Jesus Christ, God = Same Person?

[Moose]

Originally posted by shadis

Questions like these would probably be better answered by a member of the clergy.

 

I don't think so. A clergyman would be biased to his own interpretation of the Scriptures. I agree that learning his or her views and opinions would be fascinating, but, I feel others would rather hear from an average ordinary joe off the streets.

[shadis]

Originally posted by Moose

I don't think so. A clergyman would be biased to his own interpretation of the Scriptures. I agree that learning his or her views and opinions would be fascinating, but, I feel others would rather hear from an average ordinary joe off the streets.

 

Then people should stop having conversations over religion. Religion is confusing enough, and few individuals ever agree on any aspect of religion. This person seems to want an answer based on his faith. If he follows a certain faith, talking to a member of his faith's clergy would be the most obvious and logical thing to do. He would want an answer he can agree with, and that his chosen way of life would accept.

[Moose]

You would think that would be the case 99% of the time. I've found that I don't agree on everything that my pastor has to say. That's why I find discussions on religion so helpful with total strangers. I've learned a lot, and disagreed a lot. I definitley don't think that peole should stop having conversations about religion though. How else could you get different views without the pressure of some clergyman trying to sell you on going to his or her Church?

[HokeyReligions]

In a nutshell, this is what I was taught back in Sunday School. Not saying it's accurate, but it's what the Baptists (or maybe it was the protestants?) taught me and what my family and former church believe.

 

God = The Father

Jesus = The Son

Holy Ghost = Jesus AFTER the resurrection. He left his earthly body behind, but appeared as he had in life.

 

God is not visible to the naked eye and one reason he created a human body for his son (Jesus) was to give us poor humans a frame of reference to which we could better relate and show our interaction and our faith.

[Mr. Nobody]

OK I just wanted to through my 2 cents in here cause Im seeing one very COMMON mistake throughout this entire thread, and that is both the general and specific word "God." Jewish faith dictates that using the true name of God in anything other than religious practices is "using it in vain." Unlike modern day beliefs where this only means saying "Oh God" or the dreaded "G**D*** it." Using something in vain mean to use it without purpose. Therefore it was common for the Jews to use the term god inplace of YHWH (Ancient Hebrew had no Vowels so we usually fill in the blanks spelling it Yehweh) this was of course converted sometime later to iehovah in Latin seeing there was no J in Hebrew either, and even later to Jehovah. You see, god is what the father IS, not WHO he is. It not different than me going up to a person I know on the street and calling them 'man.' Man is what he is, not who. I think of the three divine spirits much more like a husband and wife, the Bible describes them becoming "one flesh." But, this of course doesnt make them ONE entity, they simple work as one in agreeance. Or a council, they work as one body, but they can be many people. Same with the Army, one entity many people.

One good place to see this is the baptism of Jesus. Jesus was in the river, God spoke from Heaven saying "this is my son who who I am pleased," and the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove. Most people base this entire belief on John 1:1, the translation is more along the lines of "and the Word was a god," as opposed to "and the Word was God," meaning Jesus was a divine being and existed a such ... not that he WAS GOD. Like I said most of this confusion stems from the liberal use of the word "god" and the belief that capitalizing it somehow makes is more than it is. So God the Father is Yehweh the god of Abraham, or the usually refered to "God." So here is a heirarchy with further explaination:

 

God* the Father = Yehweh = "God" = god of Abraham

God* the Son = Yeshua (true name of Jesus, remember no J in Hebrew) = Son of Yehweh = "Jesus"

God* the Holy Ghost = the divine essence existing outside of Yehweh (this one Im still not sure one, its obvious he is a single entity though)

* God is the aforementioned "council," the group working in one mind .... not one body.

 

Basically all this info is out thre if you search for it on the net. Or you can do like me, learn ancient languages and translate for yourself.

 

OH and BTW ... ice/steam/water can coexist at the same time. Its called a substance's "triple point" and for water is occurs at 273.16 K at 611.2 Pa.

[Moose]

Ummmmm, no duh.....that's what, "Trinity", means......( the unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma ).

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Mr. Nobody

Therefore it was common for the Jews to use the term god inplace of YHWH (Ancient Hebrew had no Vowels so we usually fill in the blanks spelling it Yehweh) this was of course converted sometime later to iehovah in Latin seeing there was no J in Hebrew either, and even later to Jehovah. You see, god is what the father IS, not WHO he is.

Good point. It's sometimes translated as "I am who am"--or, "I am the one who is always present."

Basically all this info is out thre if you search for it on the net. Or you can do like me, learn ancient languages and translate for yourself.

I think your conlcusions are shaky--from what can you gather that Jesus and God are seperate entities--It seems to undermine the Paschal Mystery.

OH and BTW ... ice/steam/water can coexist at the same time. Its called a substance's "triple point" and for water is occurs at 273.16 K at 611.2 Pa.

Interesting, but irrelevant--my point was that the composition remains the same no matter what form it is in.

[moimeme]

Saint Patrick used a shamrock to explain the trinity. One plant with three conjoined leaves.

