Rejection of Jesus, why?
Some know Jesus as "Lord", "God", "Friend", "Savior", "Creator", "Teacher- Rabbi" or "Intercessor."
- Who are those that rejected Jesus in the Bible?
- Who are those who reject Jesus today?
- What is it about Jesus that people rejects mostly?
- What are the consequences of rejecting Jesus?
- How can one accept Jesus and not the Trinity?
- How can today's Christians truly reflect the life and teachings of Jesus?
I wonder. CM 
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
Some know Jesus as "Lord", "God", "Friend", "Savior", "Creator", "Teacher- Rabbi" or "Intercessor."- How can one accept Jesus and not the Trinity?
You can't.
-
@C_M_ said:
Some know Jesus as "Lord", "God", "Friend", "Savior", "Creator", "Teacher- Rabbi" or "Intercessor."
1. Who are those that rejected Jesus in the Bible?Those who Scripture tells rejected Jesus then ... By the way, AS WHAT was he rejected?
- Who are those who reject Jesus today?
- What is it about Jesus that people rejects mostly?
- What are the consequences of rejecting Jesus?
See above ... reject Jesus AS WHAT ?
- How can one accept Jesus and not the Trinity?
By believing what Scripture teaches about Jesus rather than believing what 4th century AD politically dominated church council established as dogma with threat of severy persecution if not adhered to
- How can today's Christians truly reflect the life and teachings of Jesus?
By following his teachings as revealed and told in Scripture
-
@Wolfgang said:
@C_M_ said:
Some know Jesus as "Lord", "God", "Friend", "Savior", "Creator", "Teacher- Rabbi" or "Intercessor."
1. Who are those that rejected Jesus in the Bible?Those who Scripture tells rejected Jesus then ... By the way, AS WHAT was he rejected?
- Who are those who reject Jesus today?
- What is it about Jesus that people rejects mostly?
- What are the consequences of rejecting Jesus?
See above ... reject Jesus AS WHAT ?
As God, from heaven, or Messiah. CM
-
"One can no more separate God’s gift and claim that he can divide Christ as Saviour from Christ as Lord. The confession that Christ is Saviour and Lord belongs to the very essence of NT Christianity. One cannot have Christ only as Saviour or only as Lord; Christ comes to us as both. There is the most intimate bond between the two realities.
The saviorhood of Christ is revealed in particular at the cross, where the love of Christ, already manifested during His earthly life, receives its climactic expression. But it is at the cross that His lordship also is revealed. His lordship is established precisely through His love. Christ’s lordship is the rule of His love".
True or false? CM
-
@Wolfgang said:
@C_M_ said:
Some know Jesus as "Lord", "God", "Friend", "Savior", "Creator", "Teacher- Rabbi" or "Intercessor."
1. Who are those that rejected Jesus in the Bible?Those who Scripture tells rejected Jesus then ... By the way, AS WHAT was he rejected?
- Who are those who reject Jesus today?
- What is it about Jesus that people rejects mostly?
- What are the consequences of rejecting Jesus?
See above ... reject Jesus AS WHAT ?
- How can one accept Jesus and not the Trinity?
By believing what Scripture teaches about Jesus rather than believing what 4th century AD politically dominated church council established as dogma with threat of severy persecution if not adhered to
- How can today's Christians truly reflect the life and teachings of Jesus?
By following his teachings as revealed and told in Scripture
The Trinity did not show up in the 4th century it was established WELL before that. If you are going to attack the Godhead you should at least know the facts.
-
>
The Trinity did not show up in the 4th century it was established WELL before that. If you are going to attack the Godhead you should at least know the facts.
The TRINITY as a binding dogma did not exist until those church councils to which I referred. By the way, the facts concerning the case are that for a considerable period of time there were only ideas of a Binitiy (Father, Son) being disputed and not until later was the "Holy Ghost" introduced into the picture.
Did you not know that fact ???
-
@Wolfgang said:
>
The Trinity did not show up in the 4th century it was established WELL before that. If you are going to attack the Godhead you should at least know the facts.
