trinity, godhead, or neither (Jesus Christ, translation, Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, bible)

[Aqualung]

Oh, wow. I appologize profusely. I misread your quote (every time I read it, which was about a thousand) to say this thread isn't an interesting topic. I'm very embarrased, now that I made all that hubub about misreading a perfectly nice quote. Please except some frubals for an appology. (that's about all I can give you, and I really feel I must make some sort of recompense.)

[Bennettresearch]

Hi everyone, too many to address individually,

This thread is most interesting. I am agreeing with those who advocate that the Trinity is a product of the 3rd century, or based on an earlier interpretation, and not necessarily portrayed as such in the New Testament. Here are some interesting quotes;

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Matthew 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

Luke 2:40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


There is a distinct separation represented here. If Jesus and the Spirit are one, then why would the Spirit descend upon Him? I think that Jesus is more a representative of God than God Himself! Jesus wanted to teach us of the Spirit and how to connect with it ourselves. Thus, Jesus Himself would worship the Spirit, identifying it as something different than He.

This might rankle someone, or raise some feathers, but to elevate Jesus to the position of being God is a political move that makes the Church the representative and not Jesus.

[Jensen]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

Oh, wow. I appologize profusely. I misread your quote (every time I read it, which was about a thousand) to say this thread isn't an interesting topic. I'm very embarrased, now that I made all that hubub about misreading a perfectly nice quote. Please except some frubals for an appology. (that's about all I can give you, and I really feel I must make some sort of recompense.)

Hi Aqualung,

Apology accepted....I haven't been on now for nearly a month as I thought it better than to go on posting about the misunderstanding of my post.....but I can see how easy it would be to read it as "isn't" instead of "is".....

Jensen

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by Jensen

Hi Aqualung,

Apology accepted....I haven't been on now for nearly a month as I thought it better than to go on posting about the misunderstanding of my post.....but I can see how easy it would be to read it as "isn't" instead of "is".....

Jensen

Good! I'm glad we got that squared away, instead of being bitter enemies till the end.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Bennettresearch

Hi everyone, too many to address individually,

This thread is most interesting. I am agreeing with those who advocate that the Trinity is a product of the 3rd century, or based on an earlier interpretation, and not necessarily portrayed as such in the New Testament. Here are some interesting quotes;

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Matthew 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

Luke 2:40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


There is a distinct separation represented here. If Jesus and the Spirit are one, then why would the Spirit descend upon Him? I think that Jesus is more a representative of God than God Himself! Jesus wanted to teach us of the Spirit and how to connect with it ourselves. Thus, Jesus Himself would worship the Spirit, identifying it as something different than He.

This might rankle someone, or raise some feathers, but to elevate Jesus to the position of being God is a political move that makes the Church the representative and not Jesus.

I don't believe that Jesus is God if, by "God," you mean God the Father.

However, even God the Father addresses His Son by that title in Hebrews 1:8, when He says, "Thythrone, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." Also, had Jesus not considered himself to be "God," He would undoubtedly have corrected Thomas, who exclaimed, upon seeing Him for the first time after the resurrection, "My Lord and my God." Finally, I have always thought it very signficant that, in John 10:18 Jesus states, "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I havepower to lay it down, and I havepower to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." In other words, Jesus did not need His Father to raise Him from the read. He was able to do this of His own accord. How much clearer could the scriptures possibly be in stating that He was "God."

Still, Jesus referred to God the Father as being His God, which would obviously imply that they were not one and the same. Nobody is his own God!

[Jensen]

Maybe by being clearer by actually saying..."I am God" and he didn't.

When the Jews accused him of making himself out to be God, he corrected them by saying he was the Son of God.

John 10

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Luke 22:70,71,NASB,
70 And they all said, "Are You the Son of God, then?" And He said to them, "Yes, I am."
71 Then they said, "What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth."

[Merlin]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I don't believe that Jesus is God if, by "God," you mean God the Father.

However, even God the Father addresses His Son by that title in Hebrews 1:8, when He says, "Thythrone, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." Also, had Jesus not considered himself to be "God," He would undoubtedly have corrected Thomas, who exclaimed, upon seeing Him for the first time after the resurrection, "My Lord and my God." Finally, I have always thought it very signficant that, in John 10:18 Jesus states, "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I havepower to lay it down, and I havepower to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." In other words, Jesus did not need His Father to raise Him from the read. He was able to do this of His own accord. How much clearer could the scriptures possibly be in stating that He was "God."

Still, Jesus referred to God the Father as being His God, which would obviously imply that they were not one and the same. Nobody is his own God!

Are you saying that Mormons are not monotheists?

[michel]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I don't believe that Jesus is God if, by "God," you mean God the Father.

However, even God the Father addresses His Son by that title in Hebrews 1:8, when He says, "Thythrone, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." Also, had Jesus not considered himself to be "God," He would undoubtedly have corrected Thomas, who exclaimed, upon seeing Him for the first time after the resurrection, "My Lord and my God." Finally, I have always thought it very signficant that, in John 10:18 Jesus states, "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I havepower to lay it down, and I havepower to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." In other words, Jesus did not need His Father to raise Him from the read. He was able to do this of His own accord. How much clearer could the scriptures possibly be in stating that He was "God."

Still, Jesus referred to God the Father as being His God, which would obviously imply that they were not one and the same. Nobody is his own God!

I suppose we have to agree to have our differences; mine is a much more liberal approach - one I don't believe that can be disproved by scripture - but I am open to being prove wrong!

To me, the Trinity has become an easy concept to understand - it took me a long time, but I think I have 'got there' (at least to my satisfaction). I magime a large patch of very viscous oil - that is God; a large globule of the oil is separated from the mass (by the will of the entity that is the oil mass), and the globule is Jesus Christ, when he was born as a human.

When he was raised again, his 'soul' rejoined the mass of 'oil' and became one again; hence the fact that Jesus Christ is God (although when he was here on Earth, he was a detached 'bit' of God).

Make any sense ? (I wish I could have found a more 'flattering' parallel than oil, but I think, pictorially, it is an easy and apt analogy. )

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by Merlin

Are you saying that Mormons are not monotheists?

We on earth only have one god. I don't know if there are other gods somewhere else, but it really doens't make that much of a difference. We don't, nor should we, worship more than one god.