Godhead

[NickHassan]

Hi,
Godhead is a uniquely KJV word that seesm to have been adopted by traditional christianity to mean either the trinity or the family of God.

Can we look at the context where it is used in the bible?

Romans 1.19-20 {New KJV}
” because what may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to the, for since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly see, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead so they are without excuse”

Now try to put trinity or family in there .It does not fit because the whole verse is about the Father.

Coll 2.8-9
” Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the traditions of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”

Now can anyone tell me how the family or trinity, of which Christ is said to be a part, can also be in him? That makes no sense. Again it refers to the Spirit of God, God's nature and power expressed on earth in Christ and now in us.

Now NASB translates the word as “divine nature” in Romans and “deity” in Collosians.

I would welcome your comments.

[poisson_1]

Hi Nick,

From what I understood from Aldous Huxley's 'The Perennial Philosopy', the word 'Godhead' is used to designate the Physical manifestation of the whole God, on Earth, as a human being. Organised Christianity claims that there has only been one Avatar, and as a result the organised Church's history is stained with more blood than one might dare to think about. But that's another story.

God created us in His likeness (not physical, obviously, God has the attributes of a Mind. It is our mind – now, by default, trapped and occluded, until it is freed with the realisation and acceptance that the blood of God was spilled for us too, and through baptism – that was once in His likeness)

We are like the shattered pieces of a hologram: each of us pieces representing the whole picture, but the whole picture is difficult to see in the fragments.

Godhead occurs when the whole picture appears un-warped, intact, in every detail in one of the pieces. That piece may be especially manufactured by God Himself to look like a 'piece' when in fact, it has not been shattered. The individual contains the all. The singular contains the plural. The fragment contains the complete.

In such an instance, can we say that Godhead and God  are the same? yes AND no, no AND yes. Their manifestations are different, but their essence are the same. Does that make them different or the same? Here's a little quote from a book I've just read that might shed some light on that. I found it online, on the author's website ( http://www.rawilson.com ). The idea here is what counts, not necessarily the author's point of view (which remains nonetheless, rather entertaining!).

Hopefully it'll shed some light on most of the squabbles encountered throughout religious history nad much more. This is enlightening to say the least.

Enjoy!

Denis

E and E-Prime
In 1933, in Science and Sanity, Alfred Korzybski proposed that we should abolish the “is of identity” from the English language. (The “is of identity” takes the form X is a Y. e.g., “Joe is a Communist,” “Mary is a dumb file-clerk,” “The universe is a giant machine,” etc.) In 1949, D. David Bourland Jr. proposed the abolition of all forms of the words “is” or “to be” and the Bourland proposal (English without “isness”) he called E-Prime, or English-Prime.

A few scientists have taken to writing in E-Prime (notable Dr. Albert Ellis and Dr. E.W. Kellogg III). Bourland, in a recent (not-yet-published) paper tells of a few cases in which scientific reports, unsatisfactory to sombunall members of a research group, suddenly made sense and became acceptable when re-written in E-Prime. By and large, however, E-Prime has not yet caught on either in learned circles or in popular speech.

(Oddly, most physicists write in E-Prime a large part of the time, due to the influence of Operationalism — the philosophy that tells us to define things by operations performed — but few have any awareness of E-prime as a discipline and most of them lapse into “isness” statements all too frequently, thereby confusing themselves and their readers. )

Nonetheless, E-Prime seems to solve many problems that otherwise appear intractable, and it also serves as an antibiotic against what Korzybski called “demonological thinking.” Most of this book employs E-Prime so the reader could begin to get acquainted with this new way of mapping the world; in a few instances I allowed normal English, and its “isness” to intrude again (how many of you noticed that?), while discussing some of the weird and superstitious thinking that exists throughout our society and always occurs when “is” creeps into our concepts. (As a clue or warning, I placed each “is” in dubious quotation marks, to highlight its central role in the confusions there discussed).

As everybody with a home computer knows, the software can change the functioning of the hardware in radical and sometimes startling ways. The first law of computers — so ancient that some claim it dates back to dark, Cthulhoid aeons when giant saurians and Richard Nixons still dominated the earth — tells us succinctly, “Garbage In, Garbage Out” (or GIGO for short).

