-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K
How is that different from what I said in post #2? Unless you also don't understand. 
Y
Godhead is the common translation of the Greek word and is immediately identifiable. I'll stick with the word that's more understandable than the transliteration. As I said in my original post, I'll use the translated word or, if we transliterated every word we used, no one would understand us. Not sure they understand us anyway ...
...
I'm not sure that this line of thinking is historically or etymologically accurate. Let me explain.
If you look up the word "Godhead" in many modern translations you will get NO HITS. If you look up "Godhead" in the KJV you get only THREE references. They are...
Acts 17: 29 (Greek word used is THEIOS...which means DIVINE)
Rom 1:20 (Greek word used is THEIOTES...which means DIVINITY or DIVINE NATURE)
Col 2:9 (Greek word used is THEOTES...which means THE STATE OF BEING GOD)
All of these were translated as GODHEAD, which is an ENGLISH word from about 1200ad. In other words, the earliest references we have for the word GODHEAD in ENGLISH are from the Ancrene Riuwle (ca 1225). So, when THEIOS, THEIOTES, and THEOTES were used in the NT, they were translated into English as GODHEAD by the translators of the KJV. (It's possible that GODHEAD was used in earlier English translations of the bible, I just haven't taken the time to look).
Our first record of the word TRINITY comes from TERTULLIAN in the early 200s. So, slightly over 100 years after the death of the Apostle John, Tertullian coined the word TRINITY which comes from the Latin word TRINITAS and means "three." Tertullian also went on to coin the term "person" and described God as ONE in essence--not one in person.
So, while the world TRINITY doesn't appear in the bible, claiming that TRINITY is "not biblical" isn't accurate. (There are lots of words we use to describe concepts present in the bible, but not used in the bible--rapture, advent, incarnation, communion, etc.)
Also, the claim that GODHEAD is a "better concept" is a bit shaky considering the word GODHEAD was created 1000 years after the word TRINITY.
J
i dont get the point of these trinity topics. only those supporting are allowed to post, anyone else no matter how much scripture you have backing your reply are not allowed.
if i believed in something with all my heart, and there were many saying the bible did not support it, i would want to test it and get to the truth. but thats just me.
if i believed in something with all my heart, and there were many saying the bible did not support it, i would want to test it and get to the truth. but thats just me.
In all fairness, the Trinity is a well-established, well-tested explanation of the nature of God. This goes back to the early 200s. It has been the officially accepted and orthodox understanding of God's nature since the Councils of Nicea in 325. So, the early church fathers believed in the Trinity, but so did Luther and Calvin and Zwingli.
The vast majority of Christendom believes now and has historically believed in the triune nature of God. In fact, Catholics (Roman, Orthodox, etc.) and Protestants are in agreement about the nature of God. There's even a creed devoted to this called the Athanasian Creed. (And, lest anyone presume this is a "Roman Catholic" thing, here's a link to the Athanasian Creed from a REFORMED site)
http://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/creeds/athanasian-creed
Now I know it's sometimes appealing to people to be an "underdog" or to think that they have some revelation that the church has lacked for 2000 years. Here's my question: Do people really believe that God would have allowed the vast majority of his church to fall into deception for nearly 2000 years? Do people really believe that God is not powerful or interested enough to preserve the truth of his nature with his Bride? Do people really think that God would allow heresy about his nature to be the predominate belief of his church without any correction?
I believe in the Trinity because there is plenty of scriptural evidence for a triune God...even within the OT. But it's not only my view of scripture. When I say yes to a belief in the Trinity, I am aligning myself with Chrysostom, Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. John of the Cross, as well as Protestant reformers like Wycliffe, Cromwell, Luther, etc.
I have to say I thought this post was very very thought provoking and very very concise. The question asked :
"Do people really believe that God would have allowed the vast majority of his church to fall into deception for nearly 2000 years? Do people really believe that God is not powerful or interested enough to preserve the truth of his nature with his Bride? Do people really think that God would allow heresy about his nature to be the predominate belief of his church without any correction? "
OUTSTANDING POETMary
"Do people really believe that God would have allowed the vast majority of his church to fall into deception for nearly 2000 years? Do people really believe that God is not powerful or interested enough to preserve the truth of his nature with his Bride? Do people really think that God would allow heresy about his nature to be the predominate belief of his church without any correction? "
OUTSTANDING POETMary
B
Indeed lots of words started out with other meanings, will English Be used to discribe things or any of today's language's in the future surely can't 100% say yes the past has proven that, something I copied paste... it's just language that has been translated. The meaning is still there?
Yahushua
[HR][/HR]***** Note that Joshua = Yoshua or Yahushua because there is no "J" sound in Hebrew. The "J" with its "J" sound didn't come into the English language until about 500 years ago. In fact, the "J" isn't even found in the original 1611 King James version. (proof)
The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that the Messiah's name never was "Jesus" and that the name "Jesus" is actually an invention of man.
