majority Text".
That means, if you don't know what kind of Greek you're trying to investigate, then most likely all you do, you just wasting your time, and if that wasted time you spend with it, you doing it with a setup mind, oh boy, you're falling deeper into deception, (I'm sorry to inform you friend), far deeper than you already are.

And yes, you guessed right, I'm a very Greek, that can read the "Majority Text", or "Byzantine" if you prefer.

But before we continue our talk, let met tell ya, you seem to forget a very basic Truth.
You're tryin' to explain something from Philippians, right?
Then check this one out for a "good place to start", that you don't even need to investigate anything there, 3:5 says "an Hebrew of the Hebrews". The Apostle Paul, was and remained always & forever, a strictly Monotheistic Hebrew, as his fathers were, and he earnestly contended for the True Faith of the mighty God in Jesus. Jude 3,4.

And noone, will never ever chance the one & only Truth of Isaiah 9:6, regardless of the translation.

While I'm writing from the other side of the planet, I must go to sleep, cause it's 4am. And later on, I will write some more.
Promise I'll come back, there's more to come, so..

mizpeh

12-18-2006, 10:13 PM

It will save you a lot of time if you ask directly a Greek though, of course not any Greek, but someone who are able to read the "Majority Text".
That means, if you don't know what kind of Greek you're trying to investigate, then most likely all you do, you just wasting your time, and if that wasted time you spend with it, you doing it with a setup mind, oh boy, you're falling deeper into deception, (I'm sorry to inform you friend), far deeper than you already are.

And yes, you guessed right, I'm a very Greek, that can read the "Majority Text", or "Byzantine" if you prefer.

But before we continue our talk, let met tell ya, you seem to forget a very basic Truth.
You're tryin' to explain something from Philippians, right?
Then check this one out for a "good place to start", that you don't even need to investigate anything there, 3:5 says "an Hebrew of the Hebrews". The Apostle Paul, was and remained always & forever, a strictly Monotheistic Hebrew, as his fathers were, and he earnestly contended for the True Faith of the mighty God in Jesus. Jude 3,4.

And noone, will never ever chance the one & only Truth of Isaiah 9:6, regardless of the translation.

While I'm writing from the other side of the planet, I must go to sleep, cause it's 4am. And later on, I will write some more.
Promise I'll come back, there's more to come, so..

If your Greek is as good as your English, welcome stranger, because I'm tired of looking up the word "morphe" the last two nights!

jnix

12-19-2006, 12:35 AM

[quote=k_pilgrim;245198]It will save you a lot of time if you ask directly a Greek though, of course not any Greek, but someone who are able to read the "Majority Text".
That means, if you don't know what kind of Greek you're trying to investigate, then most likely all you do, you just wasting your time, and if that wasted time you spend with it, you doing it with a setup mind, oh boy, you're falling deeper into deception, (I'm sorry to inform you friend), far deeper than you already are.

And yes, you guessed right, I'm a very Greek, that can read the "Majority Text", or "Byzantine" if you prefer.

But before we continue our talk, let met tell ya, you seem to forget a very basic Truth.
You're tryin' to explain something from Philippians, right?
Then check this one out for a "good place to start", that you don't even need to investigate anything there, 3:5 says "an Hebrew of the Hebrews". The Apostle Paul, was and remained always & forever, a strictly Monotheistic Hebrew, as his fathers were, and he earnestly contended for the True Faith of the mighty God in Jesus. Jude 3,4.

And noone, will never ever chance the one & only Truth of Isaiah 9:6, regardless of the translation.

While I'm writing from the other side of the planet, I must go to sleep, cause it's 4am. And later on, I will write some more.
Promise I'll come back, there's more to come, so..[/quo

AMEN!!!!AMEN!!!!!! GOOD POINT ON PAUL

complete

12-19-2006, 07:13 AM

Donny Cage:The problem is (from a trinitarian view) is the text simply doesn't say what you want it to say. You accuse me of doing a "terrible disservice" to the text, when in reality, I'm reading the text for what it says. No twisting needed, just the plain reading of scripture.

When I read a statement such as yours I'm reminded of 2 Thess 2: 11 and whether or not God has alredy sent the delusion. Scary!! If you cannot see the obvious subject/object distinction there is no further conversation from a human perspective that will open up your mind to the truth. I believe Titus 3: 10-11 may be in order.

What you do with this text is common to what trinitarians do with many texts, which is go into the verse with an idea of a triune god, therefore warping your understanding of the verse... The same thing happens with many other verses, such as John 1:1...

I'm sorry Donny, but it is clear you do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. When one wants to discuss or argue a position or point of doctrine it is clear that one have some understanding of that position. I have already on two occasions asked you to review certain passages of Scripture within this thread...please reconsider.

