Godhead

[EricH]

Still, I have no problem recognizing the deity of Jesus and understanding there is one Father, Lord, God and Holy Spirit.

Peace

What exactly is your understanding to the nature of the relationship between the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit?

[BlindSeeker]

The targums actually do not prevent anything since they are not inspired. All they tell us is how that community viewed things. Given the fact of the progressive nature of revelation, many of their understandings could have been incomplete or incorrect. The doctrine of the plurality of God in terms of person does not depend on Genesis 1:26 even if we granted that the Targums were correct (which i do not believe they are).

I did not say that the Targum was "inspired," but certainly the Hebrew which was translated into the Aramaic was, just as the Hebrew and Greek penned by the holy prophets and apostles was. But that does not mean the English translations are any more inspired than the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzzuik was either.

Your logic is equally correct when applied to the Targum as when applied to the English versions, "Given the fact of the progressive nature of revelation, many of their understandings could have been incomplete or incorrect." The only thing I would add for clarification is that error / heresy too has a "progressive nature of revelation." All one needs to do it look at the flood of false doctrines that have been spueing out of the mouth of the dragon in an attempt to carry away the Saints from the Truth.

[BlindSeeker]

The scriptures teach 3 things clearlly (in reference to this topic)

1. God exists eternally in 3 persons

2. Each person is fully God

3. There is one God

There are numerous scriptures that clearly support each of these propositions. Most of the theological errors in church history have come about as a result of the denial of one of these propositions.

1. Modalism teaches that God is one person who appears in different modes (sometimes as Son, sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Spirit).

2. Arianism teaches that God the Son was created by God the Father at a specific point in time.

3. Subordinationalism teaches that the Son was eternal but not equal to the Father

4. Adoptionism teaches that Jesus was an ordinary man until His baptism when Sonship was given to Him by God

5. Tritheism denies that there is one God

I appreciate you submittal of the various beliefs out there concerning the Bibles presentation of the Creator of all things and our Redeemer, for it actually establishes my concern with rightly dividing the word of Truth.

However, each of these beliefs would quickly compile their own 1,2 & 3 list of the things scripture teaches clearly. It is only when we look at the scriptural support for their claim that we can effectively began to reason and prove the validity of each assertion made. That is what the OP is actually about, examining the phrases and words utilized by the believers of various theology to determine their strengths ans weakness. Since you have submitted none, than I can only accept your list as being an accurate statement of your personal belief.

[OneLight]

By a 2 to 1 victory, should we use the word Godhead to mean only the power of God, and not His fullness and essence, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Omnipresence, Omniscient, Omnipotent?

I have a problem with the most common definition, as found in the most common dictionaries. The vast majority of what you will read denotes that the word Godhead does in fact mean trinity, but is this what is meant in the original Greek, or is this what we have decided it means?

By the 2 to 1 margin, Godhead can only mean Omnipotent, all powerful.

That is exactly my concern. Not only with just this word, but all scripture in general.

It is as if we

[OneLight]

I am concerned that those who want to understand the term Godhead will quickly turn away due to the discussion that will go way above their head and will walk away without resolve. Even though the discussion is interesting, and very deep, it really does not help one understand what the meaning of Godhead is ...

[BlindSeeker]

Still, I have no problem recognizing the deity of Jesus and understanding there is one Father, Lord, God and Holy Spirit.

Peace

What exactly is your understanding to the nature of the relationship between the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit?

My wording was made quickly with me having the luxury of knowing my intent. A more thorough statement would have been -

"Still, I have no problem recognizing the scriptures' assertion of the deity of Jesus and their presentation that there is but one Father, Lord, God and Holy Spirit."

Regarding you question, I believe as Jesus said, God is a Spirit who has commanded us to be holy as He is holy. Thus God is in fact the Holy Spirit.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

1Pe 1:15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

I believe in the aspect of God as the Father.

Ex 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn

Job 31:15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?

Pr 22:2 The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all.

Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? . . .

I believe in the aspect of God as the Father of all things, including the humanity of Jesus, The Christ. This was accomplished when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her and she conceived, which would seem to make the Holy Ghost clearly the Father of Christ.

Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

I believe Jesus was God manifested in the flesh,

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

And I accept that Jesus was both son of man and Son of God, the Christ, or Anointed One. For more information you can read my Justified in the Spirit thread from 2003.

But, EricH, the OP really wasn't about "what I believe," rather about what we each believe and why. Are we keeping to the integrity of the Word to what it really says, or are we giving unintended meaning to parts of it? That is the subject matter.

Peace

[BlindSeeker]

I am concerned that those who want to understand the term Godhead will quickly turn away due to the discussion that will go way above their head and will walk away without resolve. Even though the discussion is interesting, and very deep, it really does not help one understand what the meaning of Godhead is ...

There are many threads where people do not stay out of lack of interest. I do not see where that is the criteria for an acceptable thread discussion?

The point is simple, are we adding to the intended meaning of the Greek and affixing our own theological understanding to it.

[BlindSeeker]

Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziek . . . as one of the site states

I have neither heard of the Targum or read them, so I can not comment on anything you just said.

That is why I provided the two links above. You can easily check it out for yourself.

.

[OneLight]

I am concerned that those who want to understand the term Godhead will quickly turn away due to the discussion that will go way above their head and will walk away without resolve. Even though the discussion is interesting, and very deep, it really does not help one understand what the meaning of Godhead is ...

There are many threads where people do not stay out of lack of interest. I do not see where that is the criteria for an acceptable thread discussion?

The point is simple, are we adding to the intended meaning of the Greek and affixing our own theological understanding to it.

My concern is that some people don't even know how to swim and the discussion has moved into some very deep water. It is your thread and you can steer it as you wish.

Thanks for the links ... I will check them out.

[Guest shiloh357]

The point is simple, are we adding to the intended meaning of the Greek and affixing our own theological understanding to it.

What exactly do you think is being added to the intended meaning?