The TRINITY as a binding dogma did not exist until those church councils to which I referred. By the way, the facts concerning the case are that for a considerable period of time there were only ideas of a Binitiy (Father, Son) being disputed and not until later was the "Holy Ghost" introduced into the picture.
Did you not know that fact ???
Oh I could list so many things to prove you wrong, but that has been exhaustively done on this forum.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
The TRINITY as a binding dogma did not exist until those church councils to which I referred. By the way, the facts concerning the case are that for a considerable period of time there were only ideas of a Binitiy (Father, Son) being disputed and not until later was the "Holy Ghost" introduced into the picture.
Did you not know that fact ???Oh I could list so many things to prove you wrong, but that has been exhaustively done on this forum.
Nobody is interested in what you could do but don't do ... just prove that my above statement is wrong, for example:
(1) Show us and prove that the Trinity AS A BINDING DOGMA existed prior to the 4th century AD church councils
(2) Show us and prove that this dogma was from the start a TRINITY (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) dogma rather than at first a doctrinal matter concerning only a BI-nitiy (Father and Son)Looking forward to your proofs ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
The TRINITY as a binding dogma did not exist until those church councils to which I referred. By the way, the facts concerning the case are that for a considerable period of time there were only ideas of a Binitiy (Father, Son) being disputed and not until later was the "Holy Ghost" introduced into the picture.
Did you not know that fact ???Oh I could list so many things to prove you wrong, but that has been exhaustively done on this forum.
Nobody is interested in what you could do but don't do ... just prove that my above statement is wrong, for example:
(1) Show us and prove that the Trinity AS A BINDING DOGMA existed prior to the 4th century AD church councilsBinding Dogman means nothing Wolfgang. The early church recognized the Trinity. https://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes
(2) Show us and prove that this dogma was from the start a TRINITY (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) dogma rather than at first a doctrinal matter concerning only a BI-nitiy (Father and Son)
All you need to do is look at Scripture. It is all there.
-
@reformed said:
(1) Show us and prove that the Trinity AS A BINDING DOGMA existed prior to the 4th century AD church councils
Binding Dogman means nothing Wolfgang. The early church recognized the Trinity. https://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes
Those quotes do NOT prove any trinity dogma being taught or believed in the early church ... they reflect what some "church fathers" propagated as their interpretation of various scripture passages.
(2) Show us and prove that this dogma was from the start a TRINITY (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) dogma rather than at first a doctrinal matter concerning only a BI-nitiy (Father and Son)
All you need to do is look at Scripture. It is all there.
Oh, sorry, but I do look rather closely at Scripture, actually more closely than various others - including you - seem to be doing.
YES, I certainly read about the Father, I read about the Son, I read about Holy Spirit - in a number of passages the three are even mentioned in one verse !! BUT - please note - NOT ONE such place says anything about the three forming some kind of "Trinity" or all three being each or together the same God --- such Trinity dogma is not found in Scripture ... no matter which version or translation you read. -
Brethren,
Although the word Trinity is not found in the Bible (neither is the word incarnation). Let's not get lost here. The term “Godhead” which is found in Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9. Through the word, “Godhead” conveys the same idea as is expressed by the term “Trinity,” that there are three living beings in the Godhead.God himself is a mystery. A warning against false teaching is found in Paul’s letter to the Colossians. The apostle declares that the hearts of the believers are to be “knit together in love", and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
All attempts to explain the Trinity will fall short, "**especially when we reflect on the relation of the three persons to the divine essence ... all analogies fail us and we become deeply conscious of the fact that the Trinity is a mystery far beyond our comprehension. It is the incomprehensible glory of the Godhead.”**
We do well to admit that “man cannot comprehend it and make it intelligible. It is intelligible in some of its relations and modes of manifestations, but unintelligible in its essential nature.” -- Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Eerdmans, 1941), pp 88-89.
