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]

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.

But what you just wrote here disagrees with the second position from JehovahsWitness. He said that Jesus could, in fact, have made himself equal to God by usurping God's position. That was a possible (even if unlikely) outcome. On that view, we cannot say, as you just did, that "any attempt he made would have failed."

So why do you think JehovahsWitness is wrong?

The passage means that he did not even consider it.

onewithhim made this assertion earlier in the thread, but this is simply not what the text says. It does not say he did not even consider it. Rather, it says just the opposite, that he did consider it. It says, "Jesus considered equality with God to be not harpagmos."

[Bible_Student]

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.

But what you just wrote here disagrees with the second position from JehovahsWitness. He said that Jesus could, in fact, have made himself equal to God by usurping God's position. That was a possible (even if unlikely) outcome. On that view, we cannot say, as you just did, that "any attempt he made would have failed."

So why do you think JehovahsWitness is wrong?

The passage means that he did not even consider it.

onewithhim made this assertion earlier in the thread, but this is simply not what the text says. It does not say he did not even consider it. Rather, it says just the opposite, that he did consider it. It says, "Jesus considered equality with God to be not harpagmos."

I read JehovahsWitness's answer in context, and if I understood correctly, he says that Jesus could have compared himself to God in some things, depending on what the two were being compared about. However, he, like me, denies the possibility that Jesus could have occupied the position of his Father.

Scriptures are clear that Jehovah possesses things that he never shares. (Exo. 20:5; 34:14; Is. 42:8)

It is easy to see, also according to the Scriptures, that if Jesus had the form of God before being a human, in that aspect he could be considered "equal" to God, that is, in form. But it is evident that having the form of God does not mean having his authority, his knowledge, his power, or being in the same position as Him. For that same reason Jesus would never demand things that only belong to God.

Yes, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING to the rest of the Scriptures, even all Paul's inspired letters and context, that Phil. 2:6 could mean Jesus had "equality with God".

[historia]

However, he, like me, denies the possibility that Jesus could have occupied the position of his Father.

I would simply invite you to carefully reread what I quoted above:

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

Yes.

I asked JehovahsWitness point-blank if he thought it was possible for Jesus to seize (and thereby occupy) God's position, and he said yes. The context makes that clear. My entire discussion with him makes that clear.

He leaves no doubt about what that would entail:

God placing himself voluntarily in a inferior position and a contender occupying his vacated position as supreme ruler of the universe ** is** what Paul meant by "equal with God".

Why you think he's denying this possibility, then, is a bit beyond me. But, clearly, you disagree with JehovahsWitness on this point.

But it is evident that having the form of God does not mean having his authority, his knowledge, his power, or being in the same position as Him. For that same reason Jesus would never demand things that only belong to God.

Yes, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING to the rest of the Scriptures, even all Paul's inspired letters and context, that Phil. 2:6 could mean Jesus had "equality with God".

If it is "IMPOSSIBLE" for Jesus to have "equality with God," then why does the Carmen Christi even bring this idea up in the first place? What is the point of the text saying Jesus "considered equality with God to be not harpagmos," if it's impossible to be equal with God? Why is Jesus giving consideration to something that is impossible?

This is like saying that "Donald Trump considered the ability to turn himself into a unicorn not something he should use to his advantage." What does it matter whether he thinks it's something he should use to his advantage or not, if it's not possible for him to turn himself into a unicorn in the first place?

[Bible_Student]

But it is evident that having the form of God does not mean having his authority, his knowledge, his power, or being in the same position as Him. For that same reason Jesus would never demand things that only belong to God.

Yes, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING to the rest of the Scriptures, even all Paul's inspired letters and context, that Phil. 2:6 could mean Jesus had "equality with God".

If it is "IMPOSSIBLE" for Jesus to have "equality with God," then why does the Carmen Christi even bring this idea up in the first place? What is the point of the text saying Jesus "considered equality with God to be not harpagmos," if it's impossible to be equal with God? Why is Jesus giving consideration to something that is impossible?

This is like saying that "Donald Trump considered the ability to turn himself into a unicorn not something he should use to his advantage." What does it matter whether he thinks it's something he should use to his advantage or not, if it's not possible for him to turn himself into a unicorn in the first place?

I could explain that with the fact that Jesus knew individuals who had considered that nonsense before, thinking that perhaps it could be possible:

1) Eve, when the Serpent told her that they would be like God if they ate from the tree, and
2) an individual spoken of in Is. 14:12-14 (maybe the same cherub spoken of in Eze. 28:12-19).

[historia]

What is the point of the text saying Jesus "considered equality with God to be not harpagmos," if it's impossible to be equal with God? Why is Jesus giving consideration to something that is impossible?

This is like saying that "Donald Trump considered the ability to turn himself into a unicorn not something he should use to his advantage." What does it matter whether he thinks it's something he should use to his advantage or not, if it's not possible for him to turn himself into a unicorn in the first place?

