Really? That makes me wonder why Jesus who has seen the Father says the Father does have a form.
John 10:30 – Jesus is The Son of God
- Thread starter TrevorL
- Start date
Really? That makes me wonder why Jesus who has seen the Father says the Father does have a form.
keypurr
Well-known member
Consider that Jesus is a man and NO MAN has seen the Father. However, the spirit IN him did and was sent by the Father to become human. That spirit is the Son of Man, not Jesus.
Where does Yeshua say that? I'm willing to see it if it actually says what you say it says:
John 5:37 W/H
37 και ο πεμψας με πατηρ εκεινος μεμαρτυρηκεν περι εμου ουτε φωνην αυτου πωποτε ακηκοατε ουτε ειδος αυτου εωρακατε
John 5:37 T/R
37 και ο πεμψας με πατηρ αυτος μεμαρτυρηκε περι εμου ουτε φωνην αυτου ακηκοατε πωποτε ουτε ειδος αυτου εωρακατε
Unless of course you speak of somewhere else?
Greetings Jerry,
I cannot understand how anyone can use this passage to support the Trinity, because it is God the Father that exalts Jesus, and gives him the Name above every name. And when we bow before the presence of Jesus it will be to the glory of God the Father, not God the Son or the Trinity.
I also refer you back to my earlier comments:
The concept of the incarnation cannot explain the clear testimony concerning the growth of Jesus in wisdom:
Luke 2:52 (KJV): And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
If Jesus somehow lost his Divinity in the Incarnation process, how and when did he regain his Divinity?
Kind regards
Trevor
I am willing to briefly comment on Philippians 2:5-7, but let others discuss other aspects. The only time Jesus appeared in external appearance as a servant was when he washed the disciples’ feet, so I reject your definition. I believe Jesus was in the form of God after his birth, because of the connection with Genesis 1:26, Psalm 8:5 and Luke 1:35, that is, he was made in the image and likeness of God, and he was made a little lower than the angels, he was born the Son of God. He chose not to rest in the fact that he was born the Son of God, but humbled himself as a servant. The Servant prophecies of Isaiah reveal this, and the four Servant Songs reveal his character, his education, his sufferings, his emptying himself and death.
I cannot understand how anyone can use this passage to support the Trinity, because it is God the Father that exalts Jesus, and gives him the Name above every name. And when we bow before the presence of Jesus it will be to the glory of God the Father, not God the Son or the Trinity.
I also refer you back to my earlier comments:
I cannot go past Luke 1:34-35 which clearly dismiss the so-called incarnation. I do not believe that Luke 1:35 is describing the reduction of the 2nd Person of the Trinity into the womb of Mary.
The concept of the incarnation cannot explain the clear testimony concerning the growth of Jesus in wisdom:
Luke 2:52 (KJV): And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
If Jesus somehow lost his Divinity in the Incarnation process, how and when did he regain his Divinity?
Kind regards
Trevor
How do you translate ειδος ?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The Lord Jesus was a servant all the time He was walking the earth because all that time He was doing the will of the Father, as He said here:
"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me" (Jn.6:38).
That is a perfect description of a Servant.
What definition of the Greek word translated "form" are you willing to give?
The definition given by Joseph Henry Thayer is "the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
On the biblicalunitarian web site we read:
"The real definition of 'morphe' should become apparent as we check the sources available at the time of the New Testament. After all, the word was a common one in the Greek world. We assert that a study of the actual evidence clearly reveals that morphe does not refer to Christ’s inner essential being, but rather to an outward appearance"
On the same site we read:
"The Gospel of Mark has a short reference to the well-known story in Luke 24:13-33 about Jesus appearing to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared 'in a different form (morphe)' to these two men so that they did not recognize him (16:12). This is very clear. Jesus did not have a different 'essential nature' when he appeared to the two disciples. He simply had a different outward appearance."
This fits perfectly with the idea that the word means "the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision."
Even the Unitarians definition of the word matches the one given by Thayer. Therefore, since the Lord Jesus was in the form of God then the verse is speaking about how He will appear to the inhabitants of heaven:
"And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads" (Rev.22:3-4).
