John 1, and Philippians 2:5-7.

[Geert van den Bos]

The chronology is extremely clear from the phrasing. He was in the form of God, he emptied himself, and then he took on the form of a slave γένομενος in human likeness.

It happens (becomes) in Paul's "indivisible moment", 1Corinthians 15:52, ἐν ἀτόμῳ, ἐν ῥιπῇ ὀφθαλμοῦ

Of course, you have managed to exclude every single one of the extra-Biblical Greek sources which I listed earlier, which very clearly gloss γίνομαι with "to be born." So, here are a number of them, again:

νέον γεγαώς, Od.19.400
ὑπὸ Τμώλῳ γεγαῶτας, Il.2.866
“ἢ πρόσθε θανεῖν ἢ ἔπειτα γίγνομαι” Hes.Op.175
γιγνομέναισι λάχη τάδ᾽ . . ἐκράνθη, A.Eu.347
“γίγνομαι ἔκ τινος” Il.5.548, Hdt.7.11
γεγονέναι κακῶς, καλῶς, Ar.Eq.218, Isoc.7.37

-- they don't say a thing being ripped out of context from extra-biblical sources.

Not only did I explicitly denote that "Jesus was in the form of God" doesn't equate Jesus to God, but Paul explicitly denotes this, as well, in the very next clause of the sentence: [Jesus] did not regard being equal with God as something to be grasped after.

but you cling to your translation "born".

That is entirely irrelevant to the word γίνομαι.

More pareidolic claptrap.

Paul mentions the 430 years of Exodus 12:40 in Galatians 3:17, This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.

The exodus occurring 400 years after the birth of Isaac, i.e. 500 years after the birth of Abraham. So the "promise" must have been made when Abraham was 70 years old. But Abraham was 75 years when leaving Charan (Genesis 12:4), while between Genesis 12 and Genesis 15 (about the "covenant between the pieces") many things did happen, that you might think "the covenant ratified by God" must have taken place when Abraham was at least 80.

Paul must have known this, if not then he is not a very reliable source.

I seems to be a play with numbers , ie. gematrial. The number of missing five years coinciding the value of the letter "hey" that was added to the name Abram? I would think so.

430 is gematria of "nefesh" = soul, the soul Jesus was ready to give away as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45), i.e. the wine of which he said: "this is my blood of the covenant"

In Egypt the soul was trapped like a bird in a cage.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

the word "before" doens't occur either.

The chronology is extremely clear from the phrasing. He was in the form of God, he emptied himself, and then he took on the form of a slave γένομενος in human likeness.

Yet it is also not clear that in Hellenistic understanding "genomenos" should mean "born".

"Born" in NT:

Matthew 1:16, Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός. [I][I]Jacob fathered Jospeh teh husband of Mary out of whom was born Jesus who was called Christ.

Verb used γεννάω

Same in Matthew 2:1.2.4; 11:11; 19:12; 26:24; Luke 1:35; 2:11; John 1:13; 3:3; 3:4.5.6.7.8; 8:41; 9:2; 9:19.20.34; 16:21; 18:37; Acts 2:8; 22:28; Romans 9:11; Galatians 4:23.29 Hebrews 11:12; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1.4.18.

γίνομαι never occurs in the sense of "be born", except in those cases where certain kind of Christians want to read such, viz. John 1:14; John 8:58; Philippians 2:7.

Of course, you have managed to exclude every single one of the extra-Biblical Greek sources which I listed earlier, which very clearly gloss γίνομαι with "to be born." So, here are a number of them, again:

νέον γεγαώς, Od.19.400
ὑπὸ Τμώλῳ γεγαῶτας, Il.2.866
“ἢ πρόσθε θανεῖν ἢ ἔπειτα γίγνομαι” Hes.Op.175
γιγνομέναισι λάχη τάδ᾽ . . ἐκράνθη, A.Eu.347
“γίγνομαι ἔκ τινος” Il.5.548, Hdt.7.11
γεγονέναι κακῶς, καλῶς, Ar.Eq.218, Isoc.7.37

That's also what those certain kind of Chriatians say: Jesus = God.

