DOCSLIB.ORG

What Is the Godhead?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Is the Godhead? ◆ GOD ◆ WHAT IS THE GODHEAD? Richard C. Trench, in his classic Synonyms of word is grammatically plural and literally is the New Testament, held that the only New Testa- translated “gods,” as in Exodus 20:3: “You shall ment word expressing Deity in the absolute is have no other gods [elohim] before Me.” Exactly theotes (Colossians 2:9),1 translated “Godhead” the same form appears in Genesis 1:1: “In the (AV, ASV), “Deity” (NASB, NIV), and “Deity” beginning God [elohim] created the heavens and (RSV), derived from theos, “God,” “the implored the earth.” Because of this plural form, some one.” How much is embodied in the term have sought to fault the Bible by asserting that it “Godhead,” no human now knows. Zophar chal- teaches polytheism. Accordingly, they would lenged Job, “Can you discover the depths of translate Genesis 1:1 this way: “In the beginning God? Can you discover the limits of the Al- the gods created the heavens and the earth.” mighty?” (Job 11:7). Paul wrote that no one can Since other Bible passages show emphatically dispute the fact that “great is the mystery of that there is only one true God (Deuteronomy godliness” (1 Timothy 3:16). He gave up on ever 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:6), no scholar ever translated understanding the fullness of Genesis 1:1 with the word “gods.” God in this life: “Oh, the depth of If Genesis 1:1 does not teach the the riches both of the wisdom “For in [Christ] all the doctrine of many gods, then why and knowledge of God! How un- fullness of Deity dwells is the word elohim plural? Ar- searchable are His judgments in bodily form” (Colos- chaeology has shown that the an- and unfathomable His ways!” sians 2:9). cients used a majestic plural, or (Romans 11:33). plural of honor, in addition to a On a practical basis, though, God expects us numerical plural. This plural of honor is also in to come to know Him. Only if we do so can we Genesis 42:30, where Joseph’s brothers literally enter heaven. “This is eternal life, that they may said, “The man, the lords of the land, spoke know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ roughly with us.” As written by Moses, the word whom You have sent” (John 17:3). A God of love “lords” is plural but in the context can only refer does not require the impossible, and His de- to one person, that is, Joseph. Consequently, mands are not burdensome (1 John 5:3). The translators change the plural to a singular, trans- wayfaring man, though simple, can come to a lating the phrase “the lord of the land.” saving knowledge of God (Isaiah 35:8). “So then Very seldom does the singular word for God do not be foolish, but understand what the will (eloah) appear in the Scriptures, but the plural of the Lord is” (Ephesians 5:17). form occurs 2,570 times. It is clear, then, why translators uniformly render the form as singu- THE WORD “ELOHIM” lar in Genesis 1:1 and capitalize the word “God.” If the Greek word theos signifies an “im- No Bible student considers just any god or many plored one,” there is a similar thought in the gods to be creators of the universe. Hebrew word elohim, meaning “feared one” or “revered one.”2 Thus the form elohim comes to THE TRINITY mean a being to be worshiped. However, the The plural form elohim may have another 1 significance. Though the biblical Godhead is a maic language as does pater in Greek and as does unit (ehad in Deuteronomy 6:4; heis in 1 Cor- “father” in English. Apparently, Jesus used both inthians 8:6), He is also a Triune Being, a Trinity. the Aramaic and the Greek forms in His Geth- In Genesis 1:26 God said, “Let Us make man in semane prayer (Mark 14:36). He was praying to Our image.” The second verse of the Bible men- a Being separate from Himself whom He re- tions the Spirit of God as being part of the cre- garded as having power over life and death. He ative work. We know from other verses (John also believed that the Being whom He called 1:3; Colossians 1:16) that Jesus had a part in “Father” had the power to forgive sins; He creation. Clearly, then, the Godhead is a three- prayed from the cross on behalf of His killers, fold Being. How three can be one and one can be “Father, forgive them; for they do not know three are not revealed matters (Deuteronomy what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). Clearly, there 29:29), but the biblical fact is indisputable. is a Supreme Being called “God the Father,” who is different from “God the Son” and different GOD THE FATHER from “God the Holy Spirit.” Unsurrenderable items of faith, more pre- cious than the unity of brothers in the bond of GOD THE SON peace, are “one Spirit, . one Lord, . [and] one Already, it has been noted that God the Son God and Father of all” (Ephesians 4:4–6). Jesus was involved in creation when God the Father did not claim to be the Father. (The prediction in said, “Let Us make man” (Genesis 1:26). Many Isaiah 9:6 of His being the “Eternal Father” is just commentators believe that the second person of as accurate if rendered “Father of Eternity,” re- the Godhead is known in the Old Testament as flecting His timelessness.) The one called “Fa- “the angel of the Lord.” (See Genesis 16:7; 22:15, ther” in Jesus’ understanding was a Being sepa- 16; 31:11, 13; Exodus 3:2–4.) However, if the