11 Nov 18
@ghost-of-a-duke saidAgreed.
The son of Zorro becomes Zorro.
Same banana.
However.... Zorro #2 is not Zorro #1.
11 Nov 18
@ghost-of-a-duke saidBut they are different beings.
He is genetically.
I am well versed in this arena, so stop where you are my friend.
11 Nov 18
@ghost-of-a-duke saidMy significant level of maturity warrants a time of pause.
I don't think you have even met Zorro.
Peter said Jesus was the Son of God.
Notice that Peter did NOT say that Jesus was God.
Also notice that Jesus did NOT correct Peter.
11 Nov 18
@divegeester saidLol. Thanks.
What?
Yet, Jesus did NOT correct Peter.
This exchange refutes trinity and godhead.
11 Nov 18
@divegeester saidIt means that Jesus was okay with Son of God.
“Refutes trinity and godhead”
What does this mean?
Son of God does not mean God, in any form.
Trinity and godhead ignore this.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117420
11 Nov 18
@chaney3 saidThe trinity is a version of the godhead.
It means that Jesus was okay with Son of God.
Son of God does not mean God, in any form.
Trinity and godhead ignore this.
11 Nov 18
@divegeester saidThere is NO trinity or godhead in the exchange between Peter and Jesus.
The trinity is a version of the godhead.
Son of God. That's it.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117420
@chaney3 saidThe “trinity” doesn’t exist, it’s a made up way of explaining the godhead.
There is NO trinity or godhead in the exchange between Peter and Jesus.
Son of God. That's it.
The “godhead” is a term use to describe the multifaceted nature of the manifestations of God.
We know God existed as spirit and as a man, Jesus. So in reality there is the dual nature of God to be considered. However oneness people such as myself believe in the OT statement “hear of Israel, the lord your god in one”. So trinity doesn’t even come into it, there is either one or there is two. Can you see that?
Ok, now once you are at that point you have to look at the trinitarian terms “father” “son” “holy ghost” and immediately acknowledge that, based on the above rational that there is a duality, then at least one of these must therefore be obsolete.
Well we know God is spirit and we know there was a son, so therefore the term “father” must be obsolete. Well that can’t be true either because we know God is a father, Jesus referred to him as such. Hmmm
Ok how about this: god is a father a son a brother a husband a bride and friend? All of these are presented in scripture. So God is 6?? Certainly not. Of course not. What we can do is discard the family nouns as useful terms to describe the godhead.
What we are left with is ONE spirit. Who is all of these things to each of us and to mankind over the millennia. He is all in all, he is everything to us. But he has revealed himself as a man as a son, as a brother etc. He is one god revealed in many ways and described in many ways, but he is certainly ONE.
Not 2 not 3 and not 6. One.
I hope that helps.
11 Nov 18
@divegeester saidDive, Son of God doesn't mean God in any way.
The “trinity” doesn’t exist, it’s a made up way of explaining the godhead.
The “godhead” is a term use to describe the multifaceted nature of the manifestations of God.
We know God existed as spirit and as a man, Jesus. So in reality there is the dual nature of God to be considered. However oneness people such as myself believe in the OT statement “hear of Israel, ...[text shortened]... ys and describedcin many ways but he is one.
Not 2 not 3 and not 6. One.
I hope that helps.
Jesus could have corrected Peter, but He didn't.
Son of God is not God.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117420
11 Nov 18
@chaney3 saidDid you read my post?
Dive, Son of God doesn't mean God in any way.
Jesus could have corrected Peter, but He didn't.
Son of God is not God.