Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Look Park Fire TV Stick Sun Care Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Water Sports
Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

what is with this "godhead" concept ?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 328 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 9:00:35 AM PDT
Lao Tzu,

Apparently, you also know a lot about a being you've only encountered in your imagination.
Lao Tzu is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD.

Christ Jesus is "alive forever more".

Why should I be embarrassed? Are you embarrassed to be taking the name of a man you've never
encountered anywhere but in your imagination?

By the way, why are you attempting to define me? God will define me, not you, Sir/Madame

Define yourself, friend, and leave everyone else alone.

a sinner,

Donald Lee McDaniel

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 9:12:09 AM PDT
QUESTOR,

I agree with you about the evil of pride.

However, I do not agree with you about "the engine of morality".
Christianity is not basically about "morality". It is about "Reality".
Morality will come to those who accept reality, but if one does not
realize just what is or is not real, he can never have morality.

Accept God's Reality, THEN become moral. Unless we first believe that God IS,
we will never also understand that God is Love. "God is" comes first. Then
comes "love". In other words, "God is Love", NOT "Love is God". In fact,
God is MORE than "Love" God is also just, righteous, good, kind, gentle, peaceable,
rational, understanding,. God IS.

a sinner,

Donald Lee McDaniel

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 10:12:22 AM PDT
Lao Tzu,

Too bad that is YOUR definition of me. God defines me much differently.
I don't read "Star Wars".
"Midiclorians" do not exist.
"Darth Maul" is a fictional character inside a fictional book.
I haven't been to ANY type of "convention" in many, many years.
I don't work, since I am retired, being almost 67.
I do not "promote" myself in any way.
I am a fan of no human being, either fictional or non-fictional.
I've never been on a "discussion panel" of any kind.
I have no illusions of any kind.
The only "fantasy" i have is to be rich one day before I die.
I invite no one to join me anymore. If God speaks to them
through my words, that is good. But it gives me nothing I can
boast about, other than that God spoke to someone.
And I have very little pride in myself, knowing just where I come from,
but great pride in the One Who created me and sustains me from day to day.

But you are right about one thing: My prayers are answered more often than not.
Not because of anything that is in me, but because God chooses to answer them.

I am also not "special" in any way. I'm just a man, like all other men. If I have
learned anything, it is only because I was taught by Another Who knows all things,
since He created all things.

I am not a "Christian", I am a disciple of Christ, a "learner" who is subject to his teachings.

I want to live in the world as long as He allows me to. I love this Universe, and all things
and persons in it. I am not particularly interested in dying any time soon. My continual
prayer is that God would slow down His Plan, so that others can have more of a chance
to become like Christ themselves.

But I realize that His Plan will eventually be fully carried out to its end.
Knowing God's judgment through experience in my life, and the lives of others in the world,
I do the best I can to save some from His righteous judgment. I am not a very good
evangelist, and only He knows who have heard what I have to say. But I never stop writing,
since only He knows who has ears to hear, and who does not.

My life has been hard, but has not been without peace and satisfaction. And not without
love.

Since I've been married twice, I am pretty burnt out on marriage.
The only "marriage" I look forward to now is the marriage of my own mind with the Mind of God.

Accept it, or reject it. I don't really care that much. I am a "slave" to Christ. If I do not
speak, I am just not happy, and I do not continue growing. I am fairly satisfied with my "bowl of rice"
and a "cot". I have all I really need in this world. I have a warm house [not mine, but my brother's],
clean clothes, shoes, a computer, TV, and other "things", and decent and healthy food to eat once a day.
Many times in my life I have had none of these, so I feel very blessed by God to have access to them now.

My health only gets better with each passing day, my strength has not waned over the years, my eyes still work
very well, my hearing has not dulled, my mind only gets sharper, and my love for others only increases. I am
not bitter about my lot in life. When I walk down the street, sometimes, God brings others across my path who
are much needier than I, and if I have cash with me, I give to them to help increase their lot in life. I pray for
more money, so that I can give more. My time is always available to be used for others.

