Godhead

[nebula]

I thought it might be an issue of folks talking past each other.

[traveller]

Nice thread BlindSeeker. Very interesting indeed.

[EricH]

Okay, what Blindseeker says makes sense.

The term Godhead, especially as it is used in Col. 2:9 cannot refer to the trinity. What I am getting from Blindseeker is that it refers to quality, not quantity. The fulness of Divinity, or the Divine nature dwells in Christ.

Some people do use Trinity and Godhead interchangeably, but for the Trinity to dwell in Jesus would mean that Jesus dwells within Himself and that is just not rational. So it cannot refer to the Trinity.

Exactly, in that particular passage that is absolutely true.

[BlindSeeker]

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?

Greetings Brother Shiloh,

It is simple the addition of "plurality" to the word.

Can you elaborate a little?

There is no need to elaborate Shiloh. It is right there in the OP, plain and simple. Unless you are trying to ask something I am not addressing in the OP, you have all the info there.

I know very well you're an intelligent individual and you've read it all ready. So if there is something related to the OP you wish to know other than what I already stated, ask it. No games, go to the point if you have one.

How have we pluralized the Godhead into "Godheads?"

Ok . . . Shiloh. Out of respect for you, though I know you are fully aware of "how," I will copy and paste part of the Op for you here.

. . . The work of the Spirit is as such. He is part of the Godhead, or Trinity as we now put it. . . .

Many people, as we see with OneLight here, interpret and understand the word "godhead" to mean and/or imply the Trinity, and do not read the word as simply divine or divinity.

That's all I wanted to know.

You know, there is no reason to get all defensive just because I ask for clarification. I could have gone the alternate route and just assigned my own values to you and ignored your intent. Asking questions is a courtesy I extend to you to avoid misunderstanding you, because it is something I appreaciate in others.

I have learned that sometimes, what I post makes perfect sense to me, but I find out that it doesn't always come off the same way to my readers and so I might have to explain or clarifiy things I said. I always enjoy answering questions as it makes for more pleasent threads than having to constantly battle with people who assign their values and motives to me and end up taking debates in circles over things I never said or intended to convey.

All I did was basically repost part of the Op.

[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?

Greetings Brother Shiloh,

It is simple the addition of "plurality" to the word.

Can you elaborate a little?

There is no need to elaborate Shiloh. It is right there in the OP, plain and simple. Unless you are trying to ask something I am not addressing in the OP, you have all the info there.

I know very well you're an intelligent individual and you've read it all ready. So if there is something related to the OP you wish to know other than what I already stated, ask it. No games, go to the point if you have one.

How have we pluralized the Godhead into "Godheads?"

Ok . . . Shiloh. Out of respect for you, though I know you are fully aware of "how," I will copy and paste part of the Op for you here.

. . . The work of the Spirit is as such. He is part of the Godhead, or Trinity as we now put it. . . .

Many people, as we see with OneLight here, interpret and understand the word "godhead" to mean and/or imply the Trinity, and do not read the word as simply divine or divinity.

That's all I wanted to know.

You know, there is no reason to get all defensive just because I ask for clarification. I could have gone the alternate route and just assigned my own values to you and ignored your intent. Asking questions is a courtesy I extend to you to avoid misunderstanding you, because it is something I appreaciate in others.

I have learned that sometimes, what I post makes perfect sense to me, but I find out that it doesn't always come off the same way to my readers and so I might have to explain or clarifiy things I said. I always enjoy answering questions as it makes for more pleasent threads than having to constantly battle with people who assign their values and motives to me and end up taking debates in circles over things I never said or intended to convey.

All I did was basically repost part of the Op.

It was the tone of your response I was referring to.

[BlindSeeker]

Where did the words "with two hundred and forty and eight members, with three hundred and sixty and five nerves, and overlaid them with skin, and filled it with flesh and blood" come from?

What are the 248 "members"?

And number of nerves?

LOL

I sure hope you aren't asking me! But apparently it is in the Jerusalem Targum . . . I think that it may be just a side note added for the readers . . . similar to a Thompson Chain reference bible . . .

Sorry, but I never heard of the Jerusalem Targum before, nor do I understand exactly how it was re-written, or whatever you call it.

And, hey - this is my field (anatomy), so you know. . . .

I know . . . and I would've expected no less from you LOL

[BlindSeeker]

Okay, what Blindseeker says makes sense.

The term Godhead, especially as it is used in Col. 2:9 cannot refer to the trinity. What I am getting from Blindseeker is that it refers to quality, not quantity. The fulness of Divinity, or the Divine nature dwells in Christ.

Some people do use Trinity and Godhead interchangeably, but for the Trinity to dwell in Jesus would mean that Jesus dwells within Himself and that is just not rational. So it cannot refer to the Trinity.

I find this to be a very agreeable summation . . . even if you didn't say "Okay, what Blindseeker says makes sense."

[BlindSeeker]

e would like to know why is, when referring to the trinty, that the goverment of God in not right ? I did read the rest of the post and it appears that if you do not believe in the trinity or how it is conveyed i can understand your post and concern, but if you believe in the trinity this post makes not since to me Its like spliting hairs that have been split already Three persons in one God, I believe that! To have an issue in how it is conveyed seems only relevent if you have an issue with the reality of the trinity. Jesus prayed to the Father, and Jesus spoke of the coming Helper and God as a Man is Jesus the Christ or Immanuel. When i say govermeant, i think of His authority and leadership, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have, not only in this world but in the spirit world. Does that mean one is greater then the other, no. however when Jesus walked this earth He did referr to the Father as greater then himself. At the very lease this was temporary because Jesus became a man to fulfill the will of the Father. They were always working together as One!

I do not subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity the way some teach it, nor do I subscribe to the "Oneness" doctrine the way many teach it. My personal assessment is that I am very near the middle between the two. What I do believe if that there is absolutely one God, and a unified collective working harmoniously as one . . . such as you said "they were always working together as one."

[BlindSeeker]

It was the tone of your response I was referring to.

Thank you for your correction.

[HAZARD]

The term Godhead simply means that which is Divine. It is used of Jesus in Col. 2:9, as having all the qualities of divinity in His manifestation of God to men. It is also used of all three persons in the diety in Romans 1:20.