The wrong software guarantees wrong answers, or total gibberish. Conversely, the correct software, if you find it, will often “miraculously” solve problems that had hitherto appeared intractable.

Since the brain does not receive raw data, but edits data as we receive it, we need to understand the software the brain uses. The case for using E-Prime rests on the simple proposition that “isness” sets the brain into a medieval Aristotelian framework and makes it impossible to understand modern problems and opportunities. A classic case of GIGO, in short. Removing “isness” and writing/thinking only and always in operational/existential language sets us, conversely, in a modern universe where we can successfully deal with modern issues.

To begin to get the hang of E-Prime, consider the following two columns, the first written in Standard English and the second in English Prime.

Standard English  English Prime
1. The photon is a wave.  1. The photon behaves as a wave when constrained by certain instruments.  
2. The photon is a particle.  2. The photon appears as a particle when constrained by other instruments.  
3. John is unhappy and grouchy.  3. John appears unhappy and grouchy in the office.  
4. John is bright and cheerful.  4. John appears bright and cheerful on holiday at the beach.
5. The car involved in the hit-and-run accident was a blue Ford.  5. In memory, I think I recall the car involved in the hit-and-run accident as a blue Ford.
6. That is a fascist idea.  6. That seems like a fascist idea to me.
7. Beethoven is better than Mozart.  7. In my present mixed state of musical education and ignorance Beethoven seems better than Mozart to me.
8. Lady Chatterly's lover is a pornographic novel.  8. Lady Chatterly's lover seems like a pornographic novel to me.
9. Grass is green.  9. Grass registers as green to most human eyes.
10. The first man stabbed the second man with a knife.  10. I think I saw the first man stab the second man with a knife.  

In the first example a “metaphysical” or Aristotelian formulation in Standard English becomes an operational or existential formulation when rewritten in English Prime. This may appear of interest only to philosophers and scientists of an operationalist/phenomenologist bias, but consider what happens when we move to the second example.

Clearly, written in Standard English, “The photon is a wave,” and “The photon is a particle” contradict each other, just like the sentences “Robin is a boy” and “Robin is a girl.” Nonetheless, all through the nineteenth century physicists found themselves debating about this and, by the early 1920s, it became obvious that the experimental evidence depended on the instruments or the instrumental set-up (design) of the total experiment. One type of experiment always showed light traveling in waves, and another type always showed light traveling as discrete particles.

This contradiction created considerable consternation. As noted earlier, some quantum theorists joked about “wavicles.” Others proclaimed in despair that “the universe is not rational” (by which they meant to indicate that the universe does not follow Aristotelian logic. ) Still others looked hopefully for the definitive experiment (not yet attained in 1990) which would clearly prove whether photons “are” waves or particles.

If we look, again, at the translations into English Prime, we see that no contradiction now exists at all, no “paradox,” no “irrationality” in the universe. We also find that we have constrained ourselves to talk about what actually happened in spacetime, whereas in Standard English we allowed ourselves to talk about something that has never been observed in spacet
ime at all — the “isness” or “whatness” or Aristotelian “essence” of the photon. (Niels Bohr's Complementarity Principle and Copenhagen Interpretation, the technical resolutions of the wave/particle duality within physics, amount to telling physicists to adopt “the spirit of E-Prime” without quite articulating E-Prime itself.)

The weakness of Aristotelian “isness” or “whatness” statements lies in their assumption of indwelling “thingness” — the assumption that every “object” contains what the cynical German philosopher Max Stirner called “spooks.” Thus in Moliere's famous joke, an ignorant doctor tries to impress some even more ignorant lay persons by “explaining” that opium makes us sleepy because it has a “sleep-inducing property” in it. By contrast a scientific or operational statement would define precisely how the structure of the opium molecule chemically bonds to specific receptor structures in the brain, describing actual events in the spacetime continuum.

In simpler words, the Aristotelian universe assumes an assembly of “things” with “essences” or “spooks” inside of them, where the modern scientific (or existentialist) universe assumes a network of structural relationships. (Look at the first two samples of Standard English and English Prime again, to see this distinction more clearly.)

