Mikeboll64 vs francis

Participant

WJ said to Mike:

Quote

Mike

There you go again. Asking me the same question I have already answered here…

Now why don't you answer some of my questions found here 5th post down?

Do the above scriptures say “there is no God but One”?

Do the above scriptures say “there is none beside him”?

Do the above scriptures say “God alone created all things”?

Do the scriptures say that “Jesus had a part in creating all things”?

Do the scriptures say “Jesus was sitting beside the Father during the creation of all things”?

How do you reconcile these Mike without saying that “By Myself”, “Alone”, “Non Other God” doesn’t mean “By Myself”, “Alone”, “Non Other God”?”

Keith,

See the post to Francis on this thread today. Mike asks a queation and you answer it, he does not accept your anser and then ask it again. When you refuse to answer for the umteenth time he accuses you of “hiding.”

Jack

January 14, 2011 at 7:41 pm#233077

Istari

Participant

WJ!!!

January 14, 2011 at 8:01 pm#233080

Blocked

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 14 2011,15:06)

Hi Mike,

If it gets moved back, it needs to have more in the title bar: like..
“Mikeboll64 vs francis: comments on debate from those following it”.
It seems that it interests other members as well and is probably the most read debate at h-net!
I have not even bothered to read most debates, but this one between you and Francis is one that interests me.

Hi Ed,

I agree. Keith should have never made another thread in the debates section with the same exact title bar. I don't usually read the second bar, and I'm sure others don't always read it either. (That's why I honestly thought he had made a mistake.)

This debate is very interesting to me also. I'm loving it and learning lots.

peace and love,
mike

January 14, 2011 at 8:06 pm#233081

Participant

Quote (Istari @ Jan. 13 2011,17:05)

Now, the adopted son can be a True Son by the second definition.

You can play all day long with words and compare apples to oranges, but it does not change the simple menaing of…

“Only One True God“…because unlike your definitions of Sons, with God the scriptures teach that there is no one to be compared to him, yet Jesus is everything that the Father is. Unlike any other, Jesus shares all the attributes and characteristics of the “One True God.

Blessings WJ

January 14, 2011 at 8:14 pm#233082

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,14:01)

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 14 2011,15:06)

Hi Mike,

Hi Ed,

This debate is very interesting to me also. I'm loving it and learning lots.

peace and love,
mike

Mike

It shouldn't have mattered to you where it was at especially since you have the power to delete or move post that do not belong there.

In fact t8 (maybe you) have the power to change the title of the thread if you wanted.

How much you want to bet that doesn't happen. HMMM?

Blessings Keith

January 14, 2011 at 8:24 pm#233083

princess

Participant

jack a roo jr,

there is a small text i would like you to read, it is called Trimorphic Protennoia ('the first thought in three forms') i am sure if you research you will be able to find it.

no rush of any, however, your response will be interesting.

take care jack.

January 14, 2011 at 9:45 pm#233094

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2011,19:32)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 14 2011,05:54)

No kidding Mike! Seriously are you making this stuff up as you go along? Of course the Hebrews had a word for “god” it is “”el”, or “elohim”!

No Keith,

“El” means “mighty one” or “leader”. What word did the Hebrews have that explicitely meant “supernatural supreme being who created the universe”? None, right?

Hi Mike

Then when Moses said “In the beginning 'elohiym (God) created the heavens and the earth”, Moses wasn’t speaking of the “supernatural or supreme being who created the universe? What are you talking about?

Are you creating a new religion or something? Now you are saying that the Hebrews had no word for God and basically are saying that the Biblical Hebrew and Greek Scholars are wrong when they translate “'elohiym as God”.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2011,19:32)

Yet that's what the word “god” means to most of us. And it causes confusion for many people because Jesus was simply called a “judge” or “ruler” or “leader”.

It causes confusion for you and every antitrin. That is your own definition of the word God in reference to Jesus, but as it has been pointed out to you if the Translators understood the word “Theos” or “Elohiym” to be simply a “Judge, ruler or leader then they would have translated it that way. But no translation does and even the NWT translates Gen 1:1 as “God” and not leader.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2011,19:32)

And none of those words by themselves say Jesus is the “supernatural supreme being who created the universe”

Hello!!! That’s because they were not translated that way. But even so are you saying Jesus is not a supernatural supreme being? Prove it. Are you saying he did not create all things? Prove it. What was Jesus doing when all things were made by or through him and without him nothing came into existence?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2011,19:32)

But because that's how we today understand the word “god”, many of us think Jesus must BE God because he is called by that title.