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus..."

This is the only correct statement you have made...a little humility goes a long way. Think about it.

I see no further need of discussion. You may have the last word if you wish.

thank you

Donny Cage

12-19-2006, 08:39 AM

I'm sorry Donny, but it is clear you do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. When one wants to discuss or argue a position or point of doctrine it is clear that one have some understanding of that position. I have already on two occasions asked you to review certain passages of Scripture within this thread...please reconsider.

Actually I'm well aware of the doctrine of the trinity. I used to be trinitarian, and have studied the doctrine greatly. I know that doctrine like the back of my hand.

That being said, it's not in the Bible (the trinity that is). It's a man made doctrine that gradually developed over a period of time, through much controversy and debate.

The truth of the matter is, you are reading into passages such as Philippians 2:5-9 with a preconceived idea, therefore warping your understanding of the verse.

The verse, is plain and clear, and no twisting or preconceived ideas needed. The writer did not make a mistake when he penned those words under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit... For some reason you trinitarians just don't seem to understand that, especially when you read passages such as John 1:1.

What the text says, and what you WANT the text to say, are two different things. It simply does not promote your doctrine.

Jesusissavior

12-19-2006, 04:54 PM

Mizpeh, it took me four years of study to insure the passage in Philippians states what it states....Christ pre-existed His incarnation as the Son of God from all eternity. This short outline and diligent study will help you own this truth.

The logos did not pre-exist as the Son, and Philippians 2 does not teach that, any more than if I said "President George W. Bush graduated from Yale," that statemet would mean that Bush was President when he graduated from Yale. That statement would mean that the one who later became President graduated from Yale.

Likewise, when the Bible uses terms such as "Son" and "Christ" to refer to the pre-human logos, those terms do not mean that the Son was eternally begotton, but that the logos which existed prior to the incarnation later became the Son of God. Even some Trinitarians, such as Walter Martin have come to this realization.

If you want to argue from this passage, and others like it, that the Son of God is eternal, then you would also be forced to conclude that an anointed male Jew is eternal; Philippians 2 and others use the term "Christ" to refer to the pre-human logos, and the term "Christ" or Messiah refers to an anointed male Jew that redeemed God's people, but I think that you are smart enough to realize that it's impossible for an anointed male Jew to exist eternally as an anointed male Jew--unless you're a Mormon and believe that the Son, as well as the Father, have both existed eternally as human beings.

Please consider the passages Matthew 1:18-20 and Luke 1:35--passages that one or more people have already quoted. Both of them refute the notion of eternal Sonship since they both prove that "Son of God" refers to the human flesh of Jesus that was born 2000 years ago, since they both prove that the term "Son of God" is a referance to the fact that Jesus was begotton in the womb of Mary by the Holy Ghost, and not by human agency.

Also, Philippians 2 does not teach a second person in the godhead, but rather, being equal with God meant that all of the attributes that the one God, (the Father), possessed dwelt in His form.

Hope this is helpfull to you. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

complete

12-20-2006, 05:12 AM

...and as you have alluded to in part, a careful study of Matthew 1: 18-23, Luke 1: 27-35, John 1: 14,18 and of course the current passage in Phil 2 will reveal the pre-existence of the Son. One cannot get around the grammar of these passages..in context.

Jesusissavior: The logos did not pre-exist as the Son, and Philippians 2 does not teach that, any more than if I said "President George W. Bush graduated from Yale," that statemet would mean that Bush was President when he graduated from Yale. That statement would mean that the one who later became President graduated from Yale.

Actually, Philippians 2 is the icing on the cake, so to speak. Two keys in the passage are humility and pre-existence. Paul attributes both to the Son. Your analogy lacks pre-existence and your sentence structure would not mirror that of Paul. George Bush was not a pre-existent form of the President from all eternity.

Likewise, when the Bible uses terms such as "Son" and "Christ" to refer to the pre-human logos, those terms do not mean that the Son was eternally begotton, but that the logos which existed prior to the incarnation later became the Son of God. Even some Trinitarians, such as Walter Martin have come to this realization.

Well. I can't speak for Mr. Martin as he is no longer with us, but again, and I cannot stress this enough, a very careful study of John 1: 14,18 confirms His pre-existence. As one in this thread is fond of saying, the plain reading of the text proves this out. More on this later.

If you want to argue from this passage, and others like it, that the Son of God is eternal, then you would also be forced to conclude that an anointed male Jew is eternal; Philippians 2 and others use the term "Christ" to refer to the pre-human logos, and the term "Christ" or Messiah refers to an anointed male Jew that redeemed God's people, but I think that you are smart enough to realize that it's impossible for an anointed male Jew to exist eternally as an anointed male Jew--unless you're a Mormon and believe that the Son, as well as the Father, have both existed eternally as human beings.

