You're still assuming Paul was using the morphe the same way as Aristotle.
Dude, I was responding to Holloway's point you cited. You didn't even cite Holloway correctly and you are still hammering on the Paul may not have understood Aristotle's morphe as essence point, even though Holloway never made that point for which you cited him for. I also refuted the notion that Aristotle refers to "outward appearance." So this is just all you, here, hammering away these points. You need to admit that you were wrong.
By the way, Robert Jewett writes:
In this case (“power”) and (“deity”) are linked with (“and”), producing the odd expression “God-power.” This unique formulation combines the crucial terms “God” and “power” from the thesis statement in v. 16 with the classical Greek concept of ἀΐδιος (“eternity”)1 that occurs in Hellenistic philosophy of religion2 and is found elsewhere only in Wis 18:9, where it refers to the divine origin of the law.
____________________________________________________________________
1 See Hermann Saase, “ἀΐδιος,” TDNT 1 (1964) 168, for the use in Plato and Aristotle to depict what is without beginning or ending. It is also a favorite term for Philo; see Plant. 8, 18; Spec. Leg. 1.10; 2.166; for other references in Philo, see BAGD 22. Fitzmyer, 280, cites a Hellenistic Jewish adoption of these ideas in Ep. Arist. 132: “There is only one god, and his power is manifest through everything.”
2 BAGD 354 lists Plutarch Mor. 398a; 665a; Lucian of Samosata Cal. 17; Hermotimus Wr. 9.1c; SIG 867.31; and Philo Opif. 172 v.1. Wilckens, 1:106, notes the expression "δύναμις καὶ θειότης" in Plato Leg. 691e. and the Latin parallel in Cicero Nat. d. 1.18.44.
So you can't hand wave Aristotle and Plato and the general philosophical background away; Paul uses language that resembles their philosophy directly or indirectly through Jewish-Hellenistic tradition influenced by them in Rom 1:20, such as Philo. Rom 1:20 also parallels Col 1:15, which was either written by Paul or shortly after his death by his disciples,. Col. 1.15 (" the invisible God"). Can't hand wave that away either. No wonder Holloway didn't take the approach you read into his work.
That's why this interpretation of morphe to mean "nature" or "essence" will always be forced and strained.
You are just asserting your viewpoints though with no substantiation. That sure is no way of demonstrating your side of things, don't you think?
You're ignoring the definition of morphe which means "shape" or "appearance." http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dmorfh%2F
I'm not ignoring anything.
- "But the term did not refer to external appearance alone; it regularly pointed to something more substantial. Similarly, from the NT contexts where μορφή and its cognates appear (noted above) it is clear that the word group describes not simply external appearance or behaviour but also that which inwardly corresponds (or is expected to correspond) to the outward." (Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, pp. 207)
The context of the passage is obviously speaking of physical appearance - "by taking the very form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man"
If morphe meant appearance, than when the hymn says that Christ took the “form of a slave” after his kenosis (v. 7), does the author have in mind that Christ merely looked like or had the external appearance of a slave?
The glory goes to "God the Father," not Jesus and see 1 Cor 15:28. Jesus is not equal to God. He is "subject" to him.
Later texts show that subordination is not necessarily in contradiction with divinity. Phil 2:6 says Jesus has equality with God: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage." This clearly equates Jesus with God. QED.
I don't see anything there to address. Jesus just serves the function as "Lord" which God gave to him.
Huh? In Isaiah, YHWH declares that, at the time of his kingdom come, "to me every knee will bow, every tongue will confess" (Isa 45:23). But in Phil 2, it is Jesus that everyone bows their knees towards.
Furthermore, in Paul's Jewish context the one who has the name above all other names can only be YHWH. But in Phil 2:9, the "name which is above every name" is the name of Jesus. Paul is clearly trying to indicate that Jesus is YHWH here.