Mikeboll64 vs francis

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2011,10:36)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,18:32) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2011,10:27) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,18:16) You asked 5 questions in one post.  I DIRECTLY answered ONE of them.  Yet you have not responded to my answer…………why not?  Are your questions really that easy to “do away with”? Mike Because I have been in a live debate here, but this is what you said… Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,16:45) 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? Game over. You just admitted that the scritpures says “there are no elohim but one”. The dilimma is with you because the Hebrew scriptures says there is “No God but one and no God beside him and no God formed before him or after him. Yet Jesus is God, One with the Father sitting at his right hand with all authority and power and judgment. There is your answer so don't give me the same question or claim it is a non answer or a joke because since Jesus is called God and sits next to the Father the dilimma is yours. You have to prove he is not God in face of the scritpures and the Forefathers and Orthodox Christianity. Now can you answer the other quesitons? WJ WJ WJ       What was Deborah then? She was a judge. She was a mortal human being. Ha Ha. Context Mike. WJ

And we KNOW this because the word used to IDENTIFY her in that scripture was “elohim”, right? And “elohim” means “judge”, right?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,18:38)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2011,10:33) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,18:26) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2011,10:13) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,18:10) For Keith: Isaiah 44:24 NET © This is what the Lord, your protector, says, the one who formed you in the womb: “I am the Lord, who made everything, who alone stretched out the sky, who fashioned the earth all by myself, 2 Footnote #2 says: Isa 44:242tn The consonantal text (Kethib) has “Who [was] with me?” The marginal reading (Qere) is “from with me,” i.e., “by myself.” See BDB 87 s.v. II אֵת 4.c. AND?… It doesn't say that no one was with Him when He created.  We know the angels were there and shouted for joy when He created the earth, right? No Mike The Angels wasn't there in the Beginnig of all things for all things were created by him (Jesus) and for him and without him nothing was made that was made. WJ Keith, You tried to point out the “no one beside me” words.  But the last thing that's said before the “no one beside me” is “fashioned the earth”. Are you implying no one else was around when God “fashioned the earth”? Scriptures say that angels shouted with joy, right? I was only pointing out that NETBible's translation made more sense than the one you quoted because we know others were there. mike

Mike

What about the “Made everything” in the verse. The Angels were not there but Jesus was.

There are other scriptures Mike that you have ignored that says God alone by himself created all things!

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,18:40)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2011,10:36) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,18:32) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2011,10:27) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,18:16) You asked 5 questions in one post.  I DIRECTLY answered ONE of them.  Yet you have not responded to my answer…………why not?  Are your questions really that easy to “do away with”? Mike Because I have been in a live debate here, but this is what you said… Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,16:45) 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? Game over. You just admitted that the scritpures says “there are no elohim but one”. The dilimma is with you because the Hebrew scriptures says there is “No God but one and no God beside him and no God formed before him or after him. Yet Jesus is God, One with the Father sitting at his right hand with all authority and power and judgment. There is your answer so don't give me the same question or claim it is a non answer or a joke because since Jesus is called God and sits next to the Father the dilimma is yours. You have to prove he is not God in face of the scritpures and the Forefathers and Orthodox Christianity. Now can you answer the other quesitons? WJ WJ WJ       What was Deborah then? She was a judge. She was a mortal human being. Ha Ha. Context Mike. WJ And we KNOW this because the word used to IDENTIFY her in that scripture was “elohim”, right?  And “elohim” means “judge”, right?

No We know this because she was a mortal human being. Therefore it should be translated “judge” not God.

Get it. Context Mike.

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2011,10:39)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,18:35) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,10:32)       What was Deborah then? Nevermind.  I forgot she was a “god” with a “little g”!       Come on, man!  You are too much!   I'm off to dinner.  Later.  Have a good weekend. peace and love, mike Mike She wasn't God was she? Later I hope you eat plenty of crow for dinner. WJ

No, she WASN'T “God”. Yet, curiously, the same exact word “elohim” was used of her. Hmmmmm…………

This is the same exact word “elohim” that you say proves Jesus is God Almighty when it is applied to him. Hmmmmm…………..