No Mike, it’s because you have to understand it that way to fit your theology. You are pitting yourself against literally thousands of experts in Biblical hermeneutics and hundreds of Biblical Hebrew and Greek scholars and Commentators and experts in Biblical history not to mention most all of the Forefathers. Have fun with that! Where are you getting support for your belief that the Hebrews did not have the word God.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2011,19:32)

But most of us don't know the truth behind it.

Most of us who? Here on HN? Check out the majority of Biblical sources, commentaries , translations and not to mention the majority of “Orthodox Christianity”. In contrast you are by yourself and it could be said “you went out from among us”.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2011,19:32)

But you and I know that “el” and “elohim” and “theos” were TITLES given to people who judged or ruled over others, and that those words in and of themselves in no way implied a supernatural being at all.

This was already explained. It is all about “context” Mike. But you think you know more than the translators and according to you just about every one who is a leader or a ruler is “a god” and that means your theology is not scriptural at all because the scriptures do not teach Polytheism.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2011,19:32)

That's why men were also called by these titles.

There you go Mike, “Men” or men made into gods by carnal men. YHVH said there is no God formed before him or after him, and he has not contradicted himself.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2011,19:32)

Why is it that you and SF eagerly agree that Exodus 22:8-9 refers to men who were judges and who were NOT God Almighty, but you think when that same exact word that means “leader” is used of Jesus, it must mean he IS God Almighty?

This is called “reaching”, Keith.

So now Jesus is just a “leader”? My stomach is sick. Once again it is because of context Mike; those men did not have all authority and power and did not take part in the creation of all things, did they?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2011,19:32)

You WANT Jesus to be God Almighty so badly that you are willing to ignore clear scriptural evidence that makes it clear that being called by the title of “elohim” or “theos” does NOT mean you are God Almighty.

The scriptures teach Jesus is God and Jesus is “Almighty”. It is you that is on a downward spiral of reducing Jesus to something that he is not. All that the Father has and is Jesus has and is. That is scriptural.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2011,19:32)

But at times like this, I start to wonder how you can HONESTLY claim “Jesus is God because he is called elohim or theos when you KNOW the words meant “leader” and were used for angels and men also.

No Mike that is what you say in complete opposition to all the experts. Where is your support for your definition that the “One True God” is only leader? You may not like it but you totally echo the JWs who are diabolically opposed to “Orthodox Christianity”.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2011,19:32)

Here, talk you way out of this one:

Judges 5:8 NIV
God chose new leaders
when war came to the city gates,
but not a shield or spear was seen
among forty thousand in Israel.

Judges 5:8 NASB
“New gods were chosen; Then war was in the gates. Not a shield or a spear was seen Among forty thousand in Israel.

NETNotes says the actual Hebrew is “He chose new gods”.

Who were these “new elohim” that God chose? They were the human beings Deborah and Barak during the time that Deborah was the Judge of Israel.

Ha-Ha Mike! First of all as usual you are misleading which I will get to in a moment.

But notice how the translators rendered the word “elohiym” with a small “g” which means that they are not “God” but so-called gods. Secondly you are deceiving in that you quote the commentary of the NET out of context. Here is the translation of Judges 5:8 from the NET…

“God chose new leaders (elohiym) , then fighters appeared in the city gates; but, I swear, not a shield or spear could be found, among forty military units in Israel. Jud 5:8

Why did you take a quote out of the NET commentary and not quote their translation? Come on Mike “New gods were chosen”, think about that. Does God just choose who are going to be gods?

You see Mike the NET translators knew they were so-called gods so they translated it “Leaders”. Even if they would have translated it God it would have been with a “g” and not a “G”. But here is their commentary that you quoted out of context…

Or “warriors.” The Hebrew text reads literally, “He chose God/gods new.” Some take “Israel” as the subject of the verb, “gods” as object, and “new” as an adjective modifying “gods.” This yields the translation, “(Israel) chose new gods.” In this case idolatry is the cause of the trouble alluded to in the context. The present translation takes “God” as subject of the verb and “new” as substantival, referring to the new leaders raised up by God (see v. 9a). For a survey of opinions and a defense of the present translation, see B. Lindars, Judges 1-5, 239-40.