Moliere's physician does not seem nearly as comical as the theology promulgated by the Vatican. According to Thomist Aristotelianism (the official Vatican philosophy) “things” not only have indwelling “essences” or “spooks” but also have external “accidents” or appearances. This “explains” the Miracle of the Transubstantiation. In this astounding, marvelous, totally wonderful, even mind-boggling Miracle, a piece of bread changes into the body part of a Jew who lived 2000 years ago.

Now the “accidents” — which include everything you can observe about the bread, with your senses, or with the most subtle scientific instruments — admittedly do not change. To your eyes or taste buds or electron microscopes the bread has undergone no change at all. It doesn't even weigh as much as a human body, but retains the weight of a small piece of bread. Nonetheless, to Catholics, after the Miracle (which any priest can perform) the bread “is” the body of the aforesaid dead Jew, one Yeshua ben Yusef, who the goys of the Vatican call Jesus Christ. In other words, the “essence” of the bread “is” the dead Jew.

It appears obvious that, within this framework, the “essence” of the bread can “be” anything, or can “be” asserted to “be” anything. It could “be” the essence of the Easter Bunny, or it could “be” Jesus and the Easter Bunny both, or it could “be” the Five Original Marx Brothers, or it could “be” a million other spooks happily co-existing in the realm outside spacetime where such metaphysical entities appear to reside.

Even more astounding, this Miracle can only happen if the priest has a Willy. Protestants, Jews, Zen Buddhists etc. have ordained many female clergy-persons in recent decades, but the Vatican remains firm in the principle that only a male — a human with a Willy — can transform the “essence” of bread into the “essence” of a dead body.

Like the cannibalism underlying this Rite, this phallus-worship dates back to Stone Age ideas about “essences” that can be transferred from one organism to another. Ritual homosexuality, as distinguished from homosexuality-for-fun, played a prominent role in many of the pagan fertility cults that got incorporated into the Catholic metaphysics. See Frazer's Golden Bough and Wright's Worship of the Generative Organs. It requires a phallus to transmute the bread into flesh because some of our early ancestors believed it requires a phallus to do any great work of Magick.)

In Standard English we may discuss all sorts of metaphysical and spooky matters, often without noticing that we have entered the realms of theology and demonology, whereas in English Prime we can only discuss actual experiences (or transactions) in the spacetime continuum. English Prime may not automatically transfer us into a scientific universe, in all cases, but it at least transfers us into existential or experiential modes, and it takes us out of medieval theology.

Now, those who enjoy theological and/or demonological speculations may continue to enjoy them, as far as I care. This book merely attempts to clarify the difference between theological speculations and actual experiences in spacetime, so that we do not wander into theology without realizing where we have gotten ourselves. The Supreme Court, for instance, wandered into theology (or demonology) when it proclaimes that “####” “is” an indecent word. The most one can say about that in scientific E-Prime would read: “The word '####' appears indecent in the evaluations of x per cent of the population,” X found by normal polling methods.

Turning next to the nigmatic John who “is” unhappy and grouchy yet also “is” bright and cheerful, we find a surprising parallel to the wave/particle duality. Remaining in the reality-tunnel of standard English, one might decide that John “really is” manic depressive. Or one speaker might decide that the other speaker hasn't “really” observed John carefully, or “is” an “untrustworthy witness.” Again, the innocent-looking “is” causes us to populate the world with spooks, and may provoke us to heated debate, or violent quarrel. (That town in Northern Ireland mentioned earlier — “is” it “really” Derry or Londonderry?)

Rewriting in English Prime we find “John appears unhappy and grouchy in the office” and “John appears bright and cheerful on holiday at the beach.” We have left the realms of spooks and re-entered the existential or phenomenological world of actual experiences in spacetime. And, lo and behold, another metaphysical contradiction has disappeared in the process.

To say “John is” anything, incidentally, always opens the door to spooks and metaphysical debates. The historical logic of Aristotelian philosophy as embedded in Standard English always carries an association of stasis with every “is,” unless the speaker or writer remembers to include a date, and even then linguistic habit will cause many to “not notice” the date and assume “is” means a stasis (an Aristotelian timeless essence or spook.)