Fortunately, I am not forced to conclude your analogy. Why, because, as I have stated time and again, an exhaustive investigation into the outline will and does provide only one conclusion...and protects us from error. Again, your analogy of the male Jew eternal, or Christ, has nothing whatsoever to do with passage. This passage speaks of the eternal Son as pre-existing His human form as God and His humility. Can you explain how you made the jump from eternality of the Son to a male Jew? How did you bring those two thoughts together? Actually, if you honestly look to your analogy you will find the fatal flaw in your thinking. I, however, am convinced that most here in this thread will not objectively study this outline. The conclusions would be devastating to their belief.

Please consider the passages Matthew 1:18-20 and Luke 1:35--passages that one or more people have already quoted. Both of them refute the notion of eternal Sonship since they both prove that "Son of God" refers to the human flesh of Jesus that was born 2000 years ago, since they both prove that the term "Son of God" is a referance to the fact that Jesus was begotton in the womb of Mary by the Holy Ghost, and not by human agency.

You are partly correct. This is the story of Jesus' human birth. But again, this is just part of the story.

Also, Philippians 2 does not teach a second person in the godhead, but rather, being equal with God meant that all of the attributes that the one God, (the Father), possessed dwelt in His form.

Here, you are off track again, so to speak. Jesus is attributed with the action in Philippians, not the Father.
Take a few moments to examine the truth of Jesus from my outline:

1. The stories in Matthew and Luke povide us with His earthy or human existence or how we view Him.

2. The story from John 1 and Philippians show us how God views the story.

3. John 1: 18 provides a solid foundation for eternality. What does it mean to you to be in the bosom of the Father?...Father being the critical term.

4. "only begotten" keeps us from error...Why?

Hopefully, this will give you something to think about over the Christmas season.

Looking forward to continuing after the first of the year.

Merry Christmas

Jesusissavior

12-20-2006, 12:39 PM

...and as you have alluded to in part, a careful study of Matthew 1: 18-23, Luke 1: 27-35, John 1: 14,18 and of course the current passage in Phil 2 will reveal the pre-existence of the Son. One cannot get around the grammar of these passages..in context.

I'm not of the school of thought that the Son had no substantal pre-existance before Bethlehem. There are two major schools of thought about this topic within Oneness theology: 1) the Son only pre-existed as a thought in the mind of God and 2) the Son pre-existed his birth as the pre-human image of God, but the term "Son" only applies to him after Bethlehem. I believe the latter.

Actually, Philippians 2 is the icing on the cake, so to speak. Two keys in the passage are humility and pre-existence. Paul attributes both to the Son. Your analogy lacks pre-existence and your sentence structure would not mirror that of Paul. George Bush was not a pre-existent form of the President from all eternity.

I think you're either missing or stepping around the point I made. My analogy does not lack pre-existance or humility. The point I was making about President Bush was not that that analogy mirrors Philippians 2 compleatly, but rather, the fact that the logos is called "Christ Jesus" prior to the emptying does not mean that he was literally called "Christ" or "Jesus" prior to Bethlehem. Instead, the one who now is Christ Jesus emptied himself just as the one who now is President Bush went to Yale--that was the purpose of that analogy. John 3:13 and John 6:62 speak of the Son of Man pre-existing, and if I use your method of interpretation to interpret those passages, and interpret them in the most literal way I could interpret them, then I would have to conclude that Jesus pre-existed eternally as the Son of Man.

Well. I can't speak for Mr. Martin as he is no longer with us, but again, and I cannot stress this enough, a very careful study of John 1: 14,18 confirms His pre-existence. As one in this thread is fond of saying, the plain reading of the text proves this out. More on this later.

That's partially true. The Logos did pre-exist his earthly birth, but the passage does not call the Logos "Son" until the Word became flesh in verse 14.

Fortunately, I am not forced to conclude your analogy. Why, because, as I have stated time and again, an exhaustive investigation into the outline will and does provide only one conclusion...and protects us from error. Again, your analogy of the male Jew eternal, or Christ, has nothing whatsoever to do with passage. This passage speaks of the eternal Son as pre-existing His human form as God and His humility. Can you explain how you made the jump from eternality of the Son to a male Jew? How did you bring those two thoughts together? Actually, if you honestly look to your analogy you will find the fatal flaw in your thinking. I, however, am convinced that most here in this thread will not objectively study this outline. The conclusions would be devastating to their belief.