I am not a great man: I am only a man, in whom the Spirit of God dwells. I still sin by omission and commission,
but God has promised to forgive and cleanse me, and bring me to the place where I do not. Does this make me
any better than others? I would never say that, because I know there are others who are better than I.

Will I ever be rewarded for my good deeds? Hopefully. But if not, then I will be neither better nor worse than I
am today if He does not. Will I be judged for my evil deeds? I am persuaded that God will pass judgment one day
on the harm I have caused others.

Will I be saved from the wrath to come? That is in God's hands, not mine.
Am I happy? Yes. I am now happier than I've ever been. Could I be happier? Yes. Do I long to be happier? I am learning
to lay aside longing of any kind. Pining for what I do not have only makes me unhappy. I am learning to be satisfied with my
lot in life. The Kingdom of God does not consist of meat and drink, but happiness and joy in the Holy Spirit.

My life is in no way a fantasy.

a sinner growing day by day,

Donald Lee McDaniel

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 10:36:29 AM PDT
Lao Tzu says:
Donald, I will of course treat you like an adult, which I imagine you'd prefer.

You did understand my analogy about Star Wars, right? The lesson and the humor is that such a person finds a "place" in the world through fantasy, as well as a crowd that is willing to participate in the same delusion. This holds for any sort of wish thinking, like astrology or Christianity.

"I invite no one to join me anymore."

Yes you do, that is why you advertise your beliefs on a discussion forum. Its ok, just own up to it.

"I have very little pride in myself."

I have lots of pride in myself, having sustained myself here for two score years and change. I recognize that no one can do my thinking for me, even a wise person whom I trust, that volunteers to follow me around all day. You are in the same boat, you just don't like the anxiety of thinking about it.

"But you are right about one thing: My prayers are answered more often than not. Not because of anything that is in me, but because God chooses to answer them."

This is a defeatist attitude, one of the reasons why you still may be waiting for the lottery to hit. No one is coming to make things ok for you, that is entirely on you. Pretending otherwise is dangerous for you and the people that count on you.

"I am not a "Christian", I am a disciple of Christ, a "learner" who is subject to his teachings."

This is the latest branding tactic coming out of the apologist mill. Being Christian is so passe, apparently. It reminds me of liberals, that avoid the label being applied to them.

You have a lot of that "salt of the earth" speech in your post. I suppose I could do that too, explain how I persevered, triumphed over adversity, etc. It does not make my argument any better. Perhaps it is the way you shame people into not arguing with you?

"I am not a great man: I am only a man, in whom the Spirit of God dwells. I still sin by omission and commission,"

Religious humilty is not an endearing trait. Neither is being pious. It just tells secular people you have little confidence in yourself. Frankly, I don't believe that, so I think it is a deceptive statement.

And finally Donald, this may amuse you after my rant above, but I would probably like you if I met you. You at least added some honesty about where you are in your post. I accept that you will be a Christian till you die, I just wish you would not pass on that mind virus to others. Better to model Christ's manner and treat people well, than convince them of the supernatural and have it have the same bad impact on their lives as it has had on yours. If you can't imagine why my post is angry, you cannot really appreciate the atheist mindset yet. You might want to try to do so, just as a thought experiment. Otherwise my anger about this will be entirely incomprehensible to you.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 1:20:31 PM PDT
JR Rawlins says:
You sound like a pretty good evangelist to me! You kept it real and from the heart - the best kind of evangelist.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 1:25:04 PM PDT
JR Rawlins says:
Trouble with you is you don't know the difference between a mind virus and a spiritual awakening. I pray you find and appreciate the difference.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 3:53:35 PM PDT
Whomper said: "knowing the meaning of the words is sometimes a problem."

Huh? Are you serious?

So we should just make up our own definitions for Bible words?