Not only did I explicitly denote that "Jesus was in the form of God" doesn't equate Jesus to God, but Paul explicitly denotes this, as well, in the very next clause of the sentence: [Jesus] did not regard being equal with God as something to be grasped after.

But how could he come to the notion that Jesus is Messiah?

That is entirely irrelevant to the word γίνομαι.

("Damascus" might be well symbolic name; it occurs also in Genesis 14:15 (which is about "the mother of all wars" ) and 15:2 , which says that Eliezer is from Damascus, Eliezer of which gematria 318 coincides the number of trained servants -- with whom Abraham gained victory over the four kings in favor of the five (Genesis 14:14). Damascus seen as acrostic. Rashi:

More pareidolic claptrap.

[Geert van den Bos]

That's fairly irrelevant. Regardless, the passage still says that Christ Jesus was in the form of God before he was γενόμενος in the likeness of man.

the word "before" doens't occur either.

Honestly, I'm not very familiar with Hebrew. It's fully possible that the Hebrew language contains a similar idiom for birth with which I am unfamiliar. However, we're talking about a Greek idiom, which means that we need to consider Hellenistic understanding of language.

Yet it is also not clear that in Hellenistic understanding "genomenos" should mean "born".

"Born" in NT:

Matthew 1:16, Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός. [I][I]Jacob fathered Jospeh teh husband of Mary out of whom was born Jesus who was called Christ.

Verb used γεννάω

Same in Matthew 2:1.2.4; 11:11; 19:12; 26:24; Luke 1:35; 2:11; John 1:13; 3:3; 3:4.5.6.7.8; 8:41; 9:2; 9:19.20.34; 16:21; 18:37; Acts 2:8; 22:28; Romans 9:11; Galatians 4:23.29 Hebrews 11:12; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1.4.18.

γίνομαι never occurs in the sense of "be born", except in those cases where certain kind of Christians want to read such, viz. John 1:14; John 8:58; Philippians 2:7.

That's irrelevant. The question isn't "how can I twist Paul's words to conform to a preconceived theology?" The question is "what do the words which Paul wrote actually mean?" The words Paul wrote very clearly state that Christ Jesus was in the form of God before he came to be in human likeness and before he took the form of a slave.

That's also what those certain kind of Chriatians say: Jesus = God.

There is no indication in Paul's writing that he ascribed any importance to gematria associated with his name, nor does his conversion experience as related in Acts bear any indication that gematria is being considered.

But how could he come to the notion that Jesus is Messiah? ("Damascus" might be well symbolic name; it occurs also in Genesis 14:15 (which is about "the mother of all wars" ) and 15:2 , which says that Eliezer is from Damascus, Eliezer of which gematria 318 coincides the number of trained servants -- with whom Abraham gained victory over the four kings in favor of the five (Genesis 14:14). Damascus seen as acrostic. Rashi:

And in our Talmud (Yoma 28b), it (the word דַּמֶּשֶׂק) is interpreted as a notarikon [acrostic for דּוֹלֶה וּמַשְׁקֶה]: he drew and gave to drink from his master’s teachings to others.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Except for that it has "genomenos", the translation of which was in dispute.

That's fairly irrelevant. Regardless, the passage still says that Christ Jesus was in the form of God before he was γενόμενος in the likeness of man.

What discerns the Hellesnistic view from the Jewish?

Honestly, I'm not very familiar with Hebrew. It's fully possible that the Hebrew language contains a similar idiom for birth with which I am unfamiliar. However, we're talking about a Greek idiom, which means that we need to consider Hellenistic understanding of language.

, yes but "before he was born". Were you also in that form before you was born?

That's irrelevant. The question isn't "how can I twist Paul's words to conform to a preconceived theology?" The question is "what do the words which Paul wrote actually mean?" The words Paul wrote very clearly state that Christ Jesus was in the form of God before he came to be in human likeness and before he took the form of a slave.

Paul knows about "the indivisible moment", which is a statement about time not being something that just runs away, and also about eternity, that it is not endless running time.

...which, even if I grant, still has nothing to do with gematria.

His name "Paulus" was. How do you think Paul came to his conviction that Jesus is the Christ?

There is no indication in Paul's writing that he ascribed any importance to gematria associated with his name, nor does his conversion experience as related in Acts bear any indication that gematria is being considered.