The point I was making is that in Philippians 2:5, the pre-human Logos is called "Christ" but he was not literally the Christ at that time, but rather the one who later became the Christ; in other words, Christ pre-existed but not as Christ. Do you believe that Jesus was literally anointed by the Holy Ghost in eternity past? Because "anointed one" is what "Christ" means.

You are partly correct. This is the story of Jesus' human birth. But again, this is just part of the story.

I agree. But the point I was making with Matthew 1 and Luke 1 was that the term "Son of God" refers back to the fact that Jesus was begotton by the Holy Ghost and not by human agency. If I caused a woman to conceive, and she had a son, then that baby that was born would be the Son of me. Likewise, if the Holy Ghost caused Mary to concieve, and the Holy Ghost is God, then the baby that was born of Mary would be called the Son of God.

4. "only begotten" keeps us from error...Why?

The Son was begotton in Bethlehem as Matthew 1 and Luke 1 indicate. I don't know why you would ask me that since it seems it would prove Oneness and not the Trinity.

If you need me to clarify anything then let me know. Hopefully we can continue this discussion.

Merry Christmas to you to.

mizpeh

12-20-2006, 01:23 PM

Jesusissavior,

I'm not of the school of thought that the Son had no substantal pre-existance before Bethlehem. There are two major schools of thought about this topic within Oneness theology: 1) the Son only pre-existed as a thought in the mind of God and 2) the Son pre-existed his birth as the pre-human image of God, but the term "Son" only applies to him after Bethlehem. I believe the latter.

I'm interested in knowing what this second school of thought is about. I've heard references to it but not an explanation. If Christ is the "the express image of God", and Christ did not come into existence until his birth, how can you say Christ is the pre-human image of God?

Jesusissavior

12-20-2006, 01:35 PM

I'm interested in knowing what this second school of thought is about. I've heard references to it but not an explanation. If Christ is the "the express image of God", and Christ did not come into existence until his birth, how can you say Christ is the pre-human image of God?

The first school of thought is the one that most Oneness believers in recent decades believe--that God had not perminant image or body before the Son of God was born in Bethlehem. They also believe that the Word of John 1:1 refers to a thought in the mind of God.

The second school of thought is believed upon by a minority of Oneness believers, including Kenneth Reeves, Ross Drysdale, and many early Oneness believers such as G.T. Haywood. It states that before creation, the one true God brought forth an image that he dwelt bodily in, and 2000 years ago, God sent that body down and transformed it into human flesh. This pre-human image was not literally "Christ" before Bethlehem, but rather, he later became Christ.

This view differs from Trinitarianism since the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Word of John 1:1 was the eternal Son of God, and the second member of the Godhead. I believe that the Word of John 1:1 was not the eternal Son of God, and was not necessarily co-equal with the Father, but rather, was the pre-human body that the Father dwelt in.

mizpeh

12-20-2006, 02:05 PM

The first school of thought is the one that most Oneness believers in recent decades believe--that God had not perminant image or body before the Son of God was born in Bethlehem. They also believe that the Word of John 1:1 refers to a thought in the mind of God.

The second school of thought is believed upon by a minority of Oneness believers, including Kenneth Reeves, Ross Drysdale, and many early Oneness believers such as G.T. Haywood. It states that before creation, the one true God brought forth an image that he dwelt bodily in, and 2000 years ago, God sent that body down and transformed it into human flesh. This pre-human image was not literally "Christ" before Bethlehem, but rather, he later became Christ.

This view differs from Trinitarianism since the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Word of John 1:1 was the eternal Son of God, and the second member of the Godhead. I believe that the Word of John 1:1 was not the eternal Son of God, and was not necessarily co-equal with the Father, but rather, was the pre-human body that the Father dwelt in.

If you were to go to this thread you will find posts by Mike where he explains the Angel of the Lord, Yah, as being the preincarnate form of God. http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=236227&postcount=29 Mike continues his line of thought with numerous followup posts on this subject in that thread. Is this what you are talking about or do you believe something different?

I guess I'm in the other school of thought although the Word cannot possibly be just a thought in the mind of God. The Son is part of the plan of God since He did not come into existence until the last days, but the deity of the Son, the Word, is much more than a thought or a spoken word. The Word is God himself.

Jesusissavior

12-20-2006, 02:21 PM

If you were to go to this thread you will find posts by Mike where he explains the Angel of the Lord, Yah, as being the preincarnate form of God. http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=236227&postcount=29 Mike continues his line of thought with numerous followup posts on this subject in that thread. Is this what you are talking about or do you believe something different?

I pretty much believe the same thing that Mike believes on this topic.

mizpeh

12-20-2006, 05:40 PM

I pretty much believe the same thing that Mike believes on this topic.

Maybe you can answer a couple of questions for me.

