Jesus is God -Joshua 5 - who was this man?

[Wootah]

Hi all,

Here is a good talk on Joshua 5:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

13 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”

14 “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord[e] have for his servant?”

15 The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.

Would Joshua bow down to not God? Don't angels say hey stop worshipping me if they are not God? Why was Joshua commanded to take off his sandals (think back to Moses)?

[onewithhim]

...
How Jesus cannot be God if He is equal with the Father? Phil 2:6

6 Although he was in the form of God and equal with God,
he did not take advantage of this equality.
(GOD'S WORD)

Interesting, for example King James version says in that:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phil 2:6

Bible tells Jesus is the image of God. So, in that way it can be said he has the form of God.

… He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. ...
Col. 1:14-16

But, the "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" may be more difficult to understand. I understand it means Jesus thought it would be wrong to say he is equal with God, which I think is reasonable, because image is not the same as the source of image. It would also be in contradiction with the part that says God is greater than Jesus (John 14:28), or with this:

For, "He put all things in subjection under his feet." But when he says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that he is excepted who subjected all things to him. When all things have been subjected to him, then the Son will also himself be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all.
1 Cor. 15:27-28

What is "form of a servant" mean? A man or not? (Phil 2:7)
And what is then "form of God" mean? (Phil 2:6)

Philippians 2:6
This verse has been the subject of much criticism, and some controversy. Dr. Whitby has, perhaps, on the whole, spoken best on this point; but his arguments are too diffuse to be admitted here. Dr. Macknight has abridged the words of Dr. Whitby, and properly observes that, "As the apostle is speaking of what Christ was before he took the form of a servant, the form of God, of which he divested himself when he became man, cannot be anything which he possessed during his incarnation or in his divested state; consequently neither the opinion of Erasmus, that the form of God consisted in those sparks of divinity by which Christ, during his incarnation, manifested his Godhead, nor the opinion of the Socinians, that it consisted in the power of working miracles, is well founded; for Christ did not divest himself either of one or the other, but possessed both all the time of his public ministry.
(Clarke)

Jesus took the form of a servant, meaning that he became a man, and not just a regular man but a perfect man. "In the form of God" means that Jesus was, in heaven before he came to earth, a spirit Person just like the Father (God) is. Whatever he did, he always gave the credit to the Father, and worked his miracles with the power that came from the Father (God). (John 11:41, 42; Matthew 28:18)

"In the form of God" means that Jesus was, in heaven before he came to earth, a spirit Person just like the Father (God) is." (quoted yours)

So, as like the Father, Jesus is God.

That's not what "in the form of God" means. There is nothing there to say to us that Jesus is God. "In the form of God" simply means that Jesus was a spirit Person, just like God is. That doesn't say that they are equal.

[Capbook]

...
How Jesus cannot be God if He is equal with the Father? Phil 2:6

6 Although he was in the form of God and equal with God,
he did not take advantage of this equality.
(GOD'S WORD)

Interesting, for example King James version says in that:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phil 2:6

Bible tells Jesus is the image of God. So, in that way it can be said he has the form of God.

… He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. ...
Col. 1:14-16

But, the "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" may be more difficult to understand. I understand it means Jesus thought it would be wrong to say he is equal with God, which I think is reasonable, because image is not the same as the source of image. It would also be in contradiction with the part that says God is greater than Jesus (John 14:28), or with this:

For, "He put all things in subjection under his feet." But when he says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that he is excepted who subjected all things to him. When all things have been subjected to him, then the Son will also himself be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all.
1 Cor. 15:27-28

What is "form of a servant" mean? A man or not? (Phil 2:7)
And what is then "form of God" mean? (Phil 2:6)

Philippians 2:6
This verse has been the subject of much criticism, and some controversy. Dr. Whitby has, perhaps, on the whole, spoken best on this point; but his arguments are too diffuse to be admitted here. Dr. Macknight has abridged the words of Dr. Whitby, and properly observes that, "As the apostle is speaking of what Christ was before he took the form of a servant, the form of God, of which he divested himself when he became man, cannot be anything which he possessed during his incarnation or in his divested state; consequently neither the opinion of Erasmus, that the form of God consisted in those sparks of divinity by which Christ, during his incarnation, manifested his Godhead, nor the opinion of the Socinians, that it consisted in the power of working miracles, is well founded; for Christ did not divest himself either of one or the other, but possessed both all the time of his public ministry.
(Clarke)

Jesus took the form of a servant, meaning that he became a man, and not just a regular man but a perfect man. "In the form of God" means that Jesus was, in heaven before he came to earth, a spirit Person just like the Father (God) is. Whatever he did, he always gave the credit to the Father, and worked his miracles with the power that came from the Father (God). (John 11:41, 42; Matthew 28:18)

"In the form of God" means that Jesus was, in heaven before he came to earth, a spirit Person just like the Father (God) is." (quoted yours)

So, as like the Father, Jesus is God.

That's not what "in the form of God" means. There is nothing there to say to us that Jesus is God. "In the form of God" simply means that Jesus was a spirit Person, just like God is. That doesn't say that they are equal.

So, we will use another logic on almost of the same phrase?
As Jesus in the "form of a servant". As you say a man.
And Jesus in the "form of God"? Why can't we use the same logic?

[Wootah]

1. So "form of a servant" means Jesus was like the man? Or Jesus is really man?
2. And "the form of God" means Jesus was like the God? Or Jesus is really God?
Kindly answer the number 1 question without evasion. In relation to 1Tim 2:5.

1 Tim 2:5
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
KJV

1. Form of servant means he was like a servant.
2. Form of God means he was like God. To be like God is not the same as to be the God.

Nothing can be in the form of God except God.

[Wootah]

So, we will use another logic on almost of the same phrase?
As Jesus in the "form of a servant". As you say a man.
And Jesus in the "form of God"? Why can't we use the same logic?

That nails it.

Option A they take literally assume form of a servant means a man.

Option B they don't take literally.

Just equivocation fallacy.

[1213]

Nothing can be in the form of God except God.

Not even the image of God?

… He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God,...
Col. 1:14-16

[Wootah]

Nothing can be in the form of God except God.

Not even the image of God?

… He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God,...
Col. 1:14-16

We are made in the image of God.

But would you say of yourself that if I have seen you I have seen God?

Try to elevate not denigrate the king.

[1213]

Nothing can be in the form of God except God.

Not even the image of God?

… He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God,...
Col. 1:14-16

We are made in the image of God.

But would you say of yourself that if I have seen you I have seen God?

Try to elevate not denigrate the king.

Yes, maybe i am not worth to be called image of God. However, Bible tells a man is the image of God. If you have seen the image of God, you have seen God, but not directly God.

[Wootah]

[Replying to 1213 in post #87]

If I have seen you have I seen the father? How can Jesus rightly claim: that if I have seen Jesus I have seen then the Father?

[1213]

How can Jesus rightly claim: that if I have seen Jesus I have seen then the Father?

Because he is the image of God, as the Bible tells.

… He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation....
Col. 1:14-16

If I take a picture of a house and show it to you, have you seen the house?

If Jesus is the one and only true God himself, why call him the image of God?

[Wootah]

How can Jesus rightly claim: that if I have seen Jesus I have seen then the Father?

Because he is the image of God, as the Bible tells.

… He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation....
Col. 1:14-16

If I take a picture of a house and show it to you, have you seen the house?

If Jesus is the one and only true God himself, why call him the image of God?

So how is Jesus different to you? If I see you, made in the image of God, have I seen the Father?