Yet the one has the number 666 and the other the number 153, two numbers that are related to each other, 666 to be found in Genesis 1:31, when the letter "hey"of "hashishi" would have been left out; 153 in Genesis 1:12, "tov" , good, being the 153rd word from the beginning (which would not have been the case wehn the earth had brought forth "ets pri oseh pri", i.e. a tree that was already fruit (= edible = flesh, Herew "basar").
"hashishi" being 434th word from the begining, 434 being gematria of "delet"= door. You need a key to open, "key of knowledge".

Like I said: pareidolia. I can pick out any random word from any New Testament book, find its numeric value, and draw completely speculative and untenable conclusions from it. For example, I could point out that the name Ιουνιαν, from Romans 16:7, has a value of 591, and the phrase כל ישראל also has a value of 591, and therefore claim that Paul was saying that he had been in prison with the entire nation of Israel. This is, of course, preposterous.

[Geert van den Bos]

Yes. That is precisely what the passage is saying, in the Greek.

Except for that it has "genomenos", the translation of which was in dispute.

And I similarly believe that the author of the fourth gospel would have held a Hellenistic view.

What discerns the Hellesnistic view from the Jewish?

No. I said that Jesus was in the form of God.

, yes but "before he was born". Were you also in that form before you was born?

The fact that Paul refers to "mysteries" does not at all imply that the mysteries he's referencing include gematria.

Paul knows about "the indivisible moment", which is a statement about time not being something that just runs away, and also about eternity, that it is not endless running time.

In fact, not a single one of Paul's uses of that word shows any implication of gematria being either understood or utilized--

His name "Paulus" was. How do you think Paul came to his conviction that Jesus is the Christ?

It is extremely unlikely that John of Patmos was the same person who authored the fourth gospel. The two documents are extremely distinct linguistically, rhetorically, and theologically.

Yet the one has the number 666 and the other the number 153, two numbers that are related to each other, 666 to be found in Genesis 1:31, when the letter "hey"of "hashishi" would have been left out; 153 in Genesis 1:12, "tov" , good, being the 153rd word from the beginning (which would not have been the case wehn the earth had brought forth "ets pri oseh pri", i.e. a tree that was already fruit (= edible = flesh, Herew "basar").
"hashishi" being 434th word from the begining, 434 being gematria of "delet"= door. You need a key to open, "key of knowledge".

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Your translation would imply that before he was born he was in the form of God.

Yes. That is precisely what the passage is saying, in the Greek.

But "And the word became flesh" was written by John.

And I similarly believe that the author of the fourth gospel would have held a Hellenistic view.

There you have it, you say it yourself , that "Jesus is God".

No. I said that Jesus was in the form of God. Equivalent translations for ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ would be "in divine form" or "in the form of deity." Being in the form of God is not the same as being God.

The word has different "layers" -- an outside meaning and an inside, inner meaning, which is called "mystery", a word more often used by Paul.

The fact that Paul refers to "mysteries" does not at all imply that the mysteries he's referencing include gematria. In fact, not a single one of Paul's uses of that word shows any implication of gematria being either understood or utilized-- even if you include the disputed Pauline epistles and the Pastoral Epistles.

-- he might be the same one as the author of John, who has the nuber 153 (and also 38).

It is extremely unlikely that John of Patmos was the same person who authored the fourth gospel. The two documents are extremely distinct linguistically, rhetorically, and theologically.

[Geert van den Bos]

What does any of that have to do with whether γίνομαι is translated as "to be born?"

Your translation would imply that before he was born he was in the form of God.

Paul's view, here, was certainly Hellenistic.

But "And the word became flesh" was written by John.

Philippians 2 never says that anyone was "made in the form of God." It says that Christ Jesus had been in the form of God, but emptied himself in order to take the form of a slave and to be born in human likeness.

There you have it, you say it yourself , that "Jesus is God".

Merely spouting more gematria at me is not evidence that Paul had any understanding of or care for gematria.

The word has different "layers" -- an outside meaning and an inside, inner meaning, which is called "mystery", a word more often used by Paul.