Why Jesus and not Deborah? Could it be because the word in and of itself does nothing to imply anyone is “God”?

Because THAT'S all I've been trying to say. And THAT'S all I want you all to agree to before moving on.

So……………DO YOU AGREE that the word in and of itself doesn't mean one is “God”?

mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,18:43)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2011,10:39) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,18:35) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,10:32)       What was Deborah then? Nevermind.  I forgot she was a “god” with a “little g”!       Come on, man!  You are too much!   I'm off to dinner.  Later.  Have a good weekend. peace and love, mike Mike She wasn't God was she? Later I hope you eat plenty of crow for dinner. WJ No, she WASN'T “God”.  Yet, curiously, the same exact word “elohim” was used of her.  Hmmmmm…………   This is the same exact word “elohim” that you say proves Jesus is God Almighty when it is applied to him.  Hmmmmm………….. Why Jesus and not Deborah?     Could it be because the word in and of itself does nothing to imply anyone is “God”? Because THAT'S all I've been trying to say.  And THAT'S all I want you all to agree to before moving on. So……………DO YOU AGREE that the word in and of itself doesn't mean one is “God”? mike

Mike

How many times do we have to say it.

She wasn't the Word that was with God and was God and by whom or through whom all things came into being was she?

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2011,10:43)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,18:40) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2011,10:36) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,18:32) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2011,10:27) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,18:16) You asked 5 questions in one post.  I DIRECTLY answered ONE of them.  Yet you have not responded to my answer…………why not?  Are your questions really that easy to “do away with”? Mike Because I have been in a live debate here, but this is what you said… Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,16:45) 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? Game over. You just admitted that the scritpures says “there are no elohim but one”. The dilimma is with you because the Hebrew scriptures says there is “No God but one and no God beside him and no God formed before him or after him. Yet Jesus is God, One with the Father sitting at his right hand with all authority and power and judgment. There is your answer so don't give me the same question or claim it is a non answer or a joke because since Jesus is called God and sits next to the Father the dilimma is yours. You have to prove he is not God in face of the scritpures and the Forefathers and Orthodox Christianity. Now can you answer the other quesitons? WJ WJ WJ       What was Deborah then? She was a judge. She was a mortal human being. Ha Ha. Context Mike. WJ And we KNOW this because the word used to IDENTIFY her in that scripture was “elohim”, right?  And “elohim” means “judge”, right? No We know this because she was a mortal human being. Therefore it should be translated “judge” not God. Get it. Context Mike. WJ

How do we know she was “mortal”? She was called by a word that means “Supernatural Supreme Being” according to you. How does that work?

Keith, give it up man. Just admit that “elohim” meant “judge” and did not mean that anyone the word was applied to was all of a sudden “God Almighty”.

Just admit it. Concede. You've lost this point.

mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,18:43)

So……………DO YOU AGREE that the word in and of itself doesn't mean one is “God”?

Yes, Context Mike.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,18:46)

How do we know she was “mortal”?  She was called by a word that means “Supernatural Supreme Being” according to you.  How does that work?   Keith, give it up man.  Just admit that “elohim” meant “judge” and did not mean that anyone the word was applied to was all of a sudden “God Almighty”. Just admit it.  Concede.  You've lost this point. mike

How do we know that Elohim in Genesis 1:1 is the “Supernatural Supreme Being”?

Context Mike.

WJ

[SimplyForgiven]

Well Mike,
I guess you couldnt help but to respond right? I thought you had alot on your plate?
oh well.

Quote

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”.

Lol… Mike… You just said the same thing twice.  What the difference in saying “What is interpretated by the context is whether that particular use of “elohim” is referring to YHVH, or someone who is not YHVH. ”
Whats difference in what you said with what I said?
“elohim” is defined by its context? is it not?

Quote

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?

