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?

[Bible_Student]

I suppose if that alternate meaning of harpagmos were real, its proponents would have already cited one specific sentence at least where that was actually the translation of that word. So it seems evident that this alternate meaning was invented from the Trinitarian interpretation of Phil. 2:6.

Could it be traced back to the first time Phil. 2:6 was translated so that it would be interpreted like this?

I think there could be versions of Philippians in different languages; perhaps those translations could help trace this "interpretative" error to find out when this wrong translation of that word started to be used here and why.

This are the facts:
Here in Phil. 2:6 a comparison is being made between two people: God and another person. That means that GOD is considered a being independent of the other person. It is impossible from a biblical point of view that anyone, no matter who they are, can be equated with God.

The question could be: when did Jesus really begin to be considered equal to his Father? That was not possible in the first century, no matter what Paul wrote and first Christians read.

[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.

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.

That's precisely what I gave in the other thread.

I'm not sure why it's so hard to click on the link and read it, but, since you seem to be having a hard time doing that, let me just quote the relevant part here. I'll even bold the reference you're looking for:

To 'seize' means to take hold of something. That can either have the sense of (a) seizing something from someone else ("robbing"), or (b) seizing upon something that you already possess in order to use it for your own advantage ("exploiting").

To illustrate the latter sense with regard to harpagmos, let's look at one of the examples that Hoover cites in his work.

In De Adoratione 1.25, Cyril of Alexandria provides some commentary on Genesis 19:1-3, in which Lot invites two angels to lodge at his house. The angels initially decline Lot's invitation, but he presses them to accept it, even though doing so puts him and his family at peril, since it could bring about later violence from the other residents of Sodom. Cyril commends Lot's courage, saying:

"Lot did not regard his entreaty as harpagmon, as if it were from a listless and wishywashy heart."

Martin explains (pg. 289):

That is, Lot did not merely extend a half-hearted invitation, one that would be easily declined, to preserve both his honor (which required the invitation) and his safety (which required its refusal). Rather, he regarded his invitation as a matter of honor over advantage, and so was persistent in his entreaty, knowing well the danger it would bring upon his house.

In this example, Lot already possess the thing that he can seize upon for his own advantage. He is the one offering the invitation. And thus he can choose to offer it in such a way as to get himself off the hook, thus exploiting it to his own personal advantage. But he chooses not to do that, taking the honorable course instead.

So here, contrary to the sources you cited above, we have a clear example of harpagmos used in the sense of something to exploit.

Back to your posts:

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?

I suppose if that alternate meaning of harpagmos were real, its proponents would have already cited one specific sentence at least where that was actually the translation of that word.

My guy, I gave you an historical example several posts ago, you just didn't bother to click the link and read it.

I realize you're new here, so let me clue you in on something: On this forum, people don't always respond to you right away. Many of us are engaged in multiple discussions or have things to do outside of this forum. Posting multiple follow-ups where you assume the delay in your opponent's response somehow reflects their inability to respond is not a good look.

[Bible_Student]

You are quoting the words of someone who says how he interprets another person who quotes that word talking about Lot's request to the angels...

I would not interpret that Greek word in that example the same way as that person you are mentioning.

Lot's request is not considered a harpagmos because he did not attempt to force the angels to please him.

Any other example?

[Bible_Student]

Please remember that the English word "to size" having alternative meanings does not imply that the Greek word does as well.

[historia]

You are quoting the words of someone who says how he interprets another person who quotes that word talking about Lot's request to the angels.

No, I quoted an historical example from Cyril of Alexandria, which is mentioned in two recent scholarly works on this topic, and then gave one of the scholars' commentary on the passage.

I would not interpret that Greek word in that example the same way as that person you are mentioning.

We have BDAG and two scholars pointing to this passage as an example of harpagmos in the sense of (b). Why should anyone here take your interpretation over those of experts?

Lot's request is not considered a harpagmos because he did not attempt to force the angels to please him.

Huh? Cyril says that there was something that Lot considered to be harpagmos. What is the thing that Cyril says was harpagmos to Lot? Here's the text again, I'll bold it for you:

Lot did not regard his entreaty as harpagmon, as if it were from a listless and wishywashy heart.

[Bible_Student]

You are quoting the words of someone who says how he interprets another person who quotes that word talking about Lot's request to the angels.

No, I quoted an historical example from Cyril of Alexandria, which is mentioned in two recent scholarly works on this topic, and then gave one of the scholars' commentary on the passage.

No, you're not mentioning Cyril but another guy interpreting Cyril...

I would not interpret that Greek word in that example the same way as that person you are mentioning.

We have BDAG and two scholars pointing to this passage as an example of harpagmos in the sense of (b). Why should anyone here take your interpretation over those of experts?

Their opinion is not what I am asking for. I asked for historical linguistical evidence.

Lot's request is not considered a harpagmos because he did not attempt to force the angels to please him.

Huh? Cyril says that there was something that Lot considered to be harpagmos. What is the thing that Cyril says was harpagmos to Lot? Here's the text again, I'll bold it for you:

Lot did not regard his entreaty as harpagmon, as if it were from a listless and wishywashy heart.

Again: you are not quoting Cyril but another guy's interpretation of his words. The alternate meaning b) is present in that modern guy's interpretation, but totally absent in Cyril's words,

[Bible_Student]

Try this:

post Cyril's words directly with the translation of them into English (where that supposed idiomatic meaning of harpagmos is included).

... and let's see if it is true that that word in Cyril's comment means what that Martin (???) guy implies.

[historia]

Try this: post Cyril's words directly with the translation of them into English (where that supposed idiomatic meaning of harpagmos is included).

Again: you are not quoting Cyril but another guy's interpretation of his words.

Sorry, but you seem rather confused here. Here's what I said again:

In De Adoratione 1.25, Cyril of Alexandria provides some commentary on Genesis 19:1-3, in which Lot invites two angels to lodge at his house. The angels initially decline Lot's invitation, but he presses them to accept it, even though doing so puts him and his family at peril, since it could bring about later violence from the other residents of Sodom. Cyril commends Lot's courage, saying:

"Lot did not regard his entreaty as harpagmon, as if it were from a listless and wishywashy heart."

That quote there in bold is a direct translation of De Adoratione 1.25. This is not "another guy's interpretation," but simply what Cyril of Alexandria said. Those are his direct words.

We'll come back to the scholarship later, as that's (always) important. But let's just deal with what the text says first:

Cyril says that there was something that Lot did not consider to be harpagmos. What is the thing that Cyril says was not harpagmos to Lot?

[Bible_Student]

I am not confused. I think you are, about what I am asking you for, and about what the BDAG actually says on harpagmos.

I totally know where Cyril mentioned the word harpagmos, even if there's some confusion here about what exactly he is referring to as harpagmos,

1) Lot's entreaty or
2) the angels' demand in Gen. 19:15ff.

I don't think Cyril wrote in English and I am sure you are mentioning him (like those guys) because he used harpagmos in a Greek commentary of Gen. 19:15. Please, quote the whole Greek sentence where he mentions that word ... and let's talk about what he meant.

[onewithhim]

I really am lost as to what the problem is.

Perhaps I can help, then.

The Greek word for "grasp" is to selfishly snatch what was not yours to begin with.

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.

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').

We have examples in koine Greek where it is used in that latter sense of something you already posses that you exploit for your own advantage. So we simply cannot assert, as you seem to be suggesting here, that it only means snatching something that's not yours. That is mistaken.

I like the first definition, and it fits with the surrounding verses of Phil.2:6. You said yourself that it is one possible definition.