So the NET which you didn’t quote rendered it “leaders”. Now here is how the NIV has it…

When they chose new “gods”, war came to the city gates, and not a shield or spear was seen among forty thousand in Israel. Jud 5:8

And the NLT…

When Israel chose new “gods”, war erupted at the city gates. Yet not a shield or spear could be seen among forty thousand warriors in Israel! Jud 5:8

They translated “Elohiym” into “gods” with a little “g”. In fact practically every translation on Blueletterbible.org has it that way. I find it interesting how you constantly try to use Trinitarian sources to support your views and in every case it ends up that they don’t support your view. I know you have to do this because you do not have any other reliable sources for you views. Why do you only accept what you agree with and throw the rest out.

So what have you proven…? Nothing? The only thing we have learned from this is what we already know, and that is the words 'elohiym and theos must be translated and understood by their context. And that when the context demands it to be Judge, leader, ruler, god, gods, so-called gods, false gods, idols etc then that is what they did.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2011,19:32)

So does being called by the title “god” make one God Almighty or not? YES or NO?

No, because “a god” is just that. However when you see the word “God” then yes it is God Almighty for there is “Only One True God”.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2011,19:32)

Does being called by the title “god” make Deborah and Barak “false gods” or “imposters”? YES or NO?

Yes because “gods” are not “God” and there is “Only One True God” and if they are called “gods” then they are merely men or so-called gods or leaders.

You see God doesn’t choose gods or make them. Men make them into gods and that is Polytheism.

YHVH has clearly said…

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: “BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE AFTER ME”.

Blessings Keith

January 14, 2011 at 10:06 pm#233096

Participant

WJ asked Mike:

Quote

Are you creating a new religion or something?

Yeap he is!

Jack

January 14, 2011 at 10:14 pm#233098

Blocked

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 14 2011,15:55)

Its a fallacy to say that the interpretation of Elohim solely means “Judge” or “Ruler. why? because as you said in your second to last post, that “Elohim” is interpreted by the CONTEXT!

Hi D,

I didn't say the word “elohim” is “interpretated by the CONTEXT”. What is interpretated by the context is whether that particular use of “elohim” is referring to YHVH, or someone who is not YHVH. The actual word “elohim” means the exact same thing no matter who it is referring to. And the word itself simply means “leader”. I've accepted “leader” because of NETNotes and the NIV, among others. A lot of newer translations render “elohim” (when not referring to YHVH) as “leader” with a footnote saying “traditionally judges”.

But NETNotes explains that the Judges over Israel were not judges as we understand the term today, but they were also governmental and military leaders. And since they have rendered “elohim” as “leader”, and their reasoning behind it is scripturally sound, I concur and will use “leader” from now on instead of repeating “judge” or “ruler”. Okay by you?

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 14 2011,15:55)

You admit Jesus is called “Elohim” and “Theos”, I dont have to prove that any further because we agree on that.

You never had to prove that – it is clearly said in scripture. What you have to prove is that being called “elohim” or “theos” automatically makes you either “God Almighty” or a “false god”. Can you prove that one?

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 14 2011,15:55)

In the other thread you claimed that God created the word THROUGH Jesus. Ok so you still claiming that Jesus created. Either way you cant deny it.

D, scripture tells us that God ALONE created everything. Scripture tells us that He did that THROUGH His Son. Scripture does NOT ever tell us that Jesus himself created a single thing. So, YES, I CAN “deny it”.

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 14 2011,15:55)

And how would you know its exactly the same?
Were they really gods? its proven within the CONTEXT that in fact they are not gods but mere mortals.

What do you mean? The word used – “elohim” – is exactly the same. And no they weren't really gods, as we understand the word “god” today. They were not supernatural in any way, but then again, like I keep telling you, the word “elohim” never implied “supernatural being”. It only meant “leader”.

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 14 2011,15:55)

You already have the verses that we agree on that Jesus is called God, and the Context of course proves that He is God.