rate from Himself, on whom He depended, and Lord’s angel were God the Son, He would not to whom He prayed. His petitions began with have refused to be worshiped (Judges 13:16). In “Father” (as in John 17:1), and His sermons regard to Jesus, the Father commanded, “Let all pointed listeners to “your Father” and “your the angels of God worship Him” (Hebrews 1:6). heavenly Father” (Matthew 5:45, 48). He taught The angel of the Lord was an important being, His disciples to address the God of the universe but he was not the second person of the as “our Father” (Matthew 6:9). In the Bethany Godhead. cemetery “Jesus raised His eyes, and said, ‘Fa- In the King James Version, the rendering of ther, I thank You that You have heard Me. I knew Nebuchadnezzar’s words about the four men in that You always hear Me; . .’” (John 11:41, 42). the furnace (“. the form of the fourth is like the As Jesus approached the agony of the cross, Son of God”; Daniel 3:25) has caused some to He was nervous: “Now My soul has become think that Jesus was the one with Shadrach, troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save Me Meshach, and Abednego. Likely, He was; but the from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to words more literally are “the form of the fourth this hour. Father, glorify Your name” (John 12:27, is like a son of the gods.” This translation fits 28a). The false notion that Jesus is the whole better from what is known of Nebuchadnezzar: Godhead is vividly refuted by a voice answering It is not likely that the pagan king knew about Jesus’ prayer—a voice which came out of the the second member of the Godhead, the Son of heavens: “I have both glorified it, and will glo- God. rify it again” (John 12:28b). Some bystanders That the second member of the Godhead was thought they had heard thunder, while others active in the days of the Old Testament, how- thought an angel was speaking to Jesus. The ever, is clear. Not only was He the Creator, but whole incident shows communication between later He was present with the Israelites in the two members of the Godhead. wilderness, being represented as the spiritual Some have attempted to find a feeling of rock from which they drank (1 Corinthians 10:4). intimacy and unusual closeness in the term Abba, In one sense, all human beings are sons of the Aramaic word for father. However, the form God (see Luke 3:38), and angels are sons of God Abba has precisely the same meaning in the Ara- (Job 1:6; 2:1); but there is a sense in which Jesus 2 is the only Son of God (Psalm 2:7; John 1:18). He the flesh was given by Micah. He envisioned is the only One of His kind, a unique One. Physi- One born in Bethlehem who did not originate cally, He was begotten of the virgin Mary by the there, but whose goings forth were from of old, Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35), but the thrilling predic- even from everlasting (Micah 5:2). tion of an excited Father (“Today I have begotten Already, the vivid but figurative description You”; Psalm 2:7) had no reference to the Beth- of Jesus as God’s Son has been cited (Psalm 2:7). lehem birth. It has to be a figurative expression The same title was used audibly by the Father of heaven’s joy (comparable to the happiness of when Jesus was immersed, and again on the a birth announcement in a home) regarding Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 3:17; 17:5). Jesus’ resurrection and His being crowned as In the same special sense of Deity, the disciples king and anointed as priest (Acts 13:33; Hebrews proclaimed that Jesus was the Son of God after 1:5; 5:5).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Schelling and the Future of God
    SSN 1918-7351 Volume 5 (2013) Schelling and the Future of God Jason M. Wirth For Sean McGrath and Andrzej Wiercinski It seems, at least largely among the world’s educated, that Nietzsche’s prognosis of the death of God is coming to pass. Not only is belief in a transcendent being or a grand, supremely real being (ens realissimum) waning, but also the philosophical grounds that made such objects in any way intelligible are collapsing. In such a situation, despite the recent and quite scintillating renaissance of serious interest in Schelling’s philosophy, his various discourses on the Godhead (die Gottheit) are generally ignored, perhaps with mild embarrassment. For better or worse, however, what Schelling understood by the Godhead and even by religion has little in common with prevailing theistic traditions. Schelling did not take advantage of the great ontological lacuna that opened up with the demise of dogmatism in critical philosophy after Kant to insist on an irrational belief in a God that was no longer subject to rational demonstration. Schelling eschews all dogmatic thought, but does not therefore partake in its alternative: the reduction of all thought regarding the absolute to irrational beliefs in (or rational gambles on) the existence of God and other such absolutes. As Quentin Meillassoux has shown, “by forbidding reason any claim to the absolute, the end of metaphysics has taken the form of an exacerbated return of the religious.”1 This gives rise to the reduction of religion and anti- religion to fideism. Since both theism and atheism purport to believe in a rationally unsupportable absolute position, they are both symptoms of the return of the religious.
