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]

Historia, what are your opinions on the OP? All those scriptures indicate a submission to the authority and control of God Almighty. There is no equality there in any of those scriptures. Jesus is subordinate to God.

Check out also the thread "Jesus is not God."

I don't know if I have much to say about the OP that hasn't already been said, particularly in the early parts of this thread. I haven't even attempted to read the 150+ pages of the other thread.

It seems to me that, in so far as you intend the OP to be a critique of the orthodox Christian understanding of the divinity of Christ, that critique hasn't fully taken into account the fact that Christians believe Christ has two natures.

Moreover, as SiNcE_1985 demonstrated above, orthodox Christians can talk about a functional subordination of the Son while affirming ontological equality between the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit), the latter being the concern of the Nicene Creed and the later christological definitions of the ecumenical councils.

[Difflugia]

The word used here in Phil. 2:6, harpagmos, is a noun, not a verb, and can either mean (a) a thing taken from someone else, or (b) a thing to be held onto.

It can also mean the act itself of taking/snatching/robbing/holding and this is how it's translated in the King James. I discussed it a bit in two older threads: this one and this one. Most commentators think that the thing being stolen as a more likely intention because they don't think that "a robbery" makes sense, but I'm not so sure.

I think the hymn might mean that Jesus didn't consider "equality with God" as something that needed to be wrested from him (by God?), but he was instead willing to empty himself of it to become a human being. While that still has some grammatical issues, I think that makes better sense of the contrast between harpagmon and ekenosen ("emptied") that was apparently intended.

EDIT: I read the article you linked in the other post at JSTOR. I'm convinced:

"... the classical distinction between nouns ending in -μόν as active (expressing the action of the verb) and nouns ending in -μα as passive (expressing the results of the action of the verb) was breaking down in the Hellenistic period ..."

"Hoover examines the two occurrences of ἁρπαγμός in the double-accusative construction and shows what the evidence above would already suggest, that ἁρπαγμός has exactly the same meaning as ἅρπαγμα in this construction: “something to seize upon as advantageous.”"

[historia]

The word used here in Phil. 2:6, harpagmos, is a noun, not a verb, and can either mean (a) a thing taken from someone else, or (b) a thing to be held onto.

It can also mean the act itself of taking/snatching/robbing/holding and this is how it's translated in the King James.

Yes, apologies, I gave a rather cursory explanation above. For the sake of posterity, if nothing else, let me offer a fuller definition:

BDAG (133) gives three definitions for harpagmos:

1. a violent seizure of property, robbery.

2. something to which one can claim or assert title by gripping or grasping, something claimed.

3. rapture

BDAG all but rules out (1) as impossible here in Phil. 2:6, and also considers (3) improbable. That's why I focused on (2) and the two senses in which it can mean either (a) res rapienda, something that is sought after that you appropriate to yourself, or (b) res rapta, something that you already possesses that you hold fast to.

[Bible_Student]

...The word used here in Phil. 2:6, harpagmos, is a noun, not a verb, and can either mean (a) a thing taken from someone else, or (b) a thing to be held onto.
...

Some modern Biblical Greek dictionaries mention meanings based only on theological interpretations and not actually on the original language.

Can you demonstrate with some historical support (besides the trinitarian interpretation of Phil. 2:6) that harpagmos has also the meaning (b) ?

[Bible_Student]

If there is no additional historical document confirming that harpagmos can mean "something one possesses that one wishes to keep," then that meaning is false, and was only invented after a misinterpretation of Phil. 2:6.

So that text can only mean one thing: although Jesus was in the form of God, he never wanted to be considered equal. In fact, the word "equal" in Greek here is plural.

[historia]

The word used here in Phil. 2:6, harpagmos, is a noun, not a verb, and can either mean (a) a thing taken from someone else, or (b) a thing to be held onto.

. . .

Can you demonstrate with some historical support (besides the trinitarian interpretation of Phil. 2:6) that harpagmos has also the meaning (b) ?

Sure. Allow me to quote the very next sentence after the one you just quoted:

Moreover, as I've noted in an earlier thread, the expression "consider X a thing to be grasped" is an idiom. It means "something to seize upon, to take advantage of," and, again, can either mean (a) something you seize from someone else for your advantage, or (b) something that you already possess that you seize upon for advantage ('exploit').

Follow that link to the earlier thread, where I cite the most recent scholarship on this issue and treat a specific example of (b).

Let me just note here, too, that the ante-Nicene Fathers understood harpagmos in the sense of (b), and they lived in the same culture and spoke the same language as the author of the Carmen Christi.

Some modern Biblical Greek dictionaries mention meanings based only on theological interpretations and not actually on the original language.

I'm using BDAG, which is universally recognized by scholars as the premiere Greek-English lexicon for the New Testament and Early Christian literature. I don't think I've ever heard anyone even suggest it has an orthodox theological bias.

If there is no additional historical document confirming that harpagmos can mean "something one possesses that one wishes to keep," then that meaning is false, and was only invented after a misinterpretation of Phil. 2:6.

So that text can only mean one thing: although Jesus was in the form of God, he never wanted to be considered equal.

Since your premise is demonstrably false, so is your conclusion.

[Bible_Student]

"Modern scholarship" is not "historical linguistical evidence".

Can you present, here please, any real historical document not related to Phil. 2:6 where that word means that?

[historia]

"Modern scholarship" is not "historical linguistical evidence".

Okay, but I didn't just cite modern scholarship in the earlier thread. As I just mentioned, I also gave a specific historical example. Just read a couple of posts down.

[Bible_Student]

"Modern scholarship" is not "historical linguistical evidence".

Okay, but I didn't just cite modern scholarship in the earlier thread. As I just mentioned, I also gave a specific historical example. Just read a couple of posts down.

Can you mention that specific example here, please?

I am asking for an actual simple sentence in (biblical/koine or classical) Greek translated in modern English, where that word means that.

[Bible_Student]

... I am asking for an actual simple sentence in (biblical/koine or classical) Greek translated in modern English, where that word means that.

None?

There are millions of documents in classical and biblical Greek. Is there not a single sentence in all that extensive documentation where that noun is translated with that second meaning?