1) If the Angel, Yah, was the prehuman image of God why did God speak from the mountain to the Isrealites instead of through his Angel as he spoke in these last days through his Son?

2) In 1 Timothy 3:16 Why do you think Paul included that God was seen of angels if had been seen of angels before the incarnation?

3). Since Jesus is now the image of God, what face was the angels beholding when Jesus said these words:

Mt 18:10 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+18:10&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Jesusissavior

12-20-2006, 06:28 PM

1) If the Angel, Yah, was the prehuman image of God why did God speak from the mountain to the Isrealites instead of through his Angel as he spoke in these last days through his Son?

I believe that the angel of the Lord was on Mount Siani. Exodus 19:3 says that "Moses went up unto God," indicating that this passage is not talking about God in His omni-present form, but in His bodily form. Also, in verse 4, the one speaking said that He rescued Israel from Egypt, and in Exodus 14:19 it says that it was the angel who got Israel out.

2) In 1 Timothy 3:16 Why do you think Paul included that God was seen of angels if had been seen of angels before the incarnation?

Paul included that Jesus was seen of angels since Jesus is the only fleshly image that God ever had. That does not exclude the possibility that angels saw God in the Old Testament, becasue we know that He was seen of angels then in passages like Isaiah 6.

3). Since Jesus is now the image of God, what face was the angels beholding when Jesus said these words:

Mt 18:10 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+18:10&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Either God had a temporary image while Jesus was on earth, or the Son was talking about himself.

mizpeh

12-21-2006, 06:13 PM

I believe that the angel of the Lord was on Mount Siani. Exodus 19:3 says that "Moses went up unto God," indicating that this passage is not talking about God in His omni-present form, but in His bodily form. Also, in verse 4, the one speaking said that He rescued Israel from Egypt, and in Exodus 14:19 it says that it was the angel who got Israel out.

Jesusissavior,

One more question if you don't mind. Do you think the prehuman image of God, Yah, was the first of all creation? We know God does not change. He is immutable. He is always righteous, always holy, always longsuffering, always forgiving to those who repent, His character never changes. If the prehuman image of God was an angel, why didn't that angel save his fellow angels from their fall? God saved mankind from the results of Adam's transgression by his image, Jesus Christ. If God does not change do you think it stands to reason He would do the same for angelic beings with an his angelic image, Yah?

Jesusissavior

12-21-2006, 06:31 PM

Jesusissavior,

One more question if you don't mind. Do you think the prehuman image of God, Yah, was the first of all creation?

It depends upon what you mean by "first of all creation," but properly defined, I'd say yes since I believe the Logos was brought forth prior to any of God's creative acts. (See Proverbs 8:22; Colossians 1:15, 17).

We know God does not change. He is immutable. He is always righteous, always holy, always longsuffering, always forgiving to those who repent, His character never changes. If the prehuman image of God was an angel, why didn't that angel save his fellow angels from their fall? God saved mankind from the results of Adam's transgression by his image, Jesus Christ. If God does not change do you think it stands to reason He would do the same for angelic beings with an his angelic image, Yah?

Part of God's character is soverignty, and God soverignly chose not to include angels in His plan of redemption.

mizpeh

12-21-2006, 07:12 PM

It depends upon what you mean by "first of all creation," but properly defined, I'd say yes since I believe the Logos was brought forth prior to any of God's creative acts. (See Proverbs 8:22; Colossians 1:15, 17).

Part of God's character is soverignty, and God soverignly chose not to include angels in His plan of redemption.

Thank you for answering my questions. Although I disagree with this doctrine, I don't want to argue it.

mizpeh

12-22-2006, 05:50 AM

You can investigate the Greek without knowing Greek. There are several trusted scholars and books that provide unbiased determinations. To understand how morphe was used will require more than Strong's or Vine's one word definitions. Not to say they are incorrect but to say they do not give all of the myriad of ways words are used in context. I believe you would agree it is the same with our own language.
I must reiterate that it took several years of study and investigation to understand that passage. The outline I gave you assisted me in understanding how language was interpreted and how words were defined and used 2000 years ago. Remember, Jesus spoke Aramaic and I'm sure Paul understood that language. The Bible we have was translated from the Greek and I'm more than satisfied that God did not allow any errors to creep in concerning His Word during the translation process.
I say all that to inform you this is not a hard process to undertake but at the same time if you want to know the meaning of many passages it is a process that needs to happen. It really isn't that difficult, just time consuming. Just get started. Morphe is a good place to start.

Finishedwork,

When you get a moment would you go back to the post where I responded to the first part of your outline and respond the rest of it? My preferred interpretation of that passage is the opposite of yours. I think "in the form of God" = the image of God, Christ Jesus the man not the preexistent Christ, which seems inappropriate to say since Christ is the Messiah, the Anointed.