The Judges were Gods personal civil authorties or representives to govern Israel how God see's fit.   So when they rejected the Judges and wanted a King, God said to the judge, its not you they are rejecting but me.
Which quickly the last Judge became one of the First prophets (I think, recapping this from the top of memory of the history of Israel)
Many of the terms used by the Hebrews dont match the english terms of today, thats why with the Context of scriptures we can interpret things correctly.
Dude, your stuck with the Title, do you not realize that a Personal God exists, not a personal leader, but a REAL LIVING GOD.

Let me go further, for you to render “Elohim” meaning only “leader” only as “ruler” or “judge” is plain right ridculous.
takes these verses.

Joshua 24:19
And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.
1 Kings 18:24
And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.
Jeremiah 11:4
Which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God:
What are these writers talking about?
Isnt the subject about  A TRUE PERFECT SUPREME BEING?
Joshua 24:19- Is talking abuot a GOD, one that is worshipped is holy and a Jealous God.
1 Kings 18:24- Is Elijah contest with the Baal worshippers about the ONLY TRUE GOD.
Jeremiah 11:4- is talking about being a GOD to a People.

Look point is that THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH “LEADERS”
but about the TRUE IDENTITY OF THE REAL GOD!
Romans 1- talks about how the people ended up worshipping false gods, and images that they themselves created!
God   /gɒd/  Show Spelled
[god]  Show IPA
–noun
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe
This is the subject they are referring to.  Because in reality those people worhshipped many false gods that didnt exist.
1 Kings 18 comeletly destroys your logic that “elohim” is only a title, but instead a Identity of a Supreme God. Why? because the contest was to prove the Identity of the TRUE “ELOHIM” “GOD” NOT LEADER.

Quote

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?

Mike you totally twisted this debate.  It was for you to prove that “Elohim” only means a title.  I already proved otherwise.
Humans are not Gods “supreme beings” but Jesus totally Is.
Lol mike it is you who claimed “Jesus is a god amoung gods as much as Satan is a the god of this age” and “Jesus is the second most powerful being”
Mike YOU made these claims! and this is what we are debating!
What else is there to prove! there is only ONE GOD, and we all know that to be true, but you claims “there are other gods because 'elohim' is just a title”
You would have to prove every instant and every particular usage of Elohim, is used solely as a title, which you, yourself cliam that it is.

WE CLAIM ITS A IDENTITY which is defined by the context.

Quote

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”.

Lol mike….
Im going to copy Francis on this one.  You are “biased” in your interpretation of scripture.  Notice everyone in this forum argues over different scriptures, and disagree because we have a preconcieved belief before we actually read the Text.  I, myself am not Biased, I take everything in consideration and try to understand why you think the way you think, and could it be true?

You know for a fact you cannot deny this logic unless your plainly stubborn.  
Fact is that Christ Created Whether you believe he is God or not, you cannot deny this.
1. You believe that God created through him. Like a architech and a builder.  Yet the builder STILL created.  So in YOUR THEOLOGY, you cant deny that Jesus created.
2.  Since i believe Jesus is God, its easy to understand that Jesus is God alone who created the heavens and the earth.
There is no denying this logic.
Fact is that Christ Created, and you admit it everytime you say “God created through Jesus”

Quote

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”.

I didnt say they were exactly the same mike, It was a question.  The term wasnt used exactly the same, and doesnt mean exactly the same thing in reference to the only True God.
Mike, you say it only means leader, but the Culture of ancient times, and the context of scripture says otherwise.

Quote

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.

Lol Mike your compeletly lost in what it means.  You are stating that it only means a title, but CONTEXT PROVES OTHERWISE.  Context proves that they were not gods, but context also proves that Jesus is God by his works, ethics, and Character.
His Testimony, his actions, what HE DID, proved he was God.

Quote

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?

Lol MIKE YOU TOTALLY TWISTED THIS DEBATE!
I wonder if you really do this in purpose…. or your just being silly.  Maybe you dont realize your doing this, maybe its some kind of psychosis you have….
I cant put my finger on it yet, but its ethier your naturally sneaky and dont realize it, or your just very good at twisting, and changing the subject of the debate.
FIRST THING IS FIRST, “Jesus is not a god liike Satan, becasue Satan was never a God”
“Jesus is not the second most powerful being, but is the most”
Lol mike your the one denying scripture.
I already told you, Ceaser is not a god, Satan is not a god, Judges were not gods, princes were not gods, David and the kingds were not gods, moses was not a god why because they were merely humans who were imperfect and sinned.

