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]

Please, quote the whole Greek sentence where he mentions that word ... and let's talk about what he meant.

I'm happy to do that, but let's dispel some of the confusion here first.

I am not confused.

If so, then I'm left wondering why, in your prior reply, you claimed I wasn't "mentioning Cyril" or "quoting Cyril" when I had clearly done both.

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.

Any confusion on this particular point is more understandable: The problem here is that, in the entry for harpagmos, BDAG cites De Adoratione 1.25 and gives this gloss: "Lot does not regard the angels' demand (Gen. 19:15ff) as a ἁρπαγμός 'prize'."

But that is simply mistaken. Cyril's use of harpagmos in De Adoratione 1.25 is unquestionably about Lot's entreaty to the angels to stay in his home, as "those guys" -- which is to say, the scholars who know more about this than you or I ever will -- indicate in the peer-reviewed journal articles cited above. It is not about the angels' demand that he leave the city found in Gen 19:15.

Unfortunately, there is no standard English translation of De Adoratione, otherwise I would just point you to that so you can see this for yourself. However, the original Greek text is available in the Patrologia Graeca, and that helpfully has a parallel Latin text from which we can easily derive an English translation.

Now, I want you to carefully read what I'm about to say here, so we can avoid some of the unnecessary back-and-forth that has plagued our conversation to date: Below is a (rough) English translation from the Latin text, just so you can appreciate the surrounding context of the sentence we are considering. Nothing hinges on the precise wording of this translation, so we don't need to fret over those details. I just want everyone to see what Cyril of Alexandria is in general talking about in this text.

I'm going to leave the key sentence in the original Greek, however, and return to that afterward, as that is what really counts here, and we have good translations for that from scholars. I'm starting a little bit back into De Ador. 1.24:

When Lot -- who was of the seed of Abraham and brought up in the right laws and earnestly desirous of piety to God -- dwelt in Sodom, he lived among them as a stranger and a guest, both by race and manners. For what is the association of light with darkness? Or what part does the faithful person have with the infidel? For he knew that this was pleasing to God.

But when those who were about to inflict punishment on men enraged by unbridled lust -- these were the angels -- had come, Lot met them eagerly, and showed them the most evident example of his kindness in the fact that he greeted them. For he lay prostrate on the ground, and he exhorted them to go into his home and enjoy the laws of charity. But they said, "No, we will remain in the street." By these words the guests indeed signified that they were also homeless.

But at the same time they incited, I think, a man who was devoted to hospitality to an even greater exertion of effort, and only politely insinuated that it would not be honorable for him if he let himself be shut out of the houses and thrown out into the streets. When that just man understood this, he began to press more vehemently, and οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν τὴν παραίτησιν ὡς ἐξ ἀνδρανοῦς καὶ ὑδαρεστέρας ἐποιεῖτο φρενός. And so he led them home, laid out unleavened bread, and prepared a banquet. And this indeed is that righteous man.

But the Sodomites, when they were afflicted with the disease of open and base pleasure, nefariously surrounded the house of the pious man, and, having gone beyond the bounds of extreme impudence, contended to be allowed the usual use of lust. And, on whom they had the duty of conferring hospitality, they wished to exercise a lust beyond nature in them. When Lot was trying to turn them away from such fierce and hostile captives, they wanted to bring force, and it would not be long before they brought force against him except those saviors were present. For those men stretched out their hands and drew Lot to his house, and shut the doors of the house. And the men who were at the doors of the house were struck with blindness, from the least to the greatest, and were exhausted in seeking the door.

BDAG gives the correct reference to this occurrence of harpagmos in the Greek text, "MPG, LXVIII 172c" (the translation above covers 172b through 172d). But, as anyone can see, this is obviously a commentary on Gen. 19:1-11 concerning Lot's invitation to the angels. So the gloss for this reference in BDAG is in error (people make mistakes).

To that end, we can simply rule out the mistaken idea that this reference is about the "angel's demand" in Gen. 19:15, as well as your earlier suggestion it concerns Lot "not attempting to force the angels to please him," as that is not at all what Cyril of Alexandria is describing here.

Instead he says that Lot did:

οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν τὴν παραίτησιν ὡς ἐξ ἀνδρανοῦς καὶ ὑδαρεστέρας ἐποιεῖτο φρενός

not harpagmon the entreaty as from a listless and watery consider heart

Some scholars have noted that παραίτησιν can, less-commonly, mean "a refusal," and so have wondered if perhaps Cyril has the angels' initial declining of Lot's invitation in mind here. But Cyril describes the παραίτησιν "as from a wishy-washy heart" (singular), so this must be a reference to Lot, not the angels, otherwise it would be "hearts" (plural).