For example, if I wanted to show that John of Patmos had an understanding of gematria, and considered it during the writing of his apocalypse, I could point to Revelation 13:18 which provides some fairly strong evidence for such a claim.

-- he might be the same one as the author of John, who has the nuber 153 (and also 38).

I know of no such evidence for Paul, and unless you can provide some, I will continue to simply dismiss your analysis of gematria as being completely unfounded pareidolia.

Ever do what you like.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

It is about a certain state of mind all Christians should have

What does any of that have to do with whether γίνομαι is translated as "to be born?"

But it is not "Hellenistic".
And furthermore I don't think you are right with that in Hellenistic view "to become flesh" is equal to "to be born".

Paul's view, here, was certainly Hellenistic. He was a Hellenized Jew; he was highly educated in Greek language and rhetoric; he was quite likely from Tarsus, which was an extremely Hellenized city; he was likely a Roman citizen; and he spent most of his life and ministry outside of Jerusalem preaching to Hellenistic gentiles.

As far as whether the Hellenistic view held that being "born" was equated with "becoming flesh," I'll direct you to my previous reference to the Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon. I'll also try to scour over some of the medical work of the time for more support, and I'll post that when I find it.

Who else than Adam was "made in the form of God"?

Philippians 2 never says that anyone was "made in the form of God." It says that Christ Jesus had been in the form of God, but emptied himself in order to take the form of a slave and to be born in human likeness.

The NT is based on the presence of God in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" (Genesis 1:31-2:1) -- i.e. Immanuel= "God is with us" - Jesus being crucified on the sixth day and laid in the grave exactly at the beginning of the seventh, which, after the synoptici was the beginning of the counting of the omer , counting until the sixth day of Sivan = Pentecost (50th day).

"yom hashishi" (the sixthg day) representing the "y-h"-part of the name of God.

Name that is also present in the 26 generations from Adam to Moses (= revelation at mount Sinai on the sixth day of Sivan)

After 15 generations the "haflagah" (= Babylonian dispersion of languages) occurred,at the moment Peleg died. Peleg had a "little" brother, Joktan -- name having the same meaning as Latin Paulus = little one.

So I bet Paul named himself thus after Joktan .

Genesis 10:25,
And to Eber were born two sons: one was named Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided, and the name of his brother was Joktan.

Rashi:

Merely spouting more gematria at me is not evidence that Paul had any understanding of or care for gematria. For example, if I wanted to show that John of Patmos had an understanding of gematria, and considered it during the writing of his apocalypse, I could point to Revelation 13:18 which provides some fairly strong evidence for such a claim.

I know of no such evidence for Paul, and unless you can provide some, I will continue to simply dismiss your analysis of gematria as being completely unfounded pareidolia.

[Geert van den Bos]

No, it doesn't. My translation indicates that Christ Jesus was born. It does not indicate that Christ Jesus was God.

It is about a certain state of mind all Christians should have:

1 If there is therefore any exhortation in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tender mercies and compassions,

2 make full my joy, that ye be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind;

3 doing nothing through faction or through vainglory, but in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself;

4 not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you also to the things of others.

5 Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Verb used φρονέω = think, have in mind

lowliness of mind = ταπεινοφροσύνη

cf Matthew 11:

28Δεῦτε πρός με πάντες οἱ κοπιῶντες καὶ πεφορτισμένοι, κἀγὼ ἀναπαύσω ὑμᾶς. 29ἄρατε τὸν ζυγόν μου ἐφ' ὑμᾶς καὶ μάθετε ἀπ' ἐμοῦ, ὅτι πραΰς εἰμι καὶ ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ, καὶ εὑρήσετε ἀνάπαυσιν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν: 30ὁ γὰρ ζυγός μου χρηστὸς καὶ τὸ φορτίον μου ἐλαφρόν ἐστιν.
28 Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