What was He before He descended from heaven?
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).
"What and if ye shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).
"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me" (Jn.6:38).
Thanks!
Last edited:
Lol, "there is no article", (and blah, blah, blah), so it is something like "a view", "a sight", "an appearance", and could imply "a shape", or "a form", but with all those possibilities an indefinite article, ("a"), should be included in an English rendering because there is no definite article in the text, (and Greek has no indefinite article so it is at the discretion of the translators as to whether an indefinite article should be used in English).
If you want to read it as "a form" this is how I would read it literally without changing the word order in the latter portions:
John 5:37 W/H
37 και ο πεμψας με πατηρ εκεινος μεμαρτυρηκεν περι εμου ουτε φωνην αυτου πωποτε ακηκοατε ουτε ειδος αυτου εωρακατε
37 And the Father that sent me, that One (He) has borne witness concerning me: neither a voice of Him at any time have you heard, nor a form of Him have you seen-envisioned (εωρακατε).
However when you do the two-step translator shuffle into most English renderings it ends up sounding like the Father has a form, or a shape, despite the fact that such thinking is clearly denounced in the Torah concerning the Father, (YHWH Elohim).
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Yes, and these words spoken by the Lord Jesus prove that He is the Almighty:
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty" (Rev.1:8).
Then tell me who this is referring to:
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty" (Rev.1:8).
So...you still insist that within the Lord Jesus there are two persons.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Exploring the 'form' or 'forms' of 'God'........
Exploring the 'form' or 'forms' of 'God'........
Hi JS,
Your observation above is mistaken, since I've acknowledged Thayer's definition, plus expanding on that definition, so you're wrong on that point. Read my commentary again,.....'morphe' can include all aspects of an outward visible appearance. - hence a 'morphe' can include meaning-inflections such as 'image', 'likeness', 'appearance','expression', - it can also indicate one's 'station in life', a mode or phase of activity, something corresponding with a particular reality or 'being'...in this case 'God'. A 'form' of 'God'. I've just expanded on the meaning in its various facets and possible inclusions within the context of the chapter which does emphasize an outward appearance, visual representation or mode,...and NOT an inward essence, ontological substance or 'nature' as some translations are trying to inflect into the text. So not getting your 'issue' of difference.
A few excellent resource-studies on this chapter are here, here & here.. Included in these articles is the noteworthy story of French Catholic bishops who changed the translation of this particular passage after some careful research inspiring a more correct revision (which held Jesus as the 'image' of 'God', and not 'God' himself), which met with protests from traditionalists who fought to keep Jesus being 'very God of very God'. Imagine the pious uproar! - but some bishops sought to be honest with a better translation of the passage in this instance, so I commend them. (this account was told in a 1971 Watchtower (355-6) ) - I've looked elsewhere for corroboration of the event, but cant find anymore except 3-4 retelling of this from JW sources). {I can also post the entire account if anyone is interested}
Okay, so this is where you continue on with a conception of Jesus being in the 'morphe' of 'God' and assume that he somehow maintains this 'form' in order to be recognized or worshipped in heaven. Hmmm. Lets pause to consider the logic of this assumption. It is evident that Jesus when he was born, took on the form of man, but we can also say that in his active role and vocation as God's messenger, messiah, prophet, etc....that he was also acting 'in' or 'as' the 'form' of 'God', especially in serving others by God's anointing and power, going about DOING his will (others could see the visible expression or glory of God in his activities). He was an active demonstration of 'God', therefore all his activities expressed various forms of God. This is bringing 'morphe' mentioned in Phillipians to mean Jesus was in the 'form' of God while fulfilling his vocation as God's Christ, his messenger-prophet, doing the works of God. To behold Christ is indeed to behold the 'morphe' of 'God'! (and this without any preconception of any pre-existent form, mind you. One can assume or speculate this in some form or fashion, so?). - I myself have not fleshed out a preferred belief or position on Jesus pre-existence so far in my studies....so I'm somewhat hesitant to propose or suppose too much in that particular arena. Different viewpoints, reasons and logics are always possible.
