ISM Scale

[mikeboll64]

Quote (942767 @ Aug. 10 2013,10:57)

But to a born again Christian, to me, he is not “a god”.

So to Paul, he was a god.  But to you, a better Christian than Paul apparently, he is not a god?

Marty, in essence what you are saying is:  According to the God-inspired scriptures, and those servants of God who recorded those scriptures, they ARE gods.  But to ME they are not.

And THAT has been my point all along.  Can we be justified by forcing our CURRENT understanding of words like “god” back into the scriptures, where the meaning was much different than our current understanding?

Or should we instead align OUR understanding to the way the writers of scripture understood words like “god”, and understand those words the same way, so that our understanding is based on THEIR usage of those words, and not our own CURRENT understanding of those words?

Which one, Marty?

[GeneBalthrop]

Marty………Don't get tripped up, as you have said “Anything can be a God to anyone” , if two criteria are meet, One it must have power over the persons life, and Two, it must must be worshiped and served and given full obedience to. If any thing fits that in a persons life, it is a GOD, to that person, and if it is anything other then the one and ONLY TRUE GOD, it is a FALSE GOD and the person believing and pushing it or them is an “IDOLATOR” no matter what they say. IMO

Peace and love to you and yours………………………..gene

[terraricca]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 11 2013,02:13)

Marty………Don't get tripped up, as you have said “Anything can be a God to anyone” , if two criteria are meet,  One it must have power over the persons life, and Two, it must must be worshiped and served and given full obedience to. If any thing fits that in a persons life,  it is a GOD, to that person, and if it is anything other then the one and ONLY TRUE GOD, it is a FALSE GOD and the person believing and pushing it or them is an “IDOLATOR” no matter what they say. IMO Peace and love to you and yours………………………..gene

gene

it seems you got some how lost here

[GeneBalthrop]

Terricca………….No one is lost he but those who believe in other “TRUE” Gods. IMO like you and your mentor. IMO

Gene

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 07 2013,15:29)

Hi Marty, I might give it look when I get the time. Many think that in scriptures like Psalm 82, it is men who are being called gods. It is not. Psalm 82 is about Jehovah's heavenly counsel of angels – who are often called gods in scripture. But what difference does it make if you believe MEN are called gods in scripture? Doesn't it still mean that Jehovah is not LITERALLY the ONLY god? Of course it does. Now, please answer that question I asked of you, Abe, Gene, and Ed.

Mike, I believe it is like this.

There is only one God.
Other are called theos.

Likewise:

There is only one who is good, (God).
Yet there are others who are good too.

Those who cannot figure out about God/theos/gods reason like this.

How only God can be good and yet others can be good. A contradiction. Jesus is bad because he denied that he was good by saying that ONLY God was good.

But of course we believe with the exception of God that those who are good, receive their goodness from God. It is not their own goodness that makes them good.

Likewise, there is only one God and yet others are called theos by reason of receiving that theos by God.

That is why God's counsel is theos. They are not their own god (father) and they are not a literal God (originator/progenitor). They receive the title/quality/ministry 'theos' that by reason of their position of counsel.

So if only God is good, yet Jesus is too, (and we can be as well) then only the Father is the 'Theos', while angels and come men can be correctly called 'theos'.

It is not hard to see that it is not a contradiction to be the only God and yet there are other gods, just as it is not hard to see that there is only one who is good, while others can be good too.

The reason they cannot reason this way is because they are confused by the doctrine of Babylon. The Trinity once again confuses the issue.

[kerwin]

Quote (942767 @ Aug. 10 2013,22:34)

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 10 2013,17:02) “worshiped.  There are many gods in heaven and on earth whose job it is to represent the one true God.  Those representatives are not worthy to be worshiped and the loyal ones are disgusted that anyone would think of doing so, much less do so. god is just a word, and is used to convey different ideas according to the context and the speakers intent. And so, when God calls his angels or his children “gods”, He is calling them such, as “His representatives”, and not “a god” to be worshipped as “God” And although God calls His representatives “gods”, He does not tell us to call His representatives “god” or “a god”, Does He? The scriptures that you quote from the acts have no bearing on this discussion in that the people that the Apostle Paul was dealing with here were “heathen”. Love in Christ. Marty

Marty,

Even the experts admit that god was not a reserved word and judges, kings, and others would be called without the people doing so believing they were Gods.

It does not mean they are lesser Gods as God is the source and they are not lesser sources.

