Jesus Christ has a God that he worships

[onewithhim]

Jesus said that we all must love Jehovah our God and worship only Him. He stated clearly that his Father was the only true God (John 17:3); he didn't say that we are the only true God. In many places in the Scriptures he calls the Father "my God."

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3, KJV)

"Jesus saith unto her [Mary], Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father, but go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. (John 20:17, KJV)

"At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34, KJV)

"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall no more go out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name." (Revelation 3:12, KJV)

I think Jesus wants us to recognize that his Father, Jehovah, is God, and he is God's Son. (John 10:36) What do you make of this?

[historia]

Was it possible for Jesus to seize equality with God?

That depends on what you mean by "equality"

You said earlier that:

Jesus humbly refrained from "grabbing" /seizing the ultimate position of rulership

So would you say, then, that Jesus could, in fact, have seized God's position, thereby making himself "equal" to God? How could Jesus have seized God's position if God is "Almighty"?

[JehovahsWitness]

Was it possible for Jesus to seize equality with God?

That depends on what you mean by "equality"

You said earlier that:

Jesus humbly refrained from "grabbing" /seizing the ultimate position of rulership

So would you say, then, that Jesus could, in fact, have seized God's position, thereby making himself "equal" to God? ...

Yes.

[JehovahsWitness]

How could Jesus have seized God's position if God is "Almighty"?

Because the POSITION exists separate and apart from the amount of MIGHT or power. .

Even if the Almighty obtained his position through the legitimate exercise of his might (just as a righteous King might gain dominion of a territory through conquering an evil occupyer) , brute force or a demonstration of superior power is not the only way to obtain to the position.

If a contenter usurps the crown (ie the position from which on can exercise supreme ruling authority) he doesn't have to be as strong (as MIGHTY) if he can manipulate himself into that position by other means. The standing king's superior strength ("Almightiness") has no bearing on the challenge to the throne (the position) if that might can be forced to be secondary to other considerations Perhaps now would be a good time to address (or at least acknowledge) the points in my earlier post as it relates to the above ....

So it seems the issue up for grabs (pun intended) was not eqaliity of power and age (incontestable) but rank and position.

An illiterate pauper can USURP a King if he can successfully manipulate the situation. He (the pauper) may not have the blue blood, he may not have the legal right, he may be inferior in every conceivable way, but he can attempt to sit on the throne of England itself, if he can stage a coup.

That is for all intents and purposes, what Satan the Devil did, he coveted God's position and instigated an attempted take-over. So reading Paul's words to mean Jesus humbly refrained from "grabbing" /seizing the ultimate position of rulership, is arguably more in harmony with the immediate context than that Jesus humbly did not misuse or abuse a position he already had.

USURP verb

take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force.

[onewithhim]

Can you see Jesus grappling to seize equality with God?

Was it possible for Jesus to seize equality with God?

No. Paul said that to contrast Jesus' humble attitude with someone who is arrogant and unteachable. Jesus wouldn't even consider it, so let's not be greedy and unbending.

But this is precisely the problem with your interpretation. For Jesus to not even consider doing something that would have been impossible for him to achieve is not a good example of a humble attitude.

Likewise, it's not possible for me to fly to the top of the Empire State Building by flapping my arms. Would you say, "Be humble like historia, who didn't even consider flying to the top of the Empire State Building by flapping his arms, but instead took the elevator to get to the top." That argument doesn't make any sense, right?

I say that historia might think he could fly to the top of the Empire State Building, but he could not, therefore he took the elevator. You had considered doing the flight yourself but did not follow through because of your humility. The illustration is even more applicable to Jesus' humility because he didn't even think of becoming equal to God.

[historia]

You had considered doing the flight yourself but did not follow through because of your humility.

Uh, no -- I did not follow through with flying to the top of the Empire State Building by flapping my arms because that's impossible! There are literally millions and millions of things that are impossible for me to do. The fact that I don't even consider doing them is not a sign of humility on my part. It's simply an indication of my sanity.

Likewise, Jesus not even considering doing something that would have been impossible for him to achieve is not an example of humility. It's nonsensical to suggest that. Your interpretation simply doesn't work.

By compassion, JehovahsWitnesses's interpretation that Jesus could, in fact, have seized equality with God makes better sense of the passage, as Jesus not even considering doing that would be a sign of humility. But I'm with you on this one: the idea of someone seizing equality with God creates a lot of problems.

[historia]

If a contenter usurps the crown (ie the position from which on can exercise supreme ruling authority) he doesn't have to be as strong (as MIGHTY) if he can manipulate himself into that position by other means.

What "other means" could Jesus have used to usurp God's position? And wouldn't usurping God's position actually make Jesus superior, rather than equal, to God?

Perhaps now would be a good time to address (or at least acknowledge) the points in my earlier post as it relates to the above.

Fair enough. Here's the analogy you gave:

An illiterate pauper can USURP a King if he can successfully manipulate the situation. He (the pauper) may not have the blue blood, he may not have the legal right, he may be inferior in every conceivable way, but he can attempt to sit on the throne of England itself, if he can stage a coup.

Keeping in my mind that all analogies are, by their very nature, inexact, it is nevertheless hard to know what to make of a fictional example like this. It is simultaneously (a) unrealistic with regard to actual, historical coup-d'etats and (b) difficult to relate to the case of an omniscient and omnipotent God.