So the question of HOW Jesus will appear in future apocalyptic events is speculative, and depends on how we have viewed his various 'forms', whether in a pre-existent state,....the form he had when was born as a human...and the form he was resurrected with, and ascended to the Father in. (past, present, future). So,...did he ever change form (did he ever morph?) - apparently in the orthodox concept of the 'hypostatic union',...some kind of trans-formation seems to have taken place (metaphysical protests aside). In any case,...if we consider the form of Jesus NOW...in heaven or the spirit world....what does his form look like? Is it still his same earth-body but transformed by God's power and so 'spiritualized' now that he is dwelling in the celestial heavens with God the Father and about his various duties as Lord of the universe, etc? Note as well, he is seen as the Lamb in the midst of the throne,....how 'figurative' or 'literal' are these other 'forms' being described? The book of Revelation is very symbolic of course,...but we must discern accordingly.
Do note that God's Son or Messiah, can still be worshipped along with God, because the Messiah is the anointed representative of God and his kingdom, even the representation of God himself. Hence the 'Lamb' who plays a wonderful redemptive role, is worshipped alongside 'God', since 'God' and his agencies are also glorified in the work of salvation and exaltation of the saints. Its all God anyways! - there is nothing that can exist or 'be' without 'God', all is due to his grace. In the full restoration of all things, God is realized to be "all in all". - do note Paul is clear in his eschatology, that in the end, Christ gives all over to God the Father, he is subordinate to the Father always.
I have some of my own previous insights on these verses and the title-terms of the "first & last, beginning & end", which I'm going to meditate upon, and treat these particulars in a future commentary. As my usual method is to be open for 'progressive revelation' to engage 'creative dialogue'. - do note however, that 'God' and his 'Agent' or 'agencies' are one in spirit, will and purpose. It is 'God' working thru his various ministers and agents, in a cooperative movement, like a symphony. A symphony has many parts and different 'forms' of instruments do they not? 'God' and his 'logos' is the eternal sound-current and light frequency behind all the movements of creation and redemption. We could play with these metaphors further of course.
We'll investigate further on this
Exploring the 'form' or 'forms' of 'God'........
Hi JS,
Your observation above is mistaken, since I've acknowledged Thayer's definition, plus expanding on that definition, so you're wrong on that point. Read my commentary again,.....'morphe' can include all aspects of an outward visible appearance. - hence a 'morphe' can include meaning-inflections such as 'image', 'likeness', 'appearance','expression', - it can also indicate one's 'station in life', a mode or phase of activity, something corresponding with a particular reality or 'being'...in this case 'God'. A 'form' of 'God'. I've just expanded on the meaning in its various facets and possible inclusions within the context of the chapter which does emphasize an outward appearance, visual representation or mode,...and NOT an inward essence, ontological substance or 'nature' as some translations are trying to inflect into the text. So not getting your 'issue' of difference.
A few excellent resource-studies on this chapter are here, here & here.. Included in these articles is the noteworthy story of French Catholic bishops who changed the translation of this particular passage after some careful research inspiring a more correct revision (which held Jesus as the 'image' of 'God', and not 'God' himself), which met with protests from traditionalists who fought to keep Jesus being 'very God of very God'. Imagine the pious uproar! - but some bishops sought to be honest with a better translation of the passage in this instance, so I commend them. (this account was told in a 1971 Watchtower (355-6) ) - I've looked elsewhere for corroboration of the event, but cant find anymore except 3-4 retelling of this from JW sources). {I can also post the entire account if anyone is interested}
Okay, so this is where you continue on with a conception of Jesus being in the 'morphe' of 'God' and assume that he somehow maintains this 'form' in order to be recognized or worshipped in heaven. Hmmm. Lets pause to consider the logic of this assumption. It is evident that Jesus when he was born, took on the form of man, but we can also say that in his active role and vocation as God's messenger, messiah, prophet, etc....that he was also acting 'in' or 'as' the 'form' of 'God', especially in serving others by God's anointing and power, going about DOING his will (others could see the visible expression or glory of God in his activities). He was an active demonstration of 'God', therefore all his activities expressed various forms of God. This is bringing 'morphe' mentioned in Phillipians to mean Jesus was in the 'form' of God while fulfilling his vocation as God's Christ, his messenger-prophet, doing the works of God. To behold Christ is indeed to behold the 'morphe' of 'God'! (and this without any preconception of any pre-existent form, mind you. One can assume or speculate this in some form or fashion, so?). - I myself have not fleshed out a preferred belief or position on Jesus pre-existence so far in my studies....so I'm somewhat hesitant to propose or suppose too much in that particular arena. Different viewpoints, reasons and logics are always possible.
