Peace humble_guest, The reason I made this post, and what I expect to be the focal point of discussions regarding all I said above is: Can the educated Muslim after reading the above, still try and present a conflict between the coexistence of Christ’s deity as the eternal word of God, and the general humility and submissiveness that He voluntarily excercised at various places in scripture?
In other words, what id like any educated Muslim to do regarding this topic ive raised, is to assume for arguments sake that Christ is indeed a hypostasis of God (which essentialy dictates that Christ is God Himself) and then after reading the above, still try and present a contradiction between this assumption, and the “so-called” & “apparent”, “problematic” verses which Muslims often raise to object His deity.
Regarding your question however, there is nothing really to expand upon which would be relevant to my initial aim of raising this topic, so what I will do is simply re-articulate the point that St Paul (under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit) was making. Please let me emphasise, that the point of this topic is not to discuss whether the Bible asserts Christs deity as the eternal word of God, but rather to investigate whether the verses that seem to suggest otherwise (that Christ was a mere man), really suggest what is incorrectly taken at face value by skeptics, as a result of misconception and fallacious reasoning?
Essentially, what that particular verse is saying is that Christ could rightfully claim equality with God (it wasn’t an unlawful claim), because He is eternally existent in the “form of God” due to the fact His identity as the eternal Word confirms Him as a hypostasis of God - essential part of God's being and therefore indeed God. Christ did not consider Himself invading God of His prerogatives, or depriving Him of any glory (which one would logically conclude if they considered all Christ’s sayings in context and objectively with a presupposition that Christ is a mere man). This is because it was indeed his own strict and unquestionable right as the previous verse dictates – He was eternally in the “form of God” – the eternal word. Christ said, “I and my Father are one” Jn. 10:30 (which in its immediate context supports the implication of a oneness of nature).
It is the highest degree of robbery for any mere man or mere creature to pretend to be equal with God, or profess himself one with the Father in this sense. Though Christ was from eternity in the form of God - possessing the same glory, yet He thought it appropriate to veil this glory, and not to appear with it among His own creation; and therefore He was made in the likeness of men, and took upon Himself the form or appearance of a servant. Had He retained the appearance of this ineffable glory, it would, in many respects, have prevented him from accomplishing the work which God gave him to do (which I discussed in my initial post); and his humiliation, as necessary to the salvation of men, could not have been complete (which is also briefly discussed in the latter half of my initial post amongst other factors).