But Jesus Christ, is SINLESS, and PERFECT.
What will you do, deny his divinity?

Quote

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”.

Lol Mike.. 1 John 4:8
Which GOD is LOVE?

Quote

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?

I feel like writing a letter to the President
“Dear President Barrack Obama,
Im sure it would boast your ego to hear that in many forums and by your number 1 fan “Mike” loves to use you as an example in comparison to “God Almighty”.
President Obama, dont you find this humorous?
No wonder they call you the AntiChrist, because people typically use you as in example in comparison to God.
Its not your fault, Im sure you never intended that.
From,
The D-linquent who clearly knows your not God“

Quote

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.

Lol but “ELOHIM” even as a TITLE has REQUIREMENTS to FULLFILL AS A ROLE!
So You couldnt be ELOHIM if your merely a carnal human, nor imperfect.
Elohim of course has a definition that is interpreted by the Context.
So OF COURSE, it doesnt mean leader, but the Supreme being in reference.  

Quote

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?

Jesus spoke about how the Jews easily believed that men were called gods, yet scripture cannot be broken.  But clearly psalms 82 says otherwise, that these gods die like men.
So clearly the jews were not gods.
Yet Jesus proved that he was by his next claims in John 10.
clearly of Paul says that Satan is a “god of this age” means he is not god. becuaes a god cannot be a god of an “age” or time period for its limiting and not perfect.
Therefore he didnt leave the term by it self, but defined it by stating satans limited potential to BLIND and DECIEVE others away from God which is permited by the ONE TRUE GOD.

Mike your nonesense is in your logic, which is a fallacy.
The way we use the word God is “Common sense” which by common sense, we can understand that when the word God is used its talking about the ALMIGHTY GOD.

You know what your confused? because you went to search, and search, and went all the way back the hebrew and in your own brain changed the concept and meaning of the word “God” to FIT your theology.

Quote

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 peo ple'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.

LOL mike again, you tickling me. this is nonesense.
Mike, is Satan truely a Father in the first place? of course not!
Is Satan a Liar, of course he is. a Deceiver of course he is!
Lol mike HITLER WAS A DICTATOR AMOUNG OTHER DICTATORS!
SATAN IS NOT EQUAL TO GOD! lol He doenst stand a chance against God, he does what is permitted for him to do.

lol your LOGIC fails again.
what is it with you and comparing God to a president.
This isnt a battle between good vs Evil, for God created it all.  It goes according to his plan, if he wanted to squash the devil at this very moment, he could and has through Jesus Christ.
do you not understand this mike?
Satan is not a ruler of anything lol!
did you know that in revelations that “demons are realised from the deep to attak only the one who bares the mark of the beast” ?
Woww mike what a rulerrr………….
Lol Mike  no NOOO NOOOOOOOO! dont tell me you included starwars! thats my favorite movie, dont ruin it!
first of all, God is the force if you want to compare reality with a ficitional movie.
Darthvador and Yoda are depended on the force, just as Satan is still depended on God's permission as he accuses and taunts us day and night.

lol mike, your logic fails again.

Quote

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

Mike you claim the “ONE TRUE GOD IS THE FATHER”
Technically speaking, one cannot be a Father without the Son.
so lets Say Jesus didnt exist, would the above text still be true?

Quote

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

Lol mike, we can only be one with God Through Jesus.
so we are depended on Jesus of course to have a relationship as God promised to be IN US.
OF course WE are not God almighty, but Jesus is =D

Quote

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

Lol Not at all. Totally wrong.  The Represented Gods civil authority amoung the people but were never “sanctified and sent” were not “perfect” were not “sinless”.
therefore never was born with a virgin “birth”
soooooooooooooo they were nothing like Jesus, compeletly alien.