For instance, “John is beardless” may deceive many people (but not trained police officers) if john becomes a wanted criminal and alters his appearance by growing a beard.

“John is a Protestant” or “John is a Catholic” may change any day, if John has developed a habit of philosophical speculation.

Even stranger, “John is a Jew” has at least five different meanings, some of which may change and some remain constant, and only one of which tells us anything about how John will behave in spacetime…..

“John is a plumber” also contains a fallacy. John may have quit plumbing since you saw him last and may work as a hair dresser now. Stranger things have happened. In E-Prime one would write “John had a job as a plumber last I knew.”

Trivial? Overly pedantic? According to a recent article Professor Harry Weinberg — curiously, an old acquaintance of mine — once tried to emphasize these points to a class by trying to make them see the fallacy in the statement “John F. Kennedy is President of the United States.” Dr. Weinberg pointed out that the inference, Nothing has changed since we came into this classroom, had not been checked by anybody who insisted the statement about Kennedy contained certainty. Weinberg, like his students, got the lesson driven home with more drama than anybody expected, because this class occurred on November 22, 1963, and everybody soon learned that during that class time John F. Kennedy had died of an assassin's bullet and Lyndon B. Johnson had taken the oath as President of the United States.

That makes the idea kind of hard to forget, doesn't it?

Looking at sample five — “The car… was a blue Ford” we might again encounter Bertrand Russel
l's two-head paradox. It seems a blue Ford exists “in” the head of the witness, but whether the blue Ford also existed “outside” that head remains unsure. Even outside tricky psychology labs, ordinary perception has become problematical due to the whole sad history of eye-witness testimony frequently breaking down in court. Or does the “external universe” (including the blue Ford) exist in some super-Head somwhere? It seems that the translation into E-Prime — “I recall the car… as a blue Ford” better accords with the experiential level of our existence in spacetime than the two heads and other paradoxes we might encounter in Standard English.

James Thurber tells us that he once saw an admiral, wearing a 19th Century naval uniform and old-fashioned side whiskers, peddling a unicycle down the middle of Fifth Avenue in New York. Fortunately, Thurber had broken his glasses and had not yet received replacements from the optometrist, so he did not worry seriously about his sanity. In the Castro section of San Francisco, a well-known homosexual area, I once saw a sign which said 'HALF GAY CLEANERS' — but when I looked again, it said, 'HALF DAY CLEANERS'.

Even Aristotle, despite the abuse he has suffered in these pages, had enough common sense to point out, once, that “I see” always contains fallacy; we should say, “I have seen.” Time always elapses between the impact of energy on the eye and the creation of an image (and associated name and ideas) in the brain, which explains why three eyewitnesses to a hit-and-run such as we postulate here may report, not just the blue Ford of the first speaker, but a blue VW or maybe even a green Toyota.

I once astonished a friend by remarking, apropos of UFOs, that I see two or three of them a week. As a student of Transactional Psychology, this does not surprise or alarm me. I also see UNFOs, as noted earlier — and I do not rush to identify them as raccoons or groundhogs, like some people we met earlier. Most people see UNFOs, without thinking about the implications of this, especially when driving rapidly, but sometimes even when walking. We only find UFOs impressive because some people claim they “are” alien spaceships. My UFOs remain Unidentified, since they did not hang around long enough for me to form even a guess about them, but I have found no grounds for classifying them as space-ships. Anybody who does not see UFOs frequently, I think, has not mastered perception psychology or current neuroscience. The sky contains numerous things that go by too quickly for anybody to identify them.

My own wife has appeared as an UNFO to me on occasion — usually around two or three in the morning when I get out of bed to go to the john and then encounter a Mysterious and Unknown figure emerging from the dark at the other end of the hall. In those cases, fortunately, identification did not take long, and I never reached for a blunt instrument to defend myself. Whatever my critics may suspect, I never mistook her for a squirrel.

If you think about it from the perspective of E-Prime, the world consists mostly of UFOs and UNFOs. Very few “things” (spacetime events) in the air or on the ground give us the opportunity to “identify” them with certainty.