So the question of HOW Jesus will appear in future apocalyptic events is speculative, and depends on how we have viewed his various 'forms', whether in a pre-existent state,....the form he had when was born as a human...and the form he was resurrected with, and ascended to the Father in. (past, present, future). So,...did he ever change form (did he ever morph?) - apparently in the orthodox concept of the 'hypostatic union',...some kind of trans-formation seems to have taken place (metaphysical protests aside). In any case,...if we consider the form of Jesus NOW...in heaven or the spirit world....what does his form look like? Is it still his same earth-body but transformed by God's power and so 'spiritualized' now that he is dwelling in the celestial heavens with God the Father and about his various duties as Lord of the universe, etc? Note as well, he is seen as the Lamb in the midst of the throne,....how 'figurative' or 'literal' are these other 'forms' being described? The book of Revelation is very symbolic of course,...but we must discern accordingly.
Do note that God's Son or Messiah, can still be worshipped along with God, because the Messiah is the anointed representative of God and his kingdom, even the representation of God himself. Hence the 'Lamb' who plays a wonderful redemptive role, is worshipped alongside 'God', since 'God' and his agencies are also glorified in the work of salvation and exaltation of the saints. Its all God anyways! - there is nothing that can exist or 'be' without 'God', all is due to his grace. In the full restoration of all things, God is realized to be "all in all". - do note Paul is clear in his eschatology, that in the end, Christ gives all over to God the Father, he is subordinate to the Father always.
I have some of my own previous insights on these verses and the title-terms of the "first & last, beginning & end", which I'm going to meditate upon, and treat these particulars in a future commentary. As my usual method is to be open for 'progressive revelation' to engage 'creative dialogue'. - do note however, that 'God' and his 'Agent' or 'agencies' are one in spirit, will and purpose. It is 'God' working thru his various ministers and agents, in a cooperative movement, like a symphony. A symphony has many parts and different 'forms' of instruments do they not? 'God' and his 'logos' is the eternal sound-current and light frequency behind all the movements of creation and redemption. We could play with these metaphors further of course.
We'll investigate further on this
Yohanan says that phrase concerns the Father in a preceding passage:
Revelation 1:4-5 ASV
4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from him who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits that are before his throne;
5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood;
Revelation 1:4 W/H
4 ιωαννης ταις επτα εκκλησιαις ταις εν τη ασια χαρις υμιν και ειρηνη απο ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος και απο των επτα πνευματων α ενωπιον του θρονου αυτου
"ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος" = "Who Is - and - Who Was - and - Who Is To Come"
And "ο ων" is the critical portion from the Name of the Father in Exodus 3:14 in the LXX-Septuagint:
Exodus 3:14 LXX-Septuagint
14 και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωυσην εγω ειμι ο ων και ειπεν ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ ο ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας
Exodus 3:14 LXX - Brenton English Translation
14 And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.
As anyone may see the focus is not on "εγω ειμι", ("I am"), but the Eternal Existing One, ("ο ων").
From the Brenton Translation: "ο ων" ("HO ON") = "THE BEING"
In the mind of the first century reader who knows the scripture this statement, "ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος", clearly speaks of the Father. The text likewise plainly shows this to be the case because the opening greeting is from ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος, (via Yohanan), and that is a greeting from the Father, (in bold royal blue in the above quote), and next is given a greeting from the seven Spirits which are before His throne, (in bold bright blue in the above quote), then only after those two greetings comes the greeting from Messiah, (in bold red in the above quote), which is clearly and deliberately separated from the first greeting by way of Yohanan from the Father, (ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος).
marhig
Well-known member
God doesn't have an outward appearance, he is spirit.