[abe]

Quote (2besee @ Aug. 10 2013,02:17)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 10 2013,11:23) Quote (2besee @ Aug. 09 2013,01:33) Abe, I can see a connection in something: He stationed the *cherubim* and the flaming *sword* which turned every direction to guard the *way* to the *Tree* of *life* I am the *way* the truth and the *life*. Nobody comes to the Father but through me. Revelation  19:11 I saw the heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it is called Faithful and True. In righteousness he judges and makes war.  19:12 *His eyes are a flame of fire*, and on his head are many crowns. He has names written and a name written which no one knows but he himself. 19:15 Out of his mouth proceeds a sharp, double-edged *sword*, that with it he should strike the nations. He will rule them with an iron rod. He treads the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty. Does that connection tell you that Jesus is the cherubim who was placed at the entrance to the tree of life a long time ago?   (That's not too far from the truth.) Hi Mike. He placed the cherubim AND THE flaming sword. Sounds like two different things to me.

Hi 2b,

Cherubim is plural.

Peace brother…

[abe]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 10 2013,07:56)

Quote (abe @ Aug. 09 2013,22:58) The Archangels must have a  Soul.   God has a soul. I don't think angels have souls? They cant die until the end. “Arche” just means “ruler” in the case of “archangel”.  How can you conclude that only the ruler-angels have souls, but the other spirit sons of God don't?  That doesn't make sense to me.  It would be like saying King David, as a ruler, had a soul, but the soldiers in his army did not. Quote (abe @ Aug. 09 2013,22:58) even the   Man   Gabriel      Strongs #376  Man #376……. “male (in contrast to woman, female)” I'm not sure of your point here.  Are you implying that the angel Gabriel was really a human being?  If not, what point ARE you trying to make; and what does it have to do with what we're discussing? I'm still waiting for your DIRECT answer about Gen 3:5 and 3:22, Abe.  Do you believe the gods to whom Satan referred in 3:5 are the “one of us” to whom Jehovah referred in 3:22?  YES or NO? And if so, do you believe the ones Satan called gods are archangels of Jehovah?  YES or NO?

Hi Mike,

(Quote)
“Arche” just means “ruler” in the case of “archangel”.  How can you conclude that only the ruler-angels have souls, but the other spirit sons of God don’t?

Archangel

Arch

757. archó Word Origin

a prim. verb
Definition
to rule, to begin
NASB Translation
began (62), begin (7), beginning (8), begins (2), begun (1), proceed (1), rule (1), rulers (1), starting (2)

How can you say the word means RULE ??

Peace brother..

[abe]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 10 2013,07:56)

Quote (abe @ Aug. 09 2013,22:58) The Archangels must have a  Soul.   God has a soul. I don't think angels have souls? They cant die until the end. “Arche” just means “ruler” in the case of “archangel”.  How can you conclude that only the ruler-angels have souls, but the other spirit sons of God don't?  That doesn't make sense to me.  It would be like saying King David, as a ruler, had a soul, but the soldiers in his army did not. Quote (abe @ Aug. 09 2013,22:58) even the   Man   Gabriel      Strongs #376  Man #376……. “male (in contrast to woman, female)” I'm not sure of your point here.  Are you implying that the angel Gabriel was really a human being?  If not, what point ARE you trying to make; and what does it have to do with what we're discussing? I'm still waiting for your DIRECT answer about Gen 3:5 and 3:22, Abe.  Do you believe the gods to whom Satan referred in 3:5 are the “one of us” to whom Jehovah referred in 3:22?  YES or NO? And if so, do you believe the ones Satan called gods are archangels of Jehovah?  YES or NO?

Hi Mike,

(Quote)
How can you conclude that only the   ruler-angels   have souls, but the   other spirit sons of God don't?

(1)   Who are the other spirit sons of God?

(2)    Is.11:2   The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and might, The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.

(1)  Lord   (2) Wisdom   (3) Understanding  (4) Counsel

(5) Might  (6) Knowledge  (7) Fear of the Lord

*Have  a  Spirit*

Peace brother…

[2besee]

Hi Abe,
Yes I know cherubim is plural. But the flaming sword is not.

Here's some good reading,
http://www.newfoundationspubl.org/sword2.htm

[2besee]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2013,05:01)

Quote (2besee @ Aug. 10 2013,04:17) Hi Mike. He placed the cherubim AND THE flaming sword. Sounds like two different things to me. So what connection do you see?

Hi Mike, I don't know yet, but here's another verse.

Ephesians 6:11
And take the helmet of salvation, and the *sword* of *the Spirit*, which is *the word of God.*

[mikeboll64]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 10 2013,19:04)

Mike, I believe it is like this. There is only one God. Other are called theos.

Then you need to further align your beliefs with the scriptures, t8.  Because in the scriptures, there are many who are called elohim and theos, one of whom is Jehovah.