I'm looking up "morphe" and there seems to be conflicting views on its definition even amongst Trinitarians. I think equating morphe with nature is a stretch and is the incorrect defininition.

Mizpeh

k_pilgrim

12-23-2006, 09:18 PM

Hello Mizpeh,
I'm sorry I didn't write earlier, I just saw today your effort for trying to find some explanation about Morphe.
Soon I will post something about it, so please be patient, perhaps sometime tomorrow, or the next few days, so noone will think that earlier, I just hit and run, no, I'm coming back with it, cause this stuff is very serious, and as you know, this is a Salvation Issue!
Keep in mind, that Philippians 2:7, is one of the verses that the enemy has used to deceive many, that they do not have the Revelation of the Truth, mostly, cause of their prejudice and the following of their tradition instead, and not what the Word of God really teaches.

The word Μορφη/Morphe means:
"Form, Outer Form, Appearance, or, Outer Appearance, or, The Phenomenon, Outward Form---to the Contrary as to the Exact Kind, that is the True Morphe."
Mega Lexicon of the Greek Language, by Henry G. Liddel & Robert Scott, vol. 3, page 188

It is evident, that in Philippians 2, the Apostle Paul was talking for the "In The Flesh" life of Jesus Christ, cause then, and only then it was when He had a form of an outer appearance.

mizpeh

12-24-2006, 08:39 AM

K pilgrim,

I'm looking forward to your thoughts on this subject.

The word Μορφη/Morphe means:
"Form, Outer Form, Appearance, or, Outer Appearance, or, The Phenomenon, Outward Form---to the Contrary as to the Exact Kind, that is the True Morphe."
Mega Lexicon of the Greek Language, by Henry G. Liddel & Robert Scott, vol. 3, page 188

It is evident, that in Philippians 2, the Apostle Paul was talking for the "In The Flesh" life of Jesus Christ, cause then, and only then it was when He had a form of an outer appearance.

I agree with what you are saying. God is invisible and is a Spirit. Spirits, as far as I know, don't have form or shape and cannot be seen. In Mark 16:12, Jesus was in another form or morphe and his disciples did not recognize him. This must be speaking of the outward appearance since the nature of Jesus or the person of Jesus is unchangable. So why use a different definition of the word morphe in Phil 2? and does "taking on the form" of a servant denote "nature" or outer appearance?

The Trinitarians I have spoken to and read don't just use the word morphe in Phil 2 alone but in conjunction with "being" in the form of God. They state the tense of the word "being" implies preexistence. I don't see how this is a necessity. If Paul in this passage is speaking of Christ being in the form of God as meaning the image of God, then Christ's "form" is human, and "being" in this form (as a man) means He is existing as man and not that this Human preexisted.

Enjoy the season, don't feel obliged to respond right away.

Mizpeh

onetruegod1

12-24-2006, 09:42 AM

Praise the Lord,

I have not read this whole thread so if I repeat something that has already been said, I'm sorry.
I am of the oppinion that in the beginning There was God, one, not two, not three. The man Jesus Christ was in the mind of God. He was the plan of God for the salvation of the world. Thus encompassing everything that God wanted for fallen mankind. The salvation of the world was his ultimate goal, thus every word he spoke came from his thoughts and worked toward that goal. Christ was that word, that thought, the new testement logos. When the Spirit of Almighty God himself overshadowed Mary, that word, thought, plan, logos, became a full fledged human being, manly in form. He (Christ, Jesus) became our salvation. He was fully man, he thought like we do, ate like us, yadda, yadda, yadda, you get the picture. He was the form of God. Inside that man the God of Israel, dwelt. Yet in the flesh he was man. Sinless, because he was not grounded, if you will, by two earthly parents. Sinless, because he had great self control, not because, mind you, he couldn't sin. I believe if he would have gave in to lust he could sin, but we know that he did not sin. Non the less, this man, made of God, was the Son, God being in that body of flesh, and creating that body of flesh, was now his Father, and the Father of all the universe. Not two persons in the Godhead, but Jesus was a definite manifestation of God (I Timothy 3:16). The Holy Spirit is God in opperation, the Holy Spirit overshadowed, filled, moved on the face of the deep(in Genisis), and so on. All terms for One God used through both old and new testements, but not to prove a trinity. For there is but one God, even a devil knows that (james).
God bless, hope this helps.

mizpeh

12-24-2006, 07:26 PM

Finishedwork,

Here, those who had knowledge were explaining the text. Just as I have intimated to you....