Colossians 1
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature
So how was Jesus in the image of the invisible God? By being in the image of his love, his nature and his heart. Not in the image of his outward appearance because God is doesn't have one. How do they see God in the old testament? God was seen through his angel at the bush and they hear his voice, but they don't see a physical being only the vessel bringing God to others, you see God though his people and we saw the express image of God through Jesus because there was nothing of this world him, he lived to do the will of God.
I was reading this in Genesis 1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
The earth was without form and it was void until God brought in the light. And that is the same as us, we are without form and we are void, and in darkness until God says let there be light, which to us is Jesus Christ, and then we hear the word of God, and we are given the chance to know the father through Jesus. and if the the word sinks in deep, then the seed has been planted and waiting for the water of the word to help it grow, without the light and without the water a seed will never grow, it will remain a seed until the conditions are right, but with the light which we receive through Christ and the water which is the word through the spirit, then the word grows in our heart and flourishes, and our first light, our first rock of revelation is when God shows us that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God, and he is the foundation that we build on, he is the beginning of our life in God and the end of our life in the flesh and our old man of we truly follow him.
And God forms us by lifting us out of the dust, which is our flesh and breathes into us the breath of life which is the holy spirit and we are then formed by the spirit to be in the image of God through Jesus Christ, he is our light, he is the express image of God in flesh and in heaven, he is our cornerstone, he is our guide, he is our perfect example. He brought us the way as clear a day because he lived it out as an example for us to follow and he brought us Gods word as it should be pure and from God himself, but the body of Jesus was only a vessel to carry the word, it's the voice and the life that were important, not the body that was just flesh like me and you, he was a man and that dust went back to the earth and his spirit went to God. Satan could touch the body, but he couldn't touch the life. That belonged to God!
marhig
Well-known member
He was seen through Jesus, God is spirit.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
marhig
Well-known member
That's because the father was in Jesus, he was full of the holy spirit, in the fullness of God, in Gods express image.
John 17
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one
keypurr
Well-known member
Not so, it is his Son the reflects God's appearance, not God himself. The son is the spirit in Jesus that spoke through Jesus. Understand thatJesus was a man not a spirit. Also know that many spirits can dwell in a man. Think about the swine that ran off the cliff.
Sent from my iPad using TOL
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You did not even quote one Greek expert who confirms you "expanded" definition of the Greek word morphe.
The Unitarians,who agree with your view that the Lord Jesus is not God, say the following:
"The Gospel of Mark has a short reference to the well-known story in Luke 24:13-33 about Jesus appearing to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared 'in a different form (morphe)' to these two men so that they did not recognize him (16:12). This is very clear. Jesus did not have a different 'essential nature' when he appeared to the two disciples. He simply had a different outward appearance" (biblicalunitarian.com).
If you will take the time to read those verses cited you will see that it cannot be denied that the word 'morphe' means "the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
Here we see that the inhabitants of heaven will indeed seethe face of God:
"And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads" (Rev.22:3-4).
The Lord Jesus couldn't appear that way to those inhabitants of heaven unless He is God.
If you want to examine an expanded definition of the word then Vine says that the word:
"denotes 'the special or characteristic form or feature' of a person or thing; it is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Phl 2:6, 7, in the phrases "being in the form of God," and "taking the form of a servant." An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: 'morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists.... Thus in the passage before us 'morphe Theou' is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ...The true meaning of morphe in the expression 'form of God' is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase, 'form of a servant.' It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly antithetical, and that 'form' must therefore have the same sense in both" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).
The fact that the Lord Jesus is the Almighty God is confirmed by His own testimony here in "bold":
"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty" (Rev.1:7-8).
No, that is not right because Paul said that He changed His form from that of being in thre form of God to being in the form of a servant:
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Phil.2:6-7).
How can there possibly be different viewpoints in regard to the pre-existence of the Lord Jesus with these verses in view:
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).
"What and if ye shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).
"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me" (Jn.6:38).
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Col 1:14-17 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:14) In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins: (1:15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (1:16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (1:17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
You are either dumb or a liar.