ISM Scale

Blocked

Quote (2besee @ June 06 2013,20:31)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64)

1. In 1 Cor 8:6, was Paul teaching that Jesus was LITERALLY our ONLY lord? YES or NO?

Jesus is OUR only lord as in spiritually.

So then Jehovah, the Lord God of heaven and earth, is NOT your lord, 2B? (Please answer this DIRECTLY)

Quote (2besee @ June 06 2013,20:31)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64)

2. Jehovah is called the Most High god OF gods in scripture. Who are some of these less high gods that Jehovah is the god OF?

They are so called gods.

But Jehovah is the MOST HIGH god, right? Does that mean Jehovah is the “Most High So-Called God”?

If He is the Most High “god”, and the “gods” He is higher than are only “so-called gods”, it means Jehovah is the Most High “so-called god”, right? Is that what you believe?

Face it 2B, if you are claiming that the phrase “god of gods” means “REAL god of SO-CALLED gods”, then you are just fooling yourself. What would make anyone think that the first use of “god” had a different definition than the second use of “gods”? When scripture says “king of kings”, do you assume that the first “king” is real, while the second “kings” refers to so-called kings?

Quote (2besee @ June 06 2013,20:31)

God is just a title. There is only one true God.

It is truly amazing to me the amount of “silly talk” people allow themselves to perform when their false doctrine gets pitted against the actual words of scripture. It's like Marty saying, Yes Mike, Jesus IS called god, but that doesn't mean he IS a god.

Likewise, you say “god” is only a TITLE, but then insist that Jehovah is the only “true” one who bears this “just a TITLE”.

Satan also bears that title, doesn't he? Does that mean Satan is not “true”, but “fake”? Is he just a figment of our imagination? Does he truly not exist at all?

If you would open your eyes to the true definition of “el”, “elohim”, “theos”, and “god”, you'd be able to see things correctly.

See, in most of your minds, the word “god” means “Almighty Creator of All Things”. But that is NOT what the word means. It simply means “mighty one”. So what does it mean for Jesus to call his Father “the only true mighty one”?

Will we go AGAINST many scriptures and take those words LITERALLY – as if there exists NO OTHER MIGHTY ONES WHATSOEVER? Will we assume that all other mighty ones are “false mighty ones”? Jesus is the second most powerful being in existence, and as such, is himself a mighty one. Will you say that Jesus is a FALSE mighty one because Jesus called his Father the “only true mighty one”?

Hmmmmm………….. Jesus also said that “only God is good”. Will you also take THOSE words LITERALLY, and conclude that your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is “BAD”?

Quote (2besee @ June 06 2013,20:31)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64)

3. How do you personally define the word “god” (“el”, “elohim”, “theos”) ?

So called gods are mighty ones, those who are godlike or powerful in who they are, and many gods are just mans invention.

That was an “explanation” – not a “definition”. The earliest known meaning (“definition”) of “el” is “mighty one”. You can Google this to find out if I'm speaking the truth. You can look at the Catholic Encyclopedia, or any other source you want to find this simple fact, 2B.

So MY definition remains: “mighty one”. I'm not asking you to agree to MY definition, but I am asking you FOR a definition – not an “explanation”.

Here is the definition from Webster's Dictionary:

Any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature.

Is Jesus “supernatural”? Yep. Is he “immortal”? Yep. Does he “have special powers over the lives and affairs of humans”? Yep.

So now you have my definition, and Webster's definition. What is YOUR definition?

Quote (2besee @ June 06 2013,20:31)

Again, there is only one who is the creator and the source of all.

Agreed. But the word “god” does not MEAN “creator and source of all”. Can we at least agree on this much?

June 8, 2013 at 6:26 pm#346964

Blocked

Quote (2besee @ June 07 2013,05:18)

T8,
You will have to ask Mike and Terraricca what all of the fuss is about, because it is the two of them who have disagreed with Paul's words, and choose to believe instead that there are multiple gods.

“Disagreed with Paul's words”? Or accepted them?

“as indeed there are many gods and many lords”

June 8, 2013 at 6:44 pm#346967

Blocked

Quote (t8 @ June 07 2013,06:30)

2b, I know that Mike believes that the one true God is the Father, and that Jesus and counsels of God are called theos.

But I do disagree with Mike regarding the way John 1:1c uses the word theos.

I believe it is qualitatively used and so do many scholars including Trinitarian ones. But the Trinitarian scholars that believe this to be the case still think it proves that Jesus is God because to be qualitatively God or to have the nature of God means you are God in their view. So they conveniently ignore that certain men and angels are also theos.

It's interesting to note that t8 would say this right after posting words from Origen, and specifically highlighting this part:

They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos [gods] and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked.

As I have told t8 numerous times, anyone who is “qualitatively man” is also, by necessity, “a man”. Likewise, if one is “qualitatively god”, that one is “a god”.

There are no two ways around it. I realize there are fancy words and “explanations” that many smart-sounding people use to imply there ARE other ways around it – but these same kinds of people use these same kinds of fancy words to “explain” the nonsensical idea of the trinity as well.