O'Neill's translation -- the one we started with -- is clearly correct:

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

So let me ask for the third time now: What is the thing that Cyril says was not harpagmos to Lot?

[Bible_Student]

I am not confused.

If so, then I'm left wondering why, in your prior reply, you claimed I wasn't "mentioning Cyril" or "quoting Cyril" when I had clearly done both.
(...) Unfortunately, there is no standard English translation of De Adoratione, otherwise I would just point you to that so you can see this for yourself.

I was asking you for a translation word by word of the sentence we are talking about.
As you say there's not one only version/translation in English, I guess you choose one of them ... and I guess you can't try to translate that sentence by yourself, but to rely on the translation you choose. That happens also in some believers about what version/translation of the Bible they want to rely on. I know now that you can't supply what I was asking for.

... 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.

Any confusion on this particular point is more understandable: The problem here is that, in the entry for harpagmos, BDAG cites De Adoratione 1.25 and gives this gloss: "Lot does not regard the angels' demand (Gen. 19:15ff) as a ἁρπαγμός 'prize'."

But that is simply mistaken.
(...)
BDAG gives the correct reference to this occurrence of harpagmos in the Greek text, "MPG, LXVIII 172c" (the translation above covers 172b through 172d). But, as anyone can see, this is obviously a commentary on Gen. 19:1-11 concerning Lot's invitation to the angels. So the gloss for this reference in BDAG is in error (people make mistakes).

It was you on post#285 who cited BDAG as an example of this word in a second meaning. And now you are telling me that they are wrong. I don't get it.

Cyril's use of harpagmos in De Adoratione 1.25 is unquestionably about Lot's entreaty to the angels to stay in his home, as "those guys" -- which is to say, the scholars who know more about this than you or I ever will -- indicate in the peer-reviewed journal articles cited above. It is not about the angels' demand that he leave the city found in Gen 19:15.

The word "unquestionably" doesn't go there.

Unfortunately, there is no standard English translation of De Adoratione, otherwise I would just point you to that so you can see this for yourself. However, the original Greek text is available in the Patrologia Graeca, and that helpfully has a parallel Latin text from which we can easily derive an English translation. (...)

Now, I want you to carefully read what I'm about to say here, so we can avoid some of the unnecessary back-and-forth that has plagued our conversation to date: Below is a (rough) English translation from the Latin text, just so you can appreciate the surrounding context of the sentence we are considering. Nothing hinges on the precise wording of this translation, so we don't need to fret over those details. I just want everyone to see what Cyril of Alexandria is in general talking about in this text.

I'm going to leave the key sentence in the original Greek, however, and return to that afterward, as that is what really counts here, and we have good translations for that from scholars. I'm starting a little bit back into De Ador. 1.24:

When Lot -- who was of the seed of Abraham and brought up in the right laws and earnestly desirous of piety to God -- dwelt in Sodom, he lived among them as a stranger and a guest, both by race and manners. For what is the association of light with darkness? Or what part does the faithful person have with the infidel? For he knew that this was pleasing to God.

But when those who were about to inflict punishment on men enraged by unbridled lust -- these were the angels -- had come, Lot met them eagerly, and showed them the most evident example of his kindness in the fact that he greeted them. For he lay prostrate on the ground, and he exhorted them to go into his home and enjoy the laws of charity. But they said, "No, we will remain in the street." By these words the guests indeed signified that they were also homeless.

But at the same time they incited, I think, a man who was devoted to hospitality to an even greater exertion of effort, and only politely insinuated that it would not be honorable for him if he let himself be shut out of the houses and thrown out into the streets. When that just man understood this, he began to press more vehemently, and οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν τὴν παραίτησιν ὡς ἐξ ἀνδρανοῦς καὶ ὑδαρεστέρας ἐποιεῖτο φρενός. And so he led them home, laid out unleavened bread, and prepared a banquet. And this indeed is that righteous man.

But the Sodomites, when they were afflicted with the disease of open and base pleasure, nefariously surrounded the house of the pious man, and, having gone beyond the bounds of extreme impudence, contended to be allowed the usual use of lust. And, on whom they had the duty of conferring hospitality, they wished to exercise a lust beyond nature in them. When Lot was trying to turn them away from such fierce and hostile captives, they wanted to bring force, and it would not be long before they brought force against him except those saviors were present. For those men stretched out their hands and drew Lot to his house, and shut the doors of the house. And the men who were at the doors of the house were struck with blindness, from the least to the greatest, and were exhausted in seeking the door.