This is why Jehovah has to be called the MOST HIGH elohim, and the elohim OF elohim, etc.  Since they are all just being called elohim and theos, there have to be adjectives to distinguish Jehovah from the rest of them.

Can we really just pick and choose, t8?  Can we say, I'm okay with Jehovah being a god, so when He is called elohim in scripture, it's okay to translate it as “a god”.

But I'm NOT okay with Molech being a god, so when he is called elohim in scripture, I'm NOT going to translate it as “a god”, but instead just say, “He is elohim.”  Or, short of doing that, I will add the word “false” into the Holy inspired scriptures, and commit a forgery by pretending the scriptures call Molech “a false god”?  Are we allowed to do these things?  Are we justified in twisting what the scriptures actually say so that they come out in a way with which we're personally comfortable?

I say no.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 10 2013,19:04)

But of course we believe with the exception of God that those who are good, receive their goodness from God. It is not their own goodness that makes them good. Likewise, there is only one God and yet others are called theos by reason of receiving that theos by God.

And just like we can't say Jesus is not really good just because his goodness comes from Jehovah, we can't say the other elohim in scripture aren't really gods just because their power comes from Jehovah.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 10 2013,19:04)

It is not hard to see that it is not a contradiction to be the only God and yet there are other gods, just as it is not hard to see that there is only one who is good, while others can be good too.

Agreed.

So why then do you have a hard time calling these other ones gods?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (abe @ Aug. 11 2013,00:05)

NASB Translation began (62), begin (7), beginning (8), begins (2), begun (1), proceed (1), rule (1), rulers (1), starting (2) How can you say the word means RULE ??

Hmmmmm……………

[mikeboll64]

Quote (abe @ Aug. 11 2013,00:54)

(1) Who are the other spirit sons of God?

Job 1
6 One day the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.

7 The LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”

Satan answered the LORD, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”

[mikeboll64]

Abe,

I'm still waiting for your DIRECT answer about Gen 3:5 and 3:22.  Do you believe the gods to whom Satan referred in 3:5 are the “one of us” to whom Jehovah referred in 3:22?  YES or NO?

[mikeboll64]

t8 and All,

The reason I try so hard to get you guys to see and understand the many scriptural examples of gods is because John 1:1 is a very pivotal scripture.

The commonly accepted (although absurd) translation of that verse is, The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Our one and only Most High God cannot possibly be WITH our one and only Most High God.  This is just God-given common sense, people.

The Trinitarians realize that the only one who ever dwelled on earth with the glory of God's only begotten Son was Jesus.  And therefore, Jesus is the ONLY person who fits, “The Word was made flesh and dwelled among us with the glory of the only begotten Son of God.”  So they like the absurd translation, because then they can nonsensically claim that Jesus actually WAS the very God he was WITH in the beginning.

On the other hand, the non-preexisters like that absurd translation of John 1:1 because they don't want to accept the fact that Jesus is the ONLY one who fits, “The Word was made flesh and dwelled among us with the glory of the only begotten Son of God.”

Instead, they want to imagine that this Word was some spirit entity type thing that really was God Almighty, but then came to dwell IN the flesh body of Jesus of Nazareth.  They pretend that it makes sense for the Word OF God to BE the very God it is the Word OF.  They say nonsensical things like, A person is his word – totally ignoring the fact that “his word” indicates something that person possesses – and not that person himself.

So both of these unscriptural teachings are based on personal wishes.  The Trinitarians WANT to elevate Jesus to God Almighty.  The non-preexisters WANT to keep Jesus as nothing more than a man like the rest of us, so they can feel more empowered to accomplish the things he accomplished.  And that absurd translation of John 1:1 helps both parties to achieve their goal – despite the fact it calls for them to throw common sense out the window and accept that our one and only Most High God can be WITH our one and only Most High God.

BUT……………………..

What if we were to all start BELIEVING the scriptures?  What if we read about the many other gods described in the scriptures and BELIEVED?  Then we would see that Webster was right, and a god is 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.  And by applying that ACCURATE definition, we would be able to read about the gods of Egypt – who turned staffs into snakes, water into blood, and produced frogs out of thin air – and BELIEVE that they were indeed gods, just like Moses and Jehovah said they were.

We would be able to read Job 1 and 2 – where the god Satan demonstrated his “special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature” by manipulating Sabeans, Chaldeans, mighty winds, and even fire from heaven – and BELIEVE that he is indeed a god, just like Jehovah and Paul both say he is.

We would be able to read Isaiah 9:6 – where it is prophesied by Jehovah Himself that Jesus would be called a mighty god – and BELIEVE those words that our Lord Jehovah told us.