    [Show full text]
  • Archons (Commanders) [NOTICE: They Are NOT Anlien Parasites], and Then, in a Mirror Image of the Great Emanations of the Pleroma, Hundreds of Lesser Angels
    A R C H O N S HIDDEN RULERS THROUGH THE AGES A R C H O N S HIDDEN RULERS THROUGH THE AGES WATCH THIS IMPORTANT VIDEO UFOs, Aliens, and the Question of Contact MUST-SEE THE OCCULT REASON FOR PSYCHOPATHY Organic Portals: Aliens and Psychopaths KNOWLEDGE THROUGH GNOSIS Boris Mouravieff - GNOSIS IN THE BEGINNING ...1 The Gnostic core belief was a strong dualism: that the world of matter was deadening and inferior to a remote nonphysical home, to which an interior divine spark in most humans aspired to return after death. This led them to an absorption with the Jewish creation myths in Genesis, which they obsessively reinterpreted to formulate allegorical explanations of how humans ended up trapped in the world of matter. The basic Gnostic story, which varied in details from teacher to teacher, was this: In the beginning there was an unknowable, immaterial, and invisible God, sometimes called the Father of All and sometimes by other names. “He” was neither male nor female, and was composed of an implicitly finite amount of a living nonphysical substance. Surrounding this God was a great empty region called the Pleroma (the fullness). Beyond the Pleroma lay empty space. The God acted to fill the Pleroma through a series of emanations, a squeezing off of small portions of his/its nonphysical energetic divine material. In most accounts there are thirty emanations in fifteen complementary pairs, each getting slightly less of the divine material and therefore being slightly weaker. The emanations are called Aeons (eternities) and are mostly named personifications in Greek of abstract ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • A Peircean Panentheist Scientific Mysticism1
    International Journal of Transpersonal Studies Volume 27 | Issue 1 Article 5 1-1-2008 A Peircean Panentheist Scientific ysM ticism Søren Brier Copenhagen Business School Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ciis.edu/ijts-transpersonalstudies Part of the Philosophy Commons, Psychology Commons, and the Religion Commons Recommended Citation Brier, S. (2008). Brier, S. (2008). A Peircean panentheist scientific ysm ticism. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 27(1), 20–45.. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 27 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.24972/ijts.2008.27.1.20 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Newsletters at Digital Commons @ CIIS. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Journal of Transpersonal Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ CIIS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Peircean Panentheist Scientific Mysticism1 Søren Brier2 Copenhagen Business School Copenhagen, Denmark Peirce’s philosophy can be interpreted as an integration of mysticism and science. In Peirce’s philosophy mind is feeling on the inside and on the outside, spontaneity, chance and chaos with a tendency to take habits. Peirce’s philosophy has an emptiness beyond the three worlds of reality (his Categories), which is the source from where the categories spring. He empha- sizes that God cannot be conscious in the way humans are, because there is no content in his “mind.” Since there is a transcendental3 nothingness behind and before the categories, it seems that Peirce had a mystical view on reality with a transcendental Godhead.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson 2 – the Eternal Godhead
    Mount Zion Ministries Bringing the Power of Resurrection Life to the Nation by Grace alone – through Faith alone – in Christ alone Mount Zion Ministries Discipleship Training Program Lesson 2 – The Eternal Godhead Extracts from the Authorised Version of the Bible (The King James Bible) The rights in which are vested in the Crown Are reproduced with the permission of the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press. Website: mountzionministries.uk Contact: [email protected] Page 1 of 6 Mount Zion Ministries Bringing the Power of Resurrection Life to the Nation by Grace alone – through Faith alone – in Christ alone Lesson 2 – The Eternal Godhead We believe in the Eternal Godhead who has revealed Himself as one God existing in Three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, distinguishable but indivisible. Proof texts Matthew 3:16-17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven , saying, This is my beloved Son , in whom I am well pleased. Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost . Mark 1:10-11 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven , [saying], Thou art my beloved Son , in whom I am well pleased.
