- This topic is empty.
- Posts
One other thing though — if henotheism is dedication to one God while acknowledging the existence of others, which God, the Father or Yeshua (not that I'm agreeing he is God!) should one be dedicated to so as to avoid pure polytheism?
This is where I think alot of the trouble comes from on the part of those who have to find a way to either merge Jesus with the Father or deny the divinity of Jesus.
They are worried about a label. Not a biblical label a man made label.
I am not trying to avoid any label, rather I am trying to discover truth regardless of any acompanying label.
Both are worshipped. Trinitarians worship both but say it is ok because the two are actually one God with mulitple personality disorder.
I think you are an Adoptionist who worships the Father only and gives honor to Christ as a king.
So call me a monotheist, polytheist or a henotheist. I dont care about any of these labels that aren't in scripture.
the label monotheism is not found in the bible any more times than the trinity label is.
Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 17 2007,12:21) MS, Here is another fly in your ointment. The ESV supports “sons of God” is Deu 32:8-9
Deu 32:8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.
Deu 32:9 But the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.Can you be certain that “sons of God” did not mean peoples? How does the above compare with this verse:
Exo 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son,
Thus God is saying that Israel (Jacob) IS His Son. His firstborn to be precise, indicating their status.
So all that is being said in Deu 32:8-9 is that the nations were divided by peoples. Israel was God's firstborn, His chosen people.
sons of Israel doesn't make any sense, first of all.Second of all every text that has this change from sons of god to sons of israel also change vs. 43
43(CE) “Rejoice with him, O heavens;
bow down to him, all gods,
for he(CF) avenges the blood of his children[j]
and takes vengeance on his adversaries.
He repays those who hate him[k]
and cleanses[l] his people’s land.into
43Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.
suspicious no?
what does the NT say about this:
Hebrews 1
6And again, when he brings(O) the firstborn into the world, he says,
(P) “Let all God’s angels worship him.”
not nations huh?
and finally the sholars, historians, archaeological evidence, the dead sea scrolls… etc. all point to this as the proper reading.
Quote (Morningstar @ Oct. 16 2007,22:33) Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 17 2007,12:21) MS, Here is another fly in your ointment. The ESV supports “sons of God” is Deu 32:8-9
Deu 32:8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.
Deu 32:9 But the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.Can you be certain that “sons of God” did not mean peoples? How does the above compare with this verse:
Exo 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son,
Thus God is saying that Israel (Jacob) IS His Son. His firstborn to be precise, indicating their status.
So all that is being said in Deu 32:8-9 is that the nations were divided by peoples. Israel was God's firstborn, His chosen people.
sons of Israel doesn't make any sense, first of all.
Its not sons of Israel. Was Adam not called son of God in the NT? So its “sons of God” as in different people groups — Israelites, Caananites, etc. Of all of these, Israel is God's firstborn, His chosen people.Quote Second of all every text that has this change from sons of god to sons of israel also change vs. 43 43(CE) “Rejoice with him, O heavens;
bow down to him, all gods,
for he(CF) avenges the blood of his children[j]
and takes vengeance on his adversaries.
He repays those who hate him[k]
and cleanses[l] his people’s land.into
43Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.
suspicious no?
No more suspicious than the thousands of textual variations of New Testament texts.Quote what does the NT say about this: Hebrews 1
6And again, when he brings(O) the firstborn into the world, he says,
(P) “Let all God’s angels worship him.”
not nations huh?
Where do you want to insert “nations”?
and finally the sholars, historians, archaeological evidence, the dead sea scrolls… etc. all point to this as the proper reading.
And? Sons of God, as I've shown by way of Israel, can mean different peoples. So God divided the world by ethnic groups? Does that not seem reasonable to you?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