The simple, common sense fact of the matter is that if one is “qualitatively god”, that one is, by necessity, “A god”.

So while t8 agrees with me and Pierre that John 1:1 speaks of TWO – one of whom was with the other, he is, for personal reasons, reluctant to call the second most powerful being in existence “a god”.

His reasons are that people like you, 2B, will not easily understand that there ARE INDEED MANY GODS, IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH – and so he tries to “candy coat” this teaching for you. Which makes me wonder why he is okay with Satan being a god, but not Jesus, who is much higher than Satan.

But on the other hand, I believe we are all big boys here, and as such can accept the scriptures as they are – without trying to “protect” them from themselves.

Bottom line: God made mankind a little lower than the gods. That scripture, in and of itself, proves the existence of other gods.

t8, while we are again on this subject:

8 But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever………

Is Jesus called a god in this scripture?

June 8, 2013 at 6:46 pm#346968

Blocked

Quote (942767 @ June 07 2013,12:56)

I aknowledge that the scriptures state that there are those who are called “gods” or “god” for a particular reason, as I have already stated, but that does not make them “a god”.

See 2B? This is what I mentioned in my post to you.

Marty is saying, “They are called gods, but aren't really gods.”

That's like saying, “They are called bananas, but aren't really bananas.”

Or, “They are called kings, but aren't really kings.”

Makes no sense, does it?

June 8, 2013 at 6:54 pm#346970

Blocked

Quote (t8 @ June 07 2013,18:13)

Quote (abe @ June 08 2013,09:17)

Mike calls Jesus god, do you believe this also?

Personally no I do not. I call him lord, the messiah, son of God, and the way to God.

That said, I also acknowledge that scripture calls him and counsels theos. But I also don't call these counsels theos/gods myself. But it is technically correct and I accept that for what it is because I don't want to reject any scripture.

Abe,

I don't necessarily address Jesus as “god”, like Thomas did in scripture. A more accurate statement would be, “Mike acknowledges that Jesus is one of the many gods in heaven and on earth that Jehovah is the God OF.”

As for the words of t8 that I bolded, “theos” means “god”. So, in English, t8's words mean “scripture calls him god”.

Today, in the 21st century, I also don't call angels gods. But t8 is right that it is TECHNICALLY and SCRIPTURALLY correct that Jesus, Satan, and others of Jehovah's divine counsel ARE called gods.

t8 is also correct that, to refuse these teachings would be to reject scripture.

June 8, 2013 at 7:49 pm#346983

terraricca

Participant

and also even though there are many gods WE AS TRUE BELIEVERS WILL NOT WORSHIP ANY OTHER THAN JEHOVAH ,BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT SCRIPTURES ARE SAYING ,

June 9, 2013 at 12:12 am#346997

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 09 2013,08:44)

As I have told t8 numerous times, anyone who is “qualitatively man” is also, by necessity, “a man”. Likewise, if one is “qualitatively god”, that one is “a god”.

Mike the only difference I have with you and it is a small one in the context of scripture, is that I could be qualitatively be referred to as an angel (heavenly) and yet not actually be one. Judas can be qualitatively a devil while not actually being a devil.

And even when you can be qualitatively something and actually be it too, doesn't give us license to take a qualitative use of a word and translate it literally.

That is where I stand on this issue.

But I repeat, it is IMO a small technicality and nothing to divide over. We are allowed to have our differences on variables, so long as we are united in the absolutes.

Scripture says that Jesus existed in the form of God. So that is qualitative. It doesn't say that he existed as God or as a god, which is the rendering you might give in John 1:1c, i.e., as another god then making 2 gods/Gods.

June 9, 2013 at 12:31 am#346998

Participant

Mike,
You and Terraricca are free to believe a you wish. I see no point personally in going through your posts in a continual back and forth way, so will leave it now. If you or most definitely Terraricca choose to see my back out as some type of victory, then you are free to believe as you wish, because I am fully convinced in my mind as to what I believe, but see no point personally in continuing with this particular topic.

June 9, 2013 at 1:34 am#347006

Participant

@ 2besee.

I haven't followed this whole conversation, but it is good to answer good questions. It is good for you, the one who asks, and the readers. We all learn something.

1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

June 9, 2013 at 1:48 am#347007

terraricca

Participant

Quote (2besee @ June 09 2013,06:31)

2bee

I never discuss bible truth to take credit in any way ,but to set out truth in it ,

Moses was called to be a god to his brother and pharaoh ,in the same manner his Christ a god to all creation ;

as Moses was the mediator ;so his Christ ,
as Moses was God's representative ;so his Christ

as Moses received a covenant from God for Israel his people ,
so did Christ with a new covenant to all men

so as the dead body of Moses was never found ;so it was with Christ body,

as God did many miracles through him ;so God did it through Christ ,

think about it

June 9, 2013 at 4:16 am#347024

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 09 2013,08:44)

t8, while we are again on this subject:

8 But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever………

Is Jesus called a god in this scripture?

Mike.

Technically speaking, the reason we use 'a' is to say one, but to the Greek that is what THE is for.

