|
Post by fred on Apr 20, 2015 20:04:45 GMT -5
Reference was made in another thread noting that both words had the same derivation and therefore today carry the same meaning.
Language of course is a living thing, and from my understanding the words as used today still have a similar meaning but with significantly different nuances.
'Divine' is used in common language today as in "That's simply divine dahling", meaning 'superb' or even 'heavenly'. So the meaning has to do with being 'heavenly' or 'of God'.
The word 'deity' carries a much more narrow definition, not meaning 'of God' but rather 'is God'.
This is how the words are used in the fellowship today, f&w will frequently use the word 'divine' to talk about Jesus, but I have never heard the word 'deity' used in describing him. This is simply because they don't believe the word is a right description for him.
To suggest the both words have the same meaning and then believe that in using the word 'divine' they are really meaning his 'deity' is nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 20, 2015 23:23:25 GMT -5
Reference was made in another thread noting that both words had the same derivation and therefore today carry the same meaning. Language of course is a living thing, and from my understanding the words as used today still have a similar meaning but with significantly different nuances. 'Divine' is used in common language today as in "That's simply divine dahling", meaning 'superb' or even 'heavenly'. So the meaning has to do with being 'heavenly' or 'of God'. The word 'deity' carries a much more narrow definition, not meaning 'of God' but rather 'is God'. This is how the words are used in the fellowship today, f&w will frequently use the word 'divine' to talk about Jesus, but I have never heard the word 'deity' used in describing him. This is simply because they don't believe the word is a right description for him. To suggest the both words have the same meaning and then believe that in using the word 'divine' they are really meaning his 'deity' is nonsense. The two words don't really have the same meaning. A "deity" (noun) is a simply a god. "Divine" is an adjective used to refer to whatever comes from a god. Things that are "divine" are normally not "deities". I've never heard any 2x2 suggest that "deity" and "divine" meant the same thing. I don't even believe "deity" is a common word in 2x2 vernacular ... they don't need it because they only believe in one god. But it's not nonsense to call Jesus "divine" and still not consider him a "deity". "Intervention" can be divine (from god, or a deity), but "intervention" cannot be a "deity".
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Apr 21, 2015 0:16:39 GMT -5
Reference was made in another thread noting that both words had the same derivation and therefore today carry the same meaning. Language of course is a living thing, and from my understanding the words as used today still have a similar meaning but with significantly different nuances. 'Divine' is used in common language today as in "That's simply divine dahling", meaning 'superb' or even 'heavenly'. So the meaning has to do with being 'heavenly' or 'of God'. The word 'deity' carries a much more narrow definition, not meaning 'of God' but rather 'is God'. This is how the words are used in the fellowship today, f&w will frequently use the word 'divine' to talk about Jesus, but I have never heard the word 'deity' used in describing him. This is simply because they don't believe the word is a right description for him. To suggest the both words have the same meaning and then believe that in using the word 'divine' they are really meaning his 'deity' is nonsense. Thank you for that, that's cleared so much up. We don't use any words like this, only because it doesn't really come up we know Jesus is in the image of God, but he isn't God! But divine is the way I would describe Jesus also. And there is also scripture to back it up. 2 Peter 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. This verse shows that Jesus isn't God but he has the power of God because he is at his right hand, he is the Christ! And we with Christ in our hearts will be partakers of that divine nature, putting off the old man and putting on the new. He is in God's express image. But God is still the only God Almighty and the only one God we pray to. Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. That is much clearer to me now, and just strengthens my beliefs. Thanks again
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Apr 21, 2015 7:58:29 GMT -5
We don't have Christ in our hearts we have the Holy Spirit. When he left he sent the Holy Spirit in His place. Don't we? what does this mean then? Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God. Or Ephesians 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love And this John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 21, 2015 10:47:15 GMT -5
To suggest the both words have the same meaning and then believe that in using the word 'divine' they are really meaning his 'deity' is nonsense. Perhaps a larger problem is that, as they are used, one is a noun and the other is an adjective.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Apr 21, 2015 12:32:25 GMT -5
So do you believe that the Holy Spirit comes into a person when they accept Christ. Did He send the Holy Spirit when he left. Jesus is seated on the right hand of God we have been hearing. I believe it is His spirit that lives within. I believe what the Bible and Jesus tells me, and it says Christ is within us if we let him in!