How would that help us to know what Paul meant to say at Colossians 2:9? Do you think that this passage is affected by slang or idiom? If so, please explain how this is, and how the meaning of the passage is affected.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 7:04:06 PM PDT
reply to Michael R. Davenport's post:

i am not making up anything

you need to know that you are correct when you claim a word means something
more so when they are so old and you dont have a dictionary from their language

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 7:26:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 1, 2012 7:28:34 PM PDT
Lao Tzu says:
QUESTER says: A reasonable question would be ... is there any evidence that non-believers are more accomplished than believers ?

Lao says: A reasonable question, Quester. We are both probably aware of the human mind's ability to compartmentalize. I know Christians that are deep believers, and yet the most ruthless people in business I have ever met - devoid of any sense of fair play. It may be that since the Christians are just following god's rules, their inner moral sense is atrophied.

For this reason, I cannot provide evidence that Xians, or Atheists are more successful. On a logic level I would assume a person with a better grasp of reality would make better choices though.

I have many atheist and Christian friends. The styles of the groups are VERY different. The Christians are politically correct, less bright, more fearless, more rigid and ritualistic in dealing with their fellow man. 1 in 10 of the Christians has attained some personal enlightenment I am jealous of. 4 in 10 are in a constant, wracking pain of both acting as if they are fully accepted, and also not worthy. The rest haven't got it figured out yet, but they keep sipping the kool aid, waiting for it to "happen" for them. It goes back and forth and seems quite unpleasant. They are also more fearful of thinking in general.

Another take on the Christians - they have a stressful aspect to their mood. They need to be on point, on guard, aware of their sin at all times, it seems rather exhausting to me, and to them. They don't just LIVE.

The Atheists are intelligent, funny, but also less likely to support one another. We attend to practical matters - philosophy, business, debauchery, the stuff that has value. Most (not all) atheists are irritating because they carry Skepticism to an extreme, assuming truth and morality is entirely relative, they vote for Obama (lol) and are not fans of individual rights.

On the whole, I would not give up either group, but I get more mental challenge and satisfaction from the Atheists.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 2:56:44 AM PDT
DTS says:
Lao Tzu: you know an awful lot about a being you've encountered nowhere but in your imagination. Is that not an embarassment . . .

you have a battery operated plastic lightsaber. You are studying Jabba the Hut's language and you can speak it pretty well. You practice using The Force almost 10 hours a week, trying to move a crumpled ball of aluminum foil with the power of your mind . . .

you say to yourself "I don't want to live in a world where The Force is not real, that would be a meaningless world" . . .

The lesson and the humor is that such a person finds a "place" in the world through fantasy, as well as a crowd that is willing to participate in the same delusion. This holds for any sort of wish thinking, like astrology or Christianity.

Me: It looks to me here like we've got a raw assertion that Christianity is pure fantasy, psychoanalysis, mockery, and a nice little story to illustrate your point. Hopefully your intent is to bluntly tell it like you see it. Hopefully you don't intend to pass it off as reasoned argument. If it is intended to be an argument it is hard for me to see what form it might have.

The best I can do is reconstruct something like: If one believes in a fantasy then one ought to be ashamed. Donald believes in a fantasy called Christianity. So, he ought to be ashamed. I'm not sure if that is what you intended, but it is at least valid in form.

Even so, and even if it is not only valid but sound, it is still dialectally worthless. Your whole wall of text presupposes that christianity is a fantasy and begs the question against someone like Donald who believes that Christ is existence and reality itself. Whatever the form of your argument (assuming your intent was to argue) might be, you are begging the question against Donald. Even if you are completely correct in everything you have said you are still begging the question. But hopefully you did not intend to present an argument or persuade. Hopefully you were just telling it like you see it.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 3:36:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 2, 2012 5:23:01 AM PDT
DTS says:
Whomper,

Here's The LSJ entry for the word:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dqeo%2Fths

I'd have to say that Michael is correct when he says the word simply means divinity or divine nature. Regardless, that doesn't tell us very much. And i should point out that the men who put the creed in it's final form understood ousia to mean nature and understood homouusia to mean same nature. See Basil letter 236. The thrust of the homoousian claim is that Father and Son are of the same divinity or that they share the same divine nature.