On that first (minor) point, actual coup-d'etats in the real world almost always involve force. The French word coup itself means a 'strike' or a 'blow'. For an usurper to successfully seize control over a country, they have to have superior power and forces to overcome the power and forces of the reigning sovereign, even if the latter decides to give in and no actual violence ensues. At bottom, all political positions are held as a function of power, and ultimately secured through force.

But, second, and more importantly, how can this fictional story of the pauper and prince be related to God? For starters, who in the story is the analog to God? The prince? The king (who dies)? The court? Perhaps some combination of all of those?

In the story, the pauper almost becomes king because he has traded places with the prince, and the members of the king's court can't tell the two apart. But wouldn't an all-knowing God be able to tell? How could someone manipulate and finagle their way into seizing God's position, if God is all-knowing, and therefore can simply thwart their plans?

By that same token, how could someone seize God's position in any manner, since God is all-powerful? God isn't just proportionally more powerful than any other being, as a human ruler would be to his subjects. Rather, every other being relies on God for their continued existence. To stop a would-be usurper, God merely needs to withdraw his support for their existence, and they no longer exist. So how could anyone seize anything from God against his will?

[JehovahsWitness]

What "other means" could Jesus have used to usurp God's position?

The exact same means Satan has used to date. Far from being a "fictional absurdity" we are all living the consequences of such a challenge. It is unreasonable to believe that Satan did not know that an Almighty God, limitless in power was and always will be superior to him in power; yet what we are living through is his attempt to out manipulate God into conceding his own rulership

Whether Satan was delusional and really believed he could succeed or not, we cannot say , but we can say with certainty (which was Paul's point) that serious consideration as to how this could be done **is** evidently possible and something that Jesus never did.



JW

Why didn't God destroy Satan immediately?
viewtopic.php?p=845975#p845975

Why would someone rebel against the Almighty?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 45#p338945

[onewithhim]

What "other means" could Jesus have used to usurp God's position?

The exact same means Satan has used to date. Far from being a "fictional absurdity" we are all living the consequences of such a challenge. It is unreasonable to believe that Satan did not know that an Almighty God, limitless in power was and always will be superior to him in power; yet what we are living through is his attempt to out manipulate God into conceding his own rulership

Whether Satan was delusional and really believed he could succeed or not, we cannot say , but we can say with certainty (which was Paul's point) that serious consideration as to how this could be done **is** evidently possible and something that Jesus never did.

Whatever the case, it is clear to me that Jesus wouldn't even give consideration to being like God. Satan was delusional, but HE perhaps thought he could be like God. Jesus knew he couldn't and because of his love and respect for his Father, he wouldn't even consider it. It does fit in with the theme in those verses surrounding Phil.2:6 of Jesus' humility. We are to be like him as he was humble to the point of giving up his heavenly residence and coming to Earth to be like a man. That is humility. We wouldn't want to think we're better than we are, and look down on others.

[historia]

What "other means" could Jesus have used to usurp God's position?

The exact same means Satan has used to date. Far from being a "fictional absurdity" we are all living the consequences of such a challenge. It is unreasonable to believe that Satan did not know that an Almighty God, limitless in power was and always will be superior to him in power; yet what we are living through is his attempt to out manipulate God into conceding his own rulership

Whether Satan was delusional and really believed he could succeed or not, we cannot say , but we can say with certainty (which was Paul's point) that serious consideration as to how this could be done **is** evidently possible and something that Jesus never did.

First, it seems to me that this argument hinges on a very particular -- and I would say at least somewhat speculative -- conception of Satan's goals and motives. What you're describing in this thread goes well beyond what the Bible says explicitly about the Devil. It also goes beyond those passages that Christian tradition has historically read as referring to Satan. It even goes beyond the conjecture of a lot of later Christian theology concerning the Devil. If your specific conception of what Satan is trying to do is even slightly off, the analogy fails.

But, second, even if I were to grant you -- for the sake of argument -- this idea that Satan is attempting a kind of coup-d'etat, the usurper in a coup-d'etat is not attempting to "seize equality" with the king, but rather to take the king's place, thereby pushing the former ruler into an inferior position. The Carmen Christi refers to "equality with God," but what you are describing here is not equality, but rather superiority. Even if we accept all of your premises, this is the wrong analogy.

[historia]

It does fit in with the theme in those verses surrounding Phil.2:6 of Jesus' humility. We are to be like him as he was humble to the point of giving up his heavenly residence and coming to Earth to be like a man. That is humility. We wouldn't want to think we're better than we are, and look down on others.

Right, this is the thrust of Paul's argument. Jesus was in a superior position, but gave it up to take on an inferior position. He was in the "morphe of God," but took the "morphe of a slave."

But the hymn doesn't just say that, of course, it briefly describes each state, too: To be in the "morphe of a slave," for example, means to "assume human likeness" and to be "in appearance as a human."

We should expect the hymn to give a similar, brief description of Jesus' former state, as well, which it does: To be in the "morphe of God" means to possess "equality with God." Jesus didn't consider holding on to (grasping or clutching) that equality, but "emptied" himself to take on this inferior position.

The way you and JW are interpreting the passage, we have to interrupt the flow and balance of the hymn by inserting into it this idea that, although Jesus is already in a superior position, he also didn't want to seize something he supposedly didn't have -- which creates all kinds of problems, as I've outlined above.