Ahhhh……….but that is what the “Jesus is God Almighty” debate is all about, right? Once you realize that being called by the title of “elohim” or “theos” did NOT mean you were God Almighty, then you'll have to break out the other scriptures that DO prove it, right? And that's what I'm really waiting for, because not one of them actually teaches that Jesus is God Almighty. And I want to discuss each and every one of them with Francis in a structured debate to show him (and you all) that not one scripture teaches that Jesus is the Omniscient Being.

So, first things first. Are you ready yet to admit that many in scripture were called by the title of “elohim” and “theos” who were NOT God Almighty? That's the first step, D. You must admit this very clear and scripturally backed truth……..or deny scriptures. Which will you do?

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 14 2011,15:55)

So God's Name is ONLY a Title? thats what your saying?

D, the name of our Creator is YHVH. There is no being who is actually NAMED “God” or “Elohim” or “Theos”. These are all titles shared by many and NOT personal names. Most people, like you, think “God” is the NAME of our wonderful Creator. It is not. He told us what His NAME is…………do you know it? He also begot a Son…………do you know what HIS name is? I'll give you a hint: His NAME is NOT “Lord” or “King” or “Wonderful Counselor”.

D, just because people frequently call the President of the United States “Mr. President” does not mean that “Mr. President” is his NAME. It is his TITLE. And even when we know we are IDENTIFYING Barak Obama by saying “Mr. President”, it is still not his NAME – nor does “Mr. President” all of a sudden have the definition of “Barak Obama”. Do you understand this?

So when we call YHVH “Elohim” or “God”, we are NOT calling Him by His NAME. We are identifying Him by one of the TITLES He is known by. But “Elohim” doesn't all of a sudden have the defintion of “Omniscient Being Who Created All” just because we apply that TITLE to the “Omniscient Being Who Created All”. The TITLE still only means “leader”, no matter who it is applied to.

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 14 2011,15:55)

In fact let me stop your nonesense. IN REALITY MIKE every one who uses the word “God” or “Theos” are talking about a “supreme being” not a title.

So when Jesus spoke about men being called “theos”, he was talking about “Supreme Beings”? And when Paul called Satan “theos”, he was also talking about the “Supreme Being”?

Who's “nonsense” should we stop?

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 14 2011,15:55)

Mike, we interpret scripture with scripture, and its clear that the Devil is a father of liars, and is false in general.

Is the Devil a FALSE “father of liars”? Or is he TRULY the TRUE Father of lies? I have seen this logic before, D. And what you imply is that because Hitler was an evil ruler, he wasn't a “TRUE” ruler at all. That's failed logic.

Satan is TRULY a TRUE ruler with many followers………including a THIRD of God's angels. He is TRULY a TRUE powerful being who can TRULY affect many people's lives. And those TRUE things he is are reflected by the word “theos”. He is not a FALSE theos, for to be so would mean he is a FALSE ruler……yet he TRULY RULES OVER MANY. D, don't confuse “evil” with “false”. Darth Vader's power was every bit as real as Yoda's. It wasn't a “false power” just because he used it for evil.

I had asked:

Quote

Scripture says our only one true God is THE FATHER. How do you “include” the Son into this very specific statement?

And God bless your heart, you tried to answer it:

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 14 2011,15:55)

1. Father cannot be a Father without a Son.

What does that even mean? How does that make Jesus his own Father who is the “only true God”?

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 14 2011,15:55)

2. Jesus claims that the FAther is IN HIM, and he is IN THE FATHER.

And scripture says that Jesus also hopes some of us will be in them also. Will some of us become God Almighty too?

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 14 2011,15:55)

Mike, The context specfically mentions the story about how they needed “warriors” and what not until deborah arose.
Context mike, context.

How does that change the fact that Deborah and Barak are called “elohim” when they are not in fact YHVH?

You posted NETNotes:

B. Jacob says that the word refers to functioning judges, and that would indirectly mean God, for they represented the religious authority, and the prince the civil authority

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 14 2011,15:55)

This is why they were called Elohim mike.
If you can note, that The reference has deep meaning to it.
There is always a reason why.

D, the fact is that they WERE called “elohim” and they were not YHVH. They represented YHVH's religious authority and were therefore called “elohim”………..much like Jesus, right?

So once again, does being called by the title of “elohim” mean that one is God Almighty? YES or NO? You and I have both scripturally PROVED that it doesn't………so what's the problem? Why must you hold so tightly to something you yourself have just scripturally proven to be untrue?