In example six — “That is a fascist idea” versus “That seems like a fascist idea to me” — Standard English implies an indwelling essence of the medieval sort, does not describe an operation in spacetime, and mentions no instrument used in measuring the alleged “fascism” in the idea. The English Prime translation does not assume essences or spooks, describes the operation as occurring in the brain of the speaker and, implicitly, identifies said brain as the instrument making the evaluation. Not accidentally, Standard English also assumes a sort of “glass wall” between observer and observed, while English Prime draws us back into the modern quantum world where observer and observed form a seamless unity.

In examples 7 and 8, Standard English again assumes indwelling spooks and continues to separate observer and observed; English Prime assumes no spooks and reminds us of QUIP (the QUantum Inseparability Principle, so named by Dr. Nick Herbert), namely, the impossibility of existentially separating observer and observed.

Meditating on example 9 will give you the answer to a famous Zen koan, “Who is the Master who makes the grass green?” It might also save you from frequent quarrels (mostly occurring between husbands and wives) about whether the new curtains “are really” green or blue.

Example 10 introduces new subtleties. No explicit “is” appears in the Standard English, so even those trained in E-Prime may see no problem here. However, if the observation refers to a famous (and treacherous) experiment, well-known to psychologists, the Standard English version contains a hilarious fallacy.

I refer to the experiment in which two men rush into a psychology class, struggle and shout, and then one makes a stabbing motion and the other falls. The majority of students, whenever that has been tried, report a knife in the hand of the man who made the stabbing (knife-wielding) motion. In fact, the man used no knife. He used a banana.

Look back at the re-translation into E-Prime. It seems likely that persons trained in E-Prime will grow more cautious about their perceptions and not “rush to judgement” in the manner of most of us throughout history. They might even see the banana, instead of hallucinating a knife.

[NickHassan]

hi,
One useful thing you said [or inferred]was that your definition of GODHEAD is entirely different to the word as used in KJV scripture.Given that this is a scriptural forum then you would always have to state that when using the word as you understand it as otherwise confusion is added to.
Your philosophical contribution adds up largely to this as I see it

The only real truth that exists is absolute truth.
and
There is no such thing as absolute truth because there is always observational error.

I disagree. Jesus is the Truth. He said so and I believe him.

[NickHassan]

ps Denis,
Do you think it is true that God left heaven to live in Jesus?That is untenable surely as Jesus told us to pray to “our Father in Heaven” just as he did also.

You say we have the mind of God. But scripture says we have the mind of Christ. Do you say that Christ is God in a body and Jesus has no separate nature or identity?

I hope not as that is to deny the Son of God who was with God in the beginning.

Can you clarify your stand here for us?

[poisson_1]

Dear Nick,

Thank you for your post, I'm gald you asked these questions.

Once again, the views of Richard Anton Wilson are not my views. I also believe that Christ is the Truth and that that truth has been partly revealed to us through the ages. I merely relate his thoughts to introduce the idea of e-prime according to which Jesus neither 'is' nor 'is not' the Father, only may be considered so according to the point of view we take.

I certainly don't believe that God left heaven to come into the body of Jesus Christ, I believe he reproduced himself in perfection in Jesus's mind.

Therefore, if we have the mind of Christ, and Christ has the mind of God, then consequently,we also must have the mind of God.

Christ is the creation of God, his first creation which He created out of His own Self. He has all the attributes of the Father

I hope That clarifies things a little? don't hesitate to ask if you've got any more concerns or questions.

Good to talk.

Denis

[poisson_1]

Also, I don't believe that there is no such thing as absolute truth, only that we cannot know it until we experience it, and it is unrelatable unless it be through parables, which is how Jesus chose to talk of his own experience.The words of humans cannot encompass God.

The scriptures give us a good idea of what God is, but we have to experience Him directly to know Him truly.