[Abraxsis]

Originally posted by dyermaker

 

I think your conlcusions are shaky--from what can you gather that Jesus and God are seperate entities--It seems to undermine the Paschal Mystery.

 

 

True, it does. But seeing the Paschal Mystery is a wholly Catholic dogma, and I doubt Mr. Nobody is nor am I Catholic, that point is fairly moot for me.

 

I agree with Mr. Nobody personally.

 

John 1:1 is pretty much the only basis for the ALL IN ONE doctrine. Other places in Bible show them as three entities, even in Genesis they are quoted as saying "let US make man in our own image." If Jesus IS God then what is the point of him proclaiming to be an intermediary between us and God? It makes no sense, Biblically or otherwise, to have to pray through Christ to get to God if he WAS God.

 

Of course there is the little matter of God stating he gave Christ all power in heaven and earth, so he is in essence "Acting God." But even then, he recieved that power FROM God. If he was God then he would already have that power right?

 

A friend of mine who is in Bible College also believes in the trinity doctrine and we talked about it one night. My own background is in Psychology and the idea that all three "personas" of the trinity were present in the flesh on earth is oddly familiar to me. Reading the various accounts of the bible with this in mind reminds me of a paranoid schizophrenic who believes the Devil is out to get him. Reading the Bible, I just can not bring myself to believe that Jesus is "God." He might be "a god" in the idea that he is a divine entity, but hardly the creator of all things.

 

Just my opinion.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Abraxsis

Other places in Bible show them as three entities, even in Genesis they are quoted as saying "let US make man in our own image."

Seeing as how Genesis was written by Jews thousands of years before the coming of Christ, not to mention Pentecost, I don't see your point at all.

 

By the way, what do you mean by "They are quoted as saying"--Who? Ancient Jews?

 

The idea that God wrote Genesis is pretty juvenile.

 

It was written by a bunch of Hebrews, in (shock!) Hebrew! Perhaps if the Tower of Babel never fell, we'd be able to "quote" God in his native tongue (English, of course).

 

Until then, you're going to have to deal with Hebrew text if you're looking for fidelity.

 

The word in question (let us make) is `asah. The conjugation of Hebrew isn't very specific. There's no way to be sure, just looking at that word alone, what it means. It could have over 27 different languages, and whether it means "Let me make" or "Let us make" has zero to do with the word in question.

 

So why does the English say "Let us make" ? The answer is simple, it's not God creating humans. It's "GODS"--elohiym, the plural of 'elowahh.

 

Ha, your beloved creation story was likely written by Polytheists! Whether you buy that or not is irrelevant, but it does solve the mystery of why elohiym said "Let US make"--because otherwise it would be gramatically incorrect. Even if the oral tradition favored a singular God (which threatens your conclusions trinitywise), the scribes who wrote it down used grammar properly.

[Abraxsis]

Originally posted by dyermaker

 

Seeing as how Genesis was written by Jews thousands of years before the coming of Christ, not to mention Pentecost, I don't see your point at all.

 

By the way, what do you mean by "They are quoted as saying"--Who? Ancient Jews?

 

The idea that God wrote Genesis is pretty juvenile.

 

 

 

Forgive me if Im wrong ... doesn't mainstream christian doctrine state that the bible, as a whole, is the inspired "word of god." So yes, I believe God did in fact write Genesis. He might not have physically placed pen to paper, or reed to animal skin to be historically closer to truth, but he did write it. Now, you must ask yourself various questions. Would God allow his words to be altered, to be mistranslated throughout history. During the various language translations did god allow meaning to be lost, to somehow slip into the ether of history. Personally I say no. The current King James Version has been checked with all three of the major codices of the early bible, and surprisingly very little was lost in the translations. (these would be Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus of course)

Of course this all boils down to matters of faith. Faith in God's promises, and faith that he will keep the Bible as close to his own "words" as possible so that we can partake in that promise.

 

But you are right about grammar, and proper usage of pronouns when translating from language to language. So Ill retract that.

 

Again, only my opinion.

[dyermaker]

doesn't mainstream christian doctrine state that the bible, as a whole, is the inspired "word of god."

It kind of has to.

So yes, I believe God did in fact write Genesis.

You do yourself a disservice if you tear things out of historical context.

 

God wouldn't "inspire" people to write something that made no sense at the time--lest everyone abandon him and find a Religion that does make sense.

 

For example, he wouldn't explain evolution to writers of Genesis. They wouldn't understand it at all. He would explain the idea of germ theory to writers of Leviticus. They wouldn't understand it at all. Et cetera...

The current King James Version has been checked with all three of the major codices of the early bible, and surprisingly very little was lost in the translations.

Plenty is lost in the translation from Hebrew/Greek to English.

[Moose]

I agree that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Written by men under the influence of the Holy Spirit. I also believe that through the ages, men who where devote, wise, and full of the Spirit precisley preserved the message, meaning, and instruction, and has done so with God's divine intervention.

[dyermaker]

Unless you're a Calvinist, you believe in free will.

 

If I'm a Biblical scribe, and, of my own free will, don't preserve the Biblical message, what stops me?

[Moose]

Yes, I believe in free will. I also believe that if you were a Biblical Scribe, there would be elders and early theologians, even historians right beside you making certain that the message remains intact. It would have to be a conspiracy, [sw], among them to altar what God intended His messages to be.

