The Couplet

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Did it occur to you that you are looking at John 17:3 in only ONE way? BTW... I'm not saying I am right I am just posing possible explanations for the scripture you say is problematic. Please spare us the "he's crazy because he doesn't interpret one scripture exactly how I do" bullshit. I understand why you think John 17:3 is problematic to my theory.

I swear...

What part of the word "and" do you not understand?

Please, by all means, give me the connotative meaning of "and."

The one true God is being addressed. That one true God is distinguished from Jesus. You have the "one true God," and you have "Jesus." The passage distinguishes between the two with the word "and."

Three chapters later Jesus tells Mary he is ascending to his God, Mary calls him "Lord" (Paul distinguishes between the Father who is God and Jesus who is Lord numerous times in his letters, and much to the dismay of trinitarians everywhere) and Thomas refers to Jesus as Lord and God (which Jesus neither confirms nor denys), and as you've mentioned, John teaches us all to be one even as the Father and Son are one. None of that changes the fact that in John 17:3, Jesus is not the one true God.

Of course passages have different ideas about this subject. The fact remains that your paraphrase of John 17:3 was inaccurate and the passage does not buttress your POV.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I'm not attacking your opinion or the tone of the conversation -I find it interesting and only wish to offer support for the original idea of MRD's comments at level one of the conversation. There is no need to belittle me or my comments -it's just hurtful and unkind but such is life on CG.

I never suggested that you argued against us always existing. All I can do is say I'm sorry that you choose to prejudge my intent as opposed to demonstrate a desire to understand my contribution. I certainly own some responsibility in all this, yet I'm prepared to move beyond it, unfortunately you do not appear prepared to do the same.

You did suggest that I didn't support the ideas of always existing and progressing. You did that when you said you supported MRD's idea of those things and then couched that agreement in terms more general than the dispute. When you did that, you implied my disagreement with your generality.

If you're trying to say that you support MRD's particular sense of progression to God (with a big "G"), which was the major issue of dispute, then of course you are disagreeing with me, and I have every right to object to your overgeneralization of the dispute as to being about MRD supporting the ideas of always existing and progressing and me disagreeing.

You have exactly zero room to lecture anyone about trying to understand.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I swear...

What part of the word "and" do you not understand?

Please, by all means, give me the connotative meaning of "and."

The one true God is being addressed. That one true God is distinguished from Jesus. You have the "one true God," and you have "Jesus." The passage distinguishes between the two with the word "and."

Three chapters later Jesus tells Mary he is ascending to his God, Mary calls him "Lord" (Paul distinguishes between the Father who is God and Jesus who is Lord numerous times in his letters, and much to the dismay of trinitarians everywhere) and Thomas refers to Jesus as Lord and God (which Jesus neither confirms nor denys), and as you've mentioned, John teaches us all to be one even as the Father and Son are one. None of that changes the fact that in John 17:3, Jesus is not the one true God.

Of course passages have different ideas about this subject. The fact remains that your paraphrase of John 17:3 was inaccurate and the passage does not buttress your POV.

Did I choose the perfect scripture for my point... Probably not... still you remain fixated on your interpretation of what the "and" means. Do you have a good argument? YES. Is it the only thing that can be taken from that scripture? I don't think so.

Think of it like a business that has a subsiderary.

God Inc. (to which Jehovah is a principle investor).. doing business as Jesus Christ

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Did I choose the perfect scripture for my point... Probably not... still you remain fixated on your interpretation of what the "and" means. Do you have a good argument? YES. Is it the only thing that can be taken from that scripture? I don't think so.

Think of it like a business that has a subsiderary.

God Inc. (to which Jehovah is a principle investor).. doing business as Jesus Christ

Moving away from John 17:3, your "subsidiary" language risks making Jesus as not equal with the Father. You might be able to argue that (Arius did), but then you have the problem of oneness.

Is Jesus a little less God than is the Father?

There are lots of tensions in the scriptures on this.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Moving away from John 17:3, your "subsidiary" language risks making Jesus as not equal with the Father. You might be able to argue that (Arius did), but then you have the problem of oneness.

I realize I have creekster disease and can't spell or type (subsidiary). Please cut this monkee some slack.

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Is Jesus a little less God than is the Father?

There are lots of tensions in the scriptures on this.

There are some tensions about this. I mean we do pray to the father not the godhead. He is the intermediary between us and the father.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

I realize I have creekster disease and can't spell or type (subsidiary). Please cut this monkee some slack.



There are some tensions about this. I mean we do pray to the father not the godhead. He is the intermediary between us and the father.

Did you misssspeellll? I didn't notice.

A question digging at me is whether or not the oneness that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have makes them equal.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

You did suggest that I didn't support the ideas of always existing and progressing. You did that when you said you supported MRD's idea of those things and then couched that agreement in terms more general than the dispute. When you did that, you implied my disagreement with your generality.

If you're trying to say that you support MRD's particular sense of progression to God (with a big "G"), which was the major issue of dispute, then of course you are disagreeing with me, and I have every right to object to your overgeneralization of the dispute as to being about MRD supporting the ideas of always existing and progressing and me disagreeing.

You have exactly zero room to lecture anyone about trying to understand.

No, it is not as simple as I state ‘A’ and therefore disagree with ‘you’ … such is a condition of prejudgment and not commensurate with an attitude that enables tolerant discourse.

You have jumped to conclusions about my intent with nothing more than conjecture to support your conclusion. My post, not necessarily in support of MRD's particular sense of progression, was to state that my understanding is more in line with MRD’s thinking and nothing more.

You can continue deride but the simple fact of the matter is I have as much room as you to lecture on understanding.

[Archaea]

For all the disagreement these concepts have generated over the ages, one would have thought we'd be closer to understanding it. However, after all is said and done, I'm not certain I have a good grasp on the Godhead now as before my thoughts and study.

We really don't know too much about who or what the Holy Ghost is. The Greeks used the word for wind in a neuter sense when describing this personage, who as SEIQ notes, gets treated a la Hermes. Though much BoM language treats Christ as co-equal with the Father, the NT almost makes him subsidiary to the Father.

However, I wonder if Christ's discussions are not meant to be be theological but petitional. Was Christ directing people to pray and to petition God, because he knew he would leave and wanted to focus people toward heaven, not toward his mortal self, and perhaps inadvertently tilted the balance.

Although I enjoy the study of words as much as the next person, perhaps it is truthful that human language cannot express the nature of these personages and how they relate to one another.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

No, it is not as simple as I state ‘A’ and therefore disagree with ‘you’ … such is a condition of prejudgment and not commensurate with an attitude that enables tolerant discourse.

You have jumped to conclusions about my intent with nothing more than conjecture to support your conclusion. My post, not necessarily in support of MRD's particular sense of progression, was to state that my understanding is more in line with MRD’s thinking and nothing more.

You can continue deride but the simple fact of the matter is I have as much room as you to lecture on understanding.

You are not engaging what I wrote. You overgeneralized the differences between myself and MRD when you identified his position with approving of always existing and progressing.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Did you misssspeellll? I didn't notice.

A question digging at me is whether or not the oneness that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have makes them equal.

One thing that has always bothered me is the discussion of having a relationship with Christ, if one does not speak to Christ. But one person hypothesized that if I speak or pray to Father, he shares the information instantaneously with Christ and the Holy Ghost.

Another aspect which has always troubled me is the explanation that the Holy Ghost doesn't have a body so that he can reside with us. What does that mean? Is he physically inside us? That can't be.