The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Philippians 2:6a proves Jesus-is-God christology versus Christadelphian christology

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,065 times Debate No: 38185
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Philippians 2:6 a) Who, existing in God's form b)esteemed it to be equal with God not something to took by force.

"Form" in English Language means:
2)visible shape
3) kind
4)mode of existence (e.g. a form of animal life; a form of blackmail)
5)A document with blanks for the insertion of details or information: (e.g. insurance forms)
6) to develop; conceive ( e.g. form an opinion).
7)To organize or arrange (e.g. The environmentalists formed their own party)

The Greek word translated in English as "Form" here is " Morphe".

Its literal meaning is "appearance that agrees with ones nature". This definition is from the Classical Greek and this denotation survives till the first century.

Figurative meaning came into existence also in the 1st Century whcich is " condition, rank and status in life"

Linguistic Analysis of the word "morphe" shows that it's not synonymous with "eikon":

Daniel 3:19 LXX ( morphe)
Genesis 1:26-27 LXX (eikon)
In Syriac, both are "c "lx " ( appearance).

"morphe" was used not because it is synonyms with "eikon" but because it covers a rare portion of the Syriac's semantic field that eikon doesn't.

In the LXX, morphe was never used of God and is always used to mean " appearance".

Moral nature Romans 12:2 ( are we to change in "appearance' only as Christians and not in our moral nature? also 2 Corinthians 3:18 and Galatians 4:19 ) Servant's nature Philippians 2:7 ( did he just "appeared" to be a servant or really become a servant?) God's nature Philippians 2:6 ( Hence, even though if it means "appearance" here it still requires that he has the Father's nature because only the Father has a divine appearance. Check out below)

"Son of Man" Daniel 7:13

"Son of Man" Revelation 1:13


"The hair of his head was pure like wool" Daniel 7:9

"The hairs of his head were white like wool, as white as snow" Revelation 1:14


"A Man clothed in Linen" Daniel 10:5

"A Man clothed with a Long Robe" Revelation 1:13


"With a belt of fine Gold" Daniel 10:5

"With a golden sash" Revelation 1:13


"His face like the appearance of lightning" Daniel 10:6

"His face was shining like the sun shining in full strength" Revelation 1:16


"His eyes like flaming torches" Daniel 10:6

"His eyes were like a flame of fire" Revelation 1:14


"His arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze: Daniel 10:6

"His feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace" Revelation 1:15


"The sound of his words like the sound of a multitude", Daniel 10:6

"His voice was like the roar of many waters" Revelation 1:15


"I fell on my face in deep sleep with my face to the ground" Daniel 10:9

"When I say him I fell at his feet as though dead" Revelation 1:17


"And behold a hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees" Daniel 10: 10

"But he laid his right hand on me"" Revelation 1:17


"Then he said to me, Fear not" Daniel 10: 12

""Saying, Fear not" Revelation 1:17


Jesus is equal to God in nature because he is neither in the form of angels nor in the form of men but in the form of God himself.


Thank you for this debate.

You state in you opening sentence this: Who, existing in God's form, and esteemed to be equal with God not something to took by force

I will address (a) first. We can read in Genesis about the creation of man. In the first chapter It is said "Let us create man in our own image." By this we can not only judge that there are two beings that decided this, as one was speaking to the other, but also that the two beings shared the same physical likeness. If, these two beings were God and Jesus then the definition of point (a) is that the shared the same form, but are not the same being.
Now I will address point (b). You state that Jesus in this verse is equal to God, and we can assume the second half states that he one could not have taken the powers granted to God/Jesus by force. However, we read in the four gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that God sent his only begotten son two live and die for us. I ask of you then how, even in our physical sense can father and son be one being? We can also read in those same few verses before and after the ones you mention about Jesus giving up his throne in heaven to come to Earth. It mentions that he was equal to God yes, but does not say he was God. It says Jesus came to Earth, not God. So I ask you again how can they possibly be one being?
You also mention many things about language, but I say this: somewhere in the Bible, I believe it is Acts 2:4-8 that it mentions every man heard the word of God spoken in his own tongue (language). I say this then: the literal translation of any language concerning morphe, form or any other words is meaningless. God does not speak an any language to his subjects unless needed he only talks directly to the soul with ways impossible for the human mind to understand.
Concerning the appearance argument I must first ask where doe sit say that only God has divine appearance? Although I am sure God looks much more divine than us, as I mentioned before it says in Genesis that he created us to look like them. I also must say that Jesus did indeed become a servant. Near his death he went around and washed his disciples feet. How much more servitude can you do than to wash your own followers feet? Also I must say that when Jesus came to Earth he resembled us because he became a man, like us. Although he obviously did not look like us when he was on Earth, before he left, and when he returned after death, it says in Revelations that he was clothed in heavenly raiment and the like, but it still defines him and God as two different beings.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting the debate. :)

I may agree that there only two persons in there. The one speaking speaks to another.Nonetheless, it doesn't ruled out the possibility that God talks with more than one person in Genesis 1:26 for the text is not explicit per se about the exact number of the referent persons.

Point a) is that whoever this person/these persons are they must be 1) fellows of God
2) equal to God in nature
because Genesis 1:26-27 itself explicitly said:

verse 26 God said , Let us create man in OUR IMAGE after our likeness

verse 27 and God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE

Point b) ONE BEING

"How, even in our physical sense can father and"the Son one in being?

The Son is the Wisdom per se of the Father that is why they are truly one being. If the Son is not the Wisdom per se of the Father then they are two beings.

-- 1 Cor. 1:24-25; Hebrews 1:3, Proverbs 8:22-31

The SENDER and the SENT one.

God sent his only begotten Son ( John 3:16).

Who is this God who sent his only begotten Son?

The only true God is THE FATHER ( John 17:3).
The one God is THE FATHER ( 1 Cor. 8:6)

When did God became a Father? A Father necessiWho is this only begotten Son?

It is Wisdom.

The Lord created me the first of his work before his works of old ( Proverbs 8:22 LXX).
Before the hills, he begets me ( Proverbs 8:25 LXX).

Premise 1: The Lord is eternal
Premise 2: The Lord begets Wisdom.
Conclusion: Wisdom is eternally begotten because the begetter is eternal.

He is the radiance of the light and the exact imprint of his being ( Hebrews 1:3).

All of this means that the only begotten Son is equal to God in nature.


Kind Sir...

I am confused as to the point of this debate. I believed it to be one arguing over the trinity theory, me being against it. I do not understand if you believe God and Jesus to be on being or two, for I believe them to be two separate beings, and I do believe they are alike in nature except for the fact that Jesus, after his journey to Earth, will never again be entirely equal with God. If you agree with that then our debate is pointless.
Debate Round No. 2


Don't be confuse. I believe in the Nicene Creed. I do believe that Jesus still has the nature of God while on earth.


IwinYoulose333 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


radz forfeited this round.


IwinYoulose333 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by radz 5 years ago
to call God a Father necessitates that he has an offspring.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.