I could explain that with the fact that Jesus knew individuals who had considered that nonsense before, thinking that perhaps it could be possible

And? Are you saying therefore Jesus also thought "that nonsense" could be possible?

As we saw above, the phrase "consider X to be harpagmos" is an idiom. It means "something to use to one's own advantage." Putting aside the question of whether Jesus already possess it or not, the text is saying that he "considered equality with God not something to use to his own advantage."

Unless your argument here is that he was just delusional about this, it seems evident that, for Jesus to consider whether or not X is something to use to his own advantage, it must be possible for him to possess X.

Recall, too, the context of this verse: Paul is citing this as an example of being humble. If it's impossible for Jesus to be equal with God, then the text is essentially saying that Jesus refrained from doing the impossible. But that doesn't make any sense as an example of humility. There are literally millions and millions of things that are impossible for you to do. The fact that you refrain from doing them (or even considering them) isn't a sign of you being humble.

It seems to me JehovahsWitness correctly understands this, which is why he acknowledges that Jesus could, in fact, be equal to God -- albeit, according to him, in just one specific aspect, by occupying God's position.

an individual spoken of in Is. 14:12-14 (maybe the same cherub spoken of in Eze. 28:12-19).

I'm not sure why you're being cryptic about who these texts are referring to. Isaiah 14 is explicitly about the king of Babylon, while Ezekiel 28 is explicitly about the king of Tyre.

[Bible_Student]

You insist too much on the same things. If it is true that you do not like "chitchat", it would be better if you did not repeat yourself so much, especially when the answers have already been given.

What is the point of the text saying Jesus "considered equality with God to be not harpagmos," if it's impossible to be equal with God? Why is Jesus giving consideration to something that is impossible?
This is like saying that "Donald Trump considered the ability to turn himself into a unicorn not something he should use to his advantage." What does it matter whether he thinks it's something he should use to his advantage or not, if it's not possible for him to turn himself into a unicorn in the first place?

I could explain that with the fact that Jesus knew individuals who had considered that nonsense before, thinking that perhaps it could be possible

And? Are you saying therefore Jesus also thought "that nonsense" could be possible?

Jesus did not write this tribute to himself. Paul wrote it under inspiration. As a praise to Jesus, it is obvious that these are words dedicated to him from the perspective of an observer.

As we saw above, the phrase "consider X to be harpagmos" is an idiom. It means "something to use to one's own advantage."

That IS NOT what it says.

Putting aside the question of whether Jesus already possess it or not, the text is saying that he "considered equality with God not something to use to his own advantage."
Unless your argument here is that he was just delusional about this, it seems evident that, for Jesus to consider whether or not X is something to use to his own advantage, it must be possible for him to possess X.

Again: that IS NOT what it says.

Recall, too, the context of this verse: Paul is citing this as an example of being humble. If it's impossible for Jesus to be equal with God, then the text is essentially saying that Jesus refrained from doing the impossible. But that doesn't make any sense as an example of humility. There are literally millions and millions of things that are impossible for you to do. The fact that you refrain from doing them (or even considering them) isn't a sign of you being humble.

Yes, it is Paul's inspired view, an observer. We all can see the same Paul understood when we study the Scriptures.

It seems to me JehovahsWitness correctly understands this, which is why he acknowledges that Jesus could, in fact, be equal to God -- albeit, according to him, in just one specific aspect, by occupying God's position.

What JehovahsWitness knows is exactly what I know. We have one and the same mind about this issues.
Don't keep insisting on confronting us, it won't work.

an individual spoken of in Is. 14:12-14 (maybe the same cherub spoken of in Eze. 28:12-19).

I'm not sure why you're being cryptic about who these texts are referring to. Isaiah 14 is explicitly about the king of Babylon, while Ezekiel 28 is explicitly about the king of Tyre.

TThe passages do not speak directly of the Opponent of God, as you say. But it is evident that the king of Babylon and the king of Tyre were greedy people who, despite what they had, wanted more, to the point where greed corrupted them. This is not an original behavior of theirs, it had already happened before. That is why one of the passages speaks of the cherub who was in Eden, comparing the king's behavior with that spiritual being in a "cryptic" way, if you want to call it that.

[onewithhim]

You insist too much on the same things. If it is true that you do not like "chitchat", it would be better if you did not repeat yourself so much, especially when the answers have already been given.

What is the point of the text saying Jesus "considered equality with God to be not harpagmos," if it's impossible to be equal with God? Why is Jesus giving consideration to something that is impossible?
This is like saying that "Donald Trump considered the ability to turn himself into a unicorn not something he should use to his advantage." What does it matter whether he thinks it's something he should use to his advantage or not, if it's not possible for him to turn himself into a unicorn in the first place?

I could explain that with the fact that Jesus knew individuals who had considered that nonsense before, thinking that perhaps it could be possible

And? Are you saying therefore Jesus also thought "that nonsense" could be possible?