It seems to me as though the verse in question about the "godhead" says pretty much the same thing.

There is no contradiction in speaking of three persons who share the same nature. However there is still a philosophical difficulty in squaring that with the notion of one God.

Michael i think faces the same difficulty in so far as he claims that the Father and Son are both divine or that the Father is the true God while the Son is a god. Michael's strategy if i remember, is to deny that the law of the excluded middle applies here. If i recall his claim is that the Son is a god, but not the one true God and not a false god.

But who cares? As the saying goes: "What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?"
t

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 5:29:02 AM PDT
Lao Tzu says:
Interesting DTS. Let me put it this way. This won't be quite a white paper, but I will do what I can in a brief post.

If another individual and I are both using reason in argument, we accord each other mutual status. That is because even if one of us is wrong, we have tacitly agreed on the MEANS of knowledge. It is likely that both of us will be willing to point out the error of the other, and each will be grateful for that.

When speaking with a Deep Christian, we have not agreed on the means of knowledge. I am using reason alone, because it is the only path to the truth, whether I like it or not. The Christian is using an unholy mix of rationalization, emotion, (apparent) Inspiration, solipsism, and the glorified ignorance called faith.

All of us Rationalists attempt, in good faith, to get the Christian to think rationally. For example, we point out that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, that man was not a special act of creation. When this does not work, we try an emotional appeal. We say it is possible to have a God that guided the evolutionary process (we cannot prove that he didn't) and that they can keep Jesus and not reject science. This worked for The Pope, apparently, but it is not as effective for some Protestants. It is indicative that the belief is based on emotion, not reason.

Since pure reason is ineffective on the emotionally locked, another method is to fight (or support) emotion with emotion. It can be effective to point out the emotional absurdity of a belief, through analogy. This has the flavor of a "snap out of it!" argument. in other words, FEEL how ludicrous your stance is by reading my story about the Star Wars fan. What is your reaction to him? I have some pity for that Star Wars guy. He is adapting to his environment the best he knows how, but his adaptation is leading to some serious problems in his life.

There are some things that are axiomatic. Skeptics will argue anything, then they go about their day making the same assumptions we all make. For example, I am sitting in this chair. I have Skeptic friends that would argue that fact for HOURS, if I let them. It is "obvious" to the senses that there is no God, at least one that acts in any place but the imaginations of believers. The study of the natural over the last 500 years has only led to more of the natural.

People who don't know how to think well, who value their emotional preference over the evidence of their senses. can only be moved by an emotional approach. Have you ever known someone that vehemently disagreed with you, and later agreed, simply because they came to care about you and trust you? Your argument did not change, only the emotion. Case in point.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 6:45:57 AM PDT
QUESTER says:
Lao Tzu said ...

The Atheists are intelligent, funny, but also less likely to support one another. We attend to practical matters - philosophy, business, debauchery, the stuff that has value. Most (not all) atheists are irritating because they carry Skepticism to an extreme, assuming truth and morality is entirely relative, they vote for Obama (lol) and are not fans of individual rights.

On the whole, I would not give up either group, but I get more mental challenge and satisfaction from the Atheists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well ... after all, ... you are an Atheist.

Note that many Christians did (and will) vote for Obama. Noone could get elected without a majority of the Christian vote, given the predominance of Christian belief in America.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 8:29:31 AM PDT
reply to DTS's post:

apparently a lot of religions make a big deal out of it

my problem is that what they claim seems illogical and contradicts what i read in teh bible

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 8:30:53 AM PDT
reply to QUESTER's post:

absolutely

i voted for obama because baby bush was the most evil man to ever walk this planet and mcsame was no better

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 11:12:16 AM PDT
Lao Tzu,

Only one thing wrong with your argument:
I do not reject the evidence of Science. In fact, I invite it. I am a believer in "evolution", to an extent.
But I argue from a Christian perspective:
IF men evolved from the great apes, where did the Great apes come from?
And if their source evolve into Great apes, where did their source come from. E.t.c.
There HAD to be a First Source somewhere down the line.