The expression of the Trinity is found throughout the OT and the New Testament. What texts can one point, say there is no Trinity or its teachings? Just because it took "Churchmen" a while to formulate a doctrine, it doesn't mean that the "truth" of the reality didn't exist all along. CM
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
(1) Show us and prove that the Trinity AS A BINDING DOGMA existed prior to the 4th century AD church councils
Binding Dogman means nothing Wolfgang. The early church recognized the Trinity. https://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes
Those quotes do NOT prove any trinity dogma being taught or believed in the early church ... they reflect what some "church fathers" propagated as their interpretation of various scripture passages.
(2) Show us and prove that this dogma was from the start a TRINITY (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) dogma rather than at first a doctrinal matter concerning only a BI-nitiy (Father and Son)
All you need to do is look at Scripture. It is all there.
Oh, sorry, but I do look rather closely at Scripture, actually more closely than various others - including you - seem to be doing.
YES, I certainly read about the Father, I read about the Son, I read about Holy Spirit - in a number of passages the three are even mentioned in one verse !! BUT - please note - NOT ONE such place says anything about the three forming some kind of "Trinity" or all three being each or together the same God --- such Trinity dogma is not found in Scripture ... no matter which version or translation you read.You have to at least admit Father and Son are one. John is full of it.
-
@reformed said:
You have to at least admit Father and Son are one. John is full of it.Certainly, the man Jesus of Nazareth himself said, "I and my Father are one."
How, in what regard, are they one? To what was Jesus making reference? something not stated anywhere in Scripture (such as, "I am God, my Father is God, but we are only one and the same God" ) ?? Or was he referring to what is stated in other passages where the man Jesus of Nazareth stated that he always did those things which pleased his Father? that he carried out what God, his Father wanted him to do?
-
@C_M_ said:
Brethren,
Although the word Trinity is not found in the Bible (neither is the word incarnation). Let's not get lost here. The term “Godhead” which is found in Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9. Through the word, “Godhead” conveys the same idea as is expressed by the term “Trinity,” that there are three living beings in the Godhead.- Romans 1.20 is a reference to God, not to Jesus or any composite deity. Romans 1.19 makes that clear: (all emphases added)
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ro 1:19). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.In my view, the "Godhead" of Romans 1.20 (a translation not widely implemented among English language Bible translations, by the way) is a reference to God's divine nature, not to a conception of the divine's construction.
- In Colossians 2.9, "Godhead" seems again to refer to God's divinity, and not to part of a larger divine identity. As the ESV puts it...
9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Col 2:9). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
Consider Colossians 1.15, where the author describes Christ as "the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation."
- Note the choice of terms: Jesus is not God, but the "image of God" - as in, when we look at Jesus, we as much as see God, so complete is the presence of God in him.
- And Jesus is the "first-born of all creation"? God was ever "born"?
And finally consider Colossians 1.1-3:
- V.1: Paul considers himself to be an apostle of Jesus "by the will of God." That is, God willed Paul to be an apostle of Jesus. In his claim, Paul makes no reference to any divine identity construction. Rather, in my view, he makes a clear distinction between God and Jesus.
- V.2:" Separate references to Christ and God, and the reference to God as "Father" seems not to be a trinitarian reference, but rather an identification of God, as in, "God, who is our Father."
- V.3: God is identified as the "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Notice the punctuation employed by the ESV, a punctuation common to most of the translations I consulted...
We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Col 1:3). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
Following a comma, the phrase "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" clearly means to provide additional information about the "God" who precedes the comma. Yet again in my view, a clear distinction between God and Jesus.
-
@reformed said:
You have to at least admit Father and Son are one. John is full of it.
Reformed, you win the "When taken out of context" award for most unintentional slight of the day.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
You have to at least admit Father and Son are one. John is full of it.Certainly, the man Jesus of Nazareth himself said, "I and my Father are one."
How, in what regard, are they one? To what was Jesus making reference? something not stated anywhere in Scripture (such as, "I am God, my Father is God, but we are only one and the same God" ) ?? Or was he referring to what is stated in other passages where the man Jesus of Nazareth stated that he always did those things which pleased his Father? that he carried out what God, his Father wanted him to do?
John 1 Jesus is the Word and the Word IS GOD.
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
You have to at least admit Father and Son are one. John is full of it.