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Apr 21, 2015 14:17:34 GMT -5
So do you believe that the Holy Spirit comes into a person when they accept Christ. Did He send the Holy Spirit when he left. Jesus is seated on the right hand of God we have been hearing. I believe it is His spirit that lives within. I've just remembered this, as I'm cooking tea lol, I like to ponder! Romans 8 Verse 2 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That's what I mean by feeling all that we feel, coming into sinful flesh but he didn't sin. We do! Verse 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. The whole chapter is good, but I can't put it all on here Back to cooking
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 21, 2015 18:05:52 GMT -5
To suggest the both words have the same meaning and then believe that in using the word 'divine' they are really meaning his 'deity' is nonsense. Perhaps a larger problem is that, as they are used, one is a noun and the other is an adjective. As in ......'His divinity' and 'His deity' ?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 21, 2015 18:09:27 GMT -5
Perhaps a larger problem is that, as they are used, one is a noun and the other is an adjective. As in ......'His divinity' and 'His deity' ? Not really. "Divinity" is a noun. "Divine" is an adjective.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 21, 2015 18:29:18 GMT -5
Perhaps a larger problem is that, as they are used, one is a noun and the other is an adjective. As in ......'His divinity' and 'His deity' ? I see that the subject and the contents of the OP were using different terms.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 21, 2015 18:43:36 GMT -5
As in ......'His divinity' and 'His deity' ? I see that the subject and the contents of the OP were using different terms. Sorry for the grammar failure It would seem that while the words are different parts of speech, they really carry the same basic meaning.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 21, 2015 19:02:41 GMT -5
As in ......'His divinity' and 'His deity' ? Not really. "Divinity" is a noun. "Divine" is an adjective. Ahhh. I see the source of my confusion. I was commenting on the body of the original post and did not notice that divinity was used in the subject but divine was in the body.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 21, 2015 19:16:21 GMT -5
Sorry for the grammar failure ::) No one else here ever makes errors like that. Just don't let it happen again. Strive for perfection!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 21, 2015 20:24:21 GMT -5
Not really. "Divinity" is a noun. "Divine" is an adjective. Ahhh. I see the source of my confusion. I was commenting on the body of the original post and did not notice that divinity was used in the subject but divine was in the body. Who said it was you who was confused? I was answering to Fred.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Apr 21, 2015 20:45:11 GMT -5
Sorry for the grammar failure No one else here ever makes errors like that. Just don't let it happen again. Strive for perfection! Ha..spoken like a teacher. Ratz do you see us as students in your minds eye?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 21, 2015 20:46:40 GMT -5
Ahhh. I see the source of my confusion. I was commenting on the body of the original post and did not notice that divinity was used in the subject but divine was in the body. Who said it was you who was confused? I was answering to Fred. I am saying I was confused. I didn't notice the discrepancy between the Subject: line and the body of the post.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 21, 2015 20:54:27 GMT -5
No one else here ever makes errors like that. Just don't let it happen again. Strive for perfection! Ha..spoken like a teacher. Ratz do you see us as students in your minds eye? Sarcasm really falls flat here! In my mind's eye I see posters, especially you, as the product of a massive artificial intelligence experiment that unfortunately has some poorly programmed bits of code that render thought processing as totally illogical! But that is just my mind's eye and although it can see into other dimensions that make up the future the information it returns cannot be understood by anyone so I just have to make stuff up.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 21, 2015 21:55:34 GMT -5
divine1 n adjective (diviner, divinest) 1 of, from, or like God or a god. Ødevoted to God; sacred. 2 informal excellent; delightful. n noun 1 dated a cleric or theologian. 2 (the Divine) providence or God. DERIVATIVES divinely adverb divineness noun ORIGIN Middle English: via Old French from Latin divinus, from divus 'godlike' (related to deus 'god').deity n noun (plural deities) 1 a god or goddess (especially in a polytheistic religion). Ø(the Deity) the creator and supreme being. 2 divine status, quality, or nature. ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French deite, from ecclesiastical Latin deitas, from deus 'god'.Nonsense to one, sense to another. I personally am comfortable with the adjective divine to describe Jesus. I personally uncomfortable with with using the noun deity to describe Jesus. There is one God, there is one deity. I am not a polytheist. I do not understand Jesus Christ alone to be that one God therefore I will not use the noun deity in place of the word Jesus Christ. Is that nonsense? Perhaps to some but I'm comfortable with it. So you do not believe Jesus was/is a deity?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Apr 21, 2015 22:39:50 GMT -5
Ha..spoken like a teacher. Ratz do you see us as students in your minds eye? Sarcasm really falls flat here! In my mind's eye I see posters, especially you, as the product of a massive artificial intelligence experiment that unfortunately has some poorly programmed bits of code that render thought processing as totally illogical! But that is just my mind's eye and although it can see into other dimensions that make up the future the information it returns cannot be understood by anyone so I just have to make stuff up. Lol@sarcasm..I didnt notice. Thats the internet for you. Oh poor you. The master fabricator? Now there is a line of thought. Trouble is there is no reality. Massive artifical experiment? You are begining to sound like a conspiracy theorist with an odd flavour. Could you explain 'good programming' just so I can try to understand? How has your programming differed? Im shaking my head in wonder here!!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 21, 2015 23:31:38 GMT -5
