As indeed there are many gods………..

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 27 2012,12:41)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 28 2012,04:42) So “his name is called” means exactly the same thing as “he is called” when it is convenient for you…………… but when it's not, they mean different things? Is that it, Ed? Hi Mike, Jesus called Peter “a stone”, but his name was really Peter.

His name was really “Simon”………….. Jesus named him “Peter” – which means “rock”.

Anyway, that doesn't answer the question I asked you. A simple “YES” or “NO” will suffice.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 27 2012,12:50)

Here is the difference that you are overlooking, the difference its this… 1. “his name shall be called”  (Isaiah 9:6)     <– referring to Jesus Christ 2. “his name is called” (Revelation 19:13)     <– referring to the HolySpirit

Ed,

Do you see how you are forcing the words of scripture to conform to your own understanding of things?

We aren't even talking about who “the Word” is right now, but because you insist that “the Word” is the Holy Spirit, you already have that belief of yours in the back of your mind while discussing this other, unrelated thing.  It's like you're thinking to yourself, “How can I address this point while making sure the Word still ends up being the Holy Spirit?”

Don't put the cart before the horse, Ed.  So far, you have acknowledged the truth of the matter that “his name shall be called John” means the exact same thing as “his name shall be John”.

All I'm trying to find out right now is WHY that same truth doesn't apply to Rev 19:13.  Why does that truth apply in Luke 1:13, but not in Rev 19:13?

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 28 2012,07:06)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 27 2012,12:41) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 28 2012,04:42) So “his name is called” means exactly the same thing as “he is called” when it is convenient for you…………… but when it's not, they mean different things? Is that it, Ed? Hi Mike, Jesus called Peter “a stone”, but his name was really Peter. His name was really “Simon”………….. Jesus named him “Peter” – which means “rock”. Anyway, that doesn't answer the question I asked you.  A simple “YES” or “NO” will suffice.

Hi Mike,

Here's the difference…

You could say:  'his name is called mud'  as in HE IS IN BIG TROUBLE.
But you would not say:  'his name is mud'  because “Mud” in not his name.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 28 2012,07:12)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 27 2012,12:50) Here is the difference that you are overlooking, the difference its this… 1. “his name shall be called”  (Isaiah 9:6)     <– referring to Jesus Christ 2. “his name is called” (Revelation 19:13)     <– referring to the HolySpirit Ed, Do you see how you are forcing the words of scripture to conform to your own understanding of things? We aren't even talking about who “the Word” is right now, but because you insist that “the Word” is the Holy Spirit, you already have that belief of yours in the back of your mind while discussing this other, unrelated thing.  It's like you're thinking to yourself, “How can I address this point while making sure the Word still ends up being the Holy Spirit?” Don't put the cart before the horse, Ed.  So far, you have acknowledged the truth of the matter that “his name shall be called John” means the exact same thing as “his name shall be John”. All I'm trying to find out right now is WHY that same truth doesn't apply to Rev 19:13.  Why does that truth apply in Luke 1:13, but not in Rev 19:13?

Hi Mike, you are 'twisting' what was said…      here is the transcript…

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 24 2012,09:40)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 21 2012,18:19) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 24 2012,09:09) Hi Mike: not the same. “thou shalt call his name John.” (Luke 1:13) Good scriptural example, Ed. Now tell me, does saying, “thou shalt call his name John” carry a different meaning than, “thou shalt call him John”? If so, then please explain how the MEANING of those two statements would be different. Hi Mike, No difference, but more importantly no leeway for mischief either. I can't say the same for any followup refining questions intended to leverage open multiple meanings. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 27 2012,14:17)

Hi Mike, Here's the difference… You could say:  'his name is called mud'  as in HE IS IN BIG TROUBLE. But you would not say:  'his name is mud'  because “Mud” in not his name.

That's where you're wrong, Ed.

This page contains many sites which explain the FAMOUS SAYING, “His name is Mud”.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 27 2012,14:22)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 28 2012,07:12) So far, you have acknowledged the truth of the matter that “his name shall be called John” means the exact same thing as “his name shall be John”. Hi Mike, you are 'twisting' what was said…      here is the transcript… Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 24 2012,09:40) Hi Mike, No difference…….

That's right Ed.  You said, “NO DIFFERENCE”.

So, I ask you again:

Why does that truth apply in Luke 1:13, but not in Rev 19:13?

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 28 2012,07:56)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 27 2012,14:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 28 2012,07:12) So far, you have acknowledged the truth of the matter that “his name shall be called John” means the exact same thing as “his name shall be John”. Hi Mike, you are 'twisting' what was said…      here is the transcript… Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 24 2012,09:40) Hi Mike, No difference……. That's right Ed.  You said, “NO DIFFERENCE”. So, I ask you again: Why does that truth apply in Luke 1:13, but not in Rev 19:13?

Hi Mike,

Here is what you asked – that I said no difference to…  

Quote

Now tell me, does saying, “thou shalt call his name John” carry a different meaning than, “thou shalt call him John”?

“thou shalt call his name John.” (Luke 1:13)                <– this apples to John
“his name is called The Word of God.” (Rev 19:13)      <– this apples to the HolySpirit

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

That's right, Ed.  Why do we have to keep going over the same thing?

You ACKNOWLEDGED that there is NO DIFFERENCE between “call his name John” and “call him John”.

I KEEP asking you the same thing, and you keep diverting from my question.

WHY is there no difference between “call his name John” and “call him John”, but there IS (according to you) a difference between “his name is called the Word of God” and “he is called the Word of God”?

Please EXPLAIN the discrepancy for me.