Reformed, you win the "When taken out of context" award for most unintentional slight of the day.
And what, might I ask, is taken out of context in John 1?
-
@reformed said:
You have to at least admit Father and Son are one. John is full of it.@Bill_Coley said:
Reformed, you win the "When taken out of context" award for most unintentional slight of the day.@reformed said:
And what, might I ask, is taken out of context in John 1?My "out of context" comment was not in any sense about your textual analysis. It was specifically and solely about the phrase I highlighted from your previous post: "John is full of it." It is THAT phrase, when taken out of context, that I whimsically suggest wins the "When taken out of context" award for the most unintentional slight of the day. You really didn't mean to say that "John is full of it," did you?
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
How, in what regard, are they one? To what was Jesus making reference? something not stated anywhere in Scripture (such as, "I am God, my Father is God, but we are only one and the same God" ) ?? Or was he referring to what is stated in other passages where the man Jesus of Nazareth stated that he always did those things which pleased his Father? that he carried out what God, his Father wanted him to do?John 1 Jesus is the Word and the Word IS GOD.
Where does Joh 1 say that Jesus IS the Word ??
Are you saying that in Joh 10 Jesus said "I and the Father are one God"??Have you checked the grammatical gender of the Gr. word "one" and noticed that it is not masculine but neuter? Jesus and his Father were one in purpose, one in mind, one in will .... how? because the man Jesus of Nazareth submitted his will in all things to his Father's (God's) will in obedience.
See, if you read the Greek or a Bible in a language other than English which reflects grammatical genders more closely to the Greek (such as German) you could immediately notice the difference ... unfortunately, the English language does not show such detail.@Bill_Coley said:
Reformed, you win the "When taken out of context" award for most unintentional slight of the day.And what, might I ask, is taken out of context in John 1?
Actually, your above statement about "Jesus IS the Word ...." is not only taken out of context but also a misrepresentation of what the text in Joh 1 actually says.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
How, in what regard, are they one? To what was Jesus making reference? something not stated anywhere in Scripture (such as, "I am God, my Father is God, but we are only one and the same God" ) ?? Or was he referring to what is stated in other passages where the man Jesus of Nazareth stated that he always did those things which pleased his Father? that he carried out what God, his Father wanted him to do?John 1 Jesus is the Word and the Word IS GOD.
Where does Joh 1 say that Jesus IS the Word ??
The whole chapter
Are you saying that in Joh 10 Jesus said "I and the Father are one God"??
Absolutely
Have you checked the grammatical gender of the Gr. word "one" and noticed that it is not masculine but neuter? Jesus and his Father were one in purpose, one in mind, one in will .... how? because the man Jesus of Nazareth submitted his will in all things to his Father's (God's) will in obedience.
See, if you read the Greek or a Bible in a language other than English which reflects grammatical genders more closely to the Greek (such as German) you could immediately notice the difference ... unfortunately, the English language does not show such detail.Still works.
@Bill_Coley said:
Reformed, you win the "When taken out of context" award for most unintentional slight of the day.And what, might I ask, is taken out of context in John 1?
Actually, your above statement about "Jesus IS the Word ...." is not only taken out of context but also a misrepresentation of what the text in Joh 1 actually says.
No it isn't. How is it NOT what John 1 is saying?
-
@Wolfgang said:
Have you checked the grammatical gender of the Gr. word "one" and noticed that it is not masculine but neuter? Jesus and his Father were one in purpose, one in mind, one in will .... how? because the man Jesus of Nazareth submitted his will in all things to his Father's (God's) will in obedience.
See, if you read the Greek or a Bible in a language other than English which reflects grammatical genders more closely to the Greek (such as German) you could immediately notice the difference ... unfortunately, the English language does not show such detail.Wolfgang,
Are you trying to say English translations of the Bible are inaccurate and deficient? They are not to be relied upon? One should trust or depend upon a "German" or non-English translation of the Bible? Your statement above ["grammatical genders"] is a fact (independently proven) or an opinion? Do you speak more from arrogance or accuracy? If not, then, "John 1, Jesus is the Word and the Word IS GOD"? What says ye? CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Wolfgang said:
Have you checked the grammatical gender of the Gr. word "one" and noticed that it is not masculine but neuter? Jesus and his Father were one in purpose, one in mind, one in will .... how? because the man Jesus of Nazareth submitted his will in all things to his Father's (God's) will in obedience.