Quote

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?

Lol Mike.  I hope everyone can see how you changed the whole debate.  the Context clearly Define Elohim mike, in which Humans are not Gods.
So the Title is in reference to the context.
I myself proved that Humans were not gods by the context, which using the same method identify who is God.

Quote

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?

Lol not succeeded at all. Actually i mentioned MANY, and many times. how come you act like I havent mike? why do you keep claiming that we havent given scriptures to prove that JEsus is God, when thats all we have been doing?
ARe yuo insane man?

Quote

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.

First of all i didnt say that. This is what I said:

Quote

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.

they were not ELOHIM BECUASE…ETC.
Did you not catch that?
and that does not include Jesus.  I didnt say just because they used that title, but by the context and the works, and the reality of it proves that they were simply not gods and never were.
Mike whats up with you man, get it togethor.

Quote

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?

Mike im honest, but i dont think honesty is your best virtue.
lol I never said just because he shared a Title, in fact they share MANY TITLES, like shepard!
but as i said many times, by his WORKS, ETHICS,CHARACTER which is described in the CONTEXT of scripture.

I have repeated this many times.

UNREFUTED POINTS:
And i think it sucks how you accuse us for “hiding” and “avoiding” questions.
I like how you avoided this logic where I said these points in my last post and i had some questions that were unanswerd in these posts as well.
Yet i really wasnt going to say anything, but I see in the “Mikester world” its ok for you to do whatever you want, and than hypocriticaly accuse us of doing the things you do.
Its getting annoyhing.

Anyways as we all know in the terms of debate, when a point is not refuted its held valid.

Quote

Actually thats Incorrect, Theos is used to present the identity or divinity of a God.NETnotes Theos 1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities 2) the Godhead, trinity 2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity 2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity 2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity 3) spoken of the only and true God 3a) refers to the things of God 3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him 4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way 4a) God's representative or viceregent 4a1) of magistrates and judges and Acts 17:23 Pauls mentions the Unknown “Theos” of the greeks.  He wasnt talking about a Title, but about the Identity.

Quote

again you have a fallacy in  yourlogic.  We are talking about the IDENTITY of God, not the title.  Your focusing so much that “elohim” is only a title. Im saying that though satan was called “god of this age” he was never a god. and though “ceaser was worshiped as a god” he was never god. Though david, or moses, or deborah, or judges, or kings, or rulers were ever called “Elohim” or “God” they were never truely GODS BECAUSE they were not SUPREME, they were not PERFECT, NOR SINLESS, NOR CREATED THE HEAVENS OR THE EARTH, NOR THE CREATOR. This is why they are NOT GODS MIKE, and never were. Its like trying to use a word in spanish, and depending on the way I use it, it would make sense to a spanish speaker.  But if i were to translate it to english it woudnt make sense, so i would have to change a few things, here and there, to make sense of it in english.

Quote

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. Exodus 22:28 NETBible  “You must not blaspheme God  or curse the ruler of your people. So who is who?  Is God solely used as a Title or a Identity? You have the notes right there as a fair explantions of why other humans were called “elohim” becuase they compeletly represented Gods civil authority here on earth by Jacobs rule. And it also makes sense beacuse Moses did the very same thing. He coudnt do it all by himself, so God commanded him to find judges and what not.

Quote

But you know what? Jesus was not merely human, he resurrected, was Sinless, Perfect, Creator, and was always part of Eternity because he was never created.

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,02:21)

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

Quote

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

I PMed you about this.
If you want me to Post it later after you read it than I will do it.
If not, than we can continue the convo in the PM.

Quote

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?

Ill let you respond to my other longer post first, and if you didnt understand that, Ill try again.

[SimplyForgiven]

(repeated)

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Mikeboll wrote:

Quote

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.

Mike,

First, thank you for the compliment.

Second, Strong's says that the word “elohim” applies to the SUPREME GOD and “occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates” (# 430). Was James Strong “dishonest” Mike?