 

I admit that it is possible that through the ages certain messages, perhaps whole books, could've been omitted either by a personal decision of the Scribe himself, or of the collective. I really don't believe that God would allow the very essence to fade out though.

[dyermaker]

The thing is, people don't squabble over "the essence", they squabble over the specifics.

 

And it's the specifics have been squished around, and as a result, affected our perception of "the essence".

 

Because God gave us free will, he's powerless to write our Bible.

[moimeme]

What astounds me is that people are trying to squeeze God into three-dimensional earth terms. There is a vast amount of unknown and certainly worlds we know absolutely nothing of. That people try to conceive of God as one or may individuals restricts Him to earthly form which, clearly, isn't what He is. He could be three layers of dimensions. He could be any number of sorts of entities that humans can't possibly conceive of. Yet people base their disbelief on the idea that an earthly variety of a tripartite persona isn't imaginable.

[heartburn]

To the writer of this post, research the Trinity Doctrine. The Early Christians did not believe in the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost as one. Their belief was that God (whose holy name was replaced by this title) and Jesus were not the same. Remember that man does not have all the answers. It is up to us to research the history and ask God for guidance and understanding. He knows that you are seeking out knowledge and he knows your heart. May God Bless!

[Moose]

Originally posted by heartburn

To the writer of this post, research the Trinity Doctrine. The Early Christians did not believe in the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost as one. Their belief was that God (whose holy name was replaced by this title) and Jesus were not the same. Remember that man does not have all the answers. It is up to us to research the history and ask God for guidance and understanding. He knows that you are seeking out knowledge and he knows your heart. May God Bless!

 

Ummmm.......WHAT??? I think maybe your advice could be pointed towards you as well friend. The doctrine concerning the Trinity was taught in both the old and new testaments:

 

Isaiah 48:16 Old testament: The speaker in this verse is obviously God, and yet He says He has been sent both by The Lord God (that is, the Father) and by His Spirit (that is, the Holy Spirit).

 

John 15:26 New testament: "But when the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from the Father, He shall testify of me."

 

So early Christians had an understanding of what the Holy Trinity is. So I don't understand where you can say that the early Christians didn't believe in it......where's your Scripture reference?

 

Thanks for the reminder that man doesn't have all the answers too........that's kind of a no brainer.

[dyermaker]

Moose, there is a lot of research on Trinity to be done--you're simplifying it if you pretend that everyone was in full agreement of the trinity at the time of Jesus, or even before.

 

The recent popularity of the Da Vinci code has propagated the belief that the Trinity was invented in the 4th century after the Council of Nicea. That's not true, I'm certain--but it is safe to assume that the first Christians at least argued about the Trinity.

 

I think it started to take its modern form at around the mid second century--After all the Gospels that we have in our modern canon were written.

[Moose]

you're simplifying it if you pretend that everyone was in full agreement of the trinity

 

I tend to do that a lot don't I? I apologize, I do need to work on my laziness.

 

Post Script:

 

I thought I was the only one who thought agreeance wasn't a word.

[finalf72]

i think they are not the same person. i think that god is a diffrent being, and has his son jesus. and jesus is the son of god, who is a diffrent being than man, which makes him also the same being as god. and the holy spirit? hmm, i think of that as a symbol god uses as the holy side of everyone on earth or somethig. thats just my opinion. so god and jesus are not the same person, they are of the same being though.

[tiger2380]

Well, I also think that God and Jesus are not the same person. When Jesus was baptized, the Bible said "heaven were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. So, i don't think that Jesus went to heaven at the same time, when he was baptized, and said that. Also, when Jesus was on earth, he said that i am not doing this on my own will, but my Father will.

[RowanRavyn]

What was I taught:

 

God the father, God the son, and God the Holy Ghost (yes we said ghost).

 

The way I understood it at the time was this:

 

Under law, God was in accessible except through the intermediary of a Levite. When Christ died on the cross, the veil (curtain) that separated the Holy of Holies from the other parts of the temple was rent in half, thus Christ's death opened the door for us to approach God directly (as he had become our intermediary). The Holy Spirit was then sent as a "comforter" to the Christians left behind after Christ's death. While this concept was talked about in the gospels it was not made manifest until Pentecost. My daddy's concept of this was that the Holy Spirit is your conscious. That little whisper that tells you when you are about to do something wrong. (still small voice, I think it says in the scriptures.).

 

Three is a scared number in many religions. Many other "gods and goddesses" are triune in existence (Such as Cerridwin~mother-maiden-crone).

 

A friend of mine put it this way. Because of sin God made himself untouchable, over time his heart became softened and he wished to understand us so he came to us as Christ, when he had learned what it meant to be us, he left his spirit to remind us through its gentle voice that we are never truly alone.

[dyermaker]

I think 'conscience' is the most positive and fascinating piece of man-made doctrine ever. I think Jiminy Cricket gave it a bad rap as being the 'little voice that says right from wrong'--and I hope there's an equally entertaining piece of film or literature that makes people reassess their understanding of the most personal manfestation of God.