    [Show full text]
  • The Holy Spirit: a Personal Member of the Godhead
    Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University Memory, Meaning & Life Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary 6-11-2010 The Holy Spirit: A Personal Member Of The Godhead John Reeve Andrews University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/mml Recommended Citation Reeve, John, "The Holy Spirit: A Personal Member Of The Godhead" (2010). Memory, Meaning & Life. 31. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/mml/31 This Blog Post is brought to you for free and open access by the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Memory, Meaning & Life by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20180625221757/http://www.memorymeaningfaith.org:80/blog/201… Memory, Meaning & Faith Main About Archives June 11, 2010 The Holy Spirit: A Personal Member Of The Godhead Holy Trinity by Andrei Rublev There is an assertion that floats around the edges of Christianity that the Holy Spirit is not a personal member of the Godhead, but an impersonal power from God. This assertion, which has a small following in Adventism, takes many forms and angles, but at its core it asserts that the Bible does not support a view of the Holy Spirit as having any “personhood.” I will address the issue of the conceptualization of the Holy Spirit directly from the Bible, which, if it gives strong evidence for ascribing personhood and full deity to the Holy Spirit, settles the question for me.
    [Show full text]
  • • Baha'i Proofs for the Existence Of
    Page 1 • Baha’i Proofs for the Existence of God Ian Kluge to show that belief in God can be rational and logically coherent and is not necessarily a product of uncritical religious dogmatism or ignorance. To prove proofs of God in the Baha’i Writings are logically valid and defensible. to up-date explanations for some traditional proofs which are still valid but easy to discount in their original form. to persuade people to engage in philosophic studies of the Baha’i Writings including correlations with other systems of thought as promoted by the Guardian. Page 2 The Existence of the Divine Being hath been clearly established on the basis of logical proofs, but the reality of the Godhead is beyond the grasp of the mind" (Selections from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Baha, p. 46) “The utmost one can say is that [God’s] existence can be proved, but that the conditions of Its existence are unknown.” (Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 54) Contrary to some philosophers and modern thinkers, the Writings assert that God’s existence can be logically proven. This does not mean every disbeliever can be persuaded that God exists (people can be persuaded by many different things, e.g. life experiences.) but it does mean that from a logical perspective, a statement that denies the existence of a supra-natural ‘entity’ is “untenable.” Persuasion and proof are not the same things. “Untenable” in logic means a position cannot be defended without getting entangled in various kinds of logical errors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Synergicity of Essentially the Identity of God in the Vedic Teaching and the Siwatattwa As Guidelines for Hindureligious Practices in Bali
    Jayapangus Press Volume 4 Nomor 4 (2020) Jurnal Penelitian Agama Hindu ISSN : 2579-9843 (Media Online) Focuses on Hinduism Studies http://jayapanguspress.penerbit.org/index.php/JPAH THE SYNERGICITY OF ESSENTIALLY THE IDENTITY OF GOD IN THE VEDIC TEACHING AND THE SIWATATTWA AS GUIDELINES FOR HINDURELIGIOUS PRACTICES IN BALI I Wayan Ardhi Wirawan1, I Gede Sura2, Ketut Wardana3 1Institut Agama Hindu Negeri Gde Pudja Mataram 23Universitas Hindu Negeri I Gusti Bagus Sugriwa Denpasar Email: [email protected] Abstrak Penelitian ini bertujuan melakukan kajian terhadap sinergisitas secara esensial identitas ketuhanan dalam kitab suci Veda dan ajaran Siwatattwa. Identitas ketuhanan yang dijadikan fokus penelitian ini dilatari oleh alasan berkembangnya wacana “Kembali ke Veda” sebagai sumber pedoman praktik beragama Hindu di Bali. Berkenaan dengan itu, kajian ini difokuskan pada identitas tentang ketuhanan sebagai simbol konstruktif yang mengangkut inti ajaran agama Hindu. Penelitian ini dirancang dalam metode kualitatif interpretatif menggunakan model komparasi teks dua sumber ajaran ketuhanan secara umum, yaitu kitab Suci Veda dan ajaran Siwatattwa. Temuan baru berkaitan dengan hasil penelitian ini adalah identitas ketuhanan secara esensial yang terkandung dalam kitab suci Veda dan kitab Siwatattwa memiliki sinergisitas. Identitas ketuhanan yang transenden dalam kedua sumber ajaran Hindu tersebut bersifat abstrak yang tidak terjangkau oleh indra dan pikiran. Identitas ketuhanan dalam dimensi imanen disimbolkan dengan nama dan wujud sebagai pusat konsentrasi umat Hindu dalam menghayati keberadaan kekuatan Brahman/Ida Sang Hyang Widhi Wasa sesuai dengan ista dewata (perwujudan dewa yang dipuja). Penghayatan ketuhanan pada masyarakat Bali-Hindu menggunakan sumber pedoman ajaran Siwatattwa dalam pelaksanaan agama Hindu yang bersumber pada kitab suci Veda, baik sruti maupun smrti.