(...)

I sincerely appreciate the effort you have done to bring a translation of the sentence in context. Who translated from Latin to English here?

To that end, we can simply rule out the mistaken idea that this reference is about the "angel's demand" in Gen. 19:15, as well as your earlier suggestion it concerns Lot "not attempting to force the angels to please him," as that is not at all what Cyril of Alexandria is describing here.

Since translations are not standard and there still is some darkness abount what is considered an "harpagmos" by Cyrill, I wouldn't say so. Actually, there's one more opinion about what that could be. I found this comment about Michael W. Martin article "HARPAGMOS Revisited" online:

Cyril of Alexandria in De Adoratione 1.25, commenting on Lot offering lodging to the two angels in Genesis 19:14, says that Lot's persistence in trying to get the angels to accept his offer of hospitality (after their initial refusal) shows that "he did not regard his invitation as something to take advantage of as from a listless and wishywashy heart" (οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν τὴν παραίτησιν ὡς ἐξ ἀνδρανοῦς καὶ ὑδαρεστέρας ἐποιεῖτο φρενός). As Martin comments: "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" (p. 189). He also explains that an active sense makes little sense here, for not being persistent in getting the angels to accept the invitation (as a person with a wishywashy heart would act) would not seize or rob anything at all from another party (i.e. gaining something he didn't already have like his safety from danger).

Instead he says that Lot did:

οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν τὴν παραίτησιν ὡς ἐξ ἀνδρανοῦς καὶ ὑδαρεστέρας ἐποιεῖτο φρενός
not harpagmon the entreaty as from a listless and watery consider heart

Some scholars have noted that παραίτησιν can, less-commonly, mean "a refusal," and so have wondered if perhaps Cyril has the angels' initial declining of Lot's invitation in mind here. But Cyril describes the παραίτησιν "as from a wishy-washy heart" (singular), so this must be a reference to Lot, not the angels, otherwise it would be "hearts" (plural).

This translation is a metaphorical expression, not literal. I am not too sure about how "heart" could indicate the number of the subjects except in the mind of the translator.

O'Neill's translation -- the one we started with -- is clearly correct:

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

You should say: "this is the version I consider more precise" ... It's your opinion.
You say before that we are practically nobodies to decide whatever ... and you can see there is not agreement about what Cyrill was considering harpagmos.

So let me ask for the third time now: What is the thing that Cyril says was not harpagmos to Lot?

I wouldn't dare to give an opinion. How would I go against the experts.

But I do know one thing: Jesus was not equal to God, because in the Scriptures we have many very precise statements about how unique Jehovah is:

Exo. 8:9,10; 9:14; 15:11;
Deut. 3:24; 33:26; 2 Sam. 7:22;
Psal. 40:5; 71:19; 86:8; 89:6;
Is. 40:18,25; 44:7; 46:5,9;
Jer. 10:6,7; 49:19; 50:44; Dan. 4:35.

Paul was an expert in the knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures. Do you think Paul would say that Jesus was equal to Jehovah?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #292]

Absolutely not would Paul say that Jesus was equal to Jehovah. He always distinguished between God and Jesus, always inferring that the Father was the superior One.

[Bible_Student]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #292]
Absolutely not would Paul say that Jesus was equal to Jehovah. He always distinguished between God and Jesus, always inferring that the Father was the superior One.

Of course.

Some modern Bible students rely too much on the so-called Biblical Scholarship... but they are forgetting that the Bible itself is a more than sufficient database on its own. Every true statement is confirmed, pier-reviewed, by many of the inspired writers of its internal documents, whether from the Law of Moses, the Prophets, or the Psalms.

That is why I wrote in my last post some Scriptures that prove beyond a doubt that Jehovah has no equal. Paul, the inspired writer of Phil. 2:6 knew this very well, for he clearly confesses that he believed "all the things set forth in the Law and written in the Prophets." (Acts 24:14).

We could argue, with different purposes, for pages about what Cyril of Alexandria meant when he used the word harpagmos, but it is what Paul said that really interests us. Understanding Paul's mind is more important than trying to understand Cyril's.

Relying on the explicit biblical statement and pier-reviewed by the rest of the inspired writers of other Biblical documents, we can clearly state that the sense of harpagmos as "something already possessed" does not apply at all in Phil. 2:6, for though Jesus had the form of God, He was never equal with Him. If that sense were true here, "equality with God", something never achieved before as seen in other Biblical information, would be something that someone would supposedly view as a goal and attained in the first place at some moment; but Jesus Himself said that “no one can snatch ... out (harpazo) of the hand of the Father” (John 10:29).