Third, it has been shown you that your treatment of the word as “ruler” works against you for the word “despotes” means “Sovereign Ruler.” This means that the Hebrew “elohim” and the Greek “despotes” would be synonyms. A synonym is two or more words which mean the SAME THING.

Elohim: Supreme Ruler

Despotes: Sovereign Ruler

Again, your definition of “elohim” works against you.

Jack

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 15 2011,17:57)

Lol… Mike… You just said the same thing twice.

D, if you seriously think I've just said the same thing twice, then maybe your understanding is not up to this conversation.  No offense, but seriously.

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 15 2011,17:57)

“elohim” is defined by its context? is it not?

NO.  “Elohim” is DEFINED as “judge” or “ruler” or “leader”.  Just as “melek” is DEFINED as “king”.  “God”, on the other hand, is defined most generally as “a supernatural being who can affect our lives or nature” and more specifically as “THE supernatural being who created all things”.  God is called “melek”, or “king” many times in scripture.  And because of the context, we know that those mentions of “king” refer to the “supernatural being who created all things”…………but that does not mean that the word “melek” begins to mean “God”.  Nor does it mean that anyone that title is applied to IS “God”.  

It is the same with “elohim”.  The word “elohim” in and of itself means “ruler”, not “God Almighty”.  And therefore, having the title of “elohim” applied to you does NOT make you “God Almighty”.  

Because that is the ONLY point I'm trying to make, and you all have been running circles around this very clear scriptural FACT.  The FACT is, that just because one is called by the title of “elohim” does NOT make that one “God Almighty”.  This also applies to Jesus.  

I'm sure you all have many other “proofs” that Jesus is God Almighty, which I will soon dismantle.  But for now, can we all agree that being referred to as “elohim” does NOT, in and of itself, mean that you are “God Almighty”?

Keith has finally agreed to this FACT………will you, D?  How about you, Jack?  Francis?

peace and love,
mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,09:56)

Keith has finally agreed to this FACT………will you, D?  How about you, Jack?  Francis?

Mike

Keith has only agreed that the words “elohim and theos” in context do identify “God Almighty” and Moses has proven that by the use of it in the first verse of the Bible.

Context dictates the definition of the word Mike but you have to change the defintion to fit your theology and deny the commentary and expert opinions of hudreds of Hebrew and Greek scholars. Funny indeed Mike.

WJ

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,02:08)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,09:56) Keith has finally agreed to this FACT………will you, D?  How about you, Jack?  Francis? Mike Keith has only agreed that the words “elohim and theos” in context do identify “God Almighty” and Moses has proven that by the use of it in the first verse of the Bible. Context dictates the definition of the word Mike but you have to change the defintion to fit your theology and deny the commentary and expert opinions of hudreds of Hebrew and Greek scholars. Funny indeed Mike. WJ

Keith,

The great Christian philosopher and logician Gordon H. Clark said this, “A word is defined by the group of words which surround it.”

It's all about context as you say. But Mike needs to apply the same meaning to “elohim” across the board to fit his presuppositions. Of course, when it is convenient he will invent new definitions for words.

Jack

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 15 2011,19:24)

Second, Strong's says that the word “elohim” applies to the SUPREME GOD and “occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates” (# 430). Was James Strong “dishonest” Mike?

Hi Jack…………..(that's funny because “hijack” is what you've been doing to this thread!    )

You are going into diversion after diversion, quoting Isaiah poorly, and speaking of “despotes” and such, when the only question before us right now is whether the word “elohim” literally translates into “The Supreme Being Who Created the Universe and Everything in it and Who Rules Over Us All”.

Does it Jack?

I don't claim that James Strong was “dishonest”.  He does leave out the fact that both the Canaanite god Molech and the Philistine god Dagon were both called by the title “elohim”.  And since they were neither “the SUPREME GOD” nor were they magistrates who had the title “by deference” TO “the SUPREME GOD”, then his definition as you posted it is not entirely accurate.