    [Show full text]
  • Godhead Or Deity - Is James White Right?
    Godhead or Deity - Is James White Right? Colossians 2:8-9 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, aftr the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of THE GODHEAD bodily." James White, a well known King James Bible critic, ignorantly harangues against the use of the word Godhead in the KJB. In his book, The King James Only Controversy, when discussing Colossians 2:9 Mr. White says on page 204: "Yet, the KJV rendering of this verse is probably the least clear of almost all currently available translations. How does one explain what "Godhead" means? Who really uses this term any longer? And what about the fact that the KJV uses "godhead" in other places when it is translating a completely different Greek term?" Then Mr. White has a chart which shows the NASB rendering of the three passages where the KJB has Godhead in all three. Here are the NASB renderings: Acts 17:29 the Divine Nature (Theios); Romans 1:20 divine nature (theiotes), and Colossians 2:9 Deity (theotes). As for Mr. White's puzzlement about how one explains what Godhead means, he might try looking at any number of current English dictionaries. As for his question - "Who really uses this term any longer?" maybe Mr. Scholar White might try reading the NIV introduction in the 1984 edition where it says on page xviii "Neither Hebrew, Aramaic nor Greek uses special pronouns for the persons of the Godhead." Actually the word Godhead is much stronger and more accurate than the "deity" of the NASB, NIV and ESV.
    [Show full text]
  • II. the Godhead A. the Trinity 016. Lecture, the Catholic Columbian, December 25, 1875
    II. The Godhead A. The Trinity 016. Lecture, The Catholic Columbian, December 25, 1875 This series titled "Lecture in St. Joseph's Cathedral" was unsigned, incomplete, and poorly edited. But we are sure Bishop Rosecrans was the speaker, for on the first page of the December 11 issue is the notice, "The Bishop's lectures at the Cathedral Sunday evenings, draw appreciative audiences." The Sunday prior to publication, December 19, was probably its date of delivery. LECTURE IN ST. JOSEPH'S CATHEDRAL. No. IV The Unity and Trinity of God. God exists necessarily from all eternity. He is Immutable, Almighty, Omniscient, essentially Just and Holy, the Maker and Center of all things outside of Himself. There can be but one such Being. He is the Center of all Space, the Immovable Pivot round which the Ages revolve, at His bidding, from their beginning, when the Angels were made, thenceforth forever. To Him the vast fields of space, through which the stars are ever moving since He started them, are but as a point, and the ages they measure by their wheelings is as a single instant. Whatever he made them for, it was not for any need He had of them. The shining Choirs of Angels, the generations of men, the vast bulk of material creation brought Him no new knowledge, or gain, or pleasure. He is sufficient to Himself. This much we know, analyzing our own conceptions of WHO He is. But He has revealed Himself as one in Essence, and at the same time, three in person. The Mystery of the Trinity is the groundwork of Catholic Faith.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of the Concept of God in Hinduism and Islam
    International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 3, Issue 2, February 2013 1 ISSN 2250-3153 A comparative study of the concept of God in Hinduism and Islam Abid Mushtaq Wani Abstract: In this research paper we will discuss the concept of God in Hinduism and Islam, the two major world religions. The theme of this paper is to show that monotheism is at the core of both these great religions. Islam is strictly monotheistic but Hinduism has pantheistic and henotheistic tendencies as well. While monotheism means the oneness and transcendence of God pantheism means that the Supreme Being is immanent in His creation and is present everywhere and in everything. Henotheism is the belief in one Supreme Divinity with the belief in other lesser deities. I. INTRODUCTION he concept of God is the basic tenet of almost all religions. I said almost because renowned religions like Buddhism and Jainism T do not hold the belief in an Absolute Creator of the world. Theologians usually define God as all-powerful, all-knowing, transcendent, eternal and infinite. My research paper is about the concept of God in one of the two major world religions of the world; Hinduism and Islam. We shall hypothesize that the unity of God is the central part of both these great religions. While Hinduism is pantheistic when Vedanta is taken into consideration, Islam is purely monotheistic. Most of the Hindus worship many gods and goddesses but they believe that they are the manifestations of One Absolute Being. I have consulted the basic sources of both these religions.
