Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I honestly don't see how you can say you aren't accepting a Christian apologetic reading... by then quoting a Christian apologist like Origen.

By the time of Origen, Jesus was assumed to have been the pre-existent Son of God. So he would naturally interpret this to mean a heavenly origin.

Same comment. The Marcionites also believed that Jesus descended from heaven, so would interpret things that way. As would a Doherty, who requires a high Christology to match his theory.

But Paul doesn't say that. Here is the passage in full. Phil 2:6-11 is generally regarded as a pre-Pauline hymn, so I will separate that out so we can ignore it for the moment:

Phil2:3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.
4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,

6 Who:

being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
14 Do all things without complaining and disputing,
15 that you may become blameless and harmless, the sons of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world...

Paul is using Christ as an example for unselfish behaviour here, and invokes the hymn to do this. Christ was obedient, and was exalted for it. That seems to be the point that Paul is making here. It isn't a theological statement about the origin of Christ.

As I wrote before, being "in the form of God" mirrors the idea that man is made in the image of God; "did not grasp at being equal with God" suggests Gen 3:22, where God says that "Behold, the man is become as one of us" after Adam disobeys God and takes of the fruit of the tree. I think it has to do with the office of "Messiah". The Christ was expected as being more than a man. He was going to be a warrior, or a king, or a high priest. But instead he came as a servant, obedient to God, and was thus exalted.

In short: reading a heavenly origin into the text is not an interpretation, it is an importation. Only those who require a high Christology -- your orthodox Christian apologist, your Marcionite and your Doherty -- will interpret things that way.

Originally Posted by dog-on

Doesn't fly Don.

Look at the hymn a bit more closely.

Conscious choice and action prior to the event - pre-existence.

State: being in the form of God

Conscious choice and action: but made Himself - taking the form of

New state: and coming in the likeness of men.

Notice that I need import nothing, whereas you need to import, not only Genesis and the Gospel narrative, but the enlightenment as well.

Originally Posted by MCalavera

I honestly don't see how Philippians 2:6-11 doesn't imply a heavenly origin for Jesus.

being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

It's implying some form of incarnation and transition from somewhere high to somewhere lower. Where did he come from then if it's not from heaven?

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

No, you are reading it through Christian apologetic glasses. There is nothing there about pre-existence, nor about Jesus being in heaven.

Originally Posted by archibald

Personally, it wouldn't even bother me if there was a heavenly origin mentioned, since place of origin and arrival in the likeness of a man are two entirely different things, and some appear to be only reading the former.

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

You're right, of course. A heavenly origin and pre-existence still doesn't mean no historical Jesus. But I think we should be careful of importing later orthodox beliefs into Paul. What if Paul thought differently to current day orthodoxy? We need to read Paul for Paul. But because Doherty needs a high Christology for his theories to work, he finds this difficult. He relies on the same arguments as the fundies for his readings here.

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

That Christ was crucified (rather than a king) was a stumbling block to the Jews. But for Paul, Jesus was obedient unto death, thus confirming he was the Christ, and so given the name of "Lord".

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

You're right, of course. A heavenly origin and pre-existence still doesn't mean no historical Jesus. But I think we should be careful of importing later orthodox beliefs into Paul. What if Paul thought differently to current day orthodoxy? We need to read Paul for Paul. But because Doherty needs a high Christology for his theories to work, he finds this difficult. He relies on the same arguments as the fundies for his readings here.