The NWT translates many of the words “kurios” and “theos” as “Jehovah” in the NT.  Their preface says they do this only in instances where there is no doubt that the “kurios” or “theos” being talked about is Jehovah Most High.  While I don't agree with changing the words of scripture in this manner – even though their intentions are pure, we have to admit that this is exactly what we have done by translating a word that simply meant “judge” into a word that means “Supernatural Supreme Being”.

And while the earliest fragments of the NT do have YHVH in Hebrew letters mixed into the Greek text, making a case that the NWT might actually be on to something, we have uncovered no evidence that the word “elohim” ever meant “Supernatural Supreme Being”.  In fact, there is much evidence to the contrary, seeing how the word was often applied to mere humans.

And if the word never meant “Supernatural Supreme Being”, the the bottom line is that having this title applied to one did not make that one the “Supernatural Supreme Being”.  This includes Jesus, who was one of many who have had this title applied to him.

Conclusion:  Jesus is not God Almighty simply because he has had the title “elohim” applied to him.  So John 1:1, Hebrews 1:8, and John 20:28 fly right out the window as “proof texts” that Jesus is God.

So what else ya got?  

peace and love,
mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 15 2011,10:26)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,02:08) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,09:56) Keith has finally agreed to this FACT………will you, D?  How about you, Jack?  Francis? Mike Keith has only agreed that the words “elohim and theos” in context do identify “God Almighty” and Moses has proven that by the use of it in the first verse of the Bible. Context dictates the definition of the word Mike but you have to change the defintion to fit your theology and deny the commentary and expert opinions of hudreds of Hebrew and Greek scholars. Funny indeed Mike. WJ Keith, The great Christian philosopher and logician Gordon H. Clark said this, “A word is defined by the group of words which surround it.” It's all about context as you say. But Mike needs to apply the same meaning to “elohim” across the board to fit his presuppositions. Of course, when it is convenient he will invent new definitions for words. Jack

Jack

I agree. I do not understand why Mike insist that he is right in his “new found” definition of the word over even “Strongs”.

He used to claim like the JWs it simply meant Mighty One, and now he claims it simply means “ruler” and so none of the other definitions according to “Strongs” and the experts apply.

Its all about context but he won't admit that.

Blessings Keith

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,10:45)

And if the word never meant “Supernatural Supreme Being”, the the bottom line is that having this title applied to one did not make that one the “Supernatural Supreme Being”.

Mike

Does “Elohim” in Genesis 1:1 mean “Supernatural Supreme Being”?

Case and point. Jesus is a “Supernatural Supreme Being” is he not?

BTW Jack is right about the word “Despotes”.

Blessings Keith

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,10:45)

I don't claim that James Strong was “dishonest”.  He does leave out the fact that both the Canaanite god Molech and the Philistine god Dagon were both called by the title “elohim”.  And since they were neither “the SUPREME GOD” nor were they magistrates who had the title “by deference” TO “the SUPREME GOD”, then his definition as you posted it is not entirely accurate.

Hi Mike

What do you know more than “Strong” now?

How does his statement disagree with you…

Second, Strong's says that the word “elohim” applies to the SUPREME GOD and “occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates” (# 430).

Mr Strong is saying what all the experts say. Context determines the use of the word to men and identifies the One True God.

Just as the word “Light” in context can mean different things.

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2011,10:47)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,18:43) So……………DO YOU AGREE that the word in and of itself doesn't mean one is “God”? Yes, Context Mike. WJ

The above is actually what you said, Keith. You said “YES”, the word itself doesn't mean one is God.

Let me ask you guys a very simple question that you have been avoiding.

Psalm 89:18 NIV
Indeed, our shield belongs to the LORD, our king……..

Does this mean the Hebrew word “melek” now has the literal definition of “Supernatural Supreme Being”? YES or NO?

Exodus 3:18 NIV
Let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to the LORD our God.

Does this mean the Hebrew word “elohim” now has the literal definition of “Supernatural Supreme Being”? YES or NO?

Please DIRECTLY answer these two questions with a DIRECT Yes or No.

Context defines OUR UNDERSTANDING of what the sentence means. Context does NOT change the literal definition of the word “elohim” itself.

mike

[Author]

Posts