They gave either:

THE god/God/one God
Qualitatively god, of God's nature, counsel, mighty…
So to translate it as a god could equally lead you to believe that it is THE God because The God is A God after all. Just more definite about it that is all. Hence definite article and indefinite.
Taking a Greek concept and putting it into our English system can be like putting a square peg into a round hole. But I think of this in two ways:
A particular God
Or of God's nature or counsel which can apply to any number of relevant persons.
a god to me could admittedly fit either concept in my English mind, but with my limited Greek understanding, there is no room for 'a god'. They had no indefinite article and were not worse off for it. If they had no indefinite article then it is likely that they never thought 'a god'. Rather God or god with the latter being equally applied to any number of persons. e.g., Ye are theos is talking of more than one, and other references of theos are not. The number is determined not by 'a' or a lack of it, but by the context and I guess even a number could work, although I don't know if that is the case. Just guessing with that one.
So if we look at John 1:1c, is it teaching us that the Word is another THE God or is it saying that the Word is qualitatively God, then I choose the latter because I know Jesus existed in the form of God and not as God himself. He was divine. And we know that the Word is not multiple persons because it aligns it to Jesus whom we know is one person, thus we don't even need 'a' to know the Word is one.
Because it was written in Greek, we are not really suppose to let the Greek be dictated by our English system, rather that we choose from our English system the best words to render the true intention and meaning of the Greek. That is the difficult part and sometimes requires adding in extra words to get a close fit, but then that does no justice if you want a strict word for word rendering which is often unintelligible to us.
And when you let the English system dictate the Greek one, and say 'a god', then it has the double effect of not only changing the Greek but offending the English, especially the way that other scriptures are written in English such as “there is no other god but one”.
I just prefer to not go there myself. I think it is unnecessary and leads to all kinds of misunderstandings that are not necessary.
Understanding god as a qualitative reference to being like God, having his nature, or being part of his counsel, is even accepted by some Trinitarian scholars too. So I think a more wise approach is to get them to see that the Father is the one true God and who Jesus really is without flipping them out to the point that they refuse to listen. I mean if you can get them to believe, then we should make every effort should we not? And I am not sacrificing truth either. Just showing respect for Greek, English, and the confusion from some precious souls on this subject.

June 9, 2013 at 4:31 am#347026

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ June 09 2013,14:48)

Quote (2besee @ June 09 2013,06:31)

2bee

I never discuss bible truth to take credit in any way ,but to set out truth in it ,

Moses was called to be a god to his brother and pharaoh ,in the same manner his Christ a god to all creation ;

as Moses was the mediator ;so his Christ ,
as Moses was God's representative ;so his Christ

as Moses received a covenant from God for Israel his people ,
so did Christ with a new covenant to all men

so as the dead body of Moses was never found ;so it was with Christ body,

as God did many miracles through him ;so God did it through Christ ,

think about it

Terraricca, yes good points thanks.

June 9, 2013 at 4:47 am#347029

Participant

Quote (t8 @ June 09 2013,14:34)

@ 2besee.

I haven't followed this whole conversation, but it is good to answer good questions. It is good for you, the one who asks, and the readers. We all learn something.

T8,
I know that it takes Mike a long time to do his posts and I did read them all, but every discussion between two or three people on one particular topic needs to eventually come to an end.

On the other matter, discussions should always be respectful.

June 9, 2013 at 7:15 am#347036

abe

Participant

Hi,

Gen.1:26 Then God said, “Let *Us* make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

7And the *LORD* God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Do any of you think US equals LORD?

Peace brothers…

June 9, 2013 at 7:30 am#347038

terraricca

Participant

Quote (abe @ June 09 2013,13:15)

Hi,

7And the *LORD* God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Do any of you think US equals LORD?

Peace brothers…

Is not US plural And Lord singular If so how could they mean each other

June 9, 2013 at 9:07 am#347043

Participant

Quote (2besee @ June 09 2013,18:47)

T8,
I know that it takes Mike a long time to do his posts and I did read them all, but every discussion between two or three people on one particular topic needs to eventually come to an end.

On the other matter, discussions should always be respectful.

But a good end is when one or both persons say, I don't know, you could be right, I agree. If both disagree, then one or both the persons have a problem and leaving the problem never solves the problem.

If you make a good point and Mike is stumped and refuses to say that he has no answer to your good point, then he has basically lost. And of course vice versa. If he has a good point and you have no answer, be honest about it as it helps everyone.

Leave on a good note.

June 9, 2013 at 12:36 pm#347061

Participant

Quote (abe @ June 09 2013,20:15)

Hi,

7And the *LORD* God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Do any of you think US equals LORD?

Peace brothers…

Abe,

Gen.1:26 Then God said, “Let Usmake man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

7And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

If we put it all together we have:

“Us–Our image–His own image–The image of God–The Lord God.”

Some will say that God was conversing with angels but I don't think so.

What do you think, Abe? I would love to hear what you think that verse in Genesis means to you. (we'll just block everyone else out for the moment, okay!)

June 9, 2013 at 12:38 pm#347062