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 28 2012,08:43)

That's right, Ed.  Why do we have to keep going over the same thing? You ACKNOWLEDGED that there is NO DIFFERENCE between “call his name John” and “call him John”. I KEEP asking you the same thing, and you keep diverting from my question. WHY is there no difference between “call his name John” and “call him John”, but there IS (according to you) a difference between “his name is called the Word of God” and “he is called the Word of God”? Please EXPLAIN the discrepancy for me.

Hi Mike,

That's because God's HolySpirit doesn't have a name of its own, but
“HE IS CALLED THE WORD OF GOD”! Remember God's words are spirit.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Ed,

Your belief and constant claims that the Word is the Holy Spirit is NOT actually addressing the point I'm making.

But we can leave it as is for now.

[terraricca]

edj

Quote

That's because God's HolySpirit doesn't have a name of its own, but “HE IS CALLED THE WORD OF GOD”! Remember God's words are spirit. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34)

how is that the words of God are his will ,and are for that reason thoughts that express them ,IS IT NOT LIKE IT IN MEN ???OR CAN YOU HOLD YOUR THOUGHTS IN YOUR HANDS LIKE A BOTTLE OF WHISKEY???

HOLY SPIRIT COMES FROM GOD ,WHAT TYPE OF SPIRIT WOULD COME FROM SATAN HOW WOULD YOU CALL HIS SPIRIT BECAUSE SATAN IS NOT HOLY IS HE

[SimplyForgiven]

Mike,
Seems like that confession of believeing in manys gods is still haunting you?

[terraricca]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 16 2012,15:27)

Mike, Seems like that confession of believeing in manys gods is still haunting you?

where does he says that he believes in other gods,???

not the same thing to believe that there are other gods around in this world ,WHAT EVER FILLS YOUR HEART HIS YOUR GOD ,IS THIS NOT WHAT CHRIST SAID

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 16 2012,03:27)

Mike, Seems like that confession of believeing in manys gods is still haunting you?

Actually, the DISBELIEVING of clear, scriptural teachings haunts the rest of you, Dennison.

I will tell it like it was taught in the scriptures. Paul says there are many gods, in heaven and on earth. I believe him, for the scriptures clearly describe some of these many gods, and their powers.

You, on the other hand, will insert the phrase “false gods” in place of “gods”, and pretend that Jehovah is the only god in existence – despite the fact He couldn't be called the God OF gods if there were no other gods.

I'm content with my understanding, for it is the scriptural one. You are free to feel content with your understanding, for it is the politically correct one.

Take care, my friend.

[Lightenup]

Here Mike, I see that it is your birthday so here is a present for you:

This should interest you regarding this subject.

More in the series:
Sorry but this video did not have an 'old' embed code:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v&#8230;.p_video

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 22 2012,17:21)

Here Mike, I see that it is your birthday so here is a present for you: This should interest you regarding this subject.

Thank you so much, Kathi!  This is truly a great birthday present for me!  

I have only watched the first one, due to time constaints, but it is wonderful.

I will urge Ed, Dennison, and all else who believe the liberal lie of only one literal god to watch this first video.  The first 5 minutes is introduction and an explanation of this guy's expertise in semitic languages – so you can skip to about 5:15 in the video.  It is at that point that this expert begins speaking about what he calls “the divine counsel”.  (NETNotes also calls this heavenly body the same thing.)

Some brief points brought out in the video:
1.  Study bibles and editor’s notes do their best to obscure the mention of other gods in the bible because they're afraid it raises the specter of polytheism.

2.  But, as this expert points out, We don’t need to protect the Bible from itself, or protect you from the Bible.  It is what it is.  It is the holy word of God, so why try to cover it up?

3.  This expert uses Psalm 82:1 as his “go to” scripture.  He says that the orthodox scholars try to explain away these “gods” in the assembly of God by saying the Israelites USED TO BE a polytheistic culture, but then changed to a monotheistic one.  But that doesn't fit the timeline of when this Psalm was written.

4.  He says the Evangelicals try to explain these “gods” as human judges.  The expert says, They buy into the liberal view that we must protect the Bible from being polytheistic.  But 89:1 has similar language and says these sons of God meet in the clouds, or in heaven – so the “assembly of the gods” is in heaven, a place were no human judges met at large with God.  Also, Psalm 82 is talking about these gods being judged because of their corrupt administration of the nations of the world – as per Deut 32:8.

Deuteronomy 32:8 NET
When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided up humankind, he set the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of the heavenly assembly.

Actually, “heavenly assembly” is “sons of God”.  The LXX has “angels of God”  The “politically correct” translation now is “sons of Israel”, but again, this is done to “protect the Bible” from itself, and make sure it doesn't teach about the existence of other gods.

This is all in line with Michael coming to help Daniel's angel against the “Prince of Persia” (the spiritual son of God who was appointed over the Persian Empire).  It is in line with Satan being “the god of Ekron” (the spiritual son of God who was appointed over the nation of Ekron).  

The understanding is that God has appointed the nations of earth to certain, spiritual sons of His, and He has chosen Israel as His own portion among the nations of mankind.  (Deut 32:9)

So when the Bible mentions the “gods of Egypt”, it is speaking about real, powerful, spiritual beings who had been appointed over Egypt.  And these beings were able to match the first three signs God did through Moses.  Nevertheless, these spiritual sons of God proved to be no match to the Most High God who created them, and God not only prevailed over them, but also “rendered judgment upon the gods of Egypt” afterwards. (Deut 12:12, Num 33:4)

This is all scriptural stuff, guys. I'm not making it up. It's right there in the scriptures for all to read.

I'm looking forward to watching the rest of that series, Kathi.  Thanks again.  

[Lightenup]

You are welcome Mike! I'm glad that you are enjoying your 'birthday present' from me

[mikeboll64]

Eddy? D-Linquent?

Have you guys watched that first video yet? Do you have anything to say about the comments I posted?

[Author]

Posts