Are you saying only those who are highly educated in the Bible can be considered the only authorities in interpreting what the Bible says? The only way we can discern truth from error is being like the Bereans who searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul told them was true.Ac 17:11 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+17:11&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en)

How do explain ignorant and unlearned fishermen being chosen by Jesus with the gospel that He shed his blood for? The Spirit of truth which was given to them taught them. The same Spirit is in us and can do the same for us. I don't have all the truth nor do I understand it all but some things I do know for sure and others I am searching. Paul said he would come to revelations of the Lord. 2Co 12:1 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=2co+12:1&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Eph 1:17 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=eph+1:17&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) I believe I will come to understand the things of God when I seek him with all my heart. He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Mizpeh

complete

01-06-2007, 01:39 PM

Mizpeh, hope your Christmas season was pleasant. This is my first opportunity to respond since the week before Christmas. I have lumped your pertinent questions into one post.

I agree God preserved His Word during the translation process, that is why I think it is possible to let scripture interpret scripture. Jesus doesn't tell us to go to the rabbis, the scribes, the priests, etc, but to search the scriptures.

Agreed. However, if we disagree on the meaning of a word, as it is used in context, what would you recommend as a solution?

Jesus berated the religious people of his time for upholding their traditions in more high esteem than the Word of God. I am reminded of my first pastor who held the word of God in high regard. He was constantly quoting scripture as well as reminding us how the word is able to save our souls, to build us up, to give us an inheritance, to study the word to show ourselves approved unto God, thy word is a lamp.... Maybe I have strayed too far out from simply letting God teach me from His word into listening to other voices.......

Possibly.

Who are these trusted scholars and what are the names of these books that are unbiased?

Here is a short list of peer-reviewed Greek scholars: Bruce Metzger—A. T. Robertson—Kenneth Wuest (used as supplement only)—Marvin Vincent—quotes by Godet—Spiros Zodhiates and of course Strong’s.

Is it possible to take the plain reading of the word of God and trust what it says? To compare scripture with scripture and come to a determination? What does God want us to study? It is not that I'm being lazy. I don't mind looking up the Greek or reading commentaries, but is this really what God has told us to do?

Yes, indeed. However, proceed with caution when discrepancies arise. (as the aforementioned word dispute) God wants us to be conformed to the image of His Son. He tells us to be strong and have courage and he will be with us for every step and every breath, only be courageous. He also taught the principle of meditating on His word 1st thing in the a.m. during the day and before we sleep. To me that means He wants me to understand what He has written. Hopefully, I am using every opportunity available to me to follow His mandate.

I see you have found a way to claim some foundational Biblical teachings as false and also put them in the same league as the Arians and Mormons. Interesting. Initial evidence, salvation by baptismS, Jesus being His own Father........all sound doctrine which can easily be found and proven by scripture.

I am well acquainted with the Oneness “foundational Biblical teachings”….that is why I am here.

I would be more than happy to discuss these things with you. After which we may still not see eye to eye, but discussion does cause one to search the scriptures and dig deeper into the things of God. Which is a good thing. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.

Couldn’t agree more. I would encourage you to use every available tool at your disposable….only, be strong and courageous.

When you get a moment would you go back to the post where I responded to the first part of your outline and respond the rest of it? My preferred interpretation of that passage is the opposite of yours. I think "in the form of God" = the image of God, Christ Jesus the man not the preexistent Christ, which seems inappropriate to say since Christ is the Messiah, the Anointed.

I'm looking up "morphe" and there seems to be conflicting views on its definition even amongst Trinitarians. I think equating morphe with nature is a stretch and is the incorrect defininition.

If you have a lot of time, please investigate the word from Strong’s or any lexicon and move to the Greek scholars mentioned previously and view how the word is used in context of the passage.

Are you saying only those who are highly educated in the Bible can be considered the only authorities in interpreting what the Bible says? The only way we can discern truth from error is being like the Bereans who searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul told them was true.Ac 17:11 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+17:11&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en)

Not at all. They assisted people in understanding. Isn’t that how the Scripture reads? Let me ask you a question concerning Acts 17, do you think each one had perfect understanding after searching? Viewing your next statement, do you? If you search your text diligently and come to a conclusion and I search my text with equal fervor and come to a different conclusion how then do we come to a solution of the intent of that particular text?

I don't have all the truth nor do I understand it all but some things I do know for sure and others I am searching.

Nor do I, but I press on not fearing where God leads me.

mizpeh

01-07-2007, 10:04 PM

Finishedwork,

Thank you for responding. The holidays were good, lots of food and family.

Agreed. However, if we disagree on the meaning of a word, as it is used in context, what would you recommend as a solution?

Let scripture interpret scripture.