And after reading and BELIEVING these, and the MANY other times various gods are described in many different scriptures, we could finally let our minds accept the only logical translation of John 1:1.  Because we could then ACCEPT the scriptural FACT that Jesus is indeed a god who is not the MOST HIGH God Jehovah.

And we'd be able to understand that in the beginning, the Word was with the theos (as John actually wrote), and the Word was a theos.

And then we could see that Jesus was not the MOST HIGH theos, but a different, less high theos who was WITH the MOST HIGH theos in the beginning, before being made flesh and dwelling among us on earth with the glory of God's only begotten Son.

But the Trinitarians WANT Jesus to be the Most High God, and so they will continue to PRETEND that there is but one god – despite all scriptural evidence to the contrary.

And the non-preexisters WANT Jesus to have been just a man like the rest of us, and so they will continue to PRETEND that there is but one god – despite all scriptural evidence to the contrary.

As for me, since all I WANT is for the truth of scriptures to remain the truth of scriptures, I will continue to tell it like it really is in the scriptures – despite all the flack I take from most of you.  

[terraricca]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2013,22:56)

t8 and All, The reason I try so hard to get you guys to see and understand the many scriptural examples of gods is because John 1:1 is a very pivotal scripture. The commonly accepted (although absurd) translation of that verse is, The Word was with God, and the Word was God. Our one and only Most High God cannot possibly be WITH our one and only Most High God.  This is just God-given common sense, people. The Trinitarians realize that the only one who ever dwelled on earth with the glory of God's only begotten Son was Jesus.  And therefore, Jesus is the ONLY person who fits, “The Word was made flesh and dwelled among us with the glory of the only begotten Son of God.”  So they like the absurd translation, because then they can nonsensically claim that Jesus actually WAS the very God he was WITH in the beginning. On the other hand, the non-preexisters like that absurd translation of John 1:1 because they don't want to accept the fact that Jesus is the ONLY one who fits, “The Word was made flesh and dwelled among us with the glory of the only begotten Son of God.” Instead, they want to imagine that this Word was some spirit entity type thing that really was God Almighty, but then came to dwell IN the flesh body of Jesus of Nazareth.  They pretend that it makes sense for the Word OF God to BE the very God it is the Word OF.  They say nonsensical things like, A person is his word – totally ignoring the fact that “his word” indicates something that person possesses – and not that person himself. So both of these unscriptural teachings are based on personal wishes.  The Trinitarians WANT to elevate Jesus to God Almighty.  The non-preexisters WANT to keep Jesus as nothing more than a man like the rest of us, so they can feel more empowered to accomplish the things he accomplished.  And that absurd translation of John 1:1 helps both parties to achieve their goal – despite the fact it calls for them to throw common sense out the window and accept that our one and only Most High God can be WITH our one and only Most High God. BUT…………………….. What if we were to all start BELIEVING the scriptures?  What if we read about the many other gods described in the scriptures and BELIEVED?  Then we would see that Webster was right, and a god is 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.  And by applying that ACCURATE definition, we would be able to read about the gods of Egypt – who turned staffs into snakes, water into blood, and produced frogs out of thin air – and BELIEVE that they were indeed gods, just like Moses and Jehovah said they were. We would be able to read Job 1 and 2 – where the god Satan demonstrated his “special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature” by manipulating Sabeans, Chaldeans, mighty winds, and even fire from heaven – and BELIEVE that he is indeed a god, just like Jehovah and Paul both say he is. We would be able to read Isaiah 9:6 – where it is prophesied by Jehovah Himself that Jesus would be called a mighty god – and BELIEVE those words that our Lord Jehovah told us. And after reading and BELIEVING these, and the MANY other times various gods are described in many different scriptures, we could finally let our minds accept the only logical translation of John 1:1.  Because we could then ACCEPT the scriptural FACT that Jesus is indeed a god who is not the MOST HIGH God Jehovah. And we'd be able to understand that in the beginning, the Word was with the theos (as John actually wrote), and the Word was a theos. And then we could see that Jesus was not the MOST HIGH theos, but a different, less high theos who was WITH the MOST HIGH theos in the beginning, before being made flesh and dwelling among us on earth with the glory of God's only begotten Son. But the Trinitarians WANT Jesus to be the Most High God, and so they will continue to PRETEND that there is but one god – despite all scriptural evidence to the contrary. And the non-preexisters WANT Jesus to have been just a man like the rest of us, and so they will continue to PRETEND that there is but one god – despite all scriptural evidence to the contrary. As for me, since all I WANT is for the truth of scriptures to remain the truth of scriptures, I will continue to tell it like it really is in the scriptures – despite all the flack I take from most of you.

Mike

I have no problem with this and second what you are doing

[mikeboll64]

Thanks Pierre.

[Author]

Posts