Jesus did not write this tribute to himself. Paul wrote it under inspiration. As a praise to Jesus, it is obvious that these are words dedicated to him from the perspective of an observer.

As we saw above, the phrase "consider X to be harpagmos" is an idiom. It means "something to use to one's own advantage."

Harpagmos has the meaning of to snatch something greedily, and as you say, to use to one's own advantage. It denotes selfishness and rapaciousness. These things Jesus would never involve himself in.

[Capbook]

You insist too much on the same things. If it is true that you do not like "chitchat", it would be better if you did not repeat yourself so much, especially when the answers have already been given.

What is the point of the text saying Jesus "considered equality with God to be not harpagmos," if it's impossible to be equal with God? Why is Jesus giving consideration to something that is impossible?
This is like saying that "Donald Trump considered the ability to turn himself into a unicorn not something he should use to his advantage." What does it matter whether he thinks it's something he should use to his advantage or not, if it's not possible for him to turn himself into a unicorn in the first place?

I could explain that with the fact that Jesus knew individuals who had considered that nonsense before, thinking that perhaps it could be possible

And? Are you saying therefore Jesus also thought "that nonsense" could be possible?

Jesus did not write this tribute to himself. Paul wrote it under inspiration. As a praise to Jesus, it is obvious that these are words dedicated to him from the perspective of an observer.

As we saw above, the phrase "consider X to be harpagmos" is an idiom. It means "something to use to one's own advantage."

Harpagmos has the meaning of to snatch something greedily, and as you say, to use to one's own advantage. It denotes selfishness and rapaciousness. These things Jesus would never involve himself in.

Lexicon defined harpagmos, as Jesus always had the nature of God and did not consider that remaining equal with God was something to be held on to forcibly.

NT:725 Harpagmos that which is to be held on to forcibly, something to hold by force, something to be forcibly retained.
He always had the nature of God and did not consider that remaining equal with God was something to be held on to forcibly Phil 2:6. Hapagmos may mean not only to grasp something forcefully which one does not have but also to retain by force what one possesses, it is possible to translate Phil 2:6 in two quite different ways. This second interpretation of harpagmos presumes the position of Jesus prior to the incarnation and hence his willingness to experience the kenosis or 'emptying' of his divine prerogatives. In any translation of Phil 2:6 it is important that both possible renderings be clearly indicated, one in the text and the other in the margin.
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)

[JehovahsWitness]

... Hapagmos may mean not only to grasp something forcefully which one does not have but also to retain by force what one possesses, it is possible to translate Phil 2:6 in two quite different ways. ....
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)

Agreed. The immediate and larger context of the bible indicates which of the two ways is best. Jesus never being identified as Almighty God indicates that the most suitable way of the two possibilities is "to grasps forcefully [that] which one does not have"

[onewithhim]

You insist too much on the same things. If it is true that you do not like "chitchat", it would be better if you did not repeat yourself so much, especially when the answers have already been given.

What is the point of the text saying Jesus "considered equality with God to be not harpagmos," if it's impossible to be equal with God? Why is Jesus giving consideration to something that is impossible?
This is like saying that "Donald Trump considered the ability to turn himself into a unicorn not something he should use to his advantage." What does it matter whether he thinks it's something he should use to his advantage or not, if it's not possible for him to turn himself into a unicorn in the first place?

I could explain that with the fact that Jesus knew individuals who had considered that nonsense before, thinking that perhaps it could be possible

And? Are you saying therefore Jesus also thought "that nonsense" could be possible?

Jesus did not write this tribute to himself. Paul wrote it under inspiration. As a praise to Jesus, it is obvious that these are words dedicated to him from the perspective of an observer.

As we saw above, the phrase "consider X to be harpagmos" is an idiom. It means "something to use to one's own advantage."

Harpagmos has the meaning of to snatch something greedily, and as you say, to use to one's own advantage. It denotes selfishness and rapaciousness. These things Jesus would never involve himself in.

Lexicon defined harpagmos, as Jesus always had the nature of God and did not consider that remaining equal with God was something to be held on to forcibly.

NT:725 Harpagmos that which is to be held on to forcibly, something to hold by force, something to be forcibly retained.
He always had the nature of God and did not consider that remaining equal with God was something to be held on to forcibly Phil 2:6. Hapagmos may mean not only to grasp something forcefully which one does not have but also to retain by force what one possesses, it is possible to translate Phil 2:6 in two quite different ways. This second interpretation of harpagmos presumes the position of Jesus prior to the incarnation and hence his willingness to experience the kenosis or 'emptying' of his divine prerogatives. In any translation of Phil 2:6 it is important that both possible renderings be clearly indicated, one in the text and the other in the margin.
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)

I like the rendering in your Lexicon: "Harpagmos may mean not only to grasp something forcefully which one does not have....." That is one meaning your Lexicon says is possible. I agree with that.