And also Mark 10:
42καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτοῖς, Οἴδατε ὅτι οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν τῶν ἐθνῶν κατακυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι αὐτῶν κατεξουσιάζουσιν αὐτῶν. 43οὐχ οὕτως δέ ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν: ἀλλ' ὃς ἂν θέλῃ μέγας γενέσθαι ἐν ὑμῖν, ἔσται ὑμῶν διάκονος, 44καὶ ὃς ἂν θέλῃ ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι πρῶτος, ἔσται πάντων δοῦλος: 45καὶ γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆσαι καὶ δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν.
42And Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great ones exercise authority over them.43 But it is not so among you: but whosoever would become great among you, shall be your minister; 44 and whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all.45 For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Rule over = κατακυριεύω -- in which κύριος, ruler, lord, master.

servant = δοῦλος

servant of all πάντων δοῦλος

Same mentioned in Phillippians 2:7, ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών

Please allow me to clarify and expand, then: viewing the unborn as having already been made in flesh is anachronistic when applied to the Hellenistic view.

But it is not "Hellenistic".
And furthermore I don't think you are right with that in Hellenistic view "to become flesh" is equal to "to be born".

Except that the Philippians 2 passage says nothing of the sort. It very clearly and explicitly states that it was Christ Jesus who emptied himself and took the form of a slave. Paul's discussion of the "first Adam" in 1 Cor 15 is explicitly in contrast to Jesus. There is absolutely no way to justify a claim that Paul thought the first Adam was the one who emptied himself, nor that Adam was in the form of God.

Who else than Adam was "made in the form of God"?

I do. There doesn't seem to be any indication that Paul considered any gematria, whether it be Greek or Hebrew, in his theology.

The NT is based on the presence of God in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" (Genesis 1:31-2:1) -- i.e. Immanuel= "God is with us" - Jesus being crucified on the sixth day and laid in the grave exactly at the beginning of the seventh, which, after the synoptici was the beginning of the counting of the omer , counting until the sixth day of Sivan = Pentecost (50th day).

"yom hashishi" (the sixthg day) representing the "y-h"-part of the name of God.

Name that is also present in the 26 generations from Adam to Moses (= revelation at mount Sinai on the sixth day of Sivan)

After 15 generations the "haflagah" (= Babylonian dispersion of languages) occurred,at the moment Peleg died. Peleg had a "little" brother, Joktan -- name having the same meaning as Latin Paulus = little one.

So I bet Paul named himself thus after Joktan .

Genesis 10:25,
And to Eber were born two sons: one was named Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided, and the name of his brother was Joktan.

Rashi:

Joktan: Because he was humble and considered himself small (קָטָן). Therefore, he merited to raise all these families. — [from Gen. Rabbah 37:7]

[Boxing Pythagoras]

but your translation does.

No, it doesn't. My translation indicates that Christ Jesus was born. It does not indicate that Christ Jesus was God.

I didn't apply it to Paul, but to your " In the Hellenistic view, flesh "became" by being born."

Please allow me to clarify and expand, then: viewing the unborn as having already been made in flesh is anachronistic when applied to the Hellenistic view.

The first Adam (existing in the form of God) emptied himself taking the form of a servant (= the second Adam), etc.

Except that the Philippians 2 passage says nothing of the sort. It very clearly and explicitly states that it was Christ Jesus who emptied himself and took the form of a slave. Paul's discussion of the "first Adam" in 1 Cor 15 is explicitly in contrast to Jesus. There is absolutely no way to justify a claim that Paul thought the first Adam was the one who emptied himself, nor that Adam was in the form of God.

you say so.

I do. There doesn't seem to be any indication that Paul considered any gematria, whether it be Greek or Hebrew, in his theology.

The use of κύριος, for God is to avoid mentioning his name. It is after Hebrew "adonai".

The use of κύριος for Jesus is not to avoid mentioning the Tetragrammaton.

κύριος meaning lord or master.

Here, you and I are actually in agreement.

[Geert van den Bos]

Perhaps by Evangelicals or conservative Christian readers, but I'm not sure the same could be said of scholarship, in general. As I said, I'm tackling the text from a completely secular point of view, and I do not see γίνομαι as having any implication that Jesus is God.

but your translation does.

This would seem a fairly anachronistic view to apply to Paul.

I didn't apply it to Paul, but to your " In the Hellenistic view, flesh "became" by being born.
"


.

The fact that Paul talks of such things in 1 Cor 15 does not mean he's talking about them in Philippians 2. Nothing in Philippians 2 discusses Adam or the fall or the original sin.