Who said it was you who was confused? I was answering to Fred. I am saying I was confused. I didn't notice the discrepancy between the Subject: line and the body of the post. Well in that case you must be a pretty normal human being.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 21, 2015 23:51:12 GMT -5
Massive artifical experiment? You are begining to sound like a conspiracy theorist with an odd flavour. Did you ever find yourself doing something that you had not planned on doing? See??? Good code does not repeat itself. Simple constructs, the simplest thing that actually works. No coding until it is actually needed. And so many other facets. A good thing to think about when coding is the person who will be maintaining it. In your mind that should be a very crazy person who has been suspected of torturing/killing people and they know where you live. I write for that crazy future maintainer. I wrote that bit of code. HdShk_DsBlf - It loops 3 times. I thought 5 might give you a neck ache.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Apr 22, 2015 7:00:55 GMT -5
Ratz
I wrote a long post hrs ago lost it all. Brain is turning to custard. Need sleep. Apologys.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Apr 22, 2015 15:05:06 GMT -5
Massive artifical experiment? You are begining to sound like a conspiracy theorist with an odd flavour. Did you ever find yourself doing something that you had not planned on doing? See??? Good code does not repeat itself. Simple constructs, the simplest thing that actually works. No coding until it is actually needed. And so many other facets. A good thing to think about when coding is the person who will be maintaining it. In your mind that should be a very crazy person who has been suspected of torturing/killing people and they know where you live. I write for that crazy future maintainer. I wrote that bit of code. HdShk_DsBlf - It loops 3 times. I thought 5 might give you a neck ache. Yes I do find myself doing things indont plan on doing. Some call it being spontaneous.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Apr 22, 2015 15:08:16 GMT -5
Massive artifical experiment? You are begining to sound like a conspiracy theorist with an odd flavour. Did you ever find yourself doing something that you had not planned on doing? See??? Good code does not repeat itself. Simple constructs, the simplest thing that actually works. No coding until it is actually needed. And so many other facets. A good thing to think about when coding is the person who will be maintaining it. In your mind that should be a very crazy person who has been suspected of torturing/killing people and they know where you live. I write for that crazy future maintainer. I wrote that bit of code. HdShk_DsBlf - It loops 3 times. I thought 5 might give you a neck ache. 3rd attempt!!! Keep loosing contact. Yes I do find myself doing things I dont plan. Its called sponteneity. Simple codes and crazy people? I dont fear a crazy person. My angels protect all my stuff. Not because I have seen them. Only because I ask for their protection. They are stationed around the perimeter of my property When you say you write. Does that include some recent posts?. maybe you should just let your creative juices flow and forget your crazy maintaner.. Lets see ....n 2 sK_@5amIlmCa Lol..you make me laugh
|
|
|
Post by Ross.Bowden on Apr 22, 2015 17:11:27 GMT -5
Reference was made in another thread noting that both words had the same derivation and therefore today carry the same meaning. Language of course is a living thing, and from my understanding the words as used today still have a similar meaning but with significantly different nuances. 'Divine' is used in common language today as in "That's simply divine dahling", meaning 'superb' or even 'heavenly'. So the meaning has to do with being 'heavenly' or 'of God'. The word 'deity' carries a much more narrow definition, not meaning 'of God' but rather 'is God'. This is how the words are used in the fellowship today, f&w will frequently use the word 'divine' to talk about Jesus, but I have never heard the word 'deity' used in describing him. This is simply because they don't believe the word is a right description for him. To suggest the both words have the same meaning and then believe that in using the word 'divine' they are really meaning his 'deity' is nonsense. Yes, divinity and deity are both nouns and are interchangeable words. Christians talk about the divinity or the deity of Christ. I have never heard the term "deity of Christ" used by workers because as you say the vast majority do not believe this. If a friend or worker started talking about the deity of Christ they would be corrected - and not because of any grammatical issue!
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 22, 2015 18:23:27 GMT -5
I guess I'm a bit slow as I'm still trying to get my head around this.
My understanding is that Christ was not one of a number of deities, nor was he the deity (we agree !!).
He was however, a part of the deity ( being the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost).
Now if Christ is fully divine, having fully the quality/substance of the one God/Deity, who was he?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 22, 2015 20:20:12 GMT -5
I appreciate this last post of Ross's. Why? because he states his views without using his post as a vehicle to make some disparaging remark about 2x2s/workers/friends. I like it! thanks! Well, "bully for you," review005!
Do you think that you might emulate that & answer honestly some questions asked of you; instead of evading & circling in order to get out of a making a direct answer?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 22, 2015 21:06:52 GMT -5
I agree dmmg ! But we know Review will not answer my question because to do so would go against the Overseer of NSW ! Instead he will say he is not responding to my questions !! Reminds you of something we were always taught "Just have faith & believe don't question"
|
|