See, if you read the Greek or a Bible in a language other than English which reflects grammatical genders more closely to the Greek (such as German) you could immediately notice the difference ... unfortunately, the English language does not show such detail.Wolfgang,
Are you trying to say English translations of the Bible are inaccurate and deficient?I am saying that the Greek language (and other languages as well) are far more detailed than the English in that different word forms reflect different tenses, genders, etc of words. For example, just from the form of a verb one can determine if the subject acting on the verb is plural or singular, which person it is (1st. 2nd, 3rd) .... whereas in English you can't because many forms of a verb are the same => "I RUN, you RUN, he RUNS, we RUN, you RUN, they RUN" ... only 2 forms (run, runs) while other languages would have different forms for almost each case.
They are not to be relied upon? One should trust or depend upon a "German" or non-English translation of the Bible?
See above ... with just an English translation, a reader is unable to determine the real meaning of a phrase where different gender forms in Greek or other language would immediately show the difference in meaning and which is correct.
Your statement above ["grammatical genders"] is a fact (independently proven) or an opinion?
You know, I suggest you first learn a few basic things about language and grammar ... your comment here reveals that you apparently have no knowledge of important basic linguistic matters.
Do you speak more from arrogance or accuracy?
Take a class/course on basic Greek language and you will know better.
If not, then, "John 1, Jesus is the Word and the Word IS GOD"? What says ye? CM
I say, that the text in John 1 does NOT say what you put in quotes as John 1 text ... a simple plain reading of the verse without interpreting anything that is not there into it will immediately show you.
Now, is such a simple encouragement for you to read more carefully and thereby learn what the text actually says arrogance or rather an encouragement for reading with more accuracy??? -
You receive the same encouragement as I gave to CM => please, read WHAT THE TEXT SAYS instead of reading into the text what it doesn't say. If you do a plain reading you will know how your idea is not what John 1 is saying ... let Scripture point it out to you.
-
@Wolfgang said:
You know, I suggest you first learn a few basic things about language and grammar ... your comment here reveals that you apparently have no knowledge of important basic linguistic matters.
Wolfgang,
Thanks for your response. He who want answers should ask questions. He who supply answers should do so in a "kinder, gentler" manner. Am I suppose to feel bad or you just have a natural course way responding?You took the liberty to draw a conclusion about me having "no knowledge of important basic linguistic matters" from my question. Would I be, equally, justified in drawing a conclusion about your statements or answer? More peace. CM
PS. F. Y. I.
Every question is not the sum total of a man's knowledge or a subject. -
@Wolfgang said:
You receive the same encouragement as I gave to CM => please, read WHAT THE TEXT SAYS instead of reading into the text what it doesn't say. If you do a plain reading you will know how your idea is not what John 1 is saying ... let Scripture point it out to you.
Oh brother. Yes don't use eisegesis. Obviously. I'm not. John 1 says Jesus is the Word and the Word IS GOD.
-
@C_M_ said:
You know, I suggest you first learn a few basic things about language and grammar ... your comment here reveals that you apparently have no knowledge of important basic linguistic matters.
Wolfgang,
Thanks for your response. He who want answers should ask questions. He who supply answers should do so in a "kinder, gentler" manner. Am I suppose to feel bad or you just have a natural course way responding?I simply pointed out matter of factly what I perceived as a fundamental lack on your part as far as languages are concerned concerning word forms in relation to number, gender, case, etc .... something which your post showed plainly.
You took the liberty to draw a conclusion about me having "no knowledge of important basic linguistic matters" from my question. Would I be, equally, justified in drawing a conclusion about your statements or answer? More peace. CM
IF you can point out any lack on my part based on what I wrote you certainly could and actually should point out these linguistic lacks so I become aware of them and can do something about it.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
You receive the same encouragement as I gave to CM => please, read WHAT THE TEXT SAYS instead of reading into the text what it doesn't say. If you do a plain reading you will know how your idea is not what John 1 is saying ... let Scripture point it out to you.
Oh brother. Yes don't use eisegesis. Obviously. I'm not. John 1 says Jesus is the Word and the Word IS GOD.
Your statement makes on sense whatever in regards to the earlier and quoted exchange. Instead of evading the plain fact I have pointed out (the text in John 1 does NOT say that Jesus is the Word), perhaps you can quote the text passage from John 1 which says that Jesus IS the Word?? A rather simple request ... are you going to accommodate the request?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
You receive the same encouragement as I gave to CM => please, read WHAT THE TEXT SAYS instead of reading into the text what it doesn't say. If you do a plain reading you will know how your idea is not what John 1 is saying ... let Scripture point it out to you.
Oh brother. Yes don't use eisegesis. Obviously. I'm not. John 1 says Jesus is the Word and the Word IS GOD.
Your statement makes on sense whatever in regards to the earlier and quoted exchange. Instead of evading the plain fact I have pointed out (the text in John 1 does NOT say that Jesus is the Word), perhaps you can quote the text passage from John 1 which says that Jesus IS the Word?? A rather simple request ... are you going to accommodate the request?
If you are wanting to have a sentence that says "Jesus is God" then no, but anyone with half a brain can read the context and know the Word is Jesus because of the rest of the chapter.
-
@reformed said:
If you are wanting to have a sentence that says "Jesus is God" then no,of course, there is nowhere in all of Scripture any statement which states such a thing
but anyone with half a brain can read the context and know the Word is Jesus because of the rest of the chapter.
Not quite ... I'll give you a hint to help with your next reading of the chapter:
The texts does NOT say Jesus IS the Word, nor does it say the Word IS Jesus.In the beginning section of the chapter (John 1:1ff) the text speaks simply about THE WORD (not a living being of some kind, and certainly not about the man Jesus of Nazareth.
Only later on - in verse 14 - does the text say that Word BECAME flesh, etc ... The word BECAME plainly tells that prior to this point in time the Word had simply been Word (God's Word), and at the time spoken of in v.14 what had been Word BECAME a living being of flesh and blood.
It's very simple, @reformed .... but it does require careful and accurate reading without interpreting theology stuff into the text.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
If you are wanting to have a sentence that says "Jesus is God" then no,of course, there is nowhere in all of Scripture any statement which states such a thing
but anyone with half a brain can read the context and know the Word is Jesus because of the rest of the chapter.
Not quite ... I'll give you a hint to help with your next reading of the chapter:
The texts does NOT say Jesus IS the Word, nor does it say the Word IS Jesus.In the beginning section of the chapter (John 1:1ff) the text speaks simply about THE WORD (not a living being of some kind, and certainly not about the man Jesus of Nazareth.
Only later on - in verse 14 - does the text say that Word BECAME flesh, etc ... The word BECAME plainly tells that prior to this point in time the Word had simply been Word (God's Word), and at the time spoken of in v.14 what had been Word BECAME a living being of flesh and blood.
No that is not what it says. That is the way you read it but that is not what it says.
It's very simple, @reformed .... but it does require careful and accurate reading without interpreting theology stuff into the text.
Exactly, I wish you would do that. It cannot just be simply God's word or the word would not also be God. My words are not me. HE was in the beginning with God. Through HIM were all things made. The Word became flesh, that is JESUS CHRIST.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
Brethren,
Although the word Trinity is not found in the Bible (neither is the word incarnation). Let's not get lost here. The term “Godhead” which is found in Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9. Through the word, “Godhead” conveys the same idea as is expressed by the term “Trinity,” that there are three living beings in the Godhead.- Romans 1.20 is a reference to God, not to Jesus or any composite deity. Romans 1.19 makes that clear: (all emphases added)
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ro 1:19). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.In my view, the "Godhead" of Romans 1.20 (a translation not widely implemented among English language Bible translations, by the way) is a reference to God's divine nature, not to a conception of the divine's construction.
Bill,
"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" (Romans 1:20).
The term "Godhead": The mysterious unity of the three persons of the Godhead is beyond you. It is not an artificial or humanly-engendered reality; not something created by committee actions, council resolutions, or church pronouncements; not something that can be administratively manufactured or contrived. Nor is it a condition to be controlled or enforced. Divinely construed and deep, it comes by each of us, and all of us together, submitting to the infilling of God, through Jesus Christ. “I in them, and you in me.” In this sense, it is a mystery–the mystery of the divine indwelling in God’s followers, individually and corporately.
- First, God is a “God of knowledge” (1 Sam 2:3) and that theology is foremost a reality within the Godhead: Father, Son, and Spirit know one another fully.
- Second, the triune knowledge, while singular and unique, is not incommunicable, for God is a self-revealing God who makes common (that is, who communicates) his own wisdom to his creatures.
Attributes of the Persons of the Godhead:
---------------------- Father ----- Son ----- Holy Spirit
Eternal ------------- Ps. 90:2 -- Rev. 1:18 -- Heb. 9:14
Creator ------------ Isa. 45:18 ------ Col. 1:16 ---- Gen. 1:2
Almighty ------------ Rev. 1:8 -- Matt. 28:18 -- Rom. 8:11
Omniscient ------------ Ps. 139:4 -- John 2:24-25 -- 1 Cor. 2:10
Omnipresent --------- ---- Jer. 23:24 -- Matt. 28:20 -- Ps. 139:7-8
Love ------ ------------ 1 John 4:8 --- John 15:9 -- Gal. 5:22
To be worshiped ------ -- Rev 14:7 -- 1 Cor. 1:1-2 -- JN 4:24
In Romans 1, Paul develops his first major point: Apart from Christ, no human being can claim freedom from guilt. The saving work of Christ is essential for all, irrespective of culture and religious affiliation. All humanity is guilty before God, the Gentile as well as the Jew. Their sinful deeds will result in the manifestation of God's displeasure. Since many have shown greater devotion to the creature than to the Creator, God has given them over to the passions of their own fallen natures. Paul warns them, however, not to excuse their sins by judging the sins of others. Even the self-righteous moralist will be judged by Jesus Christ in the last judgment. In short: ALL OF US ARE SINNERS IN NEED OF A SAVIOUR. Whatever our nationality, race, social standing, or level of education we are in need of a Saviour.
- "When Copernicus, the Polish astronomer, started to study the heavens, he gradually came to the conclusion that the earth was not the static center around which the universe revolved but, rather, was a moving planet which itself revolved around the sun. He was, however, strangely reluctant to publish his findings, no doubt because he knew what a battle he would have trying to convince his contemporaries that man and his world are not the center of all existence. Man has always felt that he is the center and everything revolves around him. To be told otherwise, whether by an astronomer or a theologian, has always presented man with extreme problems. To insist that the core of truth is in "Him" rather than "us" and that we find our significance revolving around Him rather than the converse, poses a problem similar to that of Copernicus, because man, frankly, doesn't want to know this kind of thing. This is part of the truth that he suppresses."—D. Stuart Briscoe, The Communicator's Commentary: Romans (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1982), p. 41.
By way of context, Rom. 1:18-20 states that there can be no excuse for those who argue that God is unjust to condemn them because they have not had an opportunity to know Him. The reason being is that God reveals Himself. Paul contends that no one can plead ignorance of God, for He has provided sufficient evidence concerning His existence. He reveals Himself to humanity in three ways:
- (1) By speaking to the conscience of every individual (Rom. 2:15; compare JN 1:9).
- (2) Through the works of creation (Rom. 1:20).
- (3) Through the scriptures which present the Person and work of Christ (John 5:39).
God has dealt with the sin problem through Jesus Christ. Christ died for the sins of all mankind (1 John. 2:2). But His wrath will fall upon the ungodly because they are unwilling to acknowledge Him as their Creator. You don't believe this? CM
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