    [Show full text]
  • POSITION OFSDA PIONEERS on "THE TRINITY" and "GODHEAD"
    Insert A-I (Lest We Forget Vol. 4, No.2.). POSITION OFSDA PIONEERS ON "THE TRINITY" and "GODHEAD" [This article written by R. F. Cottrell published in the Review ofJune 1, 1869, sets forth well the attitude ofthe pioneers and believers on the question ofthe trinity. -A. L. White.] THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY This has been a popular doctrine and regarded as the Son ofGod, and besides this it is perfectly reasonable orthodoxeversince the bishopofRome was elevatedto the and seemingly self-evident. popedom on the strength ofit. It is accounted dangerous IfI be asked how I believe the Father and Son are one, heresy to reject it; but each person is permitted to explain I reply,They are one in a sense not contrary to sense. Ifthe the doctrine in his own way. All seem to think they must "and" in the sentence means anything, the Father and the holdit, but each has perfect liberty to take his own way to Son are two beings. They are one in the same sense in reconcile its contradictory propositions; and hence a mul­ which Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one. He titude ofviews are held concerning it by its friends, all of asked his Father that his disciples might be one. His them orthodox, I suppose,as long as they nominally assent language is, "that they may be one, even as we are one." to the doctrine. It may be objected, Ifthe Father and the Son are two For myself, I have never felt called upon to explain it, distinct beings, do you not, in worshiping the Son and nor to adopt and defend it, neither have I ever preached calling him God, break the first commandment of the against it.
    [Show full text]
  • Ghasem Kakaie IBN 'ARABI's GOD, ECKHART's GOD
    444 Philosophy of Religion and Kalam * Ghasem Kakaie Ghasem Kakaie (Shiraz University, Iran) IBN ‘ARABI’S GOD, ECKHART’S GOD: GOD OF PHILOSOPHERS OR GOD OF RELIGION? 1. Prelude It is difficult to provide such a definition of God in which all various views are included and all schools agree upon. The dominant view is that Religion’s God is the Origin of the universe and enjoys some kind of transcendence and sacredness. In philosophy, however, there are various images for God: the Gods of ancient Greece, the unmoved mover of Aristotle, the necessary Being of Avicenna, the God of Aquinas’s theism, the God of Spinoza’s the pantheistic, panentheism God in some mystical philosophies, the One in Neoplatonism, the God of process philosophy, the God of existential philosophies, ultimate concern of Tillich, God as the impersonal ground of Being, and aspects of Heidegger’s Dasein are different concepts of deity.1 The God of philosophy is often an object, not a person; something, not some- one, unchangeable, absolute and unlimited. But the God which is worshiped in ordinary religion “is a person and to be a person, an entity must think, feel, and will. In spite of being called unchangeable, he is angry with us today, pleased with us tomorrow.”2 The meaning of God, of course, is to some extent different in the ordinary versions of various religions and even between Abrahamic religions. The God who has no son according to Islam, for example, may differ from the God who has a son as is believed in Christianity.
    [Show full text]