D, if you have other proofs that say “Jesus is God”, then bring them on. But you can't honestly claim that Jesus is God ONLY because he was given the title of “elohim”, right? And that's ALL that I'm after from Francis and from you guys right now. All I'm doing is SCRIPTURALLY eliminating the claim that Jesus must be God because he is called that. Have I succeeded thus far?

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 14 2011,15:55)

Point is mike, they were called Elohim for a reason, but of course were not Elohim himself, because they were merely human, they died like people, were not sinless, not the creator, nor were part of eternity since the beginning.

And there's my answer straight from YOUR mouth. People who were NOT God were occasionally called by the same title that was frequently used of God. Therefore, we KNOW that being called by the title “god” does NOT make that one God Almighty………….and THAT INCLUDES JESUS.

Do we agree on this, D? Can you be honest enough to acknowledge that it will take more to prove Jesus is God than the fact that he shared a title with God and many others?

peace and love,
mike

January 14, 2011 at 10:15 pm#233099

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….=244799

Participant

WJ said to Mike:

Quote

YHVH said there is no God formed before him or after him, and he has not contradicted himself.

The scripture concurs with WJ:

TO ALL:

Mikeboll has dogmatically claimed that Jesus is a god who “came into being” after YHWH. Keith has corrected Mike about this many times but Mike has given Keith a deaf ear. Isaiah 43:10 explicitly says that before and after YHWH there was no God “formed.” The LXX uses the Greek “ginomai” for “formed.” Note the word in bold in the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 43:10 below. It is the Greek “ginomai” which means “to come into being.”

43:10 γενεσθε μοι μαρτυρες καγω μαρτυς λεγει κυριος ο θεος και ο παις ον εξελεξαμην ινα γνωτε και πιστευσητε και συνητε οτι εγω ειμι εμπροσθεν μου ουκ εγενετο αλλος θεος και μετ' εμε ουκ εσται

No god came into being before or after YHWH. Therefore, Jesus did not come into being but was always “with God” (John 1:1). Mike's only option is to deny that Jesus is a god at all. This would be a step up for him. For denying that Jesus is a god at all is better than confessing Him as a god in the “same sense” as satan.

the Roo

January 14, 2011 at 10:21 pm#233100

Blocked

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 14 2011,15:57)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,05:32)

I love that Dennison, at the young age of 21, has such an in depth knowledge of scripture and spends his days thinking about God. I love you and Jack for teaching me so many things about the scriptures and for being my catalyst to delve even deeper into them every day. But at times like this, I start to wonder how you can HONESTLY claim “Jesus is God because he is called elohim or theos when you KNOW the words meant “leader” and were used for angels and men also.

Spending my days thinking about God doesnt save me Mike.
And The reason why is because you regard “Elohim” as just at title, and we are debating about “Elohim” as a Identity.

Quote

Spending my days thinking about God doesnt save me Mike.

Thank you D. Now both you and Francis have taken a compliment I've paid you and threw it back in my face. Nice.

Quote

And The reason why is because you regard “Elohim” as just at title, and we are debating about “Elohim” as a Identity.

Maybe you could explain this “identity” point you're trying to make.

Instead of YHVH, explain it to me by using a famous king or president. It seems to me that you are saying the word “elohim” is “an identity” of ONE PARTICULAR PERSON. I assure you that it is not. But maybe I'm not getting what you are saying?

mike

January 14, 2011 at 10:22 pm#233101

Participant

WJ said to Mikeboll:

Quote

All that the Father has and is Jesus has and is. That is scriptural.

The scripture concurs with WJ:

Quote

12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

John 16:12-15

KJ Jr.

January 14, 2011 at 10:25 pm#233102

Blocked

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 14 2011,19:30)

Mike is not a skillful thinker.

Jack,

Scripturally speaking, is just being called by the title “elohim” or “theos” enough to mean you are God Almighty? YES or NO?

That is all I'm trying to establish. Let's see if you'll actually answer a question from me or just keep posting ad hominems.

P.S. How does me posting laughter about your video tell you I'm “taking it seriously”? Can't I also joke back?

mike

January 14, 2011 at 10:26 pm#233103

Participant

WJ said to Mikeboll:

Quote

All that the Father has and is Jesus has and is. That is scriptural.