We can experience Him truly by being reborn out of sin through the acceptance of the blood of Jesus who was pure thanks to the Christ who inhabited him, and through Baptism by which our own spirit dies, allowing God's holy Spirit to grow in us instead. Since the Christ is living information, we need to fill ourselves with as much of it as possible through prayer, but also through reading the Word, which is Christ, which is holy knowledge, which is Sophia, which is Gnosis (and so on) of which fragments remain in the form of the Bible, but of which the main bulk was retreived in Qumran in 1947 (The Dead Sea Scrolls) and in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1948 (The Nag Hammadi Library).

It is our duty to find this Word wherever it is, and allow it to spread in the minds of as many sentient beings as we can, for our minds are the host of the Word, of Christ, we are his bride, his temple, his church.

Denis

We can in this way experience God personally

[poisson_1]

Also, it is not my belief that there is no such thing as absolute truth, only that we cannot know it until we experience it, and it is unrelatable unless it be through parables, which is how Jesus chose to talk of his own experience.The words of humans cannot encompass God.

The scriptures give us a good idea of what God is, but we have to experience Him directly to know Him truly.

We can experience Him truly by being reborn out of sin through the acceptance of the blood of Jesus who was pure thanks to the Christ who inhabited him, and through Baptism by which our own spirit dies, allowing God's holy Spirit to grow in us instead. Since the Christ is living information, we need to fill ourselves with as much of it as possible through prayer, but also through reading the Word, which is Christ, which is holy knowledge, which is Sophia, which is Gnosis (and so on) of which fragments remain in the form of the Bible, but of which the main bulk was retreived in Qumran in 1947 (The Dead Sea Scrolls) and in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1948 (The Nag Hammadi Library).

It is our duty to find this Word wherever it is, and allow it to spread in the minds of as many sentient beings as we can, for our minds are the host of the Word, of Christ, we are his bride, his temple, his church.

Denis

[NickHassan]

Hi Denis,
Did God really reproduce himself in the mind of Jesus? That seems to be a little different from what scripture reveals. Are you saying God is duplicated? God is Spirit and spirit does not need to be duplicated but poured out into clean vessels.
Are you saying Christ only has the mind of God? What about the heart or the power?
Yes, we must eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood and that is through devouring the Word of God and living in the Spirit of Christ. Man cannot live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.

[poisson_1]

According to the scriptures found in Nag Hammadi, Each spirit has a male and a female self. In the begining, reality noticed itself in itself, and thus gave birth to itself. This is what is meant by 'Son of God'. Christ is not just the mind of God, it is all God, (God is a mind), it is God as experienced by God (that is how he brought Christ forth) therefore, Christ has all the qualities of God, it is God. Power, authority and all the rest. To say that God has a heart is to say that he has a body of flesh, unless you are speaking metaphorically.

Would you say that the Spirit is a liquid? It has been likened to Oil and we use the metaphorical 'liquid' word 'pour'. But when Spirit was poured into the vessal that was Jesus of Nasareth, it was not a portion that was poured from a jug, but rather the whole jug. And yet, the Siprit remained in the Jug. That is why I reject the metaphore of a Liquid Spirit. It may work some of the way, but it is not complete.

Remember that when a finger points to the moon, it is not the finger that we must look at. The words are not the object. The way we talk about these matters that are bigger than human words should not be confused for the real thing which we only use words to point to.

God reveals the same thing to all, it is the words we choose to speak about these things that we squabble about.

God bless you.

Denis

[NickHassan]

Hi Denis,
I hope you are not too surprised that we are not wildly enthusiastic about new doctrines being presented here based on non biblical scripture.If it is true you will find your teachings clearly shown in the bible and can show us from there. We are safer to stay on that path do you not agree?

[poisson_1]

Fair enough.

Do have a look at the Nag Hammadi library, though, even if it's only to make up your own mind.

Denis

[NickHassan]

Hi,
Paul has said we need to understand the GODHEAD.Perhaps he could enlighten us with his views?

[trettep]

The Godhead is extremely important to the understanding of the Gospel and knowledge must start there.

The Godhead is what comprises the highest most powers and authority.

At the top of that Authority we have the Father – the Most High God. The Father as that title implies is a Family figure and therefore we know of His Son – Jesus. But the Holy Spirit is not a figure of the Godhead. But the Holy Spirit is included in everyone that is in the Godhead. Because the Holy Spirit is the character/authority of the Father. But the Godhead is not yet complete. Even the Father is still creating the Godhead. That is where the Gospel comes in.