The first Adam (existing in the form of God) emptied himself taking the form of a servant (= the second Adam), etc.

Once again, Hebrew gematria is fairly irrelevant to Pauline exegesis.

you say so.

I agree that this is what Paul is saying. In fact, it seems to be the whole point of the Philippians 2 hymn: God raised up Jesus to be κύριος, imparting to Jesus the highest possible authority.

The use of κύριος, for God is to avoid mentioning his name. It is after Hebrew "adonai".

The use of κύριος for Jesus is not to avoid mentioning the Tetragrammaton.

κύριος meaning lord or master.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I thought it usually is interpreted that way ( by John Reece f.e.)

Perhaps by Evangelicals or conservative Christian readers, but I'm not sure the same could be said of scholarship, in general. As I said, I'm tackling the text from a completely secular point of view, and I do not see γίνομαι as having any implication that Jesus is God.

Ain't an unborn child already "flesh" then?

Which makes think of the Jewish Golem, man of clay; "golem" means embryo.

This would seem a fairly anachronistic view to apply to Paul.

Paul knows about "the indivisible moment" (1 Corinthians 15:51-52) even as "mystery" - which can be seen as a hint to the "mystical knowledge" he speaks from.
Paul knows about "the first Adam" and "the second Adam" (1 Corinthians 15).

I'm not sure what you think that this implies. The fact that Paul talks of such things in 1 Cor 15 does not mean he's talking about them in Philippians 2. Nothing in Philippians 2 discusses Adam or the fall or the original sin.

Indivisivble moment = Hebrew "rega" with gematria 273, a number that occurs in Numbers 3:46.

Once again, Hebrew gematria is fairly irrelevant to Pauline exegesis.

The Father and Jesus are two, yes, but both κύριος.

I agree that this is what Paul is saying. In fact, it seems to be the whole point of the Philippians 2 hymn: God raised up Jesus to be κύριος, imparting to Jesus the highest possible authority.

[Paprika]

Still doesn't make sense. If God emptied and humbled himself, he would no longer have the power to exalt himself nor to give himself authority. It's fairly clear that Paul is saying that God and Jesus are two different persons (and I use that word intentionally) in this passage.

The Father and Jesus are two, yes, but both κύριος.

[Geert van den Bos]

Actually, it's not. I'm not sure if you knew, but I'm not a Christian. I'm not even a theist. I'm looking at this translation from a completely secular point of view. I am not starting with some theological preconception, and translating to fit that notion. I'm starting with my translation in order to figure out what the author intended by his words. Incidentally, I actually agree that the Philippians 2 hymn is not saying that Jesus is God (in fact, I would argue that it pretty explicitly states the opposite). Translating γίνομαι as "to be born" doesn't imply that the one being born is God.

I thought it usually is interpreted that way ( by John Reece f.e.)

I would argue that "born" is certainly an appropriate translation, in both of these cases. In the Hellenistic view, flesh "became" by being born.

Ain't an unborn child already "flesh" then?

Which makes think of the Jewish Golem, man of clay; "golem" means embryo.

cf Rashi on Genesis 2:24,

one flesh: The fetus is formed by them both, and there [in the child] their flesh becomes one. — [from Sanh. 58a]

I honestly think that Hebrew gematria and exegesis is fairly irrelevant to Pauline hermeneutics.

Paul knows about "the indivisible moment" (1 Corinthians 15:51-52) even as "mystery" - which can be seen as a hint to the "mystical knowledge" he speaks from. Indivisivble moment = Hebrew "rega" with gematria 273, a number that occurs in Numbers 3:46.

That seems to be clearly eisegetical and quite untenable. There is no indication in the passage, at all, that Paul is discussing Adam or sin. The Philippians 2 hymn is quite explicitly talking about Jesus' pre-existence, incarnation, and exaltation.

Paul knows about "the first Adam" and "the second Adam" (1 Corinthians 15).

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yes you can, to someone who has humbled and emptied himself.

Still doesn't make sense. If God emptied and humbled himself, he would no longer have the power to exalt himself nor to give himself authority. It's fairly clear that Paul is saying that God and Jesus are two different persons (and I use that word intentionally) in this passage.