Mike's own NWT concurs with WJ:

Quote

…denying our only OWNER and Lord Jesus Christ.

Jude 4 NWT

Jack Jr.

January 14, 2011 at 10:28 pm#233105

Blocked

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 15 2011,03:40)

Note that in the second debate “plural God” he started whining about the terms in the middle of it.

Hey Jack,

What did we both learn from that debate?

Does the plural word “elohim” in and of itself imply that YHVH is a plural being? YES or NO?

:laugh:

mike

January 14, 2011 at 10:31 pm#233106

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….=244799

Participant

WJ said to Mikeboll:

Quote

YHVH has clearly said…

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: “BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE AFTER ME”.

Blessings Keith

The scripture concurs with WJ:

TO ALL:

43:10 γενεσθε μοι μαρτυρες καγω μαρτυς λεγει κυριος ο θεος και ο παις ον εξελεξαμην ινα γνωτε και πιστευσητε και συνητε οτι εγω ειμι εμπροσθεν μου ουκ εγενετο αλλος θεος και μετ' εμε ουκ εσται

No god came into being before or after YHWH. Therefore, Jesus did not come into being but was always “with God” (John 1:1). Mike's only option is to deny that Jesus is a god at all. This would be a step up for him. For denying that Jesus is a god at all is better than confessing Him as a god in the “same sense” as satan.

Roo

January 14, 2011 at 10:45 pm#233108

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2011,04:32)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2011,20:39)

Really guys? Still nothing? I'll post it a THIRD time.

Jack, prove that you're not running and hiding right now. You seem to have plenty of time for ridicules………how about for one little answer?

Scripture says our only one true God is THE FATHER. How do you “include” the Son into this very specific statement?

Jack, would you try to answer it? Keith and SF, I would also be interested in your HONEST, SCRIPTURAL, and TO THE POINT answers.

peace and love to all of you,
mike

Mike

There you go again. Asking me the same question I have already answered here…

Oh, you mean your answer REALLY IS, “Since Jesus IS God, then it MUST include him”? I thought that was a joke or something…………not a real answer.

Seriously Keith, tell me how when the Son himself SPECIFICALLY spells out for us that THE FATHER is the only true God, you can claim that THE SON is the only true God?

Quote

Now why don't you answer some of my questions found here 5th post down?

Do the above scriptures say “there is no God but One”?

Do the above scriptures say “there is none beside him”?

Do the above scriptures say “God alone created all things”?

Do the scriptures say that “Jesus had a part in creating all things”?

Do the scriptures say “Jesus was sitting beside the Father during the creation of all things”?

How do you reconcile these Mike without saying that “By Myself”, “Alone”, “Non Other God” doesn’t mean “By Myself”, “Alone”, “Non Other God”?”

Blessings WJ

I'll pick ONE question since I'm only asking you ONE question.

Quote

Do the above scriptures say “there is no God but One”?

Yes they do. Yet we KNOW that there are others who are called by the title “elohim”, right? So, how do you explain this dilemma since you don't accept my very logical explanation?

mike

January 14, 2011 at 10:47 pm#233109

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2011,06:06)

yet Jesus is everything that the Father is

Really? Is the Father begotten by someone?

January 14, 2011 at 10:51 pm#233113

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2011,06:14)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,14:01)

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 14 2011,15:06)

Hi Mike,

Hi Ed,

This debate is very interesting to me also. I'm loving it and learning lots.

peace and love,
mike

Mike

It shouldn't have mattered to you where it was at especially since you have the power to delete or move post that do not belong there.

In fact t8 (maybe you) have the power to change the title of the thread if you wanted.

How much you want to bet that doesn't happen. HMMM?

Blessings Keith

Keith,

Are you saying that it is so important that this thread be in the debates section despite how you yourself explained the debates section to Istari, that you are willing to change the title just so it can be there?

Do what you want about it. Talk to t8. Just stop crying to me over a non-offense as if I did something deceitful. I didn't. I thought you must have made a mistake since it seemed so illogical to put a second thread with the same exact title bar in the same exact section. Apparently I was wrong and you ARE that illogical.

mike

January 14, 2011 at 11:02 pm#233123