Here is a short list of peer-reviewed Greek scholars: Bruce Metzger—A. T. Robertson—Kenneth Wuest (used as supplement only)—Marvin Vincent—quotes by Godet—Spiros Zodhiates and of course Strong’s.

I'll have to go to my Universities library to look up these gentlemen and their ideas.

Yes, indeed. However, proceed with caution when discrepancies arise. (as the aforementioned word dispute) God wants us to be conformed to the image of His Son. He tells us to be strong and have courage and he will be with us for every step and every breath, only be courageous. He also taught the principle of meditating on His word 1st thing in the a.m. during the day and before we sleep. To me that means He wants me to understand what He has written. Hopefully, I am using every opportunity available to me to follow His mandate.

Months back God had told me in prayer to meditate on his word as well. I'm working on it but not doing very good. So I bought note cards. We will see how that goes.

I am well acquainted with the Oneness “foundational Biblical teachings”….that is why I am here.

To learn more about Oneness or to plant seeds of doubt?

Couldn’t agree more. I would encourage you to use every available tool at your disposable….only, be strong and courageous.

Thank you for the encouragement, but I do not think I will be led by the Spirit of Truth into false doctrine.

If you have a lot of time, please investigate the word from Strong’s or any lexicon and move to the Greek scholars mentioned previously and view how the word is used in context of the passage.

I don't have a lot of time, but I may be able to take an hour to swing by the library since I'm not taking a class this semester.

Not at all. They assisted people in understanding. Isn’t that how the Scripture reads? Let me ask you a question concerning Acts 17, do you think each one had perfect understanding after searching? Viewing your next statement, do you? If you search your text diligently and come to a conclusion and I search my text with equal fervor and come to a different conclusion how then do we come to a solution of the intent of that particular text?

The same answer I gave you above, compare the scripture with other scriptures. It will all fit and not contradict. The Bible is authored by God.

Nor do I, but I press on not fearing where God leads me.
I have to say I like what you just said. It can be used both in study of the word of God and in life in general. Trusting in God's love for us and his good design for our lives takes away fear.

mizpeh

01-07-2007, 10:09 PM

Finishedwork,

Even though I wrote this post to someone else, I would like for you to respond to it. if you would? Thank you.

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=246855&postcount=48

complete

01-09-2007, 11:17 AM

mizpehFinishedwork,

Thank you for responding. The holidays were good, lots of food and family.

Quote:
Agreed. However, if we disagree on the meaning of a word, as it is used in context, what would you recommend as a solution?

Let scripture interpret scripture.

Quote:
Here is a short list of peer-reviewed Greek scholars: Bruce Metzger—A. T. Robertson—Kenneth Wuest (used as supplement only)—Marvin Vincent—quotes by Godet—Spiros Zodhiates and of course Strong’s.

I'll have to go to my Universities library to look up these gentlemen and their ideas.

Quote:
Yes, indeed. However, proceed with caution when discrepancies arise. (as the aforementioned word dispute) God wants us to be conformed to the image of His Son. He tells us to be strong and have courage and he will be with us for every step and every breath, only be courageous. He also taught the principle of meditating on His word 1st thing in the a.m. during the day and before we sleep. To me that means He wants me to understand what He has written. Hopefully, I am using every opportunity available to me to follow His mandate.

Months back God had told me in prayer to meditate on his word as well. I'm working on it but not doing very good. So I bought note cards. We will see how that goes.

Quote:
I am well acquainted with the Oneness “foundational Biblical teachings”….that is why I am here.

To learn more about Oneness or to plant seeds of doubt?

Quote:
Couldn’t agree more. I would encourage you to use every available tool at your disposable….only, be strong and courageous.

Thank you for the encouragement, but I do not think I will be led by the Spirit of Truth into false doctrine.

Quote:
If you have a lot of time, please investigate the word from Strong’s or any lexicon and move to the Greek scholars mentioned previously and view how the word is used in context of the passage.

I don't have a lot of time, but I may be able to take an hour to swing by the library since I'm not taking a class this semester.

Quote:
Not at all. They assisted people in understanding. Isn’t that how the Scripture reads? Let me ask you a question concerning Acts 17, do you think each one had perfect understanding after searching? Viewing your next statement, do you? If you search your text diligently and come to a conclusion and I search my text with equal fervor and come to a different conclusion how then do we come to a solution of the intent of that particular text?

The same answer I gave you above, compare the scripture with other scriptures. It will all fit and not contradict. The Bible is authored by God.

Quote:
Nor do I, but I press on not fearing where God leads me.

I have to say I like what you just said. It can be used both in study of the word of God and in life in general. Trusting in God's love for us and his good design for our lives takes away fear.

...and the conversation.