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #292]
Absolutely not would Paul say that Jesus was equal to Jehovah. He always distinguished between God and Jesus, always inferring that the Father was the superior One.

Of course.

Some modern Bible students rely too much on the so-called Biblical Scholarship... but they are forgetting that the Bible itself is a more than sufficient database on its own. Every true statement is confirmed, pier-reviewed, by many of the inspired writers of its internal documents, whether from the Law of Moses, the Prophets, or the Psalms.

That is why I wrote in my last post some Scriptures that prove beyond a doubt that Jehovah has no equal. Paul, the inspired writer of Phil. 2:6 knew this very well, for he clearly confesses that he believed "all the things set forth in the Law and written in the Prophets." (Acts 24:14).

We could argue, with different purposes, for pages about what Cyril of Alexandria meant when he used the word harpagmos, but it is what Paul said that really interests us. Understanding Paul's mind is more important than trying to understand Cyril's.

Relying on the explicit biblical statement and pier-reviewed by the rest of the inspired writers of other Biblical documents, we can clearly state that the sense of harpagmos as "something already possessed" does not apply at all in Phil. 2:6, for though Jesus had the form of God, He was never equal with Him. If that sense were true here, "equality with God", something never achieved before as seen in other Biblical information, would be something that someone would supposedly view as a goal and attained in the first place at some moment; but Jesus Himself said that “no one can snatch ... out (harpazo) of the hand of the Father” (John 10:29).

.

[historia]

I am not confused.

If so, then I'm left wondering why, in your prior reply, you claimed I wasn't "mentioning Cyril" or "quoting Cyril" when I had clearly done both.

I was asking you for a translation word by word of the sentence we are talking about.
. . .
I know now that you can't supply what I was asking for.

Huh? In my last reply, I gave you precisely what you asked for:

Instead he says that Lot did:

οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν τὴν παραίτησιν ὡς ἐξ ἀνδρανοῦς καὶ ὑδαρεστέρας ἐποιεῖτο φρενός

not harpagmon the entreaty as from a listless and watery consider heart

That is the original Greek text of the sentence we are talking about together with my own word by word translation into English.

This seems to be a pattern in our our discussion: You ask for something, I give it to you, and then you say I didn't. It seems like you just aren't reading very carefully what I've written.

Here's another part of your reply that, frankly, leaves me scratching my head:

To that end, we can simply rule out the mistaken idea that this reference is about the "angel's demand" in Gen. 19:15, as well as your earlier suggestion it concerns Lot "not attempting to force the angels to please him," as that is not at all what Cyril of Alexandria is describing here.

Since translations are not standard and there still is some darkness abount what is considered an "harpagmos" by Cyrill, I wouldn't say so. Actually, there's one more opinion about what that could be. I found this comment about Michael W. Martin article "HARPAGMOS Revisited" online:

Cyril of Alexandria in De Adoratione 1.25, commenting on Lot offering lodging to the two angels in Genesis 19:14, says that Lot's persistence in trying to get the angels to accept his offer of hospitality (after their initial refusal) shows that "he did not regard his invitation as something to take advantage of as from a listless and wishywashy heart" (οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν τὴν παραίτησιν ὡς ἐξ ἀνδρανοῦς καὶ ὑδαρεστέρας ἐποιεῖτο φρενός). As Martin comments: "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" (p. 189). He also explains that an active sense makes little sense here, for not being persistent in getting the angels to accept the invitation (as a person with a wishywashy heart would act) would not seize or rob anything at all from another party (i.e. gaining something he didn't already have like his safety from danger).

This isn't "one more opinion," it's the same scholarly opinion as the one I gave you at the outset of our discussion.

In fact, this Reddit comment you are quoting here is very similar to what I originally wrote, which again was:

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.

Both of us even give the exact same quote from Martin!

Obviously (one hopes anyway), we're saying the same thing here: What Cyril says is harpagmos to Lot is his invitation; that is, his entreaty to the angels to stay in his home.

Some scholars have noted that παραίτησιν can, less-commonly, mean "a refusal," and so have wondered if perhaps Cyril has the angels' initial declining of Lot's invitation in mind here. But Cyril describes the παραίτησιν "as from a wishy-washy heart" (singular), so this must be a reference to Lot, not the angels, otherwise it would be "hearts" (plural).

This translation is a metaphorical expression, not literal. I am not too sure about how "heart" could indicate the number of the subjects except in the mind of the translator.

