Philippians 2:5-11

Dr. White’s article on Philippians 2:5-11.


About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Deity of Christ, Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Philippians 2:5-11

  1. θ says:

    If Jesus were equal with the God (instead of with the “person” of Father), Jesus must have been another God, and it is absolutely a belief of polytheism.

    One of miracles of Qur’an is it’s so much correct persistently on pointing out that the historical record on Jesus’ “crucifixion” is a man-made conjecture, i.e. Forgery.
    First. In 1Cor 15:3 Paul proves the truth of Qur’an by just dismissing the word “crucifixion”, even he didn’t use the word “slain” or “killed”. For Paul, Jesus just died naturally. It is according to Qur’an Q.19, v.33.

    Secondly. Moreover, Paul is also anti-History. For him, the Testimonium Flavianum is not a scripture. For Paul, Jesus is not crucified according to the History, but just died according to non-existent narration of “Scriptures”.
    1Cor 15:3
    For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

    Thirdly. By using the word “died” (rather than the word slain or killed or crucified), hence Paul doesn’t use Isaiah 53 (a killing of the God’s servant) to describe a natural death of Christ.

  2. θ says:

    Truth of Qur’an: Even Historians differ each other on the Forgery (worst conjectire):
    In his work Feldman describes the chief arguments for and against the Testimonium authenticity. Briefly they are as follows:
    Arguments for authenticity vs. against authenticity.
    1. Found in all surviving manuscripts. vs. Christian content unlikely from a Jewish writer (esp., “He was the Messiah.”).

    2. Quoted in full by Eusebius, c. 324 CE. vs. Writers earlier than Eusebius do not cite the passage; Origen states that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah.

    3. A more accepted reference to Jesus in Book 20 indicates that he must have been described earlier in the Antiquities, logically at the discussion of Pilate. vs. The passage breaks the continuity of the narrative concerning Pilate.

    4. Vocabulary and style are generally consistent with that of Josephus. vs. There are stylistic peculiarities that are not found in Josephus, such as the use of the first person in “the principal men among us”.

    5. No other passage in the Antiquities has been seriously questioned, so the burden of proof is on the skeptics. vs. Interpolations have been found in isolated manuscripts of Josephus, such as accounts of Jesus in the Slavonic version.

    Chronology of the Debate.
    The history of scholarly argument is as follows. For sources, see Feldman, Whiston, and the authors listed in the Books and Articles section. One can also read the quotations from Josephus and Agapius to which this chronology refers.
    93 CE. The book Jewish Antiquities by Josephus is published in Rome. It contains at least one reference to “James, the brother of Jesus called the Christ.” Manuscripts surviving today also contain a description of Jesus. But was this description present in the year 93?

    c. 230-250. The Christian writer Origen cites Josephus’ section on the death of James “the brother of Jesus” in Book 20 of the Antiquities; but states Josephus did not believe in Jesus, and does not cite the TF passage in Book 18.

    c. 324. Eusebius quotes the TF in full, in the form that survives today in all manuscripts.
    1971. In a startling find, Shlomo Pines publishes citations of the TF appearing in Arabic and Syriac works of the 9th-10th century. These quotations substantially resemble our current Testimonium, but do not have two of the most suspicious phrases: “he was the Messiah” and “if indeed he can be called a man”. Pines suggests these editions may have used an authentic, uninterpolated version of Josephus’ work.1973-1983. Karl Rengstorf publishes his massive concordance of Josephus’ work, listing references to every word, allowing scholars for the first time a tool to study Josephus’ style quantitatively.1984. J. Neville Birdsall uses Rengstorf’s new concordance to study the style of the TF, concludes that there are too many discrepancies for the passage to be genuine, and may be entirely forged.

    Concerning Josephus, no doubt his alleged report on Jesus is really a shameful forgery.

    Testimonium Flavianum
    Most modern scholars agree that while this Josephus passage (called the Testimonium Flavianum) includes some later interpolations, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate.[67][68][69] It is notable that Josephus and other historians didn’t live during Jesus’ lifetime.

    The three perspectives
    Paul L. Maier, and separately Zvi Baras state that scholars generally fall into three camps over the authenticity of the Testimonium:
    1. It is entirely authentic,
    2. It is entirely a Christian forgery and
    3. It contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus’ authentic material about Jesus.[4][133]

    Paul Maier states that the first case is generally seen as hopeless, given that a Jew, Josephus would not have claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and that the second option is hardly tenable given the presence of the reference in all Greek manuscripts; thus a large majority of modern scholars accept the third alternative, i.e. partial authenticity.[4]

    Baras adds that the third position is more plausible because it accepts parts of the passage as genuine, but discounts other parts as interpolations.[133] Craig Evans (and separately Robert Van Voorst) state that most modern scholars accept the position that the Testimonium is partially authentic, had a kernel with an authentic reference to Jesus, and that the analysis of its content and style support this conclusion.[134][115] While before the advent of literary criticism most scholars considered the Testimonium entirely authentic, thereafter the number of supporters of full authenticity declined.[135]

    However, most scholars now accept partial authenticity and many attempt to reconstruct their own version of the authentic kernel, and scholars such as Geza Vermes have argued that the overall characterizations of Jesus in the Testimonium are in accord with the style and approach of Josephus.[135] [136][137][138][139]

Comments are closed.