This is also why the Gospel requires knowledge of the Godhead to understand it because God is imparting his character into those called and its that Spirit that one becomes a part of the Family of God. Christ proclaimed the Gospel when he returned to Galilee and that Gospel was of the Kingdom of Heaven. The reason the Kingdom was at hand because now is the time when we can be born into that Kingdom. A Kingdom is a ruling family. The British Monarchy is a great example of what a Kingdom is. Its a Family that rules. Therefore, the Godhead is not yet complete as the Father is longsuffering for those He has called. The Father has given His first begotten to be the example. In the Bible we find Jesus being called the first begotten. The reason mankind exists is to become Sons of God.

Satan mixed the truth with a lie when he tempted Eve:

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Satan knew the mission God intended for mankind. Satan marketed the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil as the Tree of Life. Because its the Tree of Life that would have granted those things that Satan mentioned. For if Adam and Eve had eaten of the Tree of Life, they would never die (eternal life – be saved) and they would be Children of God (gods) and they would know all knowledge.

Here is some of the best defining verses of the Holy Spirit – I have provided my interpretations in brackets:

1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his [Father] Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

This shows that I can't know the thoughts of Nick or Cubes or anyone else here but there own spirit does. Likewise those that have the Spirit of God in them know the Fathers thoughts and intentions.

Hopefully this explaination is investigated in your own Bible and seek the Word of God and pray for understanding and whether what I say is so.

Paul

[NickHassan]

Thank you,
Paul where does this definition of 'Godhead' come from? The word only is found in KJV versions. But your expression of the meaning of these things seems to be extrabiblical. It does not seem to relate to the term as used in the KJV where it means the Father.[see previous posts].I am not saying you concepts are wrong but the use of this word seems unusual.

[trettep]

The word Godhead can be found in the King James Version in the following verses:

Act 17:29  Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Rom 1:20  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Col 2:9  For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

As you can see the Godhead comprises all those that are the Children of God.  There are many verses that explain that those born again are the Children of God.  Thats what they are born again into the Family of God and thus the Godhead.

If you look at Col 2:9 you will notice the word “fullness” which means “what fills”.  What fills Christ is the Holy Spirit and that is the Spirit that comes from the Father.  That is also the Spirit that fills all God's Children.  Therefore, what has the Spirit has the Godhead.

Now you can see the significance of the Gospel message.  There is no greater message that can be proclaimed to mankind then that man through Jesus Christ can be born into the Kingdom of God.  That is the Mission.  That is the Good Message (Gospel).  There is nothing else than can be a greater message.

Paul

[NickHassan]

Thank you,
In context Acts 17 is where Paul explains that our Father is not like a pagan idol, manufactured and painted up to be worshipped. So the reference is to the nature of God the Father surely? The Romans verse too tell us the nature of the Father is clearly shown in His creation. Again Collosians tells us about the full nature of our God is expressed in Jesus and the NASB uses the word “nature “in all these verses.
Your interpretation seems far more broad including a family concept that does not speak to me out of those verses?

[trettep]

I'm not going to try to convince. Its spirtually discerned. If you look for the Truth you can find it. If you look for something separate then what you will find will be something seperate.

Paul

[NickHassan]

ps,
I know every family derives it's name from God and His relationship with His Son. But to use 'Godhead' in these contexts does not seem appropriate. They all refer to the Father. If you put “God's full family” back into those scripture contexts the words would make no sense would they?

[NickHassan]

Hi,
Hang on Paul. Are you saying the gift of spiritual discernment is separate from biblical revelation?

Scripture says they cannot be separate.
Jn 14.26
” But the helper, The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, AND BRING TO YOUR REMEMBRANCE ALL THAT I HAVE SAID TO YOU”
We need both witnesses to be in agreement to be sure of our path surely?

[Anonymous]

If anyone else would like further instruction about some of the things I posted here contact me at [email protected]. Otherwise, I will be moving on to do my labor elsewhere.

Paul

[Author]

Posts