Whether the term is metaphorical or literal doesn't change the grammar: If I say, "The students made antisemitic comments, but we don't know what's in their hearts," I'm using the term "hearts" in a metaphorical, rather than a literal, sense. But either way it's plural ("hearts") because I'm referring to multiple "students." If instead I was talking about an individual student, it would be singular ("heart").

Moreover, what would it mean, in context, for Cyril to refer to the angels' refusal as listless and watery? In the proceeding sentences, he indicates that the angels' refusal is actually rather sharp, as it calls into question Lot's honor. This is what Cyril says spurred Lot to redouble his efforts to invite them to stay in his home.

For a variety of reasons, then, it seems the more common meaning of paraitesis as "entreaty" is correct.

you can see there is not agreement about what Cyrill was considering harpagmos.

But, there are only two viable options here. And both renderings actually get us to the same overarching point: Cyril says Lot did "not consider the paraitesin to be harpagmon," an idiomatic expression that means he did not consider it something to be used to his own advantage. The angels have already given Lot their refusal -- he 'possesses' it. Likewise, Lot is the one re-offering the invitation -- he 'possesses' that too. Lot isn't seizing by force either their refusal or his invitation. He already has both at his disposal. And so he can take advantage of either, if he so chooses.

Your earlier suggestion that this somehow entails Lot "not attempting to force the angels to please him" has no support whatsoever.

So let me ask for the third time now: What is the thing that Cyril says was not harpagmos to Lot?

I wouldn't dare to give an opinion. How would I go against the experts.

I have no idea how you could justifiably go against the experts. Which is why it was surprising that you dared to do precisely that earlier in the thread:

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

"That person" being Michael Martin, the very scholar that you just quoted back to me in your last reply.

In fact, that Reddit post that you quoted from earlier is well worth reading in full, as the author neatly summarizes Martin and Hoover's research, highlighting the various historical examples where harpagmos and the interchangeable term harpagma are used in this particular idiom, and specifically those examples where the subject already possess the thing they consider to be harpagmos/harpagma.

Martin indicates that this is the scholarly consensus, and we have no compelling reason to go against that consensus.

This is why, too, BDAG says that harpagmos can be understood as "holding fast to something already obtained." BDAG is correct in this conclusion, even if, as we saw above, they made a minor mistake in summarizing one of the examples.

[historia]

We could argue, with different purposes, for pages about what Cyril of Alexandria meant when he used the word harpagmos, but it is what Paul said that really interests us. Understanding Paul's mind is more important than trying to understand Cyril's.

I agree completely!

Going forward, we just need to keep in mind that the term harpagmos can, in fact, mean either (a) something you seize by force from someone else, or (b) something you hold onto that you already possess.

Not only do we have modern scholars demonstrating that harpagmos sometimes means (b), as we just saw above. But, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, we also have the Early Church Fathers interpreting harpagmos here in Phil. 2:6 in the sense of (b) as well. So this has been a possible meaning of harpagmos from the very beginning. There's no sense trying to deny that fact.

[historia]

It is impossible from a biblical point of view that anyone, no matter who they are, can be equated with God.

So, earlier in the thread, I posed a question along these lines to two of your fellow Jehovah's Witnesses. They gave me two different answers:

Was it possible for Jesus to seize equality with God?

No.

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

Yes.

Perhaps we can start here. Tell me which of these two positions you agree with and why you think the other one is wrong.

[Bible_Student]

It is impossible from a biblical point of view that anyone, no matter who they are, can be equated with God.

So, earlier in the thread, I posed a question along these lines to two of your fellow Jehovah's Witnesses. They gave me two different answers:

Was it possible for Jesus to seize equality with God?

No.

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

Yes.

Perhaps we can start here. Tell me which of these two positions you agree with and why you think the other one is wrong.

I agree with both answers: Jesus could have tried to place himself on equal authority with God, but any attempt he made would have failed. The passage means that he did not even consider it.

The word παραίτησις which is the one considered ἁρπαγμός in Cyrill's sentence, can have three meanings: request, excuse and refusal.

Of course I won't dare to get into "experts" dissagreements. Who am I to get into that competence?

But Paul is even better expert, and the fact that "equality with God" is impossible is very well attested and peer-reviewed by many inspired biblical writers.

[onewithhim]

It is impossible from a biblical point of view that anyone, no matter who they are, can be equated with God.

So, earlier in the thread, I posed a question along these lines to two of your fellow Jehovah's Witnesses. They gave me two different answers:

Was it possible for Jesus to seize equality with God?

No.

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

Yes.

Perhaps we can start here. Tell me which of these two positions you agree with and why you think the other one is wrong.

I couldn't explain it any better than post #299.