In the King James Version of the scriptures, we find an interesting problem in its translation:
Therefore, the reason the King James Version has "Jesus" in those two verses is because the Messiah's name is actually the same name as Joshua, Son of Nun... correctly pronounced "Yahushua". It is quite evident that the modern form "Jesus" doesn't even remotely resemble the original name that the disciples were praying in, baptizing in and receiving so much criticism for preaching in. This is fact. Do some research and see for yourself.
Yahushua
[HR][/HR]***** Note that Joshua = Yoshua or Yahushua because there is no "J" sound in Hebrew. The "J" with its "J" sound didn't come into the English language until about 500 years ago. In fact, the "J" isn't even found in the original 1611 King James version. (proof)
The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that the Messiah's name never was "Jesus" and that the name "Jesus" is actually an invention of man.
In the King James Version of the scriptures, we find an interesting problem in its translation:
Acts 7:44(KJV) Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. 45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;
Isn't this scripture referring to Joshua, son of Nun rather than the Savior? Yes. Here is another instance...
Hebr 4:7 (KJV) Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
Again, the context reveals that this scripture is referring to Joshua, the son of Nun and not the Messiah. All other translations put "Joshua" here. Why then is it translated 'Jesus'? The answer lies in the Greek/Latin corruption of the Messiah's original Hebrew name. Originally, the name of the Messiah pronounced Yahushua. This is the Messiah's original name. When they tried to transliterate His name into Greek, they came up with ihsoun or "Iesous". But When Iesous was transliterated into Latin, it became "Iesus", which was then carried over into English it became our modern day "Jesus" when the letter "J" developed.
Therefore, the reason the King James Version has "Jesus" in those two verses is because the Messiah's name is actually the same name as Joshua, Son of Nun... correctly pronounced "Yahushua". It is quite evident that the modern form "Jesus" doesn't even remotely resemble the original name that the disciples were praying in, baptizing in and receiving so much criticism for preaching in. This is fact. Do some research and see for yourself.
Last edited:
S
The New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew, and the word in Greek is Iēsous. The HRM assertion that it was written in Hebrew then translated into Greek is nonsense.
The authors of many of the books knew Jesus personally and used Iēsous so why would you have an issue with it? Do you know more than eyewitnesses who knew him personally?
This obsession with Jesus' name is pretty funny...some people even claim that the last part of the name refers to the pagan god Zeus
Last edited:
Unaware of the use of old English letter “j” and “i” you have expressed your contempt to the KJV and presumed that the original KJV 1611 does not have it. You should have done more consultation and research on the subject.
The “j” was usually used as the capital form of the letter “i” in the Elizabethan alphabet. See the link as provided.
Old English Letters
Now, the further comments of the "copy -paste" in particular to Acts and Hebrews for Jesus or Joshua, as to whom is the giver of rest to Israel, the Bible is teaching readers about Jesus as the real “captain of the host” (Joshua 5:13-15) and “the captain of their salvation) (Heb. 2:10). Adopting your copy and paste view for the rendering of “Joshua”, blasphemously:
1.) denies the pre-incarnate Christ,
2.) ignores the underlying Greek word, which is the word used for Jesus throughout the New Testament, and
3.) ignores the contexts (in Acts and Hebrews) which are building up to and revealing to the Jews exactly WHO really lead them through the wilderness and WHO their true “captain” and Messiah is.
Further you should have to understand that the spiritual Rock which followed by Moses and the Israelites is no other than our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
The “j” was usually used as the capital form of the letter “i” in the Elizabethan alphabet. See the link as provided.
Old English Letters
Now, the further comments of the "copy -paste" in particular to Acts and Hebrews for Jesus or Joshua, as to whom is the giver of rest to Israel, the Bible is teaching readers about Jesus as the real “captain of the host” (Joshua 5:13-15) and “the captain of their salvation) (Heb. 2:10). Adopting your copy and paste view for the rendering of “Joshua”, blasphemously:
1.) denies the pre-incarnate Christ,
2.) ignores the underlying Greek word, which is the word used for Jesus throughout the New Testament, and
3.) ignores the contexts (in Acts and Hebrews) which are building up to and revealing to the Jews exactly WHO really lead them through the wilderness and WHO their true “captain” and Messiah is.
Further you should have to understand that the spiritual Rock which followed by Moses and the Israelites is no other than our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Hi,
Thank you for the historical and etymological explanation. I believe in the teaching of TRINITY and have no doubt about it. Just a refinement, however, in the last sentence colored blue, I do believe with all my heart that "Godhead" is correct in the rendering of the Gk. word "Theios" in the book of Acts and is not a bit shaky. The word "divinity" or deity is not well fitted, in this instance for it can also be used to a pagan god or goddesses or demons. Thus "Godhead" is used as a scriptural sense in this matter.
God bless
Thank you for the historical and etymological explanation. I believe in the teaching of TRINITY and have no doubt about it. Just a refinement, however, in the last sentence colored blue, I do believe with all my heart that "Godhead" is correct in the rendering of the Gk. word "Theios" in the book of Acts and is not a bit shaky. The word "divinity" or deity is not well fitted, in this instance for it can also be used to a pagan god or goddesses or demons. Thus "Godhead" is used as a scriptural sense in this matter.
God bless