Of course, we can't see beyond the Singularity. So Science can only go so far.
Where did the Singularity come from? The see-saw Universe is pretty much proven
mathematically not to be possible, as has the Static Universe theory. Leaving us
only with the Singularity coming from nowhere. That sure enough sounds like the
Fiat creation theory of the Bible to me. But someone [or something] somewhere HAD to be
able to manipulate "nothingness"in order to create the Big Bang in the first place. Are we to
believe, as Dr.Hawking does, that it just spontaneously appeared? I do not believe any such
absurdity. If you do, your entire world-view is built on an absurdity.

Even if Dr.Hawking were correct, and the Laws of Mathematics were always there, where did they come from.
ALL our laws which exist came from somewhere. And if the Laws of Mathematics and Physics only
apply to matter and energy, where did THEY come from? They somehow created themselves, or they too
just appeared out of nowhere? Another absurdity. So far, your world view is built on two absurdities.

It is much more "rational" for me to believe that "someone" created all this from nothing, than to believe they
just "appeared" spontaneously. Call this a "rationalization" if you wish. But it makes sense to me.
If it makes no sense to you, what can I say? Other than that your world view is built on two absurdities,
while mine is built on the testimony of men who had actual experience with the One Who cause the Big Bang,
as well as my own experience.

I'll take experience over theory any day.

a sinner,

Donald Lee McDaniel

To think for a moment that some Christians are not rational in some way is also absurd.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 12:22:07 PM PDT
Whomper -
You said "you need to know that you are correct when you claim a word means something
more so when they are so old and you dont have a dictionary from their language"

You re mistaken. I have a room full of Greek reference works including several lexicons. But examples of actual usage in ancient writings is far more compelling

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 12:33:01 PM PDT
DTS

Yep, you have represented my position fairly well, but with one glitch: The "law of the excluded middle."

Actually, it is not a law, but it is a logic fallacy. It works like this: I hold up a banana and I ask: "Is this an apple or an orange? If it is not an apple, then it must be an orange (and vice versa)."

The fallacy is created by posing a multiple-choice question for which I exclude the middle choice - the correct choice - and provide only two wrong answers to choose from.

The traditional argument is that Jesus must either be the true God, or he is a false god. But during this period of time, it was possible to speak of other divine beings that existed under or beside the one true God. See the commentary on the Gospel of John by Ernst Haenchen for a more detailed discussion on this issue.

The Bible writers attribute the title, 'God' (or maybe 'god') to Jesus a few times, but, given the striking ramifications of this, they do so with considerable restraint.

I doubt that we wil resolve the issues here.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 3:18:59 PM PDT
Lao Tzu says:
"I do not reject the evidence of Science. In fact, I invite it. I am a believer in "evolution", to an extent."

To the extent it does not contradict an ancient, primitive book of fantasy??

"IF men evolved from the great apes.."

Men did NOT evolve from the great apes, this confirms you have never read any evolution. You are just taking the word of your pastors, who have also not read any evolution. EVERY atheist on this board will agree with me. Why do they know when you do not? Because they let the facts lead them where the facts go, that is why.

BTW - if you can buy into the idea that natural cause and effect can be traced all the way back to the Singularity, you are WELL on your way to becoming a rationalist/materialist. I applaud you.

"ALL our laws which exist came from somewhere. And if the Laws of Mathematics and Physics only apply to matter and energy, where did THEY come from? They somehow created themselves..."

You are doing the CS Lewis bait and switch when it comes to the word "Law". Science laws are observational, no one had to write them. Human laws are prescriptive, they are designed. CS Lewis is a jackass in this regard.

A rock "obeys" the law of gravity. Does it "obey" in the way a person obeys the speed limit? Of course not. Do you understand the point? Will you agree never to do this CS Lewis deception again?

Finally, for you to get our current understanding about the nature of the universe, watch this video, then get on your knees, with tears in your eyes, in gratitude for science, and that we live in a time where the minds of humans can achieve and know so much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

The video is entertaining in its own right, a powerful physics lecture.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 3:20:33 PM PDT
3D says:
Do not go to LDS. If they are separate "beings" as suggested by Michaela, then they are separate gods. We know, emphatically, that this is not so. The Trinity is one: father/son/holy spirit. The co-exist and they coinhere. They are one, yet one with three primary expressions or functions. The Father comes witht he Son. The Son comes from/with the Father. The Father and Son come with the Holy Spirit. Michaela, you are walking near the edge of a dark pit. Be careful.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 4:00:57 PM PDT
Brandon says:
If you are looking for logic in Christianity you are gonna be sorely disappointed kid.

In reply to an earlier post on May 3, 2012 12:13:25 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 3, 2012 2:37:17 AM PDT
DTS says:
Michael,

It seems as though there has been some terminological confusion on both our parts over the phrase "excluded middle" I remember you using the phrase "fallacy of the excluded middle". It turns out we aren't even talking about the same thing. Let me explain . . .

I know for a fact that the Law of the excluded middle or LEM is a law of logic dating back to at least Aristotle and it is a theorem in modern propositional logic. In propositional logic it would be written as P v ~P. What it means is that for any proposition p, p is either true or false.
Let's assume that the LEM is false , that it's negation ~(P v ~P) is true.
By De Morgan's Laws, ~(P v ~P) is logically equivalent to ~P & P which is a violation of the law of non contradiction. In one step you can derive a contradiction from the negation of the LEM.

I remember you saying "fallacy of the excluded middle" and using the apple example in the past. I was really baffled. It was very clear to me that your apple example was not an example of the LEM, but instead a very clear example of a false dichotomy. An illustration of the LEM would be to hold up a banana and say either this is a banana or it is not a banana. Which is true. Another example would be to hold up a banana and say either is an apple or it is not an apple. Again that would be true.

It was not clear to me whether or not the notion that the Son is a god, but not the one true God and not a false god is a violation of the LEM. I'm not entirely sure what that means or how it should be understood. I thought by calling the excluded middle a fallacy you were saying that the LEM is false and that the Son as a god but not the one true God is a violation of the false LEM.

I thought the whole thing was a bit goofy but i was trying to represent your views accurately. And i personally wouldn't call the LEM a fallacy, which is what I thought you were saying. Apparently I failed at representing you accurately.

I pulled up a wikipedia article on the LEM to show you.

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

As i started to read the entry noticed this:

"Not to be confused with fallacy of the excluded middle."

Right at the top too.

So, I clicked on the blue link to fallacy of the excluded middle.

It redirects to an entry on False Dilemma.

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_excluded_middle

At the top I saw this: "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option."

I've never heard the term fallacy of the excluded middle before except from you. I've always known the fallacy as false dichotomy or false dilemma. But, apparently the term "fallacy of the excluded middle" is in use too.

I think its pretty clear that were talking about two different things. And I am not as baffled by your discussion of "the excluded middle" as I was before.

Oh and here is a link with a good explanation of De Morgan's laws incase you want to know what i was talking about earlier:

http://cpsc.ualr.edu/srini/DM/chapters/review1.1.html

In reply to an earlier post on May 3, 2012 1:27:37 AM PDT
DTS,

Actually, I don't believe that Jesus is existence and rationality themselves. I believe the Father is existence and rationality
themselves.

More properly, I believe that the Eternally unborn and uncreated Word/Logos/Mind of God does not equal the Man Jesus.
The Man Jesus is a Man in His very Nature -- He has the body of a man and the mind of a man. He was "begotten" super-
naturally when the Word was sent to Mary, and caused one of her ova to bring forth life, which grew into the Man Jesus
reported about in the Gospels.

However, the Word/Logos/Mind of the Father is joined inextricably with the Mind of Jesus, in such away that the two natures
can not be confused with each other, creating a single hypostasis [or "Person"]. Since this happened in "History" only once,
it could not have happened before the birth of Christ Jesus. There is no such pre-existing Person as "the Christ". There is only
"The Christ [or "Messiah"], Who is Jesus". Before Jesus was born, there was only the "Word/Mind/Logos" of the Father, Who,
being the second Person of the Holy Trinity, was in no way Jesus of Nazareth.

The birth of Jesus of Nazareth was fore-ordained by the Father from Eternity, but Jesus of Nazareth was only in potentiality
in the Mind/Word/Logos of the Father. Jesus of Nazareth is the ONLY Man Whom the Word has Joined inextricably with.
His [Form] or "Image" is the one from Whom all men since Adam have been made. The Father's likeness in us is that we are rational
beings. Christians are being changed from faith to faith into images of Jesus Christ, Who Himself is the Perfect Human Form of all men.
We are images of the Image of the Jesus, Who is Himself made in the personal, rational and intellectual likeness of the Father. Our
"likeness" is the same likeness of the Father Jesus has. He is Personal, Rational, and Intellectual.

Since the Father has no form, but is Himself His Own Form, we can never have His form [or "image"], since His Form is Infinite. But we CAN,
and do, have His Likeness, in that we too are rational persons. While the Father is Eternally Rational, and without beginning or end, we are created
in the Eternally fore-ordained physical form of Jesus Christ, with the Father's Rational likeness.

"Image" or "Form" has to do with "Nature", or "Form/Shape". "Likeness" has to do with "Essence", or "Intellectual/Rational" being.

a sinner,

Donald Lee McDaniel

In reply to an earlier post on May 3, 2012 1:28:42 AM PDT
3D:

What Michaela said makes a lot of sense. It is a much better explanation about the nature of the Godhead than the Trinity doctrine, which is what you believe in.

Three individual Gods, who are one in purpose and perfection in the one Godhead will always and forever be greater than three persons who are not three Gods. Three non-god persons cannot make up the Christian Godhead, but three real Gods (the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost) can.

No need to worry about Michaela, because she is more correct than you.

Harold

In reply to an earlier post on May 3, 2012 2:23:49 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 3, 2012 2:24:22 AM PDT
DTS says:
Donald,

So on your view, The Father is reality and reason itself. The Logos or Son is the the reason of the Father and the second person in the Trinity. On your view, Jesus is not reason or reality itself or the Logos. Yet the Logos unites itself without confusion or division to the mind of the man Jesus.

Do i have your view correct this time at least summary? Sorry i got it wrong. My main point was that Lao Tzu's story begged the question against you on the issue of whether or not God exists.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Christianity forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1197 12 days ago
Mary was not sinless. 6932 14 seconds ago
The Historical Jesus 8652 32 seconds ago
The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints is Christian. 7672 51 seconds ago
Jesus never "died for our sins" 3460 2 minutes ago
Tim Kaine, a Catholic who believes in good works is VP pick on the Hillary Democratic ticket! 519 4 minutes ago
If a man dies will he live again? Or, is physical death the end? 1064 7 minutes ago
My Mob's pub and coffee shop, Part the Twelfth 443 7 minutes ago
This is why atheism is growing throughout the world... 157 9 minutes ago
Christianity described as a 'profitable fable' by an early pope. 144 30 minutes ago
Interesting Comments by Posters 257 44 minutes ago
Judas was only a cover for JAMES THE JUST(video and interview by Sahansdal) 16 1 hour ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  39
Total